Ben Johnson Reasonable Expectations

Donate To GopherHole

MNVCGUY said:
I used to feel similar but then I realized it just wasn't worth it and put the ignore feature to good use. Amazing how much more enjoyable this board is now.
Click to expand...
There are a select few that found their way on to my ignore list. I tend to not use it unless forced to!
 


BarnBurner said:
More evidence.
Click to expand...
Sure, but I'm done after this
Gopherfan84 said:
Why do you think they were poor at rebounding fundamentally. They rated low in offensive rebounding because they choose to not go for them in an effort to get back on defense. Defensively they ran into some size and depth issues, but I didn’t see anything systematically that would be considered fundamentally poor.
Click to expand...
So GF is talking about offensive rebounding and gophers using strategy to get back on defense instead of crashing boards. They're not only team to do this

BarnBurner said:
So the strategy led to poor rebounding. That’s a choice.

What will the year two strategy be regarding rebounding? Are you saying it will now change? To what?

Rebound or not allow transition. Right?
Click to expand...
You reshape the argument a bit here, back to rebounding, instead of sticking to offensive rebounding. I'll give you minor credit, context stays offensive rebounding. You then ask about year 2 strategy
Gopherfan84 said:
Strategy led to poor offensive rebounding numbers yes. Last years team lacked depth and they wanted to limit transition. I have no idea what they plan to do next year, but it’s something I’m excited to see assuming they have some more depth.
Click to expand...
GF responds again, talking about the defensive principals Gophers used this year, and as he's not on coaching staff, he's not sure how they'll adapt to next year.

BarnBurner said:
No idea?

If the strategy is the same as this season, recruiting was a failure then, correct?

21-22 rebounding strategy can’t continue. Unless of course culture trumps wins.
Click to expand...

You seem shocked a poster isn't sure what coaching staff. You also suggest if strategy remains, recruiting is a failure. You're using either or logical fallacy here. No one is arguing strategy was ONLY reason for rebounding woes. But you're twisting the argument to suggest GF is saying strategy was the ONLY factor. It was one factor on offensive rebounding. You then proclaim, as if you're the expert of basketball scheme and knowledge, the strategy can't continue, because if strategy continues, we'll be last in offensive rebounding again. There is however room in the middle, a middle you refuse to acknowledge as is common with either or logic fallacy you're employing.

salzie said:
Best coaches will adapt strategy to personnel.

I suspect we'll prioritize getting back on defense over crashing the boards but no one here can say.

Do you just like being argumentative ass?
Click to expand...

I stupidly jump into this pointless debate at this point. I point out I suspect they'll continue to prioritize getting back on defense over offensive rebounds.
BarnBurner said:
Well, if the strategy is similar to this past season, personnel be darned, winning will be very difficult.

Do you just like losing the rebounding battle game after game?
Click to expand...
Here you shift the argument and ignore offensive rebounding and strategy previously being talked about and just go to total rebounds and being out rebounded and continue your either or logical fallacy, if you like the strategy you like being outrebounded, again, you ASSume there is no inbetween, turning nuanced discussion into black and white issue.
salzie said:
They need to rebound better. I don't expect the philosophy to change in regards to offensive rebounds and getting back on defense.

You cant just dismiss everything as making excuses.

You're a miserable person
Click to expand...
I agreed they need to rebound better, never argued otherwise, but facts be damned to you
BarnBurner said:
Your an excuse maker. Rebound much better or lose.
Click to expand...
You refer to discussion of basketball strategy as "excuses". Again, it's an either or proposition to you. Change strategy and win or lose. Which is bullshit, wisconsin wins consistently and they prioritize getting back on defense over offensive rebounds. Iowa prefers to crash boards and in turn sacrifices on defensive end. There is also room in the middle. I would expect MN to follow WI model from what I've seen after year 1, just my thoughts.
Dakota2 said:
If Fox and Ihnen had been on this year's team the philosophy would have been different. The strategy was based on talent available.
Click to expand...
Here another poster points out personnel dictated strategy and we would've altered it if we had the right people

BarnBurner said:
IF.

