It's Deja vu all over agin

Maybe we've just overrated the level of talent given the players' HS recruiting rankings.  I don't see too many teams struggling with 6 top 100 recruits, including 5 who have played significant minutes at the college level, plus 3 solid upperclassmen role players to round out the rotation.

Quote from: desco80 on January 07, 2014, 11:46:22 AM

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 06, 2014, 06:02:48 PM

Unless we can bring in someone who is better for the program, I think we are lucky to have a coach with Lavin's pedigree.

The program is only better off in-net if they were to hire a person that is better at the job of head coach than the person they currently have employed. 
How long were pondering that nugget of logic?

What I meant was unless we can bring in someone with a proven track record of success at this level, a clear upgrade not just the coaching aspects of things, as opposed to a Hurley or Massielo. To make change just for the sake of it and take a flier on a coach would not be the right move imo. We have been down far to long.   

I disagree.  I think many times when you take a "big name" coach, you're getting used goods.   There was a reason Lavin got fired, a reason Seth Greenberg got fired, etc.   
I don't think its necessarily taking a flier when you hire a coach who hasn't done it yet at this level.   But it all depends on the specifics of the candidate.
I think Maisello, Hurley, and Orlando Antigua are exactly the kind of candidates to call in for interviews and see what they have to offer. 
I'm tired of big names, who in reality aren't even that big of names.    The first attribute I would look for is: "can he coach basketball?"   For too long we've looked for other reasons to hire a coach: does he have ties to the program/ is he the heir apparent to Lou?   Is he a NY guy?   Can he recruit?   

If there is another coaching search we should start with the simple premise of whether or not the guy can take a group of basketball players and make them better than the sum of their individual parts.  Then, you can start to weigh the other positives and negatives each candidate has... but first you have to be absolutely comfortable with the notion of him coaching a basketball practice or game

Someone needs to get mike dunlap on the phone.  With dunlap coach was overcoming his number one and two flaws (coaching and discipline).

I was thinking the same thing.

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 07, 2014, 03:01:50 PM

Quote from: desco80 on January 07, 2014, 11:46:22 AM

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 06, 2014, 06:02:48 PM

Unless we can bring in someone who is better for the program, I think we are lucky to have a coach with Lavin's pedigree.

The program is only better off in-net if they were to hire a person that is better at the job of head coach than the person they currently have employed. 
How long were pondering that nugget of logic?

What I meant was unless we can bring in someone with a proven track record of success at this level, a clear upgrade not just the coaching aspects of things, as opposed to a Hurley or Massielo. To make change just for the sake of it and take a flier on a coach would not be the right move imo. We have been down far to long.   

I disagree.  I think many times when you take a "big name" coach, you're getting used goods.   There was a reason Lavin got fired, a reason Seth Greenberg got fired, etc.   
I don't think its necessarily taking a flier when you hire a coach who hasn't done it yet at this level.   

There is a difference between "big name" coach, and proven commodity because as you said, their is a reason they were fired. Although Lavin was fired because sweet 16's weren't good enough. When I say proven commodity I'm thinking along the lines of a Brad Stevens or Shaka Smart. Big fan of Shaka Smart, would luv to see him at SJU however unlikely it may be.

Quote from: Poison on January 07, 2014, 06:19:05 PM

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 07, 2014, 03:01:50 PM

Quote from: desco80 on January 07, 2014, 11:46:22 AM

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 06, 2014, 06:02:48 PM

Unless we can bring in someone who is better for the program, I think we are lucky to have a coach with Lavin's pedigree.

The program is only better off in-net if they were to hire a person that is better at the job of head coach than the person they currently have employed. 
How long were pondering that nugget of logic?

What I meant was unless we can bring in someone with a proven track record of success at this level, a clear upgrade not just the coaching aspects of things, as opposed to a Hurley or Massielo. To make change just for the sake of it and take a flier on a coach would not be the right move imo. We have been down far to long.   

I don't think we can replace Lavin's recruiting ability easily, but give me a coach over a recruiter any day. I love the guy at Stony Brook. Like the way they play. Just the fact that aren't a pushover anymore is reason enough to give that guy respect.

