Illini Coaching Staff

Second and Chalmers said:

I don't purport to know the entire landscape of assistant coaches, but I probably would have done Antigua, Stephen Gentry for cheap, and then take the rest of your war chest and look for the best guy you can find who has high major experience in a system similar to Underwood's with some recruiting connections somewhere. Maybe that's enough money for Lamont Evans but I doubt it, maybe that money keeps Chuck Martin from South Carolina, not sure he's that guy anyway. But my staff would be focused on coaching and player development, and would have gotten rid of Groce's entire team including Fletcher and would not have burned one of the three assistant spots on a token Chicago guy.

But what's done is done. Let's go get the players these guys were brought in to get, and if we can't, let's reconvene in a year and rethink this. We have a good head coach, plenty of money and plenty of time.

Click to expand...

Well then, let's continue to be happy you're not making the decisions. I don't know why it's hard to believe that a good coach, which most agree Underwood to be wouldn't be able to break down his offensive and defensive schemes to his assistants. I mean how hard can it be to teach coaches what you want them to coach within your system? Let's not act like these guys are bumbling fools when it comes to coaching X's and O's. Underwood will set the guidelines for what he needs and expects in his system and it will be coached up.

Illinois is in a precarious position right now. We've gotten 1 recruit from Indiana in he last what 20 years, Chicago hasn't been our friend since the 80s, and St. Louis is basically a war zone for recruiting with Mizzou and whatever manure is being shoveled by SLU. I want coaches that are great at coaching too, but you have to go out and get the kids to coach at some point. We're going to have to trust that Underwood is competent enough to get his assistants to help teach his system.

Megamind said:

Well then, let's continue to be happy you're not making the decisions. I don't know why it's hard to believe that a good coach, which most agree Underwood to be wouldn't be able to break down his offensive and defensive schemes to his assistants. I mean how hard can it be to teach coaches what you want them to coach within your system? Let's not act like these guys are bumbling fools when it comes to coaching X's and O's. Underwood will set the guidelines for what he needs and expects in his system and it will be coached up.

Illinois is in a precarious position right now. We've gotten 1 recruit from Indiana in he last what 20 years, Chicago hasn't been our friend since the 80s, and St. Louis is basically a war zone for recruiting with Mizzou and whatever manure is being shoveled by SLU. I want coaches that are great at coaching too, but you have to go out and get the kids to coach at some point. We're going to have to trust that Underwood is competent enough to get his assistants to help teach his system.

Click to expand...

I'm also gonna add that this system is not extremely complicated. It is literally a set of repetitive motions. Very easy to memorize and therefore teach. Most of the counters are set plays and also very logical, so again, not hard to learn. There's a couple reads the second cutter has to make in the flow based on how the high post is being guarded, but it's basically just 2 options. Again, not hard. Defensively, an on the line, up the line deny defense is pretty standard basketball stuff. And we're talking about HIGH MAJOR DIVISION I COLLEGE COACHES. They will be able to learn it and teach it, probably within a day.

I don't be follow basketball as closely as many on this board. But irbid blows my mind that we have not had as a s strong Chicago relationship and we haven't just reached out to a well connected Chicago guy. I think picking up Coleman was brilliant

Megamind said:

I want coaches that are great at coaching too, but you have to go out and get the kids to coach at some point. We're going to have to trust that Underwood is competent enough to get his assistants to help teach his system.

Click to expand...

Perhaps said another way: it seems like it might be easier to teach the assistants, whomever they are, the ins and outs of the Underwood system, and have them convey that to the payers than it would be to teach the assistants how to be good recruiters, especially if Underwood isn't necessarily known as a great recruiter himself.

Maybe that's over simplifying, but it makes sense to me that the coach would hire guys with the skills he'd have a harder time developing, and trust that he can bring them up to speed on what he's already good at.

thunderwear said:

I don't be follow basketball as closely as many on this board. But irbid blows my mind that we have not had as a s strong Chicago relationship and we haven't just reached out to a well connected Chicago guy. I think picking up Coleman was brilliant

Click to expand...

