Stackhouse

[Minoadoc]

Blocked Anchor of Gold from his twitter account

[VUaskew]

not terribly surprising. Very entertaining site, but almost too negative for me.

[alathIN]

It's not a good look for the head coach to publicly react to criticism from fans. Just makes him look vain and fragile.

[memphisVUalum]

Stackhouse and any coach would do better to spend zero time looking at any criticism or at Twitter at all. He should just assume the worst of potential criticisms and focus on doing everything he can to win, forget about Twitter and any critic. It won't help anything to address any critic or to block them. I suppose the only reason someone might block somebody is not really wanting to have to see them. The best way to accomplish that is to let somebody else handle posting in your Twitter page feed and ignore what is said in return.

[buffy]

Having a personal presence on social media while holding a public job is a bad idea. Nothing good comes of it.

[commadore]

It's not a good look for the head coach to publicly react to criticism from fans. Just makes him look vain and fragile.

But he IS vain and fragile.

[UltimateVUFan]

How does that idiom about the pot and the kettle go?

[geeznotagain]

I think the lamest of all posts goes something like: "You have no business criticizing strategy A or development/use of players B and C because you don't know as much as the coach does."

[buffy]

I've been in the process of further refining my critique. It's not coaching. It's roster management. I've noted in another thread that I think you need 6 guards, 4 shooters and 3 bigs. I believe each position has a fundamental set of attributes that are non-negotiable. Everything else makes that player special beyond the basics.

6 guards - The must be able to handle the rock, see the floor and have quick feet. Anything else is gravy. We have 8 guards with only Ezra Manjon and Tyrin Lawrence qualifying (can't assess freshmen that don't play)
4 shooters - They must be able to hit the three and they need to have some length to get a hand in a face. Anything else is gravy. Only Stute qualifies (can't assess freshmen that don't play)
3 bigs - They need to be really tall and long. They need to be able to disrupt a dribble drive. Good enough hands to get junk buckets. Anything else is gravy. We have QMB and Liam that qualify. (can't assess freshmen that don't play.

Jordan doesn't really fit the mold, but he's experienced enough and skilled enough as a senior to be effective. We're ranked 250 in field goal percentage because we have one shooter. We don't have enough guards to pressure teams up top. They're generally not effective with their drives because they can sell-out defending the drive because no one is a threat outside besides Stute. We don't need NBA guys. We need the right specific skills.

I think Stack coaches pretty good. He knows the game. I feel like after he misses out on high end recruits that he overvalues the wrong attributes in players that aren't the complete package. I'd love a little feedback on what people think of my listed primary attributes.

[charlestonalum]

I've been in the process of further refining my critique. It's not coaching. It's roster management. I've noted in another thread that I think you need 6 guards, 4 shooters and 3 bigs. I believe each position has a fundamental set of attributes that are non-negotiable. Everything else makes that player special beyond the basics.

6 guards - The must be able to handle the rock, see the floor and have quick feet. Anything else is gravy. We have 8 guards with only Ezra Manjon and Tyrin Lawrence qualifying (can't assess freshmen that don't play)
4 shooters - They must be able to hit the three and they need to have some length to get a hand in a face. Anything else is gravy. Only Stute qualifies (can't assess freshmen that don't play)
3 bigs - They need to be really tall and long. They need to be able to disrupt a dribble drive. Good enough hands to get junk buckets. Anything else is gravy. We have QMB and Liam that qualify. (can't assess freshmen that don't play.

Jordan doesn't really fit the mold, but he's experienced enough and skilled enough as a senior to be effective. We're ranked 250 in field goal percentage because we have one shooter. We don't have enough guards to pressure teams up top. They're generally not effective with their drives because they can sell-out defending the drive because no one is a threat outside besides Stute. We don't need NBA guys. We need the right specific skills.

I think Stack coaches pretty good. He knows the game. I feel like after he misses out on high end recruits that he overvalues the wrong attributes in players that aren't the complete package. I'd love a little feedback on what people think of my listed primary attributes.

I agree, but I don't know much.

[Nashmann]

Buffy I think you are spot on!

[Ndorefin]

Don’t sell Wright short….if he was 100%, he is as close to a complete player as anyone. He can shoot and defend and if he was healthy, we would be much more competitive!

[DonYates]

Stack has a right to gripe just like anyone else.

[buffy]

Don’t sell Wright short….if he was 100%, he is as close to a complete player as anyone. He can shoot and defend and if he was healthy, we would be much more competitive!

I'm fine having one or two projects or hunches, but again, I'm not building a team with Wrights. Can be ball? He's certainly competent. He's never been a star though. I'm glad we have him, but my point still stands.

