|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 21, 2020 20:50:35 GMT -8
Tony Bennett did the same thing at WSU. I don’t think it’s a bad plan to be a defensive team first. CR’s first year or two and WT’s first year were both played at a slower pace with a defensive focus. Once they got some better athletes, they let them run and had worse win/loss results. Dick Bennett was head coach at Wisky prior to Bo Ryan, and, of course, preceded his son at WSU. Yeah, I know. He set the blueprint. I questioned whether Tony could get buy-in from players in the ACC, but he has. Struggling this year as they lost most of their shooters.
|
|
|
Post by beaverinohio on Jan 21, 2020 21:10:22 GMT -8
VA can be a bit boring to watch with its offense. Though I’m guessing VA fans don’t mind it that much when they’re winning. Bo Ryan’s swing offense on the other hand wasn’t boring - a lot of player movement and interchangeable parts. But like I said I’m less concerned with what the identity is and more concerned about having one.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jan 21, 2020 21:15:25 GMT -8
What could Tinkle do to change my mind? He could start committing recruiting violations right and left. He could turn a blind eye to players getting paid. He could de-emphasize academics. He could have another 1-17 or thereabouts league year. He could play players under active felony investigations. He could bring in multiple one and dones every year rather than try to recruit mostly 4-5 year kids. He could carry himself in a manner unbecoming of the University. He could have a multiple year downward trend. He could completely lose the team. He could consistently produce teams that compete at the bottom two or three of the league.
So far those haven't happened.
|
|
|
Post by osubeaver2018 on Jan 21, 2020 22:28:17 GMT -8
For me it’s not about changing my stance but giving me confidence. I think WT has laid a good foundation and he deserves another year or two, but I’m not confident he can take team to next level. What would help with that confidence is the team developing a real identity. As a Big 10 fan, I think about Wisconsin under Bo Ryan with his swing offense and tough fundamental defense that emphasized not fouling. You knew who Wisconsin was. I’m not advocating they take on that same identity, just that they develop one. Having an identity also helps with recruiting. You’re looking for specific traits in players and certain kinds of players. It is not just strictly about getting four and five star players. Ryan brought in his share of very good recruits, but there were a heck of a lot of 3 stars who were vital to his teams’ success. And that identity also gives you something to sell to those good recruits recruits. Tony Bennett did the same thing at WSU. I don’t think it’s a bad plan to be a defensive team first. CR’s first year or two and WT’s first year were both played at a slower pace with a defensive focus. Once they got some better athletes, they let them run and had worse win/loss results. See I think WT is trying to instill a defense first mindset and identity with his teams. We definitely haven't been the most gifted shooting team in any year of WT's tenure here, and we have the most success through good execution of set plays on offense and aggressive defense. We see it in spurts at the end of a lot of games switching to the 1-3-1, occasionally in long spurts like the UA game, and saw it a lot during years one and two. He preaches defense going into every season so my question is if that's just coachspeak and he isn't emphasizing it as much as he says, or if it comes down to lack of player buy-in or lack of athletes to do it.
A lot of times our defensive breakdowns appear to come from individual mistakes like leaving a shooter on a switch, one guy drifting into the paint when an opponent flashes to the corner and spots up a 3, or a lapse at the end of the shot clock after 29 seconds of good D. It seems like the emphasis is there, but then we also have good defensive possessions and suffer from giving up an offensive rebound and a quick kick out 3 as well.
Lastly, it seems like our transition D this year has just been flat out poor. Whether that's because we lack athletes or depth to actually get back on D consistently I don't know, but I'm tired of seeing a driving player on offense be the first guy back on defense to try and stop a fast break lay-in because the rest of our transition D got exposed. Not to take anything away from Hollins' hustle either, but the number of times he has driven to the hoop and been the first guy back drives me insane.
TL;DR: It seems like we're close to setting up a defensive identity, but just haven't been able to put it together consistently enough, most often due to fixable things such as hustle, want, and defensive positioning. Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by beaverinohio on Jan 22, 2020 4:08:34 GMT -8
I agree that it seems like that is what WT may want today, but he just hasn’t. And that is on him. It’s not enough to “choose” an identity, you have to instill it successfully. To do that you need to recruit to it, get real buy-in, and then get it the players to do it. Your last two paragraphs show the disconnect. One of the reasons that I’m interested in seeing WT coach again without family member players is because the last few years it doesn’t seem like WT is holding his team accountable — except yelling at them. How often if a player doesn’t get back on D because of effort does WT pull them? Not very often and even less so for the “sons.” If it is supposedly D that gets you playing time but there are no repercussions if you don’t play D, then players are less likely to put max effort into effort on D.
All of that is why I’m interested to see what happens when Tres leaves. Tres has been the teams best player and it is understandable why he gets so many minutes, but has he been held to at least some/most of the standards that WT needs to hold players to in order to truly instill a defensive identity? Was Stevie and is Ethan? With those players gone and minutes to go around, can WT instill a culture where “players play players”? Will having more minutes to go around help with recruiting and retention? I don’t know, but it will be interesting (and likely ugly at first) to find out. Also, I will say that I’m not at practices or even at games living in Ohio. I’m only watching games on TV, so some of those things may be happening. But the previous posters last two paragraphs lead me to believe I’m not.
|
|
|
Post by sagebrush on Jan 22, 2020 4:32:19 GMT -8
Do something one way or the other (win or go into the tank) to get me out of my apathetic state of mind because right now, I really don't care.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysorange on Jan 22, 2020 10:22:26 GMT -8
I don't know if Tinkle is a good X and O guy. What does seem to be true is that he and/or his staff are not good recruiters.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 22, 2020 11:12:33 GMT -8
I don't know if Tinkle is a good X and O guy. What does seem to be true is that he and/or his staff are not good recruiters. He may feel some pressure to upgrade the assistants before they would actually consider canning him.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jan 22, 2020 11:30:03 GMT -8
Real easy.
