Geno: Substitution Patterns

[oldhusky]

Here’s a nutty idea — perhaps the players should learn during practice?

They should learn in practice and from some of Geno's comments you would think that several of them had earned his trust that way. He has also said more than once that practice and games are different. I agree with that to a certain extent as well, but believe playing time should be given taking both of those factors into account.

In some cases I think Geno's hook is too swift. If for example a player has performed well for a couple of weeks in practice, as he implies for some, then has a bad first couple of minutes in a game, she may sit the rest of the game. I'm not saying ignore how they play in a game if that continues over more playing time, then he has to adjust accordingly. Just give them more rope to show how they can do, when they have performed in practice. That should be even more true with three games in a row when giving our starters more of a blow could have been quite strategic.

 

[MD#12Fan]

Here’s a nutty idea — perhaps the players should learn during practice?

You never played! You never played! You never coached! You never coached!
Hey everybody, look over here!!!!
There's a difference between games and practice!! Darn, where's the "banging head against a wall" emoji, when you need it.

 

[Zanzman]

You never played! You never played! You never coached! You never coached!
Hey everybody, look over here!!!!
There's a difference between games and practice!! Darn, where's the "banging head against a wall" emoji, when you need it.

Wow

 

[MD#12Fan]

Wow

Explain it to your buddy, Vowel-something.

 

[Zanzman]

Explain it to your buddy, Vowel-something.

I would but it was meant for you

 

[Oracle9]

Pra

Here’s a nutty idea — perhaps the players should learn during practice?

Here’s a nutty idea — perhaps the players should learn during practice?

You may disagree but doesn't change what the issue is. IMO It's not practice that's the issue, because the coach himself up to this point raved about their practice session- did I misconstrue what Geno himself has stated? (at length I might add)
On more than one occasion in postgame pressers I'm sure I heard Geno lament after games, that everyone's standing around looking at Paige at points during the game. Do they do that in practice? He also pointed out that keeping her out there for those extended minutes can't continue. So clearly there is an issue with how Paige's teammates see her role and theirs, sometimes you have to take the unpopular path. In a way the situation was inevitable, she has saved the day for her team on numerous occasions,which has the fed the dependency. How does one break a dependency? In this case it's delicate because you don't want the solution to be detrimental to the function of the team. Geno now has to figure that out. Just how it is.

 

[Alydar]

Stanford played 12 today in their 3 point win over Indiana!

They actually got 13 in but 5 of them played a total of 18 minutes. That's 3 minutes each. So really Stanford played 8.

Edit: Stanford did play 9 in their loss to Texas at home.

 

[hoophuskee]

Stanford played 12 today in their 3 point win over Indiana!

And what does that mean? Has Stanford won a title this year? Has Dawn changed teams all of sudden that we don't know about when she previously claimed SC in 2020 was the National Champion and now she is coaching Stanford doing the same thing?

 

[visitingcock]

And what does that mean? Has Stanford won a title this year? Has Dawn changed teams all of sudden that we don't know about when she previously claimed SC in 2020 was the National Champion and now she is coaching Stanford doing the same thing?

Confused as to what Dawn has to do with my post? Am I permitted only to post about South Carolina?

Okay, if that’s the rule for me, I prefer what Tara did in this game to what Dawn did against UConn.

Feagin, Rivers and Russel need some minutes on the floor against players of contender-type quality - even if it’s only a few near the end. I think those three backups will see the floor more before we see Stanford in about a month. I hope they get PT in the Maryland and Stanford games.

So far, SCar has potential depth - not proven depth. Stanford is developing proven depth.

I guess UConn fans, like you, don’t care about depth. What’s the title of this thread? Maybe I should just stay on the general board where I belong.

 

[hoophuskee]

Confused as to what Dawn has to do with my post? Am I permitted only to post about South Carolina?

Okay, if that’s the rule for me, I prefer what Tara did in this game to what Dawn did against UConn.

