The wins are better than the alternative but I just hope it's not the end goal. It feels like these teams are being built to be good enough to beat the bad teams in the conference (which they're very good at) but scratch out maybe 1 or 2 wins a year against the competitive teams.
I don't expect the 2000's Salukis to ever come back but just one year I'd like to see SIU be the team everyone in the conference is chasing.
I appreciate your confidence in Mullins. I like the Mullins Brothers, too. But you don't have a crystal ball. If recruiting goes badly this Spring, it could be a calamity for our near future. We absolutely don't want to make the same mistake we did with Lowery. Fraydog summed it up perfectly.
Absolutely. I am really pleased where we are at TODAY, but there are still a couple critical games left here to end the season. Regardless, the reality is that this team is not going to the NCAA or NIT this season (unless they shock us all and run the table in St Louis). I said in a prior post that THIS offseason will be critical. not only for the players we do, or don't, bring in but who choses to stay or leave the team. This team has a chance to take a major step up and be a real contender for a Valley title or it could go into next season as a projected bottom tier team.
That being said, I really feel like we're going to see the fruits of Howard's recruiting. If we can retain the core of the team and further develop them, I think we're finally going to be where we were all hoping to be.
This sums up my feelings fairly accurately. Really need a good offseason without wholesale player defections and "just a guy" portal recruits. If the offseason doesn't go well, we're probably back to having the same conversations about Mullins being on the hot seat starting in June.
I appreciate your confidence in Mullins. I like the Mullins Brothers, too. But you don't have a crystal ball. If recruiting goes badly this Spring, it could be a calamity for our near future. We absolutely don't want to make the same mistake we did with Lowery. Fraydog summed it up perfectly.
Absolutely. I am really pleased where we are at TODAY, but there are still a couple critical games left here to end the season. Regardless, the reality is that this team is not going to the NCAA or NIT this season (unless they shock us all and run the table in St Louis). I said in a prior post that THIS offseason will be critical. not only for the players we do, or don't, bring in but who choses to stay or leave the team. This team has a chance to take a major step up and be a real contender for a Valley title or it could go into next season as a projected bottom tier team.
That being said, I really feel like we're going to see the fruits of Howard's recruiting. If we can retain the core of the team and further develop them, I think we're finally going to be where we were all hoping to be.
This sums up my feelings fairly accurately. Really need a good offseason without wholesale player defections and "just a guy" portal recruits. If the offseason doesn't go well, we're probably back to having the same conversations about Mullins being on the hot seat starting in June.
In June of last year we didn't know how good Kennard, AJ, Ebube and X would be this year. Spare me the "We will check the recruiting rankings and make judgment before next years team ever takes the court" argument... If anything this years team should give you a huge confidence boost that they know what they are doing.
For all we know there is another stud on this roster that is waiting for their chance to prove it next season. The foundation of next year is already pretty good.
@dawgbytes I agree! Free the press! We should mix things up more. Use a press, a zone press, a box and one. (And get rid of that prevent offense)
A box and 1 is high school stuff. I’ve never seen a college team run one, and I doubt I ever will. Every team in our conference would light that up.
Zone press would be okay every now and then, but heck no on the “junk defenses”.
I have seen it long ago.
Jim Boeheim at Syracuse always used a 2-3 zone, won a Nat'l Championship and numerous awards. Sometimes zone D is a great option, especially against a team with poor outside shooting.
Coaches do not press enough. If you have decent depth, pressing can be enormously effective at generating TOs.
Also the picket fence worked great in Hoosiers! LOL
I appreciate your confidence in Mullins. I like the Mullins Brothers, too. But you don't have a crystal ball. If recruiting goes badly this Spring, it could be a calamity for our near future. We absolutely don't want to make the same mistake we did with Lowery. Fraydog summed it up perfectly.
Absolutely. I am really pleased where we are at TODAY, but there are still a couple critical games left here to end the season. Regardless, the reality is that this team is not going to the NCAA or NIT this season (unless they shock us all and run the table in St Louis). I said in a prior post that THIS offseason will be critical. not only for the players we do, or don't, bring in but who choses to stay or leave the team. This team has a chance to take a major step up and be a real contender for a Valley title or it could go into next season as a projected bottom tier team.
That being said, I really feel like we're going to see the fruits of Howard's recruiting. If we can retain the core of the team and further develop them, I think we're finally going to be where we were all hoping to be.
This sums up my feelings fairly accurately. Really need a good offseason without wholesale player defections and "just a guy" portal recruits. If the offseason doesn't go well, we're probably back to having the same conversations about Mullins being on the hot seat starting in June.
In June of last year we didn't know how good Kennard, AJ, Ebube and X would be this year. Spare me the "We will check the recruiting rankings and make judgment before next years team ever takes the court" argument... If anything this years team should give you a huge confidence boost that they know what they are doing.