Neither played. End of that story.
Click to expand...

Correct, neither played. And we're suspecting strategy changed as a result. You make a stupid needless post here
BarnBurner said:
Eco bails. Eco already went home. Eco can’t respond to logic.
Click to expand...
Here you call out poster for not using logic completely oblivous to the logical fallacies you use over and over
BarnBurner said:
Agreed - and, if you recall, other posters have suggested the rebounding strategy from 21-22 may likely be carried over into next season. Recipe for losses, imo.
Click to expand...
The original argument was on offensive rebounding. You responded to post on rebounding % and total rebounds, and tied prior argument to it. No one said the gophers strategy was to be last in rebounds or that they didn't need to rebound better, they pointed out on offensive side of the equation, they limited their chances at offensive rebounding by getting back to avoid transition buckets. You've turned it posters saying they're not trying to rebound and will always be last.
Dakota2 said:
That strategy will not be carried over. We will have rebounders and team depth to be able to run back on defense.
Click to expand...

I disagree to an extent, but I wasn't planning on getting back. But I also don't think Dakota followed argument to it's start. I don't expect the strategy to be identical to last year, all coaches adapt, update, etc. Better players, healthy fox, payne, should give us different options

BarnBurner said:
Again, not my hope - others here have suggested it may be carried over to next season.
Click to expand...

I do think we'll prioritize getting back on defense, like Wisconsin, over offensive rebounding. I also expect we'll be a better rebounding team, on both sides. I just think the overall strategy of what they priortizes remains, I point I've already made, but you disregarded

BarnBurner said:
Not quite, sport - that's the line that you wrote, er didnt write, er didnt mean......well, own it.

So, thanks, my comprehension is very good. You, on the other hand, cant quite recall what you wrote, er what you mean, er.......

No idea, indeed.
Click to expand...
Here you are just being an ass. No surprise, it's what you do. You changed the argument to fit your needs and ignore context or dismiss it as making excuses.
BarnBurner said:
If you dont fit in the mold and go along with the masses, all is not well for some snowflakes on GH. A few above.

And, if you dont follow the masses, you want the program and the coach to fail. The evidence is overwhelming right in this thread.
Click to expand...
here you are where it's an either or proposition again

I could link through several arguments and find you using variety of logical fallacies while attacking others for not using logic. It's hysterical

You also ignore possibility that Gophers can still prioritize getting on defense and improve on rebounding. In your mind, they can only improve rebounding by changing strategy (posts linked above of you saying they need to change strategy). Again, no room for nuances with you, it's an either or situation, black and white.

So two posters largely, pointed out that Ben and (most likely) Thorson put up a strategy on defense to limit transition buckets by getting back. Bo Ryan did this, Greg Gard does this. We think that most likely the "core" philosphy will remain. I do think we'll tweak it as having better personnel should allow us too. I don't expect a drastic 180 and we start playing like Iowa. I believe Ben/Thorson want a slower muck it up paced game like Wisconsin. I can't for sure say what they'll do, they don't consult me.

And with that, I'm done

I'm still disappointed you haven't answered my question if you just enjoy arguing on message board or if you're just an ass in general
 




MNVCGUY said:
Best of luck to you. I get the sentiment but there is enough track record there with Barn Burner to feel confident in saying you are wasting your time.
Click to expand...
More than 20 years worth. It makes those who engage look silly, but that's just my opinion. I guess you can spend your time however you want...
 


salzie said:
Sure, but I'm done after this

So GF is talking about offensive rebounding and gophers using strategy to get back on defense instead of crashing boards. They're not only team to do this


You reshape the argument a bit here, back to rebounding, instead of sticking to offensive rebounding. I'll give you minor credit, context stays offensive rebounding. You then ask about year 2 strategy

GF responds again, talking about the defensive principals Gophers used this year, and as he's not on coaching staff, he's not sure how they'll adapt to next year.



