Dave Paulsen

[mkaufman1]

Disclaimer: Not trying to sound like a big Dave naysayer

Paulsen has done more with less, why does it always seem like Paulsen has to do more with less? Recruit a little better and do more with more.

Why do we still bring up Hewitt? It's over, he was a flop but at least he was a clear cut flop. We didn't have to second guess the firing. Paulsen is tricky, he looks promising, acts the part but the results are just still not there. We may have him for 5 or 6 years until we realize what we have. I get that Hewitts trajectory went south but the man won 49% of his games here while Paulsen is winning at a 47% clip.

TLDR: Hewitt sucked but we knew he sucked

The only reason why I even mentioned Hewitt was the mere comparison and point of he would point to practice performance, otherwise he was completely irrelevant to anything that I was saying. He has nothing to do with the program now, but have at it if you want to circle back to winning percentages and all other topics.

Also, I'm pointing to that Paulsen has done more with less, because thats what he's had. I'm not saying he shouldn't recruit better, or shouldnt cover up deficiencies with filling out a roster or anything, I'm merely saying in a vacuum, hes done more with less because thats what his first 3 teams have had.

 

[gmujim92]

But at what year in Paulsen's tenure can we then just cut the Hewitt excuse out? Hewitt was feces, a cancer, literally the worst thing to ever happen but when will we remove that crutch from Paulsen?

If Georgia Tech is a guide, it could be a while. GT is in its 8th season and on its second coach post-Hewitt and still hasn’t been back to the NCAAs since they fired his program-killing a**.

Of course if we had kept Hewitt instead of pink-slipping him, we could’ve had the “pleasure” of watching Isaiah Jackson, Ahmad Gilbert and CJ Jackson (among others) dribble the ball off their feet for the past 3 years. But hoo boy, they would’ve looked long and athletic doing so.

 

[GMUgemini]

The "Hewitt excuse" only comes up in response to people talking about Paulsen's winning percentage over 1st 3 years - which is directly related to what he inherited (lost an entire sophomore class of DI starters, lost entire recruiting class that included two BCS players).

Very few people other than Coach K could have realistically done any better, up to the start of this season.

Agreed, the "Hewitt excuse" isn't exactly an excuse, it's a defense against trying to compare the two coach's tenures here. First of all, Hewitt inherited an incredibly talented team and managed to do no better than 3rd in the CAA (which happened to be his first), coming in 5th in the CAA in a year that vcu wasn't even in the conference.

Take his record in the A-10: 8-22 over his two seasons, 20-44 overall. I think you can give Paulsen a mulligan for his first season (a season where not one, but two "stars" couldn't make it through the entire season, an entire recruiting class up and left before the season, and pretty much all the promising sophomores bolted). Given that, Paulsen is 18-18 in the A-10 and 36-31 overall (not a stellar record, but not a dumpster fire either). Does anyone really want to compare the two coaches?

Paulsen has brought the program back to at least respectable (teams can't just circle a win by our name anymore). The question for Paulsen and everyone else here is can he turn the corner from a middle of the pack .500 program into a top 5, perennial contender? That's the question that needs to be answered, because there is no reason why we can't be.

 

[GSII]

The fact he doesn't know what the disconnect is most troubling.

Also, he advertised that he wants to build this with 4yr guys and is against transfers. Then he gets a transfer.

Then he stops shy of giving said transfer a public BJ bc of how awesome transfer is gonna be and how he is a lock for all conference. Transfer opens seasons gasping for air after 3 mins in first 3 games on home court.

His highest rated recruit from Minnesota looked great 1st year. Now is looking like a deer in headlights.

Otis is regressing.

Nobody even wants to shoot three's it seems.

I blame all this on coaching bc he made transfer a cornerstone when transfer wasnt ready. Mentally he probably is, but he isnt there yet physically. Combine rust, and getting into game shape with the high expectations and you have a team that is mind f**ked.

