Greenburg made a very interesting comment after the game. He believes that you should never have a one and done guy on your team unless you have more than one of them. He says that they always have a different agenda if they are one and done and will often poison the team. Without mentioning Langford, that is who he was talking about. Is he correct?
Seth Greenburg
- Thread starter Rotonda Jim
- Start date
i dunno -- anyone care to do the math on how one OAD affects a team? lol
i'd guess it's case-by-case thing. maybe there are too many variables that go into good or bad team chemistry. i don't see anything to suggest Archie teams are typically head-cases, and there's still a little Crean dna on the body...that said, one socially and cognitively impaired team could just be an exception...two would start a trend....
Last edited:
Greenberg is still sore that his buddy Crean was fired at IU. I dont listen to his anti-IU rants and drivel. He's Dan Dakich without the Hoosier pedigree.
I'm sure the implication is that such a player is more concerned with their personal future than they are with the success of the team. Now those goals may well overlap quite a bit, but let's be real, some guys might be playing more for the name on the back of the jersey than the name on the front.
Or in the case of the NIT, not playing at all.
Syracuse won a NC behind Carmelo Anthony in his one and only year there. I don’t recall that team having any other OADs.
If a kid, however good, is not fully bought into the team’s mission and strategy, then it’s up to the coach to keep him on the bench until and unless he does.
If a kid, however good, is not fully bought into the team’s mission and strategy, then it’s up to the coach to keep him on the bench until and unless he does.
Similar threads
