Game 8: @ Providence - 4:30p Sat Dec 3 Check Local Listings

[RhowdyRam02]

We've got people on here saying that we have no plays but most of those same posters are saying that Dan micromanages the team and doesn't let them just play. Well which is it? It can't be both.

Oddly enough...I think that might be the case exactly?

- Do you think the team looks micro-managed? Kinda 'looks' that way sometimes during games....
- Does it look like they are running plays? Kinda 'doesn't' look that way during games...

So if they're not running plays then what is he doing when he's micromanaging?

[NYGFan_Section208]

Kuran's offensive numbers notwithstanding, it's been shown that he struggles as a 2 way player. He has been horrible defensively this year, which negates any potential averaging of a double double (which I don't think will happen).

Both PC runs in the 2nd half yesterday were sparked by crucial defensive breakdowns by KI. I'm not sure why the focus is on his offensive production when he has certainly allowed way more points than he has contributed. But also, Dan needs to recognize this. He shouldn't have seen the floor in the 2nd half yesterday with the way he was defending.

It's means nothing if you're 6'9 and a sieve on the defensive end. This is the area that I thought would improve under Hurley, but it clearly hasn't. Stan, while smaller, is so disruptive and active defensively, I'd rather give up the height for someone who alters the way opponents attack us.

FWIW...I thought overall D actually looked a bit better yesterday. It wasn't 40 minutes and 94' of heck (and recognize the gaps noted above)...but at least there seemed to be some ball pressure instead of just watching them bring the ball up from 10-15' away. That seems like a plus.

[NYGFan_Section208]

We've got people on here saying that we have no plays but most of those same posters are saying that Dan micromanages the team and doesn't let them just play. Well which is it? It can't be both.

Oddly enough...I think that might be the case exactly?

- Do you think the team looks micro-managed? Kinda 'looks' that way sometimes during games....
- Does it look like they are running plays? Kinda 'doesn't' look that way during games...

So if they're not running plays then what is he doing when he's micromanaging?

Awesome question. All I can say is, it doesn't often "look like" they're running plays to me... Maybe I don't know what a play looks like (I never claimed to be the sharpest bulb in the shed)...does it look like they're running plays to you?

[Seawrightspostgame]

This team doesn't execute and hasn't executed anything in 5 years. Thats why the last 5 minutes of every game are like hell.

Every game I look up and there is 5 minutes and I know it will take a miracle for us to score and a miracle for us to stop someone from scoring.

These Rams are exposed. Probably doesn't even take more than 6 hours of tape to figure it out. There is probably a pay service that has the scouting report on Rhody.

I'm beating the Berry drum. Not that he is a band aid or a fix for us. I just think he brings 5 things to the table that none of the guys playing do.

Not disagreeing with you, but what are the 5 things that Berry brings? And I'm not sure you meant "none of the guys playing do", did you?
I saw starters that should not be hearing footsteps behind them for playing time. Robinson, Akele and Thompson played tough. They looked at times like they wanted the game more than some of our starters. Cooley made a starting line up move with Isaiah Jackson for a big game like this that can be judged in hindsight but fact is he made it. Dan is very loyal to his players, a great quality, but can it be to a fault at times? He will sub playing time, but rarely will he change starters. It might be time for a starting line up change, maybe if only for the second half of a game to start with.
ODU and Houston are important upcoming games for this team, maybe now more than ever.

Offensive rebounding is an incredible thing to break the other teams back and actually score points. Berry is actually taller. He has a soft touch and natural offensive mindset. His weight will be huge in setting screens and wearing on the other team. Even on defense all any bigs do when their guy has the ball is put their hands straight up. Berry does that well and is tall enough to actually bother the shot. Martin could patrol behind him and block those shots. Easier than blocking on the ball for a good leaper like Martin. Not saying he saves the day. Just thinking 10-12 minutes for him could give the team 3 more points.

[RhodeIslandRams]

On EC taking that last shot...

My guess is that Hurley wanted to give EC the chance to win (tie) a game because his confidence is shot, and that the coach KNEW it was a big gamble, but thought if he gave it to another player for the first time ever, EC might lose whatever confidence he has left.

At the time I thought it was a terrible gamble...but now...not as sure because of this:

Do you guys remember the articles about EC's recovery...where he said he was so scared and had no trust or even understanding of the operation and rehab needed? I think he even said he was afraid he'd never walk again, or something like that. It struck me as very very odd when I read it.

I think he's a GREAT kid who is, at this moment, a monumental head case (I don't mean that in a mean way). I think Hurley being so close to EC, KNOWS he is this fragile, and knew the fastest way back to strong confidence was to have EC hit that big shot.

I'm guessing Hurley now feels he gave EC every chance, and he probably talked with EC about letting other players take the big shots from now on until the 'old' EC is back.

Sad part is, EC didn't even look like he WANTED to take a big shot in a big game. I hope he comes back for our sake and his.

[Billyboy78]

Disagree wholeheartedly, Hurley changed the culture of the program. It's hard to see the change unless you're intimately involved with it, but it was in shambles when Baron left. Academics, discipline, everything. It was awful. Hurley built it back up and he'll always have my respect because of that. We're in a much better place structurally because of him, regardless of our losses to Providence and Valpo this week

Changed the "culture" from what, Will? Do you think the culture was what Baron created? He destroyed the culture of this team. Hurley is trying to bring the culture back to where it was, prior to ED. But don't kid yourself thinking the culture of URI basketball was anything other than winning. The culture of URI basketball started before 2000. Long before.

Don't 'old timer' me, I know URI basketball history. I've read Woodward's book on the history of the program and know more than a few old timers. I think you're misunderstanding culture and how it exists in a college basketball program. It can be ephemeral if not carried over from class to class, passed down from upperclassmen to underclassmen. That collective transmission of values and norms of behavior is extremely difficult to maintain when players come and go yearly. Sure, a program can have a proud history of winning and the infrastructure (practice facilities, loyal fanbase, etc) but if the players aren't taught discipline, work ethic, accountability, and respect by the coaches and supporting staff then a program will never win. Culture exists in the locker room, and unless you're intimately involved in the program it's hard to gauge.

