OT: Geno Rips His Team | Page 2 | The Boneyard

OT: Geno Rips His Team

I assume that y’all now realize you were wrong.

Apology accepted.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Calhoun pulled the whole starting lineup and sat them for at least 5 minutes in a game once that I can remember. What was the guard from Chicago that failed out or went Juco after his sophomore year? He had been suspended once for academics with Okwandu. I can't remember his name, but he played at least 10 minutes that game because Calhoun was furious with the starters.

If I had more time this morning I would hunt down this game.
Expand ...

That’s not what Geno did.

He sat the starters to embarrass the backups.

Not the other way around.
 
In all seriousness, Geno is without a doubt one of the great basketball minds and motivators of talent ever.

If Ollie hasn't ventured down the hall to pick his brain on how to, at least, get the most out of your team - or if Geno hasn't offered - then shame on them.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Calhoun pulled the whole starting lineup and sat them for at least 5 minutes in a game once that I can remember. What was the guard from Chicago that failed out or went Juco after his sophomore year? He had been suspended once for academics with Okwandu. I can't remember his name, but he played at least 10 minutes that game because Calhoun was furious with the starters.

If I had more time this morning I would hunt down this game.
Expand ...

I believe you are referring to Darius Smith.
 
Geno gets the best out of his players night in night out. Whether it’s a midsmatch or a highly ranked opponent they always play hard. Part of it is that they are always under pressure from the staff. And you can say it is a different universe and to some degree it is but you ignore the fact that Geno basically created that universe.
 
.-.
freescooter said:
Geno gets the best out of his players night in night out. Whether it’s a midsmatch or a highly ranked opponent they always play hard. Part of it is that they are always under pressure from the staff. And you can say it is a different universe and to some degree it is but you ignore the fact that Geno basically created that universe.
Expand ...

He did create it. Someplace it could be created.

He could not create it in the men’s game. Nobody could.

Jack Cochran created it in Connecticut High School football. He couldn’t do it in Georgia or Texas or college or anywhere else.
 
SubbaBub said:
He has been criticizing his reserves for weeks. Enough for a non WBB watcher like me to hear about it.

This was an excuse to let the B team know that they will be called upon and to not rely of the stars to do all the work.
Expand ...
Geno should have played his reserves all season and not together but with starters. They are winning games by 50 points and he continues to play the same 7 or 8 players until the last few minutes. He may need them at some point and if he does they won't be ready to contribute.
UConn may well win another NCC but unlike other years it won't be without major challenges because this years team can be overpowered on the boards.
 
whaler11 said:
I can’t wait to see the D-1 men’s boxscore of a game where the coach up big early decided to embarrass his second string by playing them the majority of the game and then spend the postgame tearing them apart.
Expand ...
Do you seriously think men's coaches have never sat their starting 5?
 
whaler11 said:
His accomplishments are in the top 10 but when you don’t compete with the best it’s not the same.

If Bonds had never played MLB and hit 2,500 home runs in the Atlantic League it’s quite an accomplishment but not against the best.

You don’t know how Geno would stack up against the best because he never got anywhere near them.

By this logic Dorrance is a top 10 coach. How many hundreds if not thousands of soccer coaches in Europe are better?
Expand ...

Well, like I said, to me it's a different sport, not a different level. He's the best women's basketball coach, at any level. I see the arguments for why it's not as impressive as Calhoun winning 4 or Saban winning 6. I just don't think I agree with them. There's really no place up for Auriemma to go within his "sport." He could go to the WNBA, I guess. I have no doubt he'd excel there.

I have some curiosity as to how he'd do in the men's game. I think he would've done well had he gone that route. But it's probably too late now.

Do you consider Michael Phelps an all-time great athlete? I do, even though only a tiny fraction of great athletes are swimmers so he didn't compete against the "best" athletes -- only the best of whose who chose swimming. All you can do is dominate the best competition you can find.
 
nomar said:
Well, like I said, to me it's a different sport, not a different level. He's the best women's basketball coach, at any level. I see the arguments for why it's not as impressive as Calhoun winning 4 or Saban winning 6. I just don't think I agree with them. There's really no place up for Auriemma to go within his "sport." He could go to the WNBA, I guess. I have no doubt he'd excel there.

