He was referring to the first couple years, when playing man with mostly Carmody recruits was a disaster.
Recruiting differences between carmody and Collins.
- Thread starter T_Levine
- Start date
He was referring to the first couple years, when playing man with mostly Carmody recruits was a disaster.
This. Fact is, 2016-17 was the first year Collins could play predominantly m2m. Olah really struggled last year on D and NU had to play zone quite a bit to cover up for him.
The above is a simple statement of fact. NU could not play effective m2m because of personnel issues
CC has recruited length on the wings and found a good mobile defensive center.
I prefer the style of CC's offense but thus far I prefer the results of BC's. If CC starts producing offensive efficiency numbers like the BC NIT years coupled with superior defense, the sky will be the limit.
Numbers. you want numbers? Collins has coached NU into the NCAA Tournament in just 4 seasons on the job. Carmody in 13 seasons equaled zero NCAA Tourney invites. Just stop it.
No joke. How anyone can prefer that gimmicky crap offense and all the BS that went with it (no rebounds, no defense) I have no idea. Collins team scored 53 on Gonzaga in one half. Carmody would never have broken 30.
I hated the Princeton offense. It sucked. It was the worst thing to happen to NU basketball because it mired us in 13 years of mediocrity that we would never be able to climb out of. Until we finally killed it. I wish someone would kill the debate on Carmody. It's over. It's finished. The outcome is conclusive.
+1 The irony here is that Styre's mantra during Carmody's tenure was (paraphrasing) "The NIT is our ceiling. Carmody is the best we can ever hope for, and it is pointless to dump him and bring in a new coach. It is impossible for any coach to come in and get us into the Tourney because of our history and lack of institutional support. We will not be able to attract players that can do better than the NIT. Therefore, be happy with Carmody getting us into the NIT and let's keep him as long as he wants to stay."
Now, it's "the sky is the limit", but only if we are able to replicate the past [success] of Carmody's ... yeah, just stop.
During the NIT seasons, our offense was, on the whole, more efficient, shot better, and scored more points than right now. These are matters of statistical fact. I would like the current team to be more efficient, to shoot better, and to score more points, because that would mean the current team would win even more games and would compete for even bigger achievements. Evidently you disagree.
The only thing you just said that made any sense is that the current team needs to score more points, duh. It is true, I guess that if they score more points then the opposition, they will win more games as well. Still the team coached by Collins last season played in the NCAA Tournament, won game #1 and barely lost to a team that played for the National Championship. And in 13 seasons, Carmody got the Wildcats into how many NCAA Tournaments? Please stop because with every statement you make, you just sound more foolish.
This can actually be an interesting conversation, versus the Hatfields and McCoys ancient feud taking place.
My take on NU's offense last year is that when they had bad games or bad stretches it was because they missed open, oftentimes very open looks. One can make the argument that with a couple exceptions, the defensive effort was consistently solid which tired players, resulting in, at times, below average offense.
NU arguably has a more skilled collection of offensive players today than during any of the NIT years. If the NIT teams were asked to defend with the energy the current team expends it may very well have affected offensive production. Same with rebounding. Those just weren't dangerous defensive teams. Unless fluffy bunnies are dangerous.
And as we learned this past season, you need both offense and defense to make the NCAA tournament.
With Gaines, Falzon and Rap active next year NU is more difficult to defend. Yes, Sanjay was very efficient. But many players would be if defenses sagged off of them. Falzon starting means every position has to be guarded, which is pretty difficult. And the length and athleticism,and the additional depth they provide, will help the defense.
Heaven forfend!
This is entirely possible. And with similar rosters, NU went from 68th in offensive efficiency and 91st in defensive efficiency in 2016 to 122nd in offensive efficiency and 42nd in defensive efficiency in 2017. So there definitely seems to be a give and take going on. Furthermore, the various injuries and illnesses required McIntosh to shoulder even more of the offensive load than before, and his efficiency sagged as a result. When he's hitting shots, the offense looks much better, and this was by far his worst shooting year.
That said, the biggest offensive issue facing NU this year was simply that the team did not have many good shooters on the roster. The only player seeing regular time that hit over 40% of his threes was Taphorn. (Law was at 39.9%.) NU saw good production from its big men when they handled the ball, but Lindsey, McIntosh, and Law shot .424, .404, and .403 from the floor respectively, which isn't very good. The team as a whole ranked 208th in eFG%, which isn't good either.
In 2011, to take a random example, NU ranked 21st in eFG%. (49th in 2010, 18th in 2012, for others.) I think it's a stretch to attribute a gulf that wide to defensive intensity alone, though I certainly think it's a contributing factor.
The added depth and talent should make the team even harder to defend, which can only lead to better offensive production while simultaneously giving the front-line players a bit more rest. I'm also curious to see how Falzon contributes. He has the reputation of being a good shooter but he wasn't in his freshman season, so hopefully he'll take a step forward.
Part of the reason for a downturn on O is the energy expended on D. We have often gotten open looks but failed to convert and it may be just what the expenditure on D took out. Also somemy be offset by better rebounding and second chance points.
