Fire Darian DeVries? Lol

[WayneFleekHoosier]

7 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

I don’t think the board will agree. People still have it in their heads that it takes 4 years it seems. 
 

Iowa, Michigan and Virginia can all do it year 1. But for some reason we are special and it takes 4 years 

2 years is enough.  If you don’t have something going in 2 years in today’s era, you’re cooked.  
 

I’ll never understand what he was trying to do with this roster from a ceiling standpoint.  I think he completely misjudged Bailey.  Anyway, I just want to salvage a tournament appearance and see if next season he can build something better.  If not, let someone else try, imo.  
 

and yea, every year 1st year coaches get something going. In Virginia and Iowa’s case the rosters are even on paper. So, do with that as you may.  
 

we’ve definitely lost games we should have won this year. 

[Uspshoosier]

[Home Jersey]

Every college basketball team loses games they should win every year except for the elite ones. We are not elite in year 1. We knew this already. A 6 point loss to USC splitting the LA trip doesn't compel me to fire this thread up again. Basically a third of the season left. 

Kenny Payne got 2 years at Louisville. DDV is nowhere near Kenny Payne bad. The portal and NIL help turn things around quicker these days. That doesn't mean it's an excuse to fire the coach every other year. We could absolutely still make the tournament this season. Some of you guys would've run coach K and Danny Hurley off before they ever did a thing at the high major level. 

I get it can be more fun to just be mad though. 

[HinnyHoosier]

44 minutes ago, Home Jersey said:

I get it can be more fun to just be mad though. 

Some may categorize such individuals as "chronically miserable".

[Stuhoo]

[Pagoda]

I’m in the two years to be fairly certain on a coach camp.  Sometimes there can be deceiving factors like TJD covering up deficiencies, but that doesn’t seem present this time around.

I still think it can’t be ignored that CDD inherited a tire fire and had to hire a whole new staff and recruit a whole new team in six weeks.  That is an abnormally difficult situation.  Did he do it perfectly?  No.  But, what’s realistic for that situation?

And there isn’t much to say except we’ll find out if that “excuse” has any merit, or if CDD just isn’t very good.

Given what we spend on MBB, personally next year I’d like to be ranked all year with the team ceiling being getting beyond the first week of the tourney.

And honestly, what I think doesn’t matter.  IU will give him three to four years minimum regardless of what the message boards think.  That’s why I often conclude we just have to hope it works, there is nothing we else we can do.

[Jeff Flabjohns]

He gets four years. Only way it’s shorter is if he misses tourneys in year 1, 2, AND 3. 

[HoosierMatty]

I think right now a lot of fanbases expectations get out of wack because of transfers and NIL and unreasonable comparisons to other programs.

Look how Cignetti affected so many programs especially in the SEC. People fired their coaches because we set the world on fire and their mentality is well we are football schools so we should be able to exactly replicate that success and do exactly what they did in the same timeline.

That's an insane way to look at things and your setting yourself up for failure if you have that expectation. Cignetti was a once and a lifetime special hire who had the right people around him, players and coaches that came with him at the right place that was the right fit for him.

It's not unreasonable for those schools to expect success because of their history and their resources, but even if they make the right hire we can't expect the exact same circumstances or results to happen at same level of immediacy as others. Every program and situation is different and even if you reach the same results as the most successful you can't expect to arrive at the same date.

I understand the frustration because we have been mediocre to bad for so long. I went to the Iowa game and it just felt awful. Your tired of losing to teams like this, especially when your losing to one of the guys we could have got. And the fact Michigan has Dusty. We are just tired of rebuilds and just want immediate results. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way all the time.

I think Coach DeVries is a good coach. I don't know if he can get us to where we need to be, but it's obvious whether he does or does not we need to stop expecting it to happen under the same time line as other programs like Michigan. If he gets us to the tournament this year with this flawed squad I think that's progress we can build off. It's looks like we are still trending toward that and I have seen improvement in this team. 

I know patience is a word we hate right now but we need to have some.

 

 

 

[Golfman25]

Here's the thing.  We have seen the flashes of good.  Lots of movement.  Making the extra, extra, and even extra, pass to get a great shot.  Tough, stingy defense.  

But then something happens and the bad comes out.  Mainly taking early 3s from well beyond the arch.  That's basically turned into a quick turnover.  So why is that?  What is being done about it?  

[HoosierMatty]

58 minutes ago, Golfman25 said:

Here's the thing.  We have seen the flashes of good.  Lots of movement.  Making the extra, extra, and even extra, pass to get a great shot.  Tough, stingy defense.  

But then something happens and the bad comes out.  Mainly taking early 3s from well beyond the arch.  That's basically turned into a quick turnover.  So why is that?  What is being done about it?  