If I told you some of the shenanigans that went on during my time at URI - in the dorms, in the locker room - and the repercussions (or lack thereof) of that behavior, you'd be shocked. The ambivalence of the coaching staff to discipline issues, player development, and accountability at some points was shocking. You'll never hear me anoint Coach Hurley the new Greg Popovich, but he's changed the culture of the locker room and URI's basketball program is in a much better place. Hope that sheds some light on what I mean.

We'd LOVE to hear some stories, Will!

[ramster]

Disagree wholeheartedly, Hurley changed the culture of the program. It's hard to see the change unless you're intimately involved with it, but it was in shambles when Baron left. Academics, discipline, everything. It was awful. Hurley built it back up and he'll always have my respect because of that. We're in a much better place structurally because of him, regardless of our losses to Providence and Valpo this week

Changed the "culture" from what, Will? Do you think the culture was what Baron created? He destroyed the culture of this team. Hurley is trying to bring the culture back to where it was, prior to ED. But don't kid yourself thinking the culture of URI basketball was anything other than winning. The culture of URI basketball started before 2000. Long before.

Don't 'old timer' me, I know URI basketball history. I've read Woodward's book on the history of the program and know more than a few old timers. I think you're misunderstanding culture and how it exists in a college basketball program. It can be ephemeral if not carried over from class to class, passed down from upperclassmen to underclassmen. That collective transmission of values and norms of behavior is extremely difficult to maintain when players come and go yearly. Sure, a program can have a proud history of winning and the infrastructure (practice facilities, loyal fanbase, etc) but if the players aren't taught discipline, work ethic, accountability, and respect by the coaches and supporting staff then a program will never win. Culture exists in the locker room, and unless you're intimately involved in the program it's hard to gauge.

If I told you some of the shenanigans that went on during my time at URI - in the dorms, in the locker room - and the repercussions (or lack thereof) of that behavior, you'd be shocked. The ambivalence of the coaching staff to discipline issues, player development, and accountability at some points was shocking. You'll never hear me anoint Coach Hurley the new Greg Popovich, but he's changed the culture of the locker room and URI's basketball program is in a much better place. Hope that sheds some light on what I mean.

Thank you for this post. Your description of the pre-Hurley environment and the vast differences between the two also belongs in the thread that was started and Titled "Jim Baron 2.0", that was created following the PC game.

[RF1]

I think Baron's last few years were much different than his beginning in Kingston. He was under increased pressure to win and knew it. He recruited some bad apples toward the end and let things get out of hand. He looked the other way as he was desperate to win and keep his job.

[The Dude]

There are many many questions surrounding this team... Some thoughts off the top of my bald head:

-Dan needs to get KI and EC back on track. Dan said as much in his post-game press conference and he said it is on him. I don't know how you do this, but collectively they need to figure it out. We need those two.
-Where is the stingy defense? PC shot 46% from the field and 44% from three. Part of that was Cartwright going 4-6 from three. There was no expectation he would do that.
-We had several opportunities to get separation from PC but just couldn't execute when it counted. If we were playing well we would have grown that 7-point lead to double-digits and we would have been able to handle PC's run in the final minutes.
-Why are we getting in these possession by possession slogs? We are 292nd in the country in possessions per game? Why? Where is the up tempo, get out and run, attack, put pressure on the opponent style that was discussed during the pre-season. What is preventing us from playing that style of basketball? When you play this style in close games you need to be able to make plays. We just don't have enough guys that can make plays right now.


We also need to look at the other side of the coin here. We need to have a little perspective.

-We sit at 5-3 with exactly zero of those losses considered bad losses in the eyes of any selection committee.
-In those 3 losses, two of our best players have had very little impact (KI and EC). There is no doubt in my mind we are sitting at 7-1 if those two play as anticipated. There is a very good chance that these guys will get it figured out by the start of A10 play, if not sooner. They are just too talented for the poor play to continue
-I'm not overlooking anyone, but we have a real opportunity the next six games before we hit the road for a tough battle against Dayton. Houston will be tough on the road but we have an opportunity to go 5-1 or even 6-0 if we can finally put it all together and play to our potential against Houston. If you told me at the start of the season that by game 14 we would be 10-4 or 11-3, with a solid win over Cincinnati, I'd tell you it looks like we are on-track.
-Even with last night's loss, our Expected RPI will remain hovering around 30. Maintain that and we are in the tourney.

I'm not dismissing our issues, we have plenty of them. We are frustrated, we are not playing to our potential, but we are still sitting in an enviable position. The reality is that we should still like our team and our chances over anyone else in the A10.

Interesting perspective.
Here's my opinion on things:

