2015 NIT 2nd Round: @ Stanford - Sunday 9:30pm ESPNU

Running Ram · Unread post by **Running Ram** » 9 years ago

I told myself I wasn't going to do this, but yes those refs absolutely sucked. I'm still not sure we come away with a win but of course bad calls alter games. Unfortunately there is no recourse for a team that suffers under the hammer of bad officiating. I do think DH probably tends to hurt the cause, but I'm okay with it, you call it complaining I call it questioning either way I'm sure he comes with a rep and I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to find three refs that enjoy officiating Rhody games, never mind for the same game. That being said, I agree with the lip read I noticed from DH again last night that guy was a "piece of shit", Dan is too honest and some of these officials suck too much, its a bad mix. I just want to be happy for what we have so far and look forward, so I'm putting this behind me quickly if I can. If our fearless leader's honesty and excitability towards the officials is the worst of what we endure on our way to the top I can live with that, after all he is usually reflecting my very feelings for the refs.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 9 years ago

RR, correct but Dan has to smooth things out over time.

Teams like Duke and Kansas etc. almost always tend to get the calls when things get tight.

If we want to get where we want to go, we can't have the entire ref population mad at Dan and URI.

I hope Dan realizes that. It's getting WAY too counterproductive. The more Dan complains, the worse it gets. There are ways to get his point across without constantly throwing tantrums.

URI will never get respect from the officials when they really need it, unless things change.

Smokinjimit · Unread post by **Smokinjimit** » 9 years ago

The refs were bad but our offense and inability to stop one guy is what killed us.

We need a 2 bigs and another point guard.

At the end of the game it looked like EC and Hassan were a little gimpy.

I dont blame EC for forcing it. No one else was doing anything and our only offense was him in transition. You also dont know what Dan was telling him to do.

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 9 years ago

Did Bobby Knight get calls?

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 9 years ago

I watched Knight for many years. Did he complain?
Sure.
Did he complain on every single call? No.
I don't think I've ever seen a coach gripe on every single call.
It's just too much, and it isn't helping.
You have to pick your fights, and not make it 40 minutes of
ranting and raving on the sidelines.
Dan told us he was going to tone it down, but he can't seem to control
his emotions on the sidelines.
We love our coach, and don't want him to be an object of
derision on national television.
That doesn't help the program, it doesn't help recruiting, and it sure
doesn't help during the games.

Smokinjimit · Unread post by **Smokinjimit** » 9 years ago

Bobby Knight also won a few championships. Which helps when you do yell at the refs.

Bobby Knight is also an asshole. So he has that going for him...which is nice

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 9 years ago

Not to mention Dan's health. Someone mentioned burn out. Supposedly he's even more intense in practice than he is in games. How long can one last being that tightly wound?

PeterRamTime · Unread post by **PeterRamTime** » 9 years ago

It may be more of a release for him. Probably doesn't wear him out.
Arguing every call is bloody absurd. Tone it down a bit. Draw up something on offense.

Obadiah · Unread post by **Obadiah** » 9 years ago

Let's face it we shouldn't have expected to win this game given the circumstances that URI had to travel 3,102 miles to get there while their opponent had to go only 100 feet and when you add in the Rams also had to face a sea of Cardinal clad, pom-pom waving fans totaling some 1,235, you then realize how the NCAA screwed URI.*

*This excuse is approved and sanctioned under copyright privileges granted by the PC fan base.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 9 years ago

The subject of Dan's intensity and his mental well being isn't lost
on anyone.
It's nice to be intense, but not at the expense of your sanity.
There was a Red Sox player named Jimmy Piersall.
He was a very intense competitor. He
wound up having a nervous breakdown at home plate in
Fenway Park.
It was the subject of a book and TV movie called,"Fear Strikes Out".
Scary stuff.
I don't want anything like this to happen to Dan.

jro44 · Unread post by **jro44** » 9 years ago

I think the intensity is great and you can see it in the way this team plays defense. A team is truly the reflection of their coach and this team is no different. I would much rather deal with the issues the refs have when DH rides them then deal with a team that lacks grit and intensity.

TexRam · Unread post by **TexRam** » 9 years ago

Watched the game, but looked at the box score to see what that story told.

