The Long Game

[Adman]

I haven't posted in a while (though daily reader) but good to be back. Have been to many of the games this year but didn't see today's. Couple comments and questions for the board:

It seems increasingly clear: Crews' primary objective this year isn't winning. Rather, it's getting experience for his young guys, learning how they respond in adversity, finding teachable moments, building character, putting hair on their chests. Playing the long game. If he wins ballgames along the way, all the better. But it's not the primary coaching objective. To wit:

During this week's Duquesne game, Bartley absolutely lit it up in the first half yet we hardly saw him in the second half. Crew's post-game comment: "It just kind of fell that way. Nothing negative on his part with playing. Nothing at all. Nothing wrong." Now today, though I didn't see the game, if I'm reading the GDT right, it was ditto with Mike Crawford. A great first half and was hardly seen in the second, particularly when points were needed.

This is counter-intuitive to winning games and on Bartley situation, a disingenous explanation from Crews. You don't take your hottest shooters out. Last year if Dwayne Evans put 10 or 12 points on the board in a first half, would Crews have sat him (all else equal) in a second half? Of course not.

A second example. You're playing a Top 25 RPI team on their home court though none of that team is over 6' 6". You more or less have twin 7' towers. Play one at the 4 and the other at the 5. Get ball in Malik's hands at the 3. Pretty obvious, huh? Again, didn't see the game, maybe he tried and didn't work. But reading GDT, didn't seem so -- or if so, much. Seems way more likely Jim was seeing how Gillman would respond at the 5 and others at preferred positions, Build character. See who is capable of what. Teach.

This topic has been discussed on the Board, of course. But I'm not sure that today was "bad coaching." Jim Crews is not a stupid guy nor a bad basketball coach. Playing hot shooters and leveraging your height advantage is pretty basic stuff. You also don't play an 11-12-man rotation if your A-1 objective is winning ballgames.There seems to be only one explanation: playing the long game. Agree?

But the real -- and tougher -- question: is playing the long game the smart game? It could destroy confidence - or not. It could create lots of additional empty seats at Chaifetz. It could hurt his recruiting efforts, particularly of the nation's #1. Or not. If how the staff teaches is a key recruiting pillar, it could help. It could also give him a clue who he may have to recruit over in the next year or two.

The long game. Smart game?

[HoosierPal]

It seems increasingly clear: Crews' primary objective this year isn't winning. Rather, it's getting experience for his young guys, learning how they respond in adversity, finding teachable moments, building character, putting hair on their chests. Playing the long game. If he wins ballgames along the way, all the better. But it's not the primary coaching objective. To wit:

Now today, though I didn't see the game, if I'm reading the GDT right, it was ditto with Mike Crawford. A great first half and was hardly seen in the second, particularly when points were needed.

A second example. You're playing a Top 25 RPI team on their home court though none of that team is over 6' 6". You more or less have twin 7' towers. Play one at the 4 and the other at the 5. Get ball in Malik's hands at the 3. Pretty obvious, huh? Again, didn't see the game, maybe he tried and didn't work. But reading GDT, didn't seem so -- or if so, much. Seems way more likely Jim was seeing how Gillman would respond at the 5 and others at preferred positions, Build character. See who is capable of what. Teach.

.

1) Increasingly clear to whom that Crews is coaching for next year? Soph, Jr and Sr played 109 minutes today v 91 for the frosh and walkon's.

2) Crawford played 14 minutes in the first half and scored 10. He played 9 minutes in the second half and did not score.

3) Gillmann played Walmart greeter today and picked up 4 fouls in 7 minutes. Jolly picked up 5 fouls in 10 minutes. Not obvious to me how playing 2 of 3, Gillmann, Jolly and Manning would have changed the outcome of the game.

4) Yarbrough is not the player you want with the ball on the perimenter. He is much better inside. Dayton was covering him with a blanket and taking away the passing lanes. Give him a year or two to develop his 15 to 21 foot jumper.

[slufanskip]

I haven't posted in a while (though daily reader) but good to be back. Have been to many of the games this year but didn't see today's. Couple comments and questions for the board:

It seems increasingly clear: Crews' primary objective this year isn't winning. Rather, it's getting experience for his young guys, learning how they respond in adversity, finding teachable moments, building character, putting hair on their chests. Playing the long game. If he wins ballgames along the way, all the better. But it's not the primary coaching objective. To wit:

During this week's Duquesne game, Bartley absolutely lit it up in the first half yet we hardly saw him in the second half. Crew's post-game comment: "It just kind of fell that way. Nothing negative on his part with playing. Nothing at all. Nothing wrong." Now today, though I didn't see the game, if I'm reading the GDT right, it was ditto with Mike Crawford. A great first half and was hardly seen in the second, particularly when points were needed.