Feagin, Rivers and Russel need some minutes on the floor against players of contender-type quality - even if it’s only a few near the end. I think those three backups will see the floor more before we see Stanford in about a month. I hope they get PT in the Maryland and Stanford games.

So far, SCar has potential depth - not proven depth. Stanford is developing proven depth.

I guess UConn fans, like you, don’t care about depth. What’s the title of this thread? Maybe I should just stay on the general board where I belong.

1-- Re-read my prior post that you replied to. I spoke of championship teams. Teams that won a championship. OFC I meant NCAA Championship. Stanford (as well as every other team this year) has not won a championship this year yet, right? So what does championship teams have to do with Stanford's depth at this moment for this year in terms of my post that you first replied to?

2-- Only Dawn that I know of declared her team a title team in 2020 even though there was no title, right? Thus when I spoke of title teams on my post that you first replied to, I asked if Dawn changed teams because she is the only one that I can recall that ever proclaimed her team as the NCAA champion without actually playing in the tournament. There was no champion, right? Just as this year there is yet to be a champion, right? Thus why is relevant telling me about Stanford this year when I specifically referred to champions?

3-- Are you suggesting that the prior NCAA championship teams didn't have enough depth? Because that's what my post was referencing before you replied to it. So what's the point you are trying to make about "not caring about depth?" I referred to the prior few years championship teams and I referenced the UCONN teams too. Unless you took my "play the stars" comment in vacuum and singled it out? I wrote/referred to/referenced "championship teams" that played their stars a lot of minutes.

4-- Whether you want to stay on the General Board or come on here, why should I care? Do what you want. You don't need to tell me about it just like you didn't need to tell me about Stanford this year while I was clearly talking about teams that won a title. I referred to Stanford last year as the exception.

Damn; not too thin skinned/defensive are you?

 

[Skeets]

Pra



You may disagree but doesn't change what the issue is. IMO It's not practice that's the issue, because the coach himself up to this point raved about their practice session- did I misconstrue what Geno himself has stated? (at length I might add)
On more than one occasion in postgame pressers I'm sure I heard Geno lament after games, that everyone's standing around looking at Paige at points during the game. Do they do that in practice? He also pointed out that keeping her out there for those extended minutes can't continue. So clearly there is an issue with how Paige's teammates see her role and theirs, sometimes you have to take the unpopular path. In a way the situation was inevitable, she has saved the day for her team on numerous occasions,which has the fed the dependency. How does one break a dependency? In this case it's delicate because you don't want the solution to be detrimental to the function of the team. Geno now has to figure that out. Just how it is.

You have to take Geno's practice comments with a big grain of salt. 99% of the time he will praise a player's practice. He can't be that happy with all his players in practice but that is what comes out for the media. I can't recall Geno ever saying so-and-so was awful in practice. People on the BY (and I am also guilty) take that rose colored bone in their mouths and run with it. (Hence the name BY?)

 

[visitingcock]

1-- Re-read my prior post that you replied to. I spoke of championship teams. Teams that won a championship. OFC I meant NCAA Championship. Stanford (as well as every other team this year) has not won a championship this year yet, right? So what does championship teams have to do with Stanford's depth at this moment for this year in terms of my post that you first replied to?

2-- Only Dawn that I know of declared her team a title team in 2020 even though there was no title, right? Thus when I spoke of title teams on my post that you first replied to, I asked if Dawn changed teams because she is the only one that I can recall that ever proclaimed her team as the NCAA champion without actually playing in the tournament. There was no champion, right? Just as this year there is yet to be a champion, right? Thus why is relevant telling me about Stanford this year when I specifically referred to champions?

3-- Are you suggesting that the prior NCAA championship teams didn't have enough depth? Because that's what my post was referencing before you replied to it. So what's the point you are trying to make about "not caring about depth?" I referred to the prior few years championship teams and I referenced the UCONN teams too. Unless you took my "play the stars" comment in vacuum and singled it out? I wrote/referred to/referenced "championship teams" that played their stars a lot of minutes.