I like drinking vodka in the morning too! :thumb:

icengineer said:

Maybe Henricksen is tooting his own horn here. Just because he posted an article one day positing a specific course of action, and something happened the next day that could be misconstrued as related, that doesn't mean his spouting off was the catalyst that brought about the hiring of Chin.

Click to expand...

Joe Henricksen did not imply that at all (i.e., that he was the catalyst for the hiring of Chin).

Joe was very complimentary of the Underwood hiring.

Megamind said:

Well then, let's continue to be happy you're not making the decisions. I don't know why it's hard to believe that a good coach, which most agree Underwood to be wouldn't be able to break down his offensive and defensive schemes to his assistants. I mean how hard can it be to teach coaches what you want them to coach within your system? Let's not act like these guys are bumbling fools when it comes to coaching X's and O's. Underwood will set the guidelines for what he needs and expects in his system and it will be coached up.

Illinois is in a precarious position right now. We've gotten 1 recruit from Indiana in he last what 20 years, Chicago hasn't been our friend since the 80s, and St. Louis is basically a war zone for recruiting with Mizzou and whatever manure is being shoveled by SLU. I want coaches that are great at coaching too, but you have to go out and get the kids to coach at some point. We're going to have to trust that Underwood is competent enough to get his assistants to help teach his system.

Click to expand...

It's pretty simple and clean really. If we land Smith and Dosunmu AND our offense next year has recognizably transformed and is getting easy buckets playing recognizably Underwood's system and has seen a similar bump in Year 1 offensive efficiency that SFA and OSU saw (KenPom 208 to 57 at SFA, 153 to 1 at OSU, we were 123 last year), then we are in outstanding shape going forward and I am happily completely and totally wrong. I will not just admit that, but reassess my views on basketball coaching staffs entirely.

However, if we lose Smith and Dosunmu, and our offense is a bogged-down muddle running nothing in particular as our players struggle to pick up the new concepts, and we're bad generally, the Underwood era is going to hinge on the ability to admit failure and make corrections. And the people around here arguing "he inherited a total dumpster fire and NO COACH EVER could POSSIBLY build a relationship with a recruit in his first year (and of course we're "sitting pretty" with EJ Liddell and whoever the hot Chicago 2019 is)" are probably going to cause me to earn myself a permanent vacation from the board.

Of course, as always with a best and worst case scenario, the truth will probably be somewhere in the middle. The horrible pessimist in me sees one direction, others see differently. But whatever way we go, it has to be looked at with clear eyes.

Clear eyes, full hearts, we'll probably lose anyway

Second and Chalmers said:

I don't purport to know the entire landscape of assistant coaches, but I probably would have done Antigua, Stephen Gentry for cheap, and then take the rest of your war chest and look for the best guy you can find who has high major experience in a system similar to Underwood's with some recruiting connections somewhere. Maybe that's enough money for Lamont Evans but I doubt it, maybe that money keeps Chuck Martin from South Carolina, not sure he's that guy anyway. But my staff would be focused on coaching and player development, and would have gotten rid of Groce's entire team including Fletcher and would not have burned one of the three assistant spots on a token Chicago guy.

But what's done is done. Let's go get the players these guys were brought in to get, and if we can't, let's reconvene in a year and rethink this. We have a good head coach, plenty of money and plenty of time.

Click to expand...

Totally understand the need for coaches that can develop skills, not just teach the system. Player development seemed to be one of many fatal flaws with Groce's team. That said, don't get the reasoning behind getting rid of a guy like Fletch. He joins the team and a few months later, our players pass the eye test of making athletic gains but the team also experienced significantly fewer injuries. Sure, it's a small/short sample size, but you don't get rid of a talented guy just because he was hired by somebody else.

Second and Chalmers said:

It's pretty simple and clean really. If we land Smith and Dosunmu ... However, if we lose Smith and Dosunmu...

Click to expand...

Not sure what the premise of your argument is. Underwood did not assemble a coaching staff to specifically get 2 players. Heck, the Smith recruitment is far into it that hiring assistants so late would not have had much of an impact anyway.

Underwood assembled his current staff because he clearly understands the impact of recruiting and talent. It does not guarantee talent, let alone specific players. But it gives us a far better chance. I can tell you one thing, if Underwood does not succeed, it would be because we were unable to get the talent, despite the staff he assembled. Not because we got the talent and failed on the court.

The alternative would be to assemble a staff that is not focused on recruiting. That staff would not get Smith or Ayo either. So that approach would be based on the hypothesis that we would recruit even lesser talented players but the assistants would coach them up and develop them to the point that we outperform and outsmart Izzo, Beilein, etc. and their talent and coaching. It is a strategy doomed to fail.

jcgoldie said:

I like drinking vodka in the morning too! :thumb:

Click to expand...

That basketball juice is something....well done!:thumb:

Yes Bradley has the tradition, resources, facilities, and fan base to impress higher profile recruits .. but when Coleman landed Cunningham a few years back we were shocked, considering how bad the program has been. I was driving through campus the day he committed and saw Ford and Coleman walking out of an admin building and basically yelled "wooooo" to them out my window in celebration.

Cunningham would still be here if Geno Ford could win . Used his firing as a way out to Dayton.

Second and Chalmers said:

I don't purport to know the entire landscape of assistant coaches, but I probably would have done Antigua, Stephen Gentry for cheap, and then take the rest of your war chest and look for the best guy you can find who has high major experience in a system similar to Underwood's with some recruiting connections somewhere. Maybe that's enough money for Lamont Evans but I doubt it, maybe that money keeps Chuck Martin from South Carolina, not sure he's that guy anyway. But my staff would be focused on coaching and player development, and would have gotten rid of Groce's entire team including Fletcher and would not have burned one of the three assistant spots on a token Chicago guy.

But what's done is done. Let's go get the players these guys were brought in to get, and if we can't, let's reconvene in a year and rethink this. We have a good head coach, plenty of money and plenty of time.

Click to expand...

I am not sure why you would be so worried about a guy who knows the system, over guys who have recruiting ties. We expect these players to come here in june and learn the system by the start of the season. You would expect the same from ANY coach we hired to be able to do the same. So bythe start of the season now we should have guys who all know the system and guys with recruiting ties. had we went you way we would have guys who know the system, that now have to go out and make recruiting ties, I agree I thought we would gone a little different with how they were saying we had all this money, but I for one am just happy we have a staff and can now get onto recruiting and working with the team

Second and Chalmers said:

I don't purport to know the entire landscape of assistant coaches, but I probably would have done Antigua, Stephen Gentry for cheap, and then take the rest of your war chest and look for the best guy you can find who has high major experience in a system similar to Underwood's with some recruiting connections somewhere. Maybe that's enough money for Lamont Evans but I doubt it, maybe that money keeps Chuck Martin from South Carolina, not sure he's that guy anyway. But my staff would be focused on coaching and player development, and would have gotten rid of Groce's entire team including Fletcher and would not have burned one of the three assistant spots on a token Chicago guy.

Click to expand...

:huh:

I'm not sure how disappointed you can be when you were/are advocating a staff of Antigua-Gentry-_____ (Mennenga?) and we ended up with Antigua, got Gentry anyway, and used that staff spot you had earmarked for him to make a not-insignificant gesture toward Chicago high schools and AAU programs.

Like, is your animus towards Walker really that intense? Because logically, that seems to be the only way you can compare your ideal result vs. what we ended up with and feel let down.

I also think you're overestimating a bit the need for familiarity with Underwood's system. I mean, sure, having that background would be a nice-to-have, but all of these guys are adult professional basketball coaches. They can pick it up. I mean, look at FiveStar - Underwood taught him the offense (no offense, FiveStar).

I think people are underrating the Chin hire (maybe even BU is if he really wanted Martin first). It's literally the first time the state's flagship University has hired the "one of us" Chicago coaches the city has been clamoring for for decades. Parham coached 3 years in Chicago, but wasn't from there, Jerrance played in Chicago, but never coached there. All the Chicago HS and AAU coaches want to know that the UofI has their back and this is a step to demonstrate that.

