"No Flow to Our Offense" - Geno expands on post-SC comments

[Alydar]

UConn is 194th in PPG allowed and even worse by possession, 277th!

On offense, they aren't getting enough extra possessions from steals and offensive boards, and are playing pretty slow. 292nd in possessions per 40 minutes.

So there is a lot to work on, and not just on the defensive side.

You are ready to defend stats based on 4 games, three of which were played on consecutive days?
You actually think that UConn's defense is 277th out of 350 teams based on a 4 game season? I guess you do because I see an exclamation point.
Or were just trying to provoke?

I agree about there being a lot to work on, there always is, but a lot less than just about every other team in D1.

It's been my experience that if you flog the horse too much they will not respond when you need them. You want to develop lions, not dogs that have been kicked repeatedly into compliance. Tito Francona got it and that's part of the reason why he has been so successful. Lot's of coaches know that. You don't have to say your best player was terrible in the media just after they lost their biggest game. But I'm tired of flogging Geno when 90% of you think he's beyond reproach.

That same mentality is what keeps him from playing subs more. He just can't stand losing. In the long run, developing that bench is what MIGHT make a difference for him in March. He's NOT doing it well so far. If his justification is to help the draft prospects of his seniors I get it a little. If he just refuses to lose any game for personal reputation reasons and is willing to ride his horse to death to maintain his win record I don't support it.

If you were criticizing Geno I would have no problem but what you are saying is more "flogging"(your descriptive words) than reasoned opinion.

Like this:

willing to ride his horse to death to maintain his win record

Lots of reasoned argument there. Do you picture him in a black hooded cloak, using his crop while the horse foams at the mouth as it rides to its death?

Personally I'd rather the UConn coach was more focused on winning than in providing their bench minutes.

 

[JoePgh]

11 NC's, .886 winning percentage, 13 consecutive FF appearances, numerous Coach of the Year awards, Basketball HOF inductee, WBB HOF inductee, 1st, 2nd and 3rd longest winning streaks in WBB, multiple Gold Medals coaching the NT.

Seems to be working for him.

I would say that for the present discussion, the loyalty of many of his ex-players (including those whom he coached the hardest and criticized loudest in public) is a more impressive credential than those which demonstrate on-the-court success (those you listed).

I don't think Geno is either infallible or a saint, but I do think he has a better sense of his players' needs and personalities than casual posters on this board, who in many cases are extrapolating from their experience coaching youth basketball -- a whole different population group than UConn players who aspire to pro basketball careers. If you were the music teacher for an 18-year-old violinist who appeared to have both the talent and the desire to become the next Hillary Hahn, would you coach that person the same way you would coach an 8th-grader who was playing the violin recreationally?

Despite being a Geno supporter, I admit that he has said some things about his players publicly that have made me cringe. (These do not include his recent comments about Paige's second-half play against South Carolina. If he had said anything on that subject other than basically what he said, it would have flunked the "get real" test, and it would not have made Paige feel any better since she knows how she played just as well as Geno does.)

His most cringe-inducing comment that I can remember occurred in Breanna Stewart's freshman year after a Baylor game in which she played only 7 minutes, and played very poorly -- and UConn lost. He started by saying that UConn might have won the game if he had not played Stewie at all, and went on to say that she was in a mental place at that moment where she couldn't help the team very much -- but maybe that would change "next week or next month". Well, we all know how that turned out. Stewie was not shattered by the comment (although she was very hurt, and told her parents that, but never suggested to them that she wanted to leave the program). Her mental state did turn around and she become the MVP of the NCAA tournament that year.

Obviously, if Stewie were a middle-school basketball player or even a "pretty good" high school player, she might well have headed for the exit gate. But that is not who Stewie is, and it is not who any player is who entertains serious aspirations of a successful pro career. Geno understands that distinction, and coaches his players accordingly. Many posters here do not see any distinction between coaching avocational players and coaching aspiring pros -- and they are wrong.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

How much stock should be put in rankings like these at this point in the season? A lot of schools have feasted on cupcakes. UConn has played all of 4 games none of which would be considered cupcakes.

Some stock I think. It won't look that way at the end of the year, but it's still a snapshot of these first four games.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

You are ready to defend stats based on 4 games, three of which were played on consecutive days?
You actually think that UConn's defense is 277th out of 350 teams based on a 4 game season? I guess you do because I see an exclamation point.
Or were just trying to provoke?

I agree about there being a lot to work on, there always is, but a lot less than just about every other team in D1.


If you were criticizing Geno I would have no problem but what you are saying is more "flogging"(your descriptive words) than reasoned opinion.

Like this:


Lots of reasoned argument there. Do you picture him in a black hooded cloak, using his crop while the horse foams at the mouth as it rides to its death?

Personally I'd rather the UConn coach was more focused on winning than in providing their bench minutes.

It's fair to point out what UConn has done well and hasn't, no? If they had averaged 100 points to this point wouldn't that be worth noting? It's fair to point out there are rebounding and possession issues no? We can see it in action and the stats back it up.

And while UConnCat makes a valid point about small sample size and opposition, do we really expect UConn to be that poor in that many categories just because they have played one good team and one great one?

We know UConn can clobber lesser competition. But we're not grading them on a curve. The goal is to be great enough to beat the elite and win a title.

 

[Alydar]

It's fair to point out what UConn has done well and hasn't, no? If they had averaged 100 points to this point wouldn't that be worth noting? It's fair to point out there are rebounding and possession issues no? We can see it in action and the stats back it up.

And while UConnCat makes a valid point about small sample size and opposition, do we really expect UConn to be that poor in that many categories just because they have played one good team and one great one?

We know UConn can clobber lesser competition. But we're not grading them on a curve. The goal is to be great enough to beat the elite and win a title.

I agree with all you say, although your ppg stats are more a measure of scheduling than of performance. My complaint is with posters making inflamatory comparisons of Geno and his players with some angel of death riding a dying horse. The comparison would have been fine if there had been some evidence behind it other than that vague reference to giving his bench more time.

The other day I read a post somewhere saying that Tara goes deep in her bench and that Geno should be more like her. I checked the box scores and Geno played 8 and while Tara used 11 players, 3 of them totaled like 10 minutes so in effect Tara also used 8.

 

[boontonbomber]

I would say that for the present discussion, the loyalty of many of his ex-players (including those whom he coached the hardest and criticized loudest in public) is a more impressive credential than those which demonstrate on-the-court success (those you listed).

I don't think Geno is either infallible or a saint, but I do think he has a better sense of his players' needs and personalities than casual posters on this board, who in many cases are extrapolating from their experience coaching youth basketball -- a whole different population group than UConn players who aspire to pro basketball careers. If you were the music teacher for an 18-year-old violinist who appeared to have both the talent and the desire to become the next Hillary Hahn, would you coach that person the same way you would coach an 8th-grader who was playing the violin recreationally?

Despite being a Geno supporter, I admit that he has said some things about his players publicly that have made me cringe. (These do not include his recent comments about Paige's second-half play against South Carolina. If he had said anything on that subject other than basically what he said, it would have flunked the "get real" test, and it would not have made Paige feel any better since she knows how she played just as well as Geno does.)

His most cringe-inducing comment that I can remember occurred in Breanna Stewart's freshman year after a Baylor game in which she played only 7 minutes, and played very poorly -- and UConn lost. He started by saying that UConn might have won the game if he had not played Stewie at all, and went on to say that she was in a mental place at that moment where she couldn't help the team very much -- but maybe that would change "next week or next month". Well, we all know how that turned out. Stewie was not shattered by the comment (although she was very hurt, and told her parents that, but never suggested to them that she wanted to leave the program). Her mental state did turn around and she become the MVP of the NCAA tournament that year.

Obviously, if Stewie were a middle-school basketball player or even a "pretty good" high school player, she might well have headed for the exit gate. But that is not who Stewie is, and it is not who any player is who entertains serious aspirations of a successful pro career. Geno understands that distinction, and coaches his players accordingly. Many posters here do not see any distinction between coaching avocational players and coaching aspiring pros -- and they are wrong.

Glad you agree that he makes these cringe-worthy comments at times. That's about all that some commenters said here, other than, besides being cringe-worthy, they are pointless. Thanks for reminding me ( or maybe I wish you hadn't reminded me) of the Stewart comments he made after that Baylor game.

 

[BobbyJ]

I would say that for the present discussion, the loyalty of many of his ex-players (including those whom he coached the hardest and criticized loudest in public) is a more impressive credential than those which demonstrate on-the-court success (those you listed).

I don't think Geno is either infallible or a saint, but I do think he has a better sense of his players' needs and personalities than casual posters on this board, who in many cases are extrapolating from their experience coaching youth basketball -- a whole different population group than UConn players who aspire to pro basketball careers. If you were the music teacher for an 18-year-old violinist who appeared to have both the talent and the desire to become the next Hillary Hahn, would you coach that person the same way you would coach an 8th-grader who was playing the violin recreationally?

Despite being a Geno supporter, I admit that he has said some things about his players publicly that have made me cringe. (These do not include his recent comments about Paige's second-half play against South Carolina. If he had said anything on that subject other than basically what he said, it would have flunked the "get real" test, and it would not have made Paige feel any better since she knows how she played just as well as Geno does.)

His most cringe-inducing comment that I can remember occurred in Breanna Stewart's freshman year after a Baylor game in which she played only 7 minutes, and played very poorly -- and UConn lost. He started by saying that UConn might have won the game if he had not played Stewie at all, and went on to say that she was in a mental place at that moment where she couldn't help the team very much -- but maybe that would change "next week or next month". Well, we all know how that turned out. Stewie was not shattered by the comment (although she was very hurt, and told her parents that, but never suggested to them that she wanted to leave the program). Her mental state did turn around and she become the MVP of the NCAA tournament that year.

Obviously, if Stewie were a middle-school basketball player or even a "pretty good" high school player, she might well have headed for the exit gate. But that is not who Stewie is, and it is not who any player is who entertains serious aspirations of a successful pro career. Geno understands that distinction, and coaches his players accordingly. Many posters here do not see any distinction between coaching avocational players and coaching aspiring pros -- and they are wrong.

Just wondering. Assuming that Bueckers knows that she didn't play well in the 2nd half and assuming that Auriemma could have discussed her play at length with her at any time following the game, who was the message for? Other than entertaining the media, who benefited from him speaking it into a microphone publicly? I doubt that it was to show the other players that PB isn't above criticism since they know that she as well as they get verbally hammered in practice regularly.