Fans typically put a coach on the hot seat before the coach is actually on the hot seat.
Fans have very little, if anything to do with it. A coach is not the hot seat due to his W/L record.
Fans typically put a coach on the hot seat before the coach is actually on the hot seat.
Fans typically put a coach on the hot seat before the coach is actually on the hot seat.
Both these paragraphs sum up my feelings toward JG. I don't think there's a coach in the country who could take this injury-plagued roster to the Dance, and JG has assembled a nice frosh class, especially if you consider Nichols a member of the group, too, though I guess he'll be considered a frosh next year, actually. And I think a lot of fans, myself included, would be OK with seeing JG replaced in the offseason with a great candidate, but considering we still have interims running the university and DIA, that's unlikely as you said. The last 3 1/2 years have greatly tempered my hopes for JG, I must admit. A lot of lost luster.
I'm also intrigued to finally see a JG team with a quality PG running the show in what is a PG-friendly offense and what a difference it might make in the quality of shots we get, especially with good wings like MH, KN and JCL stretching the D and a low-post scorer like MT in the lineup. Unfortunately we may never get to see this, as next year looks like it'll be more of the same. (I have modest expectations for Lucas as a frosh backing up JT or TA.)
Honest question. Why do a great many people say that we run a PG friendly offense? I don't see it. We don't drive the lane, we don't have 2-3 guys moving at the same time, we pass it around the outside and take a three.
I suspect that we are willing to run a PG friendly offense and that JG might even aspire to it. But I certainly don't see it. I suppose that is some evidence that he adjusts his offense to reflect the players available, but its hard to take that as good news. I'm sure that a lot of us wish we ran a PG friendly offense, but it is my view that we don't. If someone who disagrees would educate me, I would be grateful.
With JT at the 1, JG has adapted the offense to run more through our wings. When TA was at PG, we ran a pure form of the dribble drive motion O. It's predicated on heavy use of ball screens, spreading the floor with shooters and creating lots of space for the 1 to take his man off the dribble and either drive and finish, dish or kick out to shooters. That's the offense JG ran at Ohio (with wrinkles, of course) and early in his tenure at UI. We still run some of it but less so now since we don't have that type of PG on the roster. We rely more on movement away from the ball and filtering sets through KN and MH now.
Oh and so far JCL is not our PG unfortunately. I'm trying to figure out how some recruiting services saw him even as a CG let alone a PG. He is as pure of a SG as they come.
I'll be the first to admit I saw PG potential in JCL and thought he was going to be the answer there. I saw him play the 1 in the Jordan Brand Classic and heard him mention Groce was trying him out at the 1 quite a bit in practice. I really thought he was going to be the answer, and I get the feeling the staff had high hopes for this as well. The good news is JCL has lived up to the hype in a lot of ways.
With JT at the 1, JG has adapted the offense to run more through our wings. When TA was at PG, we ran a pure form of the dribble drive motion O. It's predicated on heavy use of ball screens, spreading the floor with shooters and creating lots of space for the 1 to take his man off the dribble and either drive and finish, dish or kick out to shooters. That's the offense JG ran at Ohio (with wrinkles, of course) and early in his tenure at UI. We still run some of it but less so now since we don't have that type of PG on the roster. We rely more on movement away from the ball and filtering sets through KN and MH of now.
I don't think anyone's arguing that message board fans are the only factor for a particular player deciding where to play, but would you rather play for a coach who's respected and loved by his fans? Or a coach who's fans are counting down the days till he's fired?
The fans perception of a coach might not be the only factor, but it could certainly be a single factor. One of many.
Would love a heavy discussion of offensive theory if you ever get the time.No time to get into a heavy discussion of offensive theory but the offense ran at OHIO always started with the pass to the wing or a high ball screen. It , in no way, resembled Vince Walberg's dribble drive any more than it resembled a Flex or any other offense. It is based mostly on a pro style screen and roll with ball movement east to west and reversal. Google it and get familiar with the actual dribble drive, principles and variations with penetration and throwing back out with .
Groce's offense does rely on the primary guard as the engine but it runs through the wings and uses screens and passing (with very little dribbling) with ball reversal and reads off the defender to run through the progressions. Continuity, once the options are exhausted relies on a seamless transition once the PG gets the ball back into the next screen/wing/sets. A scoring PG threat is when this offense works best otherwise the wings get overplayed and locked down.
I think people make a little too much on statements like "Player A fits Groce's (or any other coach's) system." I see too many posts, for example, that Groce likes his bigs to play outside etc. Truth is that is the players he was able to get, so that is because of necessity. When he was able to get Thorne, we had for the first time, as little as it lasted, something that represented an inside game.
Same at PGs, you get a talent like Brunson, Snider, DJax. etc., I bet they would fit Groce's "system" fine. As they would fit hundreds of other "systems." You get Tilmon, sure he would fit Groce's system great, as would Williams even though he is not a prototypical PG at this stage
Groce's offense does rely on the primary guard as the engine but it runs through the wings and uses screens and passing (with very little dribbling)
He's been way too 1 dimensional, but that may be a symptom of missing preseason time. He has all the tools to be a stud, but we have to see more flashes of it (besides the 3 pters) going forward.
Groce's offense does rely on the primary guard as the engine but it runs through the wings and uses screens and passing (with very little dribbling) with ball reversal and reads off the defender to run through the progressions. Continuity, once the options are exhausted relies on a seamless transition once the PG gets the ball back into the next screen/wing/sets. A scoring PG threat is when this offense works best otherwise the wings get overplayed and locked down.
It may have relied very little on dribbling at OU, but most seasons at UI it's been heavy on dribbling, iso play and especially ball screens, especially the first 3 years. Perhaps it was because of unbalanced lineups or the inability of our PGs to break down their defenders, but NE alone probably set a thousand high ball screens in the last 3 years at UI, and in the numerous games I've seen he and other bigs set anywhere from 1 to 3 ball screens per halfcourt possession. We still set a lot of ball screens this season, but it's been refreshing to see less reliance on them, particularly since KN's return from injury.
If Groce would have the roster makeup similar to Weber's at this point in his tenure I would be concerned.
I read it as Groce currently having the type of roster Weber had at the end of his time here.I'm not sure what you mean by this. In Weber's 4th season, he won 23 games, finished in the top half of the conference, and went to the NCAAT. Not a banner year, but a pretty decent season. His fifth year wasn't good, though.
Honest question. Why do a great many people say that we run a PG friendly offense? I don't see it. We don't drive the lane, we don't have 2-3 guys moving at the same time, we pass it around the outside and take a three.
I suspect that we are willing to run a PG friendly offense and that JG might even aspire to it. But I certainly don't see it. I suppose that is some evidence that he adjusts his offense to reflect the players available, but its hard to take that as good news. I'm sure that a lot of us wish we ran a PG friendly offense, but it is my view that we don't. If someone who disagrees would educate me, I would be grateful.
It may have relied very little on dribbling at OU, but most seasons at UI it's been heavy on dribbling, iso play and especially ball screens, especially the first 3 years. Perhaps it was because of unbalanced lineups or the inability of our PGs to break down their defenders, but NE alone probably set a thousand high ball screens in the last 3 years at UI, and in the numerous games I've seen he and other bigs set anywhere from 1 to 3 ball screens per halfcourt possession. We still set a lot of ball screens this season, but it's been refreshing to see less reliance on them, particularly since KN's return from injury.
Being bad.Nice explanation, but is really makes you wonder what the heck Starks was doing most of the time last year.