Welcome to Hogville!      Do Not Sell My Personal Information

My opinion of Mike

Started by nwahogfan1, January 14, 2018, 09:27:59 am

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

navyhog24

Quote from: ParkerSchnabel on January 17, 2018, 04:11:03 pm
This is just ignorant. He didn't take 7 years to turn it around. We had a great year last year. We had at least one good season with Portis here. If you look back he had a positive trend his first few years with wins increasing. Until the ONE BAD YEAR that was Mike's shortcoming for not planning for MQ and Portis leaving. Since that time he has once again made steady improvement both in wins and recruiting. All while recruiting to an empty ghost town of a gym. You sir are clueless.

PS12

Please pass along what you are smoking. I understand we all love MA bc of his past history, but if he were any other coach, we all would be demanding more of him than what we are getting. 7 years in and we are still playing the same incompetent way as we did in year 1. There is no game planning and no actual coaching. It's just all pep talk. We are making the same dumb mistakes from the 1st year as we do in the 7th year. That's on the coach. We have already peaked with MA. The second round of the NCAAT is the best we'll ever get to with him.

Jim Harris

Quote from: hawgball40 on January 14, 2018, 10:14:47 am
I think Mike's problem is being able to effectively communicate what he is thinking. I think he expects his team to know him the way nolan's teams knew nolan. In practice situations, he's a great teacher. But in games, he yells quick reminders and expects the player to know what he is saying. during the game his mind looks like it is moving 1000 miles a minute and the things he is thinking aren't always coming out the way he intends them. He doesn't look like a deer in the headlights at all to me. He looks like a tactician, trying to decide what to do. like last night he said something like "drive... and then layups... corner". meaning you can drive and take the layup or kick out to the corner, which is something nearly all teams do. Also, the lineup changes were likely based on analytics and practice performance, not any "stroke of genius" on part of the coach. a modern basketball coach is an analyst above all things. he identifies trends and finds ways to exploit them.

excellent observations.
"We've been trying to build a program on a 7-8 win per season business model .... We upgraded the Business Model." -- John Tyson

 

Hoggish1

Quote from: TebowHater on January 14, 2018, 10:10:53 am
This isn't too far from the truth. The rule changes have hampered his style of play. As one example, just look at the "cylinder" rule that prevents us from playing the true D we used to - and that even without trying to do so, still got us called for several fouls yesterday anyway.

Fouls are a dime a dozen these days - doesn't allow for physical play.

OK.  So why hasn't Mike changed with the rules or should we lobby the coaches/NCAA (whomever) to bring back the rules like they were "back in the day...?"

Hoggish1

Quote from: LA Football fan on January 17, 2018, 09:41:16 am
My opinion of Mike is that he has a weak assistant coaching staff and always  has.  He needs to add a tactician/x's and o's coach to balance his motion offense system.  He needs to add a defensive specialist that  can teach these kids how to play defense without switching into a mismatch every trip the opponent takes down court on offense and how to play tough man to man out on the perimeter WITHOUT fouling.  How  to block out effectively on defense and limit the offensive rebounds.  Mike has recruited enough talent to have better results.  The problem is and always has been - coaching.  Too many holes in Mike's and his staffs coaching for players to overcome on the court.

Correct!

Mike is too loyal to his coaches.  They are mediocre but he can't bring himself to do anything about hs long-time coaches that just sit there next to him NOT COACHING.

The new AD will have to step in and deliver the news to Mike that he has to upgrade his staff or he will be sent packing.

KlubhouseKonnected

Quote from: Kevin on January 18, 2018, 07:38:22 am
any of us could have signed portis & gafford. they wanted to come to Arkansas.

Which is what everyone would say about Monk if he had signed Monk.
If Auburn is dirty so is Gus. You can't have it both ways. Deal with it.

GuvHog

Quote from: KlubhouseKonnected on January 18, 2018, 11:55:08 am
Which is what everyone would say about Monk if he had signed Monk.

No they wouldn't have. Both Portis and Gafford made it clear from the gitgo that they wanted to be Hogs. Monk toyed with the Hogs but really never wanted to come to Arkansas. Had he flipped at the last and come to Arkansas, Mike would have gotten the credit for it.
Bleeding Razorback Red Since Birth!!!

Wild Bill Hog

Quote from: KlubhouseKonnected on January 18, 2018, 11:55:08 am
Which is what everyone would say about Monk if he had signed Monk.

