Ben Johnson Reasonable Expectations

Donate To GopherHole
builtbadgers said:
Understood. Ben had a few months to get his guys. Richard had 8 years and had bad characters, bad defense, no identity. If by the end of year 3 we do not see better defense and a near .500 conference record then we have a problem. We had decades of poor fundamentals, bad characters. I already see strong fundamentals, non negotiables.
Click to expand...
Fraud. Monson didn’t tolerate Pzyzbilla.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
When do you think it's fair to expect those intangible things to lead to more wins? I'm not disagreeing with your take, I'm genuinely curious.
Click to expand...
What built won’t say is you need to cheat at first and sign and pay kids that have no business at a Big Ten school (Rashard Griffith). Then after you win shut down the cheating and act as tho none of that other stuff ever happened.
 

builtbadgers said:
Understood. Ben had a few months to get his guys. Richard had 8 years and had bad characters, bad defense, no identity. If by the end of year 3 we do not see better defense and a near .500 conference record then we have a problem. We had decades of poor fundamentals, bad characters. I already see strong fundamentals, non negotiables.
Click to expand...

We will see. Pitino had a number of first year guys on the team last year as well. He won the NIT in his first year here. I'm tired of losing, and I think Ben is a great person. I think the team was filled with good people, but not B1G caliber players. I'm just not convinced he has that edge it takes to be a great head coach.

I didn't see the fundamentals and system you and others have spoken about. I saw a few better shooters playing 1-1 and making difficult shots. I saw very poor defense. Year 1 looked a lot like Pitino ball. And despite how much you rip on Pitino for a poor culture and bad characters, Ben was a part of that for 5 of the 8 years.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
We will see. Pitino had a number of first year guys on the team last year as well. He won the NIT in his first year here. I'm tired of losing, and I think Ben is a great person. I think the team was filled with good people, but not B1G caliber players. I'm just not convinced he has that edge it takes to be a great head coach.

I didn't see the fundamentals and system you and others have spoken about. I saw a few better shooters playing 1-1 and making difficult shots. I saw very poor defense. Year 1 looked a lot like Pitino ball. And despite how much you rip on Pitino for a poor culture and bad characters, Ben was a part of that for 5 of the 8 years.
Click to expand...
They certainly had a similar approach to using their bench.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
We will see. Pitino had a number of first year guys on the team last year as well. He won the NIT in his first year here. I'm tired of losing, and I think Ben is a great person. I think the team was filled with good people, but not B1G caliber players. I'm just not convinced he has that edge it takes to be a great head coach.

I didn't see the fundamentals and system you and others have spoken about. I saw a few better shooters playing 1-1 and making difficult shots. I saw very poor defense. Year 1 looked a lot like Pitino ball. And despite how much you rip on Pitino for a poor culture and bad characters, Ben was a part of that for 5 of the 8 years.
Click to expand...
We were poor defensively no doubt. Turnovers were much better. Pitino had guys that had played together. I do not have to rip on Pitino, his record tells the story off and on the court.
 


builtbadgers said:
We were poor defensively no doubt. Turnovers were much better. Pitino had guys that had played together. I do not have to rip on Pitino, his record tells the story off and on the court.
Click to expand...
Pitino had tons of problems, but his teams didn't turn the ball over very often. You actually don't turn it over very often when playing hero ball. Pitino's teams were typically in the top half of the Big 10 in both turnovers and a/t ratio while actually playing at a considerably faster pace than last year's teams.

Tons of things to rip on Pitino about, turnovers really wasn't one of them.
 

builtbadgers said:
We were poor defensively no doubt. Turnovers were much better. Pitino had guys that had played together. I do not have to rip on Pitino, his record tells the story off and on the court.
Click to expand...
You told gh repeatedly the defense would be much improved.

You don’t have to yet you do and have for years.

More fraud BADGER.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Pitino had tons of problems, but his teams didn't turn the ball over very often. You actually don't turn it over very often when playing hero ball. Pitino's teams were typically in the top half of the Big 10 in both turnovers and a/t ratio while actually playing at a considerably faster pace than last year's teams.