- I feel Kuran Iverson has been overhyped from day 1. I don't feel he has ever been on track to be a good player or emerged to play up to his potential. I feel it's definitely a mental thing. I think he does well against much weaker opponents, but that's about it.
- I don't feel we've ever been great at holding a lead against tough or even evenly matched opponents. Leads under 15pts in rivalry games are rarely safe in my opinion. There was nothing to lead me to believe they would hold the 7 point lead in the second half. The team let Belmont back into the game at home when they had a huge lead.
- I feel the team definitely has the talent to play with just about any team. In my opinion, there are a bunch of guys that have the ability to make big plays if they are given the opportunity. Thompson, Robinson, & Akele could really be positive contributors on this team if they saw more minutes. Thompson, Robinson, & Akele have shown me they have the mental toughness to play with the big boys. In the first half of the PC game, we had 12 points from people on our bench. Guess how many points we had from our bench by the end of the game? 12. Thompson and Robinson had their minutes cuts in nearly in half in the 2nd half. Akele played 2 fewer minutes. Zero (0) points came from the bench in the 2nd half. Coincidence? Doubt it.
- In my opinion, when you start players who just aren't performing well game after game, other players notice. Leaders need to lead by example. EC and KI need to show up with some tenacity every time they set foot on the floor. I'm not seeing if from them. I'm seeing Sophomores working harder and when the game is on the line, their on the bench. This is a bad example to set as a coach, in my opinion. Guys notice. It's demoralizing for players who sit on the bench to have to sit there knowing they could be doing better than the guys on the floor. It can kill a team from the inside out. This team needs smart guys on the floor that will scratch and claw during every possession. Terrell, Jarvis, Hassan, Akele, and Thompson would be my starters until EC can show me he's ready to play again. I would keep KI permanently on the bench...meaning he should come off the bench to play and not be a starter again. I just don't think he has the mental side of the game down.
- I feel Dan has been overhyped from day 1. I feel Dan is a better coach than the one we had in some aspects, BUT if you're a coach that over 4 - 5 years is not learning from your mistakes, you're no better than the one that was fired. He starts guys that don't work as hard as some of the guys on the bench, in my opinion. He isn't good at drawing up late game plays when the team desperately needs a basket (this is part of the 1st issue as well). I have a ton of respect for Dan. I think this team will get better as the year goes on, only if Dan starts making some tough decisions, starting with EC and Iverson going back to the bench.

I'm certainly am not holding out any hope that the team will be making the NCAA tournament. Much like a business, the example has to be set from the top down. In the words of Dennis Green, "they are who were thought they were...and we let them off the hook."

Dude,
Just a comment on your first statement.
I think the biggest win in the Hurley Era came against Nationally Ranked Cincinnati.
If you said I could have only 1 win between Cincinnati, Valparaiso and PC I would have picked Cincinnati because they are arguably the best of the 3 teams, favored to win the AAC and best shot at making the NCAA Tourney of the 3 teams, PLUS, (and this is HUUUUGGEEE), it got us the opportunity to play #1 Ranked Duke vs playing Penn State. I would have been sick if I had been at the Mohegan on Sunday to watch Penn State - URI at 3:30pm in the game AFTER Duke would have played Cincinnati at 1pm
In that game, which I consider the biggest ever for Hurley, Iverson had a Double-Double (and Kyle Washington had one for Cincinnati):
- 15 points, 2nd highest to EC's 18
- 5-10 FG, 5-6 FT
- 10 rebounds, team high and tied for game high with Kyle Washington
- 5 assists to lead URI and tied with Caupain for game high.
- 1 steal, 1 block and 1 turnover and fouls
- Played 33 minutes

True. He had a good game against Cincy. No doubt. I agree with your statements. I still feel he struggles against good teams with opponents of similar size and skill. There are exceptions. Last year he did well against Maryland and St. Joe's (one game) who were tough opponents. This year he has done well against Cincy. So, when I say "I think he does well against much weaker opponents, but that's about it", I mean for the majority of tough games. He has his moments. It would be nice to see more performances from him that resemble those games.

[Joe]

I don't think we should let our disappointment from the last two games dictate our outlook at the rest of the season. We're still the best team we've had in years, and having two tough, close losses WITHOUT the help of two CRITICAL players isn't going to change the fact that we'll be at the pinnacle of the A10 and most likely making the tournament.

[The Dude]

- I feel Kuran Iverson has been overhyped from day 1. I don't feel he has ever been on track to be a good player or emerged to play up to his potential. I feel it's definitely a mental thing. I think he does well against much weaker opponents, but that's about it.

Really? He averaged 10 and 7 last season. Did you expect him to average a double-double? We all believe he needs to play better. Interestingly, he is still averaging 9 and 6 in 22 minutes. I think he does have the potential to average close to a double-double if he and Dan can figure things out.

Forget, for just 30 seconds, how pissed off you are about the last two losses... If someone came up to you and said for this season you can swap this Rhody team for any other team in the A10, or you can keep your current team, what would you do? Would you take Dayton and Archie Miller? Hard for me to argue with that if you did. But are they as good as they have been in past years? Not sure. Would you swap with VCU? A team that you don't know which team will show up and that got smashed by Illinois? Would you take Davidson? Good team, good coach... but haven't really beaten anyone yet this season and got smoked by Clemson. Any other team catch your eye as winning the A10?

For me, despite the legitimate concerns and despite the two-game losing streak I'll take my chances with Dan and this Rhody Ram team to win the A10.

Forgive me if I'm a little confused. Upset? Projecting?

I thought there was a strong chance they would lose the last two games. I've sat through 30+ years of Rhody Football. It would take much more than two losses to get a guy like me upset. I mean don't get me wrong, if I had wasted money on a ticket for the PC game I would be a bit disappointed. Quite the far reaching assumption though.

Averages don't always tell the full story. You know that...2pts against Duke, 4pts against Valpo, and 3pts against PC. There's a difference between dropping 13, 14, 15+ points on teams like Dartmouth, Marist, Brown, etc...that makes a person's average 10 points a game than a person who actually averages 8 - 12 points in just about every game. He did have a good game against Cincy though.

Swapping teams? It's alright if you don't agree with my sentiments RhodyJay.

[rambone 78]

Dan's loyalty to EC is clearly hurting the team......KI is hurting the team.......

Again, remember Baron always favored his 'Seenyas" and upperclassmen at the expense of younger, more talented players, who didn't get the chance to develop with enough actual game action?

Again, Dan will come around at some point and play the younger guys [and SR], but the horse has left the barn....with 2 losses that very possibly could have been avoided.....

[RoadyJay]

- I feel Kuran Iverson has been overhyped from day 1. I don't feel he has ever been on track to be a good player or emerged to play up to his potential. I feel it's definitely a mental thing. I think he does well against much weaker opponents, but that's about it.