This is counter-intuitive to winning games and on Bartley situation, a disingenous explanation from Crews. You don't take your hottest shooters out. Last year if Dwayne Evans put 10 or 12 points on the board in a first half, would Crews have sat him (all else equal) in a second half? Of course not.

A second example. You're playing a Top 25 RPI team on their home court though none of that team is over 6' 6". You more or less have twin 7' towers. Play one at the 4 and the other at the 5. Get ball in Malik's hands at the 3. Pretty obvious, huh? Again, didn't see the game, maybe he tried and didn't work. But reading GDT, didn't seem so -- or if so, much. Seems way more likely Jim was seeing how Gillman would respond at the 5 and others at preferred positions, Build character. See who is capable of what. Teach.

This topic has been discussed on the Board, of course. But I'm not sure that today was "bad coaching." Jim Crews is not a stupid guy nor a bad basketball coach. Playing hot shooters and leveraging your height advantage is pretty basic stuff. You also don't play an 11-12-man rotation if your A-1 objective is winning ballgames.There seems to be only one explanation: playing the long game. Agree?

But the real -- and tougher -- question: is playing the long game the smart game? It could destroy confidence - or not. It could create lots of additional empty seats at Chaifetz. It could hurt his recruiting efforts, particularly of the nation's #1. Or not. If how the staff teaches is a key recruiting pillar, it could help. It could also give him a clue who he may have to recruit over in the next year or two.

The long game. Smart game?

I completely disagree with not doing everything possible to win the game at hand. You teach at practice, you win games. This isn't Jr. High.

[Bizziken]

While the long term strategy is to develop your players and teach them your brand of basketball, you have to balance that with winning currently. I don't think any coach consciously tries to sabotage wins in order to develop his young players.

I think this game was the result of a poor game plan, a lack of execution with respect to the game plan, or a bit of both.

[JettFlight5]

While the long term strategy is to develop your players and teach them your brand of basketball, you have to balance that with winning currently. I don't think any coach consciously tries to sabotage wins in order to develop his young players.

I think this game was the result of a poor game plan, a lack of execution with respect to the game plan, or a bit of both.

It was mostly the fact that the team couldn't put the ball in the basket. That's execution over game plan.

[Bizziken]

It was mostly the fact that the team couldn't put the ball in the basket. That's execution over game plan.

I don't know...we had really poor shot selection. We didn't really execute anything.

[JettFlight5]

We're in agreement then.

There was no execution.

[slufan13]

Crews and the staff's substitutions make no sense but we're also just not good enough right now.

[HoosierPal]

Crews and the staff's substitutions make no sense but we're also just not good enough right now.

Please tell me, the uneducated, what you mean by this statement. Give me examples, player in and player out and why that made no sense. What player would you have put in instead. TIme in game would also be helpful, but I realize that may be too much to ask. So 'early second half', etc. will suffice.

Elaborate, because I don't understand.

[Billboy1]

Unfortunately,a lot of the capital bult over the last 3 years is eroding-we need to be able to reload and not fall thi far

[slufan13]

Please tell me, the uneducated, what you mean by this statement. Give me examples, player in and player out and why that made no sense. What player would you have put in instead. TIme in game would also be helpful, but I realize that may be too much to ask. So 'early second half', etc. will suffice.

Elaborate, because I don't understand.

You won't understand even if I did waste my time to give you details.

[JettFlight5]

Marcus Bartley getting anchored to the bench after 4 first half 3s or Mike Crawford getting 9 minutes after a 10 point half come to mind.

[Bizziken]

I don't understand why Lancona got 12 minutes. And I may be in the minority but I think McBroom should've gotten some of Reynolds's minutes. Like him or hate him, McBroom is one of our best shooters...and we needed some offense today. Also, Roby and Bartley not getting at least 20 minutes is kinda strange. Other than Manning, none of our Bigs did squat to stop Dayton inside, so I don't understand why we didn't go with a smaller lineup...it seemed like that approach worked in the first half and the beginning of the second. Furthermore, I fail to comprehend why we don't run Crawford or McBroom off of double screens to get them an open shot. We did that for McCall and Dayton did it about 6 times for Sibert. Crews can probably justify alot of his decisions so I don't necessarily think these are all his fault. It just seems odd from an outsider MBM perspective.

