a reasonable difference of opinion, but i would trade 5 winning seasons with no significant NCAA tourney run for one FF. im over brady being canned. i agreed he should go (as long as they had someone in line to get---which they did not). but i do enjoy sarcastically reminding lsu bball fans of stupid criticisms about brady though. i also enjoy how similar it seems brady is to our new coach----im gonna have fun with it the whole time he's here.
While it doesn't surprise me that there are some similarities there will definitely be some differences as well. Keep in mind that just because they both yell at players doesn't mean they have the same demeanor. I like the fact that Trent Johnson doesn't have a ton of players leaving his program, seems to be more stability.
:wink::lol::hihi::thumb: You know, it's funny, b/c hindsight is always right, right? I never said on here that no way Brady should be canned, in fact, I was criticizing him quite a bit these last two years. (That said, I think many of you would have liked Brady canned and our final four in 2006 taken away! :insane BUT, I was also defending him, b/c there are many on this board that have said.... "winning should be all that matters..." right? But, in fact, that's not reality. My only beef with folks over Brady has been here's a guy that took us to several years of post-season ball (and, let's be fair, THAT's the measuring stick of today's college game), and took us to a sweet 16 and a final four. If you look at Brady's 2001-2006, it's not that different from CTJ's 2003/4-2008. CTJ has gone to two sweet 16s, but he's also gotten schlacked in the first round of his tournament appearances between his "good years" at Nevada and most recent at Stanford. So, if winning's your game, there's a fine line between Brady-land and Johnson-land. Don't get me wrong, I love the hire and the change, and I think that Trent is a definite improvement in many ways. But, let's not make some big deal about how the coaches are so different in their winning, when a big reason folks wanted a change was for personality, demeanor and the stuff outside of the stat sheet. :geauxtige LSU IS A BASKETBALL SCHOOL (AGAIN). BE A FAN.
There's so much that goes into being a consistant winner. Recruiting, team chemistry, floor coaching, and players willing to stay 3 or more years. Brady's lack of consistancy can be attributed to players leaving early, lack of a true point guard, and team chemistry. His rtelationship with his players was questioned also. Like Brady, Johnson will get an early grace period though not as forgiving because we were on probation when John took over. Johnson knows what it takes to have a championship ball club. We'll see if he can make it happen.:LSU231:
So, not to beat a dead horse here, but there folks go with the "lack of consistency" statement again. Bash on Brady for not recruiting an "impact" PG, or his not retaining players, or his demeanor if you want--at least be honest about it. But, when you folks bring up a "lack of consistency" I scratch my head. Because really, if you look at Brady's representative stretch (after probation wears off, and after the almost premature Stromile Swift run) you have to ask what "lack of consistency" means. During that time, you had a core group of guys (the Torris Bright class) who stayed at LSU for a while and you had good recruiting classes signed. You had some kids go pro early (but that is happening to CTJ too), but you had post-season play every year. Case in point. Look at CJB and CTJ's records side by side: BRADY: Year Overall Conf Results: 2001–2002 19-15 6-10 T-4th (West) NIT 2nd Round 2002–2003 21-11 8-8 T-2nd (West) NCAA 1st Round 2003–2004 18-11 8-8 T-2nd (West) NIT 1st Round 2004–2005 20-10 12-4 T-1st (West) NCAA 1st Round 2005–2006 27-9 14-2 1st (West) NCAA Final Four Johnson: 2004-2005 18-13 11-7 T-3rd NCAA First Round 2005-2006 16-14 11-7 T-4th NIT Second Round 2006-2007 18-13 10-8 6th NCAA First Round 2007-2008 28-8 13-5 2nd NCAA Sweet 16 Honestly, the overall records and results are very similar, with the possible exception that Johnson played better in conference play and Brady went to the Final Four. Now, Trent Johnson gets credit for continually winning at Stanford and Brady's record is forgotten? :redface: I'll say again, Brady's last two years, and his general relationship with the LSU community, got him canned... but don't say the guy didn't win consistently throughout his tenure. He was a pretty good coach through this stretch. I think his going to the final four exposed some weaknesses he had and also got the fans' expectations up pretty high. I think the key to CTJ's success here will not be how much he wins, but how much he is liked by the community. Can he keep the games close enough, win enough games, having a winning record in the SEC, but ALSO bridge the gap between old players and the fans to make hoops meaningful again? That'll be the key.
You left out Brady's last two seasons. 2006–2007 17-15 5-11 6th (West) 2007–2008 8-13 1-6 6th (West) It's like how Dinardo's LSU football team fell apart during his last two seasons at LSU, despite doing great during his first three seasons. Once the team nose-dives into a downward spiral, you need a new coach.
Yes, and you left out what I said above. These last two seasons, are IMO, the only ones where you can really point and say, Brady did not do a good job under the circumstances. And, he deserved scrutiny for them. Add on top of that he wasn't the best ambassador for LSU hoops, and it all adds up to a change. I just think folks want to make him out to be a bad coach, and somehow Brady deserved to be canned in the pre-2006 time period, which doesn't make sense to me. But, the truth is there's a real fine line between winning and losing in hoops, as we'll soon see with CTJ. Brady's time, tho', had rightfully run out.
I don't think he's a good coach. He showed an inability to beat full-court presses and an inability to attack a zone defense (outside of having Tyrus Thomas alley-oop on the back end) throughout his entire tenure at LSU. The offense that should be used is very simple but requires a guard that is willing to penetrate the lane and a forward that will stand just to the left of the lane above the baseline.
