Stony Brook

BearcatTalk

Help Support BearcatTalk:

Chad Brendel said:
I've sat through several 2.5-3 hour practices in the past month that have been focused entirely on offense. How about you???
Click to expand...

It's obvious that they work on offense. Every team in the country works on offense. If they didn't they wouldn't have a clue what plays are what. The question is do they work on it enough?

The stats speak for themselves. Their offense has always struggled under Mick. So the question is, why? Is it:

A) Mick doesn't put enough focus on it?
B) Mick isn't effective at teaching it?
C) He isn't recruiting good enough players?
D) What he is teaching simply isn't an effective offense?
E) All of the above?

My guess is it's probably a combination of all.
 
TheLongHaul said:
It's obvious that they work on offense. Every team in the country works on offense. If they didn't they wouldn't have a clue what plays are what. The question is do they work on it enough?

The stats speak for themselves. Their offense has always struggled under Mick. So the question is, why? Is it:

A) Mick doesn't put enough focus on it?
B) Mick isn't effective at teaching it?
C) He isn't recruiting good enough players?
D) What he is teaching simply isn't an effective offense?
E) All of the above?

My guess is it's probably a combination of all.
Click to expand...
nice post. I think all of the above but the majority is recruiting players. He gets a bunch out of his teams.
 
TheLongHaul said:
It's obvious that they work on offense. Every team in the country works on offense. If they didn't they wouldn't have a clue what plays are what. The question is do they work on it enough?

The stats speak for themselves. Their offense has always struggled under Mick. So the question is, why? Is it:

A) Mick doesn't put enough focus on it?
B) Mick isn't effective at teaching it?
C) He isn't recruiting good enough players?
D) What he is teaching simply isn't an effective offense?
E) All of the above?

My guess is it's probably a combination of all.
Click to expand...

I would probably vote for E as well.
 
This whole argument in nonsense to me. Of course Mick and his staff coach offense and of course they can coach it well enough to win a national title. The real argument isnt about the X's and O's but the Jimmy's and Joe's. You can coach offense all you want but if you dont have guys who can put the ball in the hole it matters very little. When the bearcats had a well balanced team with Yancy, Cash, Dion, Jaquan, and SK they went to the sweet 16 and were beating Ohio State in that game at the under 8 timeout. The last two years we havent had that balance and we have relied on guards to make lower percentage shots. This year its just as simple as our best offensive players are extremely inexperienced so we miss a lot of our options when we run a specific play. I think Mick has realized he needs more offense. His last two recruiting classes are offensively focused. Gary and Quadri can really score but their defense has a long way to go. So while those guys develop this team needs to win the ugly way. Grind it out and not let the other team score. That's why Mick is so defense heavy this year because it truly is this team's only shot on certain nights. It has to be consistent or come selection Sunday there wont be a party at Montgomery Inn. If you dont play defense you will not win a championship, period. However you have got to be able to answer in the offensive end. There has to be a balance. UC is trying to develop that. The recruiting has to get better. If you dont have NBA players on your roster you just simply are not going to win a national title. The statistics bare that out. Not about the X's and O's its about the Jimmy's and Joe's.
 
Last edited:
JackBauer151 said:
This whole argument in nonsense to me. Of course Mick and his staff coach offense and of course they can coach it well enough to win a national title. The real argument isnt about the X's and O's but the Jimmy's and Joe's. You can coach offense all you want but if you dont have guys who can put the ball in the hole it matters very little. When the bearcats had a well balanced team with Yancy, Cash, Dion, Jaquan, and SK they went to the sweet 16 and were beating Ohio State in that game at the under 8 timeout. The last two years we havent had that balance and we have relied on guards to make lower percentage shots. This year its just as simple as our best offensive players are extremely inexperienced so we miss a lot of our options when we run a specific play. I think Mick has realized he needs more offense. His last two recruiting classes are offensively focused. Gary and Quadri can really score but their defense has a long way to go. So while those guys develop this team needs to win the ugly way. Grind it out and not let the other team score. That's why Mick is so defense heavy this year because it truly is this team's only shot on certain nights. It has to be consistent or come selection Sunday there wont be a party at Montgomery Inn. If you dont play defense you will not win a championship, period. However you have got to be able to answer in the offensive end. There has to be a balance. UC is trying to develop that. The recruiting has to get better. If you dont have NBA players on your roster you just simply are not going to win a national title. The statistics bare that out. Not about the X's and O's its about the Jimmy's and Joe's.
Click to expand...

We have a winner...
 
TheLongHaul said:
It's obvious that they work on offense. Every team in the country works on offense. If they didn't they wouldn't have a clue what plays are what. The question is do they work on it enough?

The stats speak for themselves. Their offense has always struggled under Mick. So the question is, why? Is it:

A) Mick doesn't put enough focus on it?
B) Mick isn't effective at teaching it?
C) He isn't recruiting good enough players?
D) What he is teaching simply isn't an effective offense?
E) All of the above?

My guess is it's probably a combination of all.
Click to expand...

I think it comes down to recruiting a certain type of player. I went back and looked at Mick's stats at Murray State and, amazingly, all three years his teams averaged over 70 points a game. In his first year, they averaged 80 points! Of course, he inherited much of the roster construction during his tenure there. (Interestingly, in two out of the three years after he left Murray State, the teams averaged less than 70 points.)

When Mick came to Cincinnati, he essentially constructed the roster from the start. So now, you are a very young coach trying to build a program from scratch and trying to recruit against Boeheim, Calhoun, Pitino, Huggins, Wright, Dixon, JT3, etc. So you say, forget it, I can't out-recruit these guys, but I can go out and get DEFENSIVE All-Americans. And, if they stay in the program for four or five years, they might turn into competent offensive players. In any event, if we play great defense, at least we will have a chance to compete against these top-tier programs.

Which, I must say, was a very shrewd strategy.

Problem is, it's hard to advance very far in the tournament without proper balance. Winning six games, against six very good teams is hard. Odds are, you are going to run into another team that is going to make shots no matter how good you are on defense.

So you need to evolve and continue working to get in on the higher-rated recruits. I think this is where I am surprised, because I would have expected recruiting to gradually improve as Mick gained notoriety. But, such is not the case. Even next year is what I call a garden-variety class under Mick: One low-end four-star, one mid-range three-star, and one developmental three-star. Nothing to write home about.
 

Similar threads

Q
Stetson
Replies
13
Views
40K
sirthought
S
S
@Wichita St
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
37K
Cin City
C
Q
Georgia
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
30K
waterhead
W
J
Houston: Round 2: The Battle for Everything
19 20 21
Replies
412
Views
66K
cincyguy13
C
H
About the Hawkeyes from a Hawkeye
6 7 8
Replies
152
Views
45K
Mcginnjw
M
Back
Top