Thanks to NorCalScout for alternately making me laugh and
providing fodder for an annual return to the message boards. The sheer genius
and compelling commentary about Coach Lou Richie as compared to one Gary
McKnight, the mention of the kinda/sorta/slightly caveated (in my opinion)
statement about the teams with a great head coach sans assistants, and the
overall state of coaching as applied to basketball programs riveted me.
Uh, not really.
Nonetheless I feel somewhat inspired so let's start with how
Coach Richie and Coach McKnight (including the respective programs) compare
about as equally as Coach Calipari and Coach Bo Ryan (along with their
respective programs.
(Coach Cal will win every year and gets huge credit for
knowing how to win with great talent which isn't easy. Coach Ryan will win
every year and tout an exceptional year every once in a while when he takes a
Frank The Tank and turns him into the National Player of The Year. Coach Cal
will win titles every year and Coach Ryan will coach what he can get to the
best of that player's ability. Wildly different.)
Played Any Measure of
Real Basketball: Well, no brainer here. Coach Richie only played at UCLA
and Clemson during two eras of significant talent at both schools. Coach
McKnight, after getting cut out of the will from his doppleganger brother who
co-founded Wendy's (Dave Thomas) due to a fight over better hair and bigger
girth (hair won out) took his talents to a correspondence school for
basketball. While Coach Richie only learned from some of the best coaches in
the history of college basketball, Coach McKnight never admitted to a Wendy's
fueled diet of opportunism and DEEEEEP alumni pockets to ensure a constant and
consistent flow of talent into one Mater Dei. Playing kinda maybe correlates to
knowing a little about basketball. Just kinda. Playing in the ACC against Duke
and NC maybe sorta might bring some knowledge and reference to the table.
Teaches:
Daggoneit (Zo, I've learned good language so you won't ban my post), another
one for Coach Richie. See, while Coach McKnight lives of a HEALTHY (shocking I
know given his slender figure) "stipend" and the unaccounted "donation" from a
certain shoe program to boost his income in a very healthy (there's that word
again) yearly nut, Coach Richie paid his way through a masters program at UC
Berkeley and, wait for it, teaches school without any of the same amenities. Yes
the man teaches school. Given how many successful adults count Coach Richie as
a teacher and mentor not just on the basketball court but in the classroom and
life, it's stunning to me he would eschew the opportunity to make 8X his salary
in other areas of basketball to teach but maybe that's because he's so insecure
he needs to try and prove to people like you he can actually educate on or off
the court.
Recruitment: One
of my favorite topics because any program with any kid of any measure gets
accused of recruiting. Let's be honest with each other for a moment, Mr. Scout,
name one kid in his right mind who would accept a recruiting "package" to play
for Allocco at DLS. Yet Frank wins every year and every year sends at least one
kid to college on scholarship so he must recruit, right? Uh, no. He gets a
great kid every once in a while and otherwise coaches, as you asserted. See
Coach Richie can't recruit because he answers to a board and a good Doctor
running Bishop O'Dowd who not only wouldn't suffer the notion of recruiting,
they would bounce Coach Richie out the door if anything of the like surfaced.
That's why the 1st Mickey D's AA in O'Dowd history plays right now in
Ivan Rabb. If Coach Richie really recruited then the pipeline of all the kids
he's coached independently of O'Dowd would make BOD one of the greatest talent
pools in America. Instead he must coach. He's required to coach. I guess you
forget BOD was picked as the preseason third best team in their own league. If
he had so much talent then he would only see #1 rankings before he even started
coaching. Mater Dei, on the other hand, needs none of the same structure. They
openly recruit and because no boundaries exist with such a suffocating alumni
base that Coach McKnight can happily eat another 4x4 without concern. How else
could one school get kids ready made for D1 year after year after cheeseburger
after year?
Coaching: Well, I
should start with a point of agreement. We both agree Coach McKnight can't
coach and makes decisions based upon hunger pains (my words, not yours.)
However to put Coach Richie in the same boat shows an astronomical amount of
ignorance and clearly a lack of understanding of the game. Let's start slowly.
Your list lacked a phenomenal coach and though this coach always has great
assistants it's clear to me you see only a small segment of basketball. Tell me
about Rich Forslund, that is if you know him. I feel fortunate to know Rich
because he embodies so much anyone should want in a coach but do you know how
we met? I ripped him after he lost a prominent game in a year he went to the
state final right here on this very message board (Riordan). Unlike you who
threw out some asinine assertion without backing anything up, I broke down the
game and laid to waste a terrible performance from a great team So
he called me and we talked about the game, the sport, and coaching in great
detail. He knows the game but one game does not make a coach. I never asserted
he sucked, but I did assert he didn't coach his "A" game. In that season one
could literally see Riordan evolve and if I wasn't watching I know the changes
and development wouldn't show so prominently. The development and the run to
the State Final only happened because Rich can coach, flat out coach. And while
I ripped him rightfully for a single performance and the failures therein, one
game did not a coach make. You want to assert the failure to win last year's
state final as the banner for why Coach Richie can't coach?