You seem shocked a poster isn't sure what coaching staff. You also suggest if strategy remains, recruiting is a failure. You're using either or logical fallacy here. No one is arguing strategy was ONLY reason for rebounding woes. But you're twisting the argument to suggest GF is saying strategy was the ONLY factor. It was one factor on offensive rebounding. You then proclaim, as if you're the expert of basketball scheme and knowledge, the strategy can't continue, because if strategy continues, we'll be last in offensive rebounding again. There is however room in the middle, a middle you refuse to acknowledge as is common with either or logic fallacy you're employing.



I stupidly jump into this pointless debate at this point. I point out I suspect they'll continue to prioritize getting back on defense over offensive rebounds.

Here you shift the argument and ignore offensive rebounding and strategy previously being talked about and just go to total rebounds and being out rebounded and continue your either or logical fallacy, if you like the strategy you like being outrebounded, again, you ASSume there is no inbetween, turning nuanced discussion into black and white issue.

I agreed they need to rebound better, never argued otherwise, but facts be damned to you

You refer to discussion of basketball strategy as "excuses". Again, it's an either or proposition to you. Change strategy and win or lose. Which is bullshit, wisconsin wins consistently and they prioritize getting back on defense over offensive rebounds. Iowa prefers to crash boards and in turn sacrifices on defensive end. There is also room in the middle. I would expect MN to follow WI model from what I've seen after year 1, just my thoughts.

Here another poster points out personnel dictated strategy and we would've altered it if we had the right people



Correct, neither played. And we're suspecting strategy changed as a result. You make a stupid needless post here

Here you call out poster for not using logic completely oblivous to the logical fallacies you use over and over

The original argument was on offensive rebounding. You responded to post on rebounding % and total rebounds, and tied prior argument to it. No one said the gophers strategy was to be last in rebounds or that they didn't need to rebound better, they pointed out on offensive side of the equation, they limited their chances at offensive rebounding by getting back to avoid transition buckets. You've turned it posters saying they're not trying to rebound and will always be last.


I disagree to an extent, but I wasn't planning on getting back. But I also don't think Dakota followed argument to it's start. I don't expect the strategy to be identical to last year, all coaches adapt, update, etc. Better players, healthy fox, payne, should give us different options



I do think we'll prioritize getting back on defense, like Wisconsin, over offensive rebounding. I also expect we'll be a better rebounding team, on both sides. I just think the overall strategy of what they priortizes remains, I point I've already made, but you disregarded


Here you are just being an ass. No surprise, it's what you do. You changed the argument to fit your needs and ignore context or dismiss it as making excuses.

here you are where it's an either or proposition again

I could link through several arguments and find you using variety of logical fallacies while attacking others for not using logic. It's hysterical

You also ignore possibility that Gophers can still prioritize getting on defense and improve on rebounding. In your mind, they can only improve rebounding by changing strategy (posts linked above of you saying they need to change strategy). Again, no room for nuances with you, it's an either or situation, black and white.

So two posters largely, pointed out that Ben and (most likely) Thorson put up a strategy on defense to limit transition buckets by getting back. Bo Ryan did this, Greg Gard does this. We think that most likely the "core" philosphy will remain. I do think we'll tweak it as having better personnel should allow us too. I don't expect a drastic 180 and we start playing like Iowa. I believe Ben/Thorson want a slower muck it up paced game like Wisconsin. I can't for sure say what they'll do, they don't consult me.

And with that, I'm done

I'm still disappointed you haven't answered my question if you just enjoy arguing on message board or if you're just an ass in general
Click to expand...
You may be right that the core philosophy won't change 180. But if you have the talent it is pretty hard to not get a few more extra possessions a game if you can. I see Fox, Ihnen, and Payne fighting for offensive rebounds, while the others are falling back.
 



short ornery norwegian said:
on the roster construction/management:

I may be 100% wrong, but I suspect that Johnson & Co. came in here, got the lay of the land and decided they had two basic routes to follow:

#1: focus their attention on getting in the best players for immediate success and try to win right away.

