The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

A couple of months ago,there was a thread saying that the writer ran into some of the player's and they said that Taylor has been the most impressive in early pickups. Yes. he has played and made some freshmen mistakes but did not play that bad. Last year JJ played Caver 40 min each game and other point guards did not get experience. My question is are we at that same situation now? For whatever the reason Taylor has not played in the last several games and I feel he should play maybe 5 min per game. Curry gets most of the min, but we need guys to get experience. Yes I know JJ usually does not play freshmen (case in point Reece did not play last year). Maybe, because of the level of the recruit he is not getting. I was wondering when or if the Greek player will ever play. He played two min and showed how slow he was and that could be from his injury. Unless you are a transfer or grad transfer JJ's recruiting is very poor. Now on the other hand AC is the only player that is a senior. This would be a perfect year to get a Grad transfer and a player from the transfer portal.

You mean Hunter and Karaiskos?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you mean Hunter. Taylor plays for Marshall.

Giles said something the other day that I actually agree with. Depth is overrated. If these kids can't play 100% for 40 minutes over a 2+ hour period, then have no business being D1 athletes.

Yes I want Taylor! Taylor is being shafted for sure. I can't even find him listed on the depth chart.

Considering both Kalu and Wade played, I would say Reece not playing last year had nothing to do with him being a freshman.

There is some merit to the OP. In the modern world of players transferring at the drop of a hat, you may have to throw some of these kids a bone to keep them around, and not be scrambling to find a new point guard when one graduates. I am sure the old school folks will say that the kids should just man up and do what they need to do to get on the court, and frankly I agree with that sentiment, but reality is that we live in a different world now, and some small concessions may need to be made in order to keep your roster in tact, and maintain continuity "stay old", rather than face rebuilding seasons so often.

(01-06-2020 09:33 AM)mac Wrote:  Yes I want Taylor! Taylor is being shafted for sure. I can't even find him listed on the depth chart.

He was obviously referring to the freshman PG Hunter. No big deal with the mix up.

(01-06-2020 10:19 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 09:33 AM)mac Wrote:  Yes I want Taylor! Taylor is being shafted for sure. I can't even find him listed on the depth chart.

He was obviously referring to the freshman PG Hunter. No big deal with the mix up.

A little harder to take seriously. Hunter has played in like 10 games and only has sat the last few games. I would like to see him back on the floor, but that's between him and the staff. We know he can play and I believe he has a nice upside.

Depth isn't a problem in a perfect world with no one fouling out or getting hurt. Last game we had two-three players hobbling around. That's when it hit me, we don't have much depth. Sure we can saddle them up, but does it increase the risk to injury?

We seem to pick up transfers each year like every team and usually have a few solid walk-ons. The transfer portal hit us this year, hopefully we are also looking into the portal. Think I read more than 2/3s of the players who go in the Transfer Portal don't come out...sounds like Star War thing to me.

I had a similar discussion with another business owner in our field. She has very high standards that she expects her employees to meet before they can move up from very part-time (10 hours per week) to part-time (20-30 hours per week) to full-time (40+ hours per week). She complained to me that it was hard to find people willing to wait months to become full-time...which is why they're applying for the job in the first place.

I told her she has two jobs: 1) Find people willing to take the ACTUAL job and all it entails, and 2) Provide great services to her clients. If she can't do #1, she'll never be able to do #2.

I think this is applicable to JJ. He seems to have very high standards. High standards aren't necessarily a bad thing, IF you can find enough people to consistently meet those standards. The reality is that JJ has chased off as much or more talent from the program as he's retained. Clearly, if he can't keep players long enough to develop, his theoretical outcomes don't matter. Reality is all that matters.

JJ should HIGHLY consider taking a page out of Tom Coughlin's book. Pick your battles. Figure out when to cut some players some slack, and when to show tough love and hold their feet to the fire. Not every player will thrive in a super rigid system. Find the ones that can thrive in that environment, and adjust your style to those who won't thrive in that system.

