PDA

View Full Version : The Mark Few Thread



amaronizag
02-23-2014, 05:13 PM
About this time every basketball season the fans start to get fewtigue and confewsion. Some times they get so fewrious they wonder does Gonzaga basketball have a fewture?? If we can't turn this team around, the fewture looks Dower because the coach keeps Dranginis down.

GrizZAG
02-23-2014, 05:18 PM
About this time every basketball season the fans start to get fewtigue and confewsion. Some times they get so fewrious they wonder does Gonzaga basketball have a fewture?? If we can't turn this team around, the fewture looks Dower because the coach keeps Dranginis down.

Reduce Prozac dose now!

bartruff1
02-23-2014, 05:40 PM
The people that hired Mark and pay his salary and extend his contract are not confused.

Hokis
02-23-2014, 05:43 PM
The people that hired Mark and pay his salary and extend his contract are not confused.



Okay. Source?

vandalzag
02-23-2014, 05:48 PM
Okay. Source?

If you have rebuttal evidence please present.

bartruff1
02-23-2014, 05:55 PM
Hokis, those would be a number of private conversations, you can take my word for it...or not, that is up to you.

Obviously, it would be foolish and irresponsible for me to say any more or divulge any names but I am sure other alums would have that same strong impression.

Nearly any member of the Bulldogs knows the strong support for Few by the Administration , in fact the suggestion that it has waivered is laughable.

Angelo Roncalli
02-23-2014, 06:11 PM
The people that hired Mark and pay his salary and extend his contract are not confused.

Word.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

MJ777
02-23-2014, 06:13 PM
About this time every basketball season the fans start to get fewtigue and confewsion. Some times they get so fewrious they wonder does Gonzaga basketball have a fewture?? If we can't turn this team around, the fewture looks Dower because the coach keeps Dranginis down.

Attempts a humor are Fewtile and could cause a Fewd. Zags need to win in Stockton.

bartruff1
02-23-2014, 06:26 PM
I think you can still get a table for the March Banquet... and feel the love...

wnczagfan
02-23-2014, 06:47 PM
The people that hired Mark and pay his salary and extend his contract are not confused.

I hope that no fan would seriously consider suggesting replacing Mark Few. This has been a very successful season, despite recent disappointments. Preseason, I honestly thought we would drop a lot more games than this, and never expected to be WCC Champions, although I hoped for such. The loss of Olynyk, Harris, and Hart gave me pause. We have then gone on to dominate the WCC, and barring some unlikely circumstances, winning the regular season outright. This team has been a happy revelation with its success; but success breeds expectations, and we have begun to expect to win, and rightly so.

Most of the reasonable critique of Mark Few seems to be to be in the vein of "You have done a great job with this team, but they are stumbling, and perhaps you need to try some new things, mix it up a bit with the substitutions, lineups, whatever, to keep our opponents guessing or to catch them off guard, or to play to our strengths on any given night. Not every opponent is the same, and neither should be our lineup for each."

At least, that is what I see from reasonable minds.

Mark Few is a great coach, and we are lucky to have him.

Birddog
02-23-2014, 06:54 PM
From my perspective the Fewture looks bright.

drvenkman05
02-23-2014, 07:33 PM
Most of the reasonable critique of Mark Few seems to be to be in the vein of "You have done a great job with this team, but they are stumbling, and perhaps you need to try some new things, mix it up a bit with the substitutions, lineups, whatever, to keep our opponents guessing or to catch them off guard, or to play to our strengths on any given night. Not every opponent is the same, and neither should be our lineup for each."

THIS IS IT! Thank you for putting it so eloquently. I'm glad someone can see that yes, BOTH the players AND the coach could improve.

caduceus
02-23-2014, 07:41 PM
http://i.imgur.com/usIrF0J.gif

Mantua
02-23-2014, 08:43 PM
If we win five more games...Phew!

bartruff1
02-24-2014, 06:06 AM
I don't think people should confuse their opinions with facts. I read posts in here that question the Coach's character, his intelligence, his effort, his judgment, his concern for the players, even his courage and motives. That is all speculation of the worse kind.

If you don't ever see those posts, fine. That is simply my opinion.

bigblahla
02-24-2014, 06:56 AM
The Fewture is bright and the Few who post here with their constant grumblings under the guise of concerned alumni, wanting the best for the program, share their banter with each other while the rest of us marvel at how a average at best Gonzaga TEAM has had a very good year to date....better than I thought . I said it before the season began and say it again today if Mark Few can get 25 wins out of this TEAM before the WCC tournament he and staff did a heck of a job.

