(05-30-2017 08:29 AM)bricksnivy Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 07:59 PM)82hawk Wrote:  McGrath has definitely added size to the roster.

Based on the clips that I've seen of Cylla, he looks like a perfect fit for Keatts system. He plays smaller than 6'7 based on the limited videos I've seen, but he'll be a good complement to Taylor and Estime in 2018-19.

I guess we have proven we can win in the CAA playing small. When we play P5 teams that's where it kills us

(05-30-2017 08:46 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 08:29 AM)bricksnivy Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 07:59 PM)82hawk Wrote:  McGrath has definitely added size to the roster.

Based on the clips that I've seen of Cylla, he looks like a perfect fit for Keatts system. He plays smaller than 6'7 based on the limited videos I've seen, but he'll be a good complement to Taylor and Estime in 2018-19.

I guess we have proven we can win in the CAA playing small. When we play P5 teams that's where it kills us

He has good size for a SG/SF in McGrath's system, but I can envision him being used like Flemmings in Keatts' system. I don't think we'll see a lot of him at the 4 with McGrath, so he's not small. But, given his height, he plays more off of his athleticism as a wing than he does his size in the post.

(05-30-2017 06:00 AM)70shawk Wrote:  Valvano used to say that the secret to winning was recruiting, scheduling, and recruiting. If you can recruit well enough, you can "coach".

That was not true with Bruiser at Drexel. Though he could coach defense just fine. He was a heck of a recruiter but lousy with x's and o's on offense and had limited success with some really good teams. You still have to be able to coach, not just bring in talent

(05-30-2017 01:31 PM)dan10 Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 06:00 AM)70shawk Wrote:  Valvano used to say that the secret to winning was recruiting, scheduling, and recruiting. If you can recruit well enough, you can "coach".

That was not true with Bruiser at Drexel. Though he could coach defense just fine. He was a heck of a recruiter but lousy with x's and o's on offense and had limited success with some really good teams. You still have to be able to coach, not just bring in talent

it honestly depends on the level Dan. Roy has been widely criticized for not being a good in game coach(i know Bricks disagrees) but when you have a team full of NBA first rounders, you can roll the ball out and let play. Different story at our level like you pointed out with Bruiser, and i point out with Buzz. Keatts took a last place team with the Buzz the year before and won the league. If that isn't proof that coaching matters i don't know what is!

You can do a lot with a good PG and several seniors. That's what happened year 1 with Keatts with Buzz's players. That team still lacked "NCAA/top 50 team" talent overall like the past 2 UNCW teams,but had some really solid players. You need good overall talent with some real stars to win. That's the only kind of talent that will do anything in the Dance. Yes, we don't know if he can coach or recruit at this point, but it sure looks like he can get players with this small sample size being that it's this late in the process. My guess is that he can also coach too judging by how good UNC looked last year on both ends.

(05-30-2017 02:01 PM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  it honestly depends on the level Dan.

Absolutely agree. Just making it known that coaching is still important, and we are not at a top tier level so there is no point in bringing in the top level where coaching doesnt have to be superior (Coach Cal, Roy for a couple examples).

If you are not a blue blood bringing in NBA talent that is only there for one reason (a bigger pay check in the NBA and because the NBA is semi forcing them to go to college), coaching matters just as much if not more than just being a great recruiter. I would actually argue coaching is more important than recruiting. Getting the most out of players and developing them is far more important than just bringing in who is the most athletically gifted.

(05-31-2017 09:39 AM)dan10 Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 02:01 PM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  it honestly depends on the level Dan.

Absolutely agree. Just making it known that coaching is still important, and we are not at a top tier level so there is no point in bringing in the top level where coaching doesnt have to be superior (Coach Cal, Roy for a couple examples).