Make the NCAA = Keep him, entertain token contract extension like you do in the biz.
Make the NIT = Keep him, but seat is still warm and you aren't getting any contract treatment.
Miss any post season/finish bottom half Pac-12 = time to move on. you are in year 6 buddy. that isn't good enough.
|
|
|
Post by sagebrush on Jan 22, 2020 12:36:43 GMT -8
I agree.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysorange on Jan 22, 2020 12:40:23 GMT -8
What can't happen is keep on extending the contract in hopes something turns around. Lets face it if things don't turn around "we" are going to have to eat a few years of his contract. And that's the truth.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jan 22, 2020 12:53:47 GMT -8
What can't happen is keep on extending the contract in hopes something turns around. Lets face it if things don't turn around "we" are going to have to eat a few years of his contract. And that's the truth. It is the risk you take with any contract in sports. it is the market. Not saying it is right, but it is what it is. Just like CEOs that get major golden parachutes when all they do is tank a company and/or oversee products that kill people (looking at you Boeing CEO...) There is a game you play with the contracts. this line you walk between keeping the interest of the school in mind, and helping your coach out in his job. Public support of the coach helps recruiting. Lack of public support hurts recruiting. There isn't always an easy answer. You just be careful with your language, your buyouts, your offsets and hope for the best!
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 22, 2020 16:22:57 GMT -8
What can't happen is keep on extending the contract in hopes something turns around. Lets face it if things don't turn around "we" are going to have to eat a few years of his contract. And that's the truth. It is the risk you take with any contract in sports. it is the market. Not saying it is right, but it is what it is. Just like CEOs that get major golden parachutes when all they do is tank a company and/or oversee products that kill people (looking at you Boeing CEO...) There is a game you play with the contracts. this line you walk between keeping the interest of the school in mind, and helping your coach out in his job. Public support of the coach helps recruiting. Lack of public support hurts recruiting. There isn't always an easy answer. You just be careful with your language, your buyouts, your offsets and hope for the best! I'll only add that support doesn't have to mean extensions. Unless you have a guy that you REALLY love and want to keep, even extensions will not help. There is always a buyout and if a school really wants him they'll pay for it. The other issue... in 32 years of coaching kids who went to various levels of college play, not one... ZERO... ever inquired about the coach's contract or if he was going to be around their entire playing career. I think other schools may use it in recruiting, but it is not something most kids will analyze too deeply. They are going to pick the school that fits them best and that almost always centers on PT... or the promise of PT. The first WT extension was far too premature even with the dance appearance. If WT was getting inquiries after Year 2 here... let him go for it. But, with Tres already at OSU he wasn't going to not coach him. He wasn't going to have him need to transfer/sit out. He was going nowhere... IF there was even suitors at that time?! The latest extension was even worse. I doubt WT has any suitors, at least equal to OSU, secretly courting him. He is losing the team's best player, maybe the top 2, and definitely the only active big. He has much to prove before this AD put the school under this financial arrangement. BUT, he did. That is on Barnes. Hopefully the new President finds the time for a thorough overview of the department and how funds are being allocated.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jan 22, 2020 16:50:34 GMT -8
Seriously, how many Pac 12 basketball head coaches only have two years left on their contracts? I don't know, but if it's zero then I'd think it entirely reasonable to send the signal that OSU is not planning on firing their head coach (unless it is, in that case I'd say just fire them) by giving him a 1 year extension. Big whoop.
Seems to me at least a few posters treat contracts like Herman Frazier did back a bit over a decade or so ago. Hawaii has never fully recovered from losing Riley Wallace and June Jones.
|
|
rafer
Sophomore
Posts: 1,604
|
Post by rafer on Jan 22, 2020 16:55:57 GMT -8
It is the risk you take with any contract in sports. it is the market. Not saying it is right, but it is what it is. Just like CEOs that get major golden parachutes when all they do is tank a company and/or oversee products that kill people (looking at you Boeing CEO...) There is a game you play with the contracts. this line you walk between keeping the interest of the school in mind, and helping your coach out in his job. Public support of the coach helps recruiting. Lack of public support hurts recruiting. There isn't always an easy answer. You just be careful with your language, your buyouts, your offsets and hope for the best! I'll only add that support doesn't have to mean extensions. Unless you have a guy that you REALLY love and want to keep, even extensions will not help. There is always a buyout and if a school really wants him they'll pay for it. The other issue... in 32 years of coaching kids who went to various levels of college play, not one... ZERO... ever inquired about the coach's contract or if he was going to be around their entire playing career. I think other schools may use it in recruiting, but it is not something most kids will analyze too deeply. They are going to pick the school that fits them best and that almost always centers on PT... or the promise of PT. The first WT extension was far too premature even with the dance appearance. If WT was getting inquiries after Year 2 here... let him go for it. But, with Tres already at OSU he wasn't going to not coach him. He wasn't going to have him need to transfer/sit out. He was going nowhere... IF there was even suitors at that time?! The latest extension was even worse. I doubt WT has any suitors, at least equal to OSU, secretly courting him. He is losing the team's best player, maybe the top 2, and definitely the only active big. He has much to prove before this AD put the school under this financial arrangement. BUT, he did. That is on Barnes. Hopefully the new President finds the time for a thorough overview of the department and how funds are being allocated. So, if you're firing WT, I assume you have the next coach picked out according to you're parameters, how many years do you give them to make the dance, 1, 2, 3, (5 seems too many) and we do it again?? What exactly are your expectations for how long they have to make the dance??
|
|