The Long Game

[waldo027]

It's pretty clear they are coaching for the future, and I don't blame them. They want to figure out which players they will build around for the next 2-3 years, and which players will get the talk this spring.

[Pistol]

If indeed "the long game" is this season's strategy, I sure hope it isn't also the strategy next season.

Teams win with young players these days. This is the case all over the country, not just at Kentucky, which is its own thing. There are a lot of freshman-heavy squads succeeding this season.

Talent wins. "The long game" is only necessary with a lower degree of talent. Instead of seeing "the long game," I'd rather see Crews win some recruiting battles. If not, "the long game" becomes too long a game and contracts run out.

[Tonka]

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.

I couldn't agree more. We should play to win every game, every year.

[Clock_Tower]

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.

I am asking for a line up of 5 productive players. Drop the dead weight. Height does not equal quality on the low post or the ability to rebound. Apparently we disagree. And you are not alone in that there are many on this Board which get frustrated with our lack of rebounding and keep saying things like "buy he's 7 freaking feet tall" etc. Donnie Dobbs taught us that rebounding is not about height. Same with BC and DE.

And no, I am not saying we need to be like Dayton. We simply need to put the right people on the floor at the right spots and for the right amount of time. Things are not working now. Try something different. Just like I didn't (don't) want to be teaching AM how to become a PG (years after high school), I don't want to teach JM how to be our center and play the 5. Is our goal to get him to increase his scoring to 6 or 8 ppg? He is a SR. At least play AG or BJ. And when AG plays, play him inside. How is the long game served with AG on the perimeter.

And yes, try playing RA and MY at the same time at the 5 and 4. Between RA being 6'8" and MY with his long wingspan, we would be "bigger" than Dayton. DE and BC proved that you don't have to be 6'10" to play the 4 or 5 and get rebounds.

[brianstl]

Our big men are not very good right now. That said our guards aren't very good at getting the ball to them when they are in good position either.

[eastsidejoe]

the whole point of the matter is that we are not trying to win now, seems pretty obvious to me. "Go See The Kids Play", all 12 of them. We should try to win every game, i disagree with the "play for the future" attitude. We are playing with a CYC attitude.

[Dwayne's_World]

Our big men are not very good right now. That said our guards aren't very good at getting the ball to them when they are in good position either.

So I guess no one on the team is good...

[Clock_Tower]

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.

Again. Height does not make one a better player - even on the inside. Strength, speed, quickness, arm length, jumping ability and general smarts of knowing where to be at all times is just as important. Of course there are limits to this in that no one is suggesting that AM play the 5 for us or that we try to be Dayton.

Instead, MY is being double teamed b/c other teams are not worried about JM, AG or BJ. Remember when JM used to have that baby hook shot? Where did it go? And not trying to be mean or funny, but I don't recall AG scoring on the inside in quite a long while. It is not rocket science here folks. Until our 5 can at least make defenses honest, get ready for double teams of MY. And until Ash and the others consistently have success at the 3, it will be very tough for Ash to have room to drive for layups. Not only do we know that Ash is primarily looking for room to drive to the basket but also other teams know this as well. In short, we made our 3 point/perimeter shots against GW and Davidson when their game plans were to pack the lane and dare us to make shots from the outside. Well, in those games, we did make our shots.

Essentially, our lineups usually consist of a guard who cannot/will not shoot from the perimeter and a big who cannot/will not score on the inside. And unfortunately, this puts alot of pressure upon the others who simply are not capable of carrying us night after night and/or for long stretches. At this point, I would like to see 5 guys on the floor at the same time who will keep the defenses honest -- and if that is 5 guards, 5 bigs or any combination thereof, then so be it.

[brianstl]

So I guess no one on the team is good...

Not saying that. It just hurts the bigs when when you don't have a guard that is good at running the offense. Right now we really don't have anyone that excels at running the offense. Bartley has a chance to be that guy, but he isn't there yet.

[slufanskip]

the whole point of the matter is that we are not trying to win now, seems pretty obvious to me. "Go See The Kids Play", all 12 of them. We should try to win every game, i disagree with the "play for the future" attitude. We are playing with a CYC attitude.

You and me are absolutely on the same page. AG or BG get more minutes than JM when they are the better option for that game, and not until then. If that is today then so be it, if it doesn't happen this year then that's the way it is.

Play whoever and whatever combination gives you the best shot to win. Let them develop in practice.

[Clock_Tower]

You and me are absolutely on the same page. AG or BG get more minutes than JM when they are the better option for that game, and not until then. If that is today then so be it, if it doesn't happen this year then that's the way it is.

Play whoever and whatever combination gives you the best shot to win. Let them develop in practice.

Fair enough. But RM certainly did not believe in this approach.