Really? He averaged 10 and 7 last season. Did you expect him to average a double-double? We all believe he needs to play better. Interestingly, he is still averaging 9 and 6 in 22 minutes. I think he does have the potential to average close to a double-double if he and Dan can figure things out.

Forget, for just 30 seconds, how pissed off you are about the last two losses... If someone came up to you and said for this season you can swap this Rhody team for any other team in the A10, or you can keep your current team, what would you do? Would you take Dayton and Archie Miller? Hard for me to argue with that if you did. But are they as good as they have been in past years? Not sure. Would you swap with VCU? A team that you don't know which team will show up and that got smashed by Illinois? Would you take Davidson? Good team, good coach... but haven't really beaten anyone yet this season and got smoked by Clemson. Any other team catch your eye as winning the A10?

For me, despite the legitimate concerns and despite the two-game losing streak I'll take my chances with Dan and this Rhody Ram team to win the A10.

Forgive me if I'm a little confused. Upset? Projecting?

I thought there was a strong chance they would lose the last two games. I've sat through 30+ years of Rhody Football. It would take much more than two losses to get a guy like me upset. I mean don't get me wrong, if I had wasted money on a ticket for the PC game I would be a bit disappointed. Quite the far reaching assumption though.

Averages don't always tell the full story. You know that...2pts against Duke, 4pts against Valpo, and 3pts against PC. There's a difference between dropping 13, 14, 15+ points on teams like Dartmouth, Marist, Brown, etc...that makes a person's average 10 points a game than a person who actually averages 8 - 12 points in just about every game. He did have a good game against Cincy though.

Swapping teams? It's alright if you don't agree with my sentiments RhodyJay.

The second part was really a theoretical question for everyone. Point being, despite our warts, I'm going with the team in Kingston to win the A10.

[RoadyJay]

Dan's loyalty to EC is clearly hurting the team......KI is hurting the team.......

Again, remember Baron always favored his 'Seenyas" and upperclassmen at the expense of younger, more talented players, who didn't get the chance to develop with enough actual game action?

Again, Dan will come around at some point and play the younger guys [and SR], but the horse has left the barn....with 2 losses that very possibly could have been avoided.....

So you want to sit EC, a guy who has been one of the best players in the A10? No one thinks he is playing with much confidence right now but I don't think benching him will help.

KI might be on a shorter leash, but I would still tend to let them both work through it now and regain their confidence for conference play, if not much sooner than that.

I'm not abandoning either one of these guys.

[rodfromcranston]

The operative words are "has been....."
If EC doesn't score or can;t score, there's not much in his game to justify
keeping him in the starting lineup. He certainly doesn't defend or pass well.
He has,even at his best, turned the ball over more than anyone in the team.
I think Thompson brings a better hope of all around results, at this time.
Nobody is abandoning anyone, but there comes a time when
the team is more important than the individual's hurt ego.
Someone said Dan wanted EC to take the shot yesterday to
give him confidence.
You don't gamble on losing to PC to defer to a player's confidence.
That said, I don't think that was the case, or at least I hope it wasn't.

[rambone 78]

Take the shot sure, but THAT shot? EC has had trouble hitting wide open 3's for the last few games......much less taking fall away 25 footers...he's not Jimmy B you know.....

RJ, I'm not saying abandon him, of course not...just play him less....I doubt he's lighting things up at practice right now either.....same for Iverson.

We have 2, count 'em 2, guys playing well right now.....and our bench isn't getting the chance to make up for the other's struggles.....

[NYGFan_Section208]

I don't think making them earn PT is abandoning those two guys.
Not making them earn PT might be abandoning 'the rest' of them?

Don't know if it's feasible to do something like...might just be a fan gut reaction...
Hopefully, they're just both in a temporary spot that's just a bad memory a week or so from now.

[rambone 78]

Bad time to be in a bad spot....waking up against Holy Cross is not my idea of waking up.....

Dan and EC are supposed to be very close...that closeness might be at the expense of the rest of the team.....hopefully there's no resentment brewing....some of these guys can't be happy the way they are being used...or not used.....

[RoadyJay]

I just can't see Dan substantially dimishing EC's playing time right now. I doubt many coaches would. He has earned the right to play through it. It literally could take 2-3 shots going in for him to regain his confidence. This is assuming it's nothing physical for which there has been no indication that this is the case.

[rambone 78]

His whole game is off RJ....not just his shooting.....something is bothering him...and he shouldn't be out there if it is.......

Play the guys who are playing the best....not rocket science.....

[ramster]

Bad time to be in a bad spot....waking up against Holy Cross is not my idea of waking up.....

Dan and EC are supposed to be very close...that closeness might be at the expense of the rest of the team.....hopefully there's no resentment brewing....some of these guys can't be happy the way they are being used...or not used.....

There is not resentment brewing towards EC.

[TruePoint]

I think it is the injury that is effecting him, but I don't think it's a pain or function issue (if it is then I just feel even worse for him, but it didn't look like an issue against weak competition early in the year and Hurley has insinuated it's more mental). Getting to the point where you fully 100% trust your body after it fails you in such a horrific and gruesome way is not easy. It's building that trust in his knee that is going to unlock his game. I think it's easier to trust it against Dartmouth or Marist because you don't have to be at full throttle to compete against those teams. But when you have to go to that last gear against other world class athletes, even a hint of doubt will put you at a severe disadvantage. I don't think it's a basketball-related thing that he is struggling with his confidence about (i.e., his shot or his ball handling or what have you), so it's hard to be mad at him about it. It's totally understandable to me, it just sucks watching it. It sucks watching him struggle on a personal level and it sucks watching the impact it is having on our season.

[rambone 78]

As bad as Hurley's late game coaching is, I agree we probably would have won both games if EC was 100% mentally and physically.....as long as they wouldn't have come down to the last minute...we can't win those games......fact

[Rhody83]

I have read everyone's post. Two thoughts:
Read Will's first post - this team doesn't scare anyone offensively; a lack of outside shooters makes it easy to sag off them.
They are not a good offensive team.