 

[EXpatriot13]

Grayer has had his minutes cut from 30 last season to 16 per game so far this year. Partially due to foul trouble in the Penn game, but he was hardly out there down the stretch. Maybe they're easing him back in, but he needs to play more. Doesn't make sense to me to keep a 1,000 point scorer who is approaching 300 made three's in his career on the bench when the rest of the team can't shoot for s***.

He should be taking some of Kier's minutes because Kier and Greene shouldn't be playing together. They're practically the same player at this point.

 

[masonjoe]

But at what year in Paulsen's tenure can we then just cut the Hewitt excuse out? Hewitt was feces, a cancer, literally the worst thing to ever happen but when will we remove that crutch from Paulsen? If he led us back to respectability why is the Paulsen thread heating up with debate after a loss to AU?

And yeah, I'll UPS the "recruit better" suggestion over to the staff. What can brown do for you?

ByGeorge just doesn’t get it , thanks Chris

 

[GMUgemini]

Larranaga inherited as big a sh&t show asPaulsen, maybe bigger. Prior to Larranaga, Westhead was 38 - 70 in his tenure. Coach L was 9 - 18 his first year and the 2nd year took us to the NCAA tournament. He took us again his 4th year and was 19-11 and finished first in the CAA regular season standings the year we missed the dance. It can be done.

Some here have talked about how much talent we have. Maybe we don't have as much skill as people think. We're certainly missing some dead eyed shooters. 42% overall from the floor, 18% from 3, and 64% from the FT line just isn't going to get it done. I would like to see what Douglas-Stanley can give us. The kid shot 43.7% from the 3 point line in HS.

I would argue that this rebuild is much tougher considering the infrastructure, funding, and recruiting discrepancy between Mason and the teams they are competing against in the A-10. That 1999 team was competing against teams like American, William and Mary, James Madison, and UNC Wilmington (not exactly a big spender on its basketball team).

And if you look at the overall numbers, they are about the same (Larranaga went 19-11 that season, Dave Paulsen went 19-13; 13 of Larranaga's wins were in the CAA, meaning he went 6-8 in the OOC). George Mason's RPI in 1999 was 107, in 2016 it was 103. In other words, in 1999 in the CAA a 107 RPI 19 win season gets you a number 1 seed and in the A-10 in 2016 it gets you into the PIG.

Wow, looking back at Paulsen's second season: we lost to Towson and Mt. St. Mary's (by 2) at home, then got destroyed by Houston before rattling off 9 straight wins, including that beat down of Penn State on the road.

 

[mkaufman1]

I would argue that this rebuild is much tougher considering the infrastructure, funding, and recruiting discrepancy between Mason and the teams they are competing against in the A-10. That 1999 team was competing against teams like American, William and Mary, James Madison, and UNC Wilmington (not exactly a big spender on its basketball team).

And if you look at the overall numbers, they are about the same (Larranaga went 19-11 that season, Dave Paulsen went 19-13; 13 of Larranaga's wins were in the CAA, meaning he went 6-8 in the OOC). George Mason's RPI in 1999 was 107, in 2016 it was 103. In other words, in 1999 in the CAA a 107 RPI 19 win season gets you a number 1 seed and in the A-10 in 2016 it gets you into the PIG.

Wow, looking back at Paulsen's second season: we lost to Towson and Mt. St. Mary's (by 2) at home, then got destroyed by Houston before rattling off 9 straight wins, including that beat down of Penn State on the road.

Wait you mean a Paulsen team started slow, we all panicked and then the team improved over the course of the season? No Way!

(Yes, I don't think this team should be doing that, because the first 3 teams were much of a rebuild and had various roster holes, but for sake of comparison a slow start is a slow start)

 

[Quentin Daniels]

The fact he doesn't know what the disconnect is most troubling.

Also, he advertised that he wants to build this with 4yr guys and is against transfers. Then he gets a transfer.

