While Sydney is not as dynamic of an interviewee, nor is as funny and quotable as Cooley, I feel we get much more of the truth out of Sydney than we ever did out of Cooley. Sydney gives us a lot more content, where Cooley gave us some great quotes..... "We were terrible, but our Assistant coaches dressed well", “Don’t judge us by our wins and losses.”, Danny Oglesby is the most intense player on this team, and "Jon Han's leadership has helped us become a better team".
I would agree that Sydney has more of a business/teaching approach, while Cooley was a great emotional/leader. Both approaches work.
I remember asking Cooley at his 1st Doc's roundtable who were the leader's of his team. And he said "Nobody, I am the leader of the team"..... I never forgot that, as how stong he came accross. I also asked Sydney the same question at the 1st Meet Coach, and he talked analyticaly about he was looking at a group of players (Needham, Wade, Sanders) that needed to grow into being leaders by playing with composure at times instead of emotion all the time. A stark contrast and approach to a important topic of leadership. Was Cooley's approach leadership the best for Jon Han and Derek Needham???.
Last Edit: Oct 16, 2013 15:37:18 GMT -5 by JoeStag
RF and Nashville, I believe that you are both dead on. I have a strong belief in Coach Johnson, and I am really glad that he is a Stag, but his approach with the media, and with us, is driving me a little crazy. He clearly keeps his cards close to the vest, too close maybe. I remember at one of our Round Tables someone asked him about the Malcom Gilbert waiver, and he reponded that he had not even thought about it yet. I dont think that any of us believed him, but he made it sound almost like he didnt care. What would have been the harm in talkking about it? He often sound aloof, when in reality I believe that he is intense and passionate. I believe that his passioon, if he is willing to show it, can rub off on the students and the community, and help promote the program, the way Coach Cooley did. And his coach speak is so bad that it sounds silly at times. In a recent interview, posted on this board, he said that he needs a guard that can score "with the ball or without the ball". If he can find a player that can score without the ball, our attendance issues will cease to exist. We will fill the Arena every night with folks interested in the magic show. A little more plain talk would be nice. And as far as being reluctant to name starters, I asked Coach Cooley before Derick's Freshnan year whether Derrick was expected to see some playing time. He responded "much playing time? I expect him to start." I walked away from that more excited about Derrick, and more excited about the team. I think we need more of that approach.
While Sydney is not as dynamic of an interviewee, nor is as funny and quotable as Cooley, I feel we get much more of the truth out of Sydney than we ever did out of Cooley. Sydney gives us a lot more content, where Cooley gave us some great quotes..... "We were terrible, but our Assistant coaches dressed well", “Don’t judge us by our wins and losses.”, Danny Oglesby is the most intense player on this team, and "Jon Han's leadership has helped us become a better team".
I would agree that Sydney has more of a business/teaching approach, while Cooley was a great emotional/leader. Both approaches work.
I remember asking Cooley at his 1st Doc's roundtable who were the leader's of his team. And he said "Nobody, I am the leader of the team"..... I never forgot that, as how stong he came accross. I also asked Sydney the same question at the 1st Meet Coach, and he talked analyticaly about he was looking at a group of players (Needham, Wade, Sanders) that needed to grow into being leaders by playing with composure at times instead of emotion all the time. A stark contrast and approach to a important topic of leadership. Was Cooley's approach leadership the best for Jon Han and Derek Needham???.
I think the point here is that there are more than one way to go about things in order to get the same result. And trying to be someone you are not is a bad thing IMO. I mean Billy Martin and Joe Torre both had a lot of success as managers of the Yankees at one time. Yet they were as different in personalities as anyone could be.
As for the topic, I also vote for Justin. For some reason the expectations for him are low, at least by some. I really like his game. There are so many candidates. This may not be our best year, but I think that it will be the most exciting, interesting and fun to watch in some time.
We all love people who give us a warm fuzzy felling. I agree that Syd is a bit of a cold fish with the loyals, but that's who he is. You can't force personality.
I do Not feel a coach owes fans open practices or his thoughts on player performance/starters prior to the season. Syd is doing his job evaluating his talent and owes us nothing right now.
Sure it's more fun for the fan when you have a coach with a friendly personality and who is an open book.
Yes, I loved the Cooley style. I totally enjoyed running into him at the WAC, on a metro north train or at the diner.
BUT, if Syd can win MAAC Championships with consistent 20 win seasons, with players maximizing their contributions to the team, he's done his job.
cooley = is "joe the local Bar tender", approachable, funny, regular guy johnson= is "wall street" , make an appointment to talk with him, guarded, aloof
Post by reindeerfan on Oct 17, 2013 9:07:03 GMT -5
Nashville, I like Johnson, I'm not down on him at all. I feel like we might have some diamonds in this group of recruits, and I think perhaps a few years from now we might all feel he brought in more talent than Ed did. Only time will tell. I certainly feel we are going to score more this year and that we finally have a cast of characters that can play Sydney's style of basketball. There are not many personalities like Ed Cooley, so its not fair to make that comparison. Its just I find every interview with Sydney almost meaningless, so filled with coachspeak that its almost not worth listening to the guy. That doesn't mean he's not a good coach, he's just not a great interview. I don't really expect that ever to change.