I would take St. Peters situation in a minute...an actual NCAA birth in the last 5 years. That said, well presented facts...I have lost the rose coloring for sure. That said, I am hopeful that these kids are getting good educations and will be poised and ready for life after hoops as they won't be playing professionally.
I am gonna just ride the wave the rest of the year...odds are that we will get a win or two and be one and done in maac.
Bob Simon in 2015-16 sounds like the best man for the job if available... he can bring back the vibe of the good era if Sydney continues the current trend.
Curious, ironic that 3 years ago when the coaching position was open I wrote what I think was the only E-Mail in my life (I am old fashioned after all) to Gene Doris asking him to hire Bob Simon. So yes I would be on board for him to come back if the situation ever presented itself. I certainly hope however that things get turned around quickly so that decision won't have to be made. Now concerning comparing St. Peter's to Fairfield in the last 6 years, yes the Peacocks with a pretty good team ran the table one year, defeated us (and Iona) and won the MAAC. Like all the conferences, that opportunity is always available at the end of the year. But is making the tournament really more important that having a consistent 5 year winning period, especially when the Peacocks have recently had some seasons that are basically no better than the one the Stags are having right now? As a Stag fan I will always look back fondly at the last few seasons (until this year), and quite frankly I wouldn't feel too great if instead I was a Peter's backer about this period of time (other than of course the one miracle playoff run of 2011). But that's a matter of personal opinion obviously. BTW concerning that Peter's squad, if I am correct the basic core of that team was together for four years, and John Dunn survived a couple of real bad losing seasons with them before they put things together near the end of their careers, and the rest (as they say) was history. Is it possible that the same thing could happen with the core (or whatever remains of it) of this crew? Just asking?
While there seems to be a lot of problems, I believe that many of those are symptoms that can be fixed by improving the main root cause of the problem, which is upgrading our guard play. And our guard play at the 2G and 3G/SF is poor. I know that all teams with poor guard play are losing teams. It might be over-simplifying it, but good guards, make every player on the team better, on both ends of the ball. I firmly believe that, and its proven each year in the MAAC… Guards Win.
There is not a clearer example of that than Last Year’s 19 wins vs This Year’s 5 wins. The main difference is that we do not have the good guard play of Needham\Wade\Nickerson. If we had those 3 guards on this year’s team, we would have won 19 games this year. What we lost with those 3 guards were Ballhandling, Passing, Quickness and Defense. Here is how I see it
Good Guards ==> Better Ballhandling, Passing, Quickness and Defense ==> Winning Basketball
I agree with better guard play will give us better results. But the concerned group might say we have to look at Sydney as being responsible for the guard play. We had 6 scholarships to give for guards over 2 years. Jenkins, Rose, Chappell, Smith, Davis and Grennan. If he had gotten 1 superstar, and one solid guard out of 6 scholarships, we probably win a dozen games this year. Why do we feel the players comings in next year will be any better? I think all of these kids are decent Maac recruits and will contribute positively as their games develop. But we didn't have the luxury of waiting for 6 guys to be seniors to start winning. We needed a couple of guys that could help us win today. That certainly is the basis for some of the criticism of Sydney.
Agree that we brought in 5 guards in the last 2 seasons and my expectations were that at least 1 of them needed to be a “special” player this year, and another guard needed to be “starter” material. I harped on that all pre-season. That did not happen, as only KJ Rose can be viewed as Starter material as a frosh, with potential to be All MAAC someday. That is well below expectations for 5 guards. There is no doubt that Sydney has to bring in better guards, for us to be a winning team, but he also needs to bring in a “Special” guard to make us a Top team in the MAAC.
We should have gone more aggressively after JUCO’s and 5th year Seniors. While we were in the running for a few, it was a mistake for Sydney not to go after more of these type of players. I am pretty sure we will not make that same mistake for next year.
Should we have confidence that we will get a “Special” guard for next year?? No not really, but that is based on our history of only getting 3 Special guards in the last 12 years (Needham, Han, Todd) . IMO, we have been good for 11years, with only 1 special guard per year. But we needed 2 special guards to win a MAAC Championship.
Last Edit: Feb 17, 2014 13:41:36 GMT -5 by JoeStag
Post by curioustag on Feb 17, 2014 14:58:04 GMT -5
I agree with TMaac....coach Johnson comes across milquetoast much like his his offense. I liked TOt and Cooley Re: presence and communication. TOT was a grad and Cooley had the gift of gab...they worked for me. Uncommunicative and unsuccessful coaches tend not to...by the way, no other coaches makes excuses like he does about youth. He owns nothing...ever...except a nice contract in his favor.
I agree with better guard play will give us better results. But the concerned group might say we have to look at Sydney as being responsible for the guard play. We had 6 scholarships to give for guards over 2 years. Jenkins, Rose, Chappell, Smith, Davis and Grennan. If he had gotten 1 superstar, and one solid guard out of 6 scholarships, we probably win a dozen games this year. Why do we feel the players comings in next year will be any better? I think all of these kids are decent Maac recruits and will contribute positively as their games develop. But we didn't have the luxury of waiting for 6 guys to be seniors to start winning. We needed a couple of guys that could help us win today. That certainly is the basis for some of the criticism of Sydney.
