Sum of parts > the whole. Why? What to do about it?

[8893]

Many of us have alluded to the main problem with this team being that the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts, and we do not seem to be any closer to reversing that equation than we were in the Bahamas.

Why? It's pretty clear by that this is a result of the recruiting misses of the past two years, (e.g., Ali, Stone, Mack), which KO was then forced to make up for in the NCAA's equivalent of free agency, the fifth year transfer market. While no one believed this was preferable to landing our main recruiting targets, I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that, on paper, we did about as well to recover from those misses as anyone could have hoped by bringing in Gibbs and Miller to address two of our areas of greatest concern.

The task of putting these players together with our existing team, and adding Adams, to form an elite, competitive team falls squarely on the coaching staff. Simply put, it is the coach's job to figure out how best to use the talent that he has. And if there are problems either with the talent, or with getting it to gel, the coach also need look no further for responsibility, because he's the one who is responsible for recruiting.

So...there's nothing that can be done about the fact that we missed who we missed, and we are still fortunate to have gotten who we got in the after-market.

What to do about it? That is the question.

I think we are seeing proof that it was always a risky proposition from the start to put all of these major pieces together within one season. I now think it's even tougher than bringing in one-and-dones, because at least in that instance you have the chance to integrate the player into your system (and your players) straight from high school, rather than having him play college ball for four years in another system, another conference and with a different cast of characters. And although the fifth year player is obviously more experienced, the one-and-done is just as obviously more talented.

Sure, Miller was the only one who played well last night, but this isn't a one-player or one-game issue. It's about getting the team to play well together. Gibbs has clearly had problems adjusting (they mentioned Ollie's comments about this during the broadcast last night, saying that Ollie spoke about Gibbs having to go through a "feeling out process" with his new teammates), and the fact that neither he nor Adams appear comfortable running the point on this team is going to continue to be a very serious handicap. Hamilton at the point obviously isn't the answer, either.

I'm not so worried about "chemistry" issues as I used to be, and last night's apparent friction between Purvis and Hamilton didn't change that. Anyone with eyes saw the constant battling between Bazz and Boat, and I still think that one of Ollie's greatest coaching successes was managing that situation all the way to a championship. I think what we saw last night was far more symptom than cause, and it might even be an encouraging sign that the players cared enough to be frustrated and barking at each other. I mean, someone has to reach the boiling point to bring this to a head and see if we can move past it, no?

There is clearly a lot of frustration with confusion about roles, and Amidah's absence doesn't help that because some roles have needed to change again. Hamilton has been harped on to be more selfish and to defer less to his teammates, and I think this is something we all wanted to see. Well, look what happened last night after he finally got the message and tried to force it. For whatever reason, he's not comfortable in that role; he may actually be a much different player than many of us thought he was. Purvis is doing his damnedest to fill the leadership void, but the reality is that even he is a transfer and may not be best suited for that role. Is Gibbs supposed to take over as a newcomer? Is Adams, as freshman? It may not be a problem of chemistry (i.e., players getting along) as much as not having the right pieces to fit together, and the oft-cited, but true, lack of leadership.

We have enough talent to win enough games to make the tournament, and who knows what happens then? But we also have enough problems that now appear as though they may be intractable, and missing the tournament altogether again would not be a shock to me. Rather than being the poster boy for the claimed "unfair" advantage of bringing in fifth year transfers, we may end up being the cautionary tale about what happens when you have to rely too heavily on them. And it may well be that there is no good answer for our team's problems this season. For better or for worse, we're a makeshift team and we're seeing the results of that.

One thing I refuse to believe is that Ollie is not a good enough coach. Sure he's got a lot more learning to do, but I'm still 100% behind him as our coach and have full faith in his abilities going forward. I do think we could use some new blood among the assistants though.

 

[jibsey]

End of game scenario we have to have an assistant coach who is on top of the situation and in KO's ear yelling foul to give, because the coach is caught up in everything else. This is almost as bad as calling a timeout you don't have.

 

[CAHUSKY]

No leader = No chemistry

 

[intlzncster]

No leader = No chemistry

No PG = No chemistry.

This gets more to the point imo.

 

[8893]

No PG = No chemistry.

This gets more to the point imo.

Pun intended?

 

[intlzncster]

Pun intended?

Second time I've used that one today. 1st one I called my shot, but for this one, I feared I've become redundant.

 

[nomar]

Didn't want to start a new thread on this, but:

Do we have an official explanation for the failure to foul with one to give? I still can't get over it, and in order to begin trying, I need an explanation.

Accountability matters. The stakes are hardly comparable, but Pete Carroll explained why he threw the football, and Grady Little explained why he left Pedro in the game. Inquiring minds want to know what happened.

 

[BLUEDOGHOUSE]

Thanks for taking the time to put together a thoughtful post as it relates to our beloved Huskies.

"I think we are seeing proof that it was always a risky proposition from the start to put all of these major pieces together within one season. I now think it's even tougher than bringing in one-and-dones, because at least in that instance you have the chance to integrate the player into your system (and your players) straight from high school, rather than having him play college ball for four years in another system, another conference and with a different cast of characters. And although the fifth year player is obviously more experienced, the one-and-done is just as obviously more talented."