If you are not a blue blood bringing in NBA talent that is only there for one reason (a bigger pay check in the NBA and because the NBA is semi forcing them to go to college), coaching matters just as much if not more than just being a great recruiter. I would actually argue coaching is more important than recruiting. Getting the most out of players and developing them is far more important than just bringing in who is the most athletically gifted.

Yup, UNCW fans should know this better than anyone, A the Keatts taking Buzz's team, and B) Brownell and even Wainright were masters at taking under recruited kids, coaching them up and making them winners

Coaching is always a notch or two above recruiting. Think of Lefty Driesell (sp?). At both maryland and jmu he recruited great talent that never reached its fullest potential. He undoubtedly brought in the talent but never seemed to be able to move it forward.

Sent from my SM-G900V using CSNbbs mobile app

It's both, but you need the talent first.

Think of it this way. A person's IQ is determined by approximately 60 % genetics. Consider someone's "IQ potential" like a fishbowl. Some people have better genes than others that give them a higher potential. The better the genes, the bigger the fishbowl. But a lot of factors can hinder whether you actually fill that fishbowl. Growing up in a low socioeconomic environment, for instance.

The talent-coaching question works the same way. Getting elite talent can give you a bigger fishbowl than other teams. Keatts was recruiting at a level of a top 50 program. But you need the coaching to ensure that fishbowl gets filled up as high as its supposed to go.

I'd rather have elite talent run by an average coach rather than average talent run by an elite coach, any day. Coaches can learn over time, much like players can. But there are aspects of talent that can't be taught.

Granted, at the collegiate level, if you're an elite coach, the hope is that eventually you'll attract elite talent. So that's part of it too. Suffice it to say it's a complicated equation.

(05-31-2017 01:01 PM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  It's both, but you need the talent first.

Think of it this way. A person's IQ is determined by approximately 60 % genetics. Consider someone's "IQ potential" like a fishbowl. Some people have better genes than others that give them a higher potential. The better the genes, the bigger the fishbowl. But a lot of factors can hinder whether you actually fill that fishbowl. Growing up in a low socioeconomic environment, for instance.

The talent-coaching question works the same way. Getting elite talent can give you a bigger fishbowl than other teams. Keatts was recruiting at a level of a top 50 program. But you need the coaching to ensure that fishbowl gets filled up as high as its supposed to go.

I'd rather have elite talent run by an average coach rather than average talent run by an elite coach, any day. Coaches can learn over time, much like players can. But there are aspects of talent that can't be taught.

Granted, at the collegiate level, if you're an elite coach, the hope is that eventually you'll attract elite talent. So that's part of it too. Suffice it to say it's a complicated equation.

The most successful era in UNCW hoops had a great coach, average recruiter...... Now in fairness, that likely would have been surpassed had Keatts stayed long enough, but he didn't

That's why the Keatts system of pressing and running was so important. Utilizing the press negates the potential higher talent level of other teams, and hides a potential talent deficit of your team. It's the primary reason Keatts was able to take players, none of whom went on to a pro career, and propel them from last in the conference to a 1st place tie in his first year.

(05-31-2017 02:11 PM)82hawk Wrote:  That's why the Keatts system of pressing and running was so important. Utilizing the press negates the potential higher talent level of other teams, and hides a potential talent deficit of your team. It's the primary reason Keatts was able to take players, none of whom went on to a pro career, and propel them from last in the conference to a 1st place tie in his first year.

Debatable. We were arguably more talented than any team in the CAA the last two years. When we did play against more talented teams, specifically P5 schools, we lost. I'm not into morale victories, although we were competitive in most of those games, with the exception of Clemson, we never got that signature win under Keatts and better/bigger talent always won out.

You need some size to advance in the Big Dance. You've got to be able to stop direct drives/have good help and you need rim protection/rebounding. That's the key and why UNCW lost 2 close NCAA games in a row.

(05-31-2017 06:31 PM)billthebighawksfan Wrote:  You need some size to advance in the Big Dance. You've got to be able to stop direct drives/have good help and you need rim protection/rebounding. That's the key and why UNCW lost 2 close NCAA games in a row.

