Billiken Club

[cheeseman]

There are two ways to look at this 3 game stretch - 1. Try to win all three at all costs, 2. Do what is necessary to ensure at least 2 wins. If you do #2 then you are probably done in physically for the Sunday game - do #1 and you then you play more players but if that does not work and you happen to loose the first game then you are really under the gun for the last two. Personally, I would have preferred that all the players were given enough minutes in preseason to be prepared for this 3 game stretch but Brad is the coach and it is his decision. Lets see how it plays out.

[slufanskip]

Obi, Horace, Bryce, and Dustin all played a bit in the preseason. What we need to do is come out hot, get a lead and get the youngsters in. I know it is a bit cliche ... but we will take it one game at a time. We won't go into it thinking ... play the young guys more so the starters will be healthier on Sunday.

Official Billikens.com sponsor of H Waldman

Official Sponser of Slu72's bid to join the Billiken Blue Kool Aid Club

[moytoy12]

"but we will take it one game at a time. We won't go into it thinking ... play the young guys more so the starters will be healthier on Sunday."

This is my main and pretty much my only complaint with UB, he has shown a proclivity to do exactly what you say he won't. Whatever the reason(s), he seems to get a plan in mind and sticks to it. He certainly has shown a proclivity to "stay the course".

[davidnark]

Didn't Drejaj start over Lisch for close to half of last season? Drejaj also started over Danny Brown and Darren Clarke, both of whom had much bigger upsides. BTW, Darren Clarke through up 17 against Syracuse a few days ago.

[kwyjibo]

As others have noted your 2nd comment is way off base on about 4 different counts. The most embarrassing (illogical) leap is from being impressed with an individual to "not being fair" to others but sadly I doubt that will be the last time I see such a silly remark.

Another huge problem of making a mountain before a mole hill has had the chance to appear is (as others have noted) there has not been any choices to date. But if you actually cared about giving a fair representation of the situation you would have noted this remark from Brad Soderberg (instead of third hand impression of an impression)

"Adam Knollmeyer will be playing more and more in practice now. He has practiced the last two days, but didn't get clearance to play tonight [saturday]. He'll be able to play by the time we go to Texas. It's a lot to ask a kid to play on road as a freshman, but he may be the guy if he shows himself well this week." I don't know Adam K.'s health situation but it sure sounds that he will be getting minutes if healthy.

The wider context for this is the perennial bashing the weakest member of our starting always gets here (this has been a problem for at least 9 years on this board, back to when people would hammer Jeff Leuchtefeld). I am really sick of it. The simple fact remains that someone will always be the weakest starter. SO get over it (PLEASE!).

It always remains possible that someone on the bench will be able to do more than the weakest starter (but that is never that crystal clear either). It is always easy to pretend that some other alternative will be better (this is known as the Counterfactual Fallacy and some here got it real bad) but it is impossible to present evidence (so it becomes a cheap and pointless opinion but definition). The point I'm making here is not that Brad or any coach always make the right decision with their 5th starter but that the argument really should be about minutes and situations (it would even be more logical to frame the argument in terms of recruiting but those discussions get old for other reasons). Also, the decision to start one player over another when they have each have relative strengths is really about how to balance those strengths (not who starts). To harp year after year about the perceived weakest link for not being good enough is just not productive or fair.

I for one think the 4 situation is a bit of puzzle. There are arguments for giving more minutes to other players and if you actually care about what Brad has said there appears to be a lot of opportunities for ALL the players who can play the 4. It will be a challenge to balance the 4 playing the 4 (although I know Luke will get time as 3 as well) and I do not envy Brad in having to make those decisions.

[kwyjibo]

For the record this is exactly the types of decisions where Romar excelled. When SLU won 4 games in 4 days it was a mastery of the roster and rotation.

[3star_recruit]

Playing slow down basketball left our margin for error so thin that playing a mistake-prone player could cost us a victory even against bad teams. Now that Brad is seemingly committed to up-tempo ball that margin for error has increased substantially. I really believe that. I wish Brad did.

[gister]

Brad said that Adam K. was practicing at full speed on Tuesday. So he sounds like he is ready to go.

[ACE]

>Brad said that Adam K. was practicing at full speed on

>Tuesday. So he sounds like he is ready to go.

How is JJ?

[davidnark]

There is a significant difference between being impressed by the quality of a person and impressed by their basketball abilities. Signguy is an impressive young man, but I sure as hell wouldn't want him to play power forward for SLU. It is plausibly "embarrassing" not to understand that distinction.

Maybe Luke is the best choice for power forward at SLU, but the following quotes are straight from Brad's mouth:

"Although Luke has played forward for us, his ideal position is playing on the perimeter all the time."

