Tony Bennett
- Thread starter TNCatfanforever
- Start date
I hope so too. He can't make the final four.
Defense is great but you have to be able to score
You can be a class act and really good coach, and it still takes time and some luck for most coaches (not named Kevin Ollie). Tony Bennett has done a great job at UVA, and I wonder what he would do at a top tier school?
His style of play depresses the popularity of college bb , I would not want to watch him at uk .
Reminds me of Tubby ball... But the guy has been more than impressive winning college basketball's toughest conference regular season championship two out of the last three years. He's also a class act. Don't want that style for us, but you can't take anything away from him.
Absolutely. I said the same thing. This style is exactly what sucks the popularity out of college bball. We need rule changes that promote a more exciting style.
No, the game is just fine the way it is. The last thing we need is the NCAA screwing more things up. Some coaches play fast, others play slow. Good teams can adapt to either
If it's just fine, why all the publicity about declining popularity? Here's a good article from last March. Talks about the decline and need for further adjustments. To me, now is the time to tweak rules to speed the game up, increase scoring and raise the excitement.
http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/02/26/hoop-thoughts-college-basketball-scoring-pace
Or, how about just get better (i.e. more consistent) officiating that prevents the game from being entertaining (rugby in the paint, refs that appear to be divas, etc)?
Thought the same thing. He was almost TOO alright with missing a Final4.
Kevin Ollie was handed over a really good team, kinda like Tubby did when we won it in 98.
Bennett made no adjustments, he didn't care to extend the game when he fell behind and he basically gave an Elite 8 game away. Anyone who would like that type of coach to be at helm of their program--come back and visit this after the ending of your season. It's one thing to criticize a guy who can recruit for "not coaching" which is easy to do when you aren't good enough or talented enough of a coach to attract top tier talent. It's another to hide behind stalling on offense. Bennett's father coached one of the worst Final Four games in memory (Wisconsin-Michigan State) and "Bennett Ball" is all that is wrong with modern era coaches. It takes away from empowering the players and makes it all about coaches. It limits possessions (which for some reason intelligent people in media can't see when they talk up his great defenses) and nothing worse then hearing a coach told his team "We need stops" when they made exactly 3 FG's in the last 9 :30 of a game that they led by 16.
Contrast that with Boeheim--who did what all teams should do against teams like UVA, UNI, Wisconsin--you press them the entire game. Who cares if they score a few--they'll eventually screw up as they can't maintain that pace and it'll force the tempo to increase/more possessions means the more talented team will win. It's called coaching--and too often it's not applied in this era. Too many "system" and "control freaks" to allow kids to play the game.
Bennett will have a better frontcourt next year (Austin Nichols and Mamadi Diakate) to go with a great shooter in Kyle Guy--but it'll do him no good if he doesn't start allowing his players to play offense and basketball and doesn't treat them like they are in days of Peach Basket. If anything-a team coached like him/JT3 is closer to being the first #1 seed to lose to a 16 then winning any National Title. Even Bo Ryan adapted to having better players. This guy is obsessed with pattern--what was he doing playing halfcourt D without trapping/extending game as his team gave up offensive rebounds after stopping Syracuse? He didn't make any adjustment and just stood there with a blank stare. Class? Sure--but that plays in certain programs as success--not in the big boy room of CBB and never will.
Contrast that with Boeheim--who did what all teams should do against teams like UVA, UNI, Wisconsin--you press them the entire game. Who cares if they score a few--they'll eventually screw up as they can't maintain that pace and it'll force the tempo to increase/more possessions means the more talented team will win. It's called coaching--and too often it's not applied in this era. Too many "system" and "control freaks" to allow kids to play the game.
Bennett will have a better frontcourt next year (Austin Nichols and Mamadi Diakate) to go with a great shooter in Kyle Guy--but it'll do him no good if he doesn't start allowing his players to play offense and basketball and doesn't treat them like they are in days of Peach Basket. If anything-a team coached like him/JT3 is closer to being the first #1 seed to lose to a 16 then winning any National Title. Even Bo Ryan adapted to having better players. This guy is obsessed with pattern--what was he doing playing halfcourt D without trapping/extending game as his team gave up offensive rebounds after stopping Syracuse? He didn't make any adjustment and just stood there with a blank stare. Class? Sure--but that plays in certain programs as success--not in the big boy room of CBB and never will.
Much truth in this post. I am generally impressed with Bennett, seems like a good guy and fairly rapidly made UVa very good in a way not seen there since Samson. However, his style of play is ultimately self defeating. One he's going to have a hard time recruiting well enough with that system to compete consistently with Duke, Carolina, etc. going to be hard to maintain what he's done, IOW. And this thing about underachieving in March won't help. Two, the style simply leaves very little margin for error - if the style is designed to ensure close games, you're going to lose some you shouldn't to a greater degree than other, more open styles of play. In short, many decry the current tendency to "overcoach", and UVa embodies that.....
Seriously? Brogdon was ACC POY and DPOY. Plus a 1St team AA. Not to mention, I think Gill and Perrantes name popped up on a few AA list as well. Kind of hard to sit here and act like he's coaching a bunch of bums that can't play basketball, and achieving great things.
You have every right to like him/how he coaches. That's what makes talking about something fun/interesting. And undoubtedly his system has improved the program and worked. My belief is that it works due to coaches who don't game plan or prepare to dictate the tempo from teams like this, as stated previously. See how pressing them changed entire pace and initially Syracuse gave up 2 layups--but aside from that--they gave up 1 basket in last 9 1/2 minutes and 2 gift FT's to Brogdon that officials love to call to keep a game alive. (or so it seems to me)
Just notice certain trends in both coaching at the HS level and watching CBB that are interesting regarding system coaches. Here's a few
1. Its easier to defend them due to the shots coming from spots on court more then individual players. The systems mute offensive talent and are more about sets. So if you take away the spots--you force discomfort.
2. Run them off the 3/negate the 3 and you limit their offense--which is often very much like a 5 out approach you see in girls basketball. They'll stay in their pattern no matter the time/score and you saw that with Bennett today--he was running sets down 6.....he defended man in halfcourt instead of extending game/clock or trapping/pressing.
3. As was mentioned, they live to play close. Do that enough-you lose to teams you shouldn't. (see Georgetown under Thompson III in the NCAA's since his NBA talent left from the '06-'08 era and even then they had to survive BC and Vandy in games they should've won easily on way to '07 Final Four). So when you play to be close and are close and everyone is pulling for underdog and they can play carefree--you're still working for your spot shots, and running pattern.
Not trying to knock having a plan-but there is a time to slow some teams down (ND tried against UK last year and UNC this year) and a time to speed the game up. Adjusting is coaching. Preparing for your opponent is coaching. It's not "do what we do" and see how it ends up. I see this far too much and it's celebrated and taught at clinics. No one way to win--but if you notice winning coaches entrust players with being the focal point and amazing how the credit is given anyway to the coach if you do this. lol
Just seems like guys like Bennett get praised for stats they can control. His defense isn't that good-he takes away offensive possessions by being a horrific offensive coach. Brogdon being ACC Defensive POY is laughable. You saw what Richardson did to him in the 2nd Half alone. Basketball is lone sport where great offense beats great defense. You can't stop shots from being made if players/teams get going. Offense actually wins championships--and it's usually with a great backcourt along with a stud wing forward. Defense keeps you in games but think it only matters if it creates offense/easy baskets. UVA and teams that follow suit don't get much out of their defense-which forces them to have to shoot out of their minds and in a 6 game tournament over 3 weeks--is it realistic to think that happens? I say no--and so far proven to be case. Just my take and why I think talented teams being allowed to get up and down and make shots should be celebrated and are not only more fun to watch, but also more successful in terms of winning.
My point is, he couldn't have went in his first season with the players he recruited & won the tournament. Same withTubby.
the game is not fine. its a third tier sport. nba and international basketball are all better versions of the game.
I'd take Tony Bennett. UVA averaged about 72ppg and had a great defense - but they win big each year. I'd say Bennett could recruit at an even better level here.
I disagree with Bennett's ability to recruit the best. We recruit best over anyone and whoever thinks Bennett wouldn't be a major down turn in recruiting don't want to go back and see Tubby's recruiting results. Its very similar IMO. Bennett's guys are under the radar. He recruits guys who will be around until they are seniors.
Kids are coming here to play defense.
Does anyone remember Bennett's dad? More of the same IMO.
Kids are coming here to play defense.
Does anyone remember Bennett's dad? More of the same IMO.
Bennett seems like a good guy, but seemed too happy just to make as far as they did. Not ready for prime time.