I have some curiosity as to how he'd do in the men's game. I think he would've done well had he gone that route. But it's probably too late now.

Do you consider Michael Phelps an all-time great athlete? I do, even though only a tiny fraction of great athletes are swimmers so he didn't compete against the "best" athletes -- only the best of whose who chose swimming. All you can do is dominate the best competition you can find.
Expand ...

So you’ve carved out a spot for Geno because women’s basketball is a different sport in your opinion.

Fair enough I guess.

Seems that you should agree with my initial premise which is what he does then has nothing to do with men’s basketball since he is coaching a different sport.

The discussions about athletes is a completely different discussion because of the advancements in what humans are capable of over the last 150 years.

Babe Ruth is a top 10 baseball player to most people. If you dropped 1925 Ruth into the 2017 American League he couldn’t compete.
 
.-.
What it boils down to is that this is about accountability. Does Geno have luxuries that KO does not? YES. Geno can bench all the starters and still win. But he doesn't win by as much, and there is a slight possibility that an underdog team could knock them off. Geno can call out specific names like he called out Azura and it will be effective because he is a HOF and has built a dynasty. KO would be receiving a phone call the next morning from a players parent telling him that he is going to transfer. (or is a better example having to suspend a player due to a confrontation)

BUT more important than all of that is the post game talk. Where he holds the team accountable for their terrible play. He identifies it. He describes it as it is. He talks about the negatives. He explains how they have been struggling to fix it. He looks and feels pissed off. He looks and speaks as if he expects MUCH better. He goes into detail about work ethic, and passion and grit and being focused. What he doesn't do is hide from it by talking about the few positives of the game. He doesn't embellish on the few hustle plays, or talk about how the kids played for each other, or deflect the negatives. Geno is real in public and private. And that leaves the players knowing what his expectations and standards are. KO may lay into them at practice every once in a while but it's probably awfully confusing after what the kids hear in the presser after a game like Monmouth.
 
whaler11 said:
Babe Ruth is a top 10 baseball player to most people. If you dropped 1925 Ruth into the 2017 American League he couldn’t compete.
Expand ...

Not to get sidetracked from another UConn Women/Geno vs. UConn Men/Calhoun debate, but I've often wondered the same thing myself about Ruth.

Let me ask you to clarify your point though.

I think we all know the player pool is much larger with Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier and then the influx of international players to the sport. The players are more athletic due to training and the players are smarter due to scouting.

That said is your point that 1925 Ruth, as he was, wouldn't be able to compete today due to the physical/mental nature of the game, or more so his skills wouldn't translate?

The numbers Ruth was putting up in comparison to his competition were just utterly absurd. More home runs than whole teams, etc. but again the game isn't the same today as then. I feel like his natural skill is hard to discount.

If you have any good links about projecting a player from the 20s, to current day, I'd love to check them out.

Also, at what point in history do you think you could drop a guy in today's game at they'd be the same? Ruth, DiMaggio, Mantle, Jackson, Mattingly, eras for instance?
 
ConnHuskBask said:
Not to get sidetracked from another UConn Women/Geno vs. UConn Men/Calhoun debate, but I've often wondered the same thing myself about Ruth.

Let me ask you to clarify your point though.

I think we all know the player pool is much larger with Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier and then the influx of international players to the sport. The players are more athletic due to training and the players are smarter due to scouting.

That said is your point that 1925 Ruth, as he was, wouldn't be able to compete today due to the physical/mental nature of the game, or more so his skills wouldn't translate?

The numbers Ruth was putting up in comparison to his competition were just utterly absurd. More home runs than whole teams, etc. but again the game isn't the same today as then. I feel like his natural skill is hard to discount.

If you have any good links about projecting a player from the 20s, to current day, I'd love to check them out.

Also, at what point in history do you think you could drop a guy in today's game at they'd be the same? Ruth, DiMaggio, Mantle, Jackson, Mattingly, eras for instance?
Expand ...

