Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Heritage, post: 3910505, member: 11184"] There are many ways to evaluate a coach. In my opinion, these are the essentials: Recruitment Player relationship Defensive development and implementation. Offensive development and implementation. Player development. Game control, adjusting as required to minimize opponents strengths, proper utilization of players and establishing opportunities for your players. Demeanor and self-control of the coach. Having been around this game for more than seventy years, I can tell you there are not many, in fact, very few who grade out as an A across the board. The evaluation of Hurley from my perspective is as follows: Recruitment - Recruitment is a solid A, especially when you consider that Uconn reputation was not good in recent years, which makes it harder to recruit. His last two recruiting classes were very good, in spite of the fat that the team had poor records an no post season play. Player relationship - Player relationship is harder to judge and can only be surmised by what you see (game interaction with players) and what you read. This appears to be a solid A as well. Defensive development and implementation - Even the most casual observer can see that he has developed and implemented a very good defense, again a solid A. Offensive development and implementation. It is obvious that this team has not done well on offense. The only aspect of the offense that grades well is the out of bound plays under their own basket. Their motion offense has way too much dribbling and way too slow to pass the ball. The fact that they get called for moving screens constantly is a symptom of lack of discipline and lack of crispness, i.e., very poor implementation. It is rare they run a double screen or are able to get someone wide open. Calhoun managed this extremely well getting Hamilton, Allen, etc. Open to aid them with the double teams. Bouknight has never enjoyed that luxury. Additionally, when someone is being doubled or in cases tripled there obviously other team members open. This is clearly something coaches point out and insist players pass to open man in such a case. If this ever happen I missed it. The inability to score layups is the direct result of not developing the player. I had high school players as bad as Whaley and Martin at scoring near the basket. There are drills that they ran for hours which resulted with them becoming very proficient. This is on the coach and the player. Grade C minus. Player development - On defense you see a lot of improvement. Offense has been poor, as stated above, this team is terrible scoring near the basket. The inability to teach veteran players how to score underneath is blatant failure of coaching. To watch players like Whaley shoot so poorly from the foul line, particularly, their form is terrible and he isn’t the only one. To watch players leave their feet and then attempt to pass is mind boggling, at this level. Grade C +. Game Control - This, realistically, is the one the least evident in coaches in general. Calhoun was excellent but there are not many that are. I believe, in the theory, you don’t take a “hot player “ off the court unless there is a good reason, e.g. foul trouble, tired, etc. The appearance is he has a plan and sticks to it, regardless of what is happening. But this is conjecture but his moves in many cases are baffling. On more than one occasion, he has pulled two players at the same time and they are the only ones scoring or pulling a player when he is making almost all his shots. Rarely uses timeouts to break the other teams momentum. Several times they have gone done double digits and he waits way too long or not ever to call for a TO. When his team is not scoring for several trips, the appearance is there are no set plays sent in from the bench or they can’t execute but I suspect the former. The appearance there is no correction of obvious player mistakes when they leave the floor. If there is, it is not obvious. Calhoun as do many coaches let their player no when they pull a dumb play. If a coach doesn’t have game control there is only one substitute and that is a leader on the floor, e.g., Napier, Walker, with neither the team will lose the majority of close games. Grade D Demeanor and self-control of the coach. - The impression is he is way too emotional and in my experience this is reflected by players under such a coach. This would explain, why many times, the guards are out of control. Yes, Calhoun did blow up many times, by a bad call or a player doing something ridiculous and yes he was intense but wasn’t emotional without cause. Hurley makes too many excuses, e.g., we are a young team, however they are not, when you start a senior, a red shirt junior, a junior and a sophomore and your sixth man is a senior it is definitely not a young team. We lost are point guard and that is why we lost. This is self indictment in that he didn’t know how to adjust. When the coach makes excuses, guess what the players will do? Allowing Cole to take the blame for loss because he missed two foul shots, to me was horrible for a coach to do. Saying Cole was mature to take responsibility was good but should have been followed by we lost as a team. With 20 seconds to go in a game and a four point lead and to allow the game be tied is a coach’s failure. Bouknight was making everything that game, the out of bounds play should have been designed to get him the ball. Yes this goes back to game control, but you have to wonder if his emotions cloud his judgement. Grade - D [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach