http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/02/23/1266295/mocs-beat-wildcats-snap-streak.html
Davidson gets rolled again by UT Chat
this man was a god to some of NNN 2 years ago…
has he forgot how to coach? can’t teach D? rely on the 3? or doesn’t have the talent right now…
LOL, I don’t see any of those posters linking his brutal season now. You know who you are. 
Is this post suggesting that McKillop is actually a bad coach, or that Lutz is a great coach? Or both?
Karma, the geese won in the end.
Neither.
but…Davidson is 14-14. 9-7 in a one bid league.
We are 18-8 and 8-4 in a possible 6 bid league…
I am saying you win games mostly with what kids suit up each night. When McKillop hit the lottery and signed some scrawny kid from south Charlotte, he literally stuck gold on accident.
This board raved about McKillop’s phenomenal coaching and ball movement when Curry was there.
My point is CURRY took them to the Elite 8 not McKillop. Davidson is right back to square one.
I think it’s extremely hard to compare these two guys.
I thik McKillop is a great coach, but that’s no knock on Lutz. I think Lutz done a really good job this year with all the new faces. Damn good thing, the olds ones weren’t working.
Most Lutz defenders will point to the move to the A-10 as the harbinger for the bad years, mainly due to recruiting issues, could be right. But, talk about a hard school for which to recruit , Davidson’s standards are probably a wee bit higher than ours, but they aren’t playing in a tough league.
They favor very different styles of plays, I would say McKillop plays a little more traditional style of old-school in your face D and ball movement on O. Lutz favors a more uptempo game although he has shown that he will slow it down and go inside this year.
I guess this is what it boils down to to me: Would McKillop do as good/better job at Charlotte than what Lutz has done. And, would Lutz be able to do what McKillop has done at Davidson. Impossible question to answer, but we all probably have very different opinions on this.
To suggest that Mckillop is not an excellent coach is rediculous. He already took a school with tough
academic entrance requirements to the tourney several times before Curry arrived. He just doesn’t have a lot to work with this year…hence the record. The elite 8 team was not a one trick pony either and we saw the results last year when Richards and their starting PF left, putting the remaining load on Lovedale and Curry.
No need to bust on McK.
Are you talking about Lutz or McKillop?
[quote=“max, post:6, topic:22525”]To suggest that Mckillop is not an excellent coach is rediculous. He already took a school with tough
academic entrance requirements to the tourney several times before Curry arrived. He just doesn’t have a lot to work with this year…hence the record. The elite 8 team was not a one trick pony either and we saw the results last year when Richards and their starting PF left, putting the remaining load on Lovedale and Curry.
No need to bust on McK.[/quote]
He’s a Favidsoner.
That alone is reason enough.
[quote=“max, post:6, topic:22525”]To suggest that Mckillop is not an excellent coach is rediculous. He already took a school with tough
academic entrance requirements to the tourney several times before Curry arrived. He just doesn’t have a lot to work with this year…hence the record. The elite 8 team was not a one trick pony either and we saw the results last year when Richards and their starting PF left, putting the remaining load on Lovedale and Curry.
No need to bust on McK.[/quote]
now you are hitting on something…
Are you talking about Lutz or McKillop?[/quote]
get a life
I was one of the people that said I thought he taught and preached fundamental smart basketball.
Would he do better with the players we have? I don’t know. Maybe his players are just smarter or listen better but it APPEARS McKillop teams have better fundamentals.
i honestly havent watched one of their games this season.
This is one of those questions where no answer is wrong as long as you can back it up. That’s why I liked math in school, only 1 right answer.
Was working on a post saying the same thing when NN.N crapped out on me.
Anyway, Richards was extremely important to the FF team - 12.7 ppg, 3.1 rpg, and, most importantly, 8.1 apg. Then add in the combined stats of post players Andrew Lovedale, Boris Meno, and Thomas Sander and that averaged out to 21.2 ppg and 15.6 rpg.
This year’s team just isn’t getting the needed output from it’s upperclassmen, as evidenced by the fact the team is led by a couple of frosh in 6-10 F Jake Cohen (131. ppg, 5 rpg) and 6-3 G JP Kuhlman (12.2 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 3.2 apg). Much touted big man Frank Ben-Eze has never really been a factor due to injuries and plays less than 10 mpg this year.
