MBB Offseason: Boyle - "There's 5 starting spots open"

[torero]

Feel free to elaborate when you get the chance.

I'm not Snow, but, just on the current team, Tory has gotten a lot better. Dom undoubtedly was better this last season than his first two years. Still disappointing? Sure, I'll give you that. But to say he hasn't improved is crazy. Akyazili has only been here two years. He did not have a good sophomore campaign. So I'll give that one to you. But he did get bigger and stronger between year one and two. Fortune had one of the worst shooting seasons I've ever seen for a guy considered to be a capable shooter the previous season. Don't know what happened there. So, sure I'll give that to you too.

Terrible examples in your original point are Scott and Roberson. Roberson went from a lightly recruited late signee to a first round draft pick leaving before his senior season.

And it baffles me that people on this board have apparently blacked out the amazing career Josh Scott had here. It just doesn't compute.

Edit: changed barely to lightly in second to last paragraph. More accurate.

 

[Darth Snow]

I'm not Snow, but, just on the current team, Tory has gotten a lot better. Dom undoubtedly was better this last season than his first two years. Still disappointing? Sure, I'll give you that. But to say he hasn't improved is crazy. Akyazili has only been here two years. He did not have a good sophomore campaign. So I'll give that one to you. But he did get bigger and stronger between year one and two. Fortune had one of the worst shooting seasons I've ever seen for a guy considered to be a capable shooter the previous season. Don't know what happened there. So, sure I'll give that to you too.

Terrible examples in your original point are Scott and Roberson. Roberson went from a lightly recruited late signee to a first round draft pick leaving before his senior season.

And it baffles me that people on this board have apparently blacked out the amazing career Josh Scott had here. It just doesn't compute.

Edit: changed barely to lightly in second to last paragraph. More accurate.

That mayor guy got pretty good under tad too

 

[Buffnik]

There has been normal progression of players.

I think people have a football mindset about basketball. Redshirt a guy, coach him up, train him up, and as a 4th or 5th year player he's gonna go from being a benchwarmer to an all-conference type. Rarely happens like that in hoops. You see guys taking a larger role every year, but the best players are often freshmen and sophomores.


Also...
Why are CU fans (football and basketball) so scared of playing freshmen? It's mind boggling to me. It's like it's circa 1978 around here sometimes.

 

[Birch1]

Akyazili has only been here two years. He did not have a good sophomore campaign. So I'll give that one to you. But he did get bigger and stronger between year one and two.

Bigger and stronger should be a given for any college basketball player. On any team.

Roberson and Scott improved every year, and for college basketball, they pretty much maxed themselves out. But everyone else on that list didn't really improve all that much. We all thought Dom had the potential (maybe not the drive). Tory has improved, but not into a Scott or anything. It's tough to call it either way. King improved, then plummeted. Everybody else transferred. But we've made the most of it, in my opinion. This was our most disappointing year in a while and we won 19 games, including knocking off some highly ranked teams.

 

[buffaholic]

...so... ...G2??? (I'm being serious, have no idea what you mean by that - first thing that comes into my mind is a type of Gatorade).

Whatever - that's fine if you don't like Hopkins and if we disagree - such is the nature of boards. FWIW though, Hopkins was 1st team all defense in the MWC this past year.

Was involved in CU's scholar donor program during his time here. That program pairs a donor with a player. Donor is essentially sponsoring that players scholarship. You learn a fair amount that way.

 

[rosstr]

I'll give you all those. I'd argue that Scott, Roberson, and Dinwiddie grew into their great potential without great development help from Tad. That may be an outlier position to take. however using them as outliers to prove the norm I don't think is as accurate as it could be. I still stand that players, especially in the last 3 years don't seem to improve as much in Tads program as other programs. Didn't Robersons father express the same thought?

 

[Darth Snow]

I'll give you all those. I'd argue that Scott, Roberson, and Dinwiddie grew into their great potential without great development help from Tad. That may be an outlier position to take. however using them as outliers to prove the norm I don't think is as accurate as it could be. I still stand that players, especially in the last 3 years don't seem to improve as much in Tads program as other programs. Didn't Robersons father express the same thought?

1) State that all players that developed were not due to Tad.
2) State that all players who developed were outliers.
3) Find that no players were developed by Tad.

If you change the facts, the conclusions are pretty easy. Not seeing anything convincing here. Also, Roberson is in the NBA for years now. His game hasn't changed much at all. Is his dad blaming the NBA coaching too?

I've also not seen any actual comparisons between Tad's program and other programs. Just vague conclusions. There has been zero, repeat, zero, support for the conclusion that Tad is worse than others at developing players. There has been a lot of evidence that Tad isn't perfect at it though.
George King, that guy is terrible right? Hasn't gotten any better at all.

 

[dyemeduke]

I think it's fair to want MORE player development from Tad, but to say there isn't any is ridiculous. To provide a comparable, there are fans out there that think Coach K doesn't develop players enough. Now, I know 99% of you hate Duke for various reasons, but if you try to be completely objective, you must acknowledge that K is a legendary coach. Any criticisms need to be tapered or put in reality. Yes, there are more than a few players who did not develop as hoped under K, and more than a few players that some would say regressed as they got older. The results though on the court and state of K's program though more than speak for themselves.

We can pick and choose players that did and did not develop under Tad and make counter arguments the other way... ...but Tad has this program at a general high point. Yes, last year sucked, and there have been some down recruiting years. But you must admit, objectively, that CU basketball is at the best overall health over a five year term than it has in the last...30 years...more? With that said, I feel that Tad's critics need to concede that some of this must be due to player development; he didn't recruit all top 50 players to make the program rise. Criticisms are fair, but should be tempered imo.

 

[ZandiBuff]

FYI G2 (or the S2) is the intelligence staff officer in a battalion or higher. S2 at battalion, G2 at Brigade or higher.

/military_staff_lessson

 

[Tony G.]

I think it's fair to want MORE player development from Tad, but to say there isn't any is ridiculous. To provide a comparable, there are fans out there that think Coach K doesn't develop players enough. Now, I know 99% of you hate Duke for various reasons, but if you try to be completely objective, you must acknowledge that K is a legendary coach. Any criticisms need to be tapered or put in reality. Yes, there are more than a few players who did not develop as hoped under K, and more than a few players that some would say regressed as they got older. The results though on the court and state of K's program though more than speak for themselves.

We can pick and choose players that did and did not develop under Tad and make counter arguments the other way... ...but Tad has this program at a general high point. Yes, last year sucked, and there have been some down recruiting years. But you must admit, objectively, that CU basketball is at the best overall health over a five year term than it has in the last...30 years...more? With that said, I feel that Tad's critics need to concede that some of this must be due to player development; he didn't recruit all top 50 players to make the program rise. Criticisms are fair, but should be tempered imo.

Tad is a fantastic coach. Probably the best CU has ever had. He has had a ton of success developing players. A few years of success and everyone things the sky is falling if we miss the dance. I can remember years when a 6th place league finish and 19 wins would be exciting for the fans, but our expectations have changed because of what Tad has done here. A coach can only do so much and development isn't always on the coach. The players have to want to get better and put in the time.
Don't give up on King. He's going to have a great senior season. Collier is fitting into his space and improving. Tory looked much better the 2nd half of this year. It just takes time for things to click.

 

[seattlebuff]

If you recruit the wrong kind of players, development ain't gonna matter much. The more you watch the tourney, the more obvious it becomes why CU is stagnant (and maybe regressing?):

Every single successful team I've watched has at least 2, if not 3-4, guards that can fairly consistently get to the rim, finish or pull the defense in and create for others. In the last 3-4 years, we've had one ... Derrick White, and he wasn't even recruited by Tad. We got straight lucky that he was in Colorado Springs. Hell, even WSU finds these type of guys. Peters shows some signs, and let's hope maybe Schwarz does too ... but he looks more like a SF, swingman type.

I know Tad values length ... but this is a GIGANTIC blind spot. Until he fixes it, I'm not optimistic about turning any corners ... or even getting back to the previous corner we were at.

 

[torero]

Derrick White, and he wasn't even recruited by Tad.

What? So he just showed up one day and was like, "hey, I'd like to play". Where do people come up with this ****?

 

[Buffnik]

What? So he just showed up one day and was like, "hey, I'd like to play". Where do people come up with this ****?

Yeah. No one recruited him out of high school. He wasn't special as a HS player. And then he grew a ton while his game blossomed as a D2 guy. I think this is a credit to Tad that he recognized a D2 player's talent and got him to transfer to CU. Not sure how there's a negative narrative with that.