Lastly for those that can't imagine how we could have lost certain games this season please note that you expose your ignorance to the TEAM, competition and the game through your constant belittlement of effort and inane suggestions as to player PT. If you have posted or are posting that either Coleman or Nunez should be starting you understand neither the coach or the program. It is your right to not like it and post your thoughts and my right to think you're nuts.

Just my opinion.

Go!! Zags!!!

GrizZAG
02-24-2014, 07:11 AM
THIS IS IT! Thank you for putting it so eloquently. I'm glad someone can see that yes, BOTH the players AND the coach could improve.

I'll second that. Well said.

Zagceo
02-24-2014, 07:18 AM
I hope that no fan would seriously consider suggesting replacing Mark Few. This has been a very successful season, despite recent disappointments. Preseason, I honestly thought we would drop a lot more games than this, and never expected to be WCC Champions, although I hoped for such. The loss of Olynyk, Harris, and Hart gave me pause. We have then gone on to dominate the WCC, and barring some unlikely circumstances, winning the regular season outright. This team has been a happy revelation with its success; but success breeds expectations, and we have begun to expect to win, and rightly so.

Most of the reasonable critique of Mark Few seems to be to be in the vein of "You have done a great job with this team, but they are stumbling, and perhaps you need to try some new things, mix it up a bit with the substitutions, lineups, whatever, to keep our opponents guessing or to catch them off guard, or to play to our strengths on any given night. Not every opponent is the same, and neither should be our lineup for each."

At least, that is what I see from reasonable minds.

Mark Few is a great coach, and we are lucky to have him.

Agree

Corky
02-24-2014, 08:22 AM
Gazuntheit!

Zagceo
02-24-2014, 08:42 AM
“Both (the San Diego and BYU games) have been very similar,” Few said. “It’s hard to pinpoint either one, offense or defense, because we’re not consistently getting stops (with the) way we started the game and the second half again. On offense, we find some success going one way and we just don’t keep doing that.”

I think the coach is talking about feeding the bigs PK and SD. I could be wrong.

cbbfanatic
02-24-2014, 09:36 AM
absent a 5-10 year ncaa miss streak, mark few is leaving on his own terms. to suggest otherwise is crazy.

GU is smart enough to know you dont replace a guy unless you have someone better lined up... pretty sure they dont have that. and assuming the next guy on the bench could step in and be the CEO with greater success is crazy as well... if these assistants were that good, they wouldnt be sitting on the bench next to few, they'd be building their own programs.

I'm not a huge few guy (mostly because of his apparent attitude), but he's a great fit for the university and program... once you get past the crazy notion that GU should be playing into the top 15 and second weekend of the tournament more often than not.

demian
02-24-2014, 09:50 AM
absent a 5-10 year ncaa miss streak, mark few is leaving on his own terms. to suggest otherwise is crazy.

GU is smart enough to know you dont replace a guy unless you have someone better lined up... pretty sure they dont have that. and assuming the next guy on the bench could step in and be the CEO with greater success is crazy as well... if these assistants were that good, they wouldnt be sitting on the bench next to few, they'd be building their own programs.

I'm not a huge few guy (mostly because of his apparent attitude), but he's a great fit for the university and program... once you get past the crazy notion that GU should be playing into the top 15 and second weekend of the tournament more often than not.

Agreed. I'm not a big fan of few. But I don't want him fired or to leave to a different job.

realtydog
02-24-2014, 09:57 AM
This "Few is the issue" crap is garbage---nobody on this board is more emotionally invested in the winning or losing of the Zags than I......but blaming Few every time Shyt goes wrong is a joke----FANatics always know more than the coach and the players and that is why we have jobs outside of basketball....because of our high bball IQ----get real------they see every minute of practice and watch each game several times over and know who should or should not be on the court-----what gain does Few have if he loses? It's simple socioeconomics, he's got great motivation to win every game and will plan to do so

Few and his team have kept our favorite team from the inland northwest, nationally relevant for years----a nearly impossible task----just open your eyes and look around---I'm not saying I don't curse the TV when the players I want to see in the game are not in and so on---but after the emotions are cooled what we have here is damn good----Nice run the last 20 years---- Valpo, George Mason, St Joe's, Butler...nobody has been more consistent than GU

vandalzag
02-24-2014, 10:00 AM
absent a 5-10 year ncaa miss streak, mark few is leaving on his own terms. to suggest otherwise is crazy.