"I don't think we can be as good as we want to be if our rotation is Bryce (Husak) and Ian and Luke in that 4-5 spot."

"I would like Luke to come off the bench."

I think Bernie's article the other day was uncalled for and oversimplified; however, the response to this post suggests that their may be some validity to his points. I posted one person's observations from the meeting. In less than 12 hours, there developed a long string of posts insinuating that it is absurd to challenge the decision making of Messiah Soderberg. None of the responses even bothered to consider whether it is really plausible for Brad to use emotional/conservative inclination/player loyalty to make lineup decisions that may not serve the team in the long run, particularly when these lineup decisions run contrary to Brad's own quotes.

I want Luke and Dwayne to succeed. I want good guys in the program. What I don't want, however, is for the assets of talented players to be limited/restricted because of Brad's strong biases. Would Ian have had this level of success at SLU if Brad wasn't forced to play him earlier than he was included to? Would Darren Clarke or JJ become stars at SLU if Brad didn't favor the likes of Varner, Drejaj, and Newborne? Will the freshmen power forwards be given a legitimate shot to succeed under Brad or will they forever be buried behind less talented players with preparation styles that better meet Brad's requirements?

[NashvilleBilliken]

So, you're take on those three quotes is that Brad is full of it? If I understand you correctly, you think that although Brad said on those three occasions that he does not want Luke playing PF; he is essentially lying? I have not been to a practice. From your experiences are we a better team with Luke on the bench? I don't know. I haven't seen a practice or game. BUT, I will say...listening to the games online, you pick up on certain things. And I know I hear Lukes name a TON and it's NOT saying he turned it over or got beat.

I just find it very hard and illogical to think that in the dog eat dog world of college sports, Brad will put his career in the hands of a guy he likes instead of the guy who will win ball games. I think after all three games this year, Coach has said he needs more depth at the four. I have no idea why he would say something like this if he didn't want to play other people or didn't think we had the skill.

Finally, we haven't even played a real game yet. We've blown out all three of our oppenents. Our top two PF candidates are injured. Don't you think your post was a bit premature?

[3star_recruit]

"I just find it very hard and illogical to think that in the dog eat dog world of college sports, Brad will put his career in the hands of a guy he likes instead of the guy who will win ball games"

I was nodding my head in agreement with 90% of David's post but I think he overstated his case here. It's not so much a matter of who Brad likes the best, as he who trusts the most. Unfortunately, if you're not off the charts talentwise and an upperclassman plays in front of you, it routinely takes a year or more of getting abused on the white team to earn Brad's trust.

[davidnark]

Let me clarify one point: I want and think Luke should start. I just think he should start at the three. What Brad has basically done in juggling his linup is replaced a 6'8" 230 lb.+ player with a 5'8" 150 lbs. player who hasn't proven he can shoot from outside. I think giving up a foot of height and 80+ pounds hurts your rebounding, interior defense, exterior shot blocking defense, and outside shooting at the three.

I wish Brad had committed to himself and the team to start one of the four true power forwards (or Ian) at the four, and to keep Luke or Danny at the three come hell or high water. That lineup would give you the benefit of brining Dwayne's eneregy off the bench to backup the point guard and Danny or Luke's energy off the bench to backup the other guard or small foward spot.

I haven't been to practice, so my opinions are based solely on watching games. The small amount of time I saw Obi and Horace play, I saw, respetively, I guy with the strenth, touch, and rebouding around the basket, and a guy with great size and athleticism who can run the floor. Why not give one of these guys (or Adam) a chance to start down low, particularly early on against weaker competition? We might be pleasently surprised with the results.

[cheeseman]

This is an interesting yet very typical post regarding this particular topic - if a poster relies on statements that Brad made but his actions seem to run counter then the poster's comment illicits this type of response - so you are saying Brad is a liar!. I do think it is possible to question someone's actions that do not match their comments without having to call the person a liar. Lots of things enter into why a person says what they do but does something different without him being a liar. Brad, has shown in the past - you can agree or not - that it is hard for him to get out of his comfort zone. His comfort zone is he rather play veterans, he structures his team for defense first and scoring second, he wants mistake free performances or at least as few as possible so when a player makes a mistake that he is not completely sold on for whatever the reason he tends to limit their playing time - there is more but I think you get my point. That being said - is he wrong? not necessarily but like it or not, people tend to listen to what you say and when you behave differently, it confuses them. From my prespective, if the team is better off with Luke not playing pf then don't do it. Play others who would be better suited for the position so in the long run the team progresses rather than be static. I know some will say, Luke is the best option right now but I would still point out that by playing someone who is out of position then you ultimately end up directly or even indirectly playing others in way that does not maximizes their situation to help compensate. Example - Tommie might have to play pf this weekend sometimes when Luke is not in there. I am sorry, that makes no sense to me in fact he tried that last year and it was not effective.

