Ernie

[Tray Dub]

Not only was the last game a well-played game, it was also well-coached. Kent definitely did something he rarely does, make adjustments. Our defensive scheme shut them down and we had great offensive production (though a lot of that has more to do with shooting than with strategy). I think this game shows a lot about the good aspects of Kent. His players were motivated, something they've been all year (they just were playing poorly. But you could always tell they wanted to win bad), he stayed in control, and he even came up with some strategy.

He's for sure not the greatest coach. I'm not a fan of his. But I do think he deserves another year, and I do think he deserves some praise for our two-game winning streak.

[ducksball]

^the truth. He deserves one more year to develop this young talent that he recruited to the school in the first place. IMO, while Kent is not the greatest coach and needs some help, the real problem comes down to our recruiting cycle. I dont know how it happened, but the problem is that every 4 years we take like 7 or 8 freshman in, then we take 1 or 2 every other year. this creates an abundance of senior leadership some years and a lack of any leadership some years (this year). EK should not be fired.

[duckgrad99]

Like dthomas=ddixon said, it's amazing how some fans perspective on Kent changes after 2 home wins against teams from the bottom of the conference. Of course the team was motivated, it was against their rival Oregon State. I can understand if some people want Kent to stick around, but it shouldn't be because of the last 2 games. Making adjustments for 1 or 2 games doesn't get Kent off the hook for the rest of the season.

[ducksball]

Like dthomas=ddixon said, it's amazing how some fans perspective on Kent changes after 2 home wins against teams from the bottom of the conference. Of course the team was motivated, it was against their rival Oregon State. I can understand if some people want Kent to stick around, but it shouldn't be because of the last 2 games. Making adjustments for 1 or 2 games doesn't get Kent off the hook for the rest of the season.

I completely understand where u are coming from, but exactly, 2 games should not change anyone's mind. Everyone should look at the big picture. And to me that means..2 elite eights, most wins at oregon as coach, dedication to program, 2002 pac-10 coach of the year. Just as i believe EK should not be judged on the last two games, he should not be judged solely on the last season. EK has taken our program to a new level and will continue to do so if given the chance

[dthomas=ddixon]

Yeah he made a few adjustments, that still doesn't make him a good coach & doesn't make up for all the other games where he's made ZERO adjusments.

That team was going to win no matter what. Like the players said after the game, the finally "got it". That's got nothing to do with good coaching, in fact if it takes a whole season to "get it", that's some terrible teaching by the coaches. Something that Ernie is always talking about, "Teaching, teaching teaching". He says it about 50 times an interview. He did a terrible job "teaching" this year & winning two games over the bottom teams in the conference doesn't change that.

I appreciate the Elite 8s & all the tourney appearances but there's no excuse for going 2-14, probably 2-16. NO EXCUSES. I want consistency not these crazy, once every 5 yrs, runs of "destiney".

[duckgrad99]

Like dthomas=ddixon said, it's amazing how some fans perspective on Kent changes after 2 home wins against teams from the bottom of the conference. Of course the team was motivated, it was against their rival Oregon State. I can understand if some people want Kent to stick around, but it shouldn't be because of the last 2 games. Making adjustments for 1 or 2 games doesn't get Kent off the hook for the rest of the season.

I completely understand where u are coming from, but exactly, 2 games should not change anyone's mind. Everyone should look at the big picture. And to me that means..2 elite eights, most wins at oregon as coach, dedication to program, 2002 pac-10 coach of the year. Just as i believe EK should not be judged on the last two games, he should not be judged solely on the last season. EK has taken our program to a new level and will continue to do so if given the chance

That's completely fair. At the same time, it's always "give Kent one more year". This is probably the 3rd time that Kent has been on the hot seat, which tells me there needs to be more consistency. Last year, we had a team full of seniors. Despite making the tourny(we probably shouldn't have), it was a very disappointing season. This year's record speaks for itself. I don't think Kent should be back next year. Since it's likely he will be back though, Oregon needs to play well, finish in the top half of the conference and make the tourny. Kent has done good things for the program, but it's time for more. We have gone out and gotten top coaches for football, baseball, etc. It's time to do the same for basketball.

[Tray Dub]

Like I said, I haven't changed my mind. I was never one of the people that were absolutely sure Kent should be gone, and I still don't think he's a great coach.

And again, like I said, he does deserve a lot of blame for this season. But he also deserves some credit FOR THE LAST TWO GAMES. That's all. I am not saying he's been a great coach all year. Just that the last two games should earn him at least a little credit.

[duckgrad99]

Like I said, I haven't changed my mind. I was never one of the people that were absolutely sure Kent should be gone, and I still don't think he's a great coach.

And again, like I said, he does deserve a lot of blame for this season. But he also deserves some credit FOR THE LAST TWO GAMES. That's all. I am not saying he's been a great coach all year. Just that the last two games should earn him at least a little credit.

Yes, second half adjustments were definitely made against Oregon State.