 

[torero]

Yeah. No one recruited him out of high school. He wasn't special as a HS player. And then he grew a ton while his game blossomed as a D2 guy. I think this is a credit to Tad that he recognized a D2 player's talent and got him to transfer to CU. Not sure how there's a negative narrative with that.

Yeah, the statement would be a little more coherent if he had said "Tad didn't recruit him out of high school." But that would also hurt the narrative, as pretty much no one recruited Derrick out of hs.

 

[BuffinCali]

" They're all wonderful young men. I love all three of them. But they have to all get better in many different areas."

http://www.buffzone.com/mensbasketball/ci_30861464/rebuilding-reloading-deck-cu-buffs-mens-hoops

Unfortunately, the coach does not heed his own advice in getting better.

 

[BuffinCali]

Please stop posting. Just a thought.

Why should he? His comments are accurate. They may hurt feelings but this is a forum and his take on Tad is correct.

 

[seattlebuff]

Yeah, the statement would be a little more coherent if he had said "Tad didn't recruit him out of high school." But that would also hurt the narrative, as pretty much no one recruited Derrick out of hs.

My point is that Derick White was right under his nose, at UCCS. We were stone cold lucky he didn't go somewhere else. If he was at a DII school in any other state, you really think Tad would have found him? What track record does Tad have that suggests that? Dana Altman, he ain't. I also wonder ... how many other D1 schools came to White after his junior year at UCCS and offered him? Might be wrong ... but I don't know of any. So it's not like a traditional recruiting battle where you had to beat out other programs for a kid. We got damn LUCKY!

And the fundamental point is ... guard play is the No.1 factor for success in college hoops. And Tad can't seem to find dynamic guards.

 

[torero]

My point is that Derick White was right under his nose, at UCCS. We were stone cold lucky he didn't go somewhere else. If he was at a DII school in any other state, you really think Tad would have found him? What track record does Tad have that suggests that? Dana Altman, he ain't.

But Derrick wasn't in another state. Derrick was in the Springs, and Tad got him to Boulder. You're in the land of hypothetical that can't be proven.

But obviously it was luck because Tad can't recruit.

Edit: Nice edit Seattle after I posted my response.

 

[Buffnik]

Unfortunately, the coach does not heed his own advice in getting better.

Just so we're clear, is it that Tad is lazy or stupid or some other character flaw which has made it so that, in your opinion, Tad never gets better?

 

[BuffinCali]

Just so we're clear, is it that Tad is lazy or stupid or some other character flaw which has made it so that, in your opinion, Tad never gets better?

LOL, let's begin throwing comments out there like "lazy" and "stupid" which have never been referred to! Look, Tad is a good coach, for a Colorado program that has very little basketball success. He is level headed and what I find the most outstanding trait is that he teaches the players to become grounded men. However, on the court, there has been a leveling off of results from his second year in Boulder. He is able to get his teams to compete (on most nights) and usually in the NCAA tournament. But he does not recruit or coach (offensively or defensively) to sweet 16 or better level. My issues with Tad, is his constant calling of out of players while holding literally 0% accountability for himself. When has he said, that is on me? That was a bad rotation move on my part? I should have called a time out? He does none of that, yet he blames the players 100% of the time. Look, when your players cannot play help defense and I mean none of them outside of (Dre, Spence and Josh), the problem is... He can't teach it! Calling out players in the media game after game is not the answer, teach them, coach them. Now, if he is a tremendous defense coach but absolutely none of his players perform after being coached then he is recruiting players who are not performing and who's fault is that?
I would like to see some accountability from Tad! It would go a long way with the players as well, in lieu of throwing them under the bus whenever adversity strikes.

 

[Sykobuff]

Tad's a good coach, he's done wonders for this program and has landed some good recruits. Has he missed on some top guys? Yes and him not getting a point guard in here who can attack the basket is a problem.

As far as players ability to improve their game while at CU , is that tad and his staffs fault or the players or both?

I think they missed out on being even better the past 6 years but to blame that all on tad is wrong imho....

 

[whatthebuff]

If you listen to the post game radio show, Tad quite often takes the blame after losses.