(01-06-2020 10:51 AM)T-Mac Wrote:  I had a similar discussion with another business owner in our field. She has very high standards that she expects her employees to meet before they can move up from very part-time (10 hours per week) to part-time (20-30 hours per week) to full-time (40+ hours per week). She complained to me that it was hard to find people willing to wait months to become full-time...which is why they're applying for the job in the first place.

I told her she has two jobs: 1) Find people willing to take the ACTUAL job and all it entails, and 2) Provide great services to her clients. If she can't do #1, she'll never be able to do #2.

I think this is applicable to JJ. He seems to have very high standards. High standards aren't necessarily a bad thing, IF you can find enough people to consistently meet those standards. The reality is that JJ has chased off as much or more talent from the program as he's retained. Clearly, if he can't keep players long enough to develop, his theoretical outcomes don't matter. Reality is all that matters.

JJ should HIGHLY consider taking a page out of Tom Coughlin's book. Pick your battles. Figure out when to cut some players some slack, and when to show tough love and hold their feet to the fire. Not every player will thrive in a super rigid system. Find the ones that can thrive in that environment, and adjust your style to those who won't thrive in that system.

Well stated thoughts on the matter T-Mac.

(01-06-2020 10:51 AM)T-Mac Wrote:  I had a similar discussion with another business owner in our field. She has very high standards that she expects her employees to meet before they can move up from very part-time (10 hours per week) to part-time (20-30 hours per week) to full-time (40+ hours per week). She complained to me that it was hard to find people willing to wait months to become full-time...which is why they're applying for the job in the first place.

She sounds completely unaware that folks bills don't stop just because she wants them to prove their worth to her first. And she's likely ending up with worse employees due to how many are incapable of taking that type of pay cut.

Chemistry and effort/energy are two things that I underestimate. I also thought that they fall more on the players than the coaches, but I think much differently now. That the coaches need to be active here. We seen teams absolutely fall apart with bad chemistry or players not playing with effort. The chemistry can sometimes be overpowered by skill and talent, but not at the G5 level. The best G5 teams are the ones with a bunch of seniors, including a couple 5th year guys. It's truly hard to put different parts together and not have a failure or two. The answers aren't in the scouting reports. The coaches spend hours talking to HS coaches, teachers, family, friends, also reviewing their social outlets trying find out who is this player and does he fit. Then they come to college.

(01-06-2020 10:51 AM)T-Mac Wrote:  I had a similar discussion with another business owner in our field. She has very high standards that she expects her employees to meet before they can move up from very part-time (10 hours per week) to part-time (20-30 hours per week) to full-time (40+ hours per week). She complained to me that it was hard to find people willing to wait months to become full-time...which is why they're applying for the job in the first place.

I told her she has two jobs: 1) Find people willing to take the ACTUAL job and all it entails, and 2) Provide great services to her clients. If she can't do #1, she'll never be able to do #2.

I think this is applicable to JJ. He seems to have very high standards. High standards aren't necessarily a bad thing, IF you can find enough people to consistently meet those standards. The reality is that JJ has chased off as much or more talent from the program as he's retained. Clearly, if he can't keep players long enough to develop, his theoretical outcomes don't matter. Reality is all that matters.

JJ should HIGHLY consider taking a page out of Tom Coughlin's book. Pick your battles. Figure out when to cut some players some slack, and when to show tough love and hold their feet to the fire. Not every player will thrive in a super rigid system. Find the ones that can thrive in that environment, and adjust your style to those who won't thrive in that system.

I just hope (like others) that JJ does not chase Hunter, to the transfer portal.

I totally think JJ should give minutes to guys who don't earn them, just to keep them from transferring. /sarcasm

(01-06-2020 10:51 AM)T-Mac Wrote:  I had a similar discussion with another business owner in our field. She has very high standards that she expects her employees to meet before they can move up from very part-time (10 hours per week) to part-time (20-30 hours per week) to full-time (40+ hours per week). She complained to me that it was hard to find people willing to wait months to become full-time...which is why they're applying for the job in the first place.

I told her she has two jobs: 1) Find people willing to take the ACTUAL job and all it entails, and 2) Provide great services to her clients. If she can't do #1, she'll never be able to do #2.