We only had 10 assists... But Stanford had only 3? Can that be right?
Also had more points in the paint, 34-22, which makes the foul discrepancy seem that much more odd.

luke · Unread post by **luke** » 9 years ago

As far as officiating and coaches complaining, good officials are not affected either way by complaining.
As an official, if you are then you are nota good official and you don't have the integrity to be an official.
Good officials understand the passion of both the players and the coaches and allow for it. Unfortunately,
it seems to me that there are very few truly competent refs in the game. with that in mind I am hoping Dan
will feel the need to criticize the refs as his team becomes better and every bad call won't be as big a factor
in the outcome. I think Dan understands that right now every lost possession and every missed call can be a
game changer because his team is not good enough yet to overcome such obstacles and it frustrates him.
I believe He will calm down as the talent level improves. Last night the officiating was not good or fair so
I was upset with it too. Bring on next year!

Running Ram · Unread post by **Running Ram** » 9 years ago

Yes DH is intense but he seems to be an honest kind of guy and if he is honest with himself at the end of each day then the kind of stress he has will continue to move him forward. It is when we lie to ourselves, when, how we live doesn't match how we feel that stress kills.

Ramulous · Unread post by **Ramulous** » 9 years ago

It is hard to find a fan base that won't complain about the refs after a loss.....

Cameron_Dollar · Unread post by **Cameron_Dollar** » 9 years ago

Many of you on this board went gaga when Dan assembled his staff. Great guys, very friendly at functions etc. I've contended from the beginning what was missing was a veteran presence on the bench. An Al Skinner, George Blaney type. Someone that would have the cache and the experience to reign Dan in at times and offer an experienced point of view. This staff as presently constituted is comprised of inexperienced game coaches that are not capable of assuming that role.

theblueram · Unread post by **theblueram** » 9 years ago

Why reign him in??? Let him go freakin nuts if he wants to. In three years, he has lost us zero, zip games with his attitude and the accompany bench warnings and techs. Who cares if he's ballistic on the sideline if it doesn't cost us anything. Players don't seem to mind and neither do I. And all that inexperience seems to be working out ok in both recruiting and in-game strategy.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 9 years ago

I doubt there will be any changes to the coaching staff, but you never know. TJ?

blueram, I'm not sure about that. Dan's rep isn't helping him with the ref fraternity. The foul situation is getting out of hand.

Maybe as we get better Dan will calm down some. Not a lot, it's not his nature.

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 9 years ago

Cameron_Dollar wrote:Many of you on this board went gaga when Dan assembled his staff. Great guys, very friendly at functions etc. I've contended from the beginning what was missing was a veteran presence on the bench. An Al Skinner, George Blaney type. Someone that would have the cache and the experience to reign Dan in at times and offer an experienced point of view. This staff as presently constituted is comprised of inexperienced game coaches that are not capable of assuming that role.

i dont necessarily disagree with this, however this is a unique situation...not sure i see a Hurley thinking he needs a "father figure" type coach on the staff. Just dont see that happening. I think a valuable addition would be a big man former player, aka ARD.

rhodyrudder · Unread post by **rhodyrudder** » 9 years ago

Bar, referencing your use of the term father figure...
I imagine both dh and bobby get input constantly from sr.
Does he need an older guy on the bench to calm him down during games?
Can't imagine it would hurt.
He definitely needs to relax some.
Last night there were some calls AGAINST STANFORD that the refs basically just made up because they sensed the imbalance caused by all the fouling that Rhody was doing...and dh kept right on going.
Were there some bad calls against Rhody? Sure, there always are a few. But not enough to say they cost us the game. Rhody lost last night cuz we sucked eggs in the first half...couldn't hit anything...and then in the second half we fought valiantly to get within a point on numerous occasions, only to see somebody throw a pass off a teammates's back or into the stands...or missed another shot. Scratched and clawed and fought, just like our fearless leader, but couldn't get over the hump. Just not good enough...yet. We'll get better, we'll foul less, dan will (hopefully) take it a little easier with the refs, and we will hopefully not see wally ever again.

bressler3south · Unread post by **bressler3south** » 9 years ago

For Coach Hurley, additions in his life are based upon a unique trust level.

One of those men in his life is George Blaney.

What would it take to lure him out of retirement?

Hey, he's a Jersey City guy…..who certainly knows Kingston.

RI_Bred · Unread post by **RI_Bred** » 9 years ago

URIFIJI wrote: If Shitty Jim is out there - we might need you to come back and jump in the Ram Suit next year and bring back the Real Rhody Ram.

Classic!

Da_Process_Survivor · Unread post by **Da_Process_Survivor** » 9 years ago

looked at the box score again, being a gluton for punishment.

