Coaching...?

[Deleted]

I am really baffled as to why everyone is talking about "Oh then we can bring him to coach" or "Then we can recruit his son" or "How can we utilize him to recruit so and so" Here is what I know...

G can coach. He didn't make it to the Sweet 16 because he couldn't coach.

You aren't going to win every game every year.

You are limited because of conference, facilities, academics etc. as to where he can pull talent.

Luck or not, he's done something right. You don't win 60 games in 3 years by doing everything wrong.

100% of his players have graduated

He has (especially since Aaric falling out) recruited good kids that represent the school well

He goes out of his way to help different charities, etc. and is a great guy.

Players Like G

He can coach.

What I also know...

Legler has coached 16 year olds... that's totally a different ballgame.

There should be a new facility within 5-10 years (as per a large grant given)

There is no need to even respond to this.  Sure G might have gotten to angry at Cleon, maybe he should have drawn up this or that play, but with what we are given, he's a hell of an asset.  Now lets put this to rest. He is our coach, we're lucky for that. It's great to talk about what recruiting is looking like.  How we are getting no respect because of the line, how the team showed great resiliency in a game, but why are we going to attack someone who has done so much for us?  

[MisterD]

There's a large faction here who won't be happy until they have a different coach to be unhappy with.

[scarletexplorer]

The wins come and go and the X's and O's are what they are at this point, until he goes out and gets an assistant. My biggest area of concern is always recruiting. We caught lightning in a bottle a couple years ago, and I was hoping he could build on that. So far, the returns aren't anything different than what they were.

[Deleted]

Not that I want to compare us to SJU, but it's a real comparison. Phil didn't do much after the Elite 8. I think people expect recruiting to be so easy after a good run, and it's obviously not as easy as tying your shoes. You can't recruit over the young guys you have (Jerell, Steve, DJ, etc.) While trying to tell kids they will be part of the next sweet 16 run... but to wait 2 years until 3 starters graduate to contribute. It's not that easy to satisfy kids. I wish we were getting McDonalds All-Americans after the tournament too, but its not like that. Be happy with what you have if that is successful.

[lwc4591]

Exploring15 agree with most of your post except I have never considered G a particularly good coach and his behavior is not good on the sidelines. I also believe Legler would be an outstanding coach based on his college, NBA experience and knowledge of the game. There is no way of knowing what he would be as a coach until he actually coached for a few seasons.

[Deleted]

Perhaps he could be a good coach, but let's revisit that in 5 years when he has coached more than an AAU team of sophomores....

[a10champion15]

It is not that I hate G either. I appreciate G for what he is done and I am willing to stick with him for a little longer. Even though it is not as though I have a choice.

For me I am just kind of over the John Giannini era.

I still have faith in him and really gratiful for what he has done for the program. People often think one sweet sixteen apprearance changes things dramatically it doesn't.

There are certain things I like about G and things I don't particulary like. What can you do though.

G time will come eventually but I have to say I have a lot more optimism that La Salle hires a quality coach when G time does come. A10 simply is much more attractive then it used to be.

Keep the faith!

[Deleted]

The A-10 is much more attractive. But La Salle isn't so much. Last couple years have been very good for the A-10. This year, we are currently looking at a 1-3 bid league. That's not so attractive. Hopefully it's not true and hopefully 8 teams make it. But that's not realistic and we have to look from all angles. A10 is weak this year. La Salle isn't terribly attractive. G is phenomenal in many senses, very good in many, and perhaps does some things we don't like. But we should be grateful for all that he offers, its a lot more than other coaches would be able to offer us.

[calidelphia]

Dec 10, 2014 11:25:22 GMT -5 MisterD said:

There's a large faction here who won't be happy until they have a different coach to be unhappy with.

That's a hell of a post for # 1,500.

[manayunk53]

When a coach is in the middle of his 11th season, people are understandably going to start getting sick of many aspects of his style, especially if those 11 years haven't all been wonderful. No one is going to forget about the Sweet 16 run, and G has brought us a lot of good times in these eleven seasons. However, that doesn't mean that it's unfair to start thinking about which direction we'd like the program to take in the next couple years. Some people are upset, but I don't exactly see people trying to run him out of town with an angry mob either. I think La Salle is in a spot right now where we have a coach who is decent, but could be improved upon if we wait for the right guy to come along at the right time. G is a nice guy and a decent coach for our program, but I don't exactly want to anoint him "coach for life."

