I don't know about Salem being the worst coached, but I think they hired the wrong coach.

From what I have seen I agree but I believe it is the coaches job to right the ship.Seems as though the talent is not lacking but there does not look like much team cohesion.Tournament time is coming and may breathe new life as it can for any team that hasn't performed as they would have liked to.

If I am not mistaken the Coach does not teach within Salem system.Makes it very difficult to stay on top of team on daily basis.At time of hiring I also thought Salem was going in a different direction probably was a surprise hire.

I have no doubt we hired the right guy. He has put our team in position to win almost every game, despite a lack of height and depth, not to mention that arguably the best kid who would be on the team did not go out this year. All you can ask is that your team is in position to win and we have been, but the kids have not sealed the deal in the final minutes. They need to want to win more than the other team.

The coach has to get his players ready to play 4 quarters not let them play three with him then the last one on their own. Foul Shooting means they dont shoot enough in practice. Defensive intensity means he doesnt get on them enough in practice.

Who would that have been that didn't go out.My only thought would be the football quarterback.Don't know much about his BB skills

Ohio;671549 wrote:The coach has to get his players ready to play 4 quarters not let them play three with him then the last one on their own. Foul Shooting means they dont shoot enough in practice. Defensive intensity means he doesnt get on them enough in practice.

Ohio I can't agree with you more everything you have said equates to highly successfull program as the current Struthers team is.

Ohio;671549 wrote: Foul Shooting means they dont shoot enough in practice. Defensive intensity means he doesnt get on them enough in practice.

Not necessarily true. For the most part they are all darn good shooters, they have just lost focus in several games and it cost them dearly. It is up to the players to maintain focus at the line. As for defense, all five have to play hustling defense as a team; you can't have somebody(s) take a breather or not commit to it, especially when you have limited depth. The kids just need to decide whether they are going to give it their all and play as a team willing to do whatever it takes to win ....... or not.


PS -- Rich Hart: Minerva coach from 1992-2006; went 184-118; won three Northeastern Buckeye Conference titles; Division II State Coach of the Year (1993-94), Associated Press Northeast Inland Coach of the Year (2001-02), and District 4 Coach of the Year (1993-94, 2001-02). Enough said.

QuakerOats;671605 wrote:Not necessarily true. For the most part they are all darn good shooters, they have just lost focus in several games and it cost them dearly. It is up to the players to maintain focus at the line. As for defense, all five have to play hustling defense as a team; you can't have somebody(s) take a breather or not commit to it, especially when you have limited depth. The kids just need to decide whether they are going to give it their all and play as a team willing to do whatever it takes to win ....... or not.


PS -- Rich Hart: Minerva coach from 1992-2006; went 184-118; won three Northeastern Buckeye Conference titles; Division II State Coach of the Year (1993-94), Associated Press Northeast Inland Coach of the Year (2001-02), and District 4 Coach of the Year (1993-94, 2001-02). Enough said.

Well said.

Mike Davis took IU to the championship game in 2002. Doesn't mean he was a great coach, your resume does not always speak for itself.

Been around the game long enough to recognize the difference between a good coach and a bad coach.

Looking at this season and last in comparison. It is the same thing. Last years team could not finish games and lost numerous times by single digits. Last year gave up far fewer points per game albeit scored far fewer less but what does that matter when you are still losing. 69-72 or 40-42 are still both losses. As for the "Each on their own island" comment.. From what I see three of the first five are on the same "island" and the two others are own there each on seperate "island"

So i guess my point is. Maybe the coach wasn't the problem?

QuakerOats;672007 wrote:Been around the game long enough to recognize the difference between a good coach and a bad coach.

So what you are saying Oats is previous quaker Coach was a bad coach.I haven't done any homework but how statistically do these teams match-up,such as scoring margin,def. pts allowed,scoring ave.,team record and any other pertinant stats that you may also believe in.If I am correct Salem was around 500 last year and this year about same.What is difference between coaches then that makes one bad and one good.

QuakerOats;671605 wrote:Not necessarily true. For the most part they are all darn good shooters, they have just lost focus in several games and it cost them dearly. It is up to the players to maintain focus at the line. As for defense, all five have to play hustling defense as a team; you can't have somebody(s) take a breather or not commit to it, especially when you have limited depth. The kids just need to decide whether they are going to give it their all and play as a team willing to do whatever it takes to win ....... or not.