I'd assert you might want to take some medicine or
reevaluate your lack of evaluation capabilities. Yes, some changes could have
been made in hindsight to prevent the triple team mauling of Ivan in the post.
Yes, some changes could have been made to ensure the penetration into the
offense didn't put the ball at risk for turnovers. Yes, neither Coach Richie or
anyone else would either make an excuse or say they wouldn't do something
different. However if you watched the game you saw a Top 5 NBA pick in the 2015
draft built like a 30 year old man take over like he should. You saw a defense
constructed 100% of taking all 12 players to use all 5 fouls each to slap Ivan
every time he crossed halfcourt daring the refs to turn the game into a free
throw competition. Yes you saw the refs not make any calls and BOD subsequently
turn the ball over trying to make too much happen.
Or maybe you didn't.
Because you clearly didn't see Coach Richie play four kids significant
minutes in that game and every other game who, at any other program, wouldn't
ever develop into a player capable of even walking onto that floor. You clearly
didn't see the team over the summer, unathletic and lacking the skills to
compete for a league title (save Ivan and Paris), transformed through hard work
to make a run at a state title in a game they should have won.
Instead you asserted a 16 year old kid doesn't play big in
big games without even trying to analyze the game. That's awesome and you
should be proud of yourself.
On the flip side you've got Coach McKnight. Yeah he recruits
and yeah he gets great players but maybe we just need to all agree there's more
than one Pete Carroll out there. He runs nothing of real consequence save an
outdated offense which, on its own, will beat 90% of all teams out there. The
other 10% of the equation doesn't take much math skill: duh, he turns the game
over to a Top 100 player and then smiles like a guy who will murder Hometown
Buffet after the game as said player just takes over. That's not coaching. The players
at MD, the role players don't develop and I've been in both a practice and sat
very close to the man while he coached many games (well, not close enough to discern
the difference between a chocolate and vanilla malt at lunch) and he doesn't coach.
He mails it in like Pete Carroll. The assistants do a little but when a team
can boast great talent every single year it's just not that hard to win. Imagine
if your hallowed list of coaches could rock a roster year after year like
McKnight. Would they or would they not win state titles and then not have to
suffer the ignominity of sitting on your list of "great coaches without
assistants."
In closing I can tell you're not the normal hack blasting
someone on the message board just to feel good about yourself. I truly think
you saw something and let your keyboard provide a vehicle for unsubstantiated
and poorly considered thoughts. Nonetheless to take a coach like Lou Richie and
put him into the category of professional coach (meaning the Hamburgler who only gets paid to roll the ball out for a bunch of All Americans without any other responsibility) all the while denigrating a
core skill he brings to the table, frankly, paints you poorly.
Peace
providing fodder for an annual return to the message boards. The sheer genius
and compelling commentary about Coach Lou Richie as compared to one Gary
McKnight, the mention of the kinda/sorta/slightly caveated (in my opinion)
statement about the teams with a great head coach sans assistants, and the
overall state of coaching as applied to basketball programs riveted me.
Uh, not really.
Nonetheless I feel somewhat inspired so let's start with how
Coach Richie and Coach McKnight (including the respective programs) compare
about as equally as Coach Calipari and Coach Bo Ryan (along with their
respective programs.
(Coach Cal will win every year and gets huge credit for
knowing how to win with great talent which isn't easy. Coach Ryan will win
every year and tout an exceptional year every once in a while when he takes a
Frank The Tank and turns him into the National Player of The Year. Coach Cal
will win titles every year and Coach Ryan will coach what he can get to the
best of that player's ability. Wildly different.)
Played Any Measure of
Real Basketball: Well, no brainer here. Coach Richie only played at UCLA
and Clemson during two eras of significant talent at both schools. Coach
McKnight, after getting cut out of the will from his doppleganger brother who
co-founded Wendy's (Dave Thomas) due to a fight over better hair and bigger
girth (hair won out) took his talents to a correspondence school for
basketball. While Coach Richie only learned from some of the best coaches in
the history of college basketball, Coach McKnight never admitted to a Wendy's
fueled diet of opportunism and DEEEEEP alumni pockets to ensure a constant and
consistent flow of talent into one Mater Dei. Playing kinda maybe correlates to
knowing a little about basketball. Just kinda. Playing in the ACC against Duke
and NC maybe sorta might bring some knowledge and reference to the table.
Teaches:
Daggoneit (Zo, I've learned good language so you won't ban my post), another
one for Coach Richie. See, while Coach McKnight lives of a HEALTHY (shocking I
know given his slender figure) "stipend" and the unaccounted "donation" from a
certain shoe program to boost his income in a very healthy (there's that word
again) yearly nut, Coach Richie paid his way through a masters program at UC
Berkeley and, wait for it, teaches school without any of the same amenities. Yes
the man teaches school. Given how many successful adults count Coach Richie as
a teacher and mentor not just on the basketball court but in the classroom and
life, it's stunning to me he would eschew the opportunity to make 8X his salary
in other areas of basketball to teach but maybe that's because he's so insecure
he needs to try and prove to people like you he can actually educate on or off
the court.