Agree that we brought in 5 guards in the last 2 seasons and my expectations were that at least 1 of them needed to be a “special” player this year, and another guard needed to be “starter” material. I harped on that all pre-season. That did not happen, as only KJ Rose can be viewed as Starter material as a frosh, with potential to be All MAAC someday. That is well below expectations for 5 guards. There is no doubt that Sydney has to bring in better guards, for us to be a winning team, but he also needs to bring in a “Special” guard to make us a Top team in the MAAC.
We should have gone more aggressively after JUCO’s and 5th year Seniors. While we were in the running for a few, it was a mistake for Sydney not to go after more of these type of players. I am pretty sure we will not make that same mistake for next year.
Should we have confidence that we will get a “Special” guard for next year?? No not really, but that is based on our history of only getting 3 Special guards in the last 12 years (Needham, Han, Todd) . IMO, we have been good for 11years, with only 1 special guard per year. But we needed 2 special guards to win a MAAC Championship.
JS: I think you are right about the JUCO thing/5th year senior thing, I think we might have won another 5 or 6 games if we had gotten Shannon. One player can make a huge difference. It took TOT a few tries before he got Todd, but he did and from the day Todd stepped on the court we were a better program. Ditto for Han, who in my view was probably TOT best recruit (No offense intended to Thompson, Todd, Deng, Gai or some of the other all conference level talents Tim brought in). So if he gets one right guy next year it could have quite an impact. We have a good young players who are going to get better. We have been competing right up to the final 2 minutes of at least 7 games that we lost. The 1985 team had 9 single digit losses and the next year won those 9 and in total 18 games by single digits. So the difference between failure and success is not a lot. These are reasons to be positive. This is why I don't completely dismiss the possibility that next year will be better. I just haven't seen any evidence in watching Sydney operate that many deficiencies including recruiting, judging talent and game management will be better next year, giving me cause for concern.
I firmly believe that, and its proven each year in the MAAC… Guards Win.
There is not a clearer example of that than Last Year’s 19 wins vs This Year’s 5 wins. The main difference is that we do not have the good guard play of Needham\Wade\Nickerson. If we had those 3 guards on this year’s team, we would have won 19 games this year. What we lost with those 3 guards were Ballhandling, Passing, Quickness and Defense. Here is how I see it
Good Guards ==> Better Ballhandling, Passing, Quickness and Defense ==> Winning Basketball
JS I never hear you speak ill of Sydney but can you at least admit that he is the resin why we do not have capable guards. He had TWO years to find replacements for those guys yet never recruited a true PG. That is a failure by him and his staff and he needs to be accountable for his actions.
In fact I posted numerous times on here about several PG's that they should look at only to have the staff take a late look at them and folly the recruitment. The current staff is not equipped to recruit in the non IVY world.
....coach Johnson comes across milquetoast much like his his offense.[/quote
Different guys have different personalities. Cooley was very engaging and fiery. TOT too (though not with the media). Johnson is very different. That doesn't mean he's a bad guy. It just means he is different.
Johnson played for a guy at Princeton (Pete Carril) who was a real curmudgeon. I remember Carril speaking at one of my high school's sports banquets. You want to talk about milquetoast? Carril makes Sydney look like Jay Leno. Carril put everyone to sleep at the banquet and he always looked like he was in anguish whenever you saw him on TV. The fact that Sydney decided to play for Carril probably tells us a lot about what makes him tick.
That being said, Carril was a heck of a coach. Another coach that comes to mind is the late Bob Dukiet. That guy was a heck of a coach and did more with less than anyone I've ever seen. SPC was great when he was the head coach. To me a great coach is one who can win games that his team simply should not win. Carril and Dukiet were great coaches in my opinion.
Yet to hear him both of them talk was like watching paint dry ... without the sweet smell of the paint. Boring!
We can condemn Sydney's offense, but the fact of the matter is, Cooley's offense was not a wonder to behold either, and TOT's was even more painful to watch. I suspect Sydney may have come to Fairfield because he felt he would have more freedom to expand his coaching skills than he would have in the Ivy League. To some extent I wonder if Fairfield is a research laboratory for him where he can tinker with new ways of doing things (strategies and recruiting) that he was not really familiar with at Princeton. If that's the case, I sure hope he figures out the formula pretty soon.
At the end of the day, I want someone who knows the game, knows how to teach the game, and knows how to recruit good players. It's not important to me whether I want to go out and have a beer with the guy. Sure, it's nice to have a coach who is engaging like Cooley was. But it isn't necessary for success.
Stag man maybe you don't need to feel a connection to the coach, but, today, the public does. Without it the program will suffer. In the end it's all about winning, but at this level you must be an extraordinary salesman, as well. People have too many distractions in their lives today, thanks to technology. To get them excited about a product like, Fairfield University basketball, today you must be engaging. Sure all of us bums will still be passionate about this, but no one else will care...