If you look at what Trey Lewis/Damion Lee are doing at Louisville right now statistically and Louisville as a team maybe that is a good example of how a coach can quickly implement two 5th year transfers into a system? Pitino is an experienced seasoned coach. I think Louisville will finish top 4 or 5 in the very tough ACC. Also Maryland with Suliamon and Carter (both new starters). Maryland had to make a decision on whether to roll the dice with RS. Essentially he is more or less a glue guy averaging double figures and shooting plus 50% from downtown. I think the biggest concern with RS from a hoops perspective was whether he would make whatever sacrifice was necessary for the TEAM to be successful. He has bought into that concept. Loyalty to players in the 5th year market is always a potential issue when formulating roles. You have to have the type of player who is willing to do whatever the team needs. I think Gibbs falls into that category. In my opinion he is a great kid from my limited association. He is not a cancer and probably never will be. I just don't think his acclimation to the system in general has been smooth at all. That is on KO to a certain degree.

 

[Glastonhusky]

Many of us have alluded to the main problem with this team being that the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts, and we do not seem to be any closer to reversing that equation than we were in the Bahamas.

Why? It's pretty clear by that this is a result of the recruiting misses of the past two years, (e.g., Ali, Stone, Mack), which KO was then forced to make up for in the NCAA's equivalent of free agency, the fifth year transfer market. While no one believed this was preferable to landing our main recruiting targets, I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that, on paper, we did about as well to recover from those misses as anyone could have hoped by bringing in Gibbs and Miller to address two of our areas of greatest concern.

The task of putting these players together with our existing team, and adding Adams, to form an elite, competitive team falls squarely on the coaching staff. Simply put, it is the coach's job to figure out how best to use the talent that he has. And if there are problems either with the talent, or with getting it to gel, the coach also need look no further for responsibility, because he's the one who is responsible for recruiting.

So...there's nothing that can be done about the fact that we missed who we missed, and we are still fortunate to have gotten who we got in the after-market.

What to do about it? That is the question.

I think we are seeing proof that it was always a risky proposition from the start to put all of these major pieces together within one season. I now think it's even tougher than bringing in one-and-dones, because at least in that instance you have the chance to integrate the player into your system (and your players) straight from high school, rather than having him play college ball for four years in another system, another conference and with a different cast of characters. And although the fifth year player is obviously more experienced, the one-and-done is just as obviously more talented.

Sure, Miller was the only one who played well last night, but this isn't a one-player or one-game issue. It's about getting the team to play well together. Gibbs has clearly had problems adjusting (they mentioned Ollie's comments about this during the broadcast last night, saying that Ollie spoke about Gibbs having to go through a "feeling out process" with his new teammates), and the fact that neither he nor Adams appear comfortable running the point on this team is going to continue to be a very serious handicap. Hamilton at the point obviously isn't the answer, either.

I'm not so worried about "chemistry" issues as I used to be, and last night's apparent friction between Purvis and Hamilton didn't change that. Anyone with eyes saw the constant battling between Bazz and Boat, and I still think that one of Ollie's greatest coaching successes was managing that situation all the way to a championship. I think what we saw last night was far more symptom than cause, and it might even be an encouraging sign that the players cared enough to be frustrated and barking at each other. I mean, someone has to reach the boiling point to bring this to a head and see if we can move past it, no?

There is clearly a lot of frustration with confusion about roles, and Amidah's absence doesn't help that because some roles have needed to change again. Hamilton has been harped on to be more selfish and to defer less to his teammates, and I think this is something we all wanted to see. Well, look what happened last night after he finally got the message and tried to force it. For whatever reason, he's not comfortable in that role; he may actually be a much different player than many of us thought he was. Purvis is doing his damnedest to fill the leadership void, but the reality is that even he is a transfer and may not be best suited for that role. Is Gibbs supposed to take over as a newcomer? Is Adams, as freshman? It may not be a problem of chemistry (i.e., players getting along) as much as not having the right pieces to fit together, and the oft-cited, but true, lack of leadership.

We have enough talent to win enough games to make the tournament, and who knows what happens then? But we also have enough problems that now appear as though they may be intractable, and missing the tournament altogether again would not be a shock to me. Rather than being the poster boy for the claimed "unfair" advantage of bringing in fifth year transfers, we may end up being the cautionary tale about what happens when you have to rely too heavily on them. And it may well be that there is no good answer for our team's problems this season. For better or for worse, we're a makeshift team and we're seeing the results of that.

One thing I refuse to believe is that Ollie is not a good enough coach. Sure he's got a lot more learning to do, but I'm still 100% behind him as our coach and have full faith in his abilities going forward. I do think we could use some new blood among the assistants though.

Good post. With the talent we have at guard, I'm at a loss to explain why or offense is so stagnant. Maybe we need to go small with Adams and Gibbs in the back court and DHam at the PF spot. One thing we don't have is a pure scorer, someone who can go off for 30 points on any given night. Before the season started I thought DHam would be that guy, but maybe that's just not in his makeup. He's an excellent passer and rebounder and good with the ball for his size, but doesn't have that scorers mentality, at least not yet.

 

[Athlete94]

Well said, our parts don't fit. However, some how they better fit enough because this is an important time in UCONN'S world as a university. This team now and in the future must get those "parts" or the program to click and work as a unit or this team will continue decline into mediocrity and not the dominant program we know it was and still can be. We need to keep swinging for the fence on the recruits that do fit, one and dines, 5th year guys or the guys with good talent that we turn into great talent by coaching them up and putting them in a position to succeed.