 

[Buffnik]

LOL, let's begin throwing comments out there like "lazy" and "stupid" which have never been referred to! Look, Tad is a good coach, for a Colorado program that has very little basketball success. He is level headed and what I find the most outstanding trait is that he teaches the players to become grounded men. However, on the court, there has been a leveling off of results from his second year in Boulder. He is able to get his teams to compete (on most nights) and usually in the NCAA tournament. But he does not recruit or coach (offensively or defensively) to sweet 16 or better level. My issues with Tad, is his constant calling of out of players while holding literally 0% accountability for himself. When has he said, that is on me? That was a bad rotation move on my part? I should have called a time out? He does none of that, yet he blames the players 100% of the time. Look, when your players cannot play help defense and I mean none of them outside of (Dre, Spence and Josh), the problem is... He can't teach it! Calling out players in the media game after game is not the answer, teach them, coach them. Now, if he is a tremendous defense coach but absolutely none of his players perform after being coached then he is recruiting players who are not performing and who's fault is that?
I would like to see some accountability from Tad! It would go a long way with the players as well, in lieu of throwing them under the bus whenever adversity strikes.

OK. So the question, in your mind, is really whether there's a program ceiling or whether Tad's talent as a coach has hit a ceiling?

So, it's not an accusation that he doesn't put he effort in, doesn't do a solid job, or (I assume) that he doesn't adjust his schemes to try to improve (given that we changed the offense 2 years ago and played a lot of zone while pressing a lot this year). On recruiting, I think we'd also agree that the incoming class might be his best on paper.

fwiw, I believe that Tad is growing as a coach and that the program is now much more established with consistency, so things are actually looking up in terms of CU's MBB ceiling. Program has been established as a good one where you'll win as a player. Facilities are good and improving. Pac-12 prestige looks to be taking another jump with the current tournament, which helps recruiting for everyone. Incoming recruiting class looks great (everyone a Top 100/150 guy). We've got Namon Wright, a 4* transfer Tad re-recruited when he decided to leave Mizzou, eligible next year. And we've got a new state law that will allow Tad to offer multi-year contracts to assistant coaches, which will help a lot in the future with staffing.

My big complaint is that I don't think Tad is true to himself in recruiting. It's not a talent evaluation problem. It's that he thinks he can get through to everyone and has taken guys who don't have a dog mentality, thinking he can instill that in them. Too many guys have been brought in who don't fit the profile of what Tad says his program is about. I believe he just needs to keep doing what he does, but put a premium on recruiting basketball character -- which he hasn't emphasized enough.

 

[dyemeduke]

OK. So the question, in your mind, is really whether there's a program ceiling or whether Tad's talent as a coach has hit a ceiling?

So, it's not an accusation that he doesn't put he effort in, doesn't do a solid job, or (I assume) that he doesn't adjust his schemes to try to improve (given that we changed the offense 2 years ago and played a lot of zone while pressing a lot this year). On recruiting, I think we'd also agree that the incoming class might be his best on paper.

fwiw, I believe that Tad is growing as a coach and that the program is now much more established with consistency, so things are actually looking up in terms of CU's MBB ceiling. Program has been established as a good one where you'll win as a player. Facilities are good and improving. Pac-12 prestige looks to be taking another jump with the current tournament, which helps recruiting for everyone. Incoming recruiting class looks great (everyone a Top 100/150 guy). We've got Namon Wright, a 4* transfer Tad re-recruited when he decided to leave Mizzou, eligible next year. And we've got a new state law that will allow Tad to offer multi-year contracts to assistant coaches, which will help a lot in the future with staffing.

My big complaint is that I don't think Tad is true to himself in recruiting. It's not a talent evaluation problem. It's that he thinks he can get through to everyone and has taken guys who don't have a dog mentality, thinking he can instill that in them. Too many guys have been brought in who don't fit the profile of what Tad says his program is about. I believe he just needs to keep doing what he does, but put a premium on recruiting basketball character -- which he hasn't emphasized enough.

Question for you though - if XJ wasn't such a knucklehead and had more game, would you consider him to have a dog mentality? Askia? If King didn't make poor decisions, do you think he has the dog you're looking for? Are you looking for alpha-mentalities or just being uber-competitive? I agree that you want guys competitive in nature, but I don't think you want all alphas - chemistry issues, even if you just have one wrong alpha. Jeff Van Gundy had a great statement while commentating one game. He said that in his coaching experience, he learned that some guys are just lazy (he may have said sleepy). Some guys have high energy, and you can't teach it. You can't get a sleepy player to all of the sudden play consistently with energy - it's their makeup and who they are. I agree, but then again, JVG could say anything about bball and I'd believe him.