GU is smart enough to know you dont replace a guy unless you have someone better lined up... pretty sure they dont have that. and assuming the next guy on the bench could step in and be the CEO with greater success is crazy as well... if these assistants were that good, they wouldnt be sitting on the bench next to few, they'd be building their own programs.

I'm not a huge few guy (mostly because of his apparent attitude), but he's a great fit for the university and program... once you get past the crazy notion that GU should be playing into the top 15 and second weekend of the tournament more often than not.

Not attacking here just a question. What is his apparent attitude?


Agreed. I'm not a big fan of few. But I don't want him fired or to leave to a different job.
In the spirit of discussion, if you are not a big fan Few why would you not want him to leave? Is there anything that will occur that would change your opinion of him?

SWZag
02-24-2014, 10:15 AM
Seems the very fact that we are having a discussion like this gives me the impression there are those who would like to have a coaching change.

While people haven't come out and said it directly, this is an indirect way to say it. Criticisms (from amateurs non-the-less) are an indirect way to say that there are better options out there and that people aren't happy with what they have or the current situation.

Would be a big mistake if it were to happen. I'm very glad to hear there is unwavering support from the administration.

SWZag

realtydog
02-24-2014, 10:27 AM
and why wouldn't there be "unwavering support from the administration" to assume anything else would make you an idiot-------we are not UCLA or DUKE or etc.--they would not put Few on the "hot seat"---Steve Lavin got fired for his record at UCLA???? We would take that success any day ---GU would never fire or even consider it with the level of success we have--the administration knows they have it good----they looked at George Washington, Winthrop, Western Kentucky, George Mason, SW Missouri State, etc. (or any other small program with a run of success)

northsidezagfan
02-24-2014, 10:35 AM
Seems the very fact that we are having a discussion like this gives me the impression there are those who would like to have a coaching change.


First I'll go on record to say that I absolutely do not want Few gone.

A criticism doesn't mean someone thinks another coach can do better, it means they think the current coach can do better. I'm sure some do want Few gone and an outside hire to happen, but I wouldn't assume this of everyone that posts a complaint about the way our head coach does things. That's a pretty strong inference to make. Yes we are amateurs and may or may not know what we are talking about (probably don't way more often than not) but we are free to wonder.

Few often talks about his mistakes after games, so I think it is safe to say he believes he has room for improvement too. He may not come here looking for suggestions, but that doesn't mean we can't post them for discussion.

I know I personally have been accused of wanting Few fired for stating that I wish a reporter would ask him about certain things. A very minor thing that I really was just curious about. Its just absurd that it has come to that.

cbbfanatic
02-24-2014, 10:56 AM
Not attacking here just a question. What is his apparent attitude?



i think he is overly whiny, with a hint of inferiority complex. that's just me though, i dont expect others to share that view

TexasZag
02-24-2014, 10:57 AM
...assuming the next guy on the bench could step in and be the CEO with greater success is crazy as well... if these assistants were that good, they wouldnt be sitting on the bench next to few, they'd be building their own programs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Coach Few "sitting on the bench" next to Monson, who only left because he was lured by big conference bucks after Gonzaga's Elite 8 run? To my knowledge, every good coach out there has spent time on someone else's bench. It's part of the learning process. And to be sitting on someone else's bench surely doesn't mean that you are not the next great coach.

cbbfanatic
02-24-2014, 11:15 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Coach Few "sitting on the bench" next to Monson, who only left because he was lured by big conference bucks after Gonzaga's Elite 8 run? To my knowledge, every good coach out there has spent time on someone else's bench. It's part of the learning process. And to be sitting on someone else's bench surely doesn't mean that you are not the next great coach.

you're right, it doesnt, but a great coach in the waiting probably doesnt wait 15 years to get a head coaching job, especially when there is no end to the wait in sight. my belief is that the best guys are typically more aspirational than that, and also willing to take risks. one example of the contrary would be mike hopkins at syracuse who almost everyone agrees could have been a successful head guy years/over a decage ago, but is apparently waiting for JB to hang em up - which is probably soon at this point. maybe johnny dawkins (before he left, of course, but had been on the bench for years) or some of the other duke guys too, but thats a different story as those guys are "names" that would at least carry some cache to the head coach job right off the bat --- the GU guys arent that.

its possible, no doubt, but it feels like SOME people here think its some automatic thing, that these long term assistants are plug and play as mark few v2. do we all think mark few would have stuck around as an assistant this long if monson chose not to pursue his opportunity in minnesota? grier didnt. giacoletti didnt. and those guys were probably (obviously) the best suited and qualified to run their own program.

former1dog
02-24-2014, 12:13 PM
Before I post my opinion about Mark Few, here are a couple of important facts:

- Mark Few's job is in zero danger, he will be the head coach at Gonzaga until he retires or dies.
- Not one single solitary person whose opinion matters cares what is written in this forum or thread.