[woundedknees]

Something I have never figured out is how Ernie doesn't coach D well at all, let alone have an assistant who can help in that area... His roots were in the gritty, hard nosed, blue collar, never give an inch and contest every shot/loose ball, battle from tip-off to closing buzzer style of play that was a caviat of Coach Dick Harter, father of the Kamikaze Kids.

If Oregon played that hard, game in and game out, with the type of talent they have, the NCAA appearances would become the norm, rather than the highlight of EK's teams, IMO.



Win or lose, you might as well go down in a "Blaze of Glory!"

[echo31]

The main problem with his coaching style, as I see it, is that we only win when we are hitting our outside shots. If we go cold from the perimeter, we lose ... no matter how many seniors are on the team. He needs to develop a gameplan adjustment for those times when the outside shot isn't there. With Dunnigan and Crittle, I thought for sure we were going to gain an inside game and start racking up points in the paint whenever Porter isn't making the threes. That never happened. If he can figure out how to make the big guys dominate the key, we could be almost unstoppable. Think about what the potential is with Dunnigan and Crittle in together at times with Porter on the bench. Anyone remember the Lopez brothers at Stanford?

[briarduck]

The main problem with his coaching style, as I see it, is that we only win when we are hitting our outside shots. If we go cold from the perimeter, we lose ... no matter how many seniors are on the team. He needs to develop a gameplan adjustment for those times when the outside shot isn't there. With Dunnigan and Crittle, I thought for sure we were going to gain an inside game and start racking up points in the paint whenever Porter isn't making the threes. That never happened. If he can figure out how to make the big guys dominate the key, we could be almost unstoppable. Think about what the potential is with Dunnigan and Crittle in together at times with Porter on the bench. Anyone remember the Lopez brothers at Stanford?

I agree echo but I will add that the main piece we are missing is a player (or players) that can penetrate and create for themselves and others! This opens the game up for our shooters to take open shots (ie: TP as a FR)! Now if we had that and develop and inside game look out!

Add Wilson (2009) and Jones (2010) and we are looking pretty dang sweet!

GO DUCKS!!

[echo31]

The main problem with his coaching style, as I see it, is that we only win when we are hitting our outside shots. If we go cold from the perimeter, we lose ... no matter how many seniors are on the team. He needs to develop a gameplan adjustment for those times when the outside shot isn't there. With Dunnigan and Crittle, I thought for sure we were going to gain an inside game and start racking up points in the paint whenever Porter isn't making the threes. That never happened. If he can figure out how to make the big guys dominate the key, we could be almost unstoppable. Think about what the potential is with Dunnigan and Crittle in together at times with Porter on the bench. Anyone remember the Lopez brothers at Stanford?

I agree echo but I will add that the main piece we are missing is a player (or players) that can penetrate and create for themselves and others! This opens the game up for our shooters to take open shots (ie: TP as a FR)! Now if we had that and develop and inside game look out!

Add Wilson (2009) and Jones (2010) and we are looking pretty dang sweet!

GO DUCKS!!

Good point. Another Aaron Brooks type player would help this team immensely.

[greenyellow]

This team has had the most success with Kent when he's had a PG that can drive the lane effectively (Ridnour and Brooks). Their driving ability allowed for open spaces for the shooters to nail shots and allow for post players to get scoring chances when the defense collapsed on the PG driving. If you look at most of the top teams in the country, they have PGs that drive and dish. Right now, Oregon doesn't have a proven PG that can drive the lane. KB can drive but he gets out of control and makes some bad passes. Porter is too short to continually go in the lane and is too good of a shooter for him not to be a recipient of the kick-out passes. Sims is in between KB and Porter in that he's a decent shooter but doesn't have the consistency of a good 3-point shooter and he's got enough speed to get by most people but not against top flight guards. Ridnour and Brooks had the speed, athleticism, and shooting touch that makes a good PG. The PGs we have now exhibit parts of these attributes and not the complete package.

[duckgrad99]

This team has had the most success with Kent when he's had a PG that can drive the lane effectively (Ridnour and Brooks). Their driving ability allowed for open spaces for the shooters to nail shots and allow for post players to get scoring chances when the defense collapsed on the PG driving. If you look at most of the top teams in the country, they have PGs that drive and dish. Right now, Oregon doesn't have a proven PG that can drive the lane. KB can drive but he gets out of control and makes some bad passes. Porter is too short to continually go in the lane and is too good of a shooter for him not to be a recipient of the kick-out passes. Sims is in between KB and Porter in that he's a decent shooter but doesn't have the consistency of a good 3-point shooter and he's got enough speed to get by most people but not against top flight guards. Ridnour and Brooks had the speed, athleticism, and shooting touch that makes a good PG. The PGs we have now exhibit parts of these attributes and not the complete package.

Bingo!!!!!!!!

[briarduck]

I think Sim has the speed just not the experience...so lets hope he develops! But I agree with your points GY!