We only allowed 38 points from the field, less than a point per minute...ugh

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 9 years ago

How often does a team score more points from the foul line, than from the field?

That was close, 38 to 36. And if Stanford had made a higher percentage, they would have.

That is ridiculous on all levels.

Like Neil just said, how the hell can you play your game, when you're being whistled for a foul at the rate of almost 1 per minute?

Something's rotten in Denmark. Hopefully Dan gets it figured out in time for next season.

The refs must love seeing him coming. It's reached a point where the backlash is costing us games, or will if it continues.

Dan's intensity is great, but he's got to learn to channel it better. It's become counterproductive to the goal of winning games.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 9 years ago

bigappleram wrote:
Cameron_Dollar wrote:Many of you on this board went gaga when Dan assembled his staff. Great guys, very friendly at functions etc. I've contended from the beginning what was missing was a veteran presence on the bench. An Al Skinner, George Blaney type. Someone that would have the cache and the experience to reign Dan in at times and offer an experienced point of view. This staff as presently constituted is comprised of inexperienced game coaches that are not capable of assuming that role.
i dont necessarily disagree with this, however this is a unique situation...not sure i see a Hurley thinking he needs a "father figure" type coach on the staff. Just dont see that happening. I think a valuable addition would be a big man former player, aka ARD.

I don't think he needs a father figure. I think he needs to bring someone in that has installed an offense at the highest level. Freaking Al Skinner is helping old pal Tim O'Shea for peanuts, probably, at Bryant. Bryant was #60 in adjusted offense last year, by the way (#311 in defense). And, I looked at BC when they had good teams. #16 offense in 2007, #6 in 2006, tons of high finishes. Give that guy a call, double whatever little he is making at Bryant, and have him come in to give the offense what it needs. Maybe it gives him some exposure for one more run at job openings next year. This team with a legit offense would be scary.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 9 years ago

I've said this since the beginning.
Hurley needs the adult in the room, to steady things,
and give some input, especially Xs and Os.
I remember the calm papa bear influence Larry Farmer had
on the 1998 team.
He was able to tell kids he was part of the winningest team in history.
"This is how we did it" would have a greater impact on a player, than say
if Jim Carr was instructing someone.
It was a boys club after he left, and never the same.
The problem I see is, Dan only deals with familiars and that usually entails New Jersey.
Let's face it, outside of the elite prep programs in NJ,
not much winning basketball happens there.
I think that was why ARD wasn't hired. He wasn't part of Dan's
contact tribe.

Seawrightspostgame · Unread post by **Seawrightspostgame** » 9 years ago

Dan's intensity is where this program will rise and fall. That is his thing and that is what URI is bought into. I would like to tweak alot of things in life but you can't. Dan is a mad man and I hope that fire brings us a Final Four.

It was a young team that left games at the free throw line, in the turnover column, in the roster. Add some size, mature these guys, wrangle in Iverson. This team could be something.

None of that happens if these guys don't go to work. The players need to come back better athletes a year older with better skills. The coaches need to tweak the roster so that it isn't so difficult to win and we can win the games that were out of our reach this year. The future is so bright but it leans heavily on Dan hurley and that intensity.

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 9 years ago

Al Skinner runs the Flex almost exclusively with some drips of other sets sprinkled in, nothing imaginative or revolutionary about it. Most high school teams use it. Go to Providence's board, Cooley runs the flex (as a Skinner disciple), and their fans complain its too easy to defend and isn't free flowing enough to allow for one on one skills. GW runs it, we defended it easily in both games (didnt break 60 vs us). I think Dan favors an offensive style that allows freedom for guards to make plays (iso), you can love it or hate it, but its hard to reach any conclusion about it until he actually has the experienced guards to run it effectively. Next year is the time, if we still struggle to crack 60 points the idea of an offensive guru might have more credence.

steviep123 · Unread post by **steviep123** » 9 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:I've said this since the beginning.
Hurley needs the adult in the room, to steady things,
and give some input, especially Xs and Os.
I remember the calm papa bear influence Larry Farmer had
on the 1998 team.
He was able to tell kids he was part of the winningest team in history.
"This is how we did it" would have a greater impact on a player, than say
if Jim Carr was instructing someone.
It was a boys club after he left, and never the same.
The problem I see is, Dan only deals with familiars and that usually entails New Jersey.
Let's face it, outside of the elite prep programs in NJ,
not much winning basketball happens there.
I think that was why ARD wasn't hired. He wasn't part of Dan's
contact tribe.

