Jim Crews Deserves Some Serious Appreciation

[ACE]

what recruits would that be? i havent heard of any senior or juco sophs that we are close on? i agree we have had some local underclassmen at games.

Have you heard of everybody we are recruiting? Did you know that we were recruiting Crawford in the fall?

[billiken_roy]

Have you heard of everybody we are recruiting? Did you know that we were recruiting Crawford in the fall?

no, that is why i am not advocating keeping coaches for phantom recruits like you.

[ACE]

no, that is why i am not advocating keeping coaches for phantom recruits like you.

Just because YOU aren't aware of anybody we are recruiting, doesn't mean that we aren't in on any recruits. You had no idea we were recruiting Crawford and he was a real recruit who signed in the fall. Now if this staff is not in on any quality players, than I am a lot less likely to keep any of them. But considering how highly RM spoke about Tanner Bronson, I would definitely think about keeping him whether we are in on any recruits or not. Especially since we may be coming off a second consecutive trip to the Dance, keeping a talented young assistant from RM's staff doesn't seem like such a bad idea to have a little continuity.

[billiken_roy]

Just because YOU aren't aware of anybody we are recruiting, doesn't mean that we aren't in on any recruits. You had no idea we were recruiting Crawford and he was a real recruit who signed in the fall. Now if this staff is not in on any quality players, than I am a lot less likely to keep any of them. But considering how highly RM spoke about Tanner Bronson, I would definitely think about keeping him whether we are in on any recruits or not. Especially since we may be coming off a second consecutive trip to the Dance, keeping a talented young assistant from RM's staff doesn't seem like such a bad idea to have a little continuity.

you didnt say, "if we are in on some quality recruits to sign in the spring we should keep tanner bronson".

had you phrased your statement as such, i dont respond. if we are switching coaches, switch the coaches. well unless we truly are in on a significant catch to be. then i agree with your thinking.

[Pistol]

the fall of soderberg recruiting occurred by my opinion when we signed liddell and lisch. at that point it seemed soderberg began going for the higher level recruits and holding out for them too long (same problem romar had here imo recruiting) meanwhile the second level of recruits which he got initially as slu, were then moving on to other schools and then it was too late for soderberg to get that "next level" recruit. that was when he would settle for the horace dixons of the world. the best example of this was the point guard jacob pulley. he was so sure pulley was coming to saint louis university. in hindsight the second he knew huggy bear was involved, he should have realized he had no chance. i guarantee you rickma wouldnt have waited till signing day on pulley.

second, he loved to dream about the big group recruit. he would tell the story of wisconsin bringing in 5 kids early on and convincing them as a group to come to wisconsin. that 5 kids was the final four team that wisconsin had in coach bennett's last year. soderberg was always trying to pull that same coupe. i am pretty sure he made the big play for kramer's aau team the summer before soderberg's last year that exact same way. thompson was the only one that came.

i think he also down the stretch also overestimated the want of incoming players to play with lisch and liddell. while i think kevin lisch and tommie liddell are top 10 billikens over the last 30 years, i dont think they are anything special to the point recruits would just come to play with them like for example if they were the next coming of dwight howard and lebron james. there are plenty of kevin lisch and tommie liddell players across the country every year.

had soderberg been more rickma like in giving early ultimatums and moving on when that offer wasnt grabbed by a recruit, i believe soderberg would have been fine. it is the biggest positive of rickma recruiting over any of our previous coaches imo. i dont necessarily agree with the common belief that rickma had some great talent for recognizing talent. sure he has brought some nice players to slu that we are seeing come to fruition right now, however, rickma had his share of misses.

what rickma did have was the ability to get a lot of potentially good recruits to come and sign early and then as they shook out after arriving at slu, he would do it over again the next year. no denying he built a very nice team that has at least this year and next to run and should yield good results. but to get those recruits to come he made them make the decision early to sign (or not).

I have to challenge your first point. I think his recruiting downfall more often than not wasn't hanging on too long when he thought he had a 4-star kid, it was waiting too long to offer a deserving kid. I'd rather see him come in second on a nice recruit like Pullen (not Pulley- that was Randy, the kid Romar got to replace Travis Diener, who chose Marquette over SLU at the 11th hour) than sit on his hands for guys like Ahearn and Harrellson, which he did time and time again. There's no reason a local D-I kid shouldn't have an offer from the in-town school after multiple out-of-area programs have offered.

As for your second point, I think that's an excellent, subtle perspective on Brad that hasn't really been discussed here before. He was way too hung up on how Wisconsin was doing things his last few years there. Obviously he was a Dick Bennett guy and used his Pack Defense system, which is fine, but he was too focused on replicating other details of that program, too. Every place is different. Every staff is different. Every set of players and personalities is different. He thought he could mold everyone to his vision (i.e. late-1990s and early-2000s Wisconsin under Bennett), when it really takes a long, long time to forge a program's identity after a coach's.

[spoonie_love]

West coast SLU fan here and my first post. "Long time listener, first time caller, Bob."

Anyway, Crews is obviously a legit bench coach. If I have to choose, I'll take that any day of the week over a guy who's sole talent is being a fantastic recruiter. Particularly in the case of a school such as SLU where, for a variety of reasons, you'll never be able to compete for the true blue chips talents. For instance, Lou Henson was one of the best recruiters in the game. It could also be argued that few college coaches had done less with more.

Good bench coaches, on the other hand, are usually better able to identify value in the second to third tier of recruits, and there's no reason to believe that Crews couldn't do that. Majerus (R.I.P.) was obviously fantastic at it. And don't automatically assume that many top flight recruits would unilaterally want to play for Majerus. A fantastic coach no doubt, but not every supposedly great talent wants to work that hard or do so in a program emphasizing defense.

Second round or better in The Dance and the job should be Crews'.

[Cowboy]

West coast SLU fan here and my first post. "Long time listener, first time caller, Bob."

Anyway, Crews is obviously a legit bench coach. If I have to choose, I'll take that any day of the week over a guy who's sole talent is being a fantastic recruiter. Particularly in the case of a school such as SLU where, for a variety of reasons, you'll never be able to compete for the true blue chips talents. For instance, Lou Henson was one of the best recruiters in the game. It could also be argued that few college coaches had done less with more.

Good bench coaches, on the other hand, are usually better able to identify value in the second to third tier of recruits, and there's no reason to believe that Crews couldn't do that. Majerus (R.I.P.) was obviously fantastic at it. And don't automatically assume that many top flight recruits would unilaterally want to play for Majerus. A fantastic coach no doubt, but not every supposedly great talent wants to work that hard or do so in a program emphasizing defense.

Second round or better in The Dance and the job should be Crews'.

-welcome

-not sure I agree with your proposal on bench coaches and recruiters being able to do the other because I think there are a bunch that do both well

[grunky]

West coast SLU fan here and my first post. "Long time listener, first time caller, Bob."

Anyway, Crews is obviously a legit bench coach. If I have to choose, I'll take that any day of the week over a guy who's sole talent is being a fantastic recruiter. Particularly in the case of a school such as SLU where, for a variety of reasons, you'll never be able to compete for the true blue chips talents. For instance, Lou Henson was one of the best recruiters in the game. It could also be argued that few college coaches had done less with more.

Good bench coaches, on the other hand, are usually better able to identify value in the second to third tier of recruits, and there's no reason to believe that Crews couldn't do that. Majerus (R.I.P.) was obviously fantastic at it. And don't automatically assume that many top flight recruits would unilaterally want to play for Majerus. A fantastic coach no doubt, but not every supposedly great talent wants to work that hard or do so in a program emphasizing defense.

Second round or better in The Dance and the job should be Crews'.

You should stick to lurking because you are waaaay off base. Do you think we believe SLU is going to land nothing but bluechips if we get a recruiting-centric HC? Clearly we do not think that way. If we ink Crews up, we are literally going back to the Dark Ages ala Soderberg. A coach who hates recruiting, but loves coaching. NO NO NO!!! We need a recruiter... Plain & simple as that. If we get into the Catholic League, and get a legit recruiter as a HC.. We can land some serious, high grade talent. Maybe not the best, but definitely a few top150's here & there.

"Good bench coaches, on the other hand, are usually better able to identify value in the second to third tier of recruits, and there's no reason to believe that Crews couldn't do that."

Uh there are plenty of reasons to believe Crews cannot do that... Just look at his overall record as a HC. Sure, he's doing a fine job as a 'fill-in', but he is nothing more than that. It's asinine to think he's capable of running a program.

[MB73]

Again, it all depends upon whether or not we get into the new C7+ conference, it changes our program much to the better.

Then we will be able to attract a top notch new coach with a reputation that can recruit... which is the key as Majerus has proven in our situation... there are a lot of guys that can execute the other requirements of being a successful head coach.

