Billikenboy Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Some of this seems like bull****. Yeah, this is all on the coaches and the coaches refuse to let kids succeed. Give me a break. Did somebody describe Mike Crawford as explosive and being a good leaper? He is probably the least athletic 3 in the league. And Reggie has had some nice games of late, but to say he has some underutilized perimeter skill seems like a stretch. Guess there is no convincing you since you know these players so well and can certainly know what they can and cannot do. My point was not to say that coaching staff should work with these individual trainers during the season but in the off season for sure to get each player where they need to be in the shortest time possible. With enough reps you can make a so so player into a good one in the course of the offseason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 It ultimately all falls on the coach. he assembles his staff and decides which players to recruit. If there are problems with either it falls on Crews and Crews only. Let's stop blaming the players and the rest of the staff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlumniFan Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Some of this seems like bull****. Yeah, this is all on the coaches and the coaches refuse to let kids succeed. Give me a break. Did somebody describe Mike Crawford as explosive and being a good leaper? He is probably the least athletic 3 in the league. And Reggie has had some nice games of late, but to say he has some underutilized perimeter skill seems like a stretch. I TOTALLY disagree on Crawford. He is NOT the least athletic 3 in the conference, no way. Plus, he can shoot from outside, he hits his free throws and he can get to the rim (and, P.S., he finishes more than those so-called "athletic" wings). Not that this is a big deal, but he is one of three Billikens to dunk the ball. Point is, he is not "the least athletic 3 in the league". Now, if you start asking me for comparisons, well, I cannot name any other 3's off the top of my head, but I have been watching the Billikens since the late 70s and, compared to many others, I just don't see him as nonathletic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I TOTALLY disagree on Crawford. He is NOT the least athletic 3 in the conference, no way. Plus, he can shoot from outside, he hits his free throws and he can get to the rim (and, P.S., he finishes more than those so-called "athletic" wings). Not that this is a big deal, but he is one of three Billikens to dunk the ball. Point is, he is not "the least athletic 3 in the league". Now, if you start asking me for comparisons, well, I cannot name any other 3's off the top of my head, but I have been watching the Billikens since the late 70s and, compared to many others, I just don't see him as nonathletic. Crawford is a good athlete. His athleticism isn't a problem. He does need to work on his defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlumniFan Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 It ultimately all falls on the coach. he assembles his staff and decides which players to recruit. If there are problems with either it falls on Crews and Crews only. Let's stop blaming the players and the rest of the staff. Crews is the leader - no debate. But the reality of the situation is that some human beings in any group can be a cancer. They have bad attitudes and they become invested in their own narratives - anything that doesn't validate their narrative, they reject and try to influence others to reject as well. That is a highly regrettable situation, but it is a realistic situation. Unfortunately, I think that applies here. I really hope all the players stay, but if some of them lack the maturity/intelligence to abandon their own story lines, then, regrettably, they need to move on and grow up somewhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlumniFan Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Crawford is a good athlete. His athleticism isn't a problem. He does need to work on his defense. Agree 100% on improving his defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Some of this seems like bull****. Yeah, this is all on the coaches and the coaches refuse to let kids succeed. Give me a break. Did somebody describe Mike Crawford as explosive and being a good leaper? He is probably the least athletic 3 in the league. And Reggie has had some nice games of late, but to say he has some underutilized perimeter skill seems like a stretch. None of this is even remotely true. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 It ultimately all falls on the coach. he assembles his staff and decides which players to recruit. If there are problems with either it falls on Crews and Crews only. Let's stop blaming the players and the rest of the staff. So you are saying that 100% of our bad season is directly Crews fault. 