Now, my opinion.

I think Mark Few should be the Gonzaga coach until he retires or dies.

Mark Few wins 78% of his games because he has either a better team or has prepared his team better than the opposing coach.
Mark Few wins 2% of his games because he makes better in game adjustments than the opposing coach.
Mark Few loses 3% of his games because the other team is superior and almost nothing he does will help.
Mark Few loses 2 % of his games because the opposing coach prepares his team better.
Mark Few loses 15% of his games because the opposing coach makes better in game adjustments.

That is my opinion.

TexasZag
02-24-2014, 12:49 PM
you're right, it doesnt, but a great coach in the waiting probably doesnt wait 15 years to get a head coaching job, especially when there is no end to the wait in sight. my belief is that the best guys are typically more aspirational than that, and also willing to take risks. one example of the contrary would be mike hopkins at syracuse who almost everyone agrees could have been a successful head guy years/over a decage ago, but is apparently waiting for JB to hang em up - which is probably soon at this point. maybe johnny dawkins (before he left, of course, but had been on the bench for years) or some of the other duke guys too, but thats a different story as those guys are "names" that would at least carry some cache to the head coach job right off the bat --- the GU guys arent that.

its possible, no doubt, but it feels like SOME people here think its some automatic thing, that these long term assistants are plug and play as mark few v2. do we all think mark few would have stuck around as an assistant this long if monson chose not to pursue his opportunity in minnesota? grier didnt. giacoletti didnt. and those guys were probably (obviously) the best suited and qualified to run their own program.

Don't get me wrong; I am NOT advocating a coaching change. But on the subject of my earlier post, I never said that the guy on the bench needs to be on our bench. Should the decision be made to make a change, I would hope that the school would consider candidates from most any program, especially since Gonzaga now has enough credibility (and budget) to attract talented candidates from most anywhere. Often you have to infuse a little bit of new blood to get the organization thinking differently.

vandalzag
02-24-2014, 01:10 PM
i think he is overly whiny, with a hint of inferiority complex. that's just me though, i dont expect others to share that view

Based upon what? His on court demeanor? His interactions with the press? A peronal interaction that went wrong? Obviously I do no share the view and I wonder how you come to that conclusion?

kitzbuel
02-24-2014, 01:11 PM
Before I post my opinion about Mark Few, here are a couple of important facts:

- Mark Few's job is in zero danger, he will be the head coach at Gonzaga until he retires or dies.
- Not one single solitary person whose opinion matters cares what is written in this forum or thread.

Now, my opinion.

I think Mark Few should be the Gonzaga coach until he retires or dies.

Mark Few wins 78% of his games because he has either a better team or has prepared his team better than the opposing coach.
Mark Few wins 2% of his games because he makes better in game adjustments than the opposing coach.
Mark Few loses 3% of his games because the other team is superior and almost nothing he does will help.
Mark Few loses 2 % of his games because the opposing coach prepares his team better.
Mark Few loses 15% of his games because the opposing coach makes better in game adjustments.

That is my opinion.

In general I agree, but there are indeed a few members here who have close, daily professional interaction with the Boards of Trustees and Regents. They do have some insight that makes its way into the forum here on occasion.

Zags11
02-24-2014, 01:14 PM
Few is really good coach. He has down falls but all do. He is rigid at times but oh well.

Vanzagger
02-24-2014, 01:16 PM
Before I post my opinion about Mark Few, here are a couple of important facts:

- Mark Few's job is in zero danger, he will be the head coach at Gonzaga until he retires or dies.
- Not one single solitary person whose opinion matters cares what is written in this forum or thread.

Now, my opinion.

I think Mark Few should be the Gonzaga coach until he retires or dies.

Mark Few wins 78% of his games because he has either a better team or has prepared his team better than the opposing coach.
Mark Few wins 2% of his games because he makes better in game adjustments than the opposing coach.
Mark Few loses 3% of his games because the other team is superior and almost nothing he does will help.
Mark Few loses 2 % of his games because the opposing coach prepares his team better.
Mark Few loses 15% of his games because the opposing coach makes better in game adjustments.

That is my opinion.


Yep I checked it and it equals 100%. I agree with you also. Well maybe 78% is a little low in my opinion.

cbbfanatic
02-24-2014, 01:17 PM
Based upon what? His on court demeanor? His interactions with the press? A peronal interaction that went wrong? Obviously I do no share the view and I wonder how you come to that conclusion?

mostly press, some sideline demeanor. seems defensive and i think it bleeds into the mentalities of a lot of the GU fans that i know personally - not internet people

i've always just assumed that its a matter of me being rubbed the wrong way for whatever reason. its possible that its completely irrational, just never been a huge fan of his personality, and to a much lesser degree the way he builds his teams

former1dog
02-24-2014, 01:19 PM
In general I agree, but there are indeed a few members here who have close, daily professional interaction with the Boards of Trustees and Regents. They do have some insight that makes its way into the forum here on occasion.

Yeah, I guess I forgot about those guys. But if the Pontiff takes anything I write seriously, that would be news to me! :D

Gonzaga
02-24-2014, 01:25 PM
In general I agree, but there are indeed a few members here who have close, daily professional interaction with the Boards of Trustees and Regents. They do have some insight that makes its way into the forum here on occasion.

In addition to members who have close, daily professional interaction with the Boards of Trustees and Regents, there are also members of this board who are on the Board of Trustees/Board of Regents and/or other key boards at Gonzaga.

former1dog
02-24-2014, 01:31 PM
In addition to members who have close, daily professional interaction with the Boards of Trustees and Regents, there are also members of this board who are on the Board of Trustees/Board of Regents and/or other key boards at Gonzaga.

No disrespect to you, but can you imagine an interaction like the following in any official capacity at Gonzaga.

Gu Board Member: Mike (Roth) this is Stanley Leakybottom.

Mike Roth: Stanley, good to hear from you. To what do I owe the honor?

Stanley: Well, its serious Mike. A poster on the GuBoard identifying himself as JazzDelmar has criticized Mark Few. We think Del Mar may have something to do with his physical location, but we can't be sure.

Mike: (silence)

Stanley: Anyway, Mike. Jazz says that Mark plays David too much and that his in game adjustments are questionable.

Mike: (silence)

Stanley: What are we going to do about this Mike?

Mike: Stanley, are you ####ing kidding me?

TacomaZAG
02-24-2014, 01:49 PM
Maybe a slight clarification will help here. A change in the coach is very different from a coaching change. Almost without exception, everyone on this board who has questioned Few has questioned his coaching STYLE, including in-game adjustments, emotion, line-ups, substitution patterns, etc. in both winning and losing efforts. The occasional idiot has called for a coaching change (getting rid of Few) or gotten personal in their comments, but very rarely and that person has been rightly crucified by the other people who post here.

The fact is, nobody's perfect, and it seems to me that the people questioning Few are referring to the 15% of games he loses because the other coach makes better in-game adjustments vs. the 2% he wins because he makes better in-game adjustments (former1dog opinion from an earlier post, that I happen to agree with). 15% losses vs. 2% wins, that is the gap that needs to be narrowed, and that is the gap that people are referring to when they question Few. If that gap was narrowed to 10% losses vs. 7% wins, a swing of 1 or 2 games in a 30 game season, we may very well have a FF appearance or two under our belts now. UCLA, Wichita State, Indiana, etc. from the Dance, those are the ones where it came down to in-game adjustments and, right or wrong, those are the games that people remember.

IMHO, Coach Few's skin is plenty thick enough to deal with the comments on this board...............the question is whether or not his ego will allow him to see the need for a change in style in certain situations, and the courage to make those changes.

Go ZAGS

Tom117
02-24-2014, 02:02 PM
Without fail, every year people get on this board, and other boards, and start blaming Mark Few for every team shortcoming. Here's what I think. There are many "BCS" schools out there that would fire a tenured professor or two so they can scrape up enough just to make Few an offer. He recruits good players and gives them all the training and tools they need to become great (Kelly Olynyck). If they don't make use of it, then it is not on him. Every Div 1 school wants the top players, but the truth is, the top guys won't play for a mid-major and I don't blame them when there is more to offer somewhere else. So Few and company has to look and dig for those second tier players in hopes of lucking out and grabbing a diamond in the rough. To blame THIS team's woes entirely on the head coach is wrong.

