angryty {l Wrote}:The problem with this argument is that both sides overstate their case. The King of Dicks loses credibility when he basically says Al Skinner is a horrible coach. However, the Skinner rah-rahs lose a lot of credibility when they fail to acknowledge that Skinner is an awful tournament coach and that he squandered a couple of teams that had multiple NBA players on them. Skinner is a slightly above-average coach--the black Herb Sendik--who has reached his ceiling at BC. There is no mystery about the guy at this point, he is what he is. If people are happy with that, so be it. I am not and while I don't want him fired for a variety of reasons, I think a Toby-style divorce wouldn't be a bad thing for the program at some point in the next year or two.
EaglesTalon {l Wrote}:angryty {l Wrote}:The problem with this argument is that both sides overstate their case. The King of Dicks loses credibility when he basically says Al Skinner is a horrible coach. However, the Skinner rah-rahs lose a lot of credibility when they fail to acknowledge that Skinner is an awful tournament coach and that he squandered a couple of teams that had multiple NBA players on them. Skinner is a slightly above-average coach--the black Herb Sendik--who has reached his ceiling at BC. There is no mystery about the guy at this point, he is what he is. If people are happy with that, so be it. I am not and while I don't want him fired for a variety of reasons, I think a Toby-style divorce wouldn't be a bad thing for the program at some point in the next year or two.
In my second post in this thread, I said that Al Skinner is a good coach who has underachieved in March.
I guess I don't really differentiate between a first round loss and a second round loss. Winning two games and advancing to the second weekend is nice, because a team is still relevant in the four days of down time. But, then, when you get to the second weekend, I still don't see a difference between losing in the sweet sixteen or the elite 8.
People look at 2006 as an indictment on Al Skinner's ability to coach when BC lost to a #1 seed by one point in overtime in the Sweet Sixteen. But if BC had won that game and lost two days later to the eventual national champions, would that have suddenly made a disappointing year into a satisfying year?
branchinator {l Wrote}:EaglesTalon {l Wrote}:angryty {l Wrote}:The problem with this argument is that both sides overstate their case. The King of Dicks loses credibility when he basically says Al Skinner is a horrible coach. However, the Skinner rah-rahs lose a lot of credibility when they fail to acknowledge that Skinner is an awful tournament coach and that he squandered a couple of teams that had multiple NBA players on them. Skinner is a slightly above-average coach--the black Herb Sendik--who has reached his ceiling at BC. There is no mystery about the guy at this point, he is what he is. If people are happy with that, so be it. I am not and while I don't want him fired for a variety of reasons, I think a Toby-style divorce wouldn't be a bad thing for the program at some point in the next year or two.
In my second post in this thread, I said that Al Skinner is a good coach who has underachieved in March.
I guess I don't really differentiate between a first round loss and a second round loss. Winning two games and advancing to the second weekend is nice, because a team is still relevant in the four days of down time. But, then, when you get to the second weekend, I still don't see a difference between losing in the sweet sixteen or the elite 8.
People look at 2006 as an indictment on Al Skinner's ability to coach when BC lost to a #1 seed by one point in overtime in the Sweet Sixteen. But if BC had won that game and lost two days later to the eventual national champions, would that have suddenly made a disappointing year into a satisfying year?
It's not the fact that BC lost that warrants criticism on Al, it's HOW they lost, including a blown 17 or 18 first half lead and ultimately getting beaten on a fucking back door cut. That's just weak. In 2005, BC raced out to a 12-0 or so lead against UW-M and then proceeded to get steamrolled because the team was clue as to how to break a press. Again, that's on coaching. Al's total body of work is fine but if you narrow your scope to the NCAA tournament, Al doesn't come off looking too good.
branchinator {l Wrote}:Criticizing Skinner's tournament performance, which is quite bad, doesn't mean that you think he's an average coach overall.
branchinator {l Wrote}:You're right. The head coach bears no responsibility when his team blows such a big lead. I mean, Villanova was on fire!!!!!
buconvict {l Wrote}:branchinator {l Wrote}:You're right. The head coach bears no responsibility when his team blows such a big lead. I mean, Villanova was on fire!!!!!
That Villanova had 4 guards who played in the NBA. To suggest that Al could've magically done something about them catching fire in the second half (when they scored like 40-something points) is foolish. Go zone, they shoot over you. Go man, and they get dribble penetration on a bigger, slower, defender.
I'm not happy the way that game turned out, but saying "BC lost because of Al Skinner" is beyond dumb.
branchinator {l Wrote}:buconvict {l Wrote}:branchinator {l Wrote}:You're right. The head coach bears no responsibility when his team blows such a big lead. I mean, Villanova was on fire!!!!!
That Villanova had 4 guards who played in the NBA. To suggest that Al could've magically done something about them catching fire in the second half (when they scored like 40-something points) is foolish. Go zone, they shoot over you. Go man, and they get dribble penetration on a bigger, slower, defender.
I'm not happy the way that game turned out, but saying "BC lost because of Al Skinner" is beyond dumb.
Good thing I never said "BC lost because of Al Skinner". But he does bear a good portion of the responsibility. That BC team also had 3 NBA players and 3 others (Rice, Hinnant, Marshall) who're having productive careers in Europe. Our offense after the first 10 minutes of that game grinded to a halt. Defense wasn't the reason we lost.
As for Villanova "catching fire", they scored a whopping 27 points in the 2nd half. You're right, they really blew us out of the building in the 2nd half. You might want to consider checking your facts before posting next time. You'll sound a little less retarded if you do.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 135 guests