Glad you are an expert.
I dont doubt the system is complex -I do doubt running a system that requires many players to be in it for at least 2 years before they are at least competent in a day and age in which keeping rotational players is becoming a big challenge. If they waive the sit out rule it will just make it even harder. Included in this is that we arenāt likely to get high basketball IQ guys that are also great athletes. That means we are always playing from behind the 8 ball with talent fitting them into a system that doesnāt put them in a place to succeed as quickly as possible. Throw in an inability to recruit freshmen bigs and relying on transfers to come into a system that takes years to understand and you have an absolutely disastrous set up for success.
1 Like
Its probably about the Jimmys and Joes we have, not the Xās and Oās.
2 Likes
I agree we are not likely to get great athletes who also have high basketball IQās. Those guys go to P5ās and we are left with guys who have one or the other & sometimes neither. Iām afraid we could have someone with Lebron James athleticism and Sanchez would not play them if they donāt have a good understanding of his system. Iām also worried that itās going to cause us to lose a lot of players who would be the most exciting to watch play. Guys just arenāt going to sit around and learn the system for a year or two before they play. They will leave us to play somewhere that doesnāt have such a structured system.
Thanks.
All offenses consist of moving the ball and setting screens. This one has a few more rules and requires the offensive player to read the defense. That is where we fail I think. We screen for the sake of screening sometimes.
I agree that his systems are likely to be failures if the players donāt stick around. The offensive system is there to provide open looks under the basket and at the 3pt line. The player getting the screen for has the option to take the screen or back out depending upon what the defense is doing. They are setting 1 and many times 2 screens at once depending upon which set they are running. The person with the ball needs to know what the player getting the screen for is going to do. The concept is to keep running it until the defense fails and then hit that player for the open shot. Many times the player is open, but our guys donāt recognize it fast enough. We also fail because we havenāt had the guys to knock down the open 3. Threadgill will change that, but if Supica could hit the 3 imagine how much space that opens for the cutter in the lane.
The defense is not as hard, but the guys (mostly new guys) are not getting back in time to set it up leaving easy baskets. In the games we have lost the screens are getting weaker as the game goes on and the defense is letting down. I think it is due to them not being fully in shape and not having the deep bench to go to. I think the system is why Garcia is not seeing much time, but I think you have to play in it to learn it.
Like it or not that is what the staff runs, and they have to deal with the consequences of what they do. However, I donāt think he is a bad coach. I just think it takes time and no major transfers for what he wants to do to work really well.
By year 3 Bennett had turned UVA completely around
And thats the problem - transfer are going to happen and if the rules change they are going to happen even more. If your players canāt run the system, cant knock down the shots and the ones that do are leaving the program - I just donāt see a very big path for this to work out.
The screening you are talking about has totally disappeared late in games - they are weak screens - they are no screens. I have watched too many times especially in the second half the team stands around and its left to young or shep to just create off the dribble. Often times late in the clock which results in a contest and/or poor shot.
I get what they are trying to do - it just isnāt working. At some point you have to do something different if it keeps happening.
He is not changing the system. He was an assistant for either Dick Bennett or Tony Bennett for 16 years. Itās all he knows and all he will ever coach.
If it doesnāt work its a long way back for us.
Again, all of this is moot until 2024 at the earliest thanks to Mike and the unwarranted 3 year extension.
1 Like
I dont know if I would go that far. Coaches tweak and adjust philosophies pretty regularly in response to talent and changes in the game. Now the question is is he willing to do that or is he a slave to the system he grew up in?
I donāt know him, so I canāt answer that. All I know is if we see the same issues in year 3 and 4 then he is going to have to look at himself in the mirror long and hard.
So hereās the thing. You guys can piss and moan and put up fire Sanchez signs and be miserable if you want to. I am going with optimism because the alternative is bad for my soul.
We can talk about the Bennettās. It took Dick 7 years to reach the NAIA tournament as a rookie coach, then 5 to take Green Bay to the NIT, Wisconsin it was 1 year, then Washington State he was 11-17 the 3rd year when he retired. Tony took over and Washington State went 26-8 the following season. Tony didnāt change Washington State from what his dad did. At Virginia, he won just 1 more conference game his first year, 2 more the next year, 2 more the year after, and 2 more in year 4. He only made the NCAA 1 year the first 4 years. The year they went (3rd year) they lost 71-45 first round to a 7th seed. Their out of Conference was 13-1, but in conference they were only 9-7. I would say a weak out of conference schedule and the pull of the ACC got them there that season. What makes the Bennettās so good is that once they get a team turned around, they are playoff bound year after year like we were when I was in school. That is what we all want. If it takes year 4 or year 5 so be it. Sanchez had to learn how to coach and rebuild a dysfunctional program. It takes time. Besides, Major had us in the NIT in his 3rd year. Sometimes quick success is not the answer.
2 Likes
Coaches get paid to win. How they choose to do that, IDGAF! Coaches donāt get more years to make that happen before they are judged based on the system they choose to implement.
1 Like
Apparently, he was judged by the only one that matters and he got 3 more years. I get what you are saying, but what we are arguing about is my expectations versus yours. In the end we all want a winning team and Iāll agree to that.
Time. Time. Time. If Mike Hill said you got 10 years to get this thing turned around, how many fans would be happy with that? How long have we been waiting? 15 years? What made Sanchez deserve such a long leash? Itās year 3 and Sanchez isnāt showing me that I should be patient another 3-4 years. They lose tonight and what does Mike Hill say? If Sanchez acted like he gave a damn when we lost, I might be more patient. Instead we get silly grins and chuckles. Pretty full of himself.
See this is what I donāt understand. In two years he got us back to a winning record. The first since 2014. He also got us to the best conference record since Lutz coached. This season we lost to the same teams as last and we are 1 game off from last season. His success has shifted your expectations, but not mine. Just because he isnāt pissed in front of the cameras doesnāt mean that he is happy with a loss.
6 Likes
Who is this team playing in those Charlotte uniforms? They look like a different team against Davidson. If they finish the way they are playing now, extend Sanchez contract!
Doesnāt make sense. Those consecutive turnovers near the end of the game had me worried. Glad we beat Davidson. Sanchez better go on a winning streak.
LOL! Fire Sanchez? The response will expose how ridiculous this thread really is!
2 Likes
I be damned !
Beating Davidson does not mean āfire sanchezā is ridiculous (who said that anyways?). Davidson isnāt the Curry powerhouse anymore and we are still 2-3 on the year. Sanchez has to do work.
1 Like