Recruitment: One
of my favorite topics because any program with any kid of any measure gets
accused of recruiting. Let's be honest with each other for a moment, Mr. Scout,
name one kid in his right mind who would accept a recruiting "package" to play
for Allocco at DLS. Yet Frank wins every year and every year sends at least one
kid to college on scholarship so he must recruit, right? Uh, no. He gets a
great kid every once in a while and otherwise coaches, as you asserted. See
Coach Richie can't recruit because he answers to a board and a good Doctor
running Bishop O'Dowd who not only wouldn't suffer the notion of recruiting,
they would bounce Coach Richie out the door if anything of the like surfaced.
That's why the 1st Mickey D's AA in O'Dowd history plays right now in
Ivan Rabb. If Coach Richie really recruited then the pipeline of all the kids
he's coached independently of O'Dowd would make BOD one of the greatest talent
pools in America. Instead he must coach. He's required to coach. I guess you
forget BOD was picked as the preseason third best team in their own league. If
he had so much talent then he would only see #1 rankings before he even started
coaching. Mater Dei, on the other hand, needs none of the same structure. They
openly recruit and because no boundaries exist with such a suffocating alumni
base that Coach McKnight can happily eat another 4x4 without concern. How else
could one school get kids ready made for D1 year after year after cheeseburger
after year?
Coaching: Well, I
should start with a point of agreement. We both agree Coach McKnight can't
coach and makes decisions based upon hunger pains (my words, not yours.)
However to put Coach Richie in the same boat shows an astronomical amount of
ignorance and clearly a lack of understanding of the game. Let's start slowly.
Your list lacked a phenomenal coach and though this coach always has great
assistants it's clear to me you see only a small segment of basketball. Tell me
about Rich Forslund, that is if you know him. I feel fortunate to know Rich
because he embodies so much anyone should want in a coach but do you know how
we met? I ripped him after he lost a prominent game in a year he went to the
state final right here on this very message board (Riordan). Unlike you who
threw out some asinine assertion without backing anything up, I broke down the
game and laid to waste a terrible performance from a great team So
he called me and we talked about the game, the sport, and coaching in great
detail. He knows the game but one game does not make a coach. I never asserted
he sucked, but I did assert he didn't coach his "A" game. In that season one
could literally see Riordan evolve and if I wasn't watching I know the changes
and development wouldn't show so prominently. The development and the run to
the State Final only happened because Rich can coach, flat out coach. And while
I ripped him rightfully for a single performance and the failures therein, one
game did not a coach make. You want to assert the failure to win last year's
state final as the banner for why Coach Richie can't coach?
I'd assert you might want to take some medicine or
reevaluate your lack of evaluation capabilities. Yes, some changes could have
been made in hindsight to prevent the triple team mauling of Ivan in the post.
Yes, some changes could have been made to ensure the penetration into the
offense didn't put the ball at risk for turnovers. Yes, neither Coach Richie or
anyone else would either make an excuse or say they wouldn't do something
different. However if you watched the game you saw a Top 5 NBA pick in the 2015
draft built like a 30 year old man take over like he should. You saw a defense
constructed 100% of taking all 12 players to use all 5 fouls each to slap Ivan
every time he crossed halfcourt daring the refs to turn the game into a free
throw competition. Yes you saw the refs not make any calls and BOD subsequently
turn the ball over trying to make too much happen.
Or maybe you didn't.
Because you clearly didn't see Coach Richie play four kids significant
minutes in that game and every other game who, at any other program, wouldn't
ever develop into a player capable of even walking onto that floor. You clearly
didn't see the team over the summer, unathletic and lacking the skills to
compete for a league title (save Ivan and Paris), transformed through hard work
to make a run at a state title in a game they should have won.
Instead you asserted a 16 year old kid doesn't play big in
big games without even trying to analyze the game. That's awesome and you
should be proud of yourself.
On the flip side you've got Coach McKnight. Yeah he recruits
and yeah he gets great players but maybe we just need to all agree there's more
than one Pete Carroll out there. He runs nothing of real consequence save an
outdated offense which, on its own, will beat 90% of all teams out there. The
other 10% of the equation doesn't take much math skill: duh, he turns the game
over to a Top 100 player and then smiles like a guy who will murder Hometown
Buffet after the game as said player just takes over. That's not coaching. The players
at MD, the role players don't develop and I've been in both a practice and sat
very close to the man while he coached many games (well, not close enough to discern
the difference between a chocolate and vanilla malt at lunch) and he doesn't coach.
He mails it in like Pete Carroll. The assistants do a little but when a team
can boast great talent every single year it's just not that hard to win. Imagine
if your hallowed list of coaches could rock a roster year after year like
McKnight. Would they or would they not win state titles and then not have to
suffer the ignominity of sitting on your list of "great coaches without
assistants."
In closing I can tell you're not the normal hack blasting
someone on the message board just to feel good about yourself. I truly think
you saw something and let your keyboard provide a vehicle for unsubstantiated
and poorly considered thoughts. Nonetheless to take a coach like Lou Richie and
put him into the category of professional coach (meaning the Hamburgler who only gets paid to roll the ball out for a bunch of All Americans without any other responsibility) all the while denigrating a
core skill he brings to the table, frankly, paints you poorly.
Peace