Tons of things to rip on Pitino about, turnovers really wasn't one of them.
Click to expand...
Who had more turnovers last years or this years ?
 

builtbadgers said:
Just my opinion based on how i have seen other mediocre programs built to sustainability success. Elite success. UW failed miserably forever until they finally hired the right AD to hire the right coaches. Other programs that could not compete with the brand schools in recruiting found another way. Character, hard work, better scouting, better coaching, better development goes a long way. It takes time if you have been garbage for a long time.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% with your take here.
 




Bob_Loblaw said:
They certainly had a similar approach to using their bench.
Click to expand...
I’m interested to see how Ben manages his bench this year. I’m going to assume he has more depth, so I would hope we see 8-9 guys. I think that many guys will help with the defense too. Allows guys to just play harder and also be held accountable if they aren’t playing good D. Can game plan differently too.
 


builtbadgers said:
Understood. Ben had a few months to get his guys. Richard had 8 years and had bad characters, bad defense, no identity. If by the end of year 3 we do not see better defense and a near .500 conference record then we have a problem. We had decades of poor fundamentals, bad characters. I already see strong fundamentals, non negotiables.
Click to expand...
Just curious as to what strong fundamentals do you see? Blocking out and rebounding certainly was not one of them.
 



Bob_Loblaw said:
Watching Arkansas and Iowa State play in the tournament has gotten me thinking about a question that I think will be really hard to answer in regards to Ben Johnson because of COVID, transfer portal and the state of the program he inherited.

I am in the camp that it isn't wise to judge him over the results of this year. He walked into a uniquely difficult position due to COVID year mixed with transfer portal and the ramifications of those departures will probably ripple for a couple of years. I'm not making excuses for him but I also don't want to move on from a coach prematurely over something completely outside of his control. I also believe that excitement can be generated around a program before it shows up in the W/L department (Fleck's 6-6 2018 team showed some of that).

So here is where I stand on when we should realistically be expecting results (W/L column) from Ben Johnson.

Year 1: All I cared about was the system and recruiting. For me, I liked the way we played and I'm pumped up about the recruits we have coming in.
Year 2: I expect recruiting to keep progressing forward. I expect much better portal players and if we finish lower than 10th in the Big 10, Ben Johnson's seat should increase a couple degrees (maybe luke warm).
Year 3: If we finish lower than 10th, Ben Johnson's seat should be really warm/hot.
Year 4: If we are bad again, he should be fired. If we are improved, but don't make the tourney, his seat should be warm.
Year 5: Tournament or bust.

If he makes the tournament or finishes over .500 in the Big 10 in any of the first years, that throws this all out and we'd be starting with a new set of expectations.

Is this fair? Is it "too fair"? How do yours differ?
Click to expand...
You’re giving him way more leeway than I would. Unless he has high level recruits already committed for year 4 and year 5…lower than 10th in each of the first 3 years should be done.

I don’t know what the difference between warm, lukewarm, and hot is….but if you have know measurable success after 3 years. I’m over it.
If you don’t have a top 5 finish in the conference after 6 years, I’m over it.


This isn’t football. You can turn around a program almost instantly with a few pieces.
 

BarnBurner said:
You told gh repeatedly the defense would be much improved.

You don’t have to yet you do and have for years.

More fraud BADGER.
Click to expand...
If you are able to look at it objectively you will see that the defensive principles and fundamentals this year were much improved from the Pitino years. This teams poor defensive efficiency was the result of a lack of quickness and length and the absence of a rim protector not from deficient schemes or fundamentals.
 

Some guy said:
This isn’t football. You can turn around a program almost instantly with a few pieces.
Click to expand...

No, getting a few good pieces normally just results in temporarily more successful years. It takes much more than that to "turn around a program." Pitino had newcomers Lynch, Coffey, Springs, and the freshman version of Eric Curry added to the remnant of a horrible team and had a fantastic one-year turnaround but the success didn't last. In the latter part of his Penn State tenure, Pat Chambers assembled a cadre of good to very good players and had a couple of much more successful than usual years but that program pretty quickly reverted to its normal state.