Hurley must be amicable to hiring outside his contacts. He kept Preston Murphy on when he could have gone in a separate direction. Hopefully he'll learn to branch out when needed again.

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 9 years ago

Great point Steve. And really Dan's approach is no different than any other CEO of an organization (which he basically is), most bring in people they have history with and trust to be their lieutenants. Especially for the first phase, now that Dan has righted the ship and installed the culture he wants to set the vision he may be more amenable to folks outside his inner circle being brought in.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 9 years ago

Preston Murphy held the keys to Hare, and the future recruitment of
EC Matthews, and whoever else was in the Michigan pipleine.
When Hurley came in, he had zero contact with these players.
So, Hare was a head case, but EC certainly worked out.
Hurley let Preston twist in the wind, for quiet a long time, before hiring him.

section(105) · Unread post by **section(105)** » 9 years ago

There's is a big difference between coaches who question calls, the evenness of calls, desire explanation of calls and other technical aspects of the game and it rules interpretations and coaches that try to intimidate officials via calling them "embarrassments" and things like "who are you looking at....."

ace · Unread post by **ace** » 9 years ago

A week and a half, at most, doesn't seem like quite a long time.

As for the staff and sideline demeanor and all that stuff, people who are successful- and that describes Dan- constantly evaluate themselves and what they are doing and look to improve. This father figure/needing an adult talk seems a bit much. People have hated Dan on the basketball court since he was 18, at least. It's what it is. He can seem like a jerk when he coaches sometimes, but anyone connecting him to guys who are actually abusive and are difficult to work with and for are just wrong. That's the only thing that bothers me.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 9 years ago

Dan calling a ref a POS isn't exactly going to win him many friends...

If that ref had heard him, it would have been shower time.....

At least that's what I was told he said.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 9 years ago

bigappleram wrote:Al Skinner runs the Flex almost exclusively with some drips of other sets sprinkled in, nothing imaginative or revolutionary about it. Most high school teams use it. Go to Providence's board, Cooley runs the flex (as a Skinner disciple), and their fans complain its too easy to defend and isn't free flowing enough to allow for one on one skills. GW runs it, we defended it easily in both games (didnt break 60 vs us). I think Dan favors an offensive style that allows freedom for guards to make plays (iso), you can love it or hate it, but its hard to reach any conclusion about it until he actually has the experienced guards to run it effectively. Next year is the time, if we still struggle to crack 60 points the idea of an offensive guru might have more credence.

One of my pet peeves. People talk about the flex like it's some monolith. The basic flex motion is very simple. But, at it's highest level, there are literally a million variations and it becomes very hard to defend. It's like saying west coast offense. Bill Walsh's is probably harder to defend than some guy who ran it at Calabasas County Community College. Maryland won a national title running the flex. Juan Dixon and Steve Blake were pretty good. Troy Bell at BC was 2x Big East player of the year with the flex. Can't think of many who had more freedom with the ball than him.
And, really, I wasn't trying to sell the flex. Although, as a fan of it being an unstoppable force at its peak, it's a great offense. And I think it would open up Hassan's game as he would get the ball at the elbow a bunch. I was really trying to sell the idea of someone coming in who can elevate the offense. Someone who is outside DH's circle who has the gravitas to challenge what's going on.

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 9 years ago

Of course, even my high school team had 5 variations of it, and no doubt college teams have dozens. And when you have a seasoned team, experienced running it, and able to make adjustments on the fly to account for the variations it can be highly effective. But that is the rub, for the Flex to be a dynamic offense you need a team that runs it almost exclusively and has hundreds of hours working on its nuances. Its not an offense you easily install in the off season and have running like clockwork the following season. Its a full commitment, and not sure I see Dan going in that direction. In addition, if you cant consistently knock down perimeter shots to prevent the defense from sagging in the lane the Flex is useless. A defense sagging in the lane is the kyrptonite to the flex cut. Hence why GW runs it and struggles to score 60, they cant shoot it well enough. Your examples above are of the national champion team and Troy Bell who was an NBA pro and great college player. I think its an easy offense to defend, and Al's NCAA record backs that up.

ace · Unread post by **ace** » 9 years ago

For all the clamoring for significant change going on here, one would think the team had a very different year than they did. As I said above, successful people constantly check themselves and make changes as necessary. The people involved in this program are no different. It will all shake out in time.