Few can teach and coach and mentor these guys until his face is blue, but he can't get out on the floor and run the pick-and-roll for them. He can't shoot their three pointers, or free throws. He can't run out there and grab that 50-50 ball even if it bounces in his lap. What he has done, and what he should continue to do, is to not worry about glory, just do the hard stuff - the training, drilling, teaching, mentoring, and coaching the players he has on the court. Do that successfully, and the glory will take care of itself.

Zagceo
02-24-2014, 02:03 PM
No disrespect to you, but can you imagine an interaction like the following in any official capacity at Gonzaga.

Gu Board Member: Mike (Roth) this is Stanley Leakybottom.

Mike Roth: Stanley, good to hear from you. To what do I owe the honor?

Stanley: Well, its serious Mike. A poster on the GuBoard identifying himself as JazzDelmar has criticized Mark Few. We think Del Mar may have something to do with his physical location, but we can't be sure.

Mike: (silence)

Stanley: Anyway, Mike. Jazz says that Mark plays David too much and that his in game adjustments are questionable.

Mike: (silence)

Stanley: What are we going to do about this Mike?

Mike: Stanley, are you ####ing kidding me?

Made my day ;)

vandalzag
02-24-2014, 02:09 PM
No disrespect to you, but can you imagine an interaction like the following in any official capacity at Gonzaga.

Gu Board Member: Mike (Roth) this is Stanley Leakybottom.

Mike Roth: Stanley, good to hear from you. To what do I owe the honor?

Stanley: Well, its serious Mike. A poster on the GuBoard identifying himself as JazzDelmar has criticized Mark Few. We think Del Mar may have something to do with his physical location, but we can't be sure.

Mike: (silence)

Stanley: Anyway, Mike. Jazz says that Mark plays David too much and that his in game adjustments are questionable.

Mike: (silence)

Stanley: What are we going to do about this Mike?

Mike: Stanley, are you ####ing kidding me?

OK so you did not answer my question as to why you feel the need to defend Jazz. And while I appreciate you reading all of my posts throughout the years, I am not trying to push Jazz away nor do I want an "echo chamber". Though I am curious as to why you have not taken your own advice and use the ignore feature? Do not like what I say put me on ignore or call me on it, just don't put words in my mouth saying that I want Jazz to go away.

Just for the record I don't disagree with Jazz on everything, in fact I agree with most of his posts that are about basketball. My issue is when he decides to throw in nicknames (such as choker, weak, selfish, scared to describe players and coaches), or is just flat out negative for the sake of being negative, that is not discussing basketball and that to me does not belong on the forum. Some of the stuff he has posted on this site has been flat out brutal. The proof may be in the fact that Jazz has had posts deleted by Mods, me only one by Gozags yesterday and that was a mistake(although Kizbul game me a timeout but my post was not done in).

You said earlier the coaches and players do not need to be defended, OK I buy that. But the same notion should stand for Jazz. If Jazz is going to launch person attacks on players he should stand up to them when people call him on it. I think Jazz is up for the task, he gives as good as he gets.

You now have multiple posts, aimed at certain poster(s) because you do not like they way they are conducting themselves on the forum in regards to other posters. Ironic is it not, since there is not a lot of basketball discussion involved in the posts, rather your own personal opinion about said posters.

In regards to your one man play that would never happen since Roth is much too busy trying to find a coach who can figure out how to play Coleman and Nunez.

former1dog
02-24-2014, 02:13 PM
OK so you did not answer my question as to why you feel the need to defend Jazz.

Because I think its the right thing to do. I thought that was evident.

I don't ignore you because when you're not attacking Jazz your posts are mostly interesting. Same with Gamagin.

cjm720
02-24-2014, 02:18 PM
The Fewture's bright

vandalzag
02-24-2014, 02:27 PM
Maybe a slight clarification will help here. A change in the coach is very different from a coaching change. Almost without exception, everyone on this board who has questioned Few has questioned his coaching STYLE, including in-game adjustments, emotion, line-ups, substitution patterns, etc. in both winning and losing efforts. The occasional idiot has called for a coaching change (getting rid of Few) or gotten personal in their comments, but very rarely and that person has been rightly crucified by the other people who post here.

The fact is, nobody's perfect, and it seems to me that the people questioning Few are referring to the 15% of games he loses because the other coach makes better in-game adjustments vs. the 2% he wins because he makes better in-game adjustments (former1dog opinion from an earlier post, that I happen to agree with). 15% losses vs. 2% wins, that is the gap that needs to be narrowed, and that is the gap that people are referring to when they question Few. If that gap was narrowed to 10% losses vs. 7% wins, a swing of 1 or 2 games in a 30 game season, we may very well have a FF appearance or two under our belts now. UCLA, Wichita State, Indiana, etc. from the Dance, those are the ones where it came down to in-game adjustments and, right or wrong, those are the games that people remember.

