Mt. Rushmore, Jr.
- Thread starter Quavarius
- Start date
A Dukie bagged on Roy about choking away talent while at KU. I guess he’s been asleep when K has done it too.
Hey, everybody! Let's stick to the script and defend our biases along partisan lines!
Can you atleast understand why some would say Roy Williams should be ahead of Knight in an all time ranking of CBB head coaches? The fact that me and some others seem to believe he should be before Knight on such a list (or Rushmore) kind of set you off.
I think Roy Williams is a terrific coach. Top 5? An argument is certainly there. To say Roy COULD be ahead of Knight, I can see. To say he SHOULD be, I cannot. So yes, and no.
Schooner look at what Knight won with. I mean I hate to beat the same drum, but............He won a national title with Steve Alford as his #1 option. He beat UNLV and Syracuse, in a two day span with a roster full of god damn roll players. All the while UNLV and Cuse had a combined 6-7 pro's. Like I said, I hate to harp on those two games. But sweet Jesus. To win a title with that type of roster just shows the genius of his coaching.
Bob Knight was great coach of course. I just think Roy Williams has had a better career. A coaches career accomplishments is what I think should be most important factor when making a top coaches of all time or Rushmore type list and because of that reason I think Roy should be ahead of Knight.
K's still got a long way to go to catch up with Roy in that department, but back to the list...
I just don't think numbers alone is a true indicator. Roy has came on strong of late. And he's a hell of a coach. A great coach to be exact. But look at the teams/talent Roy has won with; and lost with. Then look at the teams Knight had. Not to mention the success he had at Army and Texas Tech. The Red Raiders have been to 15 NCAAT in their history. KNight was responsible for four of those trips. And he did that in 6 years.
Knights won the NCAAT, NIT, Pan Games and the Olympics. NCOY 5x's. Big 10 COY 8x's.
Roy has coached at KU and UNC. Knight at Army, IU, then TT. Do you think, feel Roy could've won 65% of his games at places like Army and Texas Tech?
Even with the luxury of coaching only at Kansas and UNC, Roy is still 60 wins shy of catching Knight. Had Knight coached only at two blue bloods, his numbers are probably closer to 1,000 wins.
I like Roy. ALways have. And I think he is a great, great coach. Under valued IMO. I just don't think he's better than Knight. And TBH, I'm not sure anyone is.
Well there you have it: The deciding factor.Laughing
I have no reason to believe that Roy would not win atleast 65% of his games if he became the head coach of a program like Texas Tech today. He’s done nothing but win for 30 years now. It wouldn’t just all of a sudden stop because he’s not at UNC/KU and to suggest that it might is purely hypothetical.
Knight coached at a blueblood for pretty much the exact same amount of time that Roy has been at 2 bluebloods. He didn’t even come close to winning at the same rate during that stint as Roy has during his own. In fact, Roy has nearly 200 more wins than Knight over that same time period. He was just a much more consistent winner than Knight was. Plain and simple and the results reflect that.
Careful....you are showing your ignorance. Knight could be an absolute ass. A bully. And unfortunately for him, all of this was seen nation wide. But what wasn't seen is what he did off the camera, the basketball court, etc, etc...For most, which includes you, people neer saw the side of Knight that was very caring, generous and well just down right nice. Fortunately for me, I got to see that quite often.
I will never condone some of the things Knight did/said. But I won't condemn him for it either. Knight has given more of his time and money than most will ever know. Done things for former players than most will ever know; Google Landon Turner. It is unfortunate that his actions as a coach have, and always will overshadowed his actions off the court.
Its also hypothetical to suggest he would.
Again, its JMO. But when I see what Knight done with no where near the talent of Roy, it's the selling point for me. Sure the numbers are similar, and in some cses favorable for Roy. Knight dominated a conference that at the time, was very, very good. I mean he won 37 straight conference games. If not for an injury, he in all likelihood has back to back unbeaten seasons. Knights down fall was his inability to change. Not his inability to coach. Had he been able to set aside just some of his ego, he probably wins a ton more games, and possibly another title or two. In the other words, Knight was his own worst enemy.
Again Schooner, I love Roy. ANd the argument that he COULD be ahead of KNight is plausible. TO argue that he is, or SHOULD be, well that one I just cannot get on board with.
To the bold, the numbers favor Roy in nearly every aspect of CBB coaching except for titles where they are tied. Atleast they do favor him in the numbers that matter the most.
Roy lost Wayne Simien for the year in 2003. They could’ve won the title had he not gone down. Doesn’t matter though just like Indiana losing a guy to injury in 1975 doesn’t matter.