Dead on. This is why I hoped we'd use Chuck more throughout the regular season. We needed someone else to protect against the rim when we got to the tournament. His ability was limited but I do think he could have helped with some weak side shot blocking when guards blew by us in the half court.

Let's not forget, Keatts was only here for 3 years and he was successful in all three of those years. ANY school in the CAA would have been ecstatic to trade places with us. As a brand new coach, coming off a decade of awful basketball and records, Keatts took the best available players who could put the ball in the basket. We had talent but not size...but the size was on its' way. Every one of his incoming recruits was at least 6'5" and athletic.

My point was simple. His COACHING made a positive impact, and allowed him to win games with a roster that had weaknesses. And the very specific style of play, which focused on using the press, allowed him to put a winning product on the floor from day one. WITHOUT the pressing style, I doubt he could have replicated his success. I think we are going to see that trying to simply "out talent" and "out coach" our way to success, without using the press is going to be a challenge.

(06-01-2017 02:57 AM)82hawk Wrote:  Let's not forget, Keatts was only here for 3 years and he was successful in all three of those years. ANY school in the CAA would have been ecstatic to trade places with us.

Very true. Before we did it last year, there were only 2 instances since 1991 where a CAA squad won back to back titles. The most recent was 2009-11 when ODU did it. The time before was....us, in 2001-03.

Not winning NCAA Tournament games isn't exactly a stain on Keatts' record. We were very competitive in 2 games against programs with nearly unlimited resources.

(06-01-2017 07:13 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 02:57 AM)82hawk Wrote:  Let's not forget, Keatts was only here for 3 years and he was successful in all three of those years. ANY school in the CAA would have been ecstatic to trade places with us.

Not winning NCAA Tournament games isn't exactly a stain on Keatts' record. We were very competitive in 2 games against programs with nearly unlimited resources.

So you like Morale victories? I'm sorry we were very good and i was interested in making that next step. He couldn't provide that next step for us as good as we were. Maybe if he had focused on his current team instead of negotiating his next contract, we would have gotten it done last year!

(06-01-2017 08:16 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 07:13 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 02:57 AM)82hawk Wrote:  Let's not forget, Keatts was only here for 3 years and he was successful in all three of those years. ANY school in the CAA would have been ecstatic to trade places with us.

Not winning NCAA Tournament games isn't exactly a stain on Keatts' record. We were very competitive in 2 games against programs with nearly unlimited resources.

So you like Morale victories? I'm sorry we were very good and i was interested in making that next step. He couldn't provide that next step for us as good as we were. Maybe if he had focused on his current team instead of negotiating his next contract, we would have gotten it done last year!

Yes, I'm ok with moral victories after getting a ton of actual victories. 2 CAA titles in a row after 10 years without a CAA title was a huge "next step". And it helped attract a very solid coaching staff and recruitment class.

Our program is now a "destination", not an afterthought.

No part of me believes that we lost to UVA because Keatts wasn't focused. It's okay to be upset about CJ and acknowledge the good that Keatts accomplished while here. I'm still hopeful that we get NCSU on the schedule soon; I'm not an insider by any stretch, but I don't think there have been any burned bridges.

(06-01-2017 08:56 AM)bricksnivy Wrote:  No part of me believes that we lost to UVA because Keatts wasn't focused. It's okay to be upset about CJ and acknowledge the good that Keatts accomplished while here. I'm still hopeful that we get NCSU on the schedule soon; I'm not an insider by any stretch, but I don't think there have been any burned bridges.

You are probably right, but he clearly had it on his mind and had made prior contact. So, it certainly couldn't have helped. As far as the bridges go, I find out hard to believe people wouldn't be pissed about him pouching the best player. I however, place a good deal of that blame on Bass for letting him out of his scolly and not blocking state. Amateur move.