Watch Hurley's press conference and then watch Cooley's. What a difference. Dan makes excuses (the distractions around the PC game) and is still searching for how to get the most out of KI who he has had for 3 years and is a Sr. Time is running out Dan.
Cooley talks about how they focus on developing a program. How upperclassmen teach the underclassmen. A system that continues.
One of them knows how to run a D1 program.

[rambone 78]

83, our guys are suited to a faster pace...pressure, disrupt, get out and run.....need depth to do it though....I guess maybe Dan thinks not enough guys are ready to play this style that he promised he would?

Whatever, slow ball equals losses against better teams almost all the time, since we don't have the clutch shooters needed...and our coach can't seem to run plays to get them good shots....

Anyway, I think I and many others on here have worn this theme out for now....everyone by now knows what the problems are and what's needed to solve them......someday it might happen.....someday

[josephski]

Disagree wholeheartedly, Hurley changed the culture of the program. It's hard to see the change unless you're intimately involved with it, but it was in shambles when Baron left. Academics, discipline, everything. It was awful. Hurley built it back up and he'll always have my respect because of that. We're in a much better place structurally because of him, regardless of our losses to Providence and Valpo this week

Changed the "culture" from what, Will? Do you think the culture was what Baron created? He destroyed the culture of this team. Hurley is trying to bring the culture back to where it was, prior to ED. But don't kid yourself thinking the culture of URI basketball was anything other than winning. The culture of URI basketball started before 2000. Long before.

Don't 'old timer' me, I know URI basketball history. I've read Woodward's book on the history of the program and know more than a few old timers. I think you're misunderstanding culture and how it exists in a college basketball program. It can be ephemeral if not carried over from class to class, passed down from upperclassmen to underclassmen. That collective transmission of values and norms of behavior is extremely difficult to maintain when players come and go yearly. Sure, a program can have a proud history of winning and the infrastructure (practice facilities, loyal fanbase, etc) but if the players aren't taught discipline, work ethic, accountability, and respect by the coaches and supporting staff then a program will never win. Culture exists in the locker room, and unless you're intimately involved in the program it's hard to gauge.

If I told you some of the shenanigans that went on during my time at URI - in the dorms, in the locker room - and the repercussions (or lack thereof) of that behavior, you'd be shocked. The ambivalence of the coaching staff to discipline issues, player development, and accountability at some points was shocking. You'll never hear me anoint Coach Hurley the new Greg Popovich, but he's changed the culture of the locker room and URI's basketball program is in a much better place. Hope that sheds some light on what I mean.

Sorry but as someone else said this isn't the boy scouts. It's great that Hurley has changed the culture for the better but winning games and making the NCAA tournament is ultimately what's most important. What goes on behind closed doors really doesn't matter to me as long as we're not committing NCAA violations. Just give me a basketball program that can win games and make the tournament.

I felt the same way when everyone was going on and on about how great it is Berry has lost so much weight. Yes it's nice to see him lose weight but we're not a weight loss program, we're a basketball team. If Berry never contributes on the court then I really don't care how much weight he lost because in the end it's a wasted scholarship.

Right now I don't see us becoming a legit basketball program contending for a spot in the NCAA tournament year in and year out. I see a very good team that took four years to put together and should make the NCAA tournament. Then Hurley will bring in another solid recruiting class and we'll wait 3-4 years to hopefully make the tournament again.

Even though I believe we'll still make the tournament it's just hard to feel the same excitement I had going into this season. I look at Hurley saying he wants to turn our program into a program like Gonzaga the same way I look at what he said about playing a fast paced game now that he has depth. It sounds good and he's telling the fans what we want to hear but in the end he won't be able to back up his word.

[TruePoint]

I have read everyone's post. Two thoughts:
Read Will's first post - this team doesn't scare anyone offensively; a lack of outside shooters makes it easy to sag off them.
They are not a good offensive team.

Watch Hurley's press conference and then watch Cooley's. What a difference. Dan makes excuses (the distractions around the PC game) and is still searching for how to get the most out of KI who he has had for 3 years and is a Sr. Time is running out Dan.
Cooley talks about how they focus on developing a program. How upperclassmen teach the underclassmen. A system that continues.
One of them knows how to run a D1 program.

I think it's fair to send some criticism Hurley's way and I think he deserves some for the basketball strategy. I've said as much, as have other posters. But I actually think saying Dan doesn't know how to run a program is unfair and just straight wrong. He has done an excellent job with the "program" part of his job. Excellent. But for everything he has done in terms of building and running the program, a lot of that is undercut by the fact that when the lights come on he seems content to just roll the balls out and see what happens.

To be a little more specific about this criticism, he's gotten really good basketball players to come here, he's got them in great shape, he's got them more of the support off the floor they need to compete at a high level, he's got them to buy into the program and to buy into being student athletes and he's created an atmosphere around the program of family that we should all be proud of. But all of that is in support of the actual goal of winning actual games and maximizing outcomes on the floor. I get having an identity and a philosophy, but I don't think from game to game we plan well and adapt our strategy to take away things the opponent does well and attack things they don't do well. And I also think on a possession by possession basis on offense, we do not do a lot of things in terms of sets and actions that are designed to make things easier for our guys and free them up for high percentage scoring chances. We do have actions that we run that are essentially "base" offenses, but we don't have a ton of derivatives off of those meant to exploit the ways teams can cheat to stop our basic actions, and we don't have a lot of "specials" or set pieces that good coaches go to (or even draw up on the fly) in specific situations to beat specific defenses.