PS -- Rich Hart: Minerva coach from 1992-2006; went 184-118; won three Northeastern Buckeye Conference titles; Division II State Coach of the Year (1993-94), Associated Press Northeast Inland Coach of the Year (2001-02), and District 4 Coach of the Year (1993-94, 2001-02). Enough said.

So you are saying it is not the coaches job to prepare his players mentally and physically to get them prepared to play 4 quarters? This is Mahoning Valley basketball no school has the players around here to win off pure talent. Except maybe Harding but as well have a great coach.

QuakerOats;671315 wrote:I would take exception with the Salem comment. We have lost 6 games now because of: poor foul shooting, poor player judgement in crucial points of close games, and lapses in player defensive intensity. The coach has put the team in position to win 12 of 14 games thus far, but the players have been unable to come through down the stretch. It's that simple. We need some team leaders to step up and whip the players into playing a focused, high intensity game for 32 minutes; because as it is now we have a group of guys - each on their own island.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - you have no idea - new coach - same problem - the coach needs to take care of the problem - the old coach got canned for trying to take care of the problem and this coach will not even attempt to take care of the problem. Three players play their hearts out - but you can't have two on the floor that only care about their own glory - out of the starters - 3 1/2 play defense - Three are not on their own island - you have no idea....

QuakerOats;671438 wrote:I have no doubt we hired the right guy. He has put our team in position to win almost every game, despite a lack of height and depth, not to mention that arguably the best kid who would be on the team did not go out this year. All you can ask is that your team is in position to win and we have been, but the kids have not sealed the deal in the final minutes. They need to want to win more than the other team.

The best basketball player is on the team - are you kidding me here..???

sportsforlife;672195 wrote:The best basketball player is on the team - are you kidding me here..???

There has to be some excuse....
They're an average team. AT BEST

Ohio;672173 wrote:So you are saying it is not the coaches job to prepare his players mentally and physically to get them prepared to play 4 quarters? This is Mahoning Valley basketball no school has the players around here to win off pure talent. Except maybe Harding but as well have a great coach.

Sure it is. But this entire thing needs to be put into context. We had our starting interior decide not to play this year as seniors, that hurts big-time. Thus we have a lack of height and a lack of depth. If we had more options we would obviously use them more extensively, but that could still continue to develop. Our style is now to continue to attack down the stretch, compared with past years when we went into stall ball, (which rarely ever works) and blew countless numbers of games in the final minutes; now that was coaching. We have a new philosophy and style now which gives the players the green light to continue to attack and score and we do have scorers, but it also requires making good judgments in critical situations. It is a learning process (especially in the first year) but it is the far better way to play the game than to have the constant micro-management from the bench, and going into the 'prevent' slow down which only prevented us from winning. Do some players need to step up on the defensive end, you bet. And is there a fine line between benching someone for not playing defense and putting someone else in there who might not yet be ready, sure there is.

But given the entire context and our overall situation, we have still been in position to win 11 games, and easily could have barring some PLAYER misjudgments and PLAYER missed foul shots.

Lost at Howland by 4 after being up 14, missed 14 foul shots (not coach's fault; coach had team in perfect position to win).
Lost at Poland by 1 after leading by 10 in 4th qtr (not coach's fault, coach had team in perfect position to win).
Lost at Hubbard after regaining lead late in game; missed critical foul shots and had a couple PLAYER turnovers (not coach's fault; coach had team in position to win).

I could go on but if you don't know the game well enough to understand that we have the right coach, we just need to get some players to step up in prime time, then you'll never get it.

Go Quakers !!

sportsforlife;672195 wrote:The best basketball player is on the team - are you kidding me here..???

You are probably correct, which is why I said "arguably" to begin with, as some might say that having a strong, skilled returning letterman in the middle is of significant importance.

Regardless, we did not have the luxury of having our two starting big men from the team return to play this year. To me that is further testament to the coaching staff's good job as, despite it all, we have still been in excellent position to win 11 of 14 games thus far (9 of which of have been on the road).

Everything needs to be viewed in proper perspective.

