Coach Steele

[xudash]

I find myself, generally, in agreement with your posts although I think you sometimes are a little strong. And, while we have litigated this thread topic pretty thoroughly, I think some further clarification is necessary. I think your use of the phrase "just handing the keys to a lifelong assistant" understates the process X went through in hiring Steele. My recollection is that many posters on this board were calling for Steele as were the players and the timeline from interviewing to hiring Steele was quite extended. At least, that's my memory. I think hiring Steele was quite the reasonable choice given what most of us, on this board, knew of his background and qualifications. After 1.5 seasons, I have begun to question whether (or not) he was the right choice for all the reasons you have already outlined in your various posts. Nevertheless, I think his selection, given what was known, was obvious. Now, if he doesn't have a sense of game management, if he is not a strong leader and/or developer of talent and if his recruiting success was overstated, as posters on this board have alleged, maybe the A.D. should have known. After all, one of any supervisor's most important duties is developing your direct reports and to do that, you must have a pretty good sense of their strengths and weaknesses.

Wojo, even as recently as last year, was under a great deal of criticism on the Marquette hoops board. His strategy to make Markus Howard the centerpiece of the team cost him the brothers Hauser and even last night, on Fox Sports, Donny Marshall and the studio analysts questioned whether Marquette's reliance on Howard was the right strategy in March. My point is that any coaching sellection is a bit of a crapshoot and coaching pedigree guarantees nothing. Other Krzyewski assistants (Amaker, Quin Snyder) have bombed but others have succeeded. Based on what I know today, I think Steele was the right choice. But, time may prove me wrong.

One thing that I keep hearing on this board that I don't buy for a minute is that the cupboard was bare for Steele because of Mack. While Mack was head coach and had ultimate responsibility for the quality of Xavier recruits (and whether they stuck around), we keep giving Steele a pass. That, to me, is nonsense----he was the head recruiter for Mack.

Finally, if we think the assistant coaches under Steele are the wrong guys and lack experience, that's on Steele as well.

I'm with the earlier poster in emphasizing the importance of next year's team to Steele's future. I don't expect a great record but I want to see enthusiasm, coachability and teamwork. And, I want to see Steele show me he can coach. Whether because of his players or his own experience, I haven't yet seen that skill.

One more final thought. I would LOVE to know how Byron and Joe assess this team and this coach. They know the game. They have been around the program for a long time and have seen lots of players and coaches. I would pay a lot of money to know what they really think of our team and coach's performance this year.

Fair post, but I'll make a counterpoint to the bolded statement: By virtue of being the head recruiter for Mack, Steele's success was dependent upon the perception of Mack in the recruiting marketplace. UL's wild, unethical behavior had been swirling for years. Competing coaches had the luxury of telling recruits that Mack was going to head down I-71. An assistant head recruiter who is recruiting for a coach that is rumored to have 1.5 feet out the door will not be as successful as they want given that constraint.

[AviatorX]

I see both sides of the "cupboard was bare" argument, honestly. No doubt we can lay some of the blame at Steele's feet since he was on the staff (not sure about "head recruiter" as that varied from recruit to recruit under Mack's staff). However, I don't think anyone can really question whether Steele is good at recruiting - he's very clearly an awesome recruiter.

It really just seems like the 2018 recruiting class was a "shit happens" situation. Xavier lost a lot of 50/50 balls so to speak, which happens in recruiting, but usually not in such quick succession. Fans often overstate how much immediate on floor success correlates to recruiting, but that does add another wrinkle considering how visibly successful X had been the few years prior.

[UCGRAD4X]

I find myself, generally, in agreement with your posts although I think you sometimes are a little strong. And, while we have litigated this thread topic pretty thoroughly, I think some further clarification is necessary. I think your use of the phrase "just handing the keys to a lifelong assistant" understates the process X went through in hiring Steele. My recollection is that many posters on this board were calling for Steele as were the players and the timeline from interviewing to hiring Steele was quite extended. At least, that's my memory. I think hiring Steele was quite the reasonable choice given what most of us, on this board, knew of his background and qualifications. After 1.5 seasons, I have begun to question whether (or not) he was the right choice for all the reasons you have already outlined in your various posts. Nevertheless, I think his selection, given what was known, was obvious. Now, if he doesn't have a sense of game management, if he is not a strong leader and/or developer of talent and if his recruiting success was overstated, as posters on this board have alleged, maybe the A.D. should have known. After all, one of any supervisor's most important duties is developing your direct reports and to do that, you must have a pretty good sense of their strengths and weaknesses.

