seas2k4
Junior
Posts: 274
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-18-06 04:03 AM - Post#18254
What a phenomenal job by Coach Dunphy tonight. You could see how prepared the guys were and the poise they played with is a reflection of their Coach.
Great job, Coach.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-18-06 04:31 AM - Post#18255
In response to seas2k4
I agree. However, the timeout taken with the ball down 41-40 was I think a colossal strategic error. We had all the momentum, Texas was playing on its heels, the crowd was very very nervous (I was sitting in a sea of Texas fans right behind the Texas bench...and they hated me, but that's another story). Giving Texas the chance to regroup themselves I think cost us. Not that I'm complaining with Penn's overall effort, which was spectactular.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 04:45 AM - Post#18256
In response to
dunphy did nothing bad, don't get me wrong, but when a 2 plays a 15 and the 15 hangs around, it's merely a reflection on the 2 seed, not the 15 seed. Dunphy did a pretty lousy job this year in scheduling, developing his talent, and working through injuries and this was reflected in a 15 seed (which essentially reduces us to relying on miracles).
Now, the Penn kids were poised and showed a lot of heart, as they have time and time again this year. I choose to credit the players for this, seas chooses to credit the coach.
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3620
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 04:57 AM - Post#18257
In response to Jeff2sf
I can understand where you are coming from Jeff, but it was clear that Dunphy did a great job coming up with a gameplan and getting the players to follow it. During the game I thought he made mostly good decisions as well. Hard to bash Fran after this effort. That said, I agree completely with Penn 94 that the TO he took with possession of the ball (and momentum) down only 1 point was a very bad idea. Not only did we lose that momentum, it actually gave Barnes a chance to get Gibson back in the game. His 2 or 3 drives to the hoop following that made up the difference in the game.
-Mike
|
Anonymous
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 05:00 AM - Post#18258
In response to Jeff2sf
I think Dunphy did a great job with matchups, substitution patterns, offensive gameplan, and defensive strategy. Barnes is a moron, but still, Dunphy had a terrific game (except for the timeout called as mentioned above).
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 05:17 AM - Post#18259
In response to
again, i remain unimpressed (not bashing, just not impressed). Every 15 seed has a good plan, they are only allowed to implement that plan through the grace/stupidity of the 2 seed.
And if anyone deserves the credit, it's the players who EXECUTE the plan. Where's the "Great Job Players" thread?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 05:22 AM - Post#18260
In response to Jeff2sf
Of course the players were terrific tonight too. That much was obvious just watching the game (especially from right on the flor) seeing how hard they were working for rebounds, on defense, to get open without the ball on offense, etc.
They should be very proud of themselves, but I hope they are not and that instead they are angry and hungry. If either Smith or McMahon get become a reliable 3pt shooter and Schreiber is as advertised, this will be a very dangerous Penn team next March.
|
penn92
Freshman
Posts: 19
Reg: 03-13-06
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 05:35 AM - Post#18261
In response to Jeff2sf
You're very right... I and others have missed big-time on commending the players for a great job. Thank you for pointing out the obvious (and I mean that sincerely, as we've missed it). Message boards are a funny thing... if I were somehow on the court at the end of the game, my first inclination would be to give a pat on the back to the players for a game well-played; I wouldn't be running up to Dunphy first to congratulate him on his gameplan... it sounds ridiculous and laughable now to think of it. Somehow here we want to talk about the coach first - must be something about the nature of a message board as opposed to the reality of a game that you've reminded us of.
But that being said, since this is indeed a message board, to get back to the coaching aspect, I disagree strongly with the assertion that a close 2-15 game must be a result of mis-coaching by the 2 seed coach without due credit given to the 15-seed coach, because "every 15 seed has a good plan". How is it to be assumed that every 15 seed has a good plan? So can a 15-seed coach not possibly garner any credit? (Don't get into discussion of how a better coach would not have been a 15 seed, that's outside the scope of this particular issue, though we can go there too in a separate thread).
|
Condor
PhD Student
Posts: 1888
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 05:56 AM - Post#18262
In response to Jeff2sf
Quote:
dunphy did nothing bad, don't get me wrong, but when a 2 plays a 15 and the 15 hangs around, it's merely a reflection on the 2 seed, not the 15 seed. Dunphy did a pretty lousy job this year in scheduling, developing his talent, and working through injuries and this was reflected in a 15 seed (which essentially reduces us to relying on miracles).
I do not see how a lousy coach of a 15 seed would ever have a team hang with a 2 seed. More importantly, they would not make the tournament. Further, the close game was not due to an off game by Texas. If you think that Texas played poorly, that was because of Penn.
Re the scheduling, what would you have done differently. Remember, not many teams want to play Penn. Further, there are travel restrictions, etc. I think Dunphy always gives Penn a challenging schedule.