There's temporary/occasional success and then there is more long-term and stable success. Millions of people know the song "Spirit in the Sky" but very few could name another song done by Norman Greenbaum.
 

bga1 said:
This year's team didn't even try to feed the ball into the paint. You are going to generate a few turnovers doing that.
Click to expand...
True but for having all new guys playing together i thought ball security and movement was much better. There was a noticeable jump in adhering to fundamentals to my eye.
 

jblass said:
Just curious as to what strong fundamentals do you see? Blocking out and rebounding certainly was not one of them.
Click to expand...
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.
 

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 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?
 

builtbadgers said:
UW lost Davis to a earlier injury, still won the Big 10. I DID NOT MENTION THEM SPECIFICALLY. All programs lose players for injuries and other circumstances. They have developed players better than we have. Pitino was a terrible coach. Pull his record in the conference, pull it against top 25 when he had healthy players and you will find healthy results. Do ther circumstances include Lynch ? He created that by recruiting a bad character. Everyone wants more good players. Hard to find 5 much less 9 or 10. Coaches are the overwhelming factor and no one on the planet thinks we have had anywhere close to great coaches. Mediocre.
Click to expand...
Badgers lost Davis for one half of basketball....I hope you're not comparing that to losing 2 starters before the season started.
 

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...
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.
 

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...
Yes they prioritize getting back on defense over offensive rebounds. They're not only team to do this, many successful teams do.
 

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...
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.
 

cjbfbp said:
No, getting a few good pieces normally just results in temporarily more successful years. It takes much more than that to "turn around a program." Pitino had newcomers Lynch, Coffey, Springs, and the freshman version of Eric Curry added to the remnant of a horrible team and had a fantastic one-year turnaround but the success didn't last. In the latter part of his Penn State tenure, Pat Chambers assembled a cadre of good to very good players and had a couple of much more successful than usual years but that program pretty quickly reverted to its normal state.

There's temporary/occasional success and then there is more long-term and stable success. Millions of people know the song "Spirit in the Sky" but very few could name another song done by Norman Greenbaum.
Click to expand...
You can do both. You don’t have to sacrifice what it takes for long term success to win by year 3.
Are you saying you’ll be disappointed in year 3 if their winning because you can’t win that fast?
 

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...
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?
 

bmb5270 said:
If you are able to look at it objectively you will see that the defensive principles and fundamentals this year were much improved from the Pitino years. This teams poor defensive efficiency was the result of a lack of quickness and length and the absence of a rim protector not from deficient schemes or fundamentals.
Click to expand...

What were these defensive principles and fundamentals that were improved? Defense and rebounding comes down to effort more than anything.

Someone made a good post about Steve Pikiel'ls first year at Rutgers a little while back. They were a similarly bad team to the Gophers this year. Their defense was the worst in the B1G the year before he took over. Despite being bad, their defense improved noticeably in year 1 and 2.

I thought we'd see something similar with this year's Gopher team, but we didn't. They regressed defensively.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
What were these defensive principles and fundamentals that were improved? Defense and rebounding comes down to effort more than anything.

Someone made a good post about Steve Pikiel'ls first year at Rutgers a little while back. They were a similarly bad team to the Gophers this year. Their defense was the worst in the B1G the year before he took over. Despite being bad, their defense improved noticeably in year 1 and 2.

I thought we'd see something similar with this year's Gopher team, but we didn't. They regressed defensively.
Click to expand...
More than anything? Our lack of size was biggest detriment in rebounds.
 

salzie said:
More than anything? Our lack of size was biggest detriment in rebounds.
Click to expand...
The good news is there really only are a few posters here that are determined to make it seem like what we saw this year is guaranteed to be the exact same thing we see going forward.

Most understand that the team was forced to play a particular way due to the front court injuries that happened before the season. But for the truly stubborn handful that is just making excuses and apparently losing most of your front court depth shouldn't cause a team to struggle.

Will be interesting to see how much the style of play changes next year when we will hopefully have a much more balanced roster with some size and depth in the front court as opposed to what we had this past season.
 


GopherWeatherGuy said:
People keep saying this but the size of our starters was similar to a lot of good teams.
Click to expand...
Please list the 'lot of good teams' that were playing a gimpy 4 at the center position, a solid 3 as a 4, and 3 average guards. Did these 'good teams' also have little to no bench so they were forced to play timid basketball to avoid foul trouble while competing for boards?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom