In Reply to: A few thoughts about that posted by BruinBlue1 on October 10, 2018 at 20:29:06
I used the word "deliberate" in the "purposeful" or "concerted" way. The only thing I consistently see in Alford's schemes that appear purposeful is the frequency of 3's taken - often early in the shot clock. Many of these IMO are bad shots. Other than that, Alford's teams seem to be poorly prepared in terms of game plan or adjustments in real time. Perhaps that is overly unfair on my part in terms of stating this too emphatically, or maybe I'm missing the subtleties of his schemes, but too many times the decisions made on the floor seem to work against the Bruins or don't seem like well thought out planned decisions. When was the last time we've seen the Bruins deliberately try to work any kind of post offense to try and open up the floor for open 3's? I can't recall an Alford scheme where the team worked the ball to a particular player in a position to take a good shot when a basket was needed. I do remember once the Bruins effectively working the ball into Wilkes in the middle slashing off of screens - I think against Arizona. They did that 2 or 3 times in a row and then inexplicably stopped doing so. I remember that because it was so stark a contrast versus what we usually see of Alford's teams. It's one of the few (if not only) deliberate things that I can remember the Bruins doing in the last 5 years.
As regards to the question of who to hire, I completely understand this. When Howland was being fired I opined that this should have been done only if they could get someone better - whatever that means. What was different there was that I thought Howland was an excellent coach. I didn't like his style of play and he appeared to have some personality issues that appeared to work against him, but after that I still was an excellent coach.
This situation is different. Alford IMO is not an excellent coach. He's not bad but I'm not sure he is even good - just somewhere above mediocre. I am not in the practices or in the game time huddles. I based that assessment only on what I see on the court. His teams just don't look well coached or well prepared. I don't see how more time or even better recruitment is going to change that. He could have a whole team of 5 stars and, even though the team may be better, they still could look ill prepared and coached.
Finding a replacement can be problematic but shouldn't determine whether to look or no. Maybe the convention in college play is to fire someone before looking for someone new. But if what one has isn't working one still comes down to the fact that it isn't working and something has to be done - even if it's troublesome and imperfect.
I have no inside track of knowledge about the inner workings of the college coaching world, but I'm sure there are top flight assistants out there ready for a head coaching job. Or some young mid major head coach whose teams always are well coached and prepared but because of the lack of talent can't compete effectively at the D1 level. Or even a successful D2 or NAIA coach who may be ready to make the jump to D1. Of course all of this could backfire but then the answer is to try again. Settling for something that isn't working just because there isn't any slam dunk obvious next moves IMO is not a viable option.
Post a Followup