Couldnt disagree more. The problem isnt the coaching its the players.
When the coach recruits the players, trains the players, motivates the players (or not), determines the substitution pattern, and then actually coaches (or not) the players during the game, HOW THE duck can anybody not conclude that results rest substantially with the coach? Really? How?
Sure, sometimes you get a dud player that just isn't what he appeared to be. Sometimes players don't execute. Sometimes players don't have internal motivation.
But what we saw yesterday was flat out coaching. Piss poor substitution patterns, poor use of time outs, lack of leadership from the bench, and the inexplicable benching then return of the only ball handler that we have who can force disarray on opposing teams' defenses.
Saying this Temple loss is on the players is equivalent to having extremely low expectations of our coaching staff.