Positives from the Tulsa Game

[Hans Sprungfeld]

...he burned a timeout and all he came up with for an inbounds play was turning it over under the basket.

3 million dollars a year...

A frigging idiot like me can post in the game thread...

Call this a highly selective Like.

IIRC, the announcers initially called it as a Tulsa timeout that could work to UConn's advantage. I thought it was smart for UConn not to call it and dumb for Tulsa to do so. After it played out, I was stunned to see UConn out of timeouts and Tulsa with one.

Felt like one of those creative Giants losses from 2 seasons ago.

And yet, I was entertained by the uncertainty and feel like I'm shifting into new territory as a fan.

Maybe this is what it's like to follow a middle-of-the-pack team in a pretty-good conference. Would it be better or worse to follow a pretty good team in a middle of the pack conference?

Grateful for the many years I followed good-to-great teams in a perennial top 3 conference. Super grateful for all the relative comfort & ease I have on this wind-whipped & beautiful snowy day.

 

[Sonova]

the younger guys on any team, for the vast majority, play lousy defense - a proven fact

JC once told me that “young guys play defense because they still believe the b**hit and they are trying to please their coach. Sophomore’s quickly realize that offense gets you into the league.” But I’m sure your facts are more reliable.

I’m not suggesting that young guys know how to play defense as well as veteran players, but excusing our team from playing defense well because we’re young and still gelling is a crock. We play lousy defense because our coach allows it.

And if you subscribe to the notion that we are lousy defensively simply because we’re young, explain the last couple of years...and ready yourself for an even worse season next year.

 

[MuchoDogYears]

I read a few more. He also said that Anderson's minutes were cut like everyone wanted. Fouling out will have that effect on a player's minutes.

Anderson got 29 minutes. 15 is about right, spelling Adams and Vital.

 

[Doginaus]

What positive can you take away from this game...that we didn't lose by more than 15? it's still a loss, not a positive.

 

[intlzncster]

I understand that he is stuck with Anderson because of himself. That doesn't mean we need to criticize him twice for the same mistakes. The roster is what it is and at this point if we're going to evaluate him on this portion of the job then we need to clean the slate of any variables that might distort that picture.

My impression was that the opening lines are typically more accurate than the closing lines. I could be wrong, but either way they were ranked some 20 spots ahead of us on KenPom and those rankings tend to correlate strongly with where the line is opening. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume, especially given how we've plummeted after the Gilbert injury, that the computers were less fond of our chances than that spread might indicate. Now I'll take Vegas over all of them, but the other variables that factored into that spread can't be fully separated from human expectation which brings us back to the idea that people are counting double against Ollie.

The 3 million dollars is just another thing that distracts from the ability to accurately assess his performance as coach. When you start quibbling with how a coach uses a timeouts you're really belaboring the point because although that criticism may be valid in a vacuum it is going to influence your win probability in the long haul by a matter of decimal points. (Incidentally, I remember thinking the same thing as you at the time, but even if we are to assume that Ollie screwed up there it does not diminish the role that luck and variance played in that game). Nobody keeps track of which coaches use timeouts the best. He is bad at other aspects of his job that cause people to displace onto small things like that which is exactly my point. We can think he's guilty and he can be guilty but that doesn't mean he doesn't get a fair trial. He's not getting a fair trial from this board.

Once a line is set, which takes into account a number of variables, the line naturally moves towards a more accurate projection as educated bettors try to exploit what they see as an advantage. If it's set perfectly from the get go, equal money will be bet on each side.

 

[MuchoDogYears]

Kevin coaches perimeter defense. You simply have a young group of guys that are learning to play together also learning how to play perimeter defense. Lack of consistent player execution is the issue. When you have depth you can yank players out. Unfortunately we do not specifically defensively. These guys are learning.

I get that you're being supportive of what is, for the most part, a young group of players. That they have a lot of learning to do is the undeniable truth.

But guarding the three point line isn't something that takes time to learn. You either guard your player on the perimeter, or you don't. It isn't difficult. It doesn't require experience. It's a decision, nothing more, to deny the open look from three.

These players are being coached, first and foremost, to give help D against inside players. To do that, they have to be in position to help. Which means they have to position themselves halfway between the 3 point line and the foul lane. Teams attack this easily by quickly swinging the ball to the opposite side of the court. The UConn defender is caught in no-man's land and has to rush out (too late) to the three point shooter.