Instead, I was really interested in seeing how RM, a HOF coach would come and handle things with KL, TL and the others... Brad ran his offense around TL and KL. Would RM continue setting the double picks for KL? Would RM continue to run isolation for TL to drive and beat his man one on one. Would RM add a twist which Brad had not thought about?

Then I realized that RM had no intention of keeping any semblance of Brad's offense or defense, that he did not care if his new offense was good for TL or KL, that he was going to implement his new offense even if it meant extra long and abusive practices resulting in fatigue, confidence loss and kids quitting -- even our "stars" being TL and KL. Had I or or any other MBM been the head coach of our team for the week including and culminating with the 20 point performance against GW, I can all but guarantee that our Bills would have scored more than 20 points that game against GW with me on the sideline. Now, I won't go so far as to guarantee a win that day -- but I would not have done what RM did to the kids that week and they would have responded alot better that day (in the short run) against GW. At the same time, this is a reason why RM is a HOF coach and the head coach of our team and why I am not. Neither I nor any other MBM could have developed the team to play the way they did later that season and to get us playing the way we did the following years. RM's offense was a thing of beauty -- but severe growing pains were required. No head coach wants to ever a lose a game but RM sure was more concerned getting his offense into place. And whoever is ashamed of our 20 point performance, let me remind you that it was a necessary evil to turn this backward program around -- and to produce the results we enjoyed these past 3 years!!

Now. If Jim Crews is doing the same thing, then we should all sit back and wait and for the rebuild and unveiling of JC's first team with all his own guys. I am hopeful that is the case though I am now concerned. Obviously, we see a difference in the type of recruit: RM went with multiple PGs and shorter kids who were picked over but who still have the skills he needed and JC is going for height, length and more bigs. We also know that one prefers screens on the ball and the other with screens off the ball. But I wonder why we stuck with JB last year and did not play MC more. I wonder why we spent the first few months trying to train AM as our PG and why we are still developing JM to be our 5? Maybe JC is more pragmatic and trying to develop his offense based upon the talent collected but RM did things his way regardless.

[slufanskip]

Fair enough. But RM certainly did not believe in this approach.

Instead, I was really interested in seeing how RM, a HOF coach would come and handle things with KL, TL and the others... Brad ran his offense around TL and KL. Would RM continue setting the double picks for KL? Would RM continue to run isolation for TL to drive and beat his man one on one. Would RM add a twist which Brad had not thought about?

Then I realized that RM had no intention of keeping any semblance of Brad's offense or defense, that he did not care if his new offense was good for TL or KL, that he was going to implement his new offense even if it meant extra long and abusive practices resulting in fatigue, confidence loss and kids quitting -- even our "stars" being TL and KL. Had I or or any other MBM been the head coach of our team for the week including and culminating with the 20 point performance against GW, I can all but guarantee that our Bills would have scored more than 20 points that game against GW with me on the sideline. Now, I won't go so far as to guarantee a win that day -- but I would not have done what RM did to the kids that week and they would have responded alot better that day (in the short run) against GW. At the same time, this is a reason why RM is a HOF coach and the head coach of our team and why I am not. Neither I nor any other MBM could have developed the team to play the way they did later that season and to get us playing the way we did the following years. RM's offense was a thing of beauty -- but severe growing pains were required. No head coach wants to ever a lose a game but RM sure was more concerned getting his offense into place. And whoever is ashamed of our 20 point performance, let me remind you that it was a necessary evil to turn this backward program around -- and to produce the results we enjoyed these past 3 years!!

Now. If Jim Crews is doing the same thing, then we should all sit back and wait and for the rebuild and unveiling of JC's first team with all his own guys. I am hopeful that is the case though I am now concerned. Obviously, we see a difference in the type of recruit: RM went with multiple PGs and shorter kids who were picked over but who still have the skills he needed and JC is going for height, length and more bigs. We also know that one prefers screens on the ball and the other with screens off the ball. But I wonder why we stuck with JB last year and did not play MC more. I wonder why we spent the first few months trying to train AM as our PG and why we are still developing JM to be our 5? Maybe JC is more pragmatic and trying to develop his offense based upon the talent collected but RM did things his way regardless.

I wouldn't compare learning to run an offense to playing players that are less ready.

[slu72]

I think he started out trying to win games, hence you get JM starting and AM for awhile. But now he's evaluating and giving minutes to players that must learn what it takes to win at this level. He's no fool and had to know with this much inexperience we would not be a contender in the A10 this year, still you must teach you play to win. But it's not the end of the world if it doesn't happen this year, rather it's the beginning of building a solid competitive team down the road. This is basically what RM did that year he had TL and KL. I'm sure he knew if he let them play the system they were comfortable with he could have won more games. That wasn't his goal that year, it was to install his system, a proven winner, that would move the program forward. Kind of like the movie Hoosiers, but without having that Chitwood kid come riding in on his white horse to save the day.