So the issue has been talent. When McKillop has it, the Cats can be pretty good (and more!). Without it, just another middle of the pack SoCon team. If he can find some more pieces to go with Cohen and Kuhlman, then I have no doubt he’ll have Davidson back in the NCAAs. Just not going to happen every year.
well said
I wonder if the Davidson fans are killing him for being 14-14 like we tarred and feathered Lutz in similar seasons? That was my point.
talent wins games, not coaching (as much)
well said
I wonder if the Davidson fans are killing him for being 14-14 like we tarred and feathered Lutz in similar seasons? That was my point.
talent wins games, not coaching (as much)[/quote]
If Lutz had ever gotten us out of the first round, I doubt so many fans would be as quick to abandon ship.
well said
I wonder if the Davidson fans are killing him for being 14-14 like we tarred and feathered Lutz in similar seasons? That was my point.
talent wins games, not coaching (as much)
[/quote]
Just to extend the argument…
I think it’s how we lose. 1) Shooting bad contested 3s from 2 feet behind the 3 point line early in the shot clock with no players in position to rebound 2) Lazy entry passes
If our players were shooting good shots AND missing them, then I would say it could be talent. I know it takes talent to get open but a high DI school should have offensive sets to get good shots on the basket.
This year, it “seems” we have talent… so why does it seem our shots are more contested and the other teams are shooting WIDE open shots at ease? Is ball movement and off the ball moving talent only? imo, this is taught and D1 players should be able to grasp this.
Why does it seem other teams get easy layups and dunks? Is it defensive sets? Man or zone?
[quote=“metro, post:13, topic:22525”]well said
I wonder if the Davidson fans are killing him for being 14-14 like we tarred and feathered Lutz in similar seasons? That was my point.
talent wins games, not coaching (as much)[/quote]
Metro, so what percentage of wins do you think are attributed to coaching? 10%? 15, 25?
well said
I wonder if the Davidson fans are killing him for being 14-14 like we tarred and feathered Lutz in similar seasons? That was my point.
talent wins games, not coaching (as much)
[/quote]
Just to extend the argument…
I think it’s how we lose. 1) Shooting bad contested 3s from 2 feet behind the 3 point line early in the shot clock with no players in position to rebound 2) Lazy entry passes
If our players were shooting good shots AND missing them, then I would say it could be talent. I know it takes talent to get open but a high DI school should have offensive sets to get good shots on the basket.
This year, it “seems” we have talent… so why does it seem our shots are more contested and the other teams are shooting WIDE open shots at ease? Is ball movement and off the ball moving talent only? imo, this is taught and D1 players should be able to grasp this.
Why does it seem other teams get easy layups and dunks?[/quote]
We have not been losing this year because of your stated reasons. In years past, yes, but this year we are playing the most sound half court basketball I think we have played under Lutz since the 98-99 season. However, that team was light years ahead of this team in the talent department.
I definitely think we struggle from having our best players all be new and a failure to execute. Our player who has logged the most minutes was a walk-on we gave a scholarship.
The team is just taking bumps. I expect us to be a really good team next year when Green matures and gets a little bigger. Bras should get a lot better with a year of experience also. We’ll be adding another quality guard with D1 experience.
This is the kind of rebuilding year we should have had 3 years ago, but better late than never.
[quote=“max, post:6, topic:22525”]To suggest that Mckillop is not an excellent coach is rediculous. He already took a school with tough
academic entrance requirements to the tourney several times before Curry arrived.[/quote]
Fordham supposedly came close to hiring McKillop a few years ago. If you listen to their fans, they’ll tell you that McKillop would have taken them to a Final Four or something. I’m less certain.
He’s not a bad coach by any means. But I do think McKillop is really overrated. People will point out that Davidson could win 15 games/season without Curry but they’ll overlook the fact that they would get those 15 wins by scheduling Fredonia State or Maine-Farmingdale at home. I think McKillop and Lutz both share the fact that they’re not as awesome as the kool-aid drinkers will tell you they are nor are they the-biggest-coaching-idiot-on-the-planet that the mouth-foamers will tell you they are. Each is a solid coach in their own right.
Edit - just looked up on statsheet to see how many times McKillop brought Davidson to the tournament without Curry. He won the Socon autobid in '86, '98, and '02. His non-conference schedules in those three years were kinda unimpressive:
1986 - Erskine College, Catholic University, Eckerd College
1998 - Tufts College, Carnegie Mellon University
2002 - Oglethorpe, Washington & Jefferson, Hamilton
So three conference championships in 16-17 years without Curry. That’s an accomplishment but not really enough to qualify you for ‘greatness’ imho.
Neither.
but…Davidson is 14-14. 9-7 in a one bid league.
We are 18-8 and 8-4 in a possible 6 bid league…
I am saying you win games mostly with what kids suit up each night. When McKillop hit the lottery and signed some scrawny kid from south Charlotte, he literally stuck gold on accident.
This board raved about McKillop’s phenomenal coaching and ball movement when Curry was there.
My point is CURRY took them to the Elite 8 not McKillop. Davidson is right back to square one.[/quote]
Exactly—talent, with just average coaching wins most games (90% anyway). Poor coaching can lose ‘em though, even with talent…Extrapilate if you will to Ol’ Roy… 