100%. How do you know this? You cannot know this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I like Coach Crews as a person. Funny and overall good guy, and am genuinely at a crossroads on what to do at the state of the program. Having spoken to friends on the staff; I would have to say majority of this nightmare of a Billiken season rests squarely on the staff. Big key being that coaches not all being on the same page with playing philosophy and how players are used. Probably the biggest problem I have seen is the limited amount of emphasis placed on overall skill set development. Emphasis should be on players learning to shoot, handle, etc irrespective of position. But from early on in the staff pushed for players to play a specific role within the offense. This is then compounded by running a motion offense which requires versatility to be truly effective. Another huge disappointment is the stunting the growth of individual players by restricting them from doing certain things that are obvious strengths of their's. I will touch on 79s assessment earlier on about Agbeko; He is on point that his game is restricted to the paint and therefore we will have to wait and see what kind of consistency and growth will come from that. Agbeko has started to show because he is finally understanding how to work within the restrictive confines the staff setup for him from day 1 of practice. As I stated before I recently saw this young man shoot the ball very very well from midrange to 3 in a recent practice. Upon inquiring on why we have never seen a shot outside of 4 to 6 feet from the rim. I was told by some very I trust on the staff that Agbeko was not allowed to shoot outside of that area (Was even told he had run quite a bit to get this point across to not shoot unless a shot clock situation) so as create more of a post presence for the team. Same thing was expressed about his ballhandling which I was told is a strength of his. These types of restrictions on a player with those strengths will first and foremost kill the players confidence and decision making; One can only wonder how this affected Agbeko's early season play. One can only wonder how many of Agbeko's own teammates started to doubt his play and would go away from him and other teammates in other restrictive situations. Players have to trust each other; Interestingly it doesn't require a lot of watching to see these players don't truly trust each other. Food for thought going into next season. RG Very interesting post. I have read your comments twice and yet still have questions. As to the coaches and the different player philosophies, do you largely mean that the bigs are working more on "traditional forward skills" such as interior post play than "traditional guard skills" such as dribbling and 3 point shooting? If so, this has been the norm of the modern player -- they dribble and shoot just like the guards. At the same time, the team needs an interior presence to win, Are the there other examples that come to your mind? Stunting of the growth of players. Again, is this the same/similar argument. Guys like RA are needed to rebound and play in the paint for the team to win instead of drible, shoot, play the perimeter. Any other examples? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 It ultimately all falls on the coach. he assembles his staff and decides which players to recruit. If there are problems with either it falls on Crews and Crews only. Let's stop blaming the players and the rest of the staff. Brian. No one is suggesting that Crews is not the one to ultimately take the blame. Of course he should, he is the head coach. As a disclaimer, you and this Board know that I was not in favor of hiring Crews but instead of making another "homerun" or bigtime hire for the best coach that $1 million or so could get us. Our head coach is number 1 and most important person in the athletic department and this salary can and should pay for itself and then some (to the benefit of the entire program) when you factor in not only ticket sales/concessions and parking but also NCAA Tourney credits and the possible inclusion in the Big East. At the same time, even you know that Jim Crews is not going anywhere and there is nothing wrong with trying to figure out what must change and who must go. Like most things, the reality and truth is probably somewhere in the middle. First, Jim Crews deserves credit for the prior 2 seasons and to say that anyone could have done what Crews did is both wrong and insulting. At the same time, real questions existed 2 years prior when Santa Clara ran us out of our own gym, why it took us so long to get the team rolling and why they collapsed in the NCAA Tourney. Losing to Oregon is one thing. Getting destroyed is yet another. Questions existed last as to why we couldn't pull away from more teams than we did, why we had to shorten the bench to really start rolling and why we couldn't add any of the 3 Frosh (now Sophs) merely as role players to last year's team. And now this year, questions exist as to why we couldn't get more from our veterans (Manning, Ash and McBroom) and why it has taken nearly the entire year before Reggie and Crawford have been able to play a bigger and more consistent role. I never expected what others expect from the Freshmen. And questions also exist as to why Crews felt this team could win next year with existing personnel and using both scholarships for more bigs -- at least one of whom looks like a project. Second,if Crews is having tension among his staff, then the coaching staff and priorities need to be addressed. Normally, teams first blame/fire the assistant coach(es) before they fire the head coach. Right or wrong, maybe one or