I just think on some level it is a disservice to the players (putting aside fans) to do all the things I mentioned above to put them in a position to be a special program and then take such a simplistic and dumbed down approach to the Xs and Os part of game (particularly on offense). And if you're going to take that approach or you're just limited in what you're able to install because of your own limited ability with that part of the game, at least play a style that gives you a chance to exploit your athleticism advantage and get out and run - which Hurley seems to realize they SHOULD do because he talks about it, but we just never actually do it in a sustained way. Ideally, though, they'd find a sage coaching veteran with a mind for the technical parts of basketball and put that person on the staff and make them essentially the VP of Xs and Os even if that person doesn't have a pipeline to elite high school players. I hope he realizes how important this part of the game is before it's too late. (And honestly for the sake of his own career, he would benefit a lot from having a guy like that around who he could learn from so that he can take the next step as a coach - he's got all the other tools, IMO.)

[section(105)]

......yes TP; fully agree 1000% with all that you state......the piece that for me is still missing, as you state is the "VP of X and Os...."Unfortunately I just don't see Dan eating a piece of humble pie to go to that staff change/addition.....for me it appears he runs an authorative management style rather than a participatory style.....Yes, his career success will ultimately be judged on wins, losses, and Dance appearances; that will be here or somewhere else as the result of overwhelming talent, and/or development of team basketball game strategy and execution/adjustment of game planning.....how he gets there is the unanswered question at this point ......

[ramster]

So TP, to summarize:
Strengths:
- Program part of job - Excellent
- Recruiting - He has gotten very good players to come here
- Conditioning and strength - Players are in great shape
- Program - He has gotten all players to buy in
- Academics - He has gotten all players to be student athletes
- Morale - He as created atmosphere around the program of family that we should all be proud of

Opportunities:
- Lights come on he just rolls the balls out
- Does not plan well and adapt a strategy to take away things the opponent does well and attack things they do not do well
- Do not do a lot of sets and actions to make things easier for our guys
- Base offense are run. Not a lot of derivatives to exploit ways teams cheat to stop our basic actions
- Not a lot of "specials" or set pieces that good Coaches go to in specific situations to beat specific defenses
- Uses a dumbed down approach
- Limited to what he is able to install because of his own limited ability with that part of the game

Recommendation:
- Find a sage coaching veteran with a mind for the technical parts of basketball
- Put that person in as the VP of X's and O's

Have I captured it correctly?

On strengths, I think you captured and I agree with all of them. However, I don't think you would get agreement on all of the strengths you listed. I have read some not happy with recruiting, comparing more to the Baron level of recruits this past week. Also his inability to recruit Big Men and have an abundance of Guards has been mentioned by posters

On Opportunities - wow........
I disagree and here is why:
- Dan was a Point Guard. He grew up driving the offense. He learned from his Dad, other Coaches, from playing the game himself. He is very, very knowledgeable
- The "specials", derivatives, etc. I simply do not know what is in the playbook. Anything I say would be pure guessing. It would be interesting to get a players perspective or that of former players. Just not sure on this.


On your recommendation, I have heard that several times on this board from several posters

The challenge with this is Dan is the guy in charge. He does not run it as a committee once the ball is thrown up. I am not sure how this VP then performs. Does that person make the call as to who takes the last shot? Who throws the ball in from out of bounds? When to change defenses? Does that person run the practices while Dan watches? What if they disagree? Is this an additional paid position or does one of the current Coaches go and this person replaces them?
I just think that this is a tough one to implement.
Isn't there a way to just help him in the areas he might need help and development in? Are you saying DH can never be a good or adequate X's and O's guy?
I think if this is the recommendation then it should be done or not done - make the decision. And if it is not done then what is recommended to address the Opportunities? Because I don't think this will ever get done. DH would leave first, and so would I.

From a results standpoint I think you are right on listing the areas you did and assessing them

A good performance review in the business world deals with actual results. I would include all of the categories you listed above and I would add the following which my guess is Thorr and Dooley already have in:

Won Loss Record for 2016-2017: 22-8 or better
A10 Conference Tournament: Win at least 2 games
Post Season: Achieve NCAA Tournament Bid
RPI: Finish 40 or better
Academics: All Seniors graduate on time, No players on Academic Probation, 3 or more on Dean's List
Attendance: 10% improvement over prior year

There need to be concrete objectives for rating performance and I am sure that there are.

I would also include in your assessment a Game day demeanor for opportunities for improvement. I think DH has improved a lot over previous years. He is picking and choosing his calls to address with the Refs. Saturday's Air Ball was a perfect example. Still room to go but while this was a hot topic last year, his sideline demeanor has been crickets this year on the old KB Board.

[TruePoint]

That's a good summary, ramster. Obviously I think if you asked him he wouldn't say that he just rolls the balls out. I'm sure they believe they are game planning and doing their best to draw up situational plays in-game when needed. But I don't think what they're doing is good enough to beat good teams. It may be as simple as prioritizing system over adaptability in terms of how they prepare, and so maybe I have a fundamental disagreement with them on that that isn't going to change. But it still doesn't excuse the lack of gadget type plays that help with good situational basketball.

[ramster]

That's a good summary, ramster. Obviously I think if you asked him he wouldn't say that he just rolls the balls out. I'm sure they believe they are game planning and doing their best to draw up situational plays in-game when needed. But I don't think what they're doing is good enough to beat good teams. It may be as simple as prioritizing system over adaptability in terms of how they prepare, and so maybe I have a fundamental disagreement with them on that that isn't going to change. But it still doesn't excuse the lack of gadget type plays that help with good situational basketball.

TP,
I edited a bit more and just reported. So hopefully it is still "good" in your eyes. Yes, I agree, the roll the balls out is more a figure of speech for sure, but I get what you mean.

[Da_Process_Survivor]

That's a good summary, ramster. Obviously I think if you asked him he wouldn't say that he just rolls the balls out. I'm sure they believe they are game planning and doing their best to draw up situational plays in-game when needed. But I don't think what they're doing is good enough to beat good teams. It may be as simple as prioritizing system over adaptability in terms of how they prepare, and so maybe I have a fundamental disagreement with them on that that isn't going to change. But it still doesn't excuse the lack of gadget type plays that help with good situational basketball.

thats the issue, there is no system on offense.