My biggest complaint on Tad is also his recruiting. I thought AK was going to suck, and was really down on recruiting for that class. AK was much better as a freshman than I had expected, but then turned into what I think many of us expected this last season. I still don't get how we ended up with him and Guzo as our only players in a class. Tad misses on some big prizes, which is expected, but I also don't feel like he aims high enough. I'm not sure how much blame to put on the recruiting coordinator like you referenced in another thread, and how much on him. Regardless, he's the head coach and deserves some of the blame, if not ultimately all. I feel like he should have signed a top 50 player by now. I know that's a fine line, because as he has a handful of 4-stars...still...I'm hoping for a few impact freshmen that will be a star by his third year. Take for example 2018. We're on one top 100 player at the moment (the big from Portland, who may decide to play pro in Philippines instead of college). I know he just bagged a great recruiting class for '17, but he needs to keep the train going... (edit: I only checked Scout; and now that I've checked Rivals...feel a little better...still would be nice to have more movement though)

To be clear though - I'm still in Tad's corner, and think he's been an acceptable recruiter in general... ...but definitely a lot of room to improve.

Lastly, Tad definitely tries to improve. There have been articles the DC has had in the past where it mentions him going to clinics, and I think his off-season coaching endeavors help him too, as he works with other coaches.

 

[BuffinCali]

OK. So the question, in your mind, is really whether there's a program ceiling or whether Tad's talent as a coach has hit a ceiling? I do not think the program has improved in the past 5 years. He improved the program immediately after taking the job, but there has been little if any improvement in the past 1/2 decade. In fact, I would venture to say that the program is in decline; Even Tad stated the program is re-building and that is due to his recent misses in recruiting the past 3-4 years.

On recruiting, I think we'd also agree that the incoming class might be his best on paper. On paper, agreed. I could be an optimist and Fanatic but caution on realistic. Yes, the players are ranked but I see an overweight player and an in-state player with a lot of questions to answer at this level. Given the current state of players, they should get early time to prove if they are players, bench players or busts.

fwiw, I believe that Tad is growing as a coach and that the program is now much more established with consistency, so things are actually looking up in terms of CU's MBB ceiling. Program has been established as a good one where you'll win as a player. Facilities are good and improving. Pac-12 prestige looks to be taking another jump with the current tournament, which helps recruiting for everyone. Incoming recruiting class looks great (everyone a Top 100/150 guy). We've got Namon Wright, a 4* transfer Tad re-recruited when he decided to leave Mizzou, eligible next year. And we've got a new state law that will allow Tad to offer multi-year contracts to assistant coaches, which will help a lot in the future with staffing. I disagree that the program is much more established. I guess we need to clarify are you talking about prior to Tad's arrival or has the program gotten better in the past 5 years? Definitely more established since he arrived. Definitely trending downward, particularly in the past three years in regards to replacing talent. I also see the same consistent issues with his teams (poor defense, lack of help defense, terrible techniques on closing out on the perimeter and an offense SO structured, it does not allow the team to stretch out leads on opponents/maintain leads. This last part is coaching that needs to improve, it does not have to be Tad himself, he should be bringing in assistance to help develop the players as Coach K, Pitino and others do.

My big complaint is that I don't think Tad is true to himself in recruiting. It's not a talent evaluation problem. It's that he thinks he can get through to everyone and has taken guys who don't have a dog mentality, thinking he can instill that in them. Too many guys have been brought in who don't fit the profile of what Tad says his program is about. I believe he just needs to keep doing what he does, but put a premium on recruiting basketball character -- which he hasn't emphasized enough. I am not looking for Tad to leave. I would, however, like to see better recruiting, enhanced development overall and a willingness to own some of the issues in the program..