Re development of talent, you have no basis for making this comment. The assumption is that game time experience will always accelerate development. The fact is, it can have the opposite effect as well. If you are suggesting we might have won some of the games we lost with more depth, I would respond by noting that we would have probably lost some games we won trying to give some players who are not ready game time.
You are essentially coming to the conclusion that our team did relatively well against a top ten team in spite of our coach. That suggests that our players somehow rose above the handicap of a bad mentor. I just don't buy it.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4373
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 11:03 AM - Post#18263
In response to Condor
I thought it was a pretty good job. We needed three things to happen. Texas played poorly and we valued the ball. That was the first two. The third - better shooting - wasn't quite there. 52 points were never going to be enough.
It was competitive. It would be nice to win one of these but at least it was fun to watch and we showed up.
Would have liked to see Danley attempt something down low. Yes - that guy can play defense, but I still think you have to challenge him a couple times even if you get a facial. Without that he was like a centerfielder hanging down there and swatting away flies anytime we attempted to penetrate.
|
Quakermaniac81
Junior
Posts: 207
Reg: 02-14-06
|
Failure to develop the bench was tragic....
03-18-06 12:06 PM - Post#18264
In response to Condor
The failure to develop the bench beyond Ebede and Grandieri was practically criminal negligence. If it weren't for the fact that Langel needs a few more seasons until he is ready, I would root for Coach to bolt to Thug U., as he is so obviously tempted to do. I do not want to see David Duke or Fran McCaffrey as head coach of Penn Basketball so I'd rather have a few more seasons of Dunph while Matt continues to learn.
Let's see, talented freshman Brendan Votel played like an absolute mensch vs. Villanova....and was rewarded with scarcely again playing for the rest of the season. Yeah, that was great coaching, right....
|
seas2k4
Junior
Posts: 274
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 12:45 PM - Post#18265
In response to Jeff2sf
The "great job players" thread is everywhere around you, Jeff... I've begun to think Coach can do nothing to impress you. This year, he won with only two seniors contributing (one of whom was injured for mmuch of the season), serious injuries throughout the year, and with a team that lost Ivy POY Tim Begley. To boot, we scrapped with Texas to the very end and put a true scare in to the #2 seed, in their home state, in a matchup that many (myself included) thought was as bad as possible for us. Sure, I was dissapointed that Brennan and some of the others didn't get more minutes early- but what would it have accomplished? Maybe we would have won a couple more games, gotten a 14 seed, and played UNC in the first round? Coach knows what he is doing, he sees what happens in practice, and he wants to win just as much, and probably more, than all of us combined on this board.
If you aren't going to give him credit now, then it'd be great if you refrained from posting or reading any threads I start in the future. It is one thing to be critical, another thing entirely to be stubborn.
Go Quakers!
- SEAS
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8384
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 01:32 PM - Post#18266
In response to Jeff2sf
Quote:
when a 2 plays a 15 and the 15 hangs around, it's merely a reflection on the 2 seed, not the 15 seed.
I think the folks from Belmont would trade places with us today.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6421
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Failure to develop the bench was tragic....
03-18-06 01:49 PM - Post#18267
In response to Quakermaniac81
I don't think you've accurately depicted what happened with Votel. Votel played more minutes after the Villanova game than before. And while the performance against 'Nova was fine with Steve out, I'm not sure it was the kind of thing that screams that somebody needs more playing time, regardless. Curious what you saw there.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 01:55 PM - Post#18268
In response to Streamers
First, the folks from Belmont might trade places with us, but we're both losers. Fact is, if we had lost to Texas by 20, I would not be any more or less impressed with Dunphy. It would not be his fault. A 2-15 game proves nothing one way or the other. Even if we had won, he'd not deserve much credit. Penn would have been monumentally lucky, that's all.
Second, re: scheduling. If a coach must play his friend at Lafayette (262), and he coaches in a tremendously weak conference, he certainly must not play Citadel AND Navy. That just killed our RPI. It's not THAT tough to schedule for Penn (he has the advantage that most people do not of having 5 automatic games scheduled with the Big 6 against some pretty good teams AND the Palestra) we normally have great schedules, so he failed there. No big deal, he's usually pretty good with scheds, but he failed this year.
Third, injuries happen. Get over it, and more importantly, use your nonconference season to develop your stud recruiting class so games like Princeton with 6 players till a foul out, never ever happen. If we had won a couple more games, seas, we obviously wouldn't have been a 15 seed, we wouldn't have played Texas, and we would have had a better chance to progress in the tourney. Instead Fran Dunphy just set a record for most consecutive losses by a coach in the tourney. Obviously his formula for winning a tournament game is no better (at best) than my formula given his formula seems to be the worst in history.
Yes, I know he's not been a favorite in all of these games but to me that points to two things: his inability to put his team in a position to not be an underdog (get me a 10 seed for cryin out loud) and his inability to do a masterful coaching job and steal a game.