PlayMikeMotenMore · Unread post by **PlayMikeMotenMore** » 9 years ago

If you think URI's talent is good enough to "isolate" and go 1-on-1, then you're not watching what I'm watching. Unless you've got 1-one-1 talent like Kentucky, Duke, Iowa St., etc., then it's probably wise to put in a offense where you set each other up. That means ball movement, player movement, flair screens, back screens, flex cuts, etc. URI has almost zero of that.

A "flex" offense may be old school but the priniciples are still current and it still works when run properly. I'm not saying that's what URI should run but they need to run something other than what they're running.

Al's NCAA record? So your basing the effectiveness of the Flex on Al Skinner's NCAA record?? Why don't we slam Pete Carrill and the Princeton offense for being a lousy offense too while we're at it...afterall, Carrill has a lousy NCAA tournament record, right???

That argument is ludicrous.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 9 years ago

So, you are taking the small sample size of a dozen or so NCAA games (He did also win the Big East and a Big East Tournament title when that meant something) over literally years of having an offense in the top 10% of the NCAA? Again, this thought about the flex is secondary just to having someone in there. But, no, not an easy offense to defend when run properly. And, sure, jump shots help any offense. In 2003, it was the #4 offense in all of the NCAA, but shot less than 35% from three, and was #233 in the country in three pointers attempted. So, they didn't take a lot. Didn't make a whole lot. 2005 (no Troy Bell), they were #20 in offense. Made less than 35%. #325 in three point attempt %. Every year is the same. So, yes, jump shots help any offense. It's a ten year stretch of great offense. And, after Troy Bell, who were the great guards? Tyrese Rice?

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 9 years ago

About 2/3 rds of college hoops right now runs an ISO offense, so I guess all the coaches not at Kentucky, Duke or Iowa State must be morons. Our offense has plenty of screens off ball, when they are executed properly they even "set people up" as you say. We run staggered screens for EC to free him, we run flex cuts on the baseline with our two bigs, etc. The idea that we throw the ball out and let guys go 1-on-1 is ludicrous. An ISO offense is harder to defend against because it has no set pattern. The flex has variations, but their is a pattern to it (even with its variation).

The Carrill reference, an Ivy league coach, to a guy who coached in the ACC is apples and oranges. I do believe the Flex is a fairly simple offense for an elite team to defend against, and I put Al's record against elite competition you see in the NCAA as one proof of that. Maybe its just coincidence.

I find it funny that people think there is a magical formula to offensive wizardry in the sets you run....guys make plays, not coaches. Coaches put them in spots they think are best suited to their skills, and our coach likely thinks guys like EC, Terrell and Jarvis are better suited in an ISO offense. I bet our offense looks better when our back court shoots threes at 35%+.

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 9 years ago

And btw, if we still ran the flex in 1998 Cuttino Mobley isnt a pro and we arent seconds from the final four. Give me Jim Harricks UCLA offense and I will buy what you are selling. Not the flex.

steviep123 · Unread post by **steviep123** » 9 years ago

ace wrote:For all the clamoring for significant change going on here, one would think the team had a very different year than they did. As I said above, successful people constantly check themselves and make changes as necessary. The people involved in this program are no different. It will all shake out in time.

Agreed - as the saying goes, "If you're dumb, you surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, you surround yourself with smart people who will disagree with you."

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 9 years ago

Al did OK in the Big East. Those were elite defenses.

But, no one has a problem with Duke or Kentucky's offense. Even though they run completely different offenses, if you are actually paying attention. I have a problem in that I think this staff needs someone with high level experience (whatever the offense) taking them to the next level. If you like what they are running and think it's just a matter of them maturing and getting better, we can just agree to disagree. There might not have been an easier team to defend in crunch time than URI this year.

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 9 years ago

ace wrote:A week and a half, at most, doesn't seem like quite a long time.

As for the staff and sideline demeanor and all that stuff, people who are successful- and that describes Dan- constantly evaluate themselves and what they are doing and look to improve. This father figure/needing an adult talk seems a bit much. People have hated Dan on the basketball court since he was 18, at least. It's what it is. He can seem like a jerk when he coaches sometimes, but anyone connecting him to guys who are actually abusive and are difficult to work with and for are just wrong. That's the only thing that bothers me.

During one of the recent broadcasts, I think it was Gottlieb who made a comment that really bothered me. He said something like "When Gilvydas gets back to Lithuania, people will ask him how he enjoyed basketball in the U.S. All he has to say is, well I played for Mike Rice and Dan Hurley...chuckle, chuckle." I thought that was so inappropriate. I think that's grounds for a lawsuit. Can you imagine a recruit hearing that comment? I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was Gottlieb.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 9 years ago

Harrick's 1995 UCLA team has the most fun offense I've ever seen.
I loved that team, long before Harrick's coming here.

