(01-26-2018 04:48 PM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote: (01-26-2018 04:10 PM)emu steve Wrote: Guys, if you are going to toss out names why not toss out the young, up and coming coaches, not those on the downhill slide?
McCallum was a good HC but after losing his job at Houston and UDM not likely that he'll get another good (mid-major) HC job.
One coach I like, but I wish he were a few years older, is Gerry McNamara at Syracuse.
McNamara played, and shot VERY WELL, including the 3-ball and an excellent free throw shooter. Believe he has an excellent personality or something because he was a legend as a player at Syracuse.
Gerry played in the zone for four years so if he can play it, coach it, etc. then he would seem like an ideal candidate for a zone team.
I'd take him any day over a 55 - 65 year old coach on the downside of his career. P.S. This isn't age bias, but realizing that some coaches had their best days a decade (or more) ago.
I'm making a DISTINCTION between a Ben Braun who is on the down hill side of his career (actually retired) and a Tom Izzo still at his peak. Add Coach K, Roy Williams, etc. as coaches old enough to collect Social Security but are going strong. Also Boeheim at 'Cuse.
To show I'm not making age a criterion, Milton Barnes was on the downhill side of his career after he left EMU. Ditto Jim Boone. Ditto Charles Ramsey.
Downhill can happen at any point and many do not recover and advance their careers.
I would steer clear of any Syracuse coaches or any coach that only plays zone. Been there, done that, need something different.
Here's a guy that ive seen listed as a future HC.
http://www.purduesports.com/sports/m-bas...43070.html
Young Belein is also intriguing. Michigan would actually schedule games with us again.
I feel the opposite.
One can argue that McNamara has certain attributes that are pluses compared to Murphy:
1). McNamara played the zone at Syracuse. He has a unique understanding of it as both a player and coach. This is not something Murphy can say (or hardly any coach for that matter).
2). I haven't watched McNamara/Syracuse play since those days when he played at Syracuse and they were really good. Although I can't cite the information without reaching out to the Syracuse fan base, I do believe that McNamara has a real winning personality. He is a folk hero in Syracuse. Too often posters pick names, out of a hat (?), not knowing if a coach's personality is dynamic or as exciting as drying paint. Did anyone here know that Creighton had a dynamic personality? I would like a coach who literally would go up in the stands after the game to high 5 the fans.
That is one of the problem with these so-called coaching threads. I read the same stuff as the rest of you and I don't see a section entitled: "personality characteristics." A Mark Dantonio type coach wouldn't work at EMU. CC's big plus isn't Xs and Os, but the strength of his personality and the ability to sell the program and himself. You aren't going to find that information reading pulling names out of the hat (Hint: That is why interviews are SO important. The AD isn't hiring an accountant or an IT worker, but a manager of 100 players + 10 coaches + support staff).
3). McNamara is still youngish, but in time, one can say he is uniquely qualified to be a head coach. I can't think of an assistant coach who can say that he knows the Boeheim zone better than McNamara.
4). I'll always take the best young coach who knows a game philosophy best be it the zone defense, West Coast or triple option offense in football, etc. etc. A coach wins because he can execute his offense/defense better than the other coach can execute his offense/defense. Boeheim won with his system. Bobby Knight won with his. The idea is to pick a system and execute it to perfection.
Since a poster has a Purdue reference (Lutz), can we say that an example of what I'm talking about is Matt Painter at Purdue? Wasn't Painter a Gene Keady player, assistant coach and then HC. Nothing wrong with that...
/
Mens basketball head coach candidates