Sodie would have done well with this team this year, the the results would be similar. Anyone disagree? But no way he would have amassed the talent we have in our rotation.

If we do not get into the C7+, then this debate is moot. We will be in a very, very difficult situaton.

[GOSLU68]

Sodie had no budget for assistants

Look at these credentials,again

This is the last assistant we or Jim Crews hired

I'll bet our assistants now make 2.5 times what Sodies made.

Recruits may be 17 years old but they can tell what level the recruiters talk.

I re copied this for reflection it was posted in August or at least available in media

[GOSLU68]

ST. LOUIS – Jim Platt, who has a combined 32 years of NCAA Division I coaching experience as a head or assistant coach, has been named an assistant coach for Saint Louis men’s basketball.

Among Platt’s experience are nine years as a head coach. He spent five years at the helm at Charleston Southern (2000-05) and four years at Arkansas-Little Rock (1990-94). Platt was an assistant coach for five seasons at Army (2005-10), four of which were under SLU interim head coach Jim Crews. Most recently, Platt was director of basketball operations at Liberty this past season, and he served as assistant coach at Bradley in 2010-11.

“I’m thankful to have the opportunity to join coach Crews, the coaching staff and the great student-athletes here at SLU,” Platt said. “Jim has been a great mentor for me during my career. I believe that under Jim’s leadership, experience and value system, the basketball program is going to be represented in a manner that emulates the values of Saint Louis University and Billiken athletics.

“SLU represents the very best in collegiate athletics,” Platt said. “It’s a school with tremendous academics and one that is competing at the highest level of college basketball. It’s the best combination to represent as a college coach.”

“Jim has a great passion for coaching and the student-athletes,” Crews said. “He is a strong recruiter and is excellent at coaching the fundamentals and the details of the game. I’ve known Jim for more than 30 years and we were on staff together at West Point, so that familiarity helps.”

The 2001 Big South Conference Coach of the Year, Platt had a 55-81 record in five seasons at Charleston Southern. The Buccaneers were a win away from capturing the Big South tournament title in 2005 before falling in the championship game.

Prior to his stint at Charleston Southern, Platt spent three years as an assistant at Florida State (1997-00), helping the Seminoles to the NCAA Tournament in 1998. He also was an assistant at Tulsa for two years (1995-97), with both seasons culminating in an NCAA Tournament appearance for the Golden Hurricane.

Platt’s first job as a collegiate head coach came at Arkansas-Little Rock, where he went 56-59 in four seasons (1990-94). He was an assistant at DePaul for six seasons (1984-90), going to the postseason every year including the Sweet Sixteen during the 1985-86 and 1986-87 campaigns. Platt began his coaching career as an assistant coach at Illinois State from 1978-84. He helped the Redbirds to the NCAA Tournament in his final two seasons before moving on to DePaul.

A 1973 graduate of Concordia (Ill.) University, Platt is a member of the school’s Athletic Hall of Fame following standout playing careers on the basketball and baseball teams.

[BigBills]

Making a comeback.

The C7+ recruits itself, so if we got into that conference we would in fact need a coach that can coach. Tough to beat those schools otherwise.

The Crews speculation is pointless, he's gonna get the job after the Bills make it to the Sweet 16, whether anyone likes it or not.

I don't really care if Crews comes back or is replaced, but I really hope everyone realizes that Majerus came to SLU out of the sheer ability to do whatevertf he wanted. He wanted to make a small time school shine again. That doesn't mean we deserved him when he came, or that we deserve a coach as elite as him again now. He was a favor to SLU, not an indication of it's prowess. I don't know if that came out right, I'm not saying SLU deserves a garbage coach. I love this team. I'd say they deserve the likes of a Greg Marshall (*cringe, the Valley). But it seems as though some fans think, post-Majerus, that we're big time. We aren't big time. We're on our way maybe. That depends on a lot of things.

All in all, this is just another classic case of do the players make a team successful or the coaches. People blame Crews when the team is bad, and credit the players when the team is good. Good defense? Just leftover from Majerus. Good offense? Just talented players. All I can really wonder at this point is what could Crews possible do to convince the people who dislike him that he is a good coach.