KO is willing to give up the open three, rather than deny it. He doesn't want to get beat inside. The strategy hasn't worked. It can, but only if you have two things, a defensive shot-blocking center who allows the guards/forwards to hedge more towards the 3 point line than the foul lane. Also, would want to have tall, athletic guards and forwards who can recover quickly and have the length to disturb the shot.

UConn has neither the intimidating inside center, nor the lengthy athletic guards to play help D.

 

[60'sfan]

We all know that they are awful getting the ball in bounds, totally agree. But when things are good, which they aren't, most fans would be bitching about Jalen being pushed out of bounds, which he was. Everyone gets the ball to the guy they want on the line they did, and he was fouled. Problem also is they got it to him in a bad spot because they don't have good in bounds plays. But the refs make the right call, no one is even talking about any of this.

I just watched a recording of the game and you are correct, Jalen was pushed out of bounds. As he was falling, he threw the ball back in. It was intercepted by a Tulsa player who clearly traveled as he went to the ground. If we get either of those calls, we win and the discussion is completely different. I saw a solid effort from the team and I saw enough to see that they are getting better. I am looking forward to their next game.

 

[mauconnfan]

I just watched a recording of the game and you are correct, Jalen was pushed out of bounds. As he was falling, he threw the ball back in. It was intercepted by a Tulsa player who clearly traveled as he went to the ground. If we get either of those calls, we win and the discussion is completely different. I saw a solid effort from the team and I saw enough to see that they are getting better. I am looking forward to their next game.

No doubter 60's we got nothing down the stretch. If we were any good everyone would be up in arms on that play alone it's a game changer and with the 36-12 disadvantage at the FT line. I mean that #1 got away with murder and ended up with 2 fouls, he removed Vital from the lane in a big play and they called it on Christian.
But you have some of the dumbest fouls coming from Carlton and Diarra at times too so sometimes you get what you deserve.

 

[DMIL]

I get that you're being supportive of what is, for the most part, a young group of players. That they have a lot of learning to do is the undeniable truth.

But guarding the three point line isn't something that takes time to learn. You either guard your player on the perimeter, or you don't. It isn't difficult. It doesn't require experience. It's a decision, nothing more, to deny the open look from three.

These players are being coached, first and foremost, to give help D against inside players. To do that, they have to be in position to help. Which means they have to position themselves halfway between the 3 point line and the foul lane. Teams attack this easily by quickly swinging the ball to the opposite side of the court. The UConn defender is caught in no-man's land and has to rush out (too late) to the three point shooter.

KO is willing to give up the open three, rather than deny it. He doesn't want to get beat inside. The strategy hasn't worked. It can, but only if you have two things, a defensive shot-blocking center who allows the guards/forwards to hedge more towards the 3 point line than the foul lane. Also, would want to have tall, athletic guards and forwards who can recover quickly and have the length to disturb the shot.

UConn has neither the intimidating inside center, nor the lengthy athletic guards to play help D.

Agree with most of this. You are focusing on the execution of the defense with the talent that we have which requires the right personnel and execution however I'm really referring to the Defensive mindset. It takes these young guys today a while to adapt that kind of mindset out of High School and it is easier to do when you have (1) Defensive minded Head Coach (2) Upper class men to learn from. When I refer to youth and inexperience that is what I mean. This is half of it. The other half is the physical gifts to execute including talent. Defense is one of those areas that you have to have the right mind set, you have to want to play it, commit to it, take pride in it. Kids today are not wired that way. It has to be taught and that takes time with you guys.

 

[whaler11]

So don’t point out the team is bad because if they weren’t bad you wouldn’t say they were bad.

Pretty brilliant.

 

[DMIL]

That lack of depth on the perimeter is squarely on KO. He filled 13 scholarships with only 4 guards, with full knowledge that one of those guards has a lengthy history of shoulder issues. So we now play with 3 guards who are likely to be gassed at crunch time.

No disagreement there.

 

[jibsey]

We have one player down, a player who would be a factor but most teams have at least one player out so the fact that we’re no good goes to KO who was supposed to construct a roster that takes that into consideration. You need good players to compete and win and we don’t have enough of them either in the front or back court. Anderson was a bad choice for 4th guard because now he’s third. Our bigs have no offensive skills but they can hold on to the ball.

