COACHING CAROUSEL 2021

[Drcthru]

Interesting that Syracuse identified Petro in their article as potentially joining Cuse staff. Gait also said in presser that he expects announcement in the next few days on staff members.

Petro will be the DC, its only a formality at this point.

That is going to be one hell of a staff. I am not a Syracuse fan, but it's really hard not to root for Gary Gait. I will be interested to see how Petro does up there. They need a lot of help on the defensive side of the field. Wish them all the best.

There is some talent there but a new defensive system is needed and so is an additional infusion of talent. The Yale transfer will help along with Kennedy returning but the D needs a complete overhaul. They have some youngsters with talent but another quality transfer at Close D (probably 2 at this point) would really help. Kennedy is likely to bump back down to close and be the #1 defender but he needs help.

I suspect Coach Pietramala’s Syracuse defense is going to look very different than the Hopkins defenses we have seen in recent years. Doesn’t mean he will abandon everything he has taught the last 30 years, but I am thinking that Coach Gait will try and return the Orange to its old run-and-gun ways, and that calls for a more aggressive defense focused on causing turnovers and initiating transition.

Or am I projecting here?

Dunno ….

DocBarrister

Can the tiger change his stripes?

[Chitown]

I probably should wait until Syracuse makes its announcement of its new DC. BUT it seems unlikely to me that Gary Gait would name Pietramala as his new DC. Why would he? Gait doesn't swear at Refs from the sideline. Pietramala was chastised by the Hopkins Admin to curb his behavior on the sideline. Quite a difference in public coaching behavior. Gait wears a coat & tie on the sideline. Pietramala does not. (just a difference in attitude). Can you imagine the sideline at a game with both of them there! Who is in charge? They are the same age. There are lots of younger up & coming coaches. Why would you hire a guy who is trying to redeem himself (possibly at your(Gaits) expense). None of Pietramala's assistant coaches were hired away as Head Coaches, Why? Other programs may have thought they had better choices. Etc, etc, etc.

[AreaLax]

Anyways...

It seems there are assistant positions that are open at:

Boston U.
Holy Cross
LIU
Marquette
Syracuse (2)
Wagner

I’m sure there’s a handful of others as well.

Have heard that Lattimore was promoted to the full time assistant at BU.

Where did Poillon from Marquette go?

Who is out at LIU?

Jack Runkel
https://twitter.com/liumlax/status/1403 ... 97441?s=21

[River Donkey]

Anyways...

It seems there are assistant positions that are open at:

Boston U.
Holy Cross
LIU
Marquette
Syracuse (2)
Wagner

I’m sure there’s a handful of others as well.

Have heard that Lattimore was promoted to the full time assistant at BU.

Where did Poillon from Marquette go?

Who is out at LIU?

Jack Runkel
https://twitter.com/liumlax/status/1403 ... 97441?s=21

Thank you

[wgdsr]

I probably should wait until Syracuse makes its announcement of its new DC. BUT it seems unlikely to me that Gary Gait would name Pietramala as his new DC. Why would he? Gait doesn't swear at Refs from the sideline. Pietramala was chastised by the Hopkins Admin to curb his behavior on the sideline. Quite a difference in public coaching behavior. Gait wears a coat & tie on the sideline. Pietramala does not. (just a difference in attitude). Can you imagine the sideline at a game with both of them there! Who is in charge? They are the same age. There are lots of younger up & coming coaches. Why would you hire a guy who is trying to redeem himself (possibly at your(Gaits) expense). None of Pietramala's assistant coaches were hired away as Head Coaches, Why? Other programs may have thought they had better choices. Etc, etc, etc.

is this a serious post or sarcasm?

[HopFan16]

For those assuming Petro will completely overhaul the defensive philosophy he's been using for 20+ years...I wouldn't hold your breath.

You think not only the Kaestner is a better D coach....you think that coaching can fix deficient/lesser talent. And as you know, I disagree, and believe that every top 20 program has access to D coaches that can teach defense just fine.

No, I said it’s possible that coaching can IMPROVE play. I didn’t say it can completely “fix” it if there is no talent. That’s the most anodyne, obvious take in sports history and yet here we are and it’s somehow controversial. Coaching can have an impact. That’s it. That’s my entire take. What happens at Cuse next year will neither prove nor disprove that.

[a fan]

No, I said it’s possible that coaching can IMPROVE play. I didn’t say it can completely “fix” it if there is no talent. That’s the most anodyne, obvious take in sports history and yet here we are and it’s somehow controversial. Coaching can have an impact. That’s it. That’s my entire take.

And what I said was: all the top 20 D1 programs have competent coaching staffs. There's no difference between the staffs that would make a material difference on the field. And I can point to a bunch of examples to make that case, since coaches move around, allowing for comparisons.

We're misunderstanding each other again, I think.