[slu72]

I wouldn't compare learning to run an offense to playing players that are less ready.

Skip, from what I've seen pretty much all our players are less than ready. Which you'd expect from the FR, but not from the upperclassmen. Sadly, they are the ones most responsible for this season going down in flames. I'm dreading that VCU game.

[slufanskip]

Skip, from what I've seen pretty much all our players are less than ready. Which you'd expect from the FR, but not from the upperclassmen. Sadly, they are the ones most responsible for this season going down in flames. I'm dreading that VCU game.

I meant less ready or not as good as others. I don't believe AM or BJ should get more minutes than JM until they are better and at this point it doesn't appear to me that they are.

[MB73]

Last several posts = excellent.

Yes, sure, he wants to win now, but Crews is coaching for the long run, it is similar to what Clock articulated about Majerus only this time it is mostly about finding out which players are going to learn and develop and which will not.

I would assume that things have not solidified the way he had hoped, and we are not at all of the practices and meeting with the players all week and therefore do not know the true bottom lines with the players, where their heads are, all of that.

How can we?

Crews does.

So I suggest we be patient and let the veteran successful expert sort things out rather than a lot of us suggest the proper rotations and all of that...

Let the players develop, step up, emerge, or not.

Let the coach do his job.

[slu72]

Right now, I'd say the core group for next year is MY, AY, MB, AG, AMc, MC, DR. The "hope they're getting theres" are MR and BJ. The" little or no help in sights" are RA and TL. I sure hope one or both of our incoming FR are in the core group and MR and BJ start getting it. Not saying the core group is there either, but they seem to be on a higher plane than the rest and will form the basis of next year's team.

[Clock_Tower]

I wouldn't compare learning to run an offense to playing players that are less ready.

So... you're saying win every game you can now unless you want to install a different offense... then it is OK to lose now so that you win later. Got it!!

And BTW, RM not only installed a new offense in a year which was not a complete rebuild year -- we had KL, TL and BE returning from a 20 win season -- but he also pushed older more "ready" guys out the door -- which is why we became the youngest team in college basketball. RM did not keep our more "ready" guys like Marcus Relephorde and Adam Knollmeyer and try to "coach them up" as Billiken Roy wanted to do. At least Roy was honest and consistent in his approach which received so much anger and criticism. Right now you claim that JM is more "ready" than the others (AG, BJ, RA...) who must be "not as good as others" and yet JM is scoring only 2.7 ppg!! BTW, both AG (3.8 ppg) and RA (2.9 ppg) are scoring more points in less time. And let's not pretend that JM is some defensive stopper out there for us. Is he marginally better at defense and at blocking shots? Sure, but not in scoring or in rebounding -- our other problem where JM has only 40 rebounds this year thru 17 games compared to RA's 45 rebounds. And AG is not that far behind with 29 rebounds for the year when you consider is usually lined up on the perimeter on offense. Face it -- 2 rebounds per game is just not acceptable from our SR starting center!!

Frankly, it does become hard to tell who is "better" or more "ready" when players only get 2 rebounds and score 1 bucket per game. Now, if JM was scoring 6 to 8 ppg and getting 4 to 5 rebounds per game, then I would agree. But he is not.

[SLU_Nick]

Agree with all the level heads in this thread. Except for about 5 programs, every program has peaks and valleys. Michigan comes to mind. The valleys still suck though.

We had a great three years. Should be a valley for this year and next. After that we should be back in the tournament for 2 years +.

I am okay with that. If we are a middle of the road A-10 team in 2017, then we hit the panic button.

[Box and Won]

Clock mentioned Adam Knollmeyer, which means I have to post this:

[SLU_Nick]

Clock mentioned Adam Knollmeyer, which means I have to post this:

YESSSS. That is the greatest. He had a 10 inch vertical. HATE.

[eastsidejoe]

I think he started out trying to win games, hence you get JM starting and AM for awhile. But now he's evaluating and giving minutes to players that must learn what it takes to win at this level. He's no fool and had to know with this much inexperience we would not be a contender in the A10 this year, still you must teach you play to win. But it's not the end of the world if it doesn't happen this year, rather it's the beginning of building a solid competitive team down the road. This is basically what RM did that year he had TL and KL. I'm sure he knew if he let them play the system they were comfortable with he could have won more games. That wasn't his goal that year, it was to install his system, a proven winner, that would move the program forward. Kind of like the movie Hoosiers, but without having that Chitwood kid come riding in on his white horse to save the day.

Sorry Larry, Crews is no Majerus. By the way, what is the Crews system? I am still trying to figure it out