4-- Whether you want to stay on the General Board or come on here, why should I care? Do what you want. You don't need to tell me about it just like you didn't need to tell me about Stanford this year while I was clearly talking about teams that won a title. I referred to Stanford last year as the exception.

Damn; not too thin skinned/defensive are you?

Your first point. You say you were talking about championship teams. Then you say Stanford has not won one this year, so is irrelevant. Since they are the defending champ, doesn’t that make the entire point irrelevant?

Your second point is simply an attack on Dawn’s proclaimed championship. It’s not relevant to a discussion of building depth through playing time. Nor is it a counter argument to anything U stated.

Yes, prior championship teams did play “short rosters.” I assert that they did not have the depth of talent that “the big three” have this year. Geno and Dawn may need to reconsider. Maybe not but they should never get into a mindset of “what was good enough in the past is good enough for today and tomorrow.

Thin skinned? If you insist.

 

[Oracle9]

You have to take Geno's practice comments with a big grain of salt. 99% of the time he will praise a player's practice. He can't be that happy with all his players in practice but that is what comes out for the media. I can't recall Geno ever saying so-and-so was awful in practice. People on the BY (and I am also guilty) take that rose colored bone in their mouths and run with it. (Hence the name BY?)

I agree with the grain of salt part to a point, behind that sarcasm are grains of truth.For instance when he kept harping about Paige to shoot more that wasn't him talking she even reiterated it herself that's not a practice thing that's a mindset- she has been stubborn about it because she thinks that's an integral part of her game- in fact that played a big part in her past success. I can assure you I have no tints looking at what is before me, again I don't think practice is the main issue -every player that has run through that place talks about practice how difficult, not perfect- unless that has been a fallacy too. My point centers around what is happenning in spite of the practices. By way of experience I'm fully aware practices aren't perfect and won't be. I stand on my point the players mindset have to be adjusted especially where Paige is concerned, and that will trickle down to everything else. It's delicate but achievable, no tint here.

 

[hoophuskee]

Your first point. You say you were talking about championship teams. Then you say Stanford has not won one this year, so is irrelevant. Since they are the defending champ, doesn’t that make the entire point irrelevant?

Your second point is simply an attack on Dawn’s proclaimed championship. It’s not relevant to a discussion of building depth through playing time. Nor is it a counter argument to anything U stated.

Yes, prior championship teams did play “short rosters.” I assert that they did not have the depth of talent that “the big three” have this year. Geno and Dawn may need to reconsider. Maybe not but they should never get into a mindset of “what was good enough in the past is good enough for today and tomorrow.

Thin skinned? If you insist.

1-- No it doesn't. Defending champs is not "champs for this year" yet. How can you try to twist it that it is? Right now this season there is no champion yet. Every team starts out 0-0. I specifically made mention of teams that won a championship. This Stanford team lost their star pg. They aren't champs this until they win. How can you so easily dismiss their star pg from last year? You don't think she was a big part of their championship? Stanford loses arguably their best player and it's not supposed to matter?

2-- I was having fun with the Dawn comment. I find it comical you use the word "attack." That why I spoke of you being "thin-skinned." Lighten up. I put up smiles to show it. There was nothing serious in the comment. That's why I put smiles up. Lighten up. If you won't - too bad.

3-- So you think none of those prior championship teams including some of the other great UCONN teams could have beaten a Stanford last year? --

In the past we have had on here the creation of threads / polls as to who we feel is the greatest UCONN team of all-time. I'd take the 14-15 with a short bench over this past 2020-2021 Stanford team as an example. So some of the super great teams in UCONN history - and I guess the same goes with Notre Dame and Baylor as an example and even Tennessee - some of these great teams that won with short benches;. - you want to either ignore this history or believe this history to no longer applies because Stanford happened to win with a deep bench last year?

 

[MD#12Fan]

1-- No it doesn't. Defending champs is not "champs for this year" yet. How can you try to twist it that it is? Right now this season there is no champion yet. Every team starts out 0-0. I specifically made mention of teams that won a championship. This Stanford team lost their star pg. They aren't champs this until they win. How can you so easily dismiss their star pg from last year? You don't think she was a big part of their championship? Stanford loses arguably their best player and it's not supposed to matter?