Very solid coach.

Husky scum.

Quote from: desco80 on January 07, 2014, 09:34:34 PM

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 07, 2014, 03:01:50 PM

Quote from: desco80 on January 07, 2014, 11:46:22 AM

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 06, 2014, 06:02:48 PM

Unless we can bring in someone who is better for the program, I think we are lucky to have a coach with Lavin's pedigree.

The program is only better off in-net if they were to hire a person that is better at the job of head coach than the person they currently have employed. 
How long were pondering that nugget of logic?

What I meant was unless we can bring in someone with a proven track record of success at this level, a clear upgrade not just the coaching aspects of things, as opposed to a Hurley or Massielo. To make change just for the sake of it and take a flier on a coach would not be the right move imo. We have been down far to long.   

I disagree.  I think many times when you take a "big name" coach, you're getting used goods.   There was a reason Lavin got fired, a reason Seth Greenberg got fired, etc.   
I don't think its necessarily taking a flier when you hire a coach who hasn't done it yet at this level.   

There is a difference between "big name" coach, and proven commodity because as you said, their is a reason they were fired. Although Lavin was fired because sweet 16's weren't good enough. When I say proven commodity I'm thinking along the lines of a Brad Stevens or Shaka Smart. Big fan of Shaka Smart, would luv to see him at SJU however unlikely it may be.

Shaka Smart has already turned down the UCLA job. I think it's fair to say SJU isn't really on his radar.

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 07, 2014, 03:01:50 PM

Quote from: desco80 on January 07, 2014, 11:46:22 AM

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 06, 2014, 06:02:48 PM

Unless we can bring in someone who is better for the program, I think we are lucky to have a coach with Lavin's pedigree.

The program is only better off in-net if they were to hire a person that is better at the job of head coach than the person they currently have employed. 
How long were pondering that nugget of logic?

What I meant was unless we can bring in someone with a proven track record of success at this level, a clear upgrade not just the coaching aspects of things, as opposed to a Hurley or Massielo. To make change just for the sake of it and take a flier on a coach would not be the right move imo. We have been down far to long.   

I disagree.  I think many times when you take a "big name" coach, you're getting used goods.   There was a reason Lavin got fired, a reason Seth Greenberg got fired, etc.   
I don't think its necessarily taking a flier when you hire a coach who hasn't done it yet at this level.   But it all depends on the specifics of the candidate.
I think Maisello, Hurley, and Orlando Antigua are exactly the kind of candidates to call in for interviews and see what they have to offer. 
I'm tired of big names, who in reality aren't even that big of names.    The first attribute I would look for is: "can he coach basketball?"   For too long we've looked for other reasons to hire a coach: does he have ties to the program/ is he the heir apparent to Lou?   Is he a NY guy?   Can he recruit?   

If there is another coaching search we should start with the simple premise of whether or not the guy can take a group of basketball players and make them better than the sum of their individual parts.  Then, you can start to weigh the other positives and negatives each candidate has... but first you have to be absolutely comfortable with the notion of him coaching a basketball practice or game

There are no sure things in life, whether you hire a veteran coach (Lavin) or an up and coming coach (Hurley). Although his coaching has rightfully been called into question, Lavin has a very good track record. He made the NCAA Tournament consistently at UCLA and has been one of the very best recruiters for a long time. Does that mean he'll fix SJU?  Not a clue. But people clamoring on this board for an up and comer need only think back a few years ago to when Norm Roberts was the hot assistant in college basketball. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Mike Dunlap isn't coming back.  Everyone needs to realize that.

And as for a coach like Shaka turning down UCLA.  Everyone has their reasons for turning down jobs.

Exactly one month ago St. John's beats lowly Fordham and people begin expecting the world. On Saturday, we lose to Georgetown, bad, and we're looking at new head coaches and examining Lavin's contract. I think we should just all breath in a little here. The last time we lost this bad was to Fordham at Rose Hill and things turned out pretty good after that. I'm not saying that will happen again, but I've seen the incredibly unexpected - positive and negative - with Lavin as head coach.  I'm still waiting and seeing.