[wgdsr]

No, I said it’s possible that coaching can IMPROVE play. I didn’t say it can completely “fix” it if there is no talent. That’s the most anodyne, obvious take in sports history and yet here we are and it’s somehow controversial. Coaching can have an impact. That’s it. That’s my entire take.

And what I said was: all the top 20 D1 programs have competent coaching staffs. There's no difference between the staffs that would make a material difference on the field. And I can point to a bunch of examples to make that case, since coaches move around, allowing for comparisons.

We're misunderstanding each other again, I think.

doc says if they'd play a more aggressive defense, they'd be better.

[a fan]

How much is (say) Lars Tiffany worth over (say) Matt Kerwick, in goals per game? That is, if one or the other were to coach exactly the same players on the same team at the same school, what would the score differences be? (Of course this experiment cannot be done in real life.)

I would say at least +2.

What do you say?

I'd ask: what makes you think this? He was 95-56 at the only place he was at for a long time, Brown. Had a mess of .500 seasons.

Then he gets elite talent in Molloy, Kemp, and goalie Kelly? Boom. Final Four, although barely.

I see nothing that tells me he's any different than any other D1 coach---assuming each coach is handed the same team.

And he's a great coach. But so are all the others, imho.

[CU77]

OK, thanks. I don't agree at all. I think Tiffany got a lot more out of his players (at both Brown and UVa) then Kerwick got out of his. IMO, there is definitely such a thing as coaching talent, just like there is such a thing as player talent.

[FannOLax]

FWIW, I completely agree with CU77 on this. Kerwick is perhaps a more extreme example. Enough said by me.

[Farfromgeneva]

Haus vs Breschi?

Dirrgyl vs Toomey?

Sowell vs Nagle?

Brecht vs Svec?

Cassesse vs Every prior Lehigh coach?

Seremet vs Wilson?

Murphy vs MVA?

Zim vs Moran?

Munro vs Tierney?

Tillman vs Cottle (or Wojick)?

Dano vs Seth Tierney?

[a fan]

No, I said it’s possible that coaching can IMPROVE play. I didn’t say it can completely “fix” it if there is no talent. That’s the most anodyne, obvious take in sports history and yet here we are and it’s somehow controversial. Coaching can have an impact. That’s it. That’s my entire take.

And what I said was: all the top 20 D1 programs have competent coaching staffs. There's no difference between the staffs that would make a material difference on the field. And I can point to a bunch of examples to make that case, since coaches move around, allowing for comparisons.

We're misunderstanding each other again, I think.

doc says if they'd play a more aggressive defense, they'd be better.

[a fan]

OK, thanks. I don't agree at all. I think Tiffany got a lot more out of his players (at both Brown and UVa) then Kerwick got out of his

Again, I'm not seeing it. Tiffany was meh at Brown until elite talent arrived in Molloy and Kelly. And even then, he squeaked by unseeded Navy by a single goal in a fantastic game.


And then UVa was flat line for Tiffany's first two years after inheriting a .500 team from Starsia. 1-7 in the ACC. Where was this great coaching?

Then the recruiting kicked in.

You say Tiffany is plus two per game? UVa only beat Bryant by two in the first round this year. If you say that he's a +2, that implies you think that Bryant UVa are even talent-wise, and Tiffanys' coaching is what gave them the +2 win.

I wouldn't agree with that.

[DocBarrister]

No, I said it’s possible that coaching can IMPROVE play. I didn’t say it can completely “fix” it if there is no talent. That’s the most anodyne, obvious take in sports history and yet here we are and it’s somehow controversial. Coaching can have an impact. That’s it. That’s my entire take.

And what I said was: all the top 20 D1 programs have competent coaching staffs. There's no difference between the staffs that would make a material difference on the field. And I can point to a bunch of examples to make that case, since coaches move around, allowing for comparisons.

We're misunderstanding each other again, I think.

doc says if they'd play a more aggressive defense, they'd be better.

This year’s tournament pretty much proved that.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

OK, thanks. I don't agree at all. I think Tiffany got a lot more out of his players (at both Brown and UVa) then Kerwick got out of his

Again, I'm not seeing it. Tiffany was meh at Brown until elite talent arrived in Molloy and Kelly. And even then, he squeaked by unseeded Navy by a single goal in a fantastic game.


And then UVa was flat line for Tiffany's first two years after inheriting a .500 team from Starsia. 1-7 in the ACC. Where was this great coaching?

Then the recruiting kicked in.

You say Tiffany is plus two per game? UVa only beat Bryant by two in the first round this year. If you say that he's a +2, that implies you think that Bryant UVa are even talent-wise, and Tiffanys' coaching is what gave them the +2 win.

I wouldn't agree with that.

You are just so wrong, a fan.

The analogy with players is a good one.

Yes, there are many, many good lacrosse players.

There aren’t many great ones.

The same is true with coaches.