2-- I was having fun with the Dawn comment. I find it comical you use the word "attack." That why I spoke of you being "thin-skinned." Lighten up. I put up smiles to show it. There was nothing serious in the comment. That's why I put smiles up. Lighten up. If you won't - too bad.

3-- So you think none of those prior championship teams including some of the other great UCONN teams could have beaten a Stanford last year? --

In the past we have had on here the creation of threads / polls as to who we feel is the greatest UCONN team of all-time. I'd take the 14-15 with a short bench over this past 2020-2021 Stanford team as an example. So some of the super great teams in UCONN history - and I guess the same goes with Notre Dame and Baylor as an example and even Tennessee - some of these great teams that won with short benches;. - you want to either ignore this history or believe this history to no longer applies because Stanford happened to win with a deep bench last year?

I'm reluctant to comment. I find your incessant argument for a short bench to be tiresome. It had its charm at first.
There is such a thing as innovation. To me your argument might be moot concerning WCBB because it is possible that Geno has the best bench ever assembled in WCBB. If that were true, it's possible that all of your points about having a short bench are irrelevant. I've made my points a million times on here so I'm going to skip mentioning all the positive things UConn WCBB can gain by using the talented bench to win games and be the best team it can be.
Reminds me of watching coaches (Dan Reeves in particular) flounder around trying to figure out how to best use Michael Vick. He was an absolute freak of nature and we had to watch coaches try to make him a pocket passer. Has the league changed in this regard?
Maybe Geno can write another chapter about how to excel using all the talent on your bench.

 

[Stymie]

Pra



You may disagree but doesn't change what the issue is. IMO It's not practice that's the issue, because the coach himself up to this point raved about their practice session- did I misconstrue what Geno himself has stated? (at length I might add)
On more than one occasion in postgame pressers I'm sure I heard Geno lament after games, that everyone's standing around looking at Paige at points during the game. Do they do that in practice? He also pointed out that keeping her out there for those extended minutes can't continue. So clearly there is an issue with how Paige's teammates see her role and theirs, sometimes you have to take the unpopular path. In a way the situation was inevitable, she has saved the day for her team on numerous occasions,which has the fed the dependency. How does one break a dependency? In this case it's delicate because you don't want the solution to be detrimental to the function of the team. Geno now has to figure that out. Just how it is.

Well, according to the facts as you present them, the team is ALREADY in a state of disfunction by it’s over dependence on one player.
I am unqualified to offer a solution with conviction, but maybe in an early BE game , Coach can can get a significant lead midway through the 2nd quarter, call a time out, pull Paige, and tell the team they have to “figure it out” without her.
Explain to Paige (privately) that sitting her for a while will serve the team much more effectively than rolling , say Syracuse, By 40 points.
The players that can’t “ figure it out” get have their team participation “ adjusted”.
If it is truly all about the team and winning Paige will be all in with it .
For her, I am certain that it IS all about winning and she’ll be totally supportive.

 

[Oracle9]

Not

Well, according to the facts as you present them, the team is ALREADY in a state of disfunction by it’s over dependence on one player.
I am unqualified to offer a solution with conviction, but maybe in an early BE game , Coach can can get a significant lead midway through the 2nd quarter, call a time out, pull Paige, and tell the team they have to “figure it out” without her.
Explain to Paige (privately) that sitting her for a while will serve the team much more effectively than rolling , say Syracuse, By 40 points.
The players that can’t “ figure it out” get have their team participation “ adjusted”.
If it is truly all about the team and winning Paige will be all in with it .
For her, I am certain that it IS all about winning and she’ll be totally supportive.

