twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Eagledom {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:I am going to go on record here and say that Al Skinner's success must be derivative of something. Not a huge stretch.
The question is, why? I agree that he runs an outdated and easily defensed offense, that his teams lack defensive intensity, and that he doesn't make many adjustments during games. I am indifferent on his philosophy of making the players fix their mistakes rather than micromanaging - at times it fails (this team), but more often it has been a huge success because of the players he has brought in.
Which leads me to the final point. Somebody on BC's hoop staff over the past 10 years has either been an awesome recruiter or an excellent developer of talent. The list of guys with little acclaim that have gone on to huge success beyond expectation is somewhat staggering. If we take OJ's premise that most of these guys didn't improve after arriving (a dumb premise for all but Smith, who did a PG with a borderline NBA team, but bear with me) then the talent identification is ridiculous. Landing Bell, Smith, Dudley, Rice, Hinnant, Marshall. Being one of the few coaches to notice Brandon Roy and Andre Igudola.
Of course, then you say "well why limit yourself to these diamonds in the rough? Why can't we get 4&5 star players." This is the crux of the matter. This argument can't be made without reference to a horribly flawed star system that thinks Cameron Derosiers is a star. Two comments on this: (1) people who rely on stars to say someone is a bad recruiter are fucking retarded, and (2) let's look at the players Al has gotten that have been highly rated. *** *******. Rakim Sanders. Shamari Spears. See any common thread?
Now, if you believe in the star system, then you must accept that the BC coaches are coaching these lower ranked guys up. The problem with this "Al sucks at everything argument" is that is makes no sense. So OJ relies on "Al got lucky with three guys and they carried the program for 10 years." That is beyond absurd.
Al Skinner is a mediocre game planner and poor in game coach. He does everything else very well. This team needs a good game planner and in-game coach to guide the team and win close games. His past teams have not needed that.
Those 3 recruits certainly carried BC for most of Al's tenure, and all of his successful years. Notice how we have not been good since Dudley and Smith left? Its because Al's recruiting over the past 7 years or so has downright SUCKED.
BC played in the NCAA tournament last season. If his recruiting for the six years prior sucked, then he must be a good coach to make the tourney with sucky players.
And the idea that three players can carry a program for 10 years is one of your dumber statements, which is saying something. To make the tourney, you need two or three very good players on every team. BC has made the tourney 7 of the last 9 years.
Last year's team was mediocre at best and showed it in the first round of the tourney. And you don't need much more than one or two very good players to perform how BC has over Al's tenure. The Bell teams were Bell and a bunch of role players, and the Smith and Dudley were the core for the remainder of those tourney teams. To say you need 2-3 VERY good players to make the touney is stupid. We made the tourney last year. Who were those 3 VERY GOOD players?