#2: get in enough bodies to make it through the year, and then spend most of their time planning for future recruiting classes and future success.

Based on the results, I suspect they chose #2. Now, no coach would ever admit it, but I suspect that they made a choice to look to the future, even if that meant they didn't win a lot of games right away.

right choice - wrong choice? that will only become clear as we watch things play out
Click to expand...

short ornery norwegian said:
on the roster construction/management:

I may be 100% wrong, but I suspect that Johnson & Co. came in here, got the lay of the land and decided they had two basic routes to follow:

#1: focus their attention on getting in the best players for immediate success and try to win right away.

#2: get in enough bodies to make it through the year, and then spend most of their time planning for future recruiting classes and future success.

Based on the results, I suspect they chose #2. Now, no coach would ever admit it, but I suspect that they made a choice to look to the future, even if that meant they didn't win a lot of games right away.

right choice - wrong choice? that will only become clear as we watch things play out.
Click to expand...
Nope. Ben wanted to win right away and told his players that they were there to win the B1G. I heard them say it.
 

Allshade said:
Nope. Ben wanted to win right away and told his players that they were there to win the B1G. I heard them say it.
Click to expand...
A coach is always going to tell his players that he believes in them and that they will be a success if they do x, y, and z. That same coach may know that the chances of success are little but is going to do the best they can each game to achieve victory... against the odds. This year's Gopher squad needed to not only execute x, y, and z but do it nearly to perfection to win in the B1G.

I am excited to turn to the page and see what the squad looks like for the 22-23 season. The fans need some transfer news ASAP to avoid over analyzing last season... what I call the lost season! I am sure the fans will second guess every transfer but at least it will allow us all to enter into new arguments and disagreements!
 

I hope Ben plays all four freshman. I don't want to hear the excuses, "he's not strong enough, he doesn't have a shot, etc"., thinking more of JOJ and California wing in this case
 




12 pages deep and this thread is just going to be a bunch of rambling until we start getting a few players from the portal
 

Dakota2 said:
With the consistently top level of high school talent in Minnesota, the right guy is probably someone with local roots.
Click to expand...

I think many people overestimate the volume of high school talent in this state. Yes, it's good for a state of this size but you're not going to find the volume of capable players here that you would in a significantly more populous state. It also varies by year. In 2016 the highest rated player was Amir Coffey but the second highest rated player was Michael Hurt and the rest of the players in that class didn't do much in their college basketball careers (although #5 Tyler Johnson sure was good in football!). The U would have been better off looking elsewhere for its #2 recruit that year.

Someone like John Calipari with no local roots would instantly upgrade the level of talent if he came to a school like this and I don't think too many would care where the players came from in that case.
 


cjbfbp said:
I think many people overestimate the volume of high school talent in this state. Yes, it's good for a state of this size but you're not going to find the volume of capable players here that you would in a significantly more populous state. It also varies by year. In 2016 the highest rated player was Amir Coffey but the second highest rated player was Michael Hurt and the rest of the players in that class didn't do much in their college basketball careers (although #5 Tyler Johnson sure was good in football!). The U would have been better off looking elsewhere for its #2 recruit that year.

Someone like John Calipari with no local roots would instantly upgrade the level of talent if he came to a school like this and I don't think too many would care where the players came from in that case.
Click to expand...
You can build a pretty solid team with mostly Minnesota players but looking around the country for players will always be important.

Everyone would love to see the top in-state talent stay home and hopefully Ben can help make that happen. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter where a kid comes from if they can play. We definitely have a number of posters that get overly caught up in the "one of us" angle.
 

cjbfbp said:
I think many people overestimate the volume of high school talent in this state. Yes, it's good for a state of this size but you're not going to find the volume of capable players here that you would in a significantly more populous state. It also varies by year. In 2016 the highest rated player was Amir Coffey but the second highest rated player was Michael Hurt and the rest of the players in that class didn't do much in their college basketball careers (although #5 Tyler Johnson sure was good in football!). The U would have been better off looking elsewhere for its #2 recruit that year.

