This year is for winners!

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:56 pm

A lot of what I am going to say here I have said in pieces through out the season, so yes I
am repeating myself, to some degree, but as a season wrap up I felt I needed to speak my
mind!

OK I am pissed off about losing to the Griz last night! If I had my way I would have
preferred to have lost to Idaho State than the Griz! A real pissy way to end a season if
you ask me.
That said though, this was a great year for the Cats. I posted a thread about the best and
worse coaches in D-1 basketball last week, and many folks, jumped on the idea that the
thread was written from the perspective of Gambling. The key element, though, besides
the Gambling side of things that I took away from that was the idea that some coaches
(the so called worse) do a routinely get poor performances out of talented players while
other coaches (the best) routinely get great performances out of mediocre players and
that is how the writer and those interviewed really defined the best and worse coaches.
Durham was one of a handful of coaches to be identified as a coach who gets the most out
his player. He was listed with some of the most high profile coaches in the NCAA.
That article I think in a nut shell described what Durham did this year. In the past when I
have been critical of Durham, I have always dismissed excuses as to why this happened
of this guy left, I feel you create your own luck, excuses will only take you so far. I
guess I need to stand up and give Durham the credit strait up, this is one of the finest
coaching jobs I have ever personally witness. I have said it before at the end of last
season losing everyone save Dissly and Brown and the possibility of having limited
resources for this year I thought we had the makings of a very poor Frontier conference
team. Durham went out and recruited a bunch of misfits. Pratt ( Quote: "waste of a D-1
scholarship"), Jefferson ( Quote: "Marginal D-1 athlete at best" Durham found him in
April and was the only D-1 offer he received. ), Beye ( averaged 2 points, 2 rebounds
per game), Holmes ( Found in late April and was the only D-1 offer). Moss and Miller
were the big name athletes recruited last year. Then we lost Brown. There was a reason
we were picked last this year, but Durham took us to second place. Hell I have not even
mentioned the injuries to are big men! I suppose this is debatable, but I would bet
anyone here BIG money that there is not a coach in the Big Sky that if he was given this
team on Oct. 15 that they could have accomplished anything near what Durham did.
Now I also want to give credit to all of the players who stuck with the program, because
really Durham could not have done this with out them. All along , though, we have
insisted that our coaches take responsibility for their teams short comings, I think now we
must also give Durham the accolades for what he and his team can accomplish.

BTW: A few years back BAC made the comment " Imagine what Durham could do if he
had all of his scholarships available" I think this is the first step in that becoming a
reality.

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:29 pm

Good post, Mslacat. I have to agree with pretty much everything you said, and I have stated in earlier posts that I think Mick did a very good job of coaching this season given what he had to work with. I have also stated that I thought he earned my support for giving him another year, and I am not going to flip-flop on that just because of one loss. I am not so much upset because of the loss last night, but more in how we lost. It makes me very upset to read players stating that the griz "just wanted it more" last night --- if you can't get up for a conference tournament game against your biggest rival, with a potential berth in the NCAA tourney riding on it, what can you get up for?!?!

To me, the more important question is "why isn't Mick getting better players, especially big men?" I seriously would like to question the writer of that article why he put Durham on his list. It seems to me that Mick has a sordid history of losing the big games late in the season. He may get good performances out of "lesser" athletes, but then I ask why isn't he getting "better" athletes? Mick seems to have earned a very good reputation among his coaching brethren, but I am not exactly sure why. I would also like to ask a strong Durham-supporter what you feel are good explanations as to why the Bobcat teams are showing an alarming trend of starting quickly and fading at the end, in addition to consistently coming up short in the conference tournament?

For the record, I'm not trying to be flippant here, I am trying to stimulate good conversation. I have my own feelings on these subjects, but maybe someone with a little more inside information and access could provide some better explanations?

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:45 pm

BozoneCat wrote:Good post, Mslacat. I have to agree with pretty much everything you said, and I have stated in earlier posts that I think Mick did a very good job of coaching this season given what he had to work with. I have also stated that I thought he earned my support for giving him another year, and I am not going to flip-flop on that just because of one loss. I am not so much upset because of the loss last night, but more in how we lost. It makes me very upset to read players stating that the griz "just wanted it more" last night --- if you can't get up for a conference tournament game against your biggest rival, with a potential berth in the NCAA tourney riding on it, what can you get up for?!?!