[davidnark]

Loyalty, trust, favoritism--call it what you want, but Brad is big on it. In Drejaj's case, it started when he was a freshman.

[davidnark]

I didn't call Brad a liar. I actually don't think he is a liar because he actually believes those statements when he makes them. The problem is that he doesn't have the will power to trust his own remarks and let go of his tight control.

He reminds me so much of the pre-99 Dick Vermeil. Pre-99, Vermeil worked his tail off, micromanaged, put huge stock in personal relationships, and was inflexibile in his personnel and system. When he was told by management to ease up the reigns, he gave up control to Martz and others and had one of the most successful and novel seasons in NFL history.

I just get the sense that if Brad could losen up his control and better manage his inflexibility and intensity, he would discover some assets and opportunities that he previously disregarded.

[NashvilleBilliken]

I agree that it doesn't necessarily make Brad a liar, and that was a bit over dramatized in my post...as most is on these message boards.

But, he's basically said the same thing a ton over the past several months (the media guide to today). He doesn't want Luke at the 4. Brad, as far as I know, has never said he wanted to play a guy and just not done it. Until this season, he has NEVER given us hope on JJ. Why all of a sudden say he's gonna get big minutes, if he doesn't expect it. Same with AK. He is mentioning those guys by name, which I take to mean he is looking real hard and hoping that they can do the job.

The guy is acknowledging a problem. I think that is more than he's done in the past. I don't think he's as stubborn on this topic as you guys think. I guess we'll see come Monday morning though.

[kwyjibo]

You do realize that there has been only one game played (and that was against a lineup that did not include a typical D-1 4). Therefore you cannot criticize someone for something they have not done yet. It is embarrassingly illogical to criticize before the fact. I definitely think the freshman will get a chance for a lot of reasons. I also think I am not in a position to know how much chance and exactly when.

You seem to be asserting as fact that Brad is emotional/conservative/loyal in ways you provide no evidence for. I frankly do not even know what you mean exactly (perhaps that is my fault). It may be true and even a consensus on the board that Brad is "too loyal" but as someone who tries to stay with facts it is hardly proven. I observe Brad doing what he thinks is best for winning (I saw little undo loyalty to Dwayne, V. Newborne or board whipping boy AD last year).

Of course, a player may develop into a better player and a longer-term asset (and it is a complete straw argument to suggest otherwise) but you have to be very careful logically with that. At what point does "playing for the future" get criticized as "throwing in the towel" or "asking too much too soon". Also, given the fact that EVERY year you criticize WHOEVER (well, the last three at least) is coaching for playing the wrong 5th person, the most logical conclusion to come to is that you will criticize any move as "too much loyalty" no matter who is chosen for whatever perceived false reason. There is much more Monday Morning quarterbacking and pointless venting in sports discussion than any intelligent criticism and I admit that I am partly unfairly reacting to that here.

You seem to believe some horrible injustice has been done and continues to be done to specific bench players. You alone seem to know (better than everyone else on this board and the entire SLU coaching staff) who exactly is more talented than who. This is both dangerously arrogant and absurd. First off, basketball is a multi-dimensional game and having more skill in one or several areas does not necessarily mean that one player is "better" than another. The issue (as I tried to explain above) is how to use the talents in a good rotation and use them situationally as well. That is what good coaching is about. I for one do not think that this is necessarily Brad S. best skill but I do think he does a pretty good job. He certainly has not done anything wrong yet this year.

The larger point about the constant use of the Conterfactual Fallacy (a somewhat common mistake but one that should be avoided if your goal is intelligent discussion) is the most important one. You cannot argue simply because another option COULD have been chosen that the one chosen is wrong. I also think it is a unpleasant way to be a fan. It means you are constantly hoping to be smarter/better than the coach (looking for "gotchas" to gripe about here). This is exactly what I am tired of. You (and others) perennially complain about the least talented starter whoever they are which is pointless on so many levels (there are always going to be some skills at which a bench player is better than the last starter--that is actually a good thing).

I think the sarcastic use of "Messiah Soderberg" indicates that you are not willing to be fair. I am hardly an unapologetic Soderberg disciple so it is completely unfair to me. I have many criticisms of Brad but they come in the context of seeing his strengths (and also I don't think many of them besides recruiting rise to a big harangue on this board). I am willing to give him a chance while you complained about him before he even coached a game or even talked to a single recruit.

Thankfully, SLU is 1-0 and things are looking good (no matter how hard you want to try to show otherwise).

[davidnark]

The sum of your long post is that Brad knows best and that it is presumptious to believe that we know more or could do better. I don't believe that I (or any other poster) knows more about Brad's personnel than Brad. That doesn't mean that Brad doesn't make wrong decisions or fall into management patterns that may or may not be best for the program. My outsider observation over the last four seasons is that Brad has a tendency to overutilize his "trust" players at the expense of players who may have more long-term potential. My observation may or may not be correct, but his continued use of Luke at the four rather than the three fits the pattern that has resulted in this observation.

[moytoy12]

"Therefore you cannot criticize someone for something they have not done yet. It is embarrassingly illogical to criticize before the fact."

Is your frame of reference only the 06-07 season?

"You seem to be asserting as fact that Brad is emotional/conservative/loyal in ways you provide no evidence for."

I think Nark pointed out examples above. Further, this statement recognizes that Nark is talking about stuff that has happened in the past, which is contrary to your argument that Nark is criticizing someone for something they have not done.

"You cannot argue simply because another option COULD have been chosen that the one chosen is wrong."

One can argue that.

"The issue (as I tried to explain above) is how to use the talents in a good rotation and use them situationally as well. That is what good coaching is about. I for one do not think that this is necessarily Brad S. best skill but I do think he does a pretty good job."

What is your evidence? For someone who sticks with the facts you just leave it at this?

"but as someone who tries to stay with facts..."

Come on, your opinion and feelings have fingerprinted the entire post. This is really the point of my response (yes, there is a point other than defending Nark), all of our "statements" on this board are often just opinions laced with emotions and feelings. And we (definitely myself included) are quick to conclude that the others' opinions are wrong, which seems like a real toughy to prove.

[kwyjibo]

>> The sum of your long post is that Brad knows best and that it is presumptious to believe that we know more or could do better.<<

NO, I did not say that at all. Not even close. This is not even about Brad but basic logic and fairness. Any coach is open to criticism. It is a complete straw argument for you to suggest that calling you on your obvious unfair and illogical post is somehow related to some bizarre adoration of Brad Soderberg (that I only occasionally see evidence of here compared to the mountain of pointless and unfair ranting against him). I care about the SLU basketball not Brad Soderberg per se (and I also care about logic and fairness truth be told!).

I am glad that you have clarified and back-pedalled from your original position. I am saying your original post in this thread is illogical and unfair. It is dishonest to criticize people for what they have not done yet or to impute motives without even the hint of evidence (you argue against the overuse this year of Luke at the 4 which continues to be a completely absurd premise because it has not even happened or had a negative consequence yet). I also made a related point saying it is illogical to assume just because someone has limitations as a starter that someone else is automatically better in that situation or rotation (that point has to be PROVEN and when I see the Billikens play the only obviously better players are the obviously better players--not the 5th starter vs. the best bench alternatives where the differences are negligible).

Your point about relying too much on "trust" players is possible but I have seen little evidence of it. I don't think Brad always gets the matchups right or gets rotations right. But I do know when he gets it right you hear nothing about it here (like against UMass last year) and when he gets it wrong (like St. Joe's) it gets trumpeted ad nauseum.

Also, your post about Darren Clarke scoring 17 points is an example of an illogical point. I suppose if Darren Clarke has a really great full year (which I certainly hopes he has) you could make a general point about SLU valuing DC more but even then a million other logical possibilities besides he should have played more two years ago enter in (maybe he got better; maybe he fits better in that team; maybe he fits better with that coach; maybe he learned from his mistakes at SLU; maybe he got motivation from a year off; maybe . . . maybe ... maybe . . . it is precisely for this reason that arguments relying on counterfactuals are so pointless ).

[Iggy]

I think the point about Clarke scoring 17 is simply to point out that he is clearly a better recruit than Blake Ahearn.

[kwyjibo]

>>Come on, your opinion and feelings have fingerprinted the entire post.>>

That is true, but not my opinion of Brad Soderberg. I did say I think he generally does a pretty good job but I am not that strong of supporter as the ever present straw argument of "koolaid drinking" implies.

My strong opinions and feelings do come from a frustration at the level of discussion on this board and a bit about unfair discussion in other places. It is amazing to me that so many coaches get so much unfair abuse (there is plenty of room for fair criticism it is really pointless). There are 333 teams and 1 NCAA champion. That is a simple undeniable fact. So yes guilty.

Also, before you defend the Counterfactual Fallacy you should understand what you are defending.

"There are 9 million bicycles in Beijing, . . . "

[moytoy12]

I understand the Counterfactual Fallacy. My point above was that one CAN argue it. The 2nd half of that statement is "it doesn't mean they are right."

I'm not defending the fallacy, but the right for people to argue fallaciously.

[kwyjibo]

I apologize for suggesting otherwise. Sorry.