MBB: Centennial Conference

[Gusthegoose]

Dickinson was very impressive tonight.  Wixted didn't play - some guy with a D on his hat said he punched someone in practice this week - but the team was still really good.  They've got a lot of talent and the freshmen seem to be coming along pretty well.  They've got some growing to do, but they're as good as any team I've seen this year, certainly deserving of where they're ranked nationally.

They play a style that's going to make it difficult for them to really blow out anyone and the coach really seemed to focus on getting the bench guys PT and experimenting with lineups over actually taking it to WC the whole time.

The game was never in doubt, really.  Washington College hit like five or six threes down the stretch to close the gap, but Dickinson hit like 15 of 16 from the line in the last two or three minutes, a really impressive display.

I've been to a few Washington College games now - they certainly aren't as bad as their record and they've got a sophomore, Drury, who's really impressive - but that coach must be the nicest guy in the world.  I just have never seen a college coach so bad at coaching.  The players still look tentative in the offense, even when it was mostly seniors on the floor, they take timeouts in the strangest spots, and there just doesn't seem to be any order or system to how he's using lineups and matchups.  I feel like an average coach would have them at 4-6 or 5-5 right now.

Hoops Fan,
I pay attention to this board and I post very rarely but I find your last point about Washington College's head coach out of line. I don't understand how you can say that there coach is so awful yet he had Washington in a position to beat the#4 ranked team in D3 in the second half? I've watched plenty of Washington College games too and I have to say that your idea that Washington doesn't have a system is outlandish. They very clearly run a secondary break into the triangle offense and on defense they are a man to man pressure defensive team. Washington's leading scorer from last year has also missed most of this season with injury and just returned for the Dickinson game. Washington has also been in multiple games that have gone down to the wire and they have had shots to tie or take the lead and they have missed them. That's basketball and every game I've seen the team has played hard and fought until the very end. To say that "an average coach would have them at 4-6 or 5-5 right now"  I feel is beneath your quality as a poster and from what I've read you seem like a quality poster.

[Pat Coleman]

... he had Washington in a position to beat the#4 ranked team in D3 in the second half?

I mean, to be fair, Dickinson isn't the No. 4 team in the country without Wixted. I say that as a voter.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Dickinson was very impressive tonight.  Wixted didn't play - some guy with a D on his hat said he punched someone in practice this week - but the team was still really good.  They've got a lot of talent and the freshmen seem to be coming along pretty well.  They've got some growing to do, but they're as good as any team I've seen this year, certainly deserving of where they're ranked nationally.

They play a style that's going to make it difficult for them to really blow out anyone and the coach really seemed to focus on getting the bench guys PT and experimenting with lineups over actually taking it to WC the whole time.

The game was never in doubt, really.  Washington College hit like five or six threes down the stretch to close the gap, but Dickinson hit like 15 of 16 from the line in the last two or three minutes, a really impressive display.

I've been to a few Washington College games now - they certainly aren't as bad as their record and they've got a sophomore, Drury, who's really impressive - but that coach must be the nicest guy in the world.  I just have never seen a college coach so bad at coaching.  The players still look tentative in the offense, even when it was mostly seniors on the floor, they take timeouts in the strangest spots, and there just doesn't seem to be any order or system to how he's using lineups and matchups.  I feel like an average coach would have them at 4-6 or 5-5 right now.

Hoops Fan,
I pay attention to this board and I post very rarely but I find your last point about Washington College's head coach out of line. I don't understand how you can say that there coach is so awful yet he had Washington in a position to beat the#4 ranked team in D3 in the second half? I've watched plenty of Washington College games too and I have to say that your idea that Washington doesn't have a system is outlandish. They very clearly run a secondary break into the triangle offense and on defense they are a man to man pressure defensive team. Washington's leading scorer from last year has also missed most of this season with injury and just returned for the Dickinson game. Washington has also been in multiple games that have gone down to the wire and they have had shots to tie or take the lead and they have missed them. That's basketball and every game I've seen the team has played hard and fought until the very end. To say that "an average coach would have them at 4-6 or 5-5 right now"  I feel is beneath your quality as a poster and from what I've read you seem like a quality poster.

I've only seen them twice, both against really talented teams.  I do know they have a system, I just commented that they players don't look comfortable in it on the floor, which is a reflection on coaching.  Also, in watching these games, the biggest, by far, answer to the question "why isn't this team winning more" is coaching.  Again, my sample size is too small to know for sure - and certainly his long career means the school is more than happy with his abilities.  There is certainly more to coaching than just in-game adjustments and decisions.  I'm hoping to see them play more often in the future, which may sway my perspective.

That being said, I do watch a lot of basketball.  I see, pretty regularly, a lot of different coaching styles and abilities.  When something like this stands out so clearly, it's something to be said.  Last year's team was better than their record.  This year's team is better than their record.  If that is a trend over time, there is one possible explanation: coaching.

I am perfectly willing to be wrong, but at this point, my opinion is that coaching is holding the team back.  While sitting in the stands, it seemed to be the feeling of vocal fans.  I wouldn't have said something publicly after just two games in person if I hadn't heard the fans complaining about it most of the game.  It's not like this is out of left field.

Like I said, there are likely lots of things I don't see which make him the right coach for Washington College.  I'm not calling for him to be fired or anything, just making comments based on my observations.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I couldn't disagree more with the assertion that Washington College has a coaching problem. First off, the school has one of the biggest challenges when it comes to recruiting in the fact that it is one of the more difficult schools to be accepted to in this region. Secondly, the coach very much preaches that school comes first and not the team (something more coaches should exemplify at this level) and that shows in their team GPA and what students have done after graduating.