Finally, again, if I had to give Dunphy a rating for just this game, it might very well be B+ or A-, but I'm taking a longer view of things. The kids played their hearts out and deserve credit first, before we pay our respect to the coach. In addition, I ask myself why this team, which only lost one starter, plays in a bad conference, and had a great recruiting class, actually regressed?
|
louisw
newbie
Posts: 8
Reg: 02-15-05
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 02:12 PM - Post#18269
In response to Jeff2sf
Scheduling-
Penn has to schedule some lower quality schools in order to get some wins. Playing the big guys close is nice but wins are necceesary
|
seas2k4
Junior
Posts: 274
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 02:35 PM - Post#18270
In response to Jeff2sf
Jeff,
First off (and I don't know the answer to this) I wonder how much influence Coach has on the schedule. I am sure he plays a major role, but so does the AD, boosters, alumni, etc. Also, keep in mind that it takes two to tango, and as we hear every single March from most midmajor schools, it is very difficult for them to schedule the high majors, who generally have little to gain and a lot to lose against those midmajors whom they could lose to. While I agree it would be nice to play a more challenging schedule every year, I do think they do a great job mixing in the challenges (Duke, at Hawaii, the Big Five) with some games that are sure W's and some that lie in between. Additionally, I'm sure the schedule, atleast in part, gets done 1-2 years in advance, and it is hard to say if the League will be down (see 2006) or very tough (see 2003) any given year. Personally I'd love to see more games against the Rutgers, Clemson types, lower schools from major conferences, where we have a true shot to win most years and also get great experience. Not sure they have too much interest in scheduling us, though.
Looking back on this year, we played relatively tough against Duke on the road, lost to Nova by 7 and were down by 4 with under 2 to play, went 12-2 in the League, losing once by a basket and once by a single point in overtime, and gave Texas all it could handle in the first round of the tournament. Pretty succesful, no?
And I doubt we will come to any agreement on this, but for me, your claim that Penn "would have been momunentally lucky, that's all" to get a win is just plain wrong. Execution isn't luck, preparation isn't luck, and hustle isn't luck. Would we need Texas to not bring their A game? Sure. Would it necessarily be enough? No. We would need to execute, prepare, and hustle like no other.
- SEAS
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Scheduling correction
03-18-06 02:46 PM - Post#18271
In response to seas2k4
First, I agree with none of the points made by you, seas, regarding scheduling. The scheduling is not done that far in advance with the exception of the Ivies and tournaments. There is a lot of flexibility to change dates and that's why our schedule always gets put out so late. The Citadel, Navy and Fordham games in particular were added late.
However, looking at non-conf SOS's over the past five years, this was actually our 2nd best SOS at 53. No doubt that was due to Duke and Nova and an improved LaSalle team but whatever, it would appear that our SOS did not have a deleterious effect on our seeding. I would argue that not scheduling Citadel and Navy would have moved it into the top 40 and probably resulted in a 14 seed, which again is a difficult position but not as desperate as a 2-15.
No, it seems we were let down by a craptacular Ivy League, as per usual and Dunphy's failure to go 13-1 or 14-0 with his talent (and the Ivy League's lack-there-of) was inexcusable.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8384
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 03:19 PM - Post#18272
In response to Jeff2sf
Quote:
First, the folks from Belmont might trade places with us, but we're both losers. Fact is, if we had lost to Texas by 20, I would not be any more or less impressed with Dunphy. It would not be his fault. A 2-15 game proves nothing one way or the other. Even if we had won, he'd not deserve much credit. Penn would have been monumentally lucky, that's all.
Even if I concede that no 15 wins if the 2 plays well, a Penn win demands nearly perfect execution. We did that on defense (no surprise) not on offense, at least in the 2nd half. Yes, there was one in-game tactical error, but the game plan was solid and nearly worked.
As to scheduling... you are kidding, right? Duke this year, UNC next year. Come on. Sure, the academic schedule and the reluctance of the high majors forces us into a bind (see the Fordham game this year) at times, but do you really think a Temple schedule is a good idea for us?
Where I do agree with you is Fran's reluctance to go 8 or 9 deep. We could always speculate on how Haddan, Kach, or Pett might have changed that, but there will be no excuse next year, given the quality of the recruiting class, unless we lose more kids from the program for some reason.
|
Bruno
PhD Student
Posts: 1423
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 04:56 PM - Post#18273
In response to
Agreed. Dunphy with a nicely coached game, with the exception of that killer time out. (I remember thinking "bad time out?") Just a momentum killer. However, this team took great care of the ball, and got beat exactly where you'd expected them to get beat - inside and on the boards.
Well done Penn and Dunphy. Most of us thought this would be a 20+ point blowout, and Penn put a scare into what was probably THE most difficult matchup - Texas at Texas - in the first round of the tournament. The Ivies should feel pretty good about this showing.
| LET'S go BRU-no (duh. nuh. nuh-nuh-nuh) |
|
|
|
Report Post
Quote Post
Quick Reply
|
|
Print Topic
Email Topic
1021 Views
|
|
|
|
|