I think this is applicable to JJ. He seems to have very high standards. High standards aren't necessarily a bad thing, IF you can find enough people to consistently meet those standards. The reality is that JJ has chased off as much or more talent from the program as he's retained. Clearly, if he can't keep players long enough to develop, his theoretical outcomes don't matter. Reality is all that matters.

JJ should HIGHLY consider taking a page out of Tom Coughlin's book. Pick your battles. Figure out when to cut some players some slack, and when to show tough love and hold their feet to the fire. Not every player will thrive in a super rigid system. Find the ones that can thrive in that environment, and adjust your style to those who won't thrive in that system.

Who do you think he has chased off?

So far, I believe this thread is full of good conversation on both sides (fingers crossed that it continues).

Yes, I truly believe that freshman/young players needs to "deal with adversity"/"toughen up"/etc. along with not trying to find an out so quickly when times get tough. However, this is the STANDARD of the game moving forward, so coaches/admin/fans, need to adapt to it as well. Even if great coaches do all of their homework ahead of time, the end result still relies on how the kid responds when they get onto campus.

As for the OP regarding depth, I agree with some posters that depth is often overrated. If a team has it, great; but I don't feel it's a deal-breaker. All D1 teams have 13 scholarships, but rarely do teams rotate more than 10 guys per game. Doing a brief look at some top 25 teams, here are some rough averages (excluding blow-out games):

Dayton - 9
Duke - 9-10
Gonzaga - 8
Michigan - 9
Ohio St. - 8-9
Oregon - 8-10
San Diego St. - 8-10

With that, most teams are not using, at least, 3 scholarship players in their current rotation. Of course that will lead to those individuals looking to "better" their situation. Now generally speaking, in ODU's situation, you'll have individuals who will strive/work to get into the rotation OR depart to somewhere else.

(01-06-2020 11:31 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  I totally think JJ should give minutes to guys who don't earn them, just to keep them from transferring. /sarcasm

I think the question is more centered around what it takes to "earn" minutes in JJ's system versus what is reasonable in the modern world. It sure seems that it is a lot harder for guys to get token minutes out of JJ than it is in other programs, and the results don't necessarily show that those exceedingly high standards are producing any more success than other coaches that may have standards that are high, but also more calibrated to 2020 kids.

(01-06-2020 02:24 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 11:31 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  I totally think JJ should give minutes to guys who don't earn them, just to keep them from transferring. /sarcasm

I think the question is more centered around what it takes to "earn" minutes in JJ's system versus what is reasonable in the modern world. It sure seems that it is a lot harder for guys to get token minutes out of JJ than it is in other programs, and the results don't necessarily show that those exceedingly high standards are producing any more success than other coaches that may have standards that are high, but also more calibrated to 2020 kids.

What would be considered quality minutes? We have already seen ODU rotating 8 guys. When would you have want to put Hunter in during our last game? Based on our current roster, along with the teams we're playing, ODU doesn't have a large room for error. Based on what I see on many other rosters, I don't see this particular situation that significantly different than many other schools.

(01-06-2020 10:10 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  There is some merit to the OP. In the modern world of players transferring at the drop of a hat, you may have to throw some of these kids a bone to keep them around, and not be scrambling to find a new point guard when one graduates. I am sure the old school folks will say that the kids should just man up and do what they need to do to get on the court, and frankly I agree with that sentiment, but reality is that we live in a different world now, and some small concessions may need to be made in order to keep your roster in tact, and maintain continuity "stay old", rather than face rebuilding seasons so often.

Well we know the Greek and Reece are better than Dickens, yet they both sat on the bench for a year. Perhaps people transfer out because they do in fact deserve to play. It is frustrating enough as a fan, can you imagine being a player watching a lesser player perform poorly while being forgotten on the bench? How do you have addition by subtraction? If the team is better off with someone not playing, put them on the bench. Why did Godwin and Dickens get all those minutes in their last game if Jones already knew at that point we were better without them? No wonder people leave or get bored and become discipline problems.