For all we know there is another stud on this roster that is waiting for their chance to prove it next season. The foundation of next year is already pretty good.
I'm not sure what your beef is with my post, or the ones that preceded it. I have stated recently that I believe we have a nice foundation (D'Amico, A.J., Davis, Rupert and Ebube, and possibly Cade and Sharp) slated to return next season. But I also have been through the worst of the worst of times (repetition intentional) with this program and have no desire to see a bunch of Lawrence Stubblefields, Rob Kirsners and Kendall Brown-Surles running around the court because of defections and weak recruiting. Now, I don't expect it to happen, but what if three or four of those core players decide the grass is greener elsewhere? And even if that doesn't happen, we MUST do a lot better in the portal than we did last year, if for no other reason than we need guards and depth. One of our portal recruits this year only recently has begun to contribute; the other three have been blips on the radar screen. If we truly have NCAA Tournament aspirations, that isn't going to get it done this offseason. So I don't believe that saying this offseason is critical is out of line at all. If everyone is back and we add depth and talent from the outside, there's no reason we can't contend for the conference title next season. But if everything goes wrong, look out below! That said, I do hope your assessment of the situation proves correct.
I appreciate your confidence in Mullins. I like the Mullins Brothers, too. But you don't have a crystal ball. If recruiting goes badly this Spring, it could be a calamity for our near future. We absolutely don't want to make the same mistake we did with Lowery. Fraydog summed it up perfectly.
Absolutely. I am really pleased where we are at TODAY, but there are still a couple critical games left here to end the season. Regardless, the reality is that this team is not going to the NCAA or NIT this season (unless they shock us all and run the table in St Louis). I said in a prior post that THIS offseason will be critical. not only for the players we do, or don't, bring in but who choses to stay or leave the team. This team has a chance to take a major step up and be a real contender for a Valley title or it could go into next season as a projected bottom tier team.
That being said, I really feel like we're going to see the fruits of Howard's recruiting. If we can retain the core of the team and further develop them, I think we're finally going to be where we were all hoping to be.
This sums up my feelings fairly accurately. Really need a good offseason without wholesale player defections and "just a guy" portal recruits. If the offseason doesn't go well, we're probably back to having the same conversations about Mullins being on the hot seat starting in June.
In June of last year we didn't know how good Kennard, AJ, Ebube and X would be this year. Spare me the "We will check the recruiting rankings and make judgment before next years team ever takes the court" argument... If anything this years team should give you a huge confidence boost that they know what they are doing.
For all we know there is another stud on this roster that is waiting for their chance to prove it next season. The foundation of next year is already pretty good.
Nope. We had some serious portal misses...and consider our record without XJ and Brown this year. Bad!
Next season we need guards that can play right now! Other than Davis (and maybe Sharp??), we don't have that. Not having good guards is like the Cardinals without a pitcher.
Must get some goods guards this Spring. A Swope and a Conwell and this team could be very good next year with our front line.
https://twitter.com/CBKReport/status/1762206887263473885
I'll take Mullins over this any day. 🤣
@dawgbytes I agree! Free the press! We should mix things up more. Use a press, a zone press, a box and one. (And get rid of that prevent offense)
A box and 1 is high school stuff. I’ve never seen a college team run one, and I doubt I ever will. Every team in our conference would light that up.
Zone press would be okay every now and then, but heck no on the “junk defenses”.
I have seen it long ago.
Jim Boeheim at Syracuse always used a 2-3 zone, won a Nat'l Championship and numerous awards. Sometimes zone D is a great option, especially against a team with poor outside shooting.
Coaches do not press enough. If you have decent depth, pressing can be enormously effective at generating TOs.
Also the picket fence worked great in Hoosiers! LOL
There is a big difference in a 2-3 matchup zone that Syracuse ran and a box and 1. Division 1 programs have to match up to some level, which is why every zone you see in a half court is a matchup zone. I don’t have a problem with a zone being used right, but there isn’t any good ways to match up with a box and 1.
I am a high school coach and we use box and 1 sometimes, but that’s literally because the other team only has 1-2 guys that can score. No way you find a D1 team like that.
I am in agreement with comments about how critical this spring recruiting is to the future. I have some level of confidence (or shall I say hope) that we will see more success than in past years. Two reasons: 1) If the recruiter's reputation is to be believed, he should have a greater level of success than we have seen in the recent past and 2) Mullins has finally, to some degree, moved on from his preferred style of "slow ball" which I remain convinced was not attractive to today's young players.
@dawgbytes I agree! Free the press! We should mix things up more. Use a press, a zone press, a box and one. (And get rid of that prevent offense)
A box and 1 is high school stuff. I’ve never seen a college team run one, and I doubt I ever will. Every team in our conference would light that up.