 

[notthestuff]

I get that you're being supportive of what is, for the most part, a young group of players. That they have a lot of learning to do is the undeniable truth.

But guarding the three point line isn't something that takes time to learn. You either guard your player on the perimeter, or you don't. It isn't difficult. It doesn't require experience. It's a decision, nothing more, to deny the open look from three.

These players are being coached, first and foremost, to give help D against inside players. To do that, they have to be in position to help. Which means they have to position themselves halfway between the 3 point line and the foul lane. Teams attack this easily by quickly swinging the ball to the opposite side of the court. The UConn defender is caught in no-man's land and has to rush out (too late) to the three point shooter.

KO is willing to give up the open three, rather than deny it. He doesn't want to get beat inside. The strategy hasn't worked. It can, but only if you have two things, a defensive shot-blocking center who allows the guards/forwards to hedge more towards the 3 point line than the foul lane. Also, would want to have tall, athletic guards and forwards who can recover quickly and have the length to disturb the shot.

UConn has neither the intimidating inside center, nor the lengthy athletic guards to play help D.

I've lurked here for years but never felt compelled to post but some of the criticism or suggestions on how to fix this mess on this board have grown beyond outlandish even for this place and I'm no Ollie apologist. His rotations are questionable at best and his talent evaluation and overall recruiting strategy has been terrible. You can't tell me Rak Lubin and Sam Cassell Jr. were the best we could get even with sanctions or that we had no inkling or back up plan for Stone and Diallo. He made his bed, but even in fanatical anger at the state of this program to think a guy who won a national title and out coached some of the best coaches in the country on the way and played 13 years in the NBA and 4 years in college for some of the best minds in the history of the game doesn't understand basic defensive and offensive concepts is beyond absurd.

The premise of this post is just fundamentally wrong. The only way to play any defense is with help principles and there is no competent coach in America from youth travel to the NBA who doesn't teach man to man defense with basic help principles. You also don't need either one of a shot blocking big man or long guards to execute. It's actually the exact opposite in terms of a shot blocking big man. You help LESS when you have a shot blocker because you can funnel penetration into your shot blocker who you can camp around the rim so no one else has to help. Your help is more critical when you have less length because smaller players are less likely to be able to stop someone at the rim so you need to stop penetration further out otherwise it's layup lines.

 

[notthestuff]

I'm not saying he and the staff aren't coaching them. I am sure he tells them what JC would have told them. If you don't have a shot blocker under the hoop, you hedge on the 3, and avoid getting beat going to the hole. Now, Calhoun tried to have shotblockers, and I think he did it because it allowed him to tighten the D on the perimeter.

What I'm saying is that with or without a rim protector, let them get by you if you must, but push them out further and stay closer to the 3 point shots. It is the primary thing you need to take away, not the layups or close shots. It's a philosophical change, in the same way you are seeing NFL teams play mostly nickel now. They used to say "take away the run", force them to throw. It's the opposite now against most teams. And sure, you adjust. Against some teams you will need to guard the rim and give up outside shots. But against 80% of them now, the 3 point shot is the main thing you take away if you can. We did a better job in the second half, and they hit some long and contested shots, but we also gave them some easy ones.

So in one post we can't help and in another we should overplay the 3 and allow ourselves to get beat to the rim without a competent shot blocker. I know everyone is emotional because we have given up a lot of threes on the year but, really? Let's play this scenario through. As I'm sure everyone knows, if you multiply your 3pt% by 1.5 you get what you equivalent 2 point shooting percentage is to score the same amount of points. Tulsa shot 42% from three on the game the equivalent of 61% on 2's. If we over play 3's and give up up blow bys and layups because we have no help and no shot blocker what do you think that shooting percentage on 2's at the rim will be? I promise you it won't be less than 90% and that's low balling even a bad D1 team. Bad trade. Even if you over play the perimeter and get blown by with help principles and stop the penetration the argument is counter productive because if you consistently get blown by you are 2 passes or less from giving up a an even more wide open 3 every time. The problem is not scheme. The problem is technique and reaction. Proper close outs are not easy and these players clearly were not taught it younger otherwise Ollie wouldn't waste valuable practice time in the middle of the season teaching division 1 players close out technique. As for the reaction part only experience can fix that, but the lack of this doesn't mean you compensate by abandoning one of the 3 most fundamental principles of defense.

