Wow............ Zags Blog article tough to take.

Idiocy persists!

Just because they have no clue what any of the coaches do and don't even know their roles, it doesn't mean they can't be 100% positive of who to fire.

Who on this board thinks they are more qualified than any coach on our bench?  And please provide us your qualifications.

Irrelevant. 
I'm not a contractor, but I can recognize that the cabinets aren't being installed properly or the tiles on the floor aren't being laid flat. 

You don't need to be a basketball coach with 30 years of experience to criticize decisions you perceive as wrong.    I think it's wrong to have Phil at the point and Branch on the bench during the final stretch of the 'Nova game.   Perfectly legitimate criticism.   
Tony's a recruiter, and from what I can tell, a really good one too... Rico has been known as a workout buff, and a skills guy... Martin was never on the bench as a coach until this year, he had been in the front office in the NBA. 
It's not treason to a program that we love to say it may have been wise to hire someone with game planning experience.


Complacency and tolerating inadequacy will doom a program. 
Good programs win because they don't tolerate mistakes.  Doesn't matter if it's a HS program, a college team, or a professional franchise... when you have that attention to detail; that expectation that every cut needs to be crisp, you're going to sprint back on defense every trip, etc   that stuff matters.   And the same scrutiny needs to start with the staff.

Not saying I don't like coach Lavin, I do !   
But some posters are acting like the players and staff are above reproach.   

 
But some posters are acting like the players and staff are above reproach.   

This statement bothers me.  It always has because frankly I was called a Lavin cheerleader or Kool Aid drinker for the longest time.  Still am.  Plus I gave Norm 4 yrs.

Its not a question of being above reproach.  But its hard to argue bad when the good is very obvious in the 'talent' that we have here that we never had before.  And considering most college coaches gets 3-4 full years to get the ship righted I think that is why most people appear in the staff's corner.  Obviously extenuating circumstances come into play.  There are a few posters who are notoriously negative (not saying you).  And they happen to post a lot and draw the ire of the majority of the posters.  Therefore it seems like the board acts as if the staff is above reproach when in reality its not the case at all.

Some felt Norm sucked from his 10th day here.  My prerogative was to give him 4 yrs.  Lavin I wanted to give 3.  Now the problem is last year set us back and his first year he had ridiculous # of ships.  Everyone has different standards.

You're the guy who "questioned the makeup of the staff."  That implies that someone on the staff is unqualified to be there.  That is far different than questioning strategy or critiquing strategy or game plan---or even calling for a coach to be fired for not getting results.  Guys here keep saying that Moe Hicks brings nothing to the table, yet they don't even know what he does.  People question Lavin's credentials or say Chiles sucks.  Really?

Look in the Cinci thread.  You'll see that I questioned the strategy of slowing the game down.  I recognize that I know zero about coaching basketball, other than being an interested fan.  Some guys are full of themselves.

EDIT:  My post was replying to Desco's.  Moose's got in before I sent it.  I should have used the quote function but I get tired of seeing the same posts 12 times because one is being quoted.

The people who complain about everything like Realfan should be ignored. Actually he hurt the anti Norm cause because at the beginning anyone who complained about Normie was looped in with him and other posters like him. Then there were people still defending Norm at the end for reasons known only to them. But lets throw out the Norm years. As far as Lavin goes, I do not see a problem with people questioning some of the things he does or does not do. As long as it is not done in a repetitious, Realfanish manner. People questioning coach's decisions are the reason fan forums and places like WFAN exist. Joe Torre and Tom Coughlin's decisions were questioned, so yeah Lavin is more than fair game and some on this board act as if that is sacrilegious.

You're the guy who "questioned the makeup of the staff."  That implies that someone on the staff is unqualified to be there.  That is far different than questioning strategy or critiquing strategy or game plan---or even calling for a coach to be fired for not getting results.  Guys here keep saying that Moe Hicks brings nothing to the table, yet they don't even know what he does.  People question Lavin's credentials or say Chiles sucks.  Really?

Look in the Cinci thread.  You'll see that I questioned the strategy of slowing the game down.  I recognize that I know zero about coaching basketball, other than being an interested fan.  Some guys are full of themselves.

EDIT:  My post was replying to Desco's.  Moose's got in before I sent it.  I should have used the quote function but I get tired of seeing the same posts 12 times because one is being quoted.

There's a lot we agree on apparently then.  And I'm sorry therefore if my response came off as harsh.  I misinterpreted what you said.   I thought your comment was a more general "don't criticize the staff, under any circumstances, ever"  kind of statement.  Because there's been of a few of those.   Clearly your comment wasn't meant that way.
I agree with you it's a little absurd to put any blame on Moe Hicks; honestly for all I know he's arranging practice schedules, booking hotels, and ordering uniforms.   I mean, what does a DOBO do?  I have no idea, nor do most posters I'm sure.   
Also have a hard time faulting Tony C.  I know other posters have a beef with him, I think it's PMG, but I'm not sure why.

I stick by the "makeup of the staff" point though, not because I think anyones unqualified.   But if you already have a bench coach and a third base coach, you should probably bring in a pitching coach to round out your staff.    The analogy doesn't work perfectly, but that's the point I'm trying to get at.   