Zone press would be okay every now and then, but heck no on the “junk defenses”.
I have seen it long ago.
Jim Boeheim at Syracuse always used a 2-3 zone, won a Nat'l Championship and numerous awards. Sometimes zone D is a great option, especially against a team with poor outside shooting.
Coaches do not press enough. If you have decent depth, pressing can be enormously effective at generating TOs.
Also the picket fence worked great in Hoosiers! LOL
There is a big difference in a 2-3 matchup zone that Syracuse ran and a box and 1. Division 1 programs have to match up to some level, which is why every zone you see in a half court is a matchup zone. I don’t have a problem with a zone being used right, but there isn’t any good ways to match up with a box and 1.
I am a high school coach and we use box and 1 sometimes, but that’s literally because the other team only has 1-2 guys that can score. No way you find a D1 team like that.
Why do we continue to want SIU to play zone. Top 50 in nation, leads the Valley in points allowed. In our 3 game win streak we have allowed 63 ppg. Different coaches have their own strengths….I have faith Mullins strength is man to man D. I don’t think you can just read a manual or watch a video and be a good zone coach. Yes there are coaches like Jim Boheim who are good at the zone. Most of these coach recruit to that style of basketball. Check out the length of a lot of the teams like Syracuse who plays zone.
@dawgbytes I agree! Free the press! We should mix things up more. Use a press, a zone press, a box and one. (And get rid of that prevent offense)
A box and 1 is high school stuff. I’ve never seen a college team run one, and I doubt I ever will. Every team in our conference would light that up.
Zone press would be okay every now and then, but heck no on the “junk defenses”.
I have seen it long ago.
Jim Boeheim at Syracuse always used a 2-3 zone, won a Nat'l Championship and numerous awards. Sometimes zone D is a great option, especially against a team with poor outside shooting.
Coaches do not press enough. If you have decent depth, pressing can be enormously effective at generating TOs.
Also the picket fence worked great in Hoosiers! LOL
There is a big difference in a 2-3 matchup zone that Syracuse ran and a box and 1. Division 1 programs have to match up to some level, which is why every zone you see in a half court is a matchup zone. I don’t have a problem with a zone being used right, but there isn’t any good ways to match up with a box and 1.
I am a high school coach and we use box and 1 sometimes, but that’s literally because the other team only has 1-2 guys that can score. No way you find a D1 team like that.
Why do we continue to want SIU to play zone. Top 50 in nation, leads the Valley in points allowed. In our 3 game win streak we have allowed 63 ppg. Different coaches have their own strengths….I have faith Mullins strength is man to man D. I don’t think you can just read a manual or watch a video and be a good zone coach. Yes there are coaches like Jim Boheim who are good at the zone. Most of these coach recruit to that style of basketball. Check out the length of a lot of the teams like Syracuse who plays zone.
Fierce man-to-man D is the program's identity and what Mullins knows and teaches best. That said ... in an ideal world, IMO, they'd at least have the capability to mix in a few possessions of zone once in a while as a surprise element, because that can mess with teams when they're not expecting it and sometimes gets opposing offenses out of whack, even if just for a critical brief stretch of the game.
But, not holding my breath on that ... 😆
@dawgbytes I agree! Free the press! We should mix things up more. Use a press, a zone press, a box and one. (And get rid of that prevent offense)
A box and 1 is high school stuff. I’ve never seen a college team run one, and I doubt I ever will. Every team in our conference would light that up.
Zone press would be okay every now and then, but heck no on the “junk defenses”.
I have seen it long ago.
Jim Boeheim at Syracuse always used a 2-3 zone, won a Nat'l Championship and numerous awards. Sometimes zone D is a great option, especially against a team with poor outside shooting.
Coaches do not press enough. If you have decent depth, pressing can be enormously effective at generating TOs.
Also the picket fence worked great in Hoosiers! LOL
There is a big difference in a 2-3 matchup zone that Syracuse ran and a box and 1. Division 1 programs have to match up to some level, which is why every zone you see in a half court is a matchup zone. I don’t have a problem with a zone being used right, but there isn’t any good ways to match up with a box and 1.
I am a high school coach and we use box and 1 sometimes, but that’s literally because the other team only has 1-2 guys that can score. No way you find a D1 team like that.
I'm not recommending it, but I sure think there are teams that are very weak and totally dependent on 1 or 2 guys.
Switching to a zone for a few possessions can be a great strategy and usually confuses the heck out of the opponent for a while. Very common actually.
@dawgbytes I agree! Free the press! We should mix things up more. Use a press, a zone press, a box and one. (And get rid of that prevent offense)
A box and 1 is high school stuff. I’ve never seen a college team run one, and I doubt I ever will. Every team in our conference would light that up.