Exactly one month ago St. John's beats lowly Fordham and people begin expecting the world. On Saturday, we lose to Georgetown, bad, and we're looking at new head coaches and examining Lavin's contract. I think we should just all breath in a little here. The last time we lost this bad was to Fordham at Rose Hill and things turned out pretty good after that. I'm not saying that will happen again, but I've seen the incredibly unexpected - positive and negative - with Lavin as head coach.  I'm still waiting and seeing.

Most folks from, what I read, are not calling for the axe. Many, including me, are puzzled by recent oddities, like Felix activation, starting walk ons in BE play, extremely poor play and coach speak communication re: lineups and February Renaissance. I believe the majority of us want Lav to do well, can accept two BE losses and are mature enough to know we have many games to go. The issue of staff being passive on the recruiting trail is a fair concern to raise, since it has been referenced often by members of basketball community, although confidentially.

I share the view of a fellow poster that if we can beat Nova & the next two BE opponents, we are in position to get on track. Less than that would be a bit alarm inning  & a harbinger of an NIT outcome. Hopefully we can achieve the stated goal and all this commentary becomes moot. Certainly if we fail to achieve SL's expectation of NCAA T participation, it is appropriate to evaluate our HC's performance.

The last time we lost this bad was to Fordham at Rose Hill and things turned out pretty good after that.

We lost 9 of our last 12 last year, 7 of those by margins of 12, 19, 14, 16, 26, 13 and 18. We were down 30 to Georgetown with 8 minutes left in the second half. We lost to Fordham by 3.

Quote from: desco80 on January 07, 2014, 09:34:34 PM

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 07, 2014, 03:01:50 PM

Quote from: desco80 on January 07, 2014, 11:46:22 AM

Quote from: SJUFAN on January 06, 2014, 06:02:48 PM

Unless we can bring in someone who is better for the program, I think we are lucky to have a coach with Lavin's pedigree.

The program is only better off in-net if they were to hire a person that is better at the job of head coach than the person they currently have employed. 
How long were pondering that nugget of logic?

What I meant was unless we can bring in someone with a proven track record of success at this level, a clear upgrade not just the coaching aspects of things, as opposed to a Hurley or Massielo. To make change just for the sake of it and take a flier on a coach would not be the right move imo. We have been down far to long.   

I disagree.  I think many times when you take a "big name" coach, you're getting used goods.   There was a reason Lavin got fired, a reason Seth Greenberg got fired, etc.   
I don't think its necessarily taking a flier when you hire a coach who hasn't done it yet at this level.   

There is a difference between "big name" coach, and proven commodity because as you said, their is a reason they were fired. Although Lavin was fired because sweet 16's weren't good enough. When I say proven commodity I'm thinking along the lines of a Brad Stevens or Shaka Smart. Big fan of Shaka Smart, would luv to see him at SJU however unlikely it may be.

I definitely see what you're saying.   My point was more to avoid the re-treads.   The guys who have bounced around to a few places but have somewhat of a big name.  I wouldn't pursue Greenberg, or Ben Howland, Billy Gillepsie, Frank Martin if he's fired or Tubby Smith etc.
Some of these guys have name recognition, but is it really for the right reason?   
Obviously a popular, smart, and successful midmajor coach who's proven himself would be ideal.   But I don't think it's a mistake to look at assistants who have earned their stripes and are ready for the jump to the next level.

Foad, you're forgetting our lead at halftime in that epic collapse. Paultzman, I saw somewhere on this board someone suggesting that Antigua or Hurley should take over for Lavin. Yes, Lavin has been doing some odd things on the coaching front, but I'm certainly not ready to question his recruiting his techniques or find a replacement as of yet. As you said, let's see where the next few games take us.

We were pre-season ranked 5th in the big east and were certainly not ranked in the top 25. We lost AT Xavier and AT Georgetown, we have some games after Nova that we should be very competitive in. Let's take it one-by-one, game by game. I am NOT ready to write off this season.

Foad, you're forgetting our lead at halftime in that epic collapse.

I'm not forgetting anything. Perhaps you are?

In the ND away game last year SJ had a 4 point half time lead, scored 14 points in the second half, and lost by 26 on national television, 66-40, in a game where two players were suspended for fighting. It was among the most embarrassing displays I've ever seen.

Two years ago SJ lost at home to Northeastern by 14. Later that season a four game losing streak - Syracuse by 25, Cincinnati by 22, Georgetown by 10 - culminated in a loss to Seton Hall by 30.

Explain to me how losing to Fordham by 3 is worse than any of that.

   That picture of Lavin cracks me up.

Foad, you're forgetting our lead at halftime in that epic collapse. Paultzman, I saw somewhere on this board someone suggesting that Antigua or Hurley should take over for Lavin. Yes, Lavin has been doing some odd things on the coaching front, but I'm certainly not ready to question his recruiting his techniques or find a replacement as of yet. As you said, let's see where the next few games take us.

We were pre-season ranked 5th in the big east and were certainly not ranked in the top 25. We lost AT Xavier and AT Georgetown, we have some games after Nova that we should be very competitive in. Let's take it one-by-one, game by game. I am NOT ready to write off this season.

Steve, please reread posts. I never said that. Thanks

Coach is taking the heat on JJ due to his own actions.  He STARTED Balahoo and Rudy (started a walkon in a tournament game last season as well)  in a huge game against Georgetown.  If we only suffered a simple embarrassing defeat at Georgetown and Hollywood started a conventional lineup, the outrage on the board would have been muted with virtually no "get rid of Lavin" rumblings.

My own personal posting style is to not pass judgment on a coaches performance till end of season.  I learned that from Tisch and Mara.  But I'm not feeling sorry for Lavin.  He brought this upon himself.

I have never considered Wooden and UCLA all that great. Very good sure, but there is one important fact that people never want to bring up, or they simply don't know. That was when certain special teams didn't have to play that many games on neutral courts. How many times did I watch the West Regional Championship being played at Pauley Pavilion? How many times did I have to watch Weber State, Long Beach State, and other schools play for the West Regional Championship in front of a pro- UCLA crowd? I have always maintained that if they played all of their tournament games on neutral courts, they would not have been so successful. Sure they would have won games and the championship, but not as often. Duke and North Carolina also got special treatment. Why? The networks wanted teams like UCLA, Duke, North Carolina in the Final Four, not the Weber States, Long Beach States, Pennsylvanias, or the Princetons of college basketball. I remember one year, St. John's played Wichita State on a neutral court, and then had to play Ray Meyer"s DePaul team at DePaul, while in the same tournament, Syracuse played the first two rounds on their own court. This is what I remember. This is why I have never sung praises about Wooden, UCLA, Duke, or North Carolina and their games and championships in college basketball, since they were always given an easy road back then. Back then, the George Masons, Butlers  and St. Mary's would have been forced to play tournament games in front of hostile crowds.

Paultz, I'm sorry! You're probably  the most rational guy on here, I was talking generally and was definitely not referencing you specifically. I wrote your name, because I was referring to what I have been seeing said. 

And I am definitely not talking about  which Lavin era loss was the worst. Focusing on the fact that we "lost by 3" misses the point by a mile.  Regardless, I brought up that Fordham game because I would not be surprised if we turned it around.  Lavin has proven that he could do it before (although admittedly with Dunlap by his side) and it could happen again with this talent.

Paultz, I'm sorry! You're probably  the most rational guy on here, I was talking generally and was definitely not referencing you specifically. I wrote your name, because I was referring to what I have been seeing said. 

And I am definitely not talking about  which Lavin era loss was the worst. Focusing on the fact that we "lost by 3" misses the point by a mile.  Regardless, I brought up that Fordham game because I would not be surprised if we turned it around.  Lavin has proven that he could do it before (although admittedly with Dunlap by his side) and it could happen again with this talent.

Thanks for response Steve.