No I never said dysfunction, it's their mindset or approach just needs a bit of adjustment and they do use Paige as a crutch of sorts at times, instead of playing through-it also affects how they respond to handling game pressure. And I actually thought and agree with that strategy on how to sit her, and I posted that I think she would agree to something like that. I also would not say "figure it out" but play with a mindset that yes Paige is our ace but here's how we can help our teammate help us be successful it is after all a team sport, and they have professed to want to winning a chip. All in is needed.

 

[MD#12Fan]

Can I ask a question, kind of a pause from one of the longest (in time) threads in history? Thanks for all the responses!
Why didn't anyone even respond, either positively or negatively, to my point #6? A "blue team".
There are a lot of ancient posters like me that remember Dean and NC. He had a perennial power at UNC and he recruited top HS players nationally up and down his roster every year.

 

[hoophuskee]

I'm reluctant to comment. I find your incessant argument for a short bench to be tiresome. It had its charm at first.
There is such a thing as innovation. To me your argument might be moot concerning WCBB because it is possible that Geno has the best bench ever assembled in WCBB. If that were true, it's possible that all of your points about having a short bench are irrelevant. I've made my points a million times on here so I'm going to skip mentioning all the positive things UConn WCBB can gain by using the talented bench to win games and be the best team it can be.
Reminds me of watching coaches (Dan Reeves in particular) flounder around trying to figure out how to best use Michael Vick. He was an absolute freak of nature and we had to watch coaches try to make him a pocket passer. Has the league changed in this regard?
Maybe Geno can write another chapter about how to excel using all the talent on your bench.

You realize I can say the same thing you said in your 1st few sentences back at you, right? That I might find similarly your incessant argument for a deep bench at the expense of not giving the stars enough time/ "criticism of Geno in this regard/ to be tiresome too, right? Is this where we want our arguments to go that we're going to slap at each for being tiresome with the other?

While you speak of "innovation" I say it's a combination of rewarding without performance just because you want to see full court along with over-coaching. It's not innovation what you're proposing imo.

While you say it's possible that Geno hasn't used possibly the best bench in the world; I say it's a fact that he continues to be the most successful wcbb in the sport because in part he knows exactly how to use his bench. Yes it's possible I could be wrong. But it's also possible giving time to lesser players and losing some big games doing so while some of your stars are on the bench would be far worse.

And I know you've made your points. Well so have I. I think mine are right. SO it's nice that you tell me that you've made your points a million times but we can't fight it out on here (I’m not going to respond to every post you make, right?) other than an occasional post across the bow at one another then leave it for another day. The mods would shut it down but more importantly I think 99% of the board would get upset with our incessant back-and-forth. So I'm doing here what I usually do when you and I have a dispute. You make a point; I make a counter and you're welcome to counter this. You get last word. I won't reply.

If you want to carry this further you can PM me. Or instead just ignore me. People don't want to read our-back-and-forth maybe other than once or twice then a halt. Others can chime in too. It would be good if we continue to be civil with one another too. Sorry if you may be at a point of not if you are. But I have no real issue with what we’re doing. We've been very civil. And I think we end our points quick enough considering how much we disagree.

 

[CocoHusky]

I'm reluctant to comment. I find your incessant argument for a short bench to be tiresome. It had its charm at first.
There is such a thing as innovation. To me your argument might be moot concerning WCBB because it is possible that Geno has the best bench ever assembled in WCBB. If that were true, it's possible that all of your points about having a short bench are irrelevant. I've made my points a million times on here so I'm going to skip mentioning all the positive things UConn WCBB can gain by using the talented bench to win games and be the best team it can be.
Reminds me of watching coaches (Dan Reeves in particular) flounder around trying to figure out how to best use Michael Vick. He was an absolute freak of nature and we had to watch coaches try to make him a pocket passer. Has the league changed in this regard?
Maybe Geno can write another chapter about how to excel using all the talent on your bench.

Best bench ever assembled in WCBB? Doubtful. Geno not knowing how to use the best bench ever assembled in WCBB- ridiculous! Me thinks you severely overestimate the talent on this team especially that bench.

