No dig at Cooley, I was one of his biggest supporters. I am just trying to be objective. Cooley left a loaded team for Sydney for one year, and we almost won it. But in all reality Sydney had to rebuild the entire frontcourt 2 years ago because we had no player taller than Mo Barrow. And this year we had to rebuild the entire Backcourt.
That Junior and Senior class was poor, sorry if it makes you upset. And what made it worse is that some of the players that were mere images of others..... Barrow=Matthews (undersized PF's). Fields=Nickerson (no offense, aggresive defenders). Sydney did not fix the guard issue this year, and thats on him.
That doesn't make me upset. The perceived acceptance of this current coach by you makes me upset. Always making an excuse for someone who has drastically underperformed. Sorry, but I wanted to puke watching that game yesterday. The lack of support from the student body on a Saturday at 1 speaks volumes. Sydney does not connect with them. Move on...
What has Smith shown that would make him a key component of a championship team. The only threes he makes are in practice. As for Sidibe, like others, he has regressed.
BumStag: I understand why you might feel as you do given these players current numbers. But Smith has shown that he is a high percentage three point shooter when open. The issue with his play in my view is we don't know how to run plays to get him open and consequently he is forcing way to many shots. Its a coaching issue in my mind not a player issue.
When you look at the year in its totality, Sidibe has not played as well as last year. But Sidibe has started to play better lately. He is finding a way to stay on the floor / not fouling as much. He plays hard. He is a good rebounder. He is a true inside player with some level of post skills. I think Sidibe has better days ahead of him. I guess time will tell if he continues to improve as I expect. For anyone interested here are his career numbers to date:
No dig at Cooley, I was one of his biggest supporters. I am just trying to be objective. Cooley left a loaded team for Sydney for one year, and we almost won it. But in all reality Sydney had to rebuild the entire frontcourt 2 years ago because we had no player taller than Mo Barrow. And this year we had to rebuild the entire Backcourt.
That Junior and Senior class was poor, sorry if it makes you upset. And what made it worse is that some of the players that were mere images of others..... Barrow=Matthews (undersized PF's). Fields=Nickerson (no offense, aggresive defenders). Sydney did not fix the guard issue this year, and thats on him.
Players graduate every year and coaches need to rebuild at certain positions. The reality was the only immediate need Sydney had to deal with was at Center, as he had two strong forwards and depth at guard. He brought in Sidibe and Josip Mikulic and he still had 2 scholarships left, one for guard and one for forward. I don't think this is much different that what any other coach would face. His second year the loss of all three starting guards to me was more of an issue. Its hard to blame Cooley entirely for this though as he had recruited Fields a player Sydney apparently did not want. I think Sydney brought in a solid recruit in Jenkins but I do blame Sydney for not getting Jenkins a little more experience last year.
I agree that Mathews and Barrow were very much redundant resources, just as Wade and Needham were. This isn't really an issue when players like this are two years apart. But in both cases, these redundant resources were graduating at the same time. If Mathews had been 2 years younger, or wade had two years behind Needham this redundancy would have been an asset.
I don't feel that Nickerson and Fields were redundant resources. Fields has much better offensive skills that Nickerson. Fields did not play a whole bunch, so we didn't really get to see what he brings. He scored more than 20 points in a half as a freshman against Iona. He also shot better than 43% from the floor and 34% from beyond the arc. Nickerson never put up those kind of numbers. Fields was also a good ball-handler and much more of a point guard than Nickerson. Given that they were not in the same class, a player like Fields was worth working with even if he was not starting with the goal of having him contribute his junior and senior year. I still contend that this year we would be better off with Fields as a starter than with any of the guard recruits that Sydney has brought in.
The reality was the only immediate need Sydney had to deal with was at Center, as he had two strong forwards and depth at guard. ...... I don't feel that Nickerson and Fields were redundant resources. Fields has much better offensive skills that Nickerson. Fields did not play a whole bunch, so we didn't really get to see what he brings. He scored more than 20 points in a half as a freshman against Iona. He also shot better than 43% from the floor and 34% from beyond the arc. Nickerson never put up those kind of numbers. Fields was also a good ball-handler and much more of a point guard than Nickerson. Given that they were not in the same class, a player like Fields was worth working with even if he was not starting with the goal of having him contribute his junior and senior year. I still contend that this year we would be better off with Fields as a starter than with any of the guard recruits that Sydney has brought in.
Center was not the only position that we needed to rebuild. We had no small forward. Barrow and Matthews were not small forwards..... they shot exactly 2 three-pointers, and missed them both, and their passing (assist-2-turnovers) were no where near of what is expected of a SF.