He needs to bring in a bench coach just to Xs and Os the offense, install a true system with adaptable sets and plays. Otherwise they arent gonna go anywhere.

the whole roll out the ball deal works when you can out athlete teams, but against good teams that gets you beat. Every time.

It was the main issue with Baron after the initial rebuild too. No system, just 'go play' and could never win close games or games against good teams.

[TruePoint]

ramster - Monday mornings are tough but I'll try to respond to your updated post when I have a chance. Can't get to all of it right now.

DPS - like I said to ramster above, I don't think Hurley believes he is just rolling the balls out. That's both good (at least he knows you can't do that) and bad (we are seeing what they are capable of from a Xs and Os perspective and it isn't inspiring). The issue for me is the lack of sophistication and the lack of imagination. There is obviously an offensive system they teach, but it doesn't appear to have the types of wrinkles and derivatives that a sophisticated offense has. And maybe just philosophically, the system they use allows for too much of guys just standing in one spot and not enough attacking the defense with movement off the ball. How many times do we see a Ram and the ball arrive at a wide open hole in the defense at the exact same time for an easy basket or a clean look? The system instead looks to be predicated on trying to create a 2-1 way to attack off of ball screens and, failing that, on guys being able to break defenders down 1-on-1 from the wing. I just don't think that is creative enough with the way this team is constructed and what its strengths and weaknesses are. It feels like we are always playing chess matches with checkers strategies against well coached teams like PC. Watch Brad Steven's Celtic team and watch how many baskets in a given game they just scheme themselves into. It's a huge disadvantage to not be able to do that if you want to play at the level they want to play at.

[rodfromcranston]

OK, when was the last time we scored a basket
on a set play, coming out of a timeout?
When was the last time some change was made, mid game,
that lead to a win?
When was the last time you said,"That was great strategy!"
There's no innovation. The offense is what it was on day one five years ago.
There was a real excuse then. Not anymore.
When was the last time a play was run for Hassan Martin?
When was there a clearout run for Jared Terrell, to take his man
on on one?
The answer to these questions is, never.

I remember back in prehistoric times, PC was nationally ranked,
and had a 37 game winning streak at Alumni Hall.
Ernie Calverley devised a zone with a chaser on Jimmy Walker.
Ernie never had used a zone before.
Rhody won by 23 points that night and went on to the NCAAs.
Jack Kraft took a FIVE win team into the PCC and beat a very good PC team by 10 points,
one week after being defeated by 15 points to PC.
Jack Kraft, Tom Penders, Al Skinner, and Jim Harrick, all went to the NCAAs,
all were capable of in game strategies leading to wins.
To just look at CFL and say, "well this is better", is missing the point.
We've had better.
Basketball did not begin at URI in the Ryan Center. Some of us
were there for better days, and remember what that meant.

[kal-65]

do you believe thorr has discussed these issues with dan; maybe he should

[Da_Process_Survivor]

ramster - Monday mornings are tough but I'll try to respond to your updated post when I have a chance. Can't get to all of it right now.

DPS - like I said to ramster above, I don't think Hurley believes he is just rolling the balls out. That's both good (at least he knows you can't do that) and bad (we are seeing what they are capable of from a Xs and Os perspective and it isn't inspiring). The issue for me is the lack of sophistication and the lack of imagination. There is obviously an offensive system they teach, but it doesn't appear to have the types of wrinkles and derivatives that a sophisticated offense has. And maybe just philosophically, the system they use allows for too much of guys just standing in one spot and not enough attacking the defense with movement off the ball. How many times do we see a Ram and the ball arrive at a wide open hole in the defense at the exact same time for an easy basket or a clean look? The system instead looks to be predicated on trying to create a 2-1 way to attack off of ball screens and, failing that, on guys being able to break defenders down 1-on-1 from the wing. I just don't think that is creative enough with the way this team is constructed and what its strengths and weaknesses are. It feels like we are always playing chess matches with checkers strategies against well coached teams like PC. Watch Brad Steven's Celtic team and watch how many baskets in a given game they just scheme themselves into. It's a huge disadvantage to not be able to do that if you want to play at the level they want to play at.

honestly, thats the scariest part to me. It means he either doesnt realize, or doesnt want to accept a deficiency in his coaching.

and i phrased it a bit roughly, but the lack of sophistication is what I was getting at with the 'no system' thought. You need a base system, then you can add wrinkles on top of it.

The simplicity also makes them too easy to defend.

[rhodysurf]

OK, when was the last time we scored a basket
on a set play, coming out of a timeout?
When was the last time some change was made, mid game,
that lead to a win?
When was the last time you said,"That was great strategy!"
There's no innovation. The offense is what it was on day one five years ago.
There was a real excuse then. Not anymore.
When was the last time a play was run for Hassan Martin?
When was there a clearout run for Jared Terrell, to take his man
on on one?
The answer to these questions is, never.

I remember back in prehistoric times, PC was nationally ranked,
and had a 37 game winning streak at Alumni Hall.
Ernie Calverley devised a zone with a chaser on Jimmy Walker.
Ernie never had used a zone before.
Rhody won by 23 points that night and went on to the NCAAs.
Jack Kraft took a FIVE win team into the PCC and beat a very good PC team by 10 points,
one week after being defeated by 15 points to PC.
Jack Kraft, Tom Penders, Al Skinner, and Jim Harrick, all went to the NCAAs,
all were capable of in game strategies leading to wins.
To just look at CFL and say, "well this is better", is missing the point.
We've had better.
Basketball did not begin at URI in the Ryan Center. Some of us
were there for better days, and remember what that meant.

Didnt EC drain a three off an inbounds play against Cincinatti?

[gorhody89]

Yes EC did, but if you watch the replay that was more the result of a defensive lapse then a well designed inbound play.

[rodfromcranston]

WOWIE WOW!
ONE maybe set play. BFD!

[tooc]

This was just a bad game. They'll bounce back and in a couple weeks this will just have been a minor bump along the way during the best season in 15 or so years...

[rambone 78]

TP does nail it though, with his analysis of the team's problems on offense.....

What is so puzzling, is there doesn't seem to even be an attempt to adjust the offense....same crap, different game.....

Unfortunately, I don't see DH asking for help by adding and X and O guy......

[Da_Process_Survivor]

TP does nail it though, with his analysis of the team's problems on offense.....

What is so puzzling, is there doesn't seem to even be an attempt to adjust the offense....same crap, different game.....

Unfortunately, I don't see DH asking for help by adding and X and O guy......

yup, football analogy...

We need Dan to be Belichick...concentrate on overall picture coaching and hand off the Xs and Os details to highly skilled coaches such as McDaniels, Weiss, Romeo, Patricia and O'Brien

[Billyboy78]

We have a hard time even getting the ball inbounds most of the time when in bounding under our own basket. That heaving it into the backcourt just to get the ball in bounds drives me crazy.

[rambone 78]

We have Dan and his merry band of assistants who can't design simple out of bounds plays......this has been going on for years.....

Hopeless.

[Rhody15]

The only play I remember that worked was against Cincy, when EC faked like he was going to the top of the key, and instead turned around to catch and shoot that 3 in the corner to put us up 5.

Besides that, we just heave the ball passed half court.

Whether it's Baron or Hurley, we just cannot draw up a legit in bounds play.

[ramfan85]

Is it a possibility that maybe Dan would be better suited for another type of job? Maybe his skills are more.in line with an AD or some other type of administrative position.
Not everyone is suited for every job. Dan's efforts off the court have never been criticized. He's done an outstanding job getting things we don't read about in the sports pages in order.
I remember Claude English taking over as head coach when Jack Kraft had his health issue in the middle of a season. He basically had no choice. He was a blue to get through the season and did well enough to warrant the head job permanently. He didn't do very well once the program was in his hands.
He was better suited to be an assistant coach than the head guy. In fact, I don't remember ever seeing a better assistant coach. His skills were perfect for that job.
Not trying to say that Dan can't improve and will never be a good head coach. Not at all. Just suggesting that he may be better suited for another type of position.

[ramster]

We have a hard time even getting the ball inbounds most of the time when in bounding under our own basket. That heaving it into the backcourt just to get the ball in bounds drives me crazy.

I don't recall us doing that against PC. Previous games this year yes. But I don't recall having and picked off like Dunn did last season. Might be why we stopped it Saturday.

[Da_Process_Survivor]

Is it a possibility that maybe Dan would be better suited for another type of job? Maybe his skills are more.in line with an AD or some other type of administrative position.
Not everyone is suited for every job. Dan's efforts off the court have never been criticized. He's done an outstanding job getting things we don't read about in the sports pages in order.
I remember Claude English taking over as head coach when Jack Kraft had his health issue in the middle of a season. He basically had no choice. He was a blue to get through the season and did well enough to warrant the head job permanently. He didn't do very well once the program was in his hands.
He was better suited to be an assistant coach than the head guy. In fact, I don't remember ever seeing a better assistant coach. His skills were perfect for that job.
Not trying to say that Dan can't improve and will never be a good head coach. Not at all. Just suggesting that he may be better suited for another type of position.

i still like him as head coach, in a public face/CEO type of way. He is definitely smart enough to coach in game, problem is he isnt able to build and implement an offensive system.

He needs 1 or 2 strong Xs and Os guys under him to develop, teach and adapt a system. From there they can have input as a game plays out, but more importantly can give Dan choices and a menu to pick from for adjustments in game.

Same way a CEO isnt doing all the grunt work and research, they get fed information and advice, but ultimately they make the final choice

[TruePoint]

Is it a possibility that maybe Dan would be better suited for another type of job? Maybe his skills are more.in line with an AD or some other type of administrative position.
Not everyone is suited for every job. Dan's efforts off the court have never been criticized. He's done an outstanding job getting things we don't read about in the sports pages in order.
I remember Claude English taking over as head coach when Jack Kraft had his health issue in the middle of a season. He basically had no choice. He was a blue to get through the season and did well enough to warrant the head job permanently. He didn't do very well once the program was in his hands.
He was better suited to be an assistant coach than the head guy. In fact, I don't remember ever seeing a better assistant coach. His skills were perfect for that job.
Not trying to say that Dan can't improve and will never be a good head coach. Not at all. Just suggesting that he may be better suited for another type of position.

I don't think that's a fair thing to say. Not every CEO is good at every aspect of running their company. The head coach runs the program, he is the CEO of the program. I think realistically putting a whiteboard wizard on the bench to help out is not a drastic thing to suggest and an easy way to get to the next incremental step up the mountain. But it isn't like the guy is incapable as a coach. He's spent his whole life in and around basketball. He knows much more than most people and certainly more than I do, which is why I feel a little funny criticizing him. But there is also more he could know that could make the difference in him being a good and great coach, and that would make the difference between us having a good and great team.

[ramster]

Is it a possibility that maybe Dan would be better suited for another type of job? Maybe his skills are more.in line with an AD or some other type of administrative position.
Not everyone is suited for every job. Dan's efforts off the court have never been criticized. He's done an outstanding job getting things we don't read about in the sports pages in order.
I remember Claude English taking over as head coach when Jack Kraft had his health issue in the middle of a season. He basically had no choice. He was a blue to get through the season and did well enough to warrant the head job permanently. He didn't do very well once the program was in his hands.
He was better suited to be an assistant coach than the head guy. In fact, I don't remember ever seeing a better assistant coach. His skills were perfect for that job.
Not trying to say that Dan can't improve and will never be a good head coach. Not at all. Just suggesting that he may be better suited for another type of position.

No.