"Collins has told his assistants hit the pavement. Go anywhere and everywhere. Don't expect someone to come to us. And that requires charter flying which costs money."--"anywhere and everywhere?" and we have one commit? Something doesn't compute between what you say and the result.
In the 2017 class, NU offered players from MI, NH (3), MN, PA, MA (2), TX, OH, VT, DC, NJ and IL (3). I'd call that hitting the pavement. 10 of the 16 offers were 4*s. The NU staff are aiming higher than ever before.
Your stats are for losers. In 2011 and 2012 the Cats were 32-33 overall and a pathetic 12-24 in Big play. So much for the value of your offensive efficiency numbers. Top 20ish in the Country stats that don't produce a winning team are nice to know and otherwise worthless.
GOUNUII
Incorrect. 39-28 and 15-21.
(No, that's still not very good. Ooh, you got me there!)
"Those teams had good offenses and missed the tournament, therefore good offense is worthless" is one of the dumber insights I've seen on this message board, and that's a category with some very strong competition.
What he means is that, stats are super cool and all, but the most important stat is "W" and Carmody was lacking there.
Don't know where UR getting your numbers. Cats records in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons were as I posted. Sub .500 overall and a paltry .333 winning % in Big play. Just win baby. Only stat that matters.
GOUNUII
Not just him. I do. There is no way in hell I'd want the Princeton offense back here. None whatsoever. I really can't believe you do either. Unless you're just one of Mystic's inane and misguided ilk. As Willy said, please, just stop. There really is no more room for debate on this.
There is PLENTY of evidence in eFG% and offensive efficiency that say the two groups you're trying to compare ('15-'16 & '16-'17 vs '09-'10 &'10-'11 & '11-'12 if I understand correctly) are VERY similar on offense. I agree the Carmody efficiency is better with a maximum difference .058 ('16-'17 vs. '10-'11), but final points are very comparable.
And while efficiency is nice, when you take far more shots (minimum of 50 in the B10 seasons you compare), you can get away with lower efficiency as the '16-'17 team did. The end result is easily similar points except for one of the Carmody seasons. According to KenPom, the most drastic difference in offensive efficiency ('16-'17 vs. '10-'11) results in a grand total of two points per 100 possessions (111.3 in 2017 vs. 113.3 in 2011).
That's an attempt at the short answer. I'll be happy to include the stats, but I'm trying to minimize the soap opera.
Well good, because neither do I. In fact, I never said I did. In fact, I specifically said in this very thread that I prefer the style of offense we're running now.
I think he was talking starting year as 2011/12 and 2012/13 and for that his numbers are correct. You are talking 2010/11 and 2011/12 which is also correct but misses the point that in BCs last two years,, all that O efficiency didn't really get us the victories (mostly because of BC's poor last year in Evanston) But the BIG record does not include BTT so probably the BIG record thos last two years would be even worse 13 and 26
The Princeton O was OK (sometimes a little boring,but OK) but the overall package with that frustrating lack of D and rebounding is what I don't want back and if that means that the PO is gone forever, so be it..
The raw numbers are pretty similar, you're right - but relative to the competition they're still separated pretty significantly. 2011, for example, was 3rd in the conference in KenPom efficiency; this year they were 8th. And I do think that's important context to consider when comparing across different seasons/eras.
I think you're actually arguing in favor of controlling the offensive glass, not simply taking more shots. Otherwise you're just arguing for a higher tempo and adjusted efficiency controls for that.
My point, through all of this, is that our offensive numbers relative to the competition were better in that time and I think it would be nice if our current team could replicate or surpass those rankings. I'm not advocating for a return to the Princeton offense or rehiring an old coach or claiming that BC's teams were better overall or anything like that, simply making an observation that our offense was actually quite good back then and I'd like to see similar or better rankings now. It was a simple, anodyne observation that provoked a massive overreaction.
And if you give up more than 2 points per 100 possessions less, it still puts you in a better position to win.
When BC came in, and during his tenure, we were so far behind the rest of the conference athletically that we needed something to give us a chance. BCs answer was the PO and its efficiency. And while that helped us score on O, the lack of athleticism left lots of holes on D that often could not be overcome, even with an efficient O. We never got over the hump with athleticism because BC staff recruiting never got us enough athleticism to get us over that D hurdle. With everyone playing against us every year and often twice or more, the PO was not the surprise they would have been the first time a team saw it And while we could get up to about 8 wins in conference, that was the max without a better D. While it was a solid move at the time, it was time to move on.
CCC has brought in better athletes and has concentrated on D and in the end, even though we are not at the same O efficiency, we have more than made up for it with better RB and D and the result is the best season in at least 45 years. First winning BIG record since 68, and yes first NCAA appearance (but if they had had a 64 or 68 team field in68, we would have been to the dance then so 68 is as far back as I will go)
Kind of easy to cherry pick Carmody's best two seasons out of 13, when Collins has only had four seasons total. Carmody had some absolutely miserable offensive years too...