QuakerOats;672690 wrote:Sure it is. But this entire thing needs to be put into context. We had our starting interior decide not to play this year as seniors, that hurts big-time. Thus we have a lack of height and a lack of depth. If we had more options we would obviously use them more extensively, but that could still continue to develop. Our style is now to continue to attack down the stretch, compared with past years when we went into stall ball, (which rarely ever works) and blew countless numbers of games in the final minutes; now that was coaching. We have a new philosophy and style now which gives the players the green light to continue to attack and score and we do have scorers, but it also requires making good judgments in critical situations. It is a learning process (especially in the first year) but it is the far better way to play the game than to have the constant micro-management from the bench, and going into the 'prevent' slow down which only prevented us from winning. Do some players need to step up on the defensive end, you bet. And is there a fine line between benching someone for not playing defense and putting someone else in there who might not yet be ready, sure there is.

But given the entire context and our overall situation, we have still been in position to win 11 games, and easily could have barring some PLAYER misjudgments and PLAYER missed foul shots.

Lost at Howland by 4 after being up 14, missed 14 foul shots (not coach's fault; coach had team in perfect position to win).
Lost at Poland by 1 after leading by 10 in 4th qtr (not coach's fault, coach had team in perfect position to win).
Lost at Hubbard after regaining lead late in game; missed critical foul shots and had a couple PLAYER turnovers (not coach's fault; coach had team in position to win).

I could go on but if you don't know the game well enough to understand that we have the right coach, we just need to get some players to step up in prime time, then you'll never get it.

Go Quakers !!

But still you cannot put it all on the players. he needs to make the subs to get everything flowing he needs to put good free throw shooters in the game, he needs to stop being like alot of new coaches around the area who use the whole he is a senior he is going to play thing to make the parents happy.

Ohio;672890 wrote:But still you cannot put it all on the players. he needs to make the subs to get everything flowing he needs to put good free throw shooters in the game, he needs to stop being like alot of new coaches around the area who use the whole he is a senior he is going to play thing to make the parents happy.

Sorry, your post is misguided; either you didn't read the information above (i.e. we have very good shooters, but they have had lapses of focus in several games; and we do start a soph and a junior already etc...etc...), or don't understand the context. Thanks for trying, though.

sportsforlife;672193 wrote:- the old coach got canned for trying to take care of the problem and this coach will not even attempt to take care of the problem.

Lastly, I would respectfully disagree with this part of your post. The old coach got canned because of sub-par records over 4 years, including immediate exits from post-season play, despite good talent pools, and no discernable progress, ever. To turn all that around lay blame on the new guy two months into his tenure is overboard. If there are issues, they will be worked through in due course.

Go Quakers !!

The old coach has no business being a head basketball coach on any level anywhere in the country. He got canned because someone realized that he shouldn't have been hired in the first place.

QuakerOats;673048 wrote:Lastly, I would respectfully disagree with this part of your post. The old coach got canned because of sub-par records over 4 years, including immediate exits from post-season play, despite good talent pools, and no discernable progress, ever. To turn all that around lay blame on the new guy two months into his tenure is overboard. If there are issues, they will be worked through in due course.
Go Quakers !!

Mr/Mrs. Oats,don't want to offend gender,You seem to have a real sour taste to the previous head coach and his performance.From what I remember he replaced a coach who left for another job,following a district championship seasons and left a very bare cupboard to start with.How much time do you deem nec. to build and restore a program? Current coach walked into a good personel situation with returning letterman.I will give you losing a starting frontcourt is not desirable and sometimes insurmountable but you adjust to who you have not who you don't have.Do you have records for Salem during the former coaches tenure.I am assuming probably 500 every year which would back up your claim to no discernable progress.Now all that being said there are still 6-7 games left in season and plenty of time to right the ship before tournament play.That my friend is where the Coach needs to Coach or it will be a lost season.

Correct, the season is not lost whatsoever. We have had flashes of brilliance and have been at least competitive every night out with perhaps one exception. I think we can finish strong, and some of that will depend on coaching, some will depend on player execution, some on player desire, and some on team leadership coming through - in whatever form that has to be.


As to post # 173 above, sometimes even SQ Crazies flashes signs of brilliance.