I also consider Nickerson and Fields as very redundant because of their lack offense. They really could not be on the court at the same time. Fields played more under Sydney than Cooley and neither thought he wase PG material. Fields was probably a little better than Nickerson at offense, but his career numbers at Fairfield were 27.9% from the arc, and 37% FG%. Fields strength was that he provided great energy as a change of pace player. He played his best games when we were behind by a lot. And he showed us this year he can do that for SPC. Agree, he would have helped us this year..... but he would likely have been in the same role as SPC is using him.
Post by reindeerfan on Feb 3, 2014 11:33:42 GMT -5
Well, JS, I think we'll have to agree to disagree about Fields. I absolutely do not think they were in any way redundant resources. Fields was much more of a true offensive player and point guard. Fields averaged better than 12.3 points per 40 minutes, compared to Nickerson's average of 9.5. Fields also demonstrated he would shoot and Nickerson really only scored points from the foul line and on turnovers. Fields could hit the three point shot shooting .344 from the outside his freshman year compared to Nickerson's .246. The fact is Fields was a better three point shooter than Derek Needham that year as Needham only shot .309. Even if you believe Fields and Nickerson were similar players, they weren't in the same year in school and had Fields stayed there would certainly be room on the roster for a player like Fields now. Comparing Fields to our best Freshman demonstrates this point.
Statistics on a per 40 minutes basis: FG% 3P% FT% BAST STL BLK TOV PF PTS Rose 417 .229 .514 4.5 0.9 0.0 4.3 4.4 9.6 Fields 406 .435 598 4.2 2.1 0.1 2.9 3.9 12.2 .
Except for Rose's overall shooting percentage which is slightly better, Fields put up better numbers in every area including 3 point percentage, Free throw percentage, Assists, ATTR, Steals, Blocks, turnovers, fouls and points. There are a lot of people making assumptions that these freshman will get better, and I think Fields would have improved his numbers too. So I will always feel that Sydney made a mistake in his handling of fields, and that our program would have benefitted had he stayed.
Worst case is that Fields would have pushed the freshman. There were no other guards that have gone "through the wars" at the d1 level.
Forgetting all the statistical stuff and even playing style, I do think that Fields would have brought a certain fire and mental toughness that could have only benefited the team, even if he wasn't a starter. However to be fair to Sydney and his decision regarding Jamel I do think it was obvious that he was never going to be a difference maker in his role as a Stag. And like it or not perhaps Fields also was a little too loose in conforming to the way Sydney and the coaches wanted the game to be played. Therefore I think that influenced his decision greatly in regard to the way this situation played out.
Post by reindeerfan on Feb 3, 2014 16:25:53 GMT -5
Nashville: Of course you are right about Fields with the loose style of play, and for this reason it is true that he was not a match for Sydney's system. I understand why both Sydney and Fields may have felt the separation necessary. I still feel this as a coaching issue. A difference between Sydney and some other coaches is some coaches adjust their approach based on the personnel they have and the opponent they are playing. Sydney does seem to need players that fit his style, and he seems less capable than other coaches we have had of adjusting the teams style of play to take advantage of the strengths of the personnel he has.
RF, i agree, you may be right. Let propose another explanation. Sid is confident in the style of play he wants from his team. He has hasd scucess with his style previously and is armed wiht a long term contract ( ends 18/19 season). He can invest in players that meet the style he wants and will dispose of others who do not work out.
RF, i agree, you may be right. Let propose another explanation. Sid is confident in the style of play he wants from his team. He has hasd scucess with his style previously and is armed wiht a long term contract ( ends 18/19 season). He can invest in players that meet the style he wants and will dispose of others who do not work out.
74: I think you are absolutely right about this. Fields and Mathews got run because they do not fit well with Sydney's style of offense. Barrow on the other hand extended his range and has tried to become the player Sydney wants him to be. I give Barrow great credit for working to extend his range but I ask myself why Fairfield is consistently placing one of the best offensive rebounders in the league outside the three point line. If Barrow has less offensive boards this year, its not that he suddenly got worse, its that he is consistently not in a position to get rebounds. And while this approach may have worked for Sydney in the past I can't help but ask if we are not getting the most we can out of this team because of a stubborn insistence to stick with what an approach that isn't working because we don't have the right personnel to execute it. Fundamentally, past coaches have had things they tried to do philosophically, but they made adjustments to the players they had. I haven't seen any recognition of the personnel we have by this coach. Does anyone think Paul Cormier or Ed Cooley would have only won 4 games with this team? I don't. Each did more with less talent.
I am not a Sydney hater, and it is possible that if he gets the right personnel he'll have a lot of success. But some of us may not live that long......