[Deleted]

I am far from saying "coach for life" But there are all of these posts about bringing this guy or that guy in....lets just take a seat and see what happens. we are less than 2 years removed from a sweet 16. In that time, only about 30 individual season out of over 700 (nationwide NCAA D1 teams in 13&14) have done that well. I'll take those numbers.

[calidelphia]

I honestly don't know how much more we could ask for in a coach at our level. The guy coached his way into the sweet 16 with a short bench a four guard lineup and a power forward at center. He almost never loses a game that we are leading in with 5:00 left anymore. He has really developed some of these players that we have (wright, zack) and he recruits above what he haas to work with.  I would say without his coaching the program would be short a couple million dollars on the arena that is being planned.

Antics aside, He has done a great job with what he has. The team has had a ton of turnover in personnel and new players and he wants that success immediately. G obviously lacks a bit of patience and that can be good in a coach depending on how they channel it. The fact is we are lucky he had some loyalty and that he saw potential after the ncaa run. He could have left us in a lurch like Hahn.
*antics*     *epic padded chair slam* 

While I do think that G can improve how he handles himself on the sidelines, he has another 4 years minimum good grace as a coach and is currently doing far more than many coaches in similar positions (see bottom of a10, top of low mids).

[mookie]

When I speak of Overton or Legler, it's not to replace G but more of their prospects of coaching in general. I'm not in the group that believes Legler NEEDS to pay his dues or learn how to coach college kids by working his way up the ladder. I believe he has the tools to be a good coach immediately, but you can't determine his success until given the chance.

I am also not saying G is on his way out. I've never been a fan and I've gone back and forth with other posters in the past about that. He shut me up with that Sweet 16 run AND he has produced a few winning seasons, something we hadn't seen for quite a while. I think G is a solid recruiter but his playcalling and the X and O's aspect are his weak areas.

How many .500 or below seasons will it take to fire him is not my call. But my thinking is that with only 5 players on the court and how much of an impact 1 player can have as well as how solid coaching can turn a program around, I have a short leash. 2 to 3 consecutive losing seasons is enough for me to pull the plug. G isn't in that right now, for me.

[mookie]

Players definitely have developed under G, but I won't add Wright to that. He came in with the ability to score down low going left, and rebounding. He still hasn't developed a go-to/signature move or the ability to go right. To me, his offense is the same and you always know which way he's going. He still has plenty of mental lapses resulting in poor fouls. Zach on the other hand has really developed.

I can't agree with "minimum of 4 years" though. That's an entire class. Most players make a big jump freshman to sophomore year. And given that this is basketball, one player can make an immediate impact as a freshman and it's more and more frequent that freshman are ready to play.

I would definitely give him the rest of this year without question and next year UNLESS this team dramatically regresses and/or quits on him. At that point, you HAVE to move on given that this team is very young (Shuler, Stukes, Washington, Eugene) with a good mix of older (Price, Roberts) players coming back next year.

[mookie]

Oh, and let's be realistic about Legler.

There is no way a person of his status within ESPN is going to give up THAT job for a full time assistant coaching positon. If he wants to coach, there's 2 options for him:

1 - Part time coach (specialized)
2 - Head Coach of a recognizable university or LaSalle

And that assumes LaSalle is willing to meet his financial demands because I'm pretty sure he's getting a nice check at ESPN with low stress and great job security

[MisterD]

I wish I could time travel back to the immediate aftermath of Hahn and the scandal and tell this group "in 11 years, we'll still have this Giannini guy and he'll have a winning record and a lot of you will have wanted him fired like a dozen times".

[mookie]

just want results at this point. we're bringing in good players, flawed, but as a whole they're good. so that's what makes it difficult.

we've moved past the scandal...i highly doubt it's even a talking point for these kids. i'm thankful for what he's been able to do especially given the circumstances but we need to start looking at things from a results standpoint now if we want to be good and stay good. we're less than 2 years removed from the Sweet 16, which is why I don't have an issue with him being here another year (this year and next) UNLESS this team regressed dramatically or quits on him.

[MisterD]

Dec 10, 2014 13:30:07 GMT -5 mookie said:

just want results at this point. we're bringing in good players, flawed, but as a whole they're good. so that's what makes it difficult.

