Some good discussion here and I liked chop’s point of view above – especially concerning the interwebs and forums.
Not sure if I’m entirely on board with COWDOG in going to more zone defensive looks (or even a wholesale change) – but that could be down the pipeline. Just from my view, I’ve seen what I felt where some good things from the man D – yesterday notwithstanding. Still, I don’t think using more zone looks could hurt – to this point we’ve mainly gone zone in a reactionary manor or to switch looks for a small spell. This seems to be related to the ‘team identity’ concept.
I very much agree with the following:
The “true” point guard thing isn’t much of an issue to me. Having a leader on the court is.
In whichever manner a leader evolves, one thing is for certain. That leader is not made by any coach.
I don’t think this can be underestimated how much a ‘team leader’ impacts both team dynamic and team identity. Sure, more often than not a team will take on the personality of the coach, but (I feel) you need general among the troops. Think this doesn’t matter? I suggest re-watching ‘Survive and Advance’ (streaming on Netflix, btw). Sidney was the point, but there was no question that Whittenburg was the leader of that team. Someone has to set the tone – both in the locker room and on the court.
In Gottfried’s first season we had CJ Williams and senior transfer Alex Johnson – both lauded by staff and teammates for their leadership. That team made the Sweet 16. It’s not a direct correlation, but pretty much the same exact group of players had won 5 ACC games the previous season. Yes, the coaching staff was the obvious change – but there was also a change in team demeanor and purpose. That comes from a leader. It was Williams and Johnson that ensured Howell stayed on track while getting in shape. Williams and Johnson helped prod Leslie and Brown into realizing their potential. That team squeaked into the NCAA Tournament, but were light years ahead of the previous iteration of the team.
The next season, we had a lot of talent and some hard workers (Howell) – but it seemed no one stepped up to really take the reigns. There were some good moments and victories, but the team always seemed rudderless and the season ended with a mostly listless loss to Temple in the NCAA Tournament.
Last season of course we had Warren, who was an amazing one man army at times. Now here we are this season. Good kids who want to perform well and succeed … it’s no secret though that something may be a little off. We need direction. The coach is paid for that, sure – but every team needs that one guy/gal or group of guys/gals to really whip the troops into shape. Lacey would be the obvious candidate, but ‘best player’ does not automatically mean ‘leader’ (that’s not a shot at Lacey, it’s just a different dynamic).
Coaching matters. Talent yields higher potential. Teams win games though. A team needs a leader. With the amount of roster turnover in programs today, I think it would be very interesting to take a look at successful seasons for various programs and identify the team leaders for that particular team. I think it would be fascinating to look at Kentucky under Calipari. The common denominators for successful teams are of course coaching and talent, but even the Cheats – with a great coach and tons of talent – get relegated to the NIT sometimes. Someone has to step up.