[HoosierPal]

You won't understand even if I did waste my time to give you details.

Really? It's your statement. I want to know what substitution pattern needed to be done. It sounds like you really don't have anything firm, just want to complain. Go to the box score, game flow. It is on the Billiken website. It has all the substitutes. Tell me which ones you would have done differently to alter the outcome of this game..

Here is the link to the gameflow. Go to work.

http://www.slubillikens.com/fls/27200/MBB/201415/stats/18DAY.HTM

[slufan13]

Really? It's your statement. I want to know what substitution pattern needed to be done. It sounds like you really don't have anything firm, just want to complain. Go to the box score, game flow. It is on the Billiken website. It has all the substitutes. Tell me which ones you would have done differently to alter the outcome of this game..

Here is the link to the gameflow. Go to work.

http://www.slubillikens.com/fls/27200/MBB/201415/stats/18DAY.HTM

Yeah really. We all act like we're basketball experts on here, but no one as much as you. You said in the other thread that the freshmen need to learn to defend and not foul. That's revolutionary. Not gonna waste my time on here anymore. Plus like you and numerous others said earlier this week when I talked about transfers, I should just keep my posts to myself.

[majerus mojo]

Please tell me, the uneducated, what you mean by this statement. Give me examples, player in and player out and why that made no sense. What player would you have put in instead. TIme in game would also be helpful, but I realize that may be too much to ask. So 'early second half', etc. will suffice. Elaborate, because I don't understand.

Worst post of the year. Try watching the game, or more reasonably, start here:

I don't understand why Lancona got 12 minutes. And I may be in the minority but I think McBroom should've gotten some of Reynolds's minutes. Like him or hate him, McBroom is one of our best shooters...and we needed some offense today. Also, Roby and Bartley not getting at least 20 minutes is kinda strange. Other than Manning, none of our Bigs did squat to stop Dayton inside, so I don't understand why we didn't go with a smaller lineup...it seemed like that approach worked in the first half and the beginning of the second. Furthermore, I fail to comprehend why we don't run Crawford or McBroom off of double screens to get them an open shot. We did that for McCall and Dayton did it about 6 times for Sibert. Crews can probably justify alot of his decisions so I don't necessarily think these are all his fault. It just seems odd from an outsider MBM perspective.

[thetorch]

Please tell me, the uneducated, what you mean by this statement. Give me examples, player in and player out and why that made no sense. What player would you have put in instead. TIme in game would also be helpful, but I realize that may be too much to ask. So 'early second half', etc. will suffice.

Elaborate, because I don't understand.

Lancona played 12 minutes. I can't come up with a reason why he should be getting 1 minute right now. I would play walkons ahead of him.

[slufan06]

Lancona played 12 minutes. I can't come up with a reason why he should be getting 1 minute right now. I would play walkons ahead of him.

It was brutal to watch him in there yesterday....when RA was in there he at least grabbed some rebounds and hit his free throws. TL right now brings absolutely nothing to the table...I'd like to see MY move over to the 3 when RA comes in so with AY, MY, and RA we have our best rebounding team out on the floor.

[Billikenboy]

It was brutal to watch him in there yesterday....when RA was in there he at least grabbed some rebounds and hit his free throws. TL right now brings absolutely nothing to the table...I'd like to see MY move over to the 3 when RA comes in so with AY, MY, and RA we have our best rebounding team out on the floor.

The kid played a solid game. Hit his FT and got one of our few buckets when we went through the scoreless stretch in the 2nd half. As long as he can reduce his dribbling on his attacks he will be productive. Turnovers have a way of affecting ones psychie especially bigs that have a handle. I say slow the game down, rebound, and punish the middle. Still have yet to see RA dunk it. We will need some highlights to energize the team and the crowd on Friday night.

Could be a big TO night for this team but if they can take care of that ball then surprise,.surprise.

[Clock_Tower]

I haven't posted in a while (though daily reader) but good to be back. Have been to many of the games this year but didn't see today's. Couple comments and questions for the board:

It seems increasingly clear: Crews' primary objective this year isn't winning. Rather, it's getting experience for his young guys, learning how they respond in adversity, finding teachable moments, building character, putting hair on their chests. Playing the long game. If he wins ballgames along the way, all the better. But it's not the primary coaching objective. To wit:

During this week's Duquesne game, Bartley absolutely lit it up in the first half yet we hardly saw him in the second half. Crew's post-game comment: "It just kind of fell that way. Nothing negative on his part with playing. Nothing at all. Nothing wrong." Now today, though I didn't see the game, if I'm reading the GDT right, it was ditto with Mike Crawford. A great first half and was hardly seen in the second, particularly when points were needed.