Zone press would be okay every now and then, but heck no on the “junk defenses”.
I have seen it long ago.
Jim Boeheim at Syracuse always used a 2-3 zone, won a Nat'l Championship and numerous awards. Sometimes zone D is a great option, especially against a team with poor outside shooting.
Coaches do not press enough. If you have decent depth, pressing can be enormously effective at generating TOs.
Also the picket fence worked great in Hoosiers! LOL
There is a big difference in a 2-3 matchup zone that Syracuse ran and a box and 1. Division 1 programs have to match up to some level, which is why every zone you see in a half court is a matchup zone. I don’t have a problem with a zone being used right, but there isn’t any good ways to match up with a box and 1.
I am a high school coach and we use box and 1 sometimes, but that’s literally because the other team only has 1-2 guys that can score. No way you find a D1 team like that.
Why do we continue to want SIU to play zone. Top 50 in nation, leads the Valley in points allowed. In our 3 game win streak we have allowed 63 ppg. Different coaches have their own strengths….I have faith Mullins strength is man to man D. I don’t think you can just read a manual or watch a video and be a good zone coach. Yes there are coaches like Jim Boheim who are good at the zone. Most of these coach recruit to that style of basketball. Check out the length of a lot of the teams like Syracuse who plays zone.
The zone can be very effective against teams and switching back and forth with man-to-man even better.
I believe that when InSU was blowing us out in Terre Haute, Mullins switched to a zone for a while...probably because the quickness of Larry and Swope and Conwell made them just unguardable in a man-to-man with our slower personnel..
It's tougher to play good man-to-man in my opinion and requires better quickness. I doubt Boeheim ever recruited specifically for a zone, but he was great at teaching it.
For years the NBA banned the zone. They still have an anti-zone rule sort of.
That's because the NBA wants high-scoring, offense-oriented games. Zone can be boring, just like Bob Knight hold-the-ball-forever basketball was boring and led to a shot clock.
@dawgbytes I agree! Free the press! We should mix things up more. Use a press, a zone press, a box and one. (And get rid of that prevent offense)
A box and 1 is high school stuff. I’ve never seen a college team run one, and I doubt I ever will. Every team in our conference would light that up.
Zone press would be okay every now and then, but heck no on the “junk defenses”.
I have seen it long ago.
Jim Boeheim at Syracuse always used a 2-3 zone, won a Nat'l Championship and numerous awards. Sometimes zone D is a great option, especially against a team with poor outside shooting.
Coaches do not press enough. If you have decent depth, pressing can be enormously effective at generating TOs.
Also the picket fence worked great in Hoosiers! LOL
There is a big difference in a 2-3 matchup zone that Syracuse ran and a box and 1. Division 1 programs have to match up to some level, which is why every zone you see in a half court is a matchup zone. I don’t have a problem with a zone being used right, but there isn’t any good ways to match up with a box and 1.
I am a high school coach and we use box and 1 sometimes, but that’s literally because the other team only has 1-2 guys that can score. No way you find a D1 team like that.
Why do we continue to want SIU to play zone. Top 50 in nation, leads the Valley in points allowed. In our 3 game win streak we have allowed 63 ppg. Different coaches have their own strengths….I have faith Mullins strength is man to man D. I don’t think you can just read a manual or watch a video and be a good zone coach. Yes there are coaches like Jim Boheim who are good at the zone. Most of these coach recruit to that style of basketball. Check out the length of a lot of the teams like Syracuse who plays zone.
The zone can be very effective against teams and switching back and forth with man-to-man even better.
I believe that when InSU was blowing us out in Terre Haute, Mullins switched to a zone for a while...probably because the quickness of Larry and Swope and Conwell made them just unguardable in a man-to-man with our slower personnel..
It's tougher to play good man-to-man in my opinion and requires better quickness. I doubt Boeheim ever recruited specifically for a zone, but he was great at teaching it.
For years the NBA banned the zone. They still have an anti-zone rule sort of.
That's because the NBA wants high-scoring, offense-oriented games. Zone can be boring, just like Bob Knight hold-the-ball-forever basketball was boring and led to a shot clock.
Here is a snippet of an article from a few years ago on Boheim.
"We look at good players, but we'll take kids who are long,'' he said. "A man-to-man coach might not want to because they think they aren't physical enough.”
Just like Baylors match up zone or Bob Huggins 1-3-1….you want to recruit talent but length is really important.
I don't believe for a second a man-to-man coach wouldn't want length - it's important in any D you play. I think of some of our great defenders and rebounders- Walt Frazier, Darren Brooks, Marcus Timmons, Ashraf Amaya - not your stubby little guards.
But Boeheim had lots of players you wouldn't call lengthy - like his own kid. Talent is king. Length is great, quickness and talent are better no matter what the D IMO.