Ace, we all get your need to defend anything Dan does, which is fine, but we're
entitled to comment on what we see, and comment on the same.
Some of us have been around a long time, know the game, and have experienced
many coaching regimes, good and bad.
99% here like the progress being made.
However, only the biggest shill could like what they see regarding our offense.
I'm pretty sure Dan would admit, it's far from what he envisions for the future.

Billyboy, Gottlieb is an ass, and most people know that. He's someone who feels he had
to say something, and usually, it's inappropriate.

ace · Unread post by **ace** » 9 years ago

Billyboy78 wrote:
ace wrote:A week and a half, at most, doesn't seem like quite a long time.

As for the staff and sideline demeanor and all that stuff, people who are successful- and that describes Dan- constantly evaluate themselves and what they are doing and look to improve. This father figure/needing an adult talk seems a bit much. People have hated Dan on the basketball court since he was 18, at least. It's what it is. He can seem like a jerk when he coaches sometimes, but anyone connecting him to guys who are actually abusive and are difficult to work with and for are just wrong. That's the only thing that bothers me.
During one of the recent broadcasts, I think it was Gottlieb who made a comment that really bothered me. He said something like "When Gilvydas gets back to Lithuania, people will ask him how he enjoyed basketball in the U.S. All he has to say is, well I played for Mike Rice and Dan Hurley...chuckle, chuckle." I thought that was so inappropriate. I think that's grounds for a lawsuit. Can you imagine a recruit hearing that comment? I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was Gottlieb.

That is infuriating. Gilvydas had options- places like Maryland- when he left Rutgers, and he very purposefully chose to play for Hurley again- because he trusts him and because he knows with certainty that Dan cares abut him. To equate them, with all the public reasons of why he left Rutgers and what went down there, is beyond unfair.

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 9 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:Harrick's 1995 UCLA team has the most fun offense I've ever seen.
I loved that team, long before Harrick's coming here.

Ace, we all get your need to defend anything Dan does, which is fine, but we're
entitled to comment on what we see, and comment on the same.
Some of us have been around a long time, know the game, and have experienced
many coaching regimes, good and bad.
99% here like the progress being made.
However, only the biggest shill could like what they see regarding our offense.
I'm pretty sure Dan would admit, it's far from what he envisions for the future.

Billyboy, Gottlieb is an ass, and most people know that. He's someone who feels he had
to say something, and usually, it's inappropriate.

I know, but lumping Dan in with Rice. What does that insinuate? Does a recruit think they are both abusive?

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 9 years ago

bigappleram wrote:And btw, if we still ran the flex in 1998 Cuttino Mobley isnt a pro and we arent seconds from the final four. Give me Jim Harricks UCLA offense and I will buy what you are selling. Not the flex.

Like I said, this conversation is not about the flex. But, Gary Williams won a national title, ACC titles, another FF with it if you are looking for postseason validation. Check out that roster, by the way. The last team to win a national title without a McDs All American. And, don't be ridiculous, Cuttino Mobley was a pro no matter what.

ace · Unread post by **ace** » 9 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:Harrick's 1995 UCLA team has the most fun offense I've ever seen.
I loved that team, long before Harrick's coming here.

Ace, we all get your need to defend anything Dan does, which is fine, but we're
entitled to comment on what we see, and comment on the same.
Some of us have been around a long time, know the game, and have experienced
many coaching regimes, good and bad.
99% here like the progress being made.
However, only the biggest shill could like what they see regarding our offense.
I'm pretty sure Dan would admit, it's far from what he envisions for the future.

Billyboy, Gottlieb is an ass, and most people know that. He's someone who feels he had
to say something, and usually, it's inappropriate.

That's insulting. I'm just speaking to the noise level, and my comments referred to way more than an offense.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 9 years ago

No, just ask Cuttino.
First think Harrick did was take Tyson aside and tell him he
was no longer going to be the prime scorer.
Instead he made Cat the focal point of the offense, and that's when he came alive.
Cat started just 17 of 34 games under Skinner the year before.
Cat gives all credit for his NBA career to Jim Harrick.
Want to argue that? Then go tell Cat he's wrong.

Ace, I fail to see anything remotely insulting in what I wrote.
Sorry if you took it as such.