What is the biggest priority for SJUBB, coaching or program building?

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 16, 2017, 01:05:19 PM

Quote from: TONYD3 on January 16, 2017, 09:38:08 AM

The roster is limited. But we should not finish in 9/10 place.

Limited doesn't mean bad. This team could be playing better

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 16, 2017, 01:05:19 PM

Quote from: TONYD3 on January 16, 2017, 09:38:08 AM

The roster is limited. But we should not finish in 9/10 place.

Where should we finish with this roster if not 9/10?

Where should we finish with this roster if not 9/10?

Better coaching 6/7. With a .500 record. Talent is close to NIT level. Way better then Oliver purnel level, where I think we finish.

I'm sorry, but this roster is not close too NIT level at all. We have 2 studs and then some decent roles players. On a good tournament team Ellison, Yakwe, and Ahmed don't start. Ahmed could but he is a turnover machine. Next year I say yes, but definitely not this year.

Quote from: TONYD3 on January 16, 2017, 02:59:18 PM

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 16, 2017, 01:05:19 PM

Quote from: TONYD3 on January 16, 2017, 09:38:08 AM

The roster is limited. But we should not finish in 9/10 place.

Limited doesn't mean bad. This team could be playing better

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 16, 2017, 01:05:19 PM

Quote from: TONYD3 on January 16, 2017, 09:38:08 AM

The roster is limited. But we should not finish in 9/10 place.

Where should we finish with this roster if not 9/10?

Where should we finish with this roster if not 9/10?

Better coaching 6/7. With a .500 record. Talent is close to NIT level. Way better then Oliver purnel level, where I think we finish.

I'm sorry, but this roster is not close too NIT level at all. We have 2 studs and then some decent roles players. On a good tournament team Ellison, Yakwe, and Ahmed don't start. Ahmed could but he is a turnover machine. Next year I say yes, but definitely not this year.

On a good tournament team they are juniors and seniors.

Quote from: Aknel79 on January 16, 2017, 07:14:53 PM

Quote from: TONYD3 on January 16, 2017, 02:59:18 PM

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 16, 2017, 01:05:19 PM

Quote from: TONYD3 on January 16, 2017, 09:38:08 AM

The roster is limited. But we should not finish in 9/10 place.

Limited doesn't mean bad. This team could be playing better

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 16, 2017, 01:05:19 PM

Quote from: TONYD3 on January 16, 2017, 09:38:08 AM

The roster is limited. But we should not finish in 9/10 place.

Where should we finish with this roster if not 9/10?

Where should we finish with this roster if not 9/10?

Better coaching 6/7. With a .500 record. Talent is close to NIT level. Way better then Oliver purnel level, where I think we finish.

I'm sorry, but this roster is not close too NIT level at all. We have 2 studs and then some decent roles players. On a good tournament team Ellison, Yakwe, and Ahmed don't start. Ahmed could but he is a turnover machine. Next year I say yes, but definitely not this year.

On a good tournament team they are juniors and seniors.

Totally agree. As they get older they will get better and have more talent around them.

We need more talent and more experience both.  For us to build any identity, we need a coach to be here for a significant amount of time.  We at least have a guy and staff now that won't just stop recruiting or shun local talent.  Need consistency and to land more studs.  Those will come with time.

We need more talent and more experience both.  For us to build any identity, we need a coach to be here for a significant amount of time.  We at least have a guy and staff now that won't just stop recruiting or shun local talent.  Need consistency and to land more studs.  Those will come with time.

What's your timeframe?

I think Mullin needs at least 5 seasons.  We are better than last year and I think will continue to move forward, but coaching turnover isn't helping us. 

Let's keep this thing going...We have nothing to lose..Mullin and Co are only in year 2 of a complete rebuild. I've seen improvements in the coaching this year alone...Mullin looked lost last year and at times early this season but I think he's getting better...Talent seems to keep coming...Hitting the panic button once again would be disasterous, IMO.. 

Year 3 - better than .500 record overall.. NIT
 4 - NCAA's.

I think that it's doable..  SJU plays a fun style of basketball now..kids love Mullin and staff and love this style..  Let's teach these boys how to grind on D and win some games.

+ 100 Boo

There's progress.  We'd all love for it to be sped up.
But things are moving in the right direction. 

I think Mullin needs at least 5 seasons.  We are better than last year and I think will continue to move forward, but coaching turnover isn't helping us. 

At least 5 seasons to achieve what?

Let's keep this thing going...We have nothing to lose..Mullin and Co are only in year 2 of a complete rebuild. I've seen improvements in the coaching this year alone...Mullin looked lost last year and at times early this season but I think he's getting better...Talent seems to keep coming...Hitting the panic button once again would be disasterous, IMO.. 

Year 3 - better than .500 record overall.. NIT
 4 - NCAA's.