Then he stops shy of giving said transfer a public BJ bc of how awesome transfer is gonna be and how he is a lock for all conference. Transfer opens seasons gasping for air after 3 mins in first 3 games on home court.

His highest rated recruit from Minnesota looked great 1st year. Now is looking like a deer in headlights.

Otis is regressing.

Nobody even wants to shoot three's it seems.

I blame all this on coaching bc he made transfer a cornerstone when transfer wasnt ready. Mentally he probably is, but he isnt there yet physically. Combine rust, and getting into game shape with the high expectations and you have a team that is mind f*cked.

2 games.

It's been 2 games.

 

[GSII]

These are issues you expect st.louis to have. Not a team that returns everyone, and has had a core together for several years.

2 games my a**. Been 2 years and longer.

 

[GMUgemini]

These are issues you expect st.louis to have. Not a team that returns everyone, and has had a core together for several years.

2 games my a**. Been 2 years and longer.

St. Louis is having this issue. They were down to Troy at the half and down by 1 with less than 3 minutes to go, wound up winning that game by 4.

Davidson was down to Dartmouth by 7 at the half, wound up winning that game by 3. Dartmouth was picked to finish last in the Ivy League this year. Maybe Davidson loses to Penn if they play them that badly.

Our star players didn't come up with the last ounce of gut to finish off our first two games. A lot of boneheaded plays have kept the two teams in it -- maybe a combination of early season jitters, rust, integrating new players who play a different style have some to do with it.

It sucks, because this should have been our year, but the season isn't over yet. It still can be (last year Davidson lost some bad games early and got hot to end the season. They wouldn't have danced without winning it all).

 

[sleeperpick]

St. Louis is having this issue. They were down to Troy at the half and down by 1 with less than 3 minutes to go, wound up winning that game by 4.

Davidson was down to Dartmouth by 7 at the half, wound up winning that game by 3. Dartmouth was picked to finish last in the Ivy League this year. Maybe Davidson loses to Penn if they play them that badly.

Our star players didn't come up with the last ounce of gut to finish off our first two games. A lot of boneheaded plays have kept the two teams in it -- maybe a combination of early season jitters, rust, integrating new players who play a different style have some to do with it.

It sucks, because this should have been our year, but the season isn't over yet. It still can be (last year Davidson lost some bad games early and got hot to end the season. They wouldn't have danced without winning it all).

Troy is head and shoulders better than American....

 

[GMUgemini]

Troy is head and shoulders better than American....

You have no idea if that's the case.

 

[gmujim92]

You have no idea.

FIFY

 

[sleeperpick]

FIFY

you're too clever Jim. I hope we turn it around just as much as you do.

 

[Falco]

2 games.

It's been 2 games.

Two games that cost Mason an at large bid. Barring some remarkable turnaround.

 

[Quentin Daniels]

Two games that cost Mason an at large bid. Barring some remarkable turnaround.

Two games that might cost Mason an at-large bid, barring some remarkable turnaround.

 

[Five Two]

Interesting opinion piece on us playing zone instead of man:
http://gmufourthestate.com/2018/11/12/get-in-the-zone/#sthash.6qsmtgL6.6Bo90vQJ.dpbs

 

[GMUSig03]

Interesting opinion piece on us playing zone instead of man:
http://gmufourthestate.com/2018/11/12/get-in-the-zone/#sthash.6qsmtgL6.6Bo90vQJ.dpbs

I would pay to see a discussion between Coach P and Ms. Hadley about that article. Not saying she is wrong or is lacking in her analysis (she clearly knows more about defense than me), but I think it would be very interesting to get his reaction and to see what counterarguments he would have against a presumably 20 or so year old student.

 

[gmutom]

I would pay to see a discussion between Coach P and Ms. Hadley about that article.

She makes some good points, but she doesn't address the giant elephant in the room: We simply aren't quick or athletic enough at every position to play solid man defense. When it's difficult to tell the difference between your opponent's pre-game layup drill and the actual game, you know it's time to re-think your defensive strategy.