If you took actual 1925 Ruth and dropped him in the league he couldn’t compete.

If you took 1895 infant Ruth and let him be born in 1995? Who knows.

How bad do you think the 2017 Browns beat the 1972 Dolphins? 55-0?
 
whaler11 said:
So you’ve carved out a spot for Geno because women’s basketball is a different sport in your opinion.

Fair enough I guess.

Seems that you should agree with my initial premise which is what he does then has nothing to do with men’s basketball since he is coaching a different sport.

The discussions about athletes is a completely different discussion because of the advancements in what humans are capable of over the last 150 years.

Babe Ruth is a top 10 baseball player to most people. If you dropped 1925 Ruth into the 2017 American League he couldn’t compete.
Expand ...

I do agree with that premise.

I agree with your point about Babe Ruth but it's a different point from the one I was making. You could argue that Bolt is more impressive than Phelps because literally everybody has tried running fast and the fastest people on earth have at least tried competitive track, whereas only a small fraction of the people who would actually be the best swimmers have actually tried competitive swimming. That was my point.

There is a connection, I guess, to the Ruth point, because it does go to my point that in judging an athlete, all you can do is judge whether they beat the best competition out there (in Ruth's case, he didn't even compete against blacks). I think Chamberlain and Russell should be judged on their actual accomplishments, not on whether you could, say, drop a 200-pound Russell, without the benefit of 2017 training, into today's NBA and expect him to pull down 20 boards a game. Same for Ruth.

Interesting issues.
 
nomar said:
I do agree with that premise.

I agree with your point about Babe Ruth but it's a different point from the one I was making. You could argue that Bolt is more impressive than Phelps because literally everybody has tried running fast and the fastest people on earth have at least tried competitive track, whereas only a small fraction of the people who would actually be the best swimmers have actually tried competitive swimming. That was my point.

There is a connection, I guess, to the Ruth point, because it does go to my point that in judging an athlete, all you can do is judge whether they beat the best competition out there (in Ruth's case, he didn't even compete against blacks). I think Chamberlain and Russell should be judged on their actual accomplishments, not on whether you could, say, drop a 200-pound Russell, without the benefit of 2017 training, into today's NBA and expect him to pull down 20 boards a game. Same for Ruth.

Interesting issues.
Expand ...

I got your point about Phelps. It’s a bit different comparing coaches to athletes because coaching is more similar over time than athletic competition.

It’s easier to compare say Chuck Noll to Bill Belechick than it is to compare Mark Spitz to Michael Phelps.

Brett Gardner is a better baseball
player in an absolute sense than Babe Ruth but clearly Ruth is more accomplished.

Geno is more accomplished than say Gregg Marshall - is he an absolute better coach? Probably but I don’t think the gap is anywhere near the gap in their accomplishments.

I think it’s a lot easier to compare Dean Smith to John Calipari than it is to compare Michael Jordan to Lebron James if your goal is ‘who is better’.

And I agree if you ask me who the ten best athletes of all time are I wouldn’t just name 10 people from the Rio Olympics.
 
.-.
jibsey said:
We had all watched Calhoun in the first 30 seconds of a game call a timeout, pull a player, and rip them a new _____ in front of 15,00 fans. Announcers had a great time with this poking fun while explaining why he did it, but don’t for a second think that the other players on the team didn’t get the message. That could be them and no one wants to be called out. Of course the team circumstances and talent levels are different.
Expand ...
We also saw JC silently tolerate a handful of players who didn't really want to work up a sweat in the tournament a dozen years ago. I personally believe if he pulled and berated a couple starters from that team (in a manner similar to what he did with many other players) that team wouldn't have needed overtime to beat Washington and they would have figured out how to beat George Mason.
 
whaler11 said:
That’s not what Geno did.

He sat the starters to embarrass the backups.

Not the other way around.
Expand ...
Geno had no problem with the starters in the first quarter.
I don't think Geno did this to intentionally embarrass the backups. They did that on their own.
 
HuskyBandDad said:
Geno had no problem with the starters in the first quarter.
I don't think Geno did this to intentionally embarrass the backups. They did that on their own.
Expand ...