[cheeseman]

I have no idea how well BS would have done with this team because frankly he never would have put it together. Crews gets a pass since he was not in a positon to recruit them. BS made lots of mistakes regarding recruiting. He was always thinking the grass was greener so he missed out on some sound kids who actually wanted to come to SLU - actually he should get a nod for the run SIUC made since some of their stars were those kids. BS also kept coming in second and not smart enough to know that at some point unless you want to go to the dance stag you better ask the cute girl and stop wishing for the cheerleader queen. He also would panic and the end and bring in kids who simply could not make it academically or talent/emotionally - I have heard that he could get down a kid not practicing hard and never let them out of the dog house - flexibility was not his strong suit and unless you are a RM you better learn how to deal with kids. Finally, I will take a recruiter over a bench coach - you can find plenty of bench coaches who have peter principled themselves out of head coaching jobs who will be happy to make a good 6 figure salary and work the practices and game planning with a little recruiting on the side. By only concern with Crews is can he recruit? the $60K question.

[slufan13]

You should stick to lurking because you are waaaay off base. Do you think we believe SLU is going to land nothing but bluechips if we get a recruiting-centric HC? Clearly we do not think that way. If we ink Crews up, we are literally going back to the Dark Ages ala Soderberg. A coach who hates recruiting, but loves coaching. NO NO NO!!! We need a recruiter... Plain & simple as that. If we get into the Catholic League, and get a legit recruiter as a HC.. We can land some serious, high grade talent. Maybe not the best, but definitely a few top150's here & there.

"Good bench coaches, on the other hand, are usually better able to identify value in the second to third tier of recruits, and there's no reason to believe that Crews couldn't do that."

Uh there are plenty of reasons to believe Crews cannot do that... Just look at his overall record as a HC. Sure, he's doing a fine job as a 'fill-in', but he is nothing more than that. It's asinine to think he's capable of running a program.

completely disagree. look at arizona state. herb sendek has been their coach since 2006. he's gotten 7 top 100 recruits since 2007 and has made the tournament one time since then. yeah our next coach has to be able to recruit and you have to have assistants who can recruit too. but he's had plenty of talent and the pac 10/12 hasn't been all that great lately and he can't make the tournament.

we should be in line to get a pretty good coach here this offseason if we decide not to retain crews. it will be key to know about the C7 before our search starts. that could really limit our options. i'd love to get a guy who can recruit and especially start bringing in the top talent from the STL area, but i'd rather have a coaching genius who can win with any team.

crews at the very very least has to win 1 tourney game to be considered in my opinion, but if we get to the sweet 16 i won't be upset if we keep crews as long as we bring in some top assistants who can really recruit. you also have to remember that assistants do a lot of the recruiting nowadays. players do come to play for the head coach/facilities/conference/top team but the assistants do a lot of the work on getting those kids here.

[billikenfan05]

I want Fred Hoiberg

[jbizzle09]

You should stick to lurking because you are waaaay off base. Do you think we believe SLU is going to land nothing but bluechips if we get a recruiting-centric HC? Clearly we do not think that way. If we ink Crews up, we are literally going back to the Dark Ages ala Soderberg. A coach who hates recruiting, but loves coaching. NO NO NO!!! We need a recruiter... Plain & simple as that. If we get into the Catholic League, and get a legit recruiter as a HC.. We can land some serious, high grade talent. Maybe not the best, but definitely a few top150's here & there.

"Good bench coaches, on the other hand, are usually better able to identify value in the second to third tier of recruits, and there's no reason to believe that Crews couldn't do that."

Uh there are plenty of reasons to believe Crews cannot do that... Just look at his overall record as a HC. Sure, he's doing a fine job as a 'fill-in', but he is nothing more than that. It's asinine to think he's capable of running a program.

I think this is kind of a silly statement. When taking a look at his overall record as a HC, you have to take into consideration that he spent 7 seasons at Army. The fact is, NOBODY wins at Army. The reason is because you cannot recruit there. At all. Everyone that goes to Army has to get a Congressional nomination and go through a rigorous nomination and selection process. Only 10% of the applicants to West Point are chosen to attend. If you are a basketball head coach, this does not present you with a great opportunity to recruit talent.

And, despite this, Crews did make headway with that team. He got them to improve to 15-16 in 2006-07, which was the most wins in a season since 1984-85. In 2006-07 and 2007-08, they went a combined 29-32, which was their best two-year stretch since Coach K coached them in the late '70's. In his last three seasons at Army, his teams had double-digit wins, which is an admirable achievement considering the limitations placed on him. Yes, he went 59-140 there in 7 seasons, but you'd be hard pressed to find ANY coach who would have been able to do more in that span at that time.