That's the epitome of revisionist history. BC didn't fall back to the Princeton offense because of our lack of athletes. He embraced the Princeton offense and the disproven theory that you either couldn't recruit that type of athlete to NU or that you didn't need it with his magical offense. And he embraced purely because he thought that this was basketball in its purest form. Not because he didn't have the athletes to run something else.
There is said something to be said about moving without the ball, constantly passing, and taking open shots. However, his version of basketball nirvana included deemphasizing defense and completely ignoring rebounding. It left very much to be desired.
In the end, not only was Carmody a horrid recruiter who really had no interest in it, his Xs and Os were truly overrated, since he was a big fat 0 when it came to two thirds of the game. Basketball isn't just offense (and even then, he has nothing on Westphal's run and gun).
Sorry not saying he chose Princeton O after he found he did not have athletes. But it was almost as if he felt he did not need them and didn't have to keep up with the Jones's in recruiting because of it. And he had to have the O efficiency because our D and Rebounding were so bad.
I'm not really arguing in favor of anything. But the numbers demonstrate one consistency in every year is that the Collins' teams have significantly more shot attempts which gives their offense greater flexibility to succeed.
Where do the addtional shots come from? It's probably a mix of better defense, more offensive glass and pace. I'm sure someone can figure out why in May. In the meantime, I'm just trying to stay in the parameters of your discussion ... unless you want me to repeat my Carmody issues again
.If simply attempting more shots made your offense better, Paul Westhead would have been the greatest coach of all time. If a player scores 20 points on 10 shots, that's fantastic. If he scores 20 points on 20 shots, that's not good. If a team gets more shots per possession, however, that significantly increases flexibility, and the best way to do that is to rebound your own misses. I think that's where the current team gets its additional attempts, because our tempo right now actually isn't much different than it was in the NIT era, and the BC era was definitely not known for offensive rebounding.
In the meantime, I'm just trying to stay in the parameters of your discussion ... unless you want me to repeat my Carmody issues again
That's quite alright.
Half-court offense I totally agree. We do, however, get more fast break looks than before (including some quite enjoyable ally-oop dunks).
No, no. Not thatI'm not really arguing in favor of anything. But the numbers demonstrate one consistency in every year is that the Collins' teams have significantly more shot attempts which gives their offense greater flexibility to succeed.
Where do the addtional shots come from? It's probably a mix of better defense, more offensive glass and pace. I'm sure someone can figure out why in May. In the meantime, I'm just trying to stay in the parameters of your discussion ... unless you want me to repeat my Carmody issues again
Absolutely. Collins is big on pushing the ball up the court quickly in transition.
Quicker? Absolutely not.
Like my post implied, it was pretty obvious Carmody's focus was on offense, so yeah, it's clear Collins is the better defensive coach of the two. That being said, BC's defensive strategies weren't as hopelessly flawed like some have suggested (rebounding was a different story). Carmody knew how to work with the talent he had.
While CC's impact was certainly felt on the defensive end from day one, let's not forget how poor NU's m2m was during those first three seasons. Collins simply didn't have the personnel to run that scheme game after game. Much of his early defensive success in the BIG can be attributed to well implemented and executed zone strategies, increased intensity, as well as opportune shooting slumps from the opposition.
Last edited:
There are a lot of posts about Carmody's Princeton offense on this board that refer to it as a gimmick. Well, NU ran the gimmick for double digit years, all the Big Ten coaches knew what was coming, and they still had difficulty defending it. And NU did that with lesser athletes.
The Carmody detractors write off his defense as piss poor, which has some legitimacy. I'd argue the D was more gimmicky, like the 1 3 1 where Juice was defending the bottom of the zone and defenders were abandon their man after he picked up the dribble. (The turning and sprinting up court when a shot was released was pretty crazy too)
You can play effective defense if you have athletic parity with your opponent. If you don't, it's just a matter of time before your gimmick gets unlocked.
Which brings me to Collins.
First, I don't think Carmody belongs in the conversation about what Collins accomplished this year. It really detracts from the beauty of what was done which is a brilliant job of coaching and player development. For those of you only able to talk about NU's accomplishments by trashing former coaches, I refer you to my wife who is a mental health professional on the North Shore and happens to have a couple openings this week.
I think this board has missed what Collins has accomplished. I think he's not just a good coach or a very good coach, I think he's extraordinary. I think the player development has been on par with any Big Ten program. The defensive and offensive schemes have NU competing with top twenty programs. The in game coaching is excellent.
Collins has improved the roster and the team is more athletic and deeper. But it's still a roster that can gain admittance to NU. And not the best roster possible that can gain admittance to NU. NU has decent size but not great size. Good athleticism but not sick athleticism. Ok shooters but not unconscious shooters. This is an NU team, not OSU, or MSU or Minny where noone asks how the kid got in the school.
The job Collins did last year is extraordinary. Among college coaches it's "special." Yeah, NU has some decent Big Ten players, but it was the coaching which was off the charts which explains what happened last year.
One of the better things written on this board in a while.
And BTW, what is the number for that mental health pro?