And Moose, point taken.  It's dangerous to generalize.   There are a few who find fault in everything the staff does, and few posters who will defend them to the death... but I would say most fall somewhere in the middle.

Quote from: simplyred on January 07, 2013, 04:14:05 PM

You're the guy who "questioned the makeup of the staff."  That implies that someone on the staff is unqualified to be there.  That is far different than questioning strategy or critiquing strategy or game plan---or even calling for a coach to be fired for not getting results.  Guys here keep saying that Moe Hicks brings nothing to the table, yet they don't even know what he does.  People question Lavin's credentials or say Chiles sucks.  Really?

Look in the Cinci thread.  You'll see that I questioned the strategy of slowing the game down.  I recognize that I know zero about coaching basketball, other than being an interested fan.  Some guys are full of themselves.

EDIT:  My post was replying to Desco's.  Moose's got in before I sent it.  I should have used the quote function but I get tired of seeing the same posts 12 times because one is being quoted.

There's a lot we agree on apparently then.  And I'm sorry therefore if my response came off as harsh.  I misinterpreted what you said.   I thought your comment was a more general "don't criticize the staff, under any circumstances, ever"  kind of statement.  Because there's been of a few of those.   Clearly your comment wasn't meant that way.
I agree with you it's a little absurd to put any blame on Moe Hicks; honestly for all I know he's arranging practice schedules, booking hotels, and ordering uniforms.   I mean, what does a DOBO do?  I have no idea, nor do most posters I'm sure.   
Also have a hard time faulting Tony C.  I know other posters have a beef with him, I think it's PMG, but I'm not sure why.

I stick by the "makeup of the staff" point though, not because I think anyones unqualified.   But if you already have a bench coach and a third base coach, you should probably bring in a pitching coach to round out your staff.    The analogy doesn't work perfectly, but that's the point I'm trying to get at.   

And Moose, point taken.  It's dangerous to generalize.   There are a few who find fault in everything the staff does, and few posters who will defend them to the death... but I would say most fall somewhere in the middle.

I have a problem with people who go out of their way to make Lavin look like a bad coach and point out everything he does wrong (in their opinion), but then when we win, give him no credit for it whatsoever. In fact, during the Cincy game, while we were WINNING, someone posted that Lavin was a "terrible in-game coach." It just boggles my mind how someone can say that while we were winning against the #14 team.

And if you look through my posts in prior game threads, I too question some of the things Lavin does (not playing Branch), but in no way does that mean I think he is a bad coach. I don't think he's coached enough games with us to make a definitive statement on his coaching abilities anyway. But I think he's done a good job thus far with what he's working with. 

Quote from: desco80 on January 07, 2013, 05:09:25 PM

Quote from: simplyred on January 07, 2013, 04:14:05 PM

You're the guy who "questioned the makeup of the staff."  That implies that someone on the staff is unqualified to be there.  That is far different than questioning strategy or critiquing strategy or game plan---or even calling for a coach to be fired for not getting results.  Guys here keep saying that Moe Hicks brings nothing to the table, yet they don't even know what he does.  People question Lavin's credentials or say Chiles sucks.  Really?

Look in the Cinci thread.  You'll see that I questioned the strategy of slowing the game down.  I recognize that I know zero about coaching basketball, other than being an interested fan.  Some guys are full of themselves.

EDIT:  My post was replying to Desco's.  Moose's got in before I sent it.  I should have used the quote function but I get tired of seeing the same posts 12 times because one is being quoted.

There's a lot we agree on apparently then.  And I'm sorry therefore if my response came off as harsh.  I misinterpreted what you said.   I thought your comment was a more general "don't criticize the staff, under any circumstances, ever"  kind of statement.  Because there's been of a few of those.   Clearly your comment wasn't meant that way.
I agree with you it's a little absurd to put any blame on Moe Hicks; honestly for all I know he's arranging practice schedules, booking hotels, and ordering uniforms.   I mean, what does a DOBO do?  I have no idea, nor do most posters I'm sure.   
Also have a hard time faulting Tony C.  I know other posters have a beef with him, I think it's PMG, but I'm not sure why.

I stick by the "makeup of the staff" point though, not because I think anyones unqualified.   But if you already have a bench coach and a third base coach, you should probably bring in a pitching coach to round out your staff.    The analogy doesn't work perfectly, but that's the point I'm trying to get at.   

And Moose, point taken.  It's dangerous to generalize.   There are a few who find fault in everything the staff does, and few posters who will defend them to the death... but I would say most fall somewhere in the middle.

I have a problem with people who go out of their way to make Lavin look like a bad coach and point out everything he does wrong (in their opinion), but then when we win, give him no credit for it whatsoever. In fact, during the Cincy game, while we were WINNING, someone posted that Lavin was a "terrible in-game coach." It just boggles my mind how someone can say that while we were winning against the #14 team.

And if you look through my posts in prior game threads, I too question some of the things Lavin does (not playing Branch), but in no way does that mean I think he is a bad coach. I don't think he's coached enough games with us to make a definitive statement on his coaching abilities anyway. But I think he's done a good job thus far with what he's working with.

He's definitely not a terrible in game coach.   He wouldn't have gotten this far if he was. 
Is he a good coach at managing the game?  The Cinnci game doesn't prove that either.