Wojo, even as recently as last year, was under a great deal of criticism on the Marquette hoops board. His strategy to make Markus Howard the centerpiece of the team cost him the brothers Hauser and even last night, on Fox Sports, Donny Marshall and the studio analysts questioned whether Marquette's reliance on Howard was the right strategy in March. My point is that any coaching sellection is a bit of a crapshoot and coaching pedigree guarantees nothing. Other Krzyewski assistants (Amaker, Quin Snyder) have bombed but others have succeeded. Based on what I know today, I think Steele was the right choice. But, time may prove me wrong.

One thing that I keep hearing on this board that I don't buy for a minute is that the cupboard was bare for Steele because of Mack. While Mack was head coach and had ultimate responsibility for the quality of Xavier recruits (and whether they stuck around), we keep giving Steele a pass. That, to me, is nonsense----he was the head recruiter for Mack.

Finally, if we think the assistant coaches under Steele are the wrong guys and lack experience, that's on Steele as well.

I'm with the earlier poster in emphasizing the importance of next year's team to Steele's future. I don't expect a great record but I want to see enthusiasm, coachability and teamwork. And, I want to see Steele show me he can coach. Whether because of his players or his own experience, I haven't yet seen that skill.

One more final thought. I would LOVE to know how Byron and Joe assess this team and this coach. They know the game. They have been around the program for a long time and have seen lots of players and coaches. I would pay a lot of money to know what they really think of our team and coach's performance this year.

Do either or both show up at Dana's after the games?

[94GRAD]

Do either or both show up at Dana's after the games?

I have never seen them here after games.

[xcellentx]

Fair post, but I'll make a counterpoint to the bolded statement: By virtue of being the head recruiter for Mack, Steele's success was dependent upon the perception of Mack in the recruiting marketplace. UL's wild, unethical behavior had been swirling for years. Competing coaches had the luxury of telling recruits that Mack was going to head down I-71. An assistant head recruiter who is recruiting for a coach that is rumored to have 1.5 feet out the door will not be as successful as they want given that constraint.

I would add too that no matter who the "head recruiter" is, the head coach is making the decisions on allocation of resources and targets to go after. I don't think you completely give Steele a pass for everything, but to give him all or most of the blame for the roster going into his first year is not warranted either.

And again, not only was the 2018 recruiting class bad, Kennedy and James were the 2 lowest recruit's rankings wise we have had in the past 15 years. So this wasn't just a mediocre class, it was especially bad. You can't blame the overall makeup of the team on Steele. We have some very talented guys, but the pieces just don't fit together right, and that is not Steele's fault.

I'm mixed on how I feel about the job Steele has done, but having the right team going in makes a huge difference. I doubt many at UConn were screaming for Ollie's head in the middle of the second year, but it is pretty obvious he wasn't the right choice.

[BigMoeMusketeer]

I would add too that no matter who the "head recruiter" is, the head coach is making the decisions on allocation of resources and targets to go after. I don't think you completely give Steele a pass for everything, but to give him all or most of the blame for the roster going into his first year is not warranted either.

And again, not only was the 2018 recruiting class bad, Kennedy and James were the 2 lowest recruit's rankings wise we have had in the past 15 years. So this wasn't just a mediocre class, it was especially bad. You can't blame the overall makeup of the team on Steele. We have some very talented guys, but the pieces just don't fit together right, and that is not Steele's fault.

I'm mixed on how I feel about the job Steele has done, but having the right team going in makes a huge difference. I doubt many at UConn were screaming for Ollie's head in the middle of the second year, but it is pretty obvious he wasn't the right choice.

Worth mentioning, and I know I'm painted as the most pro-Chris guy on this board (and it may be true), but Travis very much wanted CJ Fredrick and Chris soured on him....and that obviously has contributed to our struggles. Imagine this team with a starting wing shooting 48% from three? We'd be an entirely different team than we are right now.

[xudash]

Worth mentioning, and I know I'm painted as the most pro-Chris guy on this board (and it may be true), but Travis very much wanted CJ Fredrick and Chris soured on him....and that obviously has contributed to our struggles. Imagine this team with a starting wing shooting 48% from three? We'd be an entirely different team than we are right now.

Which brings us back to the point about WHAT CAN YOU DO when you know your team is already painted as a gang that can't shoot straight. We don't have the offensive firepower to get over the hump and our opposition knows that and plays us packed in accordingly.

[xcellentx]

[/B]

Which brings us back to the point about WHAT CAN YOU DO when you know your team is already painted as a gang that can't shoot straight. We don't have the offensive firepower to get over the hump and our opposition knows that and plays us packed in accordingly.