But this is the whole point. If Giannini had the Xs and Os skills we wish he had, he'd be flexing them for the Illini or someone, not us. Coaches without flaws rarely exist in the A-10 long term.

[talkinbball]

Can't see G going anywhere anytime soon unless it's his choice. As I see it La Salle needs G more than G needs La Salle. G "caught the lightening" and put together a team that made the Sweet 16 under some of the most difficult circumstances (facilities and lack of administration and fan support) in "major" college basketball. It was a minor miracle. While I have absolutely no insider information whatsoever, based almost entirely from what I read on this board, my impression is that G works consistently harder on an annual basis on recruiting than any other coach in the city. I certainly disagree with G about some things, but, given what he has to work with, that fact almost by itself should give him the benefit of the doubt for at least some period of time. Can't really imagine us getting a much higher level of recruit than G has gotten.


Like a lot of others, however, I am concerned about G's what seems to be even more erratic behavior than usual (I don't believe any of his previous antics rivaled the Cleon Roberts episode). I am beginning to wonder, if, because of last year's disappointing results and the inconsistent play of this year's team to date, G himself may not be reevaluating his desire to continue to try to work miracles on a regular basis under the existing circumstances.

[mookie]

Dec 10, 2014 14:50:12 GMT -5 MisterD said:

Dec 10, 2014 13:30:07 GMT -5 mookie said:

just want results at this point. we're bringing in good players, flawed, but as a whole they're good. so that's what makes it difficult.

But this is the whole point. If Giannini had the Xs and Os skills we wish he had, he'd be flexing them for the Illini or someone, not us. Coaches without flaws rarely exist in the A-10 long term.

Coaches come and coaches go. But in order to succeed you not only need to be willing to spend but you also need to have that culture where success is expected. I'm sorry, but I still feel that the culture is not there. It seems like many of us are still hoping to have a winning season here and there.

So when you talk like that in your previous post, you speak as if we're lucky to be where we are and should accept the status quo and HOPE to make the tourney once a decade or something. If you're fine with that, then say that. But in all honesty, if that is the case then the University NEVER should've joined the A10 because it was enjoying a lot of success at the time and really wasn't successful in the A10 until recently.

I personally want to see the program elevate itself and I have no reason to believe it can't happen. We're not going to be big like the BCS schools, just not possible. But I think this university can throw it's hat in with the schools that generates revenue off it's Basketball program to the point that it allows itself to spend more money on coaching and re-investments.

[theneumann64]

Within the context of the coaching success of the program, I really wish "Made the Sweet 16" would be looked at more like "Made the NCAA Tournament." Because the Sweet 16 run, while magical, and awesome as a fan, was also quite a bit of lightning in the bottle. I'm not saying it was a fluke, or that it was incidental, but it's not like we were a number 4 seed that year.

I think G has unquestionably raised the floor of the program, but it never should have been as low as it was in the first place. He's not going anywhere, and I don't think most people expect or even want him to, but at the same time we do have to acknowledge the fact that the 2 Galloway years are pretty considerable outliers to the rest of G's tenure. The next best teams beyond that were in the 18 win range, no postseason. I don't expect us to make the tournament ever year, but a few more NIT berths (and for God's sake, some success in the A-10 tournament) sure would make me feel a bit better.

As for this year, jury is still definitely out. They need 4 of these next 5 going in to the A-10. 8-5 or 9-4 is still a pretty good number to have, regardless of dearth of quality victories. I'm not talking about for any tournament purposes, just in terms of winning games and having hope for the rest of the year once A-10 play begins.

[manayunk53]

Dec 10, 2014 14:57:15 GMT -5 talkinbball said:

Like a lot of others, however, I am concerned about G's what seems to be even more erratic behavior than usual (I don't believe any of his previous antics rivaled the Cleon Roberts episode). I am beginning to wonder, if, because of last year's disappointing results and the inconsistent play of this year's team to date, G himself may not be reevaluating his desire to continue to try to work miracles on a regular basis under the existing circumstances.

I don't get the vibe that G is questioning whether or not he wants to be here.  I just think that he is stubborn in his approach and attitude (which can be both a plus and a minus at times), and if anything, after the Sweet 16 run, he expects more from himself and his players than he logically should.  Even though he has acted extremely immaturely on the sideline throughout his tenure at La Salle, I would definitely agree with you that his behavior this year (and this week) has been slightly worse than usual.  It's not a fun trend to watch, and I hope it doesn't continue to get worse.