It’s fine that you won’t agree that Roy should be ahead of Knight in an all time ranking but I just feel that the numbers and history disagree with you. Your main argument is that Knight knew the game better, and he probably did, but that’s not all the makes a great coach.
Schooner I guess I just don't see "results" as being the end of all when determining how good/great a coach is. With Knight, it was simple: He ran a motion offense, and played man to man. And pretty much said---"beat me if you can". No gimmicks. No four corners. No zones. Just straight up here's what I am going to do------beat me if you can. Tatical wise, he was a genius. He won with Isiah Thomas as his stud. Then with Steve Alford. Injuries have probably cost him two if not more titles.
Tons of coaches don't get their due simply b/c of their numbers. People bever mention guys like Iba, Newell, Hall, etc, etc....Why? All were absolute great, great coaches. Probably should be Top 10 type of guys. Coaches like Guy Lewis, Carnesecca, Rollie, Tark, etc, etc...All very, very good coaches. John Chaney.
Again, though. I mean Knight won a title with god damn Steve Alford, Dean Garrett, Rick Calloway, Keith Smart and Darly Thomas. Subs Todd Meier, Sreve Eyl, etc, etc...I mean that is insane. None of those guys were 1st rounders. Not even close; Alford was the highest pick(2nd rounder, 26th). And none had any type of NBA success. Yet he won 30 games, and a title with them. Same with some of his other "great/good" teams. Name me one guy odd the 81 title team other than Isiah THomas? His 84 team was really good until their best player-------Ted Kitchell went down. Yeah, Ted Kitchell.
JMO, Schooner. But I'd take Knight just about over anyone.
Tons of coaches don't get their due simply b/c of their numbers. People bever mention guys like Iba, Newell, Hall, etc, etc....Why? All were absolute great, great coaches. Probably should be Top 10 type of guys. Coaches like Guy Lewis, Carnesecca, Rollie, Tark, etc, etc...All very, very good coaches. John Chaney.
Again, though. I mean Knight won a title with god damn Steve Alford, Dean Garrett, Rick Calloway, Keith Smart and Darly Thomas. Subs Todd Meier, Sreve Eyl, etc, etc...I mean that is insane. None of those guys were 1st rounders. Not even close; Alford was the highest pick(2nd rounder, 26th). And none had any type of NBA success. Yet he won 30 games, and a title with them. Same with some of his other "great/good" teams. Name me one guy odd the 81 title team other than Isiah THomas? His 84 team was really good until their best player-------Ted Kitchell went down. Yeah, Ted Kitchell.
JMO, Schooner. But I'd take Knight just about over anyone.
Losing "A guy"? They lost a 1st team All-American. A guy who would go onto tho sweep NPOY honors the following season. They lost 17ppg. An arguably their best player. He wasn't just "some guy".
My main argument isn't Knight "knew the game better". My argument is,well, he was the better coach. I come to that because of what Knight won with, how he won, and what he won.
Just curious...You think Wooden is better than Roy or Knight? I don't. But I mean, he does have 10 national titles.
Pete Newell has 234 career wins.
Joe B. Hall only coached like 15 years.
Henry Iba has already been mentioned ITT.
The main reason you never hear much about them is because they all coached long ago. If Newell and Hall kept at it then they very could have been included in most people’s list but they didn’t so most won’t.
Those other guys you mentioned don’t belong on a list with Rupp, K, Wooden, etc. They have no business being mentioned in the same league as them either. Solid coaches for sure. All timers? Don’t see it.
What you and I are arguing are two completely separate things. You’re mainly arguing about coaching ability and knowledge. I’m arguing who had the best career. I think most people who argue the list that we are arguing look at career over anything.
I think Wooden is #1 on this list and it’s not even close.
And he was just some guy. He was good for sure but so was Wayne Simien. Doesn’t matter though. That’s a completely different thread topic you’re bringing into this discussion.
I lived through it too. Knight did some good things. I didn’t say he didn’t. Too often though he acted like a complete ass and bullied people. He was an embarrassment to IU on many occasions but was tolerated because he won games.
Yes, he did some great things off court, was a basketball genius, preached some solid values, and took great care of LT post accident.
But there’s a reason why Dakich, who both played for and coached with Knight, said he’d piss on his grave.
Btw it does not bother me that he won’t return to IU. They did fire him!!
If you want to discuss squandered talent, K >>>> Roy. Roy has overachieved if you are strictly speaking talent. He’s only coached one nba all-star. K has had far and away more talent than anyone over the last 30 years.