 

[HuskyHawk]

So in one post we can't help and in another we should overplay the 3 and allow ourselves to get beat to the rim without a competent shot blocker. I know everyone is emotional because we have given up a lot of threes on the year but, really? Let's play this scenario through. As I'm sure everyone knows, if you multiply your 3pt% by 1.5 you get what you equivalent 2 point shooting percentage is to score the same amount of points. Tulsa shot 42% from three on the game the equivalent of 61% on 2's. If we over play 3's and give up up blow bys and layups because we have no help and no shot blocker what do you think that shooting percentage on 2's at the rim will be? I promise you it won't be less than 90% and that's low balling even a bad D1 team. Bad trade. Even if you over play the perimeter and get blown by with help principles and stop the penetration the argument is counter productive because if you consistently get blown by you are 2 passes or less from giving up a an even more wide open 3 every time. The problem is not scheme. The problem is technique and reaction. Proper close outs are not easy and these players clearly were not taught it younger otherwise Ollie wouldn't waste valuable practice time in the middle of the season teaching division 1 players close out technique. As for the reaction part only experience can fix that, but the lack of this doesn't mean you compensate by abandoning one of the 3 most fundamental principles of defense.

Nonsense. We have people inside. More often than not the trade (and the one we make on offense) is that the dribble past and then pull up for a shorter jump shot. They'd be lucky to shoot 50% on those. Watch how good teams play now. They do not give up the three.

 

[Paesano]

So in one post we can't help and in another we should overplay the 3 and allow ourselves to get beat to the rim without a competent shot blocker. I know everyone is emotional because we have given up a lot of threes on the year but, really? Let's play this scenario through. As I'm sure everyone knows, if you multiply your 3pt% by 1.5 you get what you equivalent 2 point shooting percentage is to score the same amount of points. Tulsa shot 42% from three on the game the equivalent of 61% on 2's. If we over play 3's and give up up blow bys and layups because we have no help and no shot blocker what do you think that shooting percentage on 2's at the rim will be? I promise you it won't be less than 90% and that's low balling even a bad D1 team. Bad trade. Even if you over play the perimeter and get blown by with help principles and stop the penetration the argument is counter productive because if you consistently get blown by you are 2 passes or less from giving up a an even more wide open 3 every time. The problem is not scheme. The problem is technique and reaction. Proper close outs are not easy and these players clearly were not taught it younger otherwise Ollie wouldn't waste valuable practice time in the middle of the season teaching division 1 players close out technique. As for the reaction part only experience can fix that, but the lack of this doesn't mean you compensate by abandoning one of the 3 most fundamental principles of defense.

Does KO have the entire coaching staff and all his family and friends registering and posting on the boneyard now? Lots of "new faces".
Joined: Yesterday

 

[notthestuff]

Nonsense. We have people inside. More often than not the trade (and the one we make on offense) is that the dribble past and then pull up for a shorter jump shot. They'd be lucky to shoot 50% on those. Watch how good teams play now. They do not give up the three.

We pull up for the 15 footer because teams don't respect anyone's ability to make it so they wait for Jalen at the rim and stay on Larrier and Vital because no one else is a threat. If Jalen makes that shot consistently (which he did for a stretch in Tulsa) it changes the entire dynamic of the offense. Kemba made his living there Junior year.

From 3 against Duke:

South Dakota: 10/22
BC : 15/26
Florida State: 15/32

From 3 Against Michigan St:

Stony Brook: 13/26
North Florida: 11/29
Southern Utah: 11/26

Teams that hunt threes find threes that doesn't mean you overplay to the point of allowing yourself to beat off the dribble. If you don't contain penetration your defense is toast and the looks will be better.

 

[notthestuff]

Does KO have the entire coaching staff and all his family and friends registering and posting on the boneyard now? Lots of "new faces".

Like I said, I'm no apologist. The program is in shambles and KO made his bed. I want the program to succeed, period. That doesn't mean everything he is doing is wrong and that things stated on this board aren't completely factually incorrect to anyone who's ever coached at a reasonable level in the sport.

 

[HuskyHawk]

We pull up for the 15 footer because teams don't respect anyone's ability to make it so they wait for Jalen at the rim and stay on Larrier and Vital because no one else is a threat. If Jalen makes that shot consistently (which he did for a stretch in Tulsa) it changes the entire dynamic of the offense. Kemba made his living there Junior year.