IMHO, Coach Few's skin is plenty thick enough to deal with the comments on this board...............the question is whether or not his ego will allow him to see the need for a change in style in certain situations, and the courage to make those changes.

Go ZAGS

Agreed. Every coach needs to adjust their approach to changing times in basketball (talent for and against, rules, playing styles, etc... are all factors that impart influence). You bring up the 2 games in particular UCLA and Wichita State. Just what adjustments should have been made in those games

UCLA (I watched this again a couple of weeks ago) Zags were the underdog. We had 2 NBA guys Ammo and Pargo and 2 really good College players (DR and JP) UCLA had maybe 5 NBA guys on their roster and 2 others that played professionally. Zags held the lead for the majority of the game (based a lot upon UCLA playing terrible in the first half). They missed a couple of shots down the stretch and JP coughed it up at that wrong time (he was fouled). What adjustments should have been done that game?

WSU, GU loses Bell, best perimeter defender. They play the balance of game 4 v 5 on offense (sometimes 3 v 5) vs a team that was irrationally successful shooting the 3. What adjustments should have been made.
Not saying there were not adjustments to be made or that you are wrong (GU wins either of those games they are in the F4) just wondering what you think should have been done.

vandalzag
02-24-2014, 02:31 PM
Because I think its the right thing to do. I thought that was evident.

I don't ignore you because when you're not attacking Jazz your posts are mostly interesting. Same with Gamagin.

Fair enough, but that is the exact same reasoning for why I take offense at some of the things Jazz posts.

bartruff1
02-24-2014, 02:35 PM
Fair enough, but that is the exact same reasoning for why I take offense at some of the things Jazz posts.

Van, Mark has told me on several occasions that he did not intend to kill Jazz's dog...that is was a accident, and he felt terrible about it.........

Oregonzagnut
02-24-2014, 02:39 PM
You bring up the 2 games in particular UCLA and Wichita State. Just what adjustments should have been made in those games


UCLA: Few changed the tempo and they changed the attack to a slow down, clock management strategy. As soon as they started slowly bringing the ball up on offense, UCLA started their run and we lost our momentum, lost the upper hand and we GAVE them the game because we started playing "Not to lose" or just to preserve the win when we were up 17 in the 2nd half.

After the UCLA debacle I can honestly say Few does not have strong 2nd half adjustments and no big lead is too big for us to lose. In 80% of our games, after every halftime, Gonzaga loses leads and comes out flat. I have no idea why this is but it stems from Fews stoic personality. Let Morrison start giving the halftime speeches from now on.

Wichita St: This game is different but it points to our 20 yr LACK of commitment to defense. We also had elements of a 2nd half melt down and we started coasting for just a second. We were up 7 with 5 minutes left! ANYTIME we take a rest on the court and try to slow things down we give the window of opportunity to the enemy.

The only time we should "slow it down" is when we are playing way to fast and we are making sloppy mistakes!! If we slow down because we are up 10-15 or 25 we have already conceded that we are not committed to playing hard for 40 minutes. And that bad habit then becomes an unconscious habit that the entire team starts to get into. the opponent senses it an dI sense it now EVERY SINGLE GAME.

former1dog
02-24-2014, 02:49 PM
Fair enough, but that is the exact same reasoning for why I take offense at some of the things Jazz posts.

There's a big difference, though. Jazz is critical of players/coaches.

You're critical of Jazz.

2 things.

- We can agree to disagree.
- Be nice to everyone. Disagree, but don't be disagreeable. I'll do the same.

Shake on it?

Zagceo
02-24-2014, 02:53 PM
Van, Mark has told me on several occasions that he did not intend to kill Jazz's dog...that is was a accident, and he felt terrible about it.........


gamagin says

Somewhere in here, I wrote a proposal that we make a concerted effort to encourage facts and discourage fabrications.

vandalzag
02-24-2014, 03:28 PM
gamagin says

Your point is that Mark does not feel bad? I beg to differ.

TacomaZAG
02-24-2014, 03:34 PM
UCLA: Few changed the tempo and they changed the attack to a slow down, clock management strategy. As soon as they started slowly bringing the ball up on offense, UCLA started their run and we lost our momentum, lost the upper hand and we GAVE them the game because we started playing "Not to lose" or just to preserve the win when we were up 17 in the 2nd half.

