Repeating the same mistakes

[sybarite]

The point of the discussion has somehow been lost in a question of how good an athlete Kruger was and why. This exception or non-exception has nothing to do with the point that those who make good coaches and managers are usually those who have to learn how to do things right rather than to depend on their superior athleticism for their place on the team. We have even had some very successful college coaches who didn't play football or basketball.

 

[SoonerNorm]

The point of the discussion has somehow been lost in a question of how good an athlete Kruger was and why. This exception or non-exception has nothing to do with the point that those who make good coaches and managers are usually those who have to learn how to do things right rather than to depend on their superior athleticism for their place on the team. We have even had some very successful college coaches who didn't play football or basketball.

The conversation took a slight detour when you said Kruger wasn't a great athlete. His credentials prove otherwise.

Now, I think just about everyone would agree that you don't have to be a great athlete or great player to be a great coach. Mike Leach is a perfect example.

 

[gosooner2]

I hate to break the Kruger discussion, but my most upsetting thing about OU is not using the board. It never changes and you can see all the great teams know how to use it!

 

[sybarite]

The conversation took a slight detour when you said Kruger wasn't a great athlete. His credentials prove otherwise.

Now, I think just about everyone would agree that you don't have to be a great athlete or great player to be a great coach. Mike Leach is a perfect example.

Actually, I wasn't the one that introduced the discussion of Kruger.

 

[SoonerSpock]

The point of the discussion has somehow been lost in a question of how good an athlete Kruger was and why. This exception or non-exception has nothing to do with the point that those who make good coaches and managers are usually those who have to learn how to do things right rather than to depend on their superior athleticism for their place on the team. We have even had some very successful college coaches who didn't play football or basketball.

As is typical for your participation in a discussion you are typically the one that redirects the conversation to your perspective.

Intially this thread started with the discussion of players repeating the same mistakes and the lack of teaching fundamentals to players at an early age and continuing to do so through college.

In post #6 on this thread you re-directed the thread and brought up the premise that "in almost every sport, the teachers are not he superstar players" which is a valid concept but a departure from the threads discussion of repeated mistakes and teaching fundamentals.

While MPS did indirectly bring up Kruger with her comment about how fundamentally sound and effortlessly Lon played but it was you that brought up his lack of athleticism and his intelligence. But you brought up Kruger's athleticism in post #9 stating "as I remember Kruger, he wasn't a great athlete".

Now you want say the point of the discussion has been lost on how good of an athlete Kruger was instead of who makes a good coach. You started the athletic discussion of Kruger as well as the discussion of who makes good coaches.

Perhaps if we change this discussion it should be back to the op's repeated mistakes and fundamental issues instead of the focus you directed to teachers not being superstars and Kruger not being a great athlete.

Oh well this often happens when someone has called you hand like on Kruger's athleticism thus you want to again redirect the thread to avoid the discussion.

 

[sybarite]

As is typical for your participation in a discussion you are typically the one that redirects the conversation to your perspective.

Intially this thread started with the discussion of players repeating the same mistakes and the lack of teaching fundamentals to players at an early age and continuing to do so through college.

In post #6 on this thread you re-directed the thread and brought up the premise that "in almost every sport, the teachers are not he superstar players" which is a valid concept but a departure from the threads discussion of repeated mistakes and teaching fundamentals.

While MPS did indirectly bring up Kruger with her comment about how fundamentally sound and effortlessly Lon played but it was you that brought up his lack of athleticism and his intelligence. But you brought up Kruger's athleticism in post #9 stating "as I remember Kruger, he wasn't a great athlete".

Now you want say the point of the discussion has been lost on how good of an athlete Kruger was instead of who makes a good coach. You started the athletic discussion of Kruger as well as the discussion of who makes good coaches.

Perhaps if we change this discussion it should be back to the op's repeated mistakes and fundamental issues instead of the focus you directed to teachers not being superstars and Kruger not being a great athlete.

Oh well this often happens when someone has called you hand like on Kruger's athleticism thus you want to again redirect the thread to avoid the discussion.

I'm sure that someday you will make a post that is not somehow a direct attack on me. Since I appreciate being on the opposite side of you in almost everything in life, I do not anticipate such a post.

 

[KCRuf/Nek]

What is 'barn ball mentality'? My mind conjures up Henry Iba coaching his team to a 43 - 42 victory - in a barn! :ez-laugh:

Pretty much the same. No shot clock. Walk it up. Four up with ten to play? Pull out the four corners. Not sure if you're old enough to have ever seen that but it was certainly a treat.

 

[SoonerSpock]

I'm sure that someday you will make a post that is not somehow a direct attack on me. Since I appreciate being on the opposite side of you in almost everything in life, I do not anticipate such a post.

Oh I fully respect your right to be wrong. I only wish you would respect others right to right. All I stated above was fact. Sometimes the truth hurts!

 

[rocjunkie]

I hate to break the Kruger discussion, but my most upsetting thing about OU is not using the board. It never changes and you can see all the great teams know how to use it!

Man, that is so true. It is rare to see a team use the glass and good angles on shots any more. I remember UCONN's last visit to the Noble and watching their warm-ups. Every single kid knew how to use the glass, too bad we don't seem to emphasize the same.

 

[rocjunkie]

Pretty much the same. No shot clock. Walk it up. Four up with ten to play? Pull out the four corners. Not sure if you're old enough to have ever seen that but it was certainly a treat.

We use to practice the four corners as part of our offense at CSU. I remember actually starting out games in that offense. What a boring way to play a game, running down the clock for nothing but lay-ups. :facepalm

 

[sybarite]

Man, that is so true. It is rare to see a team use the glass and good angles on shots any more. I remember UCONN's last visit to the Noble and watching their warm-ups. Every single kid knew how to use the glass, too bad we don't seem to emphasize the same.

I posted this on the OU-BU thread.

What I do like about Baylor is that they take advantage of mistakes. If you don't get back, they make you pay for it. They usually hit their layups, and they use the board well when under pressure. We don't get a lot of baskets using the board. Baylor does.

 

[KCRuf/Nek]

Man, that is so true. It is rare to see a team use the glass and good angles on shots any more. I remember UCONN's last visit to the Noble and watching their warm-ups. Every single kid knew how to use the glass, too bad we don't seem to emphasize the same.

I know I'm dating myself but John Wooden's team lived by that shot. Jamal Wilkes(Keith) made a career off that 15 foot bank shot. Walton too.

 

[sybarite]

I know I'm dating myself but John Wooden's team lived by that shot. Jamal Wilkes(Keith) made a career off that 15 foot bank shot. Walton too.

So did Hazzard and Goodrich on fast breaks. They shot "layups" from ten feet when others got back.