I can agree with some of what you say, particularly your observations about reliance on the long ball vs our lack of critical skill in that area. However, I don't, for a minute, believe we have "top ten talent" and your last paragraph leaves me unenthusiastic, particularly since, when we next conduct a coaching search, I am a strong advocate for significant prior head coaching experience.pdxmuskie wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 4:40 pmSome are focusing on the wrong things. The issue isn't shots not falling. It is why is the team shooting poorly? The answer is largely taking the wrong shots. Johnson, a great shooter, is struggling and instead of waiting for clean looks, he is forcing contested shots. He rarely took contested shots when he was in a groove. Freemantle was previously shooting without being properly set and it looked like he was 5 years old hoisting the ball due to lack of strength. Zach has since improved both shot selection and gotten into a proper stance before taking 3s and it has dramatically improved his execution.
Shot selection has been a serious issue for this team and all the other teams Travis has coached. It is why shooting percentages are low. Kunkel is very guilty of shooting when not set. When he is on, they often go but he needs to get in the flow first before attempting those for them to be reasonable shots. The bulk of X players, are mediocre 3 point shooters, which means the team should not shoot a lot of 3s.
Nunge is a very good post player. Zach is also a talented offensive player in various matchups. Scruggs has a great mid range and when not over penetrating, great at the rim. Jones and Odom are both good at attacking the rim. Kunkel and Johnson are both capable at attacking. The focus needs to be near the rim. Deep shots should be the result of penetration and post passes that creates great looks. Even when open, ball movement should continue when early in the shot clock rather than hoisting a 3 by all mediocre shooters.
The other missed concept is that X being borderline top 25 is irrelevant. What are they capable of being ranked? What is their ranking vs what they are capable of being? X has the pieces to be a top 10 team and they are playing more like a top 30 team. Is it possible I overrate their talent, absolutely. If they were earning a top 20 ranking then that is probably close enough.
Being a better 2nd half team is a positive for coaching. Depending on exceptional runs in the 2nd half and getting them somewhat frequently is also a bad sign for coaching. It is good when the coach makes adjustments and the team shows improvement. When the team goes on huge runs in the 2nd half, it shows a lack of full game effort and full game shot selection. Adjustments should create a slow grind back because the team make some changes that are showing benefit in the margins. When you get huge surges it generally means the team is suddenly inspired and getting after it on the defensive end and either executing properly offensively or getting very lucky.
This team doesn't have top 10 potential because of offense. They have it because of the defensive potential. The length and speed gives them so much potential to be amazing on the defensive end. We see it for stretches. We never see it for the majority of the game. Coaches need to inspire players. Find what motivates them.
Another item of confusion is that some keep thinking that pulling players for making bad decisions would result in the team having no one to play. There is no rule that says a coach can't simply pull a player, give him instruction and put him back in. Sometimes a player just needs to settle down emotionally, other times they need to get their head in the game and occasionally they need to sit and think. the last is rare other than with certain players that are focused on personal stats rather than team. This team doesn't seem to have any of those players.
Others can opine about offensive sets and things to that nature. I am not impressed with the quantity of easy buckets but I am not the person to point out where the problems are.
Travis seems to be a great guy. He is not a terrible coach. He is also not a great coach at this time. If he doesn't change his approach, he will never be a great coach. I see enough talent and basketball knowledge in his recruits to believe he is a great recruiter. It is possible talent and player understanding of the game will get X to where we want to be in the years ahead. It is also possible Travis grows as a coach and the team plays with intensity on defense all game and improves shot selection. At this point I see greater probability in players playing intelligently than in Travis coaching them to play that way. The basis for this comment: Odom and Jones. They rarely take bad shots and rarely don't give effort. That is not to say either isn't out of position from time to time or that they do not make mistakes. Coaches still matter when pointing out situational issues where a player misses his rotation to the ball or where a player incorrectly leaves the ball. Most HS players will not know the right answers for various situations instinctually.
If Travis stays, he will most likely keep Xavier as a tournament team most years based on recruiting. I personally want more. X coaches get paid way too much to be essentially mediocre. I realize some want them to get paid way more to be a destination. I would rather a modest pay with huge bonuses for success. Win the BE. Win the BE tournament. Make the NIT (small bonus). Make the NCAA Tournament (modest bonus). Advance to 2nd round (solid bonus). Advance to 3rd round (nice bonus). Advance each additional round - big fat bonuses with each win.
I do not agree with the poster suggesting a minimum of coaching experience. Strategists would make excellent coaches assuming they understand basketball and have the right assistant coaches. Bonus structure could be modified to incorporate assistant coaches when hiring a strategist vs a traditional coach. Generally, if you want to be great, you think outside the box. a 12 year veteran is a known quantity. A change in circumstances will alter that person's results a bit but not enough to expect dramatic change from their past.
But, for starters, we will not be looking for a new coach this year and for a lot of reasons. Firing Steele would require the A.D. admit he made a mistake and he isn't about to do that particularly when we have a new President and with Steele's FIL a board member. And, as you stated, Steele isn't terrible. So, he gets, at minimum, another year after 2021-2022. It is possible that, as you pointed out, Steele will grow into the job. When he was hired, I thought he would. It may still happen although I would quote Denny Green here. At this point, "Steele is who we thought he was", an inexperienced leader who, so far, actual leadership experience has not seemed to improve.
So, even though I think it is fantasy to discuss replace Steele now, I have to question your thinking about a "strategist". I don't know how that is defined but I'll guess that it is an individual competent at X's and O's. I'd ask you, if we are looking at three otherwise equal candidates to replace Steele and one of them is a "strategist" how do we know that? Please define what a strategist is and then tell me how, if they haven't had prior head coaching experience strategizing and implementing that strategy, how do we know they are competent? Seems to me, if one likes to ruminate about the on-court action but has not actually directed the action and tested the strategies in question, that person is really just an analyst. And, I think, that's what we had in Steele when we hired him.....a guy who enjoyed diagramming in-bounds plays but who had never sat at the top of an important basketball organization making the multitude of decisions required by a leader at that level.
As they say, Generals always fight the last war. That's what we did with Steele and with good reason. We had a young, dynamic guy who had been part of the organization for twelve years (I think) adding ever increasing responsibilities who wanted the job and presented a detailed plan for getting X the final 2%. X had a good record of promoting former Asst. Coaches to the top job. It had worked before. Why not this time? But, in four years, we have digressed. Perhaps we will restore momentum and forward direction. Your are correct, I think, It could still happen and I bet most everyone on this board hopes that it does. But, after four years, does it seem likely?
As I said, it is an academic argument for the moment. But, at some future date we will need to find a new coach. And, we had better be able to identify and very strictly define and order the characteristics and experience we need in the individual we seek. We cannot be sloppy in how we define what we need and we cannot wing it.