This is counter-intuitive to winning games and on Bartley situation, a disingenous explanation from Crews. You don't take your hottest shooters out. Last year if Dwayne Evans put 10 or 12 points on the board in a first half, would Crews have sat him (all else equal) in a second half? Of course not.

A second example. You're playing a Top 25 RPI team on their home court though none of that team is over 6' 6". You more or less have twin 7' towers. Play one at the 4 and the other at the 5. Get ball in Malik's hands at the 3. Pretty obvious, huh? Again, didn't see the game, maybe he tried and didn't work. But reading GDT, didn't seem so -- or if so, much. Seems way more likely Jim was seeing how Gillman would respond at the 5 and others at preferred positions, Build character. See who is capable of what. Teach.

This topic has been discussed on the Board, of course. But I'm not sure that today was "bad coaching." Jim Crews is not a stupid guy nor a bad basketball coach. Playing hot shooters and leveraging your height advantage is pretty basic stuff. You also don't play an 11-12-man rotation if your A-1 objective is winning ballgames.There seems to be only one explanation: playing the long game. Agree?

But the real -- and tougher -- question: is playing the long game the smart game? It could destroy confidence - or not. It could create lots of additional empty seats at Chaifetz. It could hurt his recruiting efforts, particularly of the nation's #1. Or not. If how the staff teaches is a key recruiting pillar, it could help. It could also give him a clue who he may have to recruit over in the next year or two.

The long game. Smart game?

Adman.

Late to this thread. And while I would like to agree with you, and in doing so, confirm that this season does have a purpose and that Jim Crews does have a long range plan, I just cannot. John Manning is simply not the starter and does not play as many important minutes under the "long game". Instead, JM is back to scoring 2 points per game but now is playing half a game instead of mop up minutes like he did in the past.

And I cannot figure out the role of either RA or TL if MY is our long fixture at the 4 (and no, he's not ready to play the 3 - a position where we frankly have more and other options). For instance, both Ash and MC can play the 3 and be effective. Further, AM can be added as an extra outside shooter as well. But the 4 and 5? No - we are limited. And as UD just showed us, the 4 and 5 can be played (and played well) with guys who are 6'6" or less.

Open question: Yes, I like AG and yes he can pass and shoot from the outside, but shouldn't his competition be Ash and MC (who can also pass and shoot from the outside) instead of JM and BJ at the 5? Why do we create lineups based upon height and traditional notions that we must have 6'10" or bigger guys on the floor? If JC is interested in the

long game", then AG should be battling inside (even if it doesn't work that great now) instead of setting up on the outside.

Other than Neufeld/Welmer, who will be our center (our 5) next year? Pick that guy and play his there this year if this is the "long game".

[JettFlight5]

Clock, I agree on Manning.

"He didn't suck tonight" is about the best thing we've said about JM all year. I think most of us have a higher expectation than that.

MY can play 3 or 4, but he's going to be best used with this personnel at 4. Roby, Ash, and Milik should be getting 30+ minutes a night, period.

[hsmith19]

Open question: Yes, I like AG and yes he can pass and shoot from the outside, but shouldn't his competition be Ash and MC (who can also pass and shoot from the outside) instead of JM and BJ at the 5? Why do we create lineups based upon height and traditional notions that we must have 6'10" or bigger guys on the floor?

What exactly are you asking for here? A smaller lineup? Dayton is good enough that they can get away with playing nobody taller than 6'6". All our best players are guards, but I don't think they are good enough to trot out there together without a true 4 or 5. We have problems under the basket as it is, but just imagine how a lineup of Bartley, Roby, Crawford, Yacoubou, and Yarbrough would get killed down low.

[doowop]

What exactly are you asking for here? A smaller lineup? Dayton is good enough that they can get away with playing nobody taller than 6'6". All our best players are guards, but I don't think they are good enough to trot out there together without a true 4 or 5. We have problems under the basket as it is, but just imagine how a lineup of Bartley, Roby, Crawford, Yacoubou, and Yarbrough would get killed down low.

SLU is getting killed down low with the bigs in there now. Why not change.

[hsmith19]

Well, that's what I tried to answer in my last post. Making the lineup smaller could only make things even worse down low. Not sure how they could possibly make them any better. Yarbrough is already getting double teamed under the basket, and Yacoubou is already looking overmatched when he tries to drive the lane.

[JettFlight5]

All I'm hoping for is that the long game pays off as well as the last time we had a "long game" to play.