DocBarrister

[shaadb-man]

OK, thanks. I don't agree at all. I think Tiffany got a lot more out of his players (at both Brown and UVa) then Kerwick got out of his

Again, I'm not seeing it. Tiffany was meh at Brown until elite talent arrived in Molloy and Kelly. And even then, he squeaked by unseeded Navy by a single goal in a fantastic game.


And then UVa was flat line for Tiffany's first two years after inheriting a .500 team from Starsia. 1-7 in the ACC. Where was this great coaching?

Then the recruiting kicked in.

You say Tiffany is plus two per game? UVa only beat Bryant by two in the first round this year. If you say that he's a +2, that implies you think that Bryant UVa are even talent-wise, and Tiffanys' coaching is what gave them the +2 win.

I wouldn't agree with that.

a fan
I'm not sure that your totally wrong with Tiffany, what I will say is it may not have been the addition of Molloy and Kelly on the field but the huge addition he made off the field. That same person came to Charlottesville with him.

[jrn19]

OK, thanks. I don't agree at all. I think Tiffany got a lot more out of his players (at both Brown and UVa) then Kerwick got out of his

Again, I'm not seeing it. Tiffany was meh at Brown until elite talent arrived in Molloy and Kelly. And even then, he squeaked by unseeded Navy by a single goal in a fantastic game.


And then UVa was flat line for Tiffany's first two years after inheriting a .500 team from Starsia. 1-7 in the ACC. Where was this great coaching?

Then the recruiting kicked in.

You say Tiffany is plus two per game? UVa only beat Bryant by two in the first round this year. If you say that he's a +2, that implies you think that Bryant UVa are even talent-wise, and Tiffanys' coaching is what gave them the +2 win.

I wouldn't agree with that.

“The recruiting kicked in”

All of Lars best players aside from Shellenberger are Starsia recruits

Moore has been there since 2018, Lars’ 2nd year. Laviano has been there since 2018. Dox has been there since 2017, his first year. Jared Conners has been there since 2018, his first year. Ryan Conrad was there his first two years. Rode since 2018. Even Cormier is a Starsia recruit. All these dudes Lars inherited and have been there since he first got there. How exactly did the recruiting “kick in”

It’s hilarious how literally everyone can agree that coaching matters in every sport and has a tangible outcome on games through development and strategy and then you apparently have discovered that literally all of these games are just automatons who can be subbed in and out and literally do not make any impact whatsoever

[jrn19]

OK, thanks. I don't agree at all. I think Tiffany got a lot more out of his players (at both Brown and UVa) then Kerwick got out of his

Again, I'm not seeing it. Tiffany was meh at Brown until elite talent arrived in Molloy and Kelly. And even then, he squeaked by unseeded Navy by a single goal in a fantastic game.


And then UVa was flat line for Tiffany's first two years after inheriting a .500 team from Starsia. 1-7 in the ACC. Where was this great coaching?

Then the recruiting kicked in.

You say Tiffany is plus two per game? UVa only beat Bryant by two in the first round this year. If you say that he's a +2, that implies you think that Bryant UVa are even talent-wise, and Tiffanys' coaching is what gave them the +2 win.

I wouldn't agree with that.

a fan
I'm not sure that your totally wrong with Tiffany, what I will say is it may not have been the addition of Molloy and Kelly on the field but the huge addition he made off the field. That same person came to Charlottesville with him.

Except that guy doesn’t make any impact because there’s no such thing as coaching. You just get the players and then roll the ball out there and whoever has the better players wins. And the players are good wholly independent of the coaches and the coaches don’t develop the players at all. They’re all finished products when they arrive and whoever is best wins!

[a fan]

It’s hilarious how literally everyone can agree that coaching matters in every sport and has a tangible outcome on games through development and strategy and then you apparently have discovered that literally all of these games are just automatons who can be subbed in and out and literally do not make any impact whatsoever

No, what's hilarious is that you guys keep building a strawman, and aren't paying attention to what I'm saying.

I'm not saying these coaches don't affect their teams. Of course they do. You're acting like I'm saying the option is: Lars Tiffany and Co. on the sidelines, or: no one on the sidelines at all.

That's not what I'm saying, and you know it.

I'm saying: look at the top 20 for D1. Tell me which coaches are great, and which aren't.

I'm saying, if you have, say, the 2021 UVa roster? The odds are that Brecht, Desko, Tierney, Nadelen, Conry, Danowski, Milliman, etc. will all get them to the Final Four.

That's it. That's my point. So yep, I agree 1000% that Tiffany is a fine coach. But here's the thing you're missing: so are Brecht, Desko, Tierney, Nadelen, Conry, Danowski, Milliman, etc.

Heck, Tierney and Desko are already in the HoF. Twelve championships as Head Coaches between them. Both bounced in the 1st round. Why?

You all know why...but are playing dumb. The one thing I know is that it sure as *hit wasn't because they can't coach lacrosse.