This is also why as much as people get mad at Q for shooting open 3's, and mad at Steele for not doing more about it, that is the piece this team is missing. Q shouldn't shoot 6 in the first half when he is off, but unfortunately we need someone like Q to shoot open three's and atleast make 30 some percent of them to get the offensive gears turning.

[XUBison]

My two cents:

1. I liked everything about Steele that everyone else did when he was hired. That said, I was consistent in that he was not my preferred choice. (Please don’t take this down the rabbit hole of which candidate I would have preferred instead, as that’s not the point.) My take was that this program had become too substantial to hire a guy with no head coaching experience. At the time, many were incredulous as to what other candidate could have possibly been chosen instead, as if to say there existed no other human being on Earth who could have had success as the HC at X; a silly argument.

My hope was that the university would do its due diligence to bring in the person that was most prepared to take over a top 20 program from day one. Steele may very well turn out to be the guy, but right now we are dealing with someone who is clearly struggling to get his coaching feet under him, while simultaneously trying to manage the rigors of a top 20 program. To me, this was predictable. Everything is a first for him right now, and that has to be overwhelming.

I do think the Steele hire was the safe route for Christopher’s sake, but I believe Steele’s lack of experience made him the risky choice for the program’s sake. Time will tell.

2. As has been beaten to death, my concern with Steele is the sloppy, undisciplined way we are losing games. It is like watching a slow version of Prosser ball. During the Creighton game, he kept telling the guys, “layups and open 3s”. I understand the analytics here, but doesn’t a coach need to put his players in position for layups and open 3s through disciplined scheme and strategy ,as opposed to simply repeating the mantra out loud? I know Steele is trying to develop successful scheme and strategy, but imagine for a moment that Jay Wright or John Beilein were coaching this exact roster... I am certain the offense would look much smoother and crisper, because they would have known how to implement their systems. Except in theory, I don’t think Steele even knows what his system is yet.

3. I wish people would pump the brakes a bit on the notion that Steele is a *great* recruiter. Perhaps he is, but given X’s administrative commitment, resources, facilities, consistent success, conference affiliation, fan support, etc., our program SHOULD routinely attract top 100 recruits ,with the occasional top 50-ish guy sprinkled in there. I’ll get excited about Steele’s recruiting prowess once our recruiting takes the next step ,to routinely include top 50 guys, with the occasional 5-star sprinkled on top.

[GOX]

My two cents:

1. I liked everything about Steele that everyone else did when he was hired. That said, I was consistent in that he was not my preferred choice. (Please don’t take this down the rabbit hole of which candidate I would have preferred instead, as that’s not the point.) My take was that this program had become too substantial to hire a guy with no head coaching experience. At the time, many were incredulous as to what other candidate could have possibly been chosen instead, as if to say there existed no other human being on Earth who could have had success as the HC at X; a silly argument.

My hope was that the university would do its due diligence to bring in the person that was most prepared to take over a top 20 program from day one. Steele may very well turn out to be the guy, but right now we are dealing with someone who is clearly struggling to get his coaching feet under him, while simultaneously trying to manage the rigors of a top 20 program. To me, this was predictable. Everything is a first for him right now, and that has to be overwhelming.

I do think the Steele hire was the safe route for Christopher’s sake, but I believe Steele’s lack of experience made him the risky choice for the program’s sake. Time will tell.

2. As has been beaten to death, my concern with Steele is the sloppy, undisciplined way we are losing games. It is like watching a slow version of Prosser ball. During the Creighton game, he kept telling the guys, “layups and open 3s”. I understand the analytics here, but doesn’t a coach need to put his players in position for layups and open 3s through disciplined scheme and strategy ,as opposed to simply repeating the mantra out loud? I know Steele is trying to develop successful scheme and strategy, but imagine for a moment that Jay Wright or John Beilein were coaching this exact roster... I am certain the offense would look much smoother and crisper, because they would have known how to implement their systems. Except in theory, I don’t think Steele even knows what his system is yet.

3. I wish people would pump the brakes a bit on the notion that Steele is a *great* recruiter. Perhaps he is, but given X’s administrative commitment, resources, facilities, consistent success, conference affiliation, fan support, etc., our program SHOULD routinely attract top 100 recruits ,with the occasional top 50-ish guy sprinkled in there. I’ll get excited about Steele’s recruiting prowess once our recruiting takes the next step ,to routinely include top 50 guys, with the occasional 5-star sprinkled on top.

Just a Fantastic Post. Well thought out. Logical. Reasonable. Thanks for the contribution.