I'm with you in putting sustained success over tournament success. It's a much more meaningful indicator of performance. But outside of the finals appearances, his teams were bested by inferior teams more often than not. Not alarming to me, but I wouldn't mind hearing from a Bucknell fan who has witnessed these seasons first hand to provide insight.
I’ve been reluctant to post here, but I’ll take that as an invitation. I have followed Bucknell basketball closely for 40 years, and a couple of my kids attended Bucknell recently and know some of the players. Also I have been a season ticket-holder for over a decade, attending about 60% of the Bucknell games in the Paulsen era and watching the majority of the others on TV/internet. Thus I think I can provide some perspective on how he coached at Bucknell, but of course I have no idea what may change at GMU.
OVERVIEW: I think DP’s biggest strength while at Bucknell was his recruiting. He and Dane Fischer/Aaron Kelley landed a lot of good players who qualified under the Patriot League Academic Index. He is very good at coaching basic disciplined M2M defense, including defensive rebounding – but very predictable. His offenses at Bucknell were problematic, as was his end-game coaching. My subjective grades in different categories would be: Recruiting A-; Defense B+; Offense C; End-Game C-.
RECRUITING: As mentioned, he and his staff recruited very well for the Patriot League level. Credit for a fair amount of this also goes to Dane Fischer, who is a very good recruiter. Their available pool of talent was significantly limited since the Academic Index means that over 90% of future D1 players are not admissible. Their most important recruit was Mike Muscala, who has developed into a rotation player for the Hawks. It is impossible to know if the staff knew the extent of Muscala’s potential when they landed him since he was a skinny 6-9 player who didn’t start until his junior year of HS and whose best offer was from Santa Clara. During his senior HS year, after having signed, he improved markedly and also grew. Ended up as a less-skinny 6-11 center with very good skills. Their other big signee was Cameron Ayers, who turned down some A-10 offers at least partly because he was looking for better academics. He also landed some other good recruits, including 4 frosh who got serious minutes this past season. FWIW, I’m sure his recruiting was helped by Bucknell having a great facility and a good basketball tradition.
DEFENSE: DP coaches very basic M2M and coaches it well. Players are instructed very thoroughly on when/where to help and they practice that a lot – and they are also great on the defensive boards. As a result, for four seasons from 2011-14 – when BU had experienced teams – they ranked 83rd, 91st, 36th, and 97th in the nation on defense (Pomeroy). However, this past season – with an inexperienced team – they fell to 263rd.
DP has a few “rules” on defense: (1) no zone; (2) never switch; (3) never go under a screen; and (4) never gamble. As for specifics, in the earlier years the Bison aggressively hedged on ball screens – but this year there was no hedging. That may have been due to having a freshman center who might have had problems doing it properly. In any event, it hurt Bucknell in some key games where opposing coaches, knowing that BU wouldn’t switch and wouldn’t go under the screens, were able to free up their dribbler to easily penetrate and either score or kick out. Watch the video of Bucknell’s upset tournament loss to Lafayette at home, for example, where Lafayette scored on every one of their final 16 possessions with virtually no change in the defense. Or the previous game against Holy Cross, where BU almost lost at home to a mediocre Holy Cross, as HC scored over-and-over on the same play during much of the final eight minutes of regulation.
During DP’s 7 years at Bucknell, there were about 14,800 possessions. The team played zone on less than 100 of them – well under 1% - and only showed zone in 1-3 games per season. On the rare occasions when zone was played, it was always a junk defense designed to surprise the other team – either a mediocre 1-3-1 or a triangle-and-two (which was successful for a while vs Butler in the NCAA until Brad Stephens figured it out). During that period, the number of times when a full court press was used – other than in the final seconds of a sure loss – was zero. And the number of times a half-court trap was used was also zero. His approach basically is that we are going to do a few basic things very well with no surprises. See if you can beat us.
I mentioned that BU had good defensive success for four years through 2014. It was due to the tough M2M and also due to very good defensive rebounding. During those 4 years, Bucknell ranked 53rd, 1st, 1st, and 2nd on the defensive boards. This success is due to the straight-up M2M and good discipline, where players always box out well. It also was due to having a future NBA player at center and to having all five players commit to defensive rebounding. This success was despite being the worst team in the nation during the last 5 years of his tenure in forcing turnovers and in steals. As previously mentioned, this is due to players never gambling defensively and never trapping. As one statistical example, Bucknell ranked 346th or worse in opponents’ turnovers over each of the past3 years. One good thing, at least defensively, is that you will almost never see a fast break against a DP team, since very few players attack the offensive glass and everyone hustles back every time on defense if a shot is missed.
OFFENSE: Bucknell had a lot of offensive talent for most of his tenure – but the results did not match the talent. For the first year and a half, they ran a very basic motion offense, where players constantly looped with no screens being utilized. It was a failure, with poor spacing and a lot of forced shots. Thankfully he began to tweak it halfway through his second year – with better results. He has run hot and cold as far as using ball screens, but for the first few years there were virtually no off-ball screens. Eventually they started using some basic ones – but almost no stagger screens until last year. At that point, the offense started using more stagger screens to try to get a couple of the shooters open – but they were often not very effective for a couple of reasons.
Another objection various people have had with the offense has been poor isolation of the center. Bucknell has had two good centers in recent years, but there has been very little attempt to isolate them in the low blocks. With the players always running some variation of the motion offense, a 2nd defender was invariably drawn into the low post area – and could help deny the entry pass or keep the big man from putting the ball to the floor.
One big picture example of the offense being less than the sum of its parts: In 2012-13, Bucknell had the best talent in the league, including 6-11 Mike Muscala, who graduated as a 2-time POY and four-time All-PL center. He was drafted by the Hawks and worked his way into their rotation. They also started Cam Ayers; twice 1st team All-League and POY the next year – a future D-Leaguer; Joe Willman, who was an All-League PF as a junior and who has been very successful in Europe; and Bryson Johnson, an All-League SG with NBA range on his threes. Also had two experienced PG’s and good depth. This may have been the best offensive talent ever assembled in the Patriot League – but in league games they ended up ranked 4th offensively (points per possession) out of the 8 teams. The teams that finished ahead of them were Lafayette and Army – both of whom were very inexperienced – and a Lehigh team that had lost CJ McCollum for the year. None of those teams had nearly as much talent as Bucknell – but all had more pts per possession in league games.
Due to the defensive commitment mentioned earlier, DP’s teams don’t send many players to the offensive glass and the main focus is always to get back on defense. That helps the defense but hurts the offensive rebounding stats. On average, his teams at Bucknell finished around 250th in the nation in offensive rebounding.
One other thing to expect - due both to the good defense and the style of offense - is a fairly slow pace of play. Before this year, Bucknell had ranked from 200th to 280th nationally in pace of play - slower than the Hewitt teams of the same years. But in 2014-15, Bucknell's pace of play got faster, partly because they were easier to score on.
CONTINUED