Chin is not "world wide wes" by any means and it doesn't mean we're going to get the next McD AA from Chicago, but we'll get our shot at all the Chicago kids I think and that is a huge step change from recent years. Every time there is a coaching opening at the UofI there is pressure to hire a "Chicago guy" and we never do, this will be fun to watch our reputation in Chicago change for the better. I think we finally have the trifecta of a great X and O's coach (#1 offensive efficiency can't beat that), a great recruiting staff (all three assistants are essentially recruiters), and great support staff (Underwood seem to get his top targets for all those slots).

I for one, am ecstatic about our new coaching staff and can't wait to see what they can do in the next couple of years

So we wanted Antigua and got Antigua, but we could have gotten Antigua really cheap and we overpayed... ok.

mattcoldagelli said:

. I mean, look at FiveStar - Underwood taught him the offense (no offense, FiveStar).

Click to expand...

This prompts the obvious question, S&C: Walker or FiveStar?

mattcoldagelli said:

:huh:

I'm not sure how disappointed you can be when you were/are advocating a staff of Antigua-Gentry-_____ (Mennenga?) and we ended up with Antigua, got Gentry anyway, and used that staff spot you had earmarked for him to make a not-insignificant gesture toward Chicago high schools and AAU programs.

Like, is your animus towards Walker really that intense? Because logically, that seems to be the only way you can compare your ideal result vs. what we ended up with and feel let down.

I also think you're overestimating a bit the need for familiarity with Underwood's system. I mean, sure, having that background would be a nice-to-have, but all of these guys are adult professional basketball coaches. They can pick it up. I mean, look at FiveStar - Underwood taught him the offense (no offense, FiveStar).

Click to expand...

I was initially critical of the Brad Underwood hire. However, his record and outside reviews make me a believer. I'm not sure why Second and Chalmers is typically negative but that's his prerogative. I'll take this staff over Missouri's any day of the week.

Saw that Gentry was a Gonzaga coach and player too. More Gonzaga = mo betta in my book. They're a great example of a organizational system designed to keep winning. ..without getting all Cornell, Wisconsin, Princeton, Virginia, styled to do it....

bigtiny said:

Saw that Gentry was a Gonzaga coach and player too. More Gonzaga = mo betta in my book. They're a great example of a organizational system designed to keep winning. ..without getting all Cornell, Wisconsin, Princeton, Virginia, styled to do it....

Click to expand...

Gonzaga also gets very good talent. They are a mid-major on paper only.

Obelix said:

The alternative would be to assemble a staff that is not focused on recruiting.

Click to expand...

BMo79 said:

I am not sure why you would be so worried about a guy who knows the system, over guys who have recruiting ties.

Click to expand...

This is not what I'm saying. I'm not foolish enough to hope to turn whatever Verdell Jones' and Taylor Bruniga's happen to wash ashore into a nationally relevant program through sheer force of X's and O's and player development.

What I want is balance. Antigua is a terrific hire for that role. Walker and Coleman would be lesser hires for that role. They're all the same role.

mattcoldagelli said:

I'm not sure how disappointed you can be when you were/are advocating a staff of Antigua-Gentry-_____ (Mennenga?) and we ended up with Antigua, got Gentry anyway, and used that staff spot you had earmarked for him to make a not-insignificant gesture toward Chicago high schools and AAU programs.

Click to expand...

There's more an assistant can do than a support staffer, both in terms of scouting and work with the players in practice. So I think Gentry is worthy there on his own merits, plus you have to consider the effect his comparatively small salary would have on the rest of the pool.

Like, is your animus towards Walker really that intense?

Click to expand...

Nothing towards Walker personally, but I do confess to feeling like we look like total clowns on the Tilmon situation. And if Mark Smith goes elsewhere, no one will be able to say with a straight face that Walker would be on the staff had we known or if we could do it over. That doesn't mean he isn't a professional basketball coach, he's not some recruit's dad who should be working at the snack bar, and I hope I don't come across as if I'm saying that.

But Underwood was given the biggest staff budget in the Big Ten to maximize the ability of the people he puts around him. Walker is not a maximization of those resources, and that's the standard I'm using to judge.

Henson71 said:

It's literally the first time the state's flagship University has hired the "one of us" Chicago coaches the city has been clamoring for for decades. Parham coached 3 years in Chicago, but wasn't from there

Click to expand...