more assistant coaches needs to be let go and new blood, thoughts, energy needs to be brought in. Also, fundamentals and precision need to be the points of emphasis for next year. Someone needs to teach, reinforce and demand picks get properly set, these picks get used and that wasted efforts (dribbling, passing, etc.) be eliminated. Defense must also be stressed next year with our bigs remembering to collapse and provide help defense and our guards remembering to extend and get a hand in the face of opponents shooting 3 pointers. Finally, because we have not had the greatest success, the quirky coaching moves of not enough timeouts, odd substitution patterns, no guys on the FT lane and half-court safety valve inbound passes only must change. All of these can easily be fixed for and by next year. Third, a PG who can dribble/penetrate/distribute and run the offense needs to be found/developed. Easy to say but tough to do. Fourth, I truly believe and suggest others re-read the comments of The Wiz. We do have issues, we need to be better, things/people need to change but we are not nearly as bad and as far from future success as some suggest. In short, Jim Crews passed the first test (he won with RM's teams), he failed the second test (putting together/coaching this year's team) and now he has a chance to fix things -- some players, at least one coach and some of his own coaching techniques/schemes must be changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 So you are saying that 100% of our bad season is directly Crews fault. 100%. How do you know this? You cannot know this. Crews is ultimately responsible for all of it. It is his staff and his recruits. If this was just a down year, I would give him a pass. A down year was to be expected. This isn't just a down year. This was a historically awful year. Some now seem to want to pass the buck to the players and the staff. Fine, but just remember they are the staff and players he assembled. If there were really a few bad apple players that ruined the season they should have been removed from the program just like Glaze. It wouldn't have hurt the won/loss record and it would have at least sent the message that Crews was in charge. I actually give Kim Anderson a lot of credit for doing this at Mizzou. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Crews is ultimately responsible for all of it. It is his staff and his recruits. If this was just a down year, I would give him a pass. A down year was to be expected. This isn't just a down year. This was a historically awful year. Some now seem to want to pass the buck to the players and the staff. Fine, but just remember they are the staff and players he assembled. If there were really a few bad apple players that ruined the season they should have been removed from the program just like Glaze. It wouldn't have hurt the won/loss record and it would have at least sent the message that Crews was in charge. I actually give Kim Anderson a lot of credit for doing this at Mizzou. It is not that simple, not that black and white, usually. A player or two who are disrupting the continuity of the program might be considered salvageable even after some conflict and is given leeway, then late in the season it is too late to make a move. Something like that, I have no info on what is going on. Or the same with an assistant coach. Our team is one of the youngest in D-1 with no jr/sr leadership, 5 young bigs, no PG emerged, we did not jell, the rotation is still a question mark... too many players did not step up with consistent production, some would have a few good games, then disappear. You do not know what happens in practice, who misses assignments in games, and most posters here primarily look at offense and do not account for some of our Billikens who play strong defense and those who do not. Now it appears there is something going on in the locker room or with the staff, and the last several games we have collapsed. Not good. But this can be fixed in the off season unless several key players for our future leave, which I do not think will happen. The bottom line is you do not know what the real problem is, yet you slime the coach on this board all day, on multiple threads, multiple posts. Some fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLU_Nick Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 MB, you know bball. Do you agree with the decisions Crews has made that have the rest of us all fired up? Miles not playing at Richmond? What possible motive is there for that... The substitution patterns are what I am most frustrated about. And to the accusations that he limits his players strengths...not buying it for a minute. RA is arguably the worst PF (who gets major minutes) for the bills in the last 15 years. Crews is the bad guy because he wont let him shoot 15 footers and take his man off the dribble? Do we remember when he averaged 0.8 turnovers per touch at the beginning of conference play this season. Crews telling RA to rebound and play in the paint is 100% fine with me. If he can work and improve the PF skills in the off season, then MY can move to the 3. This is one case where I can see where crews is coming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 RA's not the worst PF we've had in the last 15 years. A couple of others come to mind, and