I'd have to say the Brady-colored glasses have you a little bit looking off base here. :hihi: Sure, both coaches preach defense and rebounding, and relied on tough-nosed philosophies, but coaching is also largely ability to communicate those philosophies. Clearly, Brady had lost his touch. And that translated to the last couple of seasons not going very well. To say that a team with a Glen Davis and a good cast of characters around him two years ago, was not a team that could have achieved more, is probably a misstatement. And, I'd say that from an Xs and Os standpoint, I'd certainly match CTJ's staff up against the prior regime's. I think that very subtle coaching moves, such as the development of Spencer, putting Tas' squarely at PF, coaching Thornton to be an all-round player, show that while Brady talked the game, he didn't teach the game, and so it's somewhat shallow to say that they were equal xs and os coaches-- I think most basketball pundits would disagree with that statement. Especially on offense where this team just seems to be able to play a better tempo, take better shots, turn the ball over less, and score more. As for the deficiencies, I guess the optimist would turn the coin and say at the end of the day, perhaps, the Tigers just didn't have the ball bounce their way. You can always chalk up one team's inequities against the other team. I mean, yes, they had an advantage on LSU b/c of Love's and Frease's bigger game on the inside than CJ and QT. But, then, you could say the same thing with the guards, that Marcus Thornton lit them up for 30 points and none of the Xavier guys could really stop him--which would be true. At the end of the day, the Tigers lost b/c they lost the rebounding battle, shot a miserable 2nd half percentage, and also didn't hit their free throws, when Xavier hit theirs. I don't know if I would have said it was Xavier's shutting down of Tas' (in the second half Tas' took several open jumpers and just missed) was so key. Rather, I'd say that LSU's relative imbalance in size and depth, and thus their inability to get stops and hit shots, cost LSU the game. It may be semantics, but in the end, LSU needed to play a more perfect game than Xavier to win, and Xavier rose the challenge--at the end of the day Xavier was clearly the deeper better team, which doesn't mean that LSU is a bad team--they just fell short against a good team. LSU shoots 45% in the second half, and it's probably an even game or a game LSU wins, despite the personnel differences.
Brady a better X and Os coach than CTJ? Name me one game where Brady showed the ability to coach offense against a tight zone D. LSU under CTJ has consistently shown the ability to get open looks against whatever defense is thrown at them. Not only that, but his players play with a lot more consistency. I've never seen these players... 3 of which have been playing at LSU for 3+ years....play with the effort and toughness that they play with this season.
Awww, don't be too hard on Gumbo'. Brady, wasn't that bad, was he? I think the hard part of this game is Brady was given 10.5 years at BR. Much like Gottfried, he had good years and then bad years, and that can get you killed in today's coaching world. Speaking of Brady, had to post this article that the Advocate had on him today... http://www.2theadvocate.com/sports/38445644.html?showAll=y&c=y Truthfully, the guy wasn't a bad coach. He just wasn't as good a coach as LSU deserved in the long run, especially as he started to lose momentum and respect. :geauxtige BE A PART OF THE TRENT JOHNSON ERA.
In Brady's 10.5 seasons, he had 3 winning records in conference play. He was 74-93 in SEC games. Say what you will about X's, O's, scholarship limitations, and so forth. The bottom line is he couldn't get the job done.
absolutely, but thats not Xs and Os. clearly brady had a tough time "communicating" to certain players. again i dont think this comes down to Xs and Os, but to recruiting. too often he recruited players that weren't coachable (at least by him) sure that team couldve done "better", but not much. no PG. minor was already gone in spirit by then an had little PT (i think maybe that was the year he left midseason), there was no darrel mitchell anymore and temple was still too green to be a decent option. id be very interested to know the honest opinions of basketball people. it is really impossible to make definitive conclusions, mostly because ctj has been here not long. if more players had been lost off of last years team then stronger conclusions could be drawn. i think its reasonable to attribute most/all of the ways that this team is playing better that you listed above to having a much more experienced team. that is very possible. the stretch of the game where the tigers (mostly tasmin, i think) missed several short shots was most important. its impossible to say what was luck though and what was shooter deficiency or fatigue or defender performance. the tigers couldnt stop 4 of their players--- 7 for 11 4 for 5 5 for 7 6 for 8 in the end, tas was shut down. 5-for-17 ive never even thought that. its hard (at least for me) to remember when teams played zone and how well lsu did. i remember the dismal performance against wisconsin. other than that, i havent a clue. the only thing i can point to is the amazing stretch in 03, i think, where the team was killing every one and getting nearly as many assists as FG made. auburn probably played a lot of zone that year when the tigers lit them up. i dont see any difference in temple. i see no difference in johnson on O. maybe a little more discipline on D. i see no difference in marcus on O. i have to think this through. the 3 players that get significant PT that have been at LSU for 3+ years are temple, johnson and tasmin. the only one id agree with you on would be johnson.