 

[Buffnik]

Question for you though - if XJ wasn't such a knucklehead and had more game, would you consider him to have a dog mentality? Askia? If King didn't make poor decisions, do you think he has the dog you're looking for? Are you looking for alpha-mentalities or just being uber-competitive? I agree that you want guys competitive in nature, but I don't think you want all alphas - chemistry issues, even if you just have one wrong alpha. Jeff Van Gundy had a great statement while commentating one game. He said that in his coaching experience, he learned that some guys are just lazy (he may have said sleepy). Some guys have high energy, and you can't teach it. You can't get a sleepy player to all of the sudden play consistently with energy - it's their makeup and who they are. I agree, but then again, JVG could say anything about bball and I'd believe him.

My biggest complaint on Tad is also his recruiting. I thought AK was going to suck, and was really down on recruiting for that class. AK was much better as a freshman than I had expected, but then turned into what I think many of us expected this last season. I still don't get how we ended up with him and Guzo as our only players in a class. Tad misses on some big prizes, which is expected, but I also don't feel like he aims high enough. I'm not sure how much blame to put on the recruiting coordinator like you referenced in another thread, and how much on him. Regardless, he's the head coach and deserves some of the blame, if not ultimately all. I feel like he should have signed a top 50 player by now. I know that's a fine line, because as he has a handful of 4-stars...still...I'm hoping for a few impact freshmen that will be a star by his third year. Take for example 2018. We're on one top 100 player at the moment (the big from Portland, who may decide to play pro in Philippines instead of college). I know he just bagged a great recruiting class for '17, but he needs to keep the train going...

To be clear though - I'm still in Tad's corner, and think he's been an acceptable recruiter in general... ...but definitely a lot of room to improve.

Lastly, Tad definitely tries to improve. There have been articles the DC has had in the past where it mentions him going to clinics, and I think his off-season coaching endeavors help him too, as he works with other coaches.

Not all alphas. More like being aggressive, having that fight, and being part of that pack so that everyone on the team knows that you have their back and will be ready to sacrifice for them when it's time to compete. Guys like that also know that whatever their place is in the pack that they are going to do what they can to pull their weight by starring in their role, whether that's when the team needs him to light up the scoreboard, give up his offense by getting in the muck and spending a ton of energy on defense & the glass, or being engaged and a great cheerleader from the bench.

You recruit like that and you'll have guys who can rise into that alpha role.

 

[coereg]

If you listen to the post game radio show, Tad quite often takes the blame after losses.

I agree. I listen to almost every one of those shows and, win or loss, Tad always pricks himself for mistakes he too made within the game.

I believe Tad called out players more this year because ... well ... lets be honest, he had some talented and capable upperclassmen who frankly played like ****. There were many games with boneheaded mistakes, being out hustled by opponents, times where guys didnt apply the effort to guarding, and bad shots and missed ft's all over the place. The team and its individual parts were difficult to figure out. The tricky piece is that it was random on any given night. One game you'd have "this" set of players playing poorly ... then Tad would try making adjustments and suddenly you have "this other" set of players naking mistakes and playing poorly. Never knew what to expect!

 

[torero]

If you listen to the post game radio show, Tad quite often takes the blame after losses.

This. Everything in that post was BS. If you can find a video of Tad calling out a player by name, I'd be shocked. He often says things like "we didn't do X" or "we weren't good enough on Y as a team". Not all the time, but there are many times in post game interviews where I've heard Tad say "I've got to do a better job".

 

[CitizenKane]

Question for you though - if XJ wasn't such a knucklehead and had more game, would you consider him to have a dog mentality? Askia? If King didn't make poor decisions, do you think he has the dog you're looking for?

I know this was addressed at Buffnik but in my mind none of the players you mentioned were dogs, not even close. A player doesn't need to be an alpha to be a dog. Instead they need to be guys who never take a moment off, always fight, always hustle and always have the back of those on the team. XJ, Ski and King epitomize guys who take entire nights off or take long stretches off and don't put full effort in. They are quite literally the opposite of dogs and worse is that at least two of those guys were alpha's (Ski and XJ) and so they are even worse for the team because their style of play spreads like a cancer to the rest of the team. Worse for all three of the players mentioned, they had brief moments where they played with all out energy and enthusiasm and in those moments you see what could be...but never was or will be.