And as for Evansville, his record there was 294-209 for a .584 winning percentage. He coached there for 17 seasons and only had 4 losing seasons. He was the MCC Coach of the Year 3 times and the MVC Coach of the Year once. His teams were conference champs 5 times and won 2 conference tournaments. He got to the NCAA tourney 4 times and the NIT twice. While it is up for debate on whether these accomplishments are enough for Crews to be given the reigns of this program, I wouldn't say it is 'asinine to think he's capable of running a program', as you stated. He ran a program for 17 seasons, and for the most part, did a fine job of doing so.

[billiken_roy]

West coast SLU fan here and my first post. "Long time listener, first time caller, Bob."

Anyway, Crews is obviously a legit bench coach. If I have to choose, I'll take that any day of the week over a guy who's sole talent is being a fantastic recruiter. Particularly in the case of a school such as SLU where, for a variety of reasons, you'll never be able to compete for the true blue chips talents. For instance, Lou Henson was one of the best recruiters in the game. It could also be argued that few college coaches had done less with more.

Good bench coaches, on the other hand, are usually better able to identify value in the second to third tier of recruits, and there's no reason to believe that Crews couldn't do that. Majerus (R.I.P.) was obviously fantastic at it. And don't automatically assume that many top flight recruits would unilaterally want to play for Majerus. A fantastic coach no doubt, but not every supposedly great talent wants to work that hard or do so in a program emphasizing defense.

Second round or better in The Dance and the job should be Crews'.

henson got to a final four.

[spoonie_love]

henson got to a final four.

Over how many years? And how many great teams did he have that should have also advanced to that level?

[spoonie_love]

henson got to a final four.

Oh, and Henson was certainly the better recruiter than Knight (a Crews mentor by the way). A lot of kids probably didn't want to necessarily play for Knight.

Still, he was far more successful than Henson. Now, why would that be? Because Knight was a very good bench coach he did more with less.

[spoonie_love]

You should stick to lurking because you are waaaay off base. Do you think we believe SLU is going to land nothing but bluechips if we get a recruiting-centric HC? Clearly we do not think that way. If we ink Crews up, we are literally going back to the Dark Ages ala Soderberg. A coach who hates recruiting, but loves coaching. NO NO NO!!! We need a recruiter... Plain & simple as that. If we get into the Catholic League, and get a legit recruiter as a HC.. We can land some serious, high grade talent. Maybe not the best, but definitely a few top150's here & there.

"Good bench coaches, on the other hand, are usually better able to identify value in the second to third tier of recruits, and there's no reason to believe that Crews couldn't do that."

Uh there are plenty of reasons to believe Crews cannot do that... Just look at his overall record as a HC. Sure, he's doing a fine job as a 'fill-in', but he is nothing more than that. It's asinine to think he's capable of running a program.

Hey Grunkie, feel free to mellow out and show some class.

[OkieBilliken]

Over how many years? And how many great teams did he have that should have also advanced to that level?

Henson went to two Final Fours, one at New Mexico State. He was a great coach. I loved it when he beat up Normie regularly

[billiken_roy]

Over how many years? And how many great teams did he have that should have also advanced to that level?

henson was the coach there for 20 years got to 12 ncaa tourney's, 2 sweet 16's and 1 elite 8 team besides the 1 final four team. imo the only other possibly worthy final four team would have been the bruce douglas teams in the mid 80's and they made a sweet 16 and an elite 8 run. all in all, i think we would all just about kill to have had a coach with the ncaa tourney success of lou henson.

[billiken_roy]

Oh, and Henson was certainly the better recruiter than Knight (a Crews mentor by the way). A lot of kids probably didn't want to necessarily play for Knight.

Still, he was far more successful than Henson. Now, why would that be? Because Knight was a very good bench coach he did more with less.

not sure i agree with henson had the better talent between henson and knight. indiana had some very very good players. i cant think of a better player than isiah thomas that the illini had.

[OkieBilliken]

not sure i agree with henson had the better talent between henson and knight. indiana had some very very good players. i cant think of a better player than isiah thomas that the illini had.

That team with Liberty, Anderson, and Kendall Gill was one of the best put together teams ive ever seen.

[billiken_roy]

That team with Liberty, Anderson, and Kendall Gill was one of the best put together teams ive ever seen.

that was the final four team.