Last Edit: Feb 17, 2014 18:46:16 GMT -5 by tmaac71
I also think VA made a point that was great in the beginning if the season that sometimes bad coaching is a function of bad recruiting.
Bad recruiting is bad coaching - coaching a program includes among other things - recruiting / practices / games / monitoring the kids outside your watch. Screw any of these up and you may be a bad coach.
Stag man maybe you don't need to feel a connection to the coach, but, today, the public does. Without it the program will suffer. In the end it's all about winning, but at this level you must be an extraordinary salesman, as well. People have too many distractions in their lives today, thanks to technology. To get them excited about a product like, Fairfield University basketball, today you must be engaging. Sure all of us bums will still be passionate about this, but no one else will care...
I find Sydney painful to listen to and I think TMAAC is basically correct. But I also feel if we were 19-0 and in first place in the MAAC we won't be as upset about Sydney's communication skills. PC got away with his personality because he won. Sydney could get by with this if he were a perennial winner too.
I firmly believe that, and its proven each year in the MAAC… Guards Win.
There is not a clearer example of that than Last Year’s 19 wins vs This Year’s 5 wins. The main difference is that we do not have the good guard play of Needham\Wade\Nickerson. If we had those 3 guards on this year’s team, we would have won 19 games this year. What we lost with those 3 guards were Ballhandling, Passing, Quickness and Defense. Here is how I see it
Good Guards ==> Better Ballhandling, Passing, Quickness and Defense ==> Winning Basketball
JS I never hear you speak ill of Sydney but can you at least admit that he is the resin why we do not have capable guards. He had TWO years to find replacements for those guys yet never recruited a true PG. That is a failure by him and his staff and he needs to be accountable for his actions.
In fact I posted numerous times on here about several PG's that they should look at only to have the staff take a late look at them and folly the recruitment. The current staff is not equipped to recruit in the non IVY world.
BB, I have been saying since Pre-season that we needed at least one "Special" Guard and one other starter, and that Team Ballhanding/Passing was a major problem with this team (see one of my quotes below). And I know I have repeated it ad nauseum. I also was a big proponent of bringing in JUCO's and 5th year seniors.
However, I also know that Frosh need time to develop, and I was willing to see that happen to make a proper decision. KJ Rose has developed nicely, but the others have not come close to that. At this point in time you have to ask if it is lack of experience or lack of talent or both. Sydney is accountable for everything, and obviously recruiting of guards needs to get a lot better, and we have to get a Special guard. But I also do not think that because Sydney has had 1 bad recruiting year, that he cannot recruit or cannot coach
Agree that we brought in 5 guards in the last 2 seasons and my expectations were that at least 1 of them needed to be a “special” player this year, and another guard needed to be “starter” material. I harped on that all pre-season. That did not happen, as only KJ Rose can be viewed as Starter material as a frosh, with potential to be All MAAC someday. That is well below expectations for 5 guards. There is no doubt that Sydney has to bring in better guards, for us to be a winning team, but he also needs to bring in a “Special” guard to make us a Top team in the MAAC.
We should have gone more aggressively after JUCO’s and 5th year Seniors. While we were in the running for a few, it was a mistake for Sydney not to go after more of these type of players. I am pretty sure we will not make that same mistake for next year.
Should we have confidence that we will get a “Special” guard for next year?? No not really, but that is based on our history of only getting 3 Special guards in the last 12 years (Needham, Han, Todd) . IMO, we have been good for 11years, with only 1 special guard per year. But we needed 2 special guards to win a MAAC Championship.
Last Edit: Feb 18, 2014 10:27:25 GMT -5 by JoeStag
VA's post bears repeating: In all honesty, I can deal with a 5-22 season. Every program has a rough patch. Heck, I went to Rutgers too. You wanna talk about a program that has been in the doldrums forever? It's the Scarlet Knights. What we are experiencing here is trivial by comparison.
What is amazing to me is the constant negativity of some posters. It's hard to believe that some of the folks out here are actually Fairfield fans.
I don't expect anyone to be jumping for joy over this season (I'm not), but the last time I checked it's still just college basketball, an enjoyable game played by a group of 18-22 year olds. In the overall spectrum of importance, it's pretty darn low.
If you guys think it is so important that you need to spew venom towards players, coaches and administrators day after day, you really should get your heads examined.
Post by 01041949bob on Feb 18, 2014 12:39:11 GMT -5
Stag 79 --this is a forum-- its about opinion---I guess we should all say its not that bad--its not what are lying eyes are telling us---Come on sir--can't handle the truth?--that our Coach seems over his head--you should be on staff with the administration who think WE ARE DOING JUST GREAT
I agree with you stag 79. Alabama Bob and Tmaac71, how much of the same old crap do we have to endure. We know how you feel. Get in touch with the powers to be. Give it a rest on this board already. Sydney is not going to be fired this year no matter how much you spew venom. If we stink next year, he probably will be fired.