I know for a fact, no coach or team in this conference likes to face up against Washington. They are tremendous on defense and like to go up-tempo in transition. It gives coaches fits preparing to play Washington, especially if you have to travel to Chestertown to do it. They are always prepared, even if they are outmanned and undersized. Remember, F&M a couple of years ago had it's undefeated record snuffed out by Washington on the Shoremen's home floor. Washington has also been able to put together some terrific seasons in recent history.

Their coach is well respected not only on campus, but in the Centennial Conference and in this region (if not further away). This conference has seen far more coaches and teams who don't amount to anything and for some those trends are changing, but to assert that Washington has a coaching problem is missing the bigger picture and scapegoating for the sake of scapegoating.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I'll just be quiet after this because I clearly am not saying what I want to say.

Those kids play hard and when watching games, I don't see them making bad decisions or taking plays off.  That's certainly a tribute to the coach.  I do see, during games, that coaching decisions seem to be keeping them back.  Yes, the players they get may not be as skilled as some other teams, there's clearly that (although they've got a strong squad right now) - it's just when sitting there watching games and asking, "why aren't they doing better," to me, the answers always come down to coaching decisions.

Not every coach is a strength in-game.  That doesn't make them a bad coach.  I apologize if I gave that impression.  Clearly the school is happy with him - that's the important thing.  I think those in-game decisions are a weak point - certainly nothing to fire a coach over.  Maybe it shows up more obviously because the team generally makes good decisions and plays hard.  There aren't a ton of things to criticize strategy-wise.

I think they'd win more with better in-game coaching, but that might sacrifice a lot of other things that get them in a position to do well in the first place.  My impressions are clearly not reflective of the overall coaching experience, which is sort of why I brought it up here.  Thanks for the input.

[Pat Coleman]

Often head coaches and assistants complement each other, as well. Not everyone is a great X's and O's coach and sometimes you need that guy on your staff. Or perhaps a head coach is a great game day coach but not the best recruiter, so you find someone to complement you there. Sometimes you see teams' fortunes change when an assistant coach leaves.

[Reserved Seat]

As usual Washington gave F&M all they could handle.  Washington kept the outcome in doubt until the final minute.  Knox had what seemed to be a career night as he came up big consistently through the game.  Washington's tenacious defense kept F&M from getting in sync offensively all afternoon.  Every time it appeared that F&M might forge a lead, Washington would hit a big three.
When Moune was out of the game with foul trouble,  F&M had trouble getting any rebounds.  Federici had 31 points for a career high but couldn't get off a clear 3 pointer. Tate hit a key three down the stretch to give F&M some breathing room.

[r.w. mcnickels]

Washington's tenacious defense kept F&M from getting in sync offensively all afternoon.

Washington always gives F&M trouble with their swarming, high-energy defense. Hard to believe the Shoremen are 1-12, because they looked much better than that.

Depth in the post seems to be a big question mark for F&M at this point. Lionel Owona and Shawn Hines are just not giving the Dips much off the bench. It will be interesting to see if Lior Levy cracks the rotation by the end of the season.

[Reserved Seat]

Owana is another post option.

[givengo]

Richard Stockton just lost again at home to Ramapo by two. 

[Reserved Seat]

F&M played a solid game against Muhlenberg.  Muhlenberg put up little fight, which is usually for a Dip/Mule match up.
F&M put 6 players in double figures with Federici scoring 24.  Moune had a double double with 11 points and 14 rebounds.  F&M controlled the boards.
McLeod played a consistent game for the Mules.  Killing didn't look like the Killing of the past.

[CCD3Basketball]

Muhlenberg has serious problems this year. Killing's supporting cast isn't getting the job done, but quite frankly Killing doesn't seem to be his usual self either. Maybe 3+ years of carrying the squad is starting to catch up to him?

Everything else around the conference last night seemed to go as I thought it would, with the exception of the WC/Ursinus game. I thought that game would be a lot closer than it wound up being, especially after how WC looked last week against a pair of ranked teams. It looks like the Bears didn't have a lot of trouble last night.

[Hooper]

You can't be serious!!  "Carrying the load" the past 3+ years??   He scored alot of points, but he played with upperclassmen like Liddic (1700 pts, 1000 reb),  Hargrove (996 pts) , and Albano/Forsman as bigs.   And gaurds Curry (1000 pts) and a true PG in O'Hara...  Killing benefitted from having those other players on the court.  This group is young!  He is the only Senior with one Junior.   The rest are Fr and Sophs..  Both Dickinson and JHU are upperclassmen-laden teams.   Experience matters in the CC.  F&M's Fr and Soph's are typically post-grad year kids.   

[Reserved Seat]

F&M's Fr and Soph's are typically post-grad year kids   ?
What does this mean?

[Hooper]

It is not meant in a derogatory manner.   They aren't "true" Freshmen in some sense.   But they are Freshmen.  They played a year of post-grad hoops after HS at Lawrenceville, Hun, Peddie or wherever.  Robinson gets alot of them at F&M.   Frederici played a year after HS at Lawrenceville, correct??  I think you can agree that he is a year older, wiser than a kid coming directly out of HS.   I am not questioning the practice of recruiting PG kids at all.  They are a great fit in the CC with the academic load.