[memphisVUalum]

Don’t sell Wright short….if he was 100%, he is as close to a complete player as anyone. He can shoot and defend and if he was healthy, we would be much more competitive!

And I don't blame Stack for preserving Wright as much as he can re limiting the time in the game since he hurt his back. We don't need a season-ending repeat. Wright probably needs to be really careful not to fall or do things that wrench his back also. I'm happy to see him in. The fact that Stack is not just throwing people out there for 35 minutes shows he is using what he knows about the players to have them do their best. I am not saying I know that Trey Thomas should be starting, just mentioning about the timing and number of minutes he chooses to give the best players, some of whom are not there in the beginning of the game.

[Seadog73]

Nick Saban referred to social media, heck, all media as rat poison.

[vandy05]

I've been in the process of further refining my critique. It's not coaching. It's roster management. I've noted in another thread that I think you need 6 guards, 4 shooters and 3 bigs. I believe each position has a fundamental set of attributes that are non-negotiable. Everything else makes that player special beyond the basics.

6 guards - The must be able to handle the rock, see the floor and have quick feet. Anything else is gravy. We have 8 guards with only Ezra Manjon and Tyrin Lawrence qualifying (can't assess freshmen that don't play)
4 shooters - They must be able to hit the three and they need to have some length to get a hand in a face. Anything else is gravy. Only Stute qualifies (can't assess freshmen that don't play)
3 bigs - They need to be really tall and long. They need to be able to disrupt a dribble drive. Good enough hands to get junk buckets. Anything else is gravy. We have QMB and Liam that qualify. (can't assess freshmen that don't play.

Jordan doesn't really fit the mold, but he's experienced enough and skilled enough as a senior to be effective. We're ranked 250 in field goal percentage because we have one shooter. We don't have enough guards to pressure teams up top. They're generally not effective with their drives because they can sell-out defending the drive because no one is a threat outside besides Stute. We don't need NBA guys. We need the right specific skills.

I think Stack coaches pretty good. He knows the game. I feel like after he misses out on high end recruits that he overvalues the wrong attributes in players that aren't the complete package. I'd love a little feedback on what people think of my listed primary attributes.

I have no idea if your observations/assertions are right or wrong (though they seem perfectly reasonable to me), but I do think these are the kinds of things you assess a coach on. When you hear an AD say, "I have a different philosophy" or "coach saw a different vision for the program" I imagine this is what they're talking about. Hopefully our AD and others in the department have a vision for a philosophy. But I imagine you assess a coach on how well they can communicate a philosophy and execute that philosophy with their recruiting and hiring.

[vandy05]

I think the lamest of all posts goes something like: "You have no business criticizing strategy A or development/use of players B and C because you don't know as much as the coach does."

The lamest for a coach or player to make, but also actually the most true.

[Jason94]

I think the lamest of all posts goes something like: "You have no business criticizing strategy A or development/use of players B and C because you don't know as much as the coach does."

The lamest for a coach or player to make, but also actually the most true.

I can see nitpicking a coach who is winning a ton of games. But certainly a coach who has a bad record at a school that historically has been pretty good at basketball seems like fair game. It seems reasonable to think that if everything he were doing was correct that we'd be a whole lot better than we are. CKS was certainly not above criticism, and had us a whole lot closer to our schools potential than we are today. We may be wrong with what is wrong with the program, but there is SOMETHING wrong. Missouri is a pretty stark contrast - they fired their coach last season and almost completely turned over their roster and are in great shape to make the tournament in year 1. Same thing with Iowa St. last season. Massive turnarounds are more possible than every before due to the transfer portal and immediate eligibility.

[charlestonalum]

I think the lamest of all posts goes something like: "You have no business criticizing strategy A or development/use of players B and C because you don't know as much as the coach does."

The lamest for a coach or player to make, but also actually the most true.

I can see nitpicking a coach who is winning a ton of games. But certainly a coach who has a bad record at a school that historically has been pretty good at basketball seems like fair game. It seems reasonable to think that if everything he were doing was correct that we'd be a whole lot better than we are. CKS was certainly not above criticism, and had us a whole lot closer to our schools potential than we are today. We may be wrong with what is wrong with the program, but there is SOMETHING wrong. Missouri is a pretty stark contrast - they fired their coach last season and almost completely turned over their roster and are in great shape to make the tournament in year 1. Same thing with Iowa St. last season. Massive turnarounds are more possible than every before due to the transfer portal and immediate eligibility.

At the risk of beating a moribund horse: Vanderbilt does not have access to transfer portal other schools do. How many "students" at Cleveland State can get admitted to VU, I ask. The portal and free flow of talent except to places like Vanderbilt has made coaching at VU immeasurably more difficult than for previous coaches and makes our previous success all the more historically irrelevant.