 

[browns]

Can I ask a question, kind of a pause from one of the longest (in time) threads in history? Thanks for all the responses!
Why didn't anyone even respond, either positively or negatively, to my point #6? A "blue team".
There are a lot of ancient posters like me that remember Dean and NC. He had a perennial power at UNC and he recruited top HS players nationally up and down his roster every year.

True but how many championships did Dean win..one..and he wouldn't have that if the dumb Georgetown player didnt throw it to to the UNC player..point is you can have all the HS AllAmericans you want but it still boils down to TEAM..Uconn has 3 #1 HS AA on the team right now lets see if they can make it work

 

[hoophuskee]

True but how many championships did Dean win..one..and he wouldn't have that if the dumb Georgetown player didnt throw it to to the UNC player..point is you can have all the HS AllAmericans you want but it still boils down to TEAM..Uconn has 3 #1 HS AA on the team right now lets see if they can make it work

Not that it matters but he won 2. His team also beat "The Fab 5." Webber called timeout with no timeouts left.

 

[browns]

Not that it matters but he won 2. His team also beat "The Fab 5." Webber called timeout with no timeouts left.

With the talent he had he should have won a lot more than that..mayb half of what Wooden won but as u said it doesn't really matter

 

[Centerstream]

Can I ask a question, kind of a pause from one of the longest (in time) threads in history? Thanks for all the responses!
Why didn't anyone even respond, either positively or negatively, to my point #6? A "blue team".
There are a lot of ancient posters like me that remember Dean and NC. He had a perennial power at UNC and he recruited top HS players nationally up and down his roster every year.

I mentioned using a "blue team" in multiple off season threads and not nary a BYer thought that it was a good idea. In retrospect, it should probably have been ignored because it was probably not a good idea. Period.

 

[MD#12Fan]

True but how many championships did Dean win..one..and he wouldn't have that if the dumb Georgetown player didnt throw it to to the UNC player..point is you can have all the HS AllAmericans you want but it still boils down to TEAM..Uconn has 3 #1 HS AA on the team right now lets see if they can make it work

Good points!
I’d counter (prefacing the comment with I love Geno) that greatness in coaching doesn’t have to rest on purely championships.
Personally I rate highly coaches that win different ways, with different type players, and even at different places. Geno created the UConn dynasty which is incredible. I think Larry Brown is underrated. I think what Lombardi did with the Redskins is noteworthy. Led to George Allen and eventually the Hogs. Wooden won different ways. The ‘65 team had an innovative press with Keith Erickson at 6’5” in the back. I think the discussion can be deeper! Best pro- coach? Phil, Red…….

 

[MD#12Fan]

I mentioned using a "blue team" in multiple off season threads and not nary a BYer thought that it was a good idea. In retrospect, it should probably have been ignored because it was probably not a good idea. Period.

Period! What’s that mean?
Why is it a bad idea?
I don’t know you and never will. Ignore if that’s all you got. I want to hear why it’s a bad idea.
Do I care what the BY thinks?
If it was me, I’d have had it in starting with Hays St. Everyone from game one would have had college minutes. More minutes during “turkey time”. By the time the SC game came everyone would have had something like 20 game minutes. Then I would have known who was up to that 4th quarter.
By March, every player on the team has played real minutes. Let’s talk about player development.
Somebody said practice is the same as games.
Play much?

 

[Centerstream]

Period! What’s that mean?
Why is it a bad idea?
I don’t know you and never will. Ignore if that’s all you got. I want to hear why it’s a bad idea.
Do I care what the BY thinks?
If it was me, I’d have had it in starting with Hays St. Everyone from game one would have had college minutes. More minutes during “turkey time”. By the time the SC game came everyone would have had something like 20 game minutes. Then I would have known who was up to that 4th quarter.
By March, every player on the team has played real minutes. Let’s talk about player development.
Somebody said practice is the same as games.
Play much?