I think that it's doable..  SJU plays a fun style of basketball now..kids love Mullin and staff and love this style..  Let's teach these boys how to grind on D and win some games.

He looked lost last season, and he looked lost last Monday.

Quote from: boo3 on January 16, 2017, 10:41:37 PM

Let's keep this thing going...We have nothing to lose..Mullin and Co are only in year 2 of a complete rebuild. I've seen improvements in the coaching this year alone...Mullin looked lost last year and at times early this season but I think he's getting better...Talent seems to keep coming...Hitting the panic button once again would be disasterous, IMO.. 

Year 3 - better than .500 record overall.. NIT
 4 - NCAA's.

I think that it's doable..  SJU plays a fun style of basketball now..kids love Mullin and staff and love this style..  Let's teach these boys how to grind on D and win some games.

He looked lost last season, and he looked lost last Monday.

What could he really have done last season? Sometimes you have to admit defeat and just make small adjustments that will hopefully pay off in the long run.

Mullin has been much more animated and seems to be giving pointed advice player to player.

Quote from: MCNPA on January 16, 2017, 09:27:56 PM

I think Mullin needs at least 5 seasons.  We are better than last year and I think will continue to move forward, but coaching turnover isn't helping us. 

At least 5 seasons to achieve what?

Coach has tripled last seasons conference win total with 12 to go.

Do you, or does anybody for that matter, feel that Mullin should be fired after the season?

You guys assume so much improvement next year. Why? What is fun about the style ? I see us taking plenty of quick/ bad shots. I see us giving up way to many easy shots. Plenty of problems with this team. They are not going to be solved by just because our guys are a year older.
2-1 vs DePaul
1- 20 vs rest of big east including tournament.

Plenty of season left. Hoping to see some improvement. Not giving a coach even 2 full seasons may not be fair. But to say let's give him 5 is absurd.
We fired the last guy because he wasn't good enough. We didn't give him 5 years . He earned 5 years . His cupard was bare also. Our currrent coach should have to earn his 5 year contract .

Biggest priority. Buff the freakin court.

You guys assume so much improvement next year. Why? What is fun about the style ? I see us taking plenty of quick/ bad shots. I see us giving up way to many easy shots. Plenty of problems with this team. They are not going to be solved by just because our guys are a year older.
2-1 vs DePaul
1- 20 vs rest of big east including tournament.

Plenty of season left. Hoping to see some improvement. Not giving a coach even 2 full seasons may not be fair. But to say let's give him 5 is absurd.
We fired the last guy because he wasn't good enough. We didn't give him 5 years . He earned 5 years . His cupard was bare also. Our currrent coach should have to earn his 5 year contract .

Young teams with talent tend to get better with an offseason together. The rotations you are seeing this year this is first time a lot of these guys have played together. Having another full offseason together helps individually for young players to work on their game and for the team as a whole to be more cohesive. Look at Lavin's first year and last year, those teams improved every year. We are also getting two players on the court next season that should have an immediate impact. Clark and Simon will both should play considerable minutes and will add defense and experience to this team. I am not saying we are a lock to improve by leaps and bounds next year but if these guys work hard this offseason and we add those two pieces along with maybe a grad transfer we should be much improved.

I'm all for judging the current staff based on the body of work to date, but comments like these are where I don't follow.  The cupboard was not "bare" for Lavin's staff at all.  He inherited a balanced roster of 22/23 year old men who played in the NIT the year before.  He didn't have to recruit anyone for 2010-2011.  His lone recruit did not contribute much overall.  The "real" starting 5 of that team each would have been the best player on last year's squad.   And Lavin was able to parlay Year 1 success into recruiting, although many of the D-Lo class verballed/signed before we took off that season.  Mullin does not have that luxury either.   I give (and gave) Lavin and Dunlap all the credit for winning with Norm's players, but the situations are not comparable in the slightest and they should not be judged against each other.

His cupard was bare also.

I'm all for judging the current staff based on the body of work to date, but comments like these are where I don't follow.  The cupboard was not "bare" for Lavin's staff at all.  He inherited a balanced roster of 22/23 year old men who played in the NIT the year before.  He didn't have to recruit anyone for 2010-2011.  His lone recruit did not contribute much overall.  The "real" starting 5 of that team each would have been the best player on last year's squad.   And Lavin was able to parlay Year 1 success into recruiting, although many of the D-Lo class verballed/signed before we took off that season.  Mullin does not have that luxury either.   I give (and gave) Lavin and Dunlap all the credit for winning with Norm's players, but the situations are not comparable in the slightest and they should not be judged against each other.

Quote from: TONYD3 on January 17, 2017, 09:31:36 AM

His cupard was bare also.

For one, it's patently untrue.  Lavin inherited a loaded team although mostly upperclassmen.   He also did get 5 years.  Only reason he was let go is because our trajectory had fallen way off and no recruiting was getting done.  Nyc coaches hated him for never going to their gyms.   

Mullin and staff should and will get at least 5 seasons.  In addition, you will never compile a staff with more vested interest than Mullin, Abdelmassih etc.   I don't envision our staffs work ethic falling off.  Our lead recruiter is tireless and talented.  They deserve plenty of time to get this rolling, and the most important thing is continuity.

Quote from: Poison on January 16, 2017, 11:34:36 PM

Quote from: MCNPA on January 16, 2017, 09:27:56 PM

I think Mullin needs at least 5 seasons.  We are better than last year and I think will continue to move forward, but coaching turnover isn't helping us. 

At least 5 seasons to achieve what?

Coach has tripled last seasons conference win total with 12 to go.

Do you, or does anybody for that matter, feel that Mullin should be fired after the season?

Let's see how we do over the next two months. If think he should only be replaced if he loses the team. At 3 and 4, it ain't pretty, but it's a little promising. I'm looking for solid improvement more
than anything.

If we can say that by the end of the season that most of our players have improved, I'd feel good about the future.

Quote from: prjohnnies on January 17, 2017, 11:43:34 AM

I'm all for judging the current staff based on the body of work to date, but comments like these are where I don't follow.  The cupboard was not "bare" for Lavin's staff at all.  He inherited a balanced roster of 22/23 year old men who played in the NIT the year before.  He didn't have to recruit anyone for 2010-2011.  His lone recruit did not contribute much overall.  The "real" starting 5 of that team each would have been the best player on last year's squad.   And Lavin was able to parlay Year 1 success into recruiting, although many of the D-Lo class verballed/signed before we took off that season.  Mullin does not have that luxury either.   I give (and gave) Lavin and Dunlap all the credit for winning with Norm's players, but the situations are not comparable in the slightest and they should not be judged against each other.

Quote from: TONYD3 on January 17, 2017, 09:31:36 AM

His cupard was bare also.

For one, it's patently untrue.  Lavin inherited a loaded team although mostly upperclassmen.   He also did get 5 years.  Only reason he was let go is because our trajectory had fallen way off and no recruiting was getting done.  Nyc coaches hated him for never going to their gyms.   

Mullin and staff should and will get at least 5 seasons.  In addition, you will never compile a staff with more vested interest than Mullin, Abdelmassih etc.   I don't envision our staffs work ethic falling off.  Our lead recruiter is tireless and talented.  They deserve plenty of time to get this rolling, and the most important thing is continuity.

+1

Quote from: TONYD3 on January 16, 2017, 02:59:18 PM

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 16, 2017, 01:05:19 PM

Quote from: TONYD3 on January 16, 2017, 09:38:08 AM

The roster is limited. But we should not finish in 9/10 place.

Limited doesn't mean bad. This team could be playing better

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 16, 2017, 01:05:19 PM

Quote from: TONYD3 on January 16, 2017, 09:38:08 AM

The roster is limited. But we should not finish in 9/10 place.

Where should we finish with this roster if not 9/10?

Where should we finish with this roster if not 9/10?

Better coaching 6/7. With a .500 record. Talent is close to NIT level. Way better then Oliver purnel level, where I think we finish.

We have talent but we are a very young team. Who in the big east are we better then if we should finish 6th? I would say DePaul and you can argue for providence maybe but other then that I don't think we are better then any of the other teams. We have some talent but depth size  and experience we do not have.

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 16, 2017, 01:05:19 PM

Quote from: TONYD3 on January 16, 2017, 09:38:08 AM

The roster is limited. But we should not finish in 9/10 place.

Limited doesn't mean bad. This team could be playing better

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 16, 2017, 01:05:19 PM

Quote from: TONYD3 on January 16, 2017, 09:38:08 AM

The roster is limited. But we should not finish in 9/10 place.

Where should we finish with this roster if not 9/10?

Where should we finish with this roster if not 9/10?

Better coaching 6/7. With a .500 record. Talent is close to NIT level. Way better then Oliver purnel level, where I think we finish.

Tony. . . Not just about talent. . .for us its lack of height and I think, more importantly, strength. Our guys are too slight of build. Many of the match ups are just too tough. GT, for instance, is a big team with guys built like men. I don't think they are very good and, with our talent level, we could/should beat them.

Unfortunately it's boys vs. men. Providence handled them last night by playing well and not having to back down. Hell, even their point guard, although only 5'8", is built solidly (185 lbs.).

We've all experienced it. Very different confidence level when facing someone who, although more skilled, does not present an overwhelmingly physical challenge.

Best analogy for me is 2 NYG Super Bowls. I knew they had no chance against the Raven as they were too physically imposing for the Giants (bad matchup) but I thought they had a punchers chance against the Pats especially after not getting pushed around in game 16.