Dodgy Lasagna
Freshman
Posts: 43
Reg: 03-01-09
|
03-27-12 03:17 PM - Post#127664
This is not to denigrate the solid coaching performance by Mitch Henderson and his staff, who even Harvard and Penn loyalists would have to admit had Princeton playing the best basketball in the league at the end of the season.
But surely I'm not the only one who thinks Princeton would've been back in the NCAA Tournament this season if Sydney Johnson hadn't bolted for Fairfield last spring. Harvard wasn't as great as the sum of its parts and clearly was there for the taking. I see the Tigers avoiding the loss at Cornell and holding on at Harvard to repeat if Johnson still is on the bench.
|
sparman
Masters Student
Posts: 499
Reg: 12-08-04
|
Re: the cost of a coaching change
03-27-12 05:18 PM - Post#127673
In response to Dodgy Lasagna
I'm sending Sydney a bill for $25 as part of the cost.
|
puband09
Masters Student
Posts: 668
Reg: 12-19-09
|
Re: the cost of a coaching change
03-27-12 07:15 PM - Post#127675
In response to Dodgy Lasagna
The thought had occurred to me at the beginning of the year, but by season's end, I do not agree with you.
I think part of Sydney's decision to leave was partially influenced by the fact that he wasn't sure he would be able to repeat.
Except for that Cornell game, the tigers did basically as well as they did last year in a tougher league. And they beat FSU.
While I agree that SJ seemed like a better X's and O's coach, MH was able to bring something really phenomenal out of a team that lost a lot of talent.
|
SRP
Masters Student
Posts: 653
Reg: 02-04-06
|
03-27-12 08:12 PM - Post#127678
In response to puband09
I think the non-conference record would have been better with SJ, simply because of the greater continuity. In addition, while I love what Mitch has done with the offense, I think SJ was more hardnosed about requiring defensive effort and really making sure that the team played physically tough basketball. Lapses in those areas cost the Tigers dearly this year. But it's hard to prove that that might not have happened anyway given the loss of warriors Mavreides and Maddox.
|
Dodgy Lasagna
Freshman
Posts: 43
Reg: 03-01-09
|
03-28-12 09:25 AM - Post#127697
In response to SRP
Just to be clear, I'm not saying it was any deficiency on the part of Henderson and his staff that was to blame, but rather the adjustment required by the players to the new coaching staff. While there were some great moments before that, It seemed to take them until the final month to really find the consistency that might have won them the league. Again, zero blame here. I think Henderson and his staff did a tremendous job. Just wondering what might have been with continuity in the head coaching position.
|
puband09
Masters Student
Posts: 668
Reg: 12-19-09
|
03-29-12 02:03 AM - Post#127780
In response to Dodgy Lasagna
I agree with SRP. I think the noncon would have been more solid, but I don't think Ivy play would have been substantially different. I can even conceive of hit having been worse.
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 962
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-29-12 10:29 AM - Post#127791
In response to puband09
Even if Johnson had stayed, this team had to replace Maddox and Mavraides and it was going to take a while to work that out. They never did find a replacement for Maddox on defense.
This was a situation where players were going to have to play until they figured it out. Henderson did a great job of managing a team with a lot of players in new roles.
It took Bray about half the season to settle in and take control as the floor leader of the offense. Connolly was inconsistent when expected to expand his role. Darrow needed to play better defense. Saunders needed to expand his role and did not really do so until February. Barrett got hurt. Sherburne committed too many turnovers and needed to learn how to play under control. Koon was a freshman. Davis and Hummer carried the team but occasionally tried to play too much hero ball instead of trusting the offense.
I just think it is likely that all of that would have happened under Johnson too.
|
1LotteryPick1969
Masters Student
Posts: 762
Loc: Baltimore, Maryland
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-29-12 01:34 PM - Post#127807
In response to Brian Martin
It took Bray about half the season to settle in and take control as the floor leader of the offense. Connolly was inconsistent when expected to expand his role. Darrow needed to play better defense. Saunders needed to expand his role and did not really do so until February. Barrett got hurt. Sherburne committed too many turnovers and needed to learn how to play under control. Koon was a freshman. Davis and Hummer carried the team but occasionally tried to play too much hero ball instead of trusting the offense.
Succinctly put, and spot on.
The only thing I have wondered is whether Johnson might have been able to avoid relying on Hummer too much in the early part of the year. Henderson said it was harder than he expected to earn the trust of the players. Perhaps he recognized that the players themselves looked to Hummer for leadership, and Henderson was hesitant to go against this early on. The team played much better when Hummer spent more time on the wing. Just conjecture.
|
Dial Lodge
Sophomore
Posts: 129
Reg: 03-08-07
|
03-29-12 02:09 PM - Post#127811
In response to 1LotteryPick1969
I’ve wondered myself if things would have gone differently under SJ, and maybe there was some loss of continuity in the transition. You never really know. Under SJ, the team could have lost both games to Harvard, or beaten Cornell and dropped another league game, or beaten Morehead, or whatever. Or, perhaps they would have beaten Harvard twice (but they could have also added another stupid in-league loss to that). Or they could have gone 11-3 or 12-2 somehow and won the league, but with the talent losses, I think that would have been a reach. It’s a lot of conjecture
As said, the team did have significant losses; before the season, lots of people were saying that Princeton would go 7-7 or 8-6 in the league. Few would have expected them to be a Pomeroy 80 or 90 team that would beat a team like FSU and come within a gnat’s eyelash of beating NC State.
Coaching transitions are usually more clumsy and bloody than was this one. Henderson made this one pretty smooth.
Personally, I think Henderson did a remarkable job, and would be my pick for coach of the year.
|
Silver Maple
PhD Student
Posts: 1976
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
03-29-12 02:42 PM - Post#127815
In response to Dial Lodge
Agreed. I really don't see that you can make a case that Henderson did anything less than a solid job, and I think he did a lot better than that. Mad props to him. Now you just have to hope he sticks around.
On the other hand, Glen Miller also did a good job in his first season.
|
1LotteryPick1969
Masters Student
Posts: 762
Loc: Baltimore, Maryland
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-29-12 04:11 PM - Post#127822
In response to Silver Maple
On the other hand, Glen Miller also did a good job in his first season.
Ouch.
|
Dial Lodge
Sophomore
Posts: 129
Reg: 03-08-07
|
03-29-12 08:49 PM - Post#127831
In response to 1LotteryPick1969
By the way, the Fairfield fans are now whining on their message boards about how much of a disappointment Sydney Johnson has been so far.
I can't imagine that he really was. Harsh group.
|
Dial Lodge
Sophomore
Posts: 129
Reg: 03-08-07
|
03-29-12 08:55 PM - Post#127832
In response to Silver Maple
Now you just have to hope he sticks around.
A bigger ouch.
But a fact of life. We're becoming the cradle of coaches.
|
gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 2260
Reg: 02-06-10
|
the cost of a coaching change
04-03-12 08:26 PM - Post#128001
In response to Dial Lodge
There was surely an adjustment period, but I don't think it made much difference in the Ivy race. We just needed a little more individual talent to overcome Harvard and Penn.
To these eyes, MH had the right game plan just as often as SJ did, but as the latter often said, "Sometimes a guy just needs to make a play." We saw this from Rosen over and over again this year. And we saw it from Maddox last year. I'll put it this way. We don't win last year's title without Maddox. And we do win this year's title with Maddox.
And I'll predict right now that MH stays for 6 years (min-4, max-8). And then Brian Earl takes over for a good long time (10+ years). Mitch was next in the family pipeline, but you don't want to make Brian wait so long he's tempted to settle down elsewhere.
|