To me, the more important question is "why isn't Mick getting better players, especially big men?" I seriously would like to question the writer of that article why he put Durham on his list. It seems to me that Mick has a sordid history of losing the big games late in the season. He may get good performances out of "lesser" athletes, but then I ask why isn't he getting "better" athletes? Mick seems to have earned a very good reputation among his coaching brethren, but I am not exactly sure why. I would also like to ask a strong Durham-supporter what you feel are good explanations as to why the Bobcat teams are showing an alarming trend of starting quickly and fading at the end, in addition to consistently coming up short in the conference tournament?

For the record, I'm not trying to be flippant here, I am trying to stimulate good conversation. I have my own feelings on these subjects, but maybe someone with a little more inside information and access could provide some better explanations?

My Biggest frustration has been with Durhams ability to get "Big Men". Marvin Moss plays a big man possition but he is not a "Big Man". Dewy Micheals is the last Big Man who Mick signed as a fresh man and stayed through out his career. I thought Stirmlinger was a quality Big Man but he did not stay and when he was hear did not look very good in the offence. I know Durham is looking at some 6-8 to 6-9 Highschoolers right now I hope he can land one or two and they can stay 4-5 years. I also have hopes that with johnny Brown on staff that we can also do a better job of developing talent. On the Plus side we will have a new 6-10 center next year in the Mix when Ted Morris comes off his redshirt year.

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:57 pm

I thought Nate Holmstadt was our last big man to play 4 years for us?

As far as big men are concerned, I have two thoughts. (1) I feel Mick worries too much about finding big men who can shoot from the outside. News flash --- anyone who is 7 feet tall and can shoot the three is going to Duke. I would like to see Mick less focused on finding 7-footers who can shoot the 3, and more focused on finding big men who are athletic and like to bang it up inside. (2) When you are playing in the Big Sky, you have to be realistic in who you can attract. Quit worrying about finding only guys 6'11" or taller for your centers, and increase your potential pool to include guys 6'8" or 6'9". One of these guys alone won't give us much, but if we could line up two guys that size at the same time, we might start to have an imposing front line.

Again though, my biggest complaint with our big men throughout the years has been their extreme "softness" inside the paint. I want tough guys who don't like straying out of the paint, who will bust some chops and fight for offensive rebounds and easy put-backs.

I think the addition of Ted Morris will be a big boost for our inside game next year. He would sure have looked nice alongside Kyle Landry...

Barnbat · Post by **Barnbat** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:58 pm

Thanks to all on this site for some good fun along the way. I do not know anything and am not sure there has always been a fade but if I was looking into an annual fade I would guess: Not talking bobcats or even basketball but The team may rely on defense and pressure defense may be tougher in the early part of the year and teams can handle it better later. An example of this would be Portland State 3 quarter trap this year. Tough early makes Weber look good now. I know one coach whos players overacheived all year every year and would get beat in playoff at years end. Another reason I have heard is that some coaches have trouble making adjustments or changing things up. I really do not know anything about the making adjustments and I think it would be the hardest to evaluate. Again I am not judging this particular situation but could not pass up one last post. Again Thank you all for some insite and intertainment. Hope to return another year.

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:01 pm

One trend I think we broke this year and that was giving up a big 1st half lead early in the 2nd half.

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:41 am

BozoneCat wrote:Again though, my biggest complaint with our big men throughout the years has been their extreme "softness" inside the paint. I want tough guys who don't like straying out of the paint, who will bust some chops and fight for offensive rebounds and easy put-backs.

That was my biggest beef with Towlsey. He never used his size to his advantage. He always seemed like a big softie in the paint. That is why I like Marvin Moss. He may be only 6' 4-5", but he plays bigger than he is, just as 6'8" Calvin Ento did (I wish he had been around longer...). Morris, however, does look promising. I personally think we need one more power forward to compliment Marv inside (we've got enough point guards, that's for sure). Maybe Martrel Johnson will emerge as this person next year, but I don't see him sticking around MSU. Imagine a lineup with center as Beye/Morris, PF as Moss/Newguy, and Forwards Dissly/Pratt/Durr, and guards Jefferson/Durham/Miller/Holmes. Should be an Exciting season! GO CATS!

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:39 am

Actually, I feel that we have enough shooting guards, and we should still be looking for someone to fill in as a true point guard. Maybe Holmes can do that, I liked what I saw from him this year. Regardless of who it ends up being, we need someone at point who plays more like Steve Nash and less like Stephan Marbury. Repeat the mantra... drive and dish, drive and dish...

Helcat72 · Post by **Helcat72** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:44 am

We need someone who can gold his own with Seifert, Strait, Dloughy, Easley, etc...probably someone else with height and weight by next year...otherwise we gete the Sh__ beat out of us again in the paint by the latter part of the conference (e.g rebounds 47-31!)...remember we play a lot of road games late next year.

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:17 am

It sounds like the Cats are going to go out and recruit:

#1 JC "Big" forward who can rebound and play physical, the key is size.
#2 Most likely a JC true point guard, but have a line on one or two very talented Highschoolers who may be able to contribute right away,
#3 A highschool Big Man, someone who can play the 4 or 5 position
#4 A highschool small forward, but may end up being the best highschool athlete available.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:29 pm

Mslacat - I would argue that um and bbq-u got more out of less talent than the Cats. I would also argue that Durham should be patted on the back for taking this team to 2nd place in the BSC. I believe that the athletes won in spite of Durham. It was clear to me that the players stopped listening to Coach, and took the "me first" attitude into the games down the stretch. How else can one explain jackin' up 25-30 3's every game?

Am I bitter? Yup...I'm bitter and fed up with the HC. The teams that have gone to the NCAA tourney under his watch were able to do so simply because they were so much more talented indivdually than any other Sky team. Durham's legacy is "consistent underachievement."

Helcat72 · Post by **Helcat72** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:47 pm

We can all speculate about what should happen...but lets look at what is GOING TO happen! Coach Durham will be here next year too. The administration is not going to dump the dean of coaches in the BSC for a second place finish. That only happens at UM. (See BSC tourney champs). So I don't think we should even discuss Mick not being there next year.

What Mick needs to do is recruit some physical players that can GRIND in the paint. He has guards that can play with anyone, and a good small forward. We need quality depth to match the friz. Coach also needs to look at his attitude/demeanor and bump it up a few notches. He has to refrain from even suggesting that any game at home or away is "gonna be difficult to win"...that gives the players the impression, even so subtley, that "the coach really isn't expecting us to win...and if we don't...no one should be really upset". Coach has to go into every game expecting to win, and being ANGRY...not disappointed, if we don't!

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:07 pm

Bleedinbluengold wrote:Mslacat - I would argue that um and bbq-u got more out of less talent than the Cats. I would also argue that Durham should be patted on the back for taking this team to 2nd place in the BSC. I believe that the athletes won in spite of Durham. It was clear to me that the players stopped listening to Coach, and took the "me first" attitude into the games down the stretch. How else can one explain jackin' up 25-30 3's every game?

Am I bitter? Yup...I'm bitter and fed up with the HC. The teams that have gone to the NCAA tourney under his watch were able to do so simply because they were so much more talented indivdually than any other Sky team. Durham's legacy is "consistent underachievement."

I would beg to Differ about the talent at UM. Kennedy left with the cuboards Full.

All from Memory:
Criswell was all conference last year
Davis was too
Farr and Mathews were recruits very comparable in stature to Miller
Seyfert was a highly recruited athlete out of high school by mid to high Majors
Martin and Strait were 2 & 3 star athletes out of high school who were very highly recruited
Easley was a solid player for them last year

Kennedy's problem is that he could not coach worth beans
Montana was picked to finish any where from 3-5 this year despite that.

Helcat72 · Post by **Helcat72** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:00 pm

...and nbow they have a coach that can coach...with thoses players that can play. Who do you think will be favopred to win the BSC next year?

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:35 pm

Weber State, Fizzlies, MSU, NAU, SAC, ISU, EWU and PSU last. Tournament's a crap shoot just like this year. But this is just the way I'd pick right now and like Durham did this year, I can't predict who'll bring in the better ball players. Like Cravens track record recruiting and he's got a huge pipeline.

MSUcantouchus · Post by **MSUcantouchus** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:13 pm

Am I bitter? Yup...I'm bitter and fed up with the HC. The teams that have gone to the NCAA tourney under his watch were able to do so simply because they were so much more talented indivdually than any other Sky team. Durham's legacy is "consistent underachievement."

Very well said. That really describes our HC well. He is competent but not anything more.

We never change what we do and other coaches figure it out and stop it by the end of the year.

Helcat72 · Post by **Helcat72** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:06 pm

Cat Grad wrote:Weber State, Fizzlies, MSU, NAU, SAC, ISU, EWU and PSU last. Tournament's a crap shoot just like this year. But this is just the way I'd pick right now and like Durham did this year, I can't predict who'll bring in the better ball players. Like Cravens track record recruiting and he's got a huge pipeline.

Right on about the tournament...and that's where the "coaches" prove their worth.