remember for about 5 years we played w/o a true PF when Soderberg coached the team. Actually, RA's been one of the more pleasant developments in the late part of the season. While a number of players appear to be taking steps backwards, he's at least moving forward. Not by leaps and bounds, but at least in the right direction. MB's right, no one on here, save for a maybe a very few, know the real reasons why this season has gone so horribly wrong. And it is horrible when you watch our ugly display of what's supposed to be D1 hoops. We can surmise, assume, guess, etc, but one thing that seems readily apparent is that team is really lacking in the fundamentals, ie blocking out, valuing the ball, taking good shots, screens, defense. Getting these little things down so pat they're instinctive is what JC and staff need to stress in the offseason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbofive Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Some of this seems like bull****. Yeah, this is all on the coaches and the coaches refuse to let kids succeed. Give me a break. Did somebody describe Mike Crawford as explosive and being a good leaper? He is probably the least athletic 3 in the league. And Reggie has had some nice games of late, but to say he has some underutilized perimeter skill seems like a stretch. Crawford is considerably more athletic than Yarbrough. Tell me I'm wrong. If not for Yarbrough's freakish wingspan, he could barely dunk, I'd wager. If Crawford continues to rebound, and focuses on playing better D, he's a no-brainer starter. Definitely a better leader than MY at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLU_Nick Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I would like to see Yarbrough lose the "dough". A chiseled, slimmed down version of MY is better for this basketball team IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Yarbrough and leader shouldn't be mentioned in the same novel let alone the same sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLUfan_42 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Yarbrough and leader shouldn't be mentioned in the same novel let alone the same sentence. Maturity is a powerful process. Wouldn't be surprised to see him as a vocal leader with some Dwayne Evans numbers here in the next year or so. The kid is unbelievably talented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Right now who would you rather have, Milik or McCaw? I think I would still take Milik, but it is really close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 McCaw without a doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 McCaw without a doubt. I was leaning towards McCaw, but the upside is much higher with Milik. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I was leaning towards McCaw, but the upside is much higher with Milik. That is probably true. I'm just not sold yet that we'll ever see the best out of Milik. He has plenty of time to mature though and reach that potential. Either way, we have Milik so I hope for the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChosenOne Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Crawford is considerably more athletic than Yarbrough. Tell me I'm wrong. If not for Yarbrough's freakish wingspan, he could barely dunk, I'd wager. If Crawford continues to rebound, and focuses on playing better D, he's a no-brainer starter. Definitely a better leader than MY at this point. I was more saying that it seems like a stretch to me for all of this teams issues to be put on the coaches. The talent is just not very good this year (young and inexperienced if you are optimisitc). I just saw posts about Crawford's athleticism and Reggie's perimeter skills as guys who have been underutilized by Crews. I have no idea about Reggie's perimeter ability beyond what I have seen in games, but I would imagine with the coaches willingness to play bigs on the perimeter that he would be playing on the perimeter more if it could be a beneift to the team. It is encouraging to hear he has some of that ability and maybe as he continues to develop he will indeed show some of that, but I don't think I would crush the coaches for playing him in the lane. I think Crawford is a decent player and could develop into a good player, but I would never call him athletic for a 3 unless Luke Meyer is the line for what we consider to be athletic. I can't imagine he is considerably more athletic than Milik although playing primarily in the post it is somewhat hard to judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChosenOne Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I was leaning towards McCaw, but the upside is much higher with Milik. Having watched McCaw play the point as a 6'5 junior at CBC and bury 3s as well as hound opposing pgs defensively, he has a pretty high upside as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Having watched McCaw play the point as a 6'5 junior at CBC and bury 3s as well as hound opposing pgs defensively, he has a pretty high upside as well. I love McCaw and was begging for us to land him last year. My posts weren't a shot at him. They were more a reflection on how what some thought was a clear cut case for Milik a couple months ago really isn't that clear cut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.