Based on his comments they met his expectations was my point.
 
Damn Whaler, you just owned like 6 or 7 dudes on the boneyard.

Usually I feel the effort isn't worth it and give up after my 1st retort.

Props
 
Brett Gardner is a better baseball player than Babe Ruth in an absolute sense? This is sense-less.
 
whaler11 said:
I got your point about Phelps. It’s a bit different comparing coaches to athletes because coaching is more similar over time than athletic competition.

It’s easier to compare say Chuck Noll to Bill Belechick than it is to compare Mark Spitz to Michael Phelps.

Brett Gardner is a better baseball
player in an absolute sense than Babe Ruth but clearly Ruth is more accomplished.

Geno is more accomplished than say Gregg Marshall - is he an absolute better coach? Probably but I don’t think the gap is anywhere near the gap in their accomplishments.

I think it’s a lot easier to compare Dean Smith to John Calipari than it is to compare Michael Jordan to Lebron James if your goal is ‘who is better’.

And I agree if you ask me who the ten best athletes of all time are I wouldn’t just name 10 people from the Rio Olympics.
Expand ...

Jibsey hit on this, but I think Babe Ruth would probably be a lot better than Gardner, today. He was so far above the hitters of his era, I have to think he could turn on a 95 MPH fastball and hit good off-speed stuff. Plus, he'd benefit from video scouting, strength training, etc.
 
.-.
nomar said:
Jibsey hit on this, but I think Babe Ruth would probably be a lot better than Gardner, today. He was so far above the hitters of his era, I have to think he could turn on a 95 MPH fastball and hit good off-speed stuff. Plus, he'd benefit from video scouting, strength training, etc.
Expand ...

That’s if Ruth’s DNA was born in 1995, not if you picked him up and dropped him in a game today.

2017 Brett Gardner dropped into the mid 1920’s AL would be ridiculous. He would destroy that league.
 
whaler11 said:
That’s if Ruth’s DNA was born in 1995, not if you picked him up and dropped him in a game today.

2017 Brett Gardner dropped into the mid 1920’s AL would be ridiculous. He would destroy that league.
Expand ...

I don't think Brett Gardner would put up Babe Ruth's numbers in 1920.

If you went into a time machine, grabbed Babe Ruth, and returned to 2018, put him with a trainer and a nutrition, and showed him what video scouting was, he'd do just fine.
 
nomar said:
I don't think Brett Gardner would put up Babe Ruth's numbers in 1920.

If you went into a time machine, grabbed Babe Ruth, and returned to 2018, put him with a trainer and a nutrition, and showed him what video scouting was, he'd do just fine.
Expand ...

So you think baseball is immune to what would happen in every other sport?

I know a lot of people think that - but I don’t agree.
 
whaler11 said:
So you think baseball is immune to what would happen in every other sport?

I know a lot of people think that - but I don’t agree.
Expand ...

Not immune, but when a guy hits more homers than EVERY TEAM but one (which is what happened in 1920), I'm going to say that he was a transcendent talent whose skills would still yield good results today.
 
whaler11 said:
Babe Ruth is a top 10 baseball player to most people. If you dropped 1925 Ruth into the 2017 American League he couldn’t compete.
Expand ...

Which Babe Ruth? The Homerun King? Or the Cy Young Pitcher. Please don't make ridiculous comments like that. Babe Ruth, for those reasons, was the best MLB player to ever have played the game.
 
nomar said:
Not immune, but when a guy hits more homers than EVERY TEAM but one (which is what happened in 1920), I'm going to say that he was a transcendent talent whose skills would still yield good results today.
Expand ...

So not the sport - just this one guy.

Who was trancendent against a tiny pool of players compared to today.

Who ran up numbers against starting pitchers who didn’t come out of games and didn’t have to worry about advanced defensive shifts etc.

Who had a swing that had him hitting with a windup and hitch off his front foot.

He’d just show up and play better than Brett Gardner.

Maybe I guess. Seems like quite a stretch to me with everything else we know about sports.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,480
Messages
4,577,318
Members
10,488
Latest member
husky62


Top Bottom