Someone like John Calipari with no local roots would instantly upgrade the level of talent if he came to a school like this and I don't think too many would care where the players came from in that case.
Click to expand...
Right, of course. I had completely forgotten that Calipari wanted the Gopher job and was rejected by Coyle.
 

MNVCGUY said:
You can build a pretty solid team with mostly Minnesota players but looking around the country for players will always be important.

Everyone would love to see the top in-state talent stay home and hopefully Ben can help make that happen. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter where a kid comes from if they can play. We definitely have a number of posters that get overly caught up in the "one of us" angle.
Click to expand...

Yes, if and when that happens, you maybe could build a really solid core completely from in-state recruits but I don't expect that to happen for at least a few years. Who knows how well these in-state recruits' rankings will correspond to their actual college performances, but according to 247, we received commits from the 6th and 9th ranked recruits in the state; Ola-Joseph wasn't in their top 12. I read that Carrington (#9) received the Mr. Basketball award so maybe that's a significant indication that he was underrated coming into this season.

The evidence right now is that we're not the preferred choice for most of the highest rated in-state players. I agree with Ben for recruiting 3 in-state players in his first class because any coach wanting to improve our standing with in-state recruits has to show that he really wants them but until that standing improves he will also need to look elsewhere.
 

Dakota2 said:
Right, of course. I had completely forgotten that Calipari wanted the Gopher job and was rejected by Coyle.
Click to expand...

Your sarcasm is misplaced and not helpful. The point is that you don't so much need a coach with local ties as you need a coach and staff who are very good recruiters. I just named Calipari because he is one of the most well known for that quality. It's what you call a hypothetical example to illustrate a point.
 

cjbfbp said:
Your sarcasm is misplaced and not helpful. The point is that you don't so much need a coach with local ties as you need a coach and staff who are very good recruiters. I just named Calipari because he is one of the most well known for that quality. It's what you call a hypothetical example to illustrate a point.
Click to expand...
Misplaced and not helpful? How so? It's a basketball board. The thread is about Ben Johnson. I wrote a post about Ben Johnson. You wrote one about John Calipari. LOL ... maybe that's the one you mean was misplaced (unless, of course, Calipari was a stealth candidate for the Gopher job which is being discussed here).

And not helpful? Helpful to what? To who, you? How am I expected to be helpful to you? Hope it's a short list cuz I'm not much inclined.
 

Dakota2 said:
Misplaced and not helpful? How so? It's a basketball board. The thread is about Ben Johnson. I wrote a post about Ben Johnson. You wrote one about John Calipari. LOL ... maybe that's the one you mean was misplaced (unless, of course, Calipari was a stealth candidate for the Gopher job which is being discussed here).

And not helpful? Helpful to what? To who, you? How am I expected to be helpful to you? Hope it's a short list cuz I'm not much inclined.
Click to expand...

I guess it's once a dick, always a dick with you. Adios!
 

cjbfbp said:
I guess it's once a dick, always a dick with you. Adios!
Click to expand...
Whoops ... looks like a direct hit. The inflated little puff adder is in a tizzy. But you forgot to use the f word this time, Mr. Classy.
 

Lakeville North Sophomore Jack Robison Talks Recruiting and Playing in the NCAA Tourney: “I mean, that’s the goal. It would mean everything.”​

 




This is why "wasting" a year building a culture can be dangerous. I understand we were unlikely to win last year and it's 1 year, but look no further than the women's team. We lose players every year and this year our best player explicitly said its because they weren't winning enough. Build culture, build relationships etc but at the end of the day, it's still Ws vs Ls that matter
 
Last edited:

leib0039 said:
This is why "wasting" a year building a culture can be dangerous. I understand we were unlikely to win last year and it's 1 year, but look no further than the women's team. We lose players every year and this year our best player explicitly said its because they weren't winning enough. Build culture do, build relationships etc but at the end of the day, it's still Ws vs Ls that matter
Click to expand...
Them's fightin words......
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom