Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I think he had a plan for how the pieces would fit together - it was just a bad plan.
He wanted a squad with 4 big, tough players who would dirty the game up and turn it into a slugfest with a 5th guy who could maybe bring some energy and hit a handful of contested shot.
The problem is that outside shooting and ballhandling just weren't something he thought were necessary.
Cuonzo is just a dinosaur. He's a guy who's approach might have worked before the 3-point line, I guess. But once spacing and the ability to take advantage of it became paramount, he was out there playing checkers - hell, he was playing tic-tac-toe - while others were playing chess.
He had a plan - it was just a stupid one. Y'know what it was? It was Herm-ball. It was designed to shorten games and hope you get lucky in a slugfest. Where Herm was out there hoping to win 13-10 in a league that had passed him by, Cuonzo was looking for 54-50 wins and that's just not gonna work against quality opponents. And that's when it works WELL. When it doesn't work well, it won't work against UMKC.
I dunno if Gates is Andy Reid - I suspect he isn't. But man, I'm sure glad he isn't Herm. Win or lose, it's at least a product worth watching.
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
It was mid-90s Knicks-Heat.
Yeah, I almost mentioned them, but those teams actually WON some stuff.
The league at the time rewarded that style of play. It wasn't a style out of its time. The sport was trying to figure out what to do without Jordan/Bird/Magic/Barkley and essentially took its hands off the wheel for a few years while these guys took to mauling each other into submission.
One of Stern's only real missteps. It's hard to look back at that era and believe that Stern allowed that to go on as long as he did. Even the 2-3 seasons it was actually effective was long enough to set the league back for a decade. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Yeah, I almost mentioned them, but those teams actually WON some stuff.
The league at the time rewarded that style of play. It wasn't a style out of its time. The sport was trying to figure out what to do without Jordan/Bird/Magic/Barkley and essentially took its hands off the wheel for a few years while these guys took to mauling each other into submission.
One of Stern's only real missteps. It's hard to look back at that era and believe that Stern allowed that to go on as long as he did. Even the 2-3 seasons it was actually effective was long enough to set the league back for a decade.
There is some interesting data that suggests that your perception of style is based on what was stylish during your time as a young adult. Given Cuonzo's age, maybe that explains his affinity for that style of play.
Between that and the neutral zone trap, sports were brutal in 2/4 of the leagues then. [Reply]
This is a team you can just fall in love with. They are tenacious, tough, gritty, unselfish and play fast. It’s so nice to have a team I can finally root for. Even some of our better teams in the past had players who were cocky, selfish, lazy, etc. Which made it harder to root for even if they were good players. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chiefspants:
I'd argue baseball is in a similar rut with strikeouts and the three true outcomes.
Yeah, that's an excellent parallel.
Then again, a buddy of mine fits perfectly into Hamas case study. Born in the late 60s and his first real strong memory of the Chiefs is the Marty era. He bemoans the aerial nature of modern football all the time.
So I think there are folks who would argue football is in a 'rut'. I think they're in a minority in that regard.
Meanwhile baseball, who's fanbase seems to trend a little older, probably has a bunch of cranky old men like me who absolutely loathe the 'modern' game. I LOVED the analytics evolution in baseball because it dovetailed really well with my affinity for numbers and analysis. But man, it's become so data driven that the game has lost most all of its aesthetic appeal. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Yeah, that's an excellent parallel.
Then again, a buddy of mine fits perfectly into Hamas case study. Born in the late 60s and his first real strong memory of the Chiefs is the Marty era. He bemoans the aerial nature of modern football all the time.
So I think there are folks who would argue football is in a 'rut'. I think they're in a minority in that regard.
Meanwhile baseball, who's fanbase seems to trend a little older, probably has a bunch of cranky old men like me who absolutely loathe the 'modern' game. I LOVED the analytics evolution in baseball because it dovetailed really well with my affinity for numbers and analysis. But man, it's become so data driven that the game has lost most all of its aesthetic appeal.
I’m wondering if it becomes a true problem in the eyes of the league when it’s considered a problem by multiple generations of fans (I.E your future markets). I definitely have seen the take that football is not what is was because smash mouth football and blindside hits are done, but I really haven’t seen that take espoused in folks in their 50's or younger. Basketball is similar with the three point revolution. My middle schoolers are setting up ball screens and sinking 3’s at a level I could not have imagined when I played. But has the strategy of middle school ball worsened since I played? Honestly, I think their games are much more engaging and they are all thinking at a higher level than I ever was on the court (in their league final, they fouled an opposing player when up 3 to force him to the line).