[Deleted]

There are some on this board that don't like G and some that apologize and make excuses for him. Maybe he is as good as we are ever going to get here and we should be happy. However, his record over 11 or so years is 164-158. That is about 1/3 of a win over .500 per year for those years. If that isn't the definition of mediocre then what is. Maybe he will become a better coach an maybe he will put together a string of really good season. Or maybe we should be happy with a .500 team that occasionally wins 20 and goes to some post season. Then that is what we should just realize that is what we are going to have.

[calidelphia]

I think this is changing with the top end of the A10. The conference has brought in a number of great coaches over the past few years.
Jim Crews - in 4th year
Lonergan - in 4th year
Hurley - in 3rd year
Smart 3rd year in A10
Miller - in 4th year
Kellogg - 7th year
Mooney - 10th year
Many of them have been sought after and choose to stay. All of these coaches have more to work with and many don't have major flaws and have been sought after while choosing to stay in the A10. Notably Shaka, Miller and Crews have all chosen to stay, I imagine this was also the case with G when he was extended.

The other thing is, when we look at a similar size school that had similar success as us I would say the most similar case is Richmond. Mooney brought them to the sweet 16 and since then hasn't broken 20 wins. Yet, his contract goes through 2020. Yep, the year not the vision. That's a 10 year extension for a sweet 16 run at a school of just over 4,000. Granted they have an average attendance of 6,000. I would expect a similar length of rope given to G seeing as he has only one more 20+ win season.

[mookie]

well...that's more of a reflection of how the university prioritizes the program. and based on past history, we should expect the same

[coqui900]

Dec 10, 2014 15:25:13 GMT -5 @espresso1 said:

There are some on this board that don't like G and some that apologize and make excuses for him. Maybe he is as good as we are ever going to get here and we should be happy. However, his record over 11 or so years is 164-158. That is about 1/3 of a win over .500 per year for those years. If that isn't the definition of mediocre then what is. Maybe he will become a better coach an maybe he will put together a string of really good season. Or maybe we should be happy with a .500 team that occasionally wins 20 and goes to some post season. Then that is what we should just realize that is what we are going to have.

Well, there's mitigating factors for his .500 record.

He took over the program at its absolute nadir. They won ten games. Steve Smith led them to 18 the next season (and we should have arguably been in the NIT). Then there was a drop-off when most of the minutes were given to freshmen (the Rodney era). They improved three years in a row (18 wins they classes junior year) and then got absolutely destroyed by injuries the next season, ending with 12 wins. The year after that was the Aaric headcase era.

So, you should factor out three seasons. The first season, the team was lucky to get even ten wins. His next 10 win season was really his first rebuilding year and most of the minutes went to untested freshmen (and really his first actual recruiting class). They were on an awesome trajectory, and then they got hit with the worst injury bug imaginable. That's not on G, either.

Those aren't excuses. Those are incredibly valid reasons for bad records.

Toss out those three years, and he's 124 - 93. That's a 57% winning percentage.

[MisterD]

Dec 10, 2014 15:07:05 GMT -5 mookie said:

So when you talk like that in your previous post, you speak as if we're lucky to be where we are and should accept the status quo and HOPE to make the tourney once a decade or something. If you're fine with that, then say that.

I'm probably not all that far from that. I don't think once in a decade is ok nor do I think most of my time as a fan (1996 on) is ok, but if you snapshot the last 4 years and say "this is your existence", I'd say its probably spot on. As a mid-major team in a garbage facility, you can't really expect to be dancing every other or every third year.


(I know attempts at objectivity are often taken as heresy, but if you were viewing us from the outside against every major and mid-major, we're not a program that should always have an inside track at one of the 36 at-larges. We should expect consistent decentness and frequent chances at a spot, but the Venn Diagram of "La Salle should be a lock for the 2018 tourney" and "La Salle basketball fans" would be a circle inside a circle.)

[a10champion15]

See I never really got to follow much of the Billy Hahn and Speedy Morris era. I only have my parents I should say my dad who are both La Salle graduates to fill me in on mostly Speedy. I didn't really follow college basketball back in middle school. I do remember G getting hired and to be honest if I look back on it I really started following the program back when that whole scandal happened and G was originally hired oddly enough. That was back when I was in high school.

