Blog Entry

Loyola coach should be embarrassed, ashamed

Posted on: November 26, 2008 6:56 am
Edited on: November 26, 2008 7:02 am
 

I've never been a basketball coach.

Let me preface this with that.

But everything I know tells me the top priority when it comes to coaching should be to win or at the very least stay competitive, which is what makes Jimmy Patsos' decision to double-team Stephen Curry pretty much every minute of Tuesday's game (even when he didn't have the ball) one of the most bizarre sights I've ever seen. I mean, seriously, the whole thing was a joke, and that Patsos let his Loyola Greyhounds lose 78-48 to Davidson while basically playing three-on-four is an embarrassment to his profession, program and the players he supposedly coaches.

Sure, Loyola held Curry to three shots and no points.

That's great.

But if such an achievement comes at the expense of a 30-point loss then it's stupid, and Patsos didn't help himself in the post-game press conference when he explained his rationale and essentially acknowledged that he was more interested in not letting Curry play than he was in actually trying to win.

"Anybody else ever hold him scoreless?" Patsos asked. "I'm a history major. (Are people) going to remember that we held him scoreless or (that) we lost by 30?"

Actually, they'll remember neither, Jimmy.

What people will remember is the putz who let his team get embarrassed to prove a point that had no point.

Comments

Since: Oct 24, 2008
Posted on: December 6, 2008 2:46 pm
 

Loyola coach should be embarrassed, ashamed

The decision to double team Curry wasn't bad. The decision to CONTINUE double teaming Curry when you are down by 30 with 20 minutes left is a bad one. A good coach knows when to recognize that a strategy isn't working and is flexible enough to make changes and alter the strategy.




Since: Nov 26, 2008
Posted on: November 27, 2008 9:20 pm
 

Loyola coach should be embarrassed, ashamed

I agree



Since: Sep 12, 2006
Posted on: November 27, 2008 2:13 pm
 

Loyola coach should be embarrassed, ashamed

I still can't fathom a coach employing such a "strategy".  I mean I can understand holding the ball until the very last second(s) of the shot clock so as to limit the other team's possessions.  Even the famous "box-in-one" is understandable.  But the strategy this "coach" used is disgraceful.  He wants to go down in history, huh?  Well he will, and it won't be anything less than a disgrace.   



Since: Sep 26, 2007
Posted on: November 26, 2008 6:55 pm
 

Loyola coach should be embarrassed, ashamed

Now that I put the ignorant Pittsburgher in his place, let's get to the real point of this thread: Jimmy Patsos's strategy. Let's give Jimmy some credit because most coaches would never have the guts to try anything outside the norm. This strategy is reminiscent of when AL teams would put 3 infielders on the right side of the IF in the famous "(Ted) Williams shift", or an NFL team putting 8 men in the box to shut down a stud RB and force a questionable QB to beat them. That's what Patsos did. He cut out Curry ( a shocking 0 pts on only 3 shots) and forced his teammates to beat the 'hounds by themselves. And they did. So let's congratulate the Wildcats for proving they're more than a 1-man team, and Jimmy Patsos for having the guts to try a strategy he thought would help his over-matched team compete despite all the venom he knew he would get from the internet (that means you too Gary Parrish).



Since: Nov 12, 2006
Posted on: November 26, 2008 5:23 pm
 

Loyola coach should be embarrassed, ashamed

The King - did you just describe your own strategy as "brilliant"?  Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back there, Mr. Humble.

But I like your point about the triangle and two.  You still see it occasionally in the tournament when you get one player who is head and shoulders above his teammates (Bird at Indiana State, for instance).  Not the first time we've seen a guy double teamed without the ball, and it won't be the last.  It obviously didn't work, losing by 30.  But I wonder what they would have lost by if they'd played straight up?  Maybe 20, maybe 40.  Maybe the strategy DID give Loyola the best opportunity to win. 

I think where the coach killed himself was making the post-game all about him, and holding Curry to three shots and no points.  If he had simply stated that he thought the strategy was the best to keep the game competitive he wouldn't have looked like such an egomaniac. 

BTW, anyone remember Pistol Pete getting this treatment and still be unstoppable?  I am not old enough to have seen it, but I heard he got this treatment (double teamed without the ball) at LSU.




Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: November 26, 2008 4:26 pm
 

Loyola coach should be embarrassed, ashamed

First off let me state that Curry is probably one of the best two shooters in college basketball (the other being Kyle McAlarny of Notre Dame), and for him to choose not to score for the good of the team was more a statement about Curry than about the pathetic Loyola coach who double teamed him the whole game. There's such a thing as a box and 1, and I get that. However from what I have read they basically played a triangle and 2...and used the two to double Curry. An elementary coach wouldn't do that, then again...

As for Purdue doubling Curry, don't expect that to happen too much if at all. Between Chris Kramer, Moore, and others Curry will have his hands full. Remember, Purdue makes it's living on D, so slowing down Curry won't be as big a task as it would for most teams. If I were Davidson, I would be much more concerned about others getting good shots.




Since: Jan 24, 2008
Posted on: November 26, 2008 4:18 pm
 

Loyola coach should be embarrassed, ashamed

Sure, Loyola coach should be embarrassed, ashamed. Loyola held Curry to three shots and no points.But u know what ,because of that game we given loyola  national expousure!!!!,!




Since: Oct 4, 2006
Posted on: November 26, 2008 4:09 pm
 

Loyola coach should be embarrassed, ashamed

This coach should have been fired right after the game.  What a clown.



Since: Sep 11, 2006
Posted on: November 26, 2008 3:26 pm
 

Loyola coach should be embarrassed, ashamed

King--

Yes, if the strategy is working, like how you described, you keep at it. This strategy WASN'T working and it was clear to anyone watching the game that it wasn't going to work when it was 22-9. You can be creative when coaching, but good coaching is about making adjustments. Davidson did, which is why Curry didn't try to force up 20 shots. It's also why they won by 30 points while Loyola was having two players do nothing all game, one of whom was their leading scorer.

 




Since: Nov 12, 2006
Posted on: November 26, 2008 2:39 pm
 

Gary, You are Wrong....

As a basketball coach who has employed a triangle and 2 defense against top competition it can be a very effective strategy... I had a team who was undermanned and not as talented as our opposition. We played Team A twice during the regular season and lost by 25+ each time with Player A scoring over 27pts per game.  In the Playoffs, using a triangle and 2 defense on him, we had a 3 pt lead with 2 min to go.  Although we eventually lost the game, it was a brilliant strategy and one that can be successful. Player A finished with 5 pts and although we lost I wouldnt changed a thing.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com