If you want to see two dogs play just look at Kennedy Leonard and Alexis Robinson (Since she is hurt you're not going to be able to see A.R. until next year now), watching them play, watching the passion, watching how they never have even a momentary lapse of effort is incredible and it is infectious as it has spread to other players on the team (even if those players don't have much talent). Much of this flows from Kennedy Leonard as that is just how she plays, but I think JR and her staff deserve a ton of credit as well, because they play and promote a style that is so aggressive that it helps bring out the dog mentality. Watching the CU women is kind of like watching UNLV back in the day or Paul Westheads Loyola teams...they just go, go, go, go, go, go...oh and they could care less if they end up landing on their arse or on their head, they just pop back up and go, go some more. It is intense and all sorts of fun to watch.

It is actually difficult for me to find comparable players or comparable effort from recent history on the CU men's team, though Roberson does come to mind and maybe I could pick out three or four games where the men played with that kind of passion within the last four years.

 

[dyemeduke]

I know this was addressed at Buffnik but in my mind none of the players you mentioned were dogs, not even close. A player doesn't need to be an alpha to be a dog. Instead they need to be guys who never take a moment off, always fight, always hustle and always have the back of those on the team. XJ, Ski and King epitomize guys who take entire nights off or take long stretches off and don't put full effort in. They are quite literally the opposite of dogs and worse is that at least two of those guys were alpha's (Ski and XJ) and so they are even worse for the team because their style of play spreads like a cancer to the rest of the team. Worse for all three of the players mentioned, they had brief moments where they played with all out energy and enthusiasm and in those moments you see what could be...but never was or will be.

If you want to see two dogs play just look at Kennedy Leonard and Alexis Robinson (Since she is hurt you're not going to be able to see A.R. until next year now), watching them play, watching the passion, watching how they never have even a momentary lapse of effort is incredible and it is infectious as it has spread to other players on the team (even if those players don't have much talent). Much of this flows from Kennedy Leonard as that is just how she plays, but I think JR and her staff deserve a ton of credit as well, because they play and promote a style that is so aggressive that it helps bring out the dog mentality. Watching the CU women is kind of like watching UNLV back in the day or Paul Westheads Loyola teams...they just go, go, go, go, go, go...oh and they could care less if they end up landing on their arse or on their head, they just pop back up and go, go some more. It is intense and all sorts of fun to watch.

It is actually difficult for me to find comparable players or comparable effort from recent history on the CU men's team, though Roberson does come to mind and maybe I could pick out three or four games where the men played with that kind of passion within the last four years.

It's an open board, so glad to see your opinion.

We may just be playing a game of pontificating over semantics, but I sort of disagree on how to tie things together. My thoughts are sort of jumbled on the matter, but bored at work so let's try to write something in hopes of making some sense. To me, high energy is a trait that is not the same as competitiveness, which also isn't the same as doing what's best for the team, and also not the same as having your team's back. Yes, Roberson was a guy that had a blend of all those traits, and that made him great player, not his bball skill (specifically his offensive skill). Do you take though a team full of Robersons? Me - hell no, because you're not going to score. Of course, there are players that have offensive skill and grit (or "dog", being a "dude", "brick" piece to build on, etc), but those players are rare and highly sought. So what do you do - you try to find the best mix of players that fit what you want to accomplish, hoping you can coach their missing attributes, whether it be skill, energy, fundamentals, mental mistakes, etc. I completely get why you all (or at least you and Buffnik) think that Tad needs to recruit these type of kids more, and I agree, he needs a few of them. But I'd be willing to bet he has tried, and just missed. Of course, results matter, and I am ...not critical, but...at times underwhelmed with recruiting.

Fwiw - I think King, XJ, and Askia are all super competitive. I put it on the coaches to pull out the best energy they can out of their players. I love Tad, but this was not his best year coaching, and I bet he fully realizes that. It was a challenge though going into the year. Losing Scott was huge, but that's no excuse for poor perimeter defense. It'd be awesome to have a player that amps up practices, but apparently he didn't have that. So, it's on Coach Boyle to get that energy - extract it, demand it, somehow get it from your players. Knight intimidated it out of his players, Izzo lays a mindset for players to follow, K demands it or you don't play... ...whatever Tad tried, it just didn't work. Fortunately, college rosters turn over, so I'm looking forward to seeing how Tad coaches next year's team. I'm optimistic that they'll have better energy, and some of the "dog" you refer to will come out.

(agree on Kennedy - didn't watch a lot of the women's team, but what little I did...she stands out in terms of skill and energy)