After the UCLA debacle I can honestly say Few does not have strong 2nd half adjustments and no big lead is too big for us to lose. In 80% of our games, after every halftime, Gonzaga loses leads and comes out flat. I have no idea why this is but it stems from Fews stoic personality. Let Morrison start giving the halftime speeches from now on.

Wichita St: This game is different but it points to our 20 yr LACK of commitment to defense. We also had elements of a 2nd half melt down and we started coasting for just a second. We were up 7 with 5 minutes left! ANYTIME we take a rest on the court and try to slow things down we give the window of opportunity to the enemy.

The only time we should "slow it down" is when we are playing way to fast and we are making sloppy mistakes!! If we slow down because we are up 10-15 or 25 we have already conceded that we are not committed to playing hard for 40 minutes. And that bad habit then becomes an unconscious habit that the entire team starts to get into. the opponent senses it an dI sense it now EVERY SINGLE GAME.

Thanks ORzagnut, couldn't have said it better myself. Typically, for me it boils down to lack of half-time adjustments that result in 8-10+ point swings and total loss of momentum in the first 5 minutes of the second half and "playing not to lose", getting way too conservative when we have a lead in the second half.

Go ZAGS

Zagceo
02-24-2014, 03:41 PM
Thanks ORzagnut, couldn't have said it better myself. Typically, for me it boils down to lack of half-time adjustments that result in 8-10+ point swings and total loss of momentum in the first 5 minutes of the second half and "playing not to lose", getting way too conservative when we have a lead in the second half.Go ZAGS

These are the same words DS used after the Memphis loss in the newspaper. "playing not to lose"

Zags11
02-24-2014, 03:43 PM
He has ultra conservative moments. When the momentum swings, it is very hard to regain.

vandalzag
02-24-2014, 04:44 PM
UCLA: Few changed the tempo and they changed the attack to a slow down, clock management strategy. As soon as they started slowly bringing the ball up on offense, UCLA started their run and we lost our momentum, lost the upper hand and we GAVE them the game because we started playing "Not to lose" or just to preserve the win when we were up 17 in the 2nd half.

After the UCLA debacle I can honestly say Few does not have strong 2nd half adjustments and no big lead is too big for us to lose. In 80% of our games, after every halftime, Gonzaga loses leads and comes out flat. I have no idea why this is but it stems from Fews stoic personality. Let Morrison start giving the halftime speeches from now on.

Wichita St: This game is different but it points to our 20 yr LACK of commitment to defense. We also had elements of a 2nd half melt down and we started coasting for just a second. We were up 7 with 5 minutes left! ANYTIME we take a rest on the court and try to slow things down we give the window of opportunity to the enemy.

The only time we should "slow it down" is when we are playing way to fast and we are making sloppy mistakes!! If we slow down because we are up 10-15 or 25 we have already conceded that we are not committed to playing hard for 40 minutes. And that bad habit then becomes an unconscious habit that the entire team starts to get into. the opponent senses it an dI sense it now EVERY SINGLE GAME.

There is a difference between slowing it down and playing for good shots. Both games cited are turned basically by a couple of baskets. Ammo missed a couple that he makes in his sleep that year, he makes one of them Zags win. UCLA was the better team, the big lead in the first half was due to UCLA playing just terrible. Most coaches would say a shot early in the clock with a lead that do not go in are as good as turnovers(actually paraphrased from Dixon at Pitt after one of his kids did that this year). The challenge is working clock and still being aggressive. So what is the adjustment, run and gun? Shoot as soon as you cross half court?

WSU is just different they may have been one of the best 9 seeds ever and are showing that they were under seeded and may have been the better team going into the game. First there has not been a 20 year lack of commitment to defense. I would agree that offense is the priority, but there is a commitment to defense. In the last 15 years there have been some good defensive teams (early teams with the match up zone were effective) and there have been some not good teams (06 zags with Ammo and Drav not good) WSU was hitting shots with guys in their face and when standing alone. Would Bell have made a difference, I think really think so. WSU was a game of runs, really nowhere is it evident that they slowed it down at all. After Zags were up 7 at the 6 minute mark, they had 4 possessions were they held the ball for more than 20 seconds the results were 2 makes and 2 misses. The only adjustment to be made was figuring out how to keep KO and KP from missing 29 shots.

As far as Few being stoic, that has nothing to do with how kids play. WSU case in point, trailing by 5 at half and they come out in the second half to take the lead.

kitzbuel
02-24-2014, 04:58 PM
Holy crickets! Enough of the bashing of other board members!