He didn't sign Monk now did he?

majp51

Quote from: KlubhouseKonnected on January 18, 2018, 11:55:08 am
Which is what everyone would say about Monk if he had signed Monk.

Not even close. If you actually looked at the info and history on the recruitment of Portis, the only semi-serious offer he got besides us was Florida, and while Donovan wanted him, he didn't put a hard pres for him. Gaffords got the same toke offer from Kansas, but again no hard press. Monk was getting the hard sales pitch from more than Arkansas and Kentucky, same with Goodwin.

Shoot, sad to bring a sore subject up, but when it really mattered he couldn't seal the deal on Perry.


Now there are several CMA detractors that would have found something else to complain about if CMA had won any meaningful recruiting battles, but he hasn't.

In terms of Coaching and Recruiting, not the person mind you,  CMA is the Houston Nutt of college basketball.

Hmm, I wonder if that means we have 3 more years of this

Hog Pharm

Quote from: hogfan870 on January 17, 2018, 04:35:02 pm
I don't think I know enough about basketball "style of play".  Not sure how Mike's philosophy is much different than other successful programs, or how it can't work at Arkansas, while it works other places.  Not sure we always really live up to the up tempo, trapping D, that I understand to be Mike's style, but I don't get how that is the problem. 

I was flipping through some games the other night and I heard an announcer of an SEC game say that AU and Bama were the two fastest paced teams in the SEC.  I do think that while advertising ourselves and the fastest 40, we aren't really that.  Not sure why we aren't, but I will say that I agree that we don't really seem to live up to that.   

Agree 100%. The fastest40 mantra is a complete farce. Pressing, uptempo basketball works. We just don't do it effectively at all.

HamIAm

Quote from: Hog Pharm on January 18, 2018, 01:19:27 pm
Agree 100%. The fastest40 mantra is a complete farce. Pressing, uptempo basketball works. We just don't do it effectively at all.

We looked confused on defense a number of times last night.

hogfan870

I think I am easier on MA for two reasons.  One, his history here.  And two, his success at his past stops. 

Heath and Pel had only has success at a mid majors for brief periods of time.  Anderson has had success both at a mid major and a SEC team.  If he can't do it here, it almost seems like it says as much about us as it does about him.  For some reason, no coach has been able to do it here in a long time, including at least one with a history of success at this level. 

That being said - and shifting gears a little - I was surprised to hear the announcers say (during that horrible effort last night) that we were 2nd in SEC to only KY in wins over the past 4 years (ahead of FL and everyone else).  So maybe we have been better under MA than it feels like we have.  Also, last year, right when I gave up and promised to quit watching games, we kind of turned it around - maybe that will happen again this year, because I am getting pretty close to stopping watching. 

PonderinHog

Quote from: hogfan870 on January 18, 2018, 01:55:33 pm
I think I am easier on MA for two reasons.  One, his history here.  And two, his success at his past stops. 

Heath and Pel had only has success at a mid majors for brief periods of time.  Anderson has had success both at a mid major and a SEC team.  If he can't do it here, it almost seems like it says as much about us as it does about him.  For some reason, no coach has been able to do it here in a long time, including at least one with a history of success at this level. 

That being said - and shifting gears a little - I was surprised to hear the announcers say (during that horrible effort last night) that we were 2nd in SEC to only KY in wins over the past 4 years (ahead of FL and everyone else).  So maybe we have been better under MA than it feels like we have.  Also, last year, right when I gave up and promised to quit watching games, we kind of turned it around - maybe that will happen again this year, because I am getting pretty close to stopping watching.
I wish you'd hurry up and quit watching!   :D

Busta_Nutt

Quote from: LA Football fan on January 17, 2018, 09:41:16 am
My opinion of Mike is that he has a weak assistant coaching staff and always  has.  He needs to add a tactician/x's and o's coach to balance his motion offense system.  He needs to add a defensive specialist that  can teach these kids how to play defense without switching into a mismatch every trip the opponent takes down court on offense and how to play tough man to man out on the perimeter WITHOUT fouling.  How  to block out effectively on defense and limit the offensive rebounds.  Mike has recruited enough talent to have better results.  The problem is and always has been - coaching.  Too many holes in Mike's and his staffs coaching for players to overcome on the court.

Agree with this. In-game adjustments have to be made and rarely are with this team and previous.

 

Atlhogfan1

Quote from: hogfan870 on January 18, 2018, 01:55:33 pm
I think I am easier on MA for two reasons.  One, his history here.  And two, his success at his past stops. 

Heath and Pel had only has success at a mid majors for brief periods of time.  Anderson has had success both at a mid major and a SEC team.  If he can't do it here, it almost seems like it says as much about us as it does about him.  For some reason, no coach has been able to do it here in a long time, including at least one with a history of success at this level. 

That being said - and shifting gears a little - I was surprised to hear the announcers say (during that horrible effort last night) that we were 2nd in SEC to only KY in wins over the past 4 years (ahead of FL and everyone else).  So maybe we have been better under MA than it feels like we have.  Also, last year, right when I gave up and promised to quit watching games, we kind of turned it around - maybe that will happen again this year, because I am getting pretty close to stopping watching.

No. 

Mizzou was in the B12 when he was there.

He has had one truly great season - 08-09 Mizzou.  Everything came together for him for that one season.  His team never hit a slump.  Never lost back to back games.  Worst parts were some of the margins of defeat: 25 to KU, 16 to unranked KU and Ill and 10 to unranked A&M.  He has not had anything like this team or season in his other 15+ seasons. 

His record going into this season against ranked teams at the time he played them including NCAAT matchups: 22-54 28.9%
UAB: 4-14 with a best of 2-3 in his second season
Mizzou: 10-21, E8 team was 5-2 vs ranked teams leaving the other 4 teams 5-19
Arkansas: 8-19, best record vs ranked teams was his first team 3-3
Our 2013-14 team went 2-2, 14-15 team was 0-4
Now we are 2-1 this season and 3-1 if you include OU who wasn't ranked when we played although Minn has shown not to be top 25 worthy. 
Quote from: MaconBacon on March 22, 2018, 10:30:04 amWe had a good run in the 90's and one NC and now the whole state still laments that we are a top seed program and have kids standing in line to come to good ole Arkansas.  We're just a flash in the pan boys. 

majp51

Quote from: hogfan870 on January 18, 2018, 01:55:33 pm
I think I am easier on MA for two reasons.  One, his history here.  And two, his success at his past stops. 

Heath and Pel had only has success at a mid majors for brief periods of time.  Anderson has had success both at a mid major and a SEC team.

Err CMA has not had success at another SEC school. He had success at a Big 12 school. Missouri didn't Join the SEC until after CMA left.


Quote
If he can't do it here, it almost seems like it says as much about us as it does about him.  For some reason, no coach has been able to do it here in a long time, including at least one with a history of success at this level. 

Yes and no. First off, Look at CMA's tenure at Missouri and UAB, Missouri he basically improved their reputation after their previous' coaches NCAA scandal, but ultimately he didn't accomplish anything that hadn't been accomplished at Missouri before, shoot His best season ultimately only matched Quinn Snyder's best season. UAB was a good run, but a mid major , and one with a history of being able to accomplish everything CMA accomplished.

Now only meeting or maintaining for a number of years the best seasons of a programs history is good if you are talking Kentucky, or UNC, or Duke, or even Mississippi State, but neither Missouri, nor UAB have even once made the Final Four.

So He did good, but not great at both schools.

With that being said there is something to his overall lack of meaningful success is a reflection of some of the unique challenges to coaching at the U of A, Arkansas is a little harder to recruit to that UAB and Missouri for the kind of depth that CMA needs, and recruiting is not CMA's forte. So ultimately it means CMA is not really a good match for Arkansas, and visa versa, presuming that both parties are interested in being the best that they can be.

Take CMA and put him at a school like Depaul, and Depaul would suddenly become the Depaul of old, because CMA would automatically have plenty of the depth, and would only need to land one of those 4star or 5 star players to complete the needs he has for the program.

Here you have to recruit as hard for the quality 3 stars to round out the roster as you do for the top talent. It's not an insurmountable challenge but you have to understand that and be willing to put in the work and get your hands dirty (and not talking about NCAA violations, I'm talking about having to tread water in teh AAU cesspool)

Quote
That being said - and shifting gears a little - I was surprised to hear the announcers say (during that horrible effort last night) that we were 2nd in SEC to only KY in wins over the past 4 years (ahead of FL and everyone else).  So maybe we have been better under MA than it feels like we have.  Also, last year, right when I gave up and promised to quit watching games, we kind of turned it around - maybe that will happen again this year, because I am getting pretty close to stopping watching. 

The problem is that is more a reflection of the problems with SEC Basketball than on CMA's accomplishment. Like it or not you have to do more than win regular season games, you actually have to show up in the post season. In those 4 years, only 2 NCAA appearances, and not once did we make it to even the sweet sixteen. Merely making the tourney as an 8 or 9 seed isn't much in the way of true achievement.

razrbakr1

Coach Anderson needs a thank you, a pat on the back, a hand shake and a foot in his butt.
In that order.

Atlhogfan1

Quote from: majp51 on January 18, 2018, 02:14:34 pm
Err CMA has not had success at another SEC school. He had success at a Big 12 school. Missouri didn't Join the SEC until after CMA left.


Yes and no. First off, Look at CMA's tenure at Missouri and UAB, Missouri he basically improved their reputation after their previous' coaches NCAA scandal, but ultimately he didn't accomplish anything that hadn't been accomplished at Missouri before, shoot His best season ultimately only matched Quinn Snyder's best season. UAB was a good run, but a mid major , and one with a history of being able to accomplish everything CMA accomplished.

Now only meeting or maintaining for a number of years the best seasons of a programs history is good if you are talking Kentucky, or UNC, or Duke, or even Mississippi State, but neither Missouri, nor UAB have even once made the Final Four.

So He did good, but not great at both schools.

With that being said there is something to his overall lack of meaningful success is a reflection of some of the unique challenges to coaching at the U of A, Arkansas is a little harder to recruit to that UAB and Missouri for the kind of depth that CMA needs, and recruiting is not CMA's forte. So ultimately it means CMA is not really a good match for Arkansas, and visa versa, presuming that both parties are interested in being the best that they can be.

Take CMA and put him at a school like Depaul, and Depaul would suddenly become the Depaul of old, because CMA would automatically have plenty of the depth, and would only need to land one of those 4star or 5 star players to complete the needs he has for the program.

Here you have to recruit as hard for the quality 3 stars to round out the roster as you do for the top talent. It's not an insurmountable challenge but you have to understand that and be willing to put in the work and get your hands dirty (and not talking about NCAA violations, I'm talking about having to tread water in teh AAU cesspool)

The problem is that is more a reflection of the problems with SEC Basketball than on CMA's accomplishment. Like it or not you have to do more than win regular season games, you actually have to show up in the post season. In those 4 years, only 2 NCAA appearances, and not once did we make it to even the sweet sixteen. Merely making the tourney as an 8 or 9 seed isn't much in the way of true achievement.

The only positive about recruiting to UAB is the lower requirements he had and the less amount of talent he needed.  Players like Eddins weren't getting into Arkansas.  His Juco pool was larger.  Tweeners thrive in mid major conferences.  Why Harris looked so good at Houston.  Mike is a great fit for a CUSA level program.

Mizzou recruiting:
2007
Safford National 280 (24-7 numbers)

2008
Denmon Nat 119
English 127
Moore 137
Paul 156
Bowers 200 - Hog family
Ramsey #24 in JC

2009
Dixon 149
Dewitt 302
Underwood 338
Stone 439

2010
Mitchell 16 - eligibility issues, never played
Pressey 49 - friend
Ratliffe #1 JC
Green 201
Kreklow 210
Pressey #21 JC - friend

2011
0


Arkansas

2012
Qualls 152
Wagner 167
Williams 177
Bell 201
Clarke #22 JC

2013
Portis 17
Moses 49

2014
Beard 114
Babb 171
Durham #21 JC
Thompson 253

2015
Whitt 68

2016
Barford #1 JC
Macon #5 JC
Cook #6 JC
Hazen 266
Bailey 305
Jones 383

2017
Gafford 37
Garland 166 on 247, 58 on ESPN
Hall 297
Gabe 319

2018
Henderson 102
Embery 121
Chaney 143
Joe 155
Phillips 168
Sills 238

These classes don't suggest he has a harder time recruiting to Arkansas.  Not much difference in the caliber of recruits he signed. 

Quote from: MaconBacon on March 22, 2018, 10:30:04 amWe had a good run in the 90's and one NC and now the whole state still laments that we are a top seed program and have kids standing in line to come to good ole Arkansas.  We're just a flash in the pan boys. 

hobhog

Quote from: synthartist69 on January 17, 2018, 11:32:00 pm
I like Mike Anderson. He recruited Portis and Gafford. He can win here. We sucked before we had him, we are now making it to tournaments again.

And if we don't? Next year is a complete rebuild.....

LRHawg

The fans backed the team this year and showed up as SEC play began and we had hope. We are thirsty for success in basketball again. If Mike can't get us there, then I like him but it's time to move on.