From 3 against Duke:

South Dakota: 10/22
BC : 15/26
Florida State: 15/32

From 3 Against Michigan St:

Stony Brook: 13/26
North Florida: 11/29
Southern Utah: 11/26

Teams that hunt threes find threes that doesn't mean you overplay to the point of allowing yourself to beat off the dribble. If you don't contain penetration your defense is toast and the looks will be better.

There is no either or here. Nobody is advocating that we stop defending any area of the defensive end of the court. It's a shift in prioritization. Offenses have changed, and the emphasis is on three point shots and dunks/layups. The two point jump shot is viewed as a low yield shot, some coaches are asking players not to take them. Defenses need to change to adjust to this new reality. That means staying a little closer to your man on the perimeter at the expense of him possibly getting by you.

It's no different than deploying an extra cornerback, who is going to hurt your run defense. The offenses have changed, so you need to change to stop them. We haven't. Ollie is running an NBA offense from 10-15 years ago and a defense designed to stop offenses from 10-15 years ago.

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

Remember when James jones from Miami stole that inbounds pass from Marcus white and beat us back ,in what was it 2003?

It was Shamon Tooles and Darius Rice.

 

[jibsey]

The rest of the season is going to be painful. I see moments against bottom feeders that will serve as fool’s gold for KO’s apologists, but a .500 conference record would be shocking at this point. It’s been demoralizing, chat during the games is almost extinct.

 

[notthestuff]

There is no either or here. Nobody is advocating that we stop defending any area of the defensive end of the court. It's a shift in prioritization. Offenses have changed, and the emphasis is on three point shots and dunks/layups. The two point jump shot is viewed as a low yield shot, some coaches are asking players not to take them. Defenses need to change to adjust to this new reality. That means staying a little closer to your man on the perimeter at the expense of him possibly getting by you.

It's no different than deploying an extra cornerback, who is going to hurt your run defense. The offenses have changed, so you need to change to stop them. We haven't. Ollie is running an NBA offense from 10-15 years ago and a defense designed to stop offenses from 10-15 years ago.

I'm certainly not going to argue jumpers inside three are devalued because of course they are and I'm not going to get into the offense in general. I agree with the first statement that it's not either or. What I disagree with is that this is a scheme problem. You can defend both with proper technique and that's what is/should be taught but you don't change your emphasis and teach players to close out in a way that will allow dribble penetration in order to prevent someone from even taking 3's. If a team wants to find a 3, they will find a 3 and sometimes they go in and sometimes they don't. This isn't a "the defense is outdated" issue. There are core defensive principles that all coaches teach and no one teaches what you suggested in your initial post unless you are dealing with a spot up shooter who can't dribble who you want to put the ball on the floor. If you allow dribble penetration to guards you are going to end up with far better looks than Tulsa got and everyone would be screaming about how we can't contain the penetration. Players need to be able to close out effectively to contest shots and contain the dribble.

At the end of the day Tulsa's best player shot 1/10 from 3 and 3/15 overall. Their 4th leading scorer went off and hit a couple open but several highly contested 3's. You don't reinvent defense because of that. You get better at what you're doing and make sure the uncontested shots are contested better next time.

 

[MuchoDogYears]

Like I said, I'm no apologist. The program is in shambles and KO made his bed. I want the program to succeed, period. That doesn't mean everything he is doing is wrong and that things stated on this board aren't completely factually incorrect to anyone who's ever coached at a reasonable level in the sport.

Not sure how to say this but just because help principles are part of the common core of the coaching world doesn’t mean that you use them blindly regardless of the score, the team that you’re playing, the players on your team, or the time on the clock.
We’re half way through the season. If the players have not shown any improvement on running a scheme, then that’s on coaching. Either the coach is a lousy instructor in the gym or he doesn’t have the right personnel for the scheme. Either way the failure is on the coach, not the players.

