teacherdean
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 3,098
- Likes
- 5,536
Holly is an old school coach in the Fulmer mold. She recruits athletes. She has been schooled on the X's and O's by several coaches, to include others off the Summit coaching tree. In modern basketball, you need the X's and O's. You have to been able to call plays, offensively and defensively, to varying situations. There are too many good coaches out there to just rely on athleticism. She is a good coach, but not great for this reason imo.
The game passed by Summitt for precisely the same reason: She was very used to simply having better athletes than almost every other team, in an era when everybody had trouble scoring. And so we beat teams with defense and rebounding. PS's offensively philosophy was twofold and very simplistic: If we had a superstar, throw it to her and hope that she could score. Otherwise, just throw the ball up near the basket, we'll get the offensive rebound with our better athletes and put the ball in the basket for a score.
Over time that caught up with her and us. Coaches like Geno came along who knew/know how to coach good team/half-court offense; players got better, offenses got better. There was more competition. You couldn't just expect to win games with offensive rebounding or defense or raw talent. That is something that PS was too old, and too old school, to get--and IMO Warlick is much the same, and really just too much of a player's coach to be good.
This is why good teams and excellent coaches TOTALLY school us; hell, even merely above average teams like texas beat us. We not only don't beat anybody good anymore, we aren't even competitive with the top teams. Notre Dame came to Knoxville two years ago and embarrassed us. We folded early against Louisville. I think last year's UNC win was Warlick's best win--and that was a /very/ young north carolina team. We've also beaten an overrated lsu team a couple of times.
The texas game was a template for how UT has played for a long time. That is how we have played against respectably good teams for years: Our offense is total crap, we look terrible, fall behind--and then try futilely to rally in the second half. This is what we do. The sharpness, the smarts, the fundamentals--the good coaching--is not there. And yet all Warlick ever wants to talk about is effort. The first step in dealing with a problem is awareness of what the problem really is.
The game passed by Summitt for precisely the same reason: She was very used to simply having better athletes than almost every other team, in an era when everybody had trouble scoring. And so we beat teams with defense and rebounding. PS's offensively philosophy was twofold and very simplistic: If we had a superstar, throw it to her and hope that she could score. Otherwise, just throw the ball up near the basket, we'll get the offensive rebound with our better athletes and put the ball in the basket for a score.
Over time that caught up with her and us. Coaches like Geno came along who knew/know how to coach good team/half-court offense; players got better, offenses got better. There was more competition. You couldn't just expect to win games with offensive rebounding or defense or raw talent. That is something that PS was too old, and too old school, to get--and IMO Warlick is much the same, and really just too much of a player's coach to be good.
This is why good teams and excellent coaches TOTALLY school us; hell, even merely above average teams like texas beat us. We not only don't beat anybody good anymore, we aren't even competitive with the top teams. Notre Dame came to Knoxville two years ago and embarrassed us. We folded early against Louisville. I think last year's UNC win was Warlick's best win--and that was a /very/ young north carolina team. We've also beaten an overrated lsu team a couple of times.
The texas game was a template for how UT has played for a long time. That is how we have played against respectably good teams for years: Our offense is total crap, we look terrible, fall behind--and then try futilely to rally in the second half. This is what we do. The sharpness, the smarts, the fundamentals--the good coaching--is not there. And yet all Warlick ever wants to talk about is effort. The first step in dealing with a problem is awareness of what the problem really is.
The game passed by Summitt for precisely the same reason: She was very used to simply having better athletes than almost every other team, in an era when everybody had trouble scoring. And so we beat teams with defense and rebounding. PS's offensively philosophy was twofold and very simplistic: If we had a superstar, throw it to her and hope that she could score. Otherwise, just throw the ball up near the basket, we'll get the offensive rebound with our better athletes and put the ball in the basket for a score.
Over time that caught up with her and us. Coaches like Geno came along who knew/know how to coach good team/half-court offense; players got better, offenses got better. There was more competition. You couldn't just expect to win games with offensive rebounding or defense or raw talent. That is something that PS was too old, and too old school, to get--and IMO Warlick is much the same, and really just too much of a player's coach to be good.
This is why good teams and excellent coaches TOTALLY school us; hell, even merely above average teams like texas beat us. We not only don't beat anybody good anymore, we aren't even competitive with the top teams. Notre Dame came to Knoxville two years ago and embarrassed us. We folded early against Louisville. I think last year's UNC win was Warlick's best win--and that was a /very/ young north carolina team. We've also beaten an overrated lsu team a couple of times.
The texas game was a template for how UT has played for a long time. That is how we have played against respectably good teams for years: Our offense is total crap, we look terrible, fall behind--and then try futilely to rally in the second half. This is what we do. The sharpness, the smarts, the fundamentals--the good coaching--is not there. And yet all Warlick ever wants to talk about is effort. The first step in dealing with a problem is awareness of what the problem really is.
Yes, remember the thinking it was the heavy meds for her arthritis. You're probably right.I don't really agree with that. There is no evidence that is what was happening. If Pat had all her faculties and was still coaching today I have no doubt we'd still be competing for championships. She'd will her teams to win. We just really don't know when Pat started losing it. I think it was actually a couple of years before it was reported.
I am in fear that if we wait for Mr. Summitt to make La Tech relevant, it will be way to late. Pat played inside basketball with an outside shooter. The problem we will have against the top lady teams is they have developed both a consistent inside and outside game. We have good shooters but they need to practice the skill in practice. Holly said in her last interview that the team placed more emphasis on defense and less time on offense. Holly has been far too committed to the inside game which only works on cupcakes. You have to change with the times or you will get blistered by most top ten teams. Another thing, Holly said Tucker is able to play. If that is the case, when will we see her? If she can shoot from the outside we really need her.
I've never heard that from anyone. Who slammed you? That's just dumb. I want to win...don't want cheating, but win. Of course Pat's son would be niceThere is a considerable part of the Lady Vol fan base that would not accept Tyler even if he proved himself because of his gender. You will hear repeatedly that this is a the women's team and that only a female coach should be considered. I got really slammed by a lot of them when I said we should interview the Louisville coach when Pat retired.
Holly has been far too committed to the inside game which only works on cupcakes.
Let Vol fans tell UCONN and Texas A and M that this is a game that should be only coached by women. I coached women's sports for 16 years in high school and finished either number 1 or 2 in district play for 10 of my 16 coaching years. The only things you need to know besides the game is that female athletes are not men athletes nor should you expect them to be. However, you have to realize some female athletes are on the same level as many male athletes. In many environments, especially at the high school level, female athletes are more mature and take instructions better than a lot of male athletes. To win you must Honor and respect them to do what they do best. You have to be able to identify athletic abilities and put the team in a place where they have the best chance of winning. You must change with the times and stay on top of the game. Last but not least, you must develop and set the bar high.
Wow! Never been on The Summitt and guess I never will. I know a lot of contributers, but never heard that from anyone. Maybe the ones I know have a brain as well as some disposable income Landers, Foster, Barmore, Mitchell, Wertz, Auriemma....So I guess they think none of them could coach women? Just dumb, and sexist IMO.At the time almost universal on 'The Summitt" on TOS. Also got it in person from some supporters of the Lady Vols and I mean people who contribute.