Good thinking, ralphdaltonfan. I'm curious - what do you think of UK's offense under Calipari? He takes some shots on here for the way he coaches offense - but I think that comes from a group with a fairly limited and narrow understanding of offensive principles. if you have a more free-flowing style, applying certain principles and within a certain construct but allowing players to create within that construct - that to me is an ideal approach, but many disagree.....
Cal's offensive approach adjusts to type of team he has--although I'm not a fan of how conservative he tends to get in late game situations or in March--that '12 team he called off dogs on Kansas when he could've ran them out of the Superdome and game got far too interesting when it should've been Eloy Vargas and Twany Beckham time. lol
Think UK offense overall is fine--he adjusts to what he has (most coaches don't) and he's played differently based on personnel. One underrated aspect that I think helps UK kids is they learn to play with bigger/taller players and when going to NBA-the floor shrinks--they make court look small. UK does a very difficult thing well-they get their kids to adjust to playing with size. Sounds simple but it's not. Floor spacing is so important and it's why the success at several positions has shown.
If I were to nitpick, I'd say that I'd like to see more offense from his defense--create more fastbreaks from blocked shots, stops but he's one of the best in business and record speaks for itself. Think '15 heartbreaker has jaded too many fans against him. He did a great job of adjusting to this year's team and knowing how they needed to play to be their best. He does so every season and even in '13, he'd have made tournament/run if Nerlens doesn't get hurt. Imagine if Duke lost Ingram this year, how they'd have mentioned that daily. Nerlens injury was seen as if it didn't happen by media--they just talk of "NIT".....and he had a PG situation where I'm guessing he thought Teague would've stayed another year but left.
Correct, but Syracuse only pressed for, what, 5 minutes at most? It changed the game, though.
Great post, and I agree (especially with the bolded). The tightened sphincter in close/late games is yikes, but otherwise he's pretty solid on O, especially considering he's a defensive coach and he's dealing with constant roster turnover.
Meant that teams should do this for entire game or close to against these boring/control freak coached teams offensive approach. Boeheim pressed at right time-if he waited too long-it's over. He also was smart to call off the press when he got the lead because only way UVA was going to score was if they were fouled-as proven by the 3 FG's in last 9:30 of the game. Now contrast that to Texas A&M who should've pressured UNI in 1st OT after the comeback. Why take it off? They were depleted in backcourt and awful against pressure? Kennedy damn near lost game in both OT's and then pressed and low and behold--got the win.
Think most coaches rely on 1-4 sets or guards bailing them out late in games. I am a fan of the Jeff Van Gundy theory late in a game--look to attack and score in transition or Secondary offense. Defense is just as nervous and often gets a pass when offenses walk it up, dribble for 15 secs, and call timeout. Or they walk it up and go 1/4 set and fire up a 3 (often in a tie/1 or 2 pt game for some odd reason). It's absurd how many teams wait to get fouled when up late--instead of taking the sure two points. Adhere to the if I keep scoring and you have to hope you hit 3's and come back, I'll win. Don't want to rush/force a shot but if you have a dunk/layup--take it--don't pull it out and run clock.
Inside/Out is always best offense--be it throwing it in/out or penetrating paint. Against zone--you see so many teams ignore getting it into the middle--or the best way to attack a zone--push ball into frontcourt and get into early offense before they can get set. Baseline shooters are lethal against zone but everyone wants to lob or go for the homerun 3--if I can hit a baseline jumper consistently--and it's an easy shot for most players--it kills the zone. Problem is most clinics talk of "mid range being a bad shot"--and rely on 3's or attack rim. I'd rather have a 3 tiered attack because it makes my team/players harder to defend--and unpredictable to defend. Will they drive/pull up/or shoot from deep?
Again, just my preference and thoughts and not saying it's only way to play--but teams who are successful in March tend to be teams who can score and let their athletes play, instead of controlling all aspects.
Solid take, and yes, Teague is one of 2 or 3 that he specifically mentions as far as thinking he'd come back.
Agree on the late game situations. I think for him it's basic math. If there are 6 minutes left in the game, and I have an 8 point lead, then the best thing for me to do is slow the thing down, limit your possessions, and if you only have the ball 12 times rather than 19 times (whatever) it's going to be more difficult for you to catch me. But it doesn't really jive with a coach known for letting his kids play, for making the program about them, etc.