 

[DMIL]

So in one post we can't help and in another we should overplay the 3 and allow ourselves to get beat to the rim without a competent shot blocker. I know everyone is emotional because we have given up a lot of threes on the year but, really? Let's play this scenario through. As I'm sure everyone knows, if you multiply your 3pt% by 1.5 you get what you equivalent 2 point shooting percentage is to score the same amount of points. Tulsa shot 42% from three on the game the equivalent of 61% on 2's. If we over play 3's and give up up blow bys and layups because we have no help and no shot blocker what do you think that shooting percentage on 2's at the rim will be? I promise you it won't be less than 90% and that's low balling even a bad D1 team. Bad trade. Even if you over play the perimeter and get blown by with help principles and stop the penetration the argument is counter productive because if you consistently get blown by you are 2 passes or less from giving up a an even more wide open 3 every time. The problem is not scheme. The problem is technique and reaction. Proper close outs are not easy and these players clearly were not taught it younger otherwise Ollie wouldn't waste valuable practice time in the middle of the season teaching division 1 players close out technique. As for the reaction part only experience can fix that, but the lack of this doesn't mean you compensate by abandoning one of the 3 most fundamental principles of defense.

So on the mark here.

 

[DMIL]

Not sure how to say this but just because help principles are part of the common core of the coaching world doesn’t mean that you use them blindly regardless of the score, the team that you’re playing, the players on your team, or the time on the clock.
We’re half way through the season. If the players have not shown any improvement on running a scheme, then that’s on coaching. Either the coach is a lousy instructor in the gym or he doesn’t have the right personnel for the scheme. Either way the failure is on the coach, not the players.

Defense is a mind set. It takes a lot more input and time for a young, inexperienced group that has not played together to pick up. One analogy is with an Offensive line in football. Not only is talent critical to a good O' line but experience and time together as a unit is just as critical. These are facts here so you need to add that to your either or scenario. This really should not be about " It's all on Ollie" narrative. Some of it is on him, not all of it.

 

[notthestuff]

Not sure how to say this but just because help principles are part of the common core of the coaching world doesn’t mean that you use them blindly regardless of the score, the team that you’re playing, the players on your team, or the time on the clock.
We’re half way through the season. If the players have not shown any improvement on running a scheme, then that’s on coaching. Either the coach is a lousy instructor in the gym or he doesn’t have the right personnel for the scheme. Either way the failure is on the coach, not the players.

Of course there are rare times you abandon help. A perfect example is up 3 with less than 10 seconds left you want to face guard to the point where the only shot a guy can get is falling out of bounds to his right. I guess another example would be if the team you were playing had no players who could dribble by any of your players. Other than those instances, I can't think of another where you'd ever eliminate help.

If you want to limit threes the only way to effectively do it without allowing a layup line is to stop penetration while aggressively pressuring the ball, don't double team ever, hedge harder on ball screens, and switch on any screens away from the ball. One is 100% dependent on the abilities of your players and the second, third, and fourth have tradeoffs that you have to live and die with.

All I'll say to your last point is you may be right, he may not be getting through and I have no way to factually dispute that. But, sometimes it takes a team longer than we'd like to build good habits and 3 months of practice with a brand new team contrary to popular belief here is really not that long.

 

[DogMania]

we still can't inbound the basketball. it's been five years of not being able to do the simplest thing

One thing I've observed over the years, is when the team is struggling in so many fundamental areas they tend to be more focused on those and don't work as much on the situational things like a variety of inbound plays. They tend to work on just getting it in. This is really no different than when Calhoun was coaching though their execution of just getting the ball in maybe more of a problem of personnel. The more mature the team the more the coaching staff adds to the game plan. This team is struggling the simply execute on both ends of the floor. With that said, I don't know if Ollie has the same capability to deploy and teach inbound plays that are designed to score like JC did back in the day. Nor does the team have the personnel to execute them.

 

[August_West]

Of course there are rare times you abandon help. A perfect example is up 3 with less than 10 seconds left you want to face guard to the point where the only shot a guy can get is falling out of bounds to his right. I guess another example would be if the team you were playing had no players who could dribble by any of your players. Other than those instances, I can't think of another where you'd ever eliminate help.

If you want to limit threes the only way to effectively do it without allowing a layup line is to stop penetration while aggressively pressuring the ball, don't double team ever, hedge harder on ball screens, and switch on any screens away from the ball. One is 100% dependent on the abilities of your players and the second, third, and fourth have tradeoffs that you have to live and die with.

All I'll say to your last point is you may be right, he may not be getting through and I have no way to factually dispute that. But, sometimes it takes a team longer than we'd like to build good habits and 3 months of practice with a brand new team contrary to popular belief here is really not that long.

You should post more. If just for @superjohn s benefit if no one elses.


Good post.