Ok fair critique. But should he be fired by the end of the season if he doesn't fix it? I am sympathetic to everyone's frustrations and impatience but I think the fire DeVries thread is way too early.

[Golfman25]

26 minutes ago, HoosierMatty said:

Ok fair critique. But should he be fired by the end of the season if he doesn't fix it? I am sympathetic to everyone's frustrations and impatience but I think the fire DeVries thread is way too early.

 As I said above, sure it’s early, but so what.  Discussing firing coaches is an American pastime.   
 

But frankly, if he doesn’t fix it, yes firing should be considered.   It’s part of his job and if he’s not doing his job, there should be consequences. 
 

Do you get several years to fix mistakes at your job? :)

[MonteMarcaccini]

12 minutes ago, Golfman25 said:

 As I said above, sure it’s early, but so what.  Discussing firing coaches is an American pastime.   
 

But frankly, if he doesn’t fix it, yes firing should be considered.   It’s part of his job and if he’s not doing his job, there should be consequences. 
 

Do you get several years to fix mistakes at your job? :)

To be clear, you advocate firing the coach after one year because his team- built on shooting, winning games because of shooting, with a 3PFG% in the top 3rd of the conference- is shooting early shot clock 3’s (when the defense isn’t usually set) a couple steps away from the line?

Can you document how many of these “turnovers” happen each game?  I recall Tucker’s at the 8 min mark last night (on the rewatch he was wide open and in rhythm) but don’t recall too many recently.  Lamar made one at the 10 min mark, that seemed to help.

What an odd hill to die on…

[Home Jersey]

1 hour ago, MonteMarcaccini said:

To be clear, you advocate firing the coach after one year because his team- built on shooting, winning games because of shooting, with a 3PFG% in the top 3rd of the conference- is shooting early shot clock 3’s (when the defense isn’t usually set) a couple steps away from the line?

Can you document how many of these “turnovers” happen each game?  I recall Tucker’s at the 8 min mark last night (on the rewatch he was wide open and in rhythm) but don’t recall too many recently.  Lamar made one at the 10 min mark, that seemed to help.

What an odd hill to die on…

Haven't you heard? We just need somebody who "refuses to lose." 

Should be easy! 

[HoosierMatty]

1 hour ago, MonteMarcaccini said:

To be clear, you advocate firing the coach after one year because his team- built on shooting, winning games because of shooting, with a 3PFG% in the top 3rd of the conference- is shooting early shot clock 3’s (when the defense isn’t usually set) a couple steps away from the line?

Can you document how many of these “turnovers” happen each game?  I recall Tucker’s at the 8 min mark last night (on the rewatch he was wide open and in rhythm) but don’t recall too many recently.  Lamar made one at the 10 min mark, that seemed to help.

What an odd hill to die on…

I would also like to add the early shot clock 3 happens with lots of teams that have shooters that emphasize 3s. 

I'm not the biggest fan of it myself especially if they miss and it's a turnover, but I understand why it happens .

Kids feel hot and it's an open look. And if you slow like TD where you're easily guarded you take deep half court 3s.  

 

[Golfman25]

2 hours ago, MonteMarcaccini said:

To be clear, you advocate firing the coach after one year because his team- built on shooting, winning games because of shooting, with a 3PFG% in the top 3rd of the conference- is shooting early shot clock 3’s (when the defense isn’t usually set) a couple steps away from the line?

Can you document how many of these “turnovers” happen each game?  I recall Tucker’s at the 8 min mark last night (on the rewatch he was wide open and in rhythm) but don’t recall too many recently.  Lamar made one at the 10 min mark, that seemed to help.

What an odd hill to die on…

 

They were 10/35 from 3 last night -- 28.5%.  That is 25 missed shots.  If half were early shot clock misses, that's essentially 12 "turnovers."  If 1/4 were early misses, that's 6 turnovers.  The shots weren't "in rhythm" and a "couple of steps" back can make a big difference (turning a 22.2 foot shot into a 25+ foot shot). Plus we suck at rebounding, so zero chance we can keep possession.  That's 6-12 extra possessions in a 2-3 possession game.  It is a great play if you're up and going for a dagger shot.  It's a bad play, at the end of the game, when you're behind, shots aren't falling, and you need points.   We can either look cool or we can win.  Take your pick.  

[str8baller]

3 hours ago, MonteMarcaccini said:

To be clear, you advocate firing the coach after one year because his team- built on shooting, winning games because of shooting, with a 3PFG% in the top 3rd of the conference- is shooting early shot clock 3’s (when the defense isn’t usually set) a couple steps away from the line?

Can you document how many of these “turnovers” happen each game?  I recall Tucker’s at the 8 min mark last night (on the rewatch he was wide open and in rhythm) but don’t recall too many recently.  Lamar made one at the 10 min mark, that seemed to help.