I believe that in my opinion, what I proposed was a bad idea. Again, my opinion of my idea.
To be honest if what I thought at the time (offseason, preseason) was a good idea, then Geno would have already tried it by now, I am sure he is aware of the methods that many good coaches used over the years. So, in my opinion, my idea was a bad idea.
I in no way mentioned that your idea was wrong, I was only stating that the idea of a blue team that I put forth more than once was no longer a good idea to me.

 

[MD#12Fan]

I believe that in my opinion, what I proposed was a bad idea. Again, my opinion of my idea.
To be honest if what I thought at the time (offseason, preseason) was a good idea, then Geno would have already tried it by now, I am sure he is aware of the methods that many good coaches used over the years. So, in my opinion, my idea was a bad idea.
I in no way mentioned that your idea was wrong, I was only stating that the idea of a blue team that I put forth more than once was no longer a good idea to me.

I appreciate your "clarification". I still don't know why you won't explain your ideas.
Every time I mention Dean, the BY goes haywire. It's like a symptom of something really bad. It's an unhealthy, unseemly arrogance, that you can't discuss other coaches on this site. Dean is a branch away from Naismith himself at Kansas. All sports go through change and innovation. Football had the forward pass (Thorpe, Carlisle, and Pop Warner) and man-in-motion (Tom Landry) for example. Both of them have their image carved into the totem of great coaches.
Geno, of course is in any "great coach" conversation but IMO his superior abilities are in communication and management, not innovation. I would argue even that he is even more reluctant to try new things in recent years. He has had "centerless" teams for a while now and he keeps running the same stuff with the same result. He should remember how Wooden won with Wicks and Rowe against Artis Gilmore. Wooden won different ways. Yes he had great players just like Geno does.

 

[Centerstream]

I appreciate your "clarification". I still don't know why you won't explain your ideas.
Every time I mention Dean, the BY goes haywire. It's like a symptom of something really bad. It's an unhealthy, unseemly arrogance, that you can't discuss other coaches on this site. Dean is a branch away from Naismith himself at Kansas. All sports go through change and innovation. Football had the forward pass (Thorpe, Carlisle, and Pop Warner) and man-in-motion (Tom Landry) for example. Both of them have their image carved into the totem of great coaches.
Geno, of course is in any "great coach" conversation but IMO his superior abilities are in communication and management, not innovation. I would argue even that he is even more reluctant to try new things in recent years. He has had "centerless" teams for a while now and he keeps running the same stuff with the same result. He should remember how Wooden won with Wicks and Rowe against Artis Gilmore. Wooden won different ways. Yes he had great players just like Geno does.

Swerve: I actually watched the men's game back in the 70s and 80s and remember that NC game between UCLA and the Jacksonville Dolphins. Not only did Jacksonville have Artis but also had Pembroke Burrows, a 6'11" player. And that wasn't enough.
Ah, the good ol days.

 

[The deacon]

Good points!
I’d counter (prefacing the comment with I love Geno) that greatness in coaching doesn’t have to rest on purely championships.
Personally I rate highly coaches that win different ways, with different type players, and even at different places. Geno created the UConn dynasty which is incredible. I think Larry Brown is underrated. I think what Lombardi did with the Redskins is noteworthy. Led to George Allen and eventually the Hogs. Wooden won different ways. The ‘65 team had an innovative press with Keith Erickson at 6’5” in the back. I think the discussion can be deeper! Best pro- coach? Phil, Red…….

And I'd add Pop and Riley, who might have done his best coaching with the Heat until his final year or two.

I'm a big fan of Pop, but he might also be overstaying with the Spurs. And years before, at age 64, the great Wooden was, to my mind, rightfully criticized for very questionable strategies in the Bruins' NCAA semis loss to NC State in '74 (he did come back to win in '75). Here's hoping we never get to be criticizing Geno for overstaying.

I enjoyed reading the memories of UCLA vs. Jacksonville. That win was a tribute to Wooden's coaching acumen.

I had been fortunate to see Gilmore when he was at Gardner-Webb JC during the '67-68 season playing an entertaining shootout with the Wake Forest freshman team, which featured Charlie Davis, later to be the first black named ACC Player of the Year.