Ok, first, let's just say Congrats to the Tigers for pulling out a road win against a RPI top 50 team. This is huge for them, and continues to show the Tigers maturing as a team and their ability to take on diverse teams. This was a bigger Tennessee team with a few 6'9" and taller players with size (i.e., bigger than 250lbs), and the Tigers outrebounded Tenn 36 to 31. So, it seems that CTJ is making up for some of the Tiger's "deficiencies". I suppose that's coaching, perhaps it's Xs and Os? In any case, I guess at some level if you're going to debate coaching talent, and in particular your claim of an "Xs and Os" comparison, isn't that at the end of the day, results? Or, is your measure something else? How fluid a team looks? How good the team defense looks? Xs and Os to me means strategy in what system you put in place and how you use players, but also in game decisions. I guess at this point, certainly LSU has won more games, there have not enough "big games" to measure Trent's in game tactics (tonight is a start, where he's staved off Tenn runs), but there certainly have been some very convincing SEC wins where Brady would have found ways to keep the Ole Miss and Miss St games close for example. So, it's hard for me to get your statement that Brady was as good a Xs and Os coach. To add more proof to that debate, you say that you don't see any difference in the players. I wouldn't say that "experience" from one more year for some of these players is all that relevant. Afterall the players you name GT, Tas, CJ were all 3+ year players under Brady (I would give more credence to that statement earlier in a career--like with Bo Spencer). Looking at how a Junior gains "experience" to his Senior year is probably minimal at best--what has changed is the system CTJ has put in place. How he uses personnel. And, you can't argue with these results. If you look at many of the key players on this team, you cannot argue that the players are better. You can't just look at offense or scoring either. Just looking at the game statistics so far (not including Tennessee's stats, which will help certain players, like Chris Johnson), you'll find: Marcus Thornton: Scoring about the same (after Tenn it may be higher), but his Assist to Turnover goes from 1/1.6 to 1.3/1, his 3 point % goes from .377 to .398 and his points per shot (PPS) goes from 1.25 to 1.34. This also does not reflect his better defense and rebounding efforts, despite less minutes per game. Garrett Temple: Scoring went from 6.4 ppg to 7.0 ppg, but his A-TO ratio goes from 1.5/1 to 2.1/1, his 3p% also went up from .301 to .326. This is with almost 5 less mpg. Tas' Mitchell. Now last year Tas played hurt, so you go back to 2006 where he was integral in Brady's offense (that was also a less bad year and full year of Brady's coaching). Tas' scoring goes from 14.5 to 15.5 ppg, but his 3p% goes from .376 to .429, and his PPS goes from 1.25 to 1.38. This improvement is also on 4+ less mpg. Lastly, I'd look at Bo Spencer. Obviously, his minutes have gone way up and thus "experience" is also a factor, but Trent has done wonders for this game, letting Bo establish himself at point. Bo's scoring has gone from 3.4 ppg to 11.9 ppg, his 3p% went from .323 to .436, and his PPS went from 1 to 1.36. What should be clear to any PG recruit interested in LSU is that Trent knows how to use a PG and put him in a system that showcases the PG. As a team, the Tigers are scoring more +7 points ppg, while shooting a higher 3p% (.322 to .386) and getting more efficient on offense (1.18 PPS to 1.28 PPS). When you consider that the 3 point line moved further back this year and overall %s are likely going down, LSU's % is going up. That is due to freeing up the offense, putting people in the right place, establishing better motion and passing in the offense, less turnovers and more assists, and that's xs and os. All this and the defense is clearly better too. I know it's hard to let go of the Brady era :wink:, but you've got to give credit to CTJ. He's doing a pretty nice coaching job. If he keeps beating folks like Tennessee, it's hard to see how he isn't SEC coach of the year. :geauxtige BE PART OF THE TRENT JOHNSON ERA.
I was most impressed with how they survived Tennessee's run. On the road, no less. I agree. I've embraced Coach Johnson and, gumborue, I suggest you do the same. I had enough of the negativity the last 2 years.
brady got bashed a lot. i like to point out that he was a good Xs and Os coach because while the results were not acceptable (overall) he was a good Xs and Os coach. he was bad and average at other things, and there certainly are better Xs and Os coaches, but this is one of the parts of being a coach that he was good at. i disagree about player development. often the jr to sr year can show the biggest improvement. no, UT is not very big. they are athletic, and somewhat long (like LSU). they are not big like xavier. the only big guy with lots of PT is Chism and he plays outside a lot. the rebounding was basically a push---especially when you consider UT played some zone D and shot a lower FG%. this win should be valued because it was on the road and after a loss, not so much because of the oppt. that team was in a funk. but as pertains to the thread title, LSU now has a shot at outright SEC champs with this win and the UK loss. we all know there can be ups and downs but its looking good.
Hmmm. If you look at UT's roster, they have four guys on it that are over 6'9" and each of those guys are 235lb or bigger. In addition the overall height of their line up (even their wings are 6'7 ish) is taller, as I believe 4 of their starting 5 is over 6'6". So, this was a bigger team than LSU, no doubt. I also don't know if I'd say the team was in a "funk". They lost to Memphis by 2--they've "struggled" but they've played a tough Non-C schedule and they too were 3-1 in the SEC. They've also beat some decent teams, and have established their tourney resume. But, in the end, I think we're in the same place. This is a resume building win. I'd be nice to split between UK and UF, and win a majority of the rest. I have a feeling that may be good enough right now.
