The Official Fire Dave Paulsen Thread

[Herndon]

Define talent.

I say this because we finished fifth in the league. If we didn't win with talent, how did we win?

 

[Jack Strop]

He hasn't addressed them until now. It's great that he finally is, and I never thought that he believed we were on par talent wise with the rest of the league, but this is the first time he's really acknowledged any problems.

Then my point has been totally missed. Dave knows. Dave knows.

Why, however, would one degrade the confidence of his team by exposing it's shortcomings in public? As a coach, you're trying to motivate performance not undermine it. Dave knows.

Now that he's divulged it, it still doesn't make you feel better? I don't think DP woke up suddenly after the Bonnie's loss and realized, "Hmmmm... we don't look like a top A10 team. We look... different." Dave's not addressing it until now? That's naïveté.

 

[Dawgs99]

Define talent.

I say this because we finished fifth in the league. If we didn't win with talent, how did we win?

This team has talent....anyone who says any different is just a troll or doesn't know a thing about basketball. That being said we are short and not terribly explosive across the board. Both of those issue need to be addressed if we are to make the next step. Also I would make the case that DP is good basketball coach and that the team has in some ways over achieved under his leadership. In other words, we finished 5th in the league.....do most of the posters on these boards think we have the 5th most talented roster in the league?

 

[Quentin Daniels]

I think we have talent but lack some depth and had trouble overcoming injuries.

 

[MasonSAE4]

We have the talent for a different system. I’m not saying we don’t have talent, but with our size discrepancies with other teams in the league, you kind of have to play a run-and-gun style that we don’t. We had some stretches (the most recent I can think of being @GW) when we were producing steals and points at will. We built a huge lead doing that.

 

[Walter]

Surely no one is saying this staff hasn't been trying to get bigger more athletic players. They just haven't been able to close the deal.

 

[gmulion]

Surely no one is saying this staff hasn't been trying to get bigger more athletic players. They just haven't been able to close the deal.

We took a 5'10 150lb Hartwell before 6'4 200lb Jamarius Burton made a decision. Those are the recruiting decisions I do not understand.

 

[mkaufman1]

This team has talent that’s been developed and has progressed. The issue to met resides with the fact that they really haven’t upgraded the recruiting until the second class (mar Greene etc), so it still could take time. Not to say that Kier and Otis aren’t awesome, but they worked their asses off to be where they were and were also given that much opportunity.

Each class has gotten better but needs time to prove it on the court. It’s obvious that they need to continue to improve in who they recruit and I think they will.

 

[Five Two]

I don't doubt that the staff is trying to bring in elite A10-level recruits. But recruits look around and compare us with others in the conference and probably say "meh". So, you get what you paid for. If the below budget list is accurate and we are 10th in spending, our ROI is where we'd expect it to be- in the 6 conference tournaments we've played in, our average seed is 9th. Money doesn't buy titles, but we don't have a former player in the league (like Davidson), don't have a great following (like vcu), don't have a great arena (like Dayton) and don't have an elite coach (like Davidson and SBU. side note- I don't know how you recruit in Olean. I've been there in the winter months and its brutal. yet he's bringing in recruits). So if you don't have any of those, you better be willing to spend extra to help close the gap. Otherwise, expect 6-9 seeds each year.

A-10 Average Budget $4.72M
1. Dayton $7.25M
2. SLU $6.9M
3. vcu $6.15M
4. URI $5.45M
5. Duquesne $5.2M
6. Richmond $4.75M
7. Fordham $4.55M
8. UMass $4.35
9. St Joe's $4.2M
10. George Mason $4.0M
11. St Bonaventure $3.8M
12. Davidson $3.35M
13. La Salle $3.27M
14. GW $3.2M

 

[gmujim92]

We took a 5'10 150lb Hartwell before 6'4 200lb Jamarius Burton made a decision. Those are the recruiting decisions I do not understand.

A. It was never an either-or; we had scholarships available and would’ve taken both — Burton opted for a chance to start from Day 1, which wasn’t available at Mason.

B. The staff knew it was a long shot to land Burton and were happy to get Hartwell, who has proven to be an excellent perimeter shooter and on-ball defender.

C. Our coaches know more about recruiting than any of us.

 

[Walter]

C. Our coaches know more about recruiting than any of us.

No question about that. The question is, is this staff better at recruiting than the other A-10 coaches?

 

[Mason2005]

No question about that. The question is, is this staff better at recruiting than the other A-10 coaches?

I think Paulsen answered that one with his interview with Petey. Compared to the top tiered schools, no. Saying there is a noticable difference when you look at those players compared to ours means you failed.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

 

[Herndon]

I think Paulsen answered that one with his interview with Petey. Compared to the top tiered schools, no. Saying there is a noticable difference when you look at those players compared to ours means you failed.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Define failed.

I ask because to my mind I think Paulsen has had a successful tenure thus far. The team has progressed from bottom of the conference, to middle of the conference, to above average in the conference this year.

I will not fault a guy as long as the program is improving.

Frankly, given the schools mediocre support of the program, I don't know that I EVER will get to a point where I expect to compete for conference championships.

I would argue that given the resources at his disposal, he has actually done a terrific job.

