does a coach peak with his team????

[[email protected]]

I don't post much but I do read the different threads and I figured since I have seen some people saying that Few should go I would post my own. I like GU basketball and I will make clear I am not saying that Few should or should not go. With that being said, the question is, has Mark Few peaked with his time at Gonzaga? I look at the situation with Ernie Kent at Oregon and his time there kind of mirrors Few's time at Gonzaga, gets to the tournament and does not go any further than sweet 16. (i think oregon made elite 8 once). Ernie Kent is gone and it seems that he peaked a while ago at Oregon. I have seen some people say that if the fans are fine with Gonzaga making it no further than the sweet 16 then they should keep Few, I am just looking to see what others think.

[soccerdud]

If the question is "can Few do more at Gonzaga?", I strongly believe the answer is "yes," but I will admit that there's a chance that he doesn't.

The other side of this question has to be "can Gonzaga do more without
Few?", and I think that this answer is unquestionably "no."

I love Few, and quite honestly hope he stays forever. What I don't understand from all the people who would prefer he moved on is what makes them think that Gonzaga can and will bring in someone who would do better or have a higher ceiling than Few? I just don't see it.

[maineblackbear]

A: No.

The deal is that the flaws seen by some are correctable. Few is a very smart guy, perhaps a little stubborn, but then most smart people are.

He has many many years to grow and improve as a coach.

(I have been an active member of the "Fire Tim Whitehead" brigade at the University of Maine (hockey) for two years. This year he started coaching in an almost entirely new style (I won't bore you with the details--he got a lot more aggressive) and his team has improved. If Tim (or as we call him Timmay!) keeps re-thinking his approach he could win a national championship reasonably soon).
Coaches do learn. Few still on a path to enlightenment. :-)

[maineblackbear]

Ernie Kent's Elite Eight was only three years ago. Pity the Foo' who takes the UO job. Just sayin'
I hear what you are saying, OP, but the movement of coaches is such that the synergy between coach/team seems unrepeatable (Bruce Pearl at UMW, for example)-- but longetivity matters very much, also.

[229SintoZag]

Arizona fans were asking the same questions about Lute Olson around 1995 or 1996. He had been coach for about 12 years at that point and had several early exits from the dance.

The next year Arizona won it all.

[[email protected]]

good answers. after watching that Butler game last night I wonder why all coaches (and players) would not want to focus on defense more. Other than a couple of brain farts by Butler their defense was a ton of heart. With that being said I know how skilled Gonzaga is offensively and their defense at times (especially defending the 3) does not put out effort like Butler did, but could you imagine if Gonzaga committed themselves defensively the next couple of years the way Butler did in this tournament. I think Few is a great offensive mind and that won't change but I feel that their defensive philosphy has to change or they may be stuck with the same results year after year.

[bigblahla]

Is the commitment to talent or team?

Streak or Program?

Makes me wonder?

Go!! Zags!!!

[RockandRollJames]

What's the alternative to Few? We would not be able to sign a big-name coach. We would have to have a young guy step in and hope to get lucky enough that he could be even better than Few. I just don't see that as being very likely.

[007Zag]

Hire Brad Stevens!

just kidding. I love Few. Bring BS in as Assistant Coach. He'd go for that, right?

[Colbyspapa]

The comparison to of Coach Few and Ernie Kent don't hold up. For any flaws people may see with Mark Few, less than 5 programs have been in the top 25 consistantly for the past 12 years and we are one of them. Tournament games are matchup issues, player issues and sometimes strategy issues.

Mark Few has brought so much to our University with his recruiting, consistancy and flat out win percentage that it is foolish to expect someone else could do this job, at this University better. He is the perfect fit and we will succeed or fail with his staff. No one is a better ambassador to our University and unless you get another coach (maybe Michaelson some day) that grows up in the program and loves GU above all things such as money and fame, the success we have gotten used to will not be repeated when he leaves or retires. People don't know how special it is that we got this coach at this time (12 years ago).

While I understand the discussion and the people who make reasonable posts with regards to style of play and in game strategy, there is so much more to the job he does for GU. Has he peaked? Of course not. He has a tireless work ethic and has consistantly improved in recruiting and style of play. It wasn't long ago when GU ran one play all game long with many variations. The past 4 years, we have been pushing the offense and allowed for more athletic play. Few will evolve based on the players he recruits.

[maynard g krebs]

Other than the fact that they both like to play uptempo, there is little similar between Kent and Few's programs.

While UO under Kent has been all peaks and valleys, GU has been consistent.
Kent has 2 elite 8's btw, both when he's had pac-10 poy-caliber, future NBA pg's surrounded by experienced talent. But in the down years Oregon has been bad, and like UW teams, their halfcourt offense has been painful to watch.

Kent never recovered after the Fiasco Mexicano, which was followed by a couple down recruiting years. After that, Oregon fans had little patience. He could possibly have fielded good teams again, but only if he was able to sign another elite pg.

Few adjusts and fields good teams year after year, figuring out ways to compensate for weaknesses.

How far would the last Zag team have gone despite its youth with a Ridnour or Brooks, or a Dickau or Santangelo?

[MickMick]

John Wooden's Career.

Take notice of his first fourteen years at UCLA. It seems that no one ever, ever mentions that he hit his ceiling and couldn't take the program any higher.

Why?

Because he did take them higher.....after 14 years.

nuff said about Few