The sentiment against baseball, OTOH, has united the generations of fandom. All of my buddies and even the young analytics writers I follow (I’m 30) are all talking about the problem. A close friend of mine graduated in data analytics and he goes on and on about the problem like he’s an oldhead. The proposed solutions, however, could not be more wildly different. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
You can say that he's doing a fine job without saying that the job is complete.
My major worry with this year's team is that it's a relatively old squad with a lot of experience, if not at this level. Gates had a pretty nice class this year but it was still only a 3-man class.
Meanwhile Brown, Gholston, Gomillion, Hodge, Honor and Mosley are almost certainly gone after the season. Though I think Honor will likely return w/ his extra year of Covid eligibility. I suspect Brown and Mosley will play professionally somewhere (or Mosley will take an NIL deal that someone will actually pay).
I mean that pretty much everything. DeGray isn't any good. So realistically you're looking at East, Carter and Shaw as genuine contributors returning for next year's team. Robinson, Pierce and Butler is a nice start, but those aren't players who will move the needle as freshmen, IMO. They would BADLY need Diarra to take a massive step forward. From what little we've seen, he might be more of a Mitchell Smith type of energy player with marginal skills.
It's a bit of a bummer to see a team gel so quickly in its first year together but know they aren't gonna have much time to truly build on that chemistry.
But at the very least we've seen how Gates philosophy can work and it should allow for a little more patience as he starts to build a roster for the long haul. I mean...provided the 'long haul' even exists in the free transfer/NIL era of college sports.
I expect they'll be active in the portal again for wings and guards. And probably at least 1 big unless Diarra is progressing well.
The portal, if you're willing to work it, can really be an equalizer when you're in the middle of rebuilding the program. I'd expect something like:
Shaw/Carter/Portal guy/Portal guy/Honor as the starting 5 next year. With a few more portal guys (one big, one wing) to round things out with East and Diarra and the freshmen. DeGray probably sticks, too. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chiefspants:
The proposed solutions, however, could not be more wildly different.
I will forever maintain that there's a silver bullet to all these stylistic issues.
Make the parks bigger. It fixes EVERYTHING.
You don't have middle infielders hitting 25 homers that travel an average of 370 ft anymore. So now you're looking for guys that will plug gaps and run. In the process, you need to find OFers that can cover all that territory so you're getting guys athletes in your OF.
Now with guys not being rewarded for mis-hitting balls, they'll take more measured approaches at the plate. Suddenly the high strike doesn't rule the day anymore and so pitchers will have to start doing more than just going fastball/slider to blow guys away. Now they need to work north and south more so you'll see a greater array of pitching styles.
And I'm not even talking Kaufman Stadium anymore. I'm talking 430 to CF, 390 to RF and LF.
Your true power hitters still put the ball out at those dimensions. But man, if you're dealing with power alleys that big, your outfielders had better be able to run or you're gonna see triples for days. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry:
Better see how they do on the road before crowning Gates just yet. Beat Wichita mainly because the Shuckheads choked at the free throw line. Beat UCF on a 30 foot prayer bank shot.
Don't rain on our parade! Just to have a glimmer of hope 13 games into a season is more than we've had in a decade plus it feels like. The Tigers are my only connection to college hoops, which means I've hardly watched NCAA BB in the last handful of years.
Originally Posted by Pepe Silvia:
Now Mizzou is about to run off the AD that found them Gates. You can’t make this shit up, I knew this was too good to be true.
Just stop with this trash. Not even close to reality. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
You can say that he's doing a fine job without saying that the job is complete.
My major worry with this year's team is that it's a relatively old squad with a lot of experience, if not at this level. Gates had a pretty nice class this year but it was still only a 3-man class.
Meanwhile Brown, Gholston, Gomillion, Hodge, Honor and Mosley are almost certainly gone after the season. Though I think Honor will likely return w/ his extra year of Covid eligibility. I suspect Brown and Mosley will play professionally somewhere (or Mosley will take an NIL deal that someone will actually pay).
I mean that pretty much everything. DeGray isn't any good. So realistically you're looking at East, Carter and Shaw as genuine contributors returning for next year's team. Robinson, Pierce and Butler is a nice start, but those aren't players who will move the needle as freshmen, IMO. They would BADLY need Diarra to take a massive step forward. From what little we've seen, he might be more of a Mitchell Smith type of energy player with marginal skills.
It's a bit of a bummer to see a team gel so quickly in its first year together but know they aren't gonna have much time to truly build on that chemistry.
But at the very least we've seen how Gates philosophy can work and it should allow for a little more patience as he starts to build a roster for the long haul. I mean...provided the 'long haul' even exists in the free transfer/NIL era of college sports.
I'm not sure many teams are going to do much "building" anymore. With the transfer portal, just about every team is going to be year-to-year. And that stinks, but it's reality. [Reply]