The point of recruiting is to win games, not to look the best coming off the bus.

Paulsen's style is winning more A10 games than it is losing these days, and overachieving. To me, that's not failing

 

[gmujim92]

No question about that. The question is, is this staff better at recruiting than the other A-10 coaches?

By what standard?

Should our staff have been out-recruiting vcu and Dayton the past four years even though those schools have every conceivable advantage over us — not to mention the fact that they inherited a dumpster fire and had to convince kids to buy into a massive rebuilding project with little chance of playing in the NCAA tournament.

Is it even remotely realistic to expect that?

 

[gmujim92]

Define failed.

I ask because to my mind I think Paulsen has had a successful tenure thus far. The team has progressed from bottom of the conference, to middle of the conference, to above average in the conference this year.

I will not fault a guy as long as the program is improving.

Frankly, given the schools mediocre support of the program, I don't know that I EVER will get to a point where I expect to compete for conference championships.

I would argue that given the resources at his disposal, he has actually done a terrific job.

The point of recruiting is to win games, not to look the best coming off the bus.

Paulsen's style is winning more A10 games than it is losing these days, and overachieving. To me, that's not failing

Brilliant post. Absolutely spot on.

 

[FreeGunston12]

Define failed.

I ask because to my mind I think Paulsen has had a successful tenure thus far. The team has progressed from bottom of the conference, to middle of the conference, to above average in the conference this year.

I will not fault a guy as long as the program is improving.

Frankly, given the schools mediocre support of the program, I don't know that I EVER will get to a point where I expect to compete for conference championships.

I would argue that given the resources at his disposal, he has actually done a terrific job.

The point of recruiting is to win games, not to look the best coming off the bus.

Paulsen's style is winning more A10 games than it is losing these days, and overachieving. To me, that's not failing

This season was not an overachievement.

Despite what we all may think of Paulsen and our varied opinions, the question at hand is: how does Mason take the next step forward?

Some may say we just need better players. I think that’s part of it, but I also think we need to change our style of play and strategy. In fact, I like most of the talent on the team (with the desire for more talent in the post). But are we one player away from winning the A-10? I think not.

I’m curious to hear where you would think Mason would finish with all talent being equal to the rest of the A-10. In other words, where does Paulsen rank in X’s and O’s? Player development?

Bonus question: is our style of play unattractive to post prospects?

 

[gmubrian]

I don't doubt that the staff is trying to bring in elite A10-level recruits. But recruits look around and compare us with others in the conference and probably say "meh". So, you get what you paid for. If the below budget list is accurate and we are 10th in spending, our ROI is where we'd expect it to be- in the 6 conference tournaments we've played in, our average seed is 9th. Money doesn't buy titles, but we don't have a former player in the league (like Davidson), don't have a great following (like vcu), don't have a great arena (like Dayton) and don't have an elite coach (like Davidson and SBU. side note- I don't know how you recruit in Olean. I've been there in the winter months and its brutal. yet he's bringing in recruits). So if you don't have any of those, you better be willing to spend extra to help close the gap. Otherwise, expect 6-9 seeds each year.

A-10 Average Budget $4.72M
1. Dayton $7.25M
2. SLU $6.9M
3. vcu $6.15M
4. URI $5.45M
5. Duquesne $5.2M
6. Richmond $4.75M
7. Fordham $4.55M
8. UMass $4.35
9. St Joe's $4.2M
10. George Mason $4.0M
11. St Bonaventure $3.8M
12. Davidson $3.35M
13. La Salle $3.27M
14. GW $3.2M

Define failed.

I ask because to my mind I think Paulsen has had a successful tenure thus far. The team has progressed from bottom of the conference, to middle of the conference, to above average in the conference this year.

I will not fault a guy as long as the program is improving.

Frankly, given the schools mediocre support of the program, I don't know that I EVER will get to a point where I expect to compete for conference championships.

I would argue that given the resources at his disposal, he has actually done a terrific job.

The point of recruiting is to win games, not to look the best coming off the bus.

Paulsen's style is winning more A10 games than it is losing these days, and overachieving. To me, that's not failing

These may be the two most accurate assessments of our program. And that is sad...

 

[gmujim92]

These may be the two most accurate assessments of our program. And that is sad...

It’s not sad, it’s realistic. And the people who think our coaches should be consistently recruiting the top classes in the A-10 need a dose of reality right about now.

 

[gmubrian]

It’s not sad, it’s realistic. And the people who think our coaches should be consistently recruiting the top classes in the A-10 need a dose of reality right about now.

It is sad BECAUSE it is realistic. I hope Paulsen can keep doing incrementally better each year, but, I think the referenced posts suggest we have a ceiling on what we can expect of our program unless some other changes are made.

 

[gmujim92]

It is sad BECAUSE it is realistic. I hope Paulsen can keep doing incrementally better each year, but, I think the referenced posts suggest we have a ceiling on what we can expect of our program unless some other changes are made.

Well yeah, we definitely can’t keep spending $2M a year less than the top A-10 schools — particularly when cost of living in Fairfax means each dollar is worth far less than it is in Richmond or Dayton, Ohio.

Where that $2M comes from? No idea.