I am fine with G right now but I can't say that the act isn't old. I really can't stress enough about the A10. It is less of a bridge to the bigger conferences as it was 4 or 5 years ago. Coaches in the conference have a ton of respect for this conference. I still think this conference is at least a 4 bid league this year. I know it doesn't look that way right now but I expect a number of teams to turn it around and pick up some big wins.

Also, I am curious to watch who GMU and Fordham hire by the end of this season which is most likely the case. For as bad as Fordham has been they still might be able to bring someone in with a strong resume despite their own problems simply because they are in the A10. GMU I know is going to make a solid hire.

[mookie]

Dec 10, 2014 16:21:29 GMT -5 coqui900 said:

Dec 10, 2014 15:25:13 GMT -5 @espresso1 said:

There are some on this board that don't like G and some that apologize and make excuses for him. Maybe he is as good as we are ever going to get here and we should be happy. However, his record over 11 or so years is 164-158. That is about 1/3 of a win over .500 per year for those years. If that isn't the definition of mediocre then what is. Maybe he will become a better coach an maybe he will put together a string of really good season. Or maybe we should be happy with a .500 team that occasionally wins 20 and goes to some post season. Then that is what we should just realize that is what we are going to have.

Well, there's mitigating factors for his .500 record.

He took over the program at its absolute nadir. They won ten games. Steve Smith led them to 18 the next season (and we should have arguably been in the NIT). Then there was a drop-off when most of the minutes were given to freshmen (the Rodney era). They improved three years in a row (18 wins they classes junior year) and then got absolutely destroyed by injuries the next season, ending with 12 wins. The year after that was the Aaric headcase era.

So, you should factor out three seasons. The first season, the team was lucky to get even ten wins. His next 10 win season was really his first rebuilding year and most of the minutes went to untested freshmen (and really his first actual recruiting class). They were on an awesome trajectory, and then they got hit with the worst injury bug imaginable. That's not on G, either.

Those aren't excuses. Those are incredibly valid reasons for bad records.

Toss out those three years, and he's 124 - 93. That's a 57% winning percentage.

Which years are you excluding?
10-19
18-10
10-20
15-17
18-13
12-18
15-18
21-13
24-10
15-16
4-4
Overall 162-158

If you give the first 3 years that's a record of 124-109 (53%) an average record of 16-14 ; if 4, then he's 109-92 (54%) an average record of 16-13.

I'm sorry, but if you throw out years 1 and 3 then you have to throw out year 2. You can't have a starting point sandwiched between years that don't count. Also, I understand injuries can derail things, but they still count.

[mookie]

Dec 10, 2014 16:37:54 GMT -5 MisterD said:

Dec 10, 2014 15:07:05 GMT -5 mookie said:

So when you talk like that in your previous post, you speak as if we're lucky to be where we are and should accept the status quo and HOPE to make the tourney once a decade or something. If you're fine with that, then say that.

I'm probably not all that far from that. I don't think once in a decade is ok nor do I think most of my time as a fan (1996 on) is ok, but if you snapshot the last 4 years and say "this is your existence", I'd say its probably spot on. As a mid-major team in a garbage facility, you can't really expect to be dancing every other or every third year.


(I know attempts at objectivity are often taken as heresy, but if you were viewing us from the outside against every major and mid-major, we're not a program that should always have an inside track at one of the 36 at-larges. We should expect consistent decentness and frequent chances at a spot, but the Venn Diagram of "La Salle should be a lock for the 2018 tourney" and "La Salle basketball fans" would be a circle inside a circle.)

I would agree with you given our crappy facilities, but the University made the decision to step up in conference and level so they should be putting more into the program, otherwise it never should've made the move. The move is done and I'm happy they made that move. I'm looking at us as a midmajor in a conference in which we have the worse facilities and must step that up. This program has that ability to become a more frequent participant in the dance but the university hasn't held up its end of the deal by stepping up. Time for the University to step up its facilities as well as its standards. To me, status quo is not adequate...for the university or anybody to hide behind the excuse of "we don't have facilities or the money" is ridiculous and goes back to the argument that if you don't have the resources or willingness then the move should not have been done. But it was done, so step up...

* sorry for the run-on and repetitiveness *