What an odd hill to die on…

Oh man…you guys have moved on to defending the horrible 28ft 3’s we take when the guys panic on offense. 
 

I’m pretty sure even Devries called these “nervous” (or something to that effect) shots he was trying to reign in during an early January presser. Please though, tell us all about the shots we shoot ~20% on and how they contribute to winning basketball. 

[MonteMarcaccini]

5 minutes ago, str8baller said:

Oh man…you guys have moved on to defending the horrible 28ft 3’s we take when the guys panic on offense. 
 

I’m pretty sure even Devries called these “nervous” (or something to that effect) shots he was trying to reign in during an early January presser. Please though, tell us all about the shots we shoot ~20% on and how they contribute to winning basketball. 

Again, walk me thru last night.  I watchedd the replay.  I gave you two instances, one miss and one make.  Every other 3 was within the offense.  Dorn just happened to go 2-12 on a lot of looks generally makes.

But fire the coach! His son took a 28 footer!  Good lord.

[Home Jersey]

2 hours ago, Golfman25 said:

They were 10/35 from 3 last night -- 28.5%.  That is 25 missed shots.  If half were early shot clock misses, that's essentially 12 "turnovers."  If 1/4 were early misses, that's 6 turnovers.  The shots weren't "in rhythm" and a "couple of steps" back can make a big difference (turning a 22.2 foot shot into a 25+ foot shot). Plus we suck at rebounding, so zero chance we can keep possession.  That's 6-12 extra possessions in a 2-3 possession game.  It is a great play if you're up and going for a dagger shot.  It's a bad play, at the end of the game, when you're behind, shots aren't falling, and you need points.   We can either look cool or we can win.  Take your pick.  

It's a pace and space offense like what the NBA does where everything is designed to be a 3 or come in the paint. 

The extra deep 3s are not my favorite shots but by being a threat out there, you force the defense to come out and defend which helps create more floor space for actions off ball, ball movement, dribble drive, etc. It also increases the pace of play by creating more possessions. I'd like to see us play with more tempo. Those shots are all about timing. They shouldn't be a staple of the offense but enough of a factor that it keeps the defense honest. 

Shooting long 3s means long rebounds, which arguably makes our weak rebounding have more of a chance. You cite that we were 10/35 against USC. We were 12/33 (36%) when we beat #12 Purdue and 11/34 (32%) vs UCLA. Again it's all about timing with long 3s. 

I think the green light from out there needs to be tempered moving forward (some of it is also definitely them "panicking") but stylistically it's not about "looking cool or we can win." It's about efficiency. UConn is shooting less 3s this year than in years past because so many defenses have adapted to the 3 pointer or dunk style of offense. They're taking and making more mid-range 2s than a lot of CBB teams I've watched this year. 

There's a balance to be struck. 

[Golfman25]

1 hour ago, Home Jersey said:

It's a pace and space offense like what the NBA does where everything is designed to be a 3 or come in the paint. 

The extra deep 3s are not my favorite shots but by being a threat out there, you force the defense to come out and defend which helps create more floor space for actions off ball, ball movement, dribble drive, etc. It also increases the pace of play by creating more possessions. I'd like to see us play with more tempo. Those shots are all about timing. They shouldn't be a staple of the offense but enough of a factor that it keeps the defense honest. 

Shooting long 3s means long rebounds, which arguably makes our weak rebounding have more of a chance. You cite that we were 10/35 against USC. We were 12/33 (36%) when we beat #12 Purdue and 11/34 (32%) vs UCLA. Again it's all about timing with long 3s. 

I think the green light from out there needs to be tempered moving forward but stylistically it's not about "looking cool or we can win." It's about efficiency. UConn is shooting less 3s this year than in years past because so many defenses have adapted to the 3 pointer or dunk style of offense. They're taking and making more mid-range 2s than a lot of CBB teams I've watched this year. 

There's a balance to be struck. 

That’s just it.  There’s a smart 28 footer and a not so smart 28 footer.  We tend to take a lot of not so smart 28 footers.  We are successful when we move the ball, make the extra pass, and take a good shot.  Less successful when we chuck and duck.   Last night as the game came down, we didn’t play all that smart.   Could have and should have won that game.  

[Shooter]

Surely some of you guys played and were shooters. I have zero problems with good shooters taking a deep catch and shoot three a few feet behind the line, if they are balanced and in rhythm. It's not that hard of a shot. In fact, it's a lot easier than some of the fadeaways Devries takes coming off screens and not being set.

I am not in love with the 26 footers off the dribble when moving laterally. That's a hard shot. Lamar is really the main offender here. Then again, Lamar is also around 40% from three so coach may not think it's worth it to tone down his aggressiveness.