The greatest physicists in the world couldn't split hairs that small. We french kissed the ring with Parham. It got us ZERO. Probably set us back, really, because now we've normalized that Illinois owes them something.

Listen, I don't want to sit here and bash this staff. I am all-in on the Brad Underwood era. I'm just trying to explain my thought process to those who are asking questions here.

But it starts now. There is going to be a lot of roster turnover in the next 12 months, and we've hired a staff rich with connections to terrific players to fill those spots. Let's get out there and do it!

EDIT: Forgot one thing

I also think you're overestimating a bit the need for familiarity with Underwood's system. I mean, sure, having that background would be a nice-to-have, but all of these guys are adult professional basketball coaches. They can pick it up.

Click to expand...

This is true, but, with experience and familiarity and the process of winning and losing and making adjustments you get forged into a far better tactician and instructor than just "picking it up". Matt Painter can go out and find some good recruiting assistant to get him players, and he'll "pick up" Painterball just fine, but he can't be what Jack Owens was and has proven to be in that role, at least not for a long while.

haasi said:

This prompts the obvious question, S&C: Walker or FiveStar?

Click to expand...

A no brainer. Think of the insider scoops!

For clarity in case it's getting lost, S&C's view is that when you hire a coach based on his past success, you really want to hire his whole staff or as close to it as possible. Otherwise you're just getting part of the product with more risk that pieces won't fit together and less guarantee of success. As a result, he thinks its a potentially major problem that we didn't get Evans and/or Boynton from OSU and that we instead got Walker, whom he reasonably thinks we retained to get players from Stl but the results so far are less than promising.

In general these points are reasonable. but as noted, we still got one of his former staff (Gentry) who will be able to coach and develop players (but not recruit off campus), we got a stud recruiter in Antigua, and we got a Chicago guy.

I think most would probably agree that this wasn't the ideal staff they wanted to see constructed when he came on, at least knowing after the fact that we didn't keep Tilmon and may not/prob won't get Smith. but most would also agree that getting Antigua was a coup and that this staff seems pretty well suited to implement Underwood's system (BU, Gentry, reasonably bright other coaches) and to recruit from major areas and to develop players.

Also (pure speculation), based on his public persona which stresses winning and results, I'd guess that underwood unlike groce would not be shy about getting rid of an assistant and hiring a new one if warranted


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Obelix said:

So we wanted Antigua and got Antigua, but we could have gotten Antigua really cheap and we overpayed... ok.

Click to expand...

"Always underpay when you have a chance. It never causes problems."

- Mike Holder, Oklahoma State AD*




*quote may be entirely fabricated

haasi said:

.

In general these points are reasonable. but as noted, we still got one of his former staff (Gentry) who will be able to coach and develop players (but not recruit off campus), we got a stud recruiter in Antigua, and we got a Chicago guy.

Click to expand...

It's reasonable to have "keep staff intact" as your starting point, because like you said, if you're buying their past successes, try to get what earned said successes.

But this can only ever be a starting point. Setting aside the competitive marketplace for coaches, no two P5 jobs are the same. You've got different variables to account for that may or may not be need to addressed via how you construct a staff.

Second and Chalmers said:

What I want is balance. Antigua is a terrific hire for that role. Walker and Coleman would be lesser hires for that role. They're all the same role.

Click to expand...

Your assumption is that Antigua alone is fairly adequate for recruiting and getting the talent needed. I disagree. Even with Antigua and the rest of the recruiting-focused staff, I still do not believe it is guaranteed that that we will get talent. As I said, if Underwood does not succeed, it would be because we could still not get the talent level that we needed, not because we got great talent but failed on the court.

There's more an assistant can do than a support staffer, both in terms of scouting and work with the players in practice.

Click to expand...

The big difference is that Gentry can't recruit off-campus. He can pretty much do everything else as far as players on campus and in practice. So if you wanted Gentry for his other services (as you said balance, not focused on recruiting), not sure what we would be missing with him still on staff. Even if you believe in the exceptional talent of Gentry, the problem would have been if you could not get him unless you offered him an assistant coach position. We got him.