I will say - at the risk of very amateur psychology - that I just read Calipari's latest book (only book of his that I've read, coaches books are reliably awful). he talks so much about being a "grinder", he uses that phrase in several different ways. his dad was a "grinder" willing to work a horrible job, awful hours (coal miner) for the family to make it. He also talks about a team being comfortable being able to "grind" games. meaning, it's a tight one, and they have to be mentally and physically tough enough to weather the storm and come out on top. Point is, it's clear that he regards being able to "grind" as being a virtue of sorts, and one of the biggest compliments he can give a person. Epiphany: grinding out the end of a game isn't playing not to lose, isn't taking away freedom from kids, isn't being a control freak. none of the negatives. to him, it's the best, most honorable, most virtuous thing. Grinding.
Like I said, amateur hour psychology.......
Like your take.......
BTW, this reminds me of a thought I had last night watching UNC. I know Roy takes lumps (which is silly, but that's the internet).....but his teams - his good ones anyway -- put so much pressure on you, on the offensive end. Meaning, you know they are going to score and score in bunches. and the pressure is on you to keep up. Which is different, I think, than just about any other big time program. Most coaches want to exert pressure through defense, to make it difficult to score. I was trying to think of others who do it like Roy does. K has had a couple of teams that could score like that. I'm not talking about Loyola Marymount or any gimmick situation.....
Being able to grind is important--and I am not going to disagree with a HOF coach who has done far more then I've ever sniffed. Just think you need to bring that grind it out mentality due to knowing you'll face other great teams and there will be games where the opponent is playing out of their minds (like the Cal phrase? lol) so it does matter. My issue is this--when you bring a certain swagger to the kids--and let them be who they are, that should carry over to all games and situations. Always time to have to play halfcourt, but no need to play tight. If I have more talent and game is faster, I'll win 90% of time due to better players tend to make plays. If I shorten game, I keep less talented team in game, and bring in outside factors--an official's call hurts a lot more when I don't have more time to overcome it. Just figure if I am going to buy a bunch of fast cars, I'd rather be in a race, then a bumper car event. Now the greatness of Cal is he can win any style and in NCAA you have to do so, but much rather let my guys get up and down and play loose/relaxed and if you lose, can live with it. Thought this year's team is example--I thought they played loose--just missed shots. Cal didn't tighten up--the kids just didn't perform and that happens sometimes. Ulis/Murray weren't hitting shots, Willis was off his game, Poythress/Skal were non factors, Lee couldn't make a few bunnies, etc....just one of those games. That said--still had team in game with chance to tie/fought til the end. That's grinding/fighting and still playing aggressive/fast.
it was clear to me that he was thinking, well, IU can only play one way (fast) and we can play either way (fast or grind), so let's make them do something they aren't comfortable with. sounds solid. but I thought it hurt us. the plan was clear - get it out, and if you can get something in transition, do it. if you can't, back it out and we'll take our time. I understood it. maybe it has nothing to do with style/pace, and it's just that simple: we can win if Murray is off, we can win if the inside guys disappear, but we can't win if we get one 3 out of Willis + Murray and the inside guys don't show. I think IU was better with a long clock than he (or anyone) would have guessed, because they were better on the defensive end. and who would have thunk it.
if you view that game in isolation, it's hard to complain, for reasons stated. the thing is, all of his NCAAT losses have started to have the same look and feel. Maybe if you let them go, turn them loose, and rely on talent advantage.......But you know that's asking a lot of a coach. He's turning over the outcome to his players, giving up control almost completely, and in Cal's case he's turning that control over to 18 year olds......
if you view that game in isolation, it's hard to complain, for reasons stated. the thing is, all of his NCAAT losses have started to have the same look and feel. Maybe if you let them go, turn them loose, and rely on talent advantage.......But you know that's asking a lot of a coach. He's turning over the outcome to his players, giving up control almost completely, and in Cal's case he's turning that control over to 18 year olds......
^ yeah it seems to me that late game is where the youth of our teams hurts. Turning over the situation to 18 year olds, even 22 year olds, just results in poor play generally. I'll tell you this - going from watching UK-IU to Golden State-San Antonio was mind blowing. The NBA is so, so much better as a product, and the gulf seems to be growing. Two totally different sports, really. Aside from occasional strong years (2008 and 2015 come to mind), the NCAA has been in a severe talent drought for 15 years. The NCAA is hard to watch, aesthetically. Not just the reffing (overly physical inside), or style of play (so slow and deliberate), but just the lack of truly elite talent is galling.