I’ve known two IU stars who played for him and heard them talk about Knight. So, they’d qualify as being very “near” him. One said he’s a piece of shit. The other loved him. Thing is, not many great coaches have players call them a piece of shit. And this player isn’t close to the only one, as we all know. In this instance, being a good human being should matter.
C'mon now. McCants called Roy a liar and was the only one that showed his transcripts. Knight never had any academic issues, either. Just saying.
He does seem like the kind of man who judges people based on how much they respect or listen to him. Like if you completely bought into his way of coaching and living your life then he would take a bullet for you but if you objected to his standards or questioned him on anything then he would go out of his way to be a complete dick to you.
Ha. Sure, but find me a player other than McCants who didn’t like Roy. There’s a damn 30 for 30 dedicated to Knight being a bully.
He is only short of Knight because he has coached less games. His % is better so he'll catch him if he keeps going. Again, looking at where they coached is kind of unfair. It isn't Roy's fault he was hired at big time programs.
Also, the knock on Roy always changes. First, he couldn't win the whole thing. Then he couldn't win with his own players. Then he couldn't win without tons of 5 stars. Now he can't recruit but he still keeps winning even without the top guys. He was won at a ridiculous rate with very little next level talent. He makes guys look great. I know you aren't a Roy hater or anything though. Just trying to state why some of us are so quick to take up for him.
You have a good argument for Knight for sure. I think he may be the best X's and O's guy ever. I think there is a pretty solid argument for either guy over the other. Knight was a beast.
On the bold...
There's a case to be made that it isn't fair to others not to consider where they coached. Knight won "only" 64.5% of his games at Army and Texas Tech combined. K won 55.3% before Duke. It's definitely harder to win at those schools than KU and UNC.
And while Roy trails in total wins because he hasn't coached as long, he also didn't coach as young. He was 38 when he took the KU job. K was 28 when he started at Army. Knight was 25 when he started at Army. Roy had a decade or more preparation as an assistant. K and Knight racked up a lot more losses learning on the job than Roy did.
The knock on Roy changes due to some hypocrisy, surely, but also b/c he continues to grow. I know I've had different criticisms of him over the years. (I'm about out now.) Every coach who hasn't won it all has that hanging over their head until they don't... but they're still not perfect.
I've always thought what Roy did w/ the '05 team was more impressive than if he'd recruited them himself. They were very dysfunctional. He didn't get to consider character and chemistry and build a relationship while recruiting them; he inherited them as severely damaged goods and turned them into national champions in two seasons.
re Knight v Roy
Knight was way more flawed. He hated recruiting. He'd only invest significant effort in it about every 4 years and he would normally land a really good class when he wanted to but that's mainly why he had some down years. He was also a pr!ck, obviously, and he spent his last 5-6 years bitter because he kept getting 'talked to' about his behavior by an AD he didn't like. His heart was definitely not in it in the mid to late 90's. Dakich told a story once about telling Knight that Raef Lafrentz was on campus playing in a summer game and Knight wouldn't even walk across the street to talk to him because he was getting ready for a fishing trip.
Roy has been more consistent and has proven himself to be a good tournament coach the older he's got. He seems to have gotten better through the years - the opposite of Knight. I think he's very underrated all time.
For a random analogy, knowing what we know now, who was better; Greg Maddux or Bob Gibson? With Maddux you're going to get 350 wins over 20+ years and be in the post season almost every year, but with a lot of disappointment. With Gibson, you'll get 250 wins over 15+ years with flashes of brilliance and short stretches of dominance but some injuries and down years.
Maddux is more consistent and better winning %..... but who do you want on the hill in game 7?
My answer - At their peak, Knight was clearly better, maybe the best of all time. Roy has the better resume, though.
So, define the question again...
Knight was way more flawed. He hated recruiting. He'd only invest significant effort in it about every 4 years and he would normally land a really good class when he wanted to but that's mainly why he had some down years. He was also a pr!ck, obviously, and he spent his last 5-6 years bitter because he kept getting 'talked to' about his behavior by an AD he didn't like. His heart was definitely not in it in the mid to late 90's. Dakich told a story once about telling Knight that Raef Lafrentz was on campus playing in a summer game and Knight wouldn't even walk across the street to talk to him because he was getting ready for a fishing trip.
Roy has been more consistent and has proven himself to be a good tournament coach the older he's got. He seems to have gotten better through the years - the opposite of Knight. I think he's very underrated all time.
For a random analogy, knowing what we know now, who was better; Greg Maddux or Bob Gibson? With Maddux you're going to get 350 wins over 20+ years and be in the post season almost every year, but with a lot of disappointment. With Gibson, you'll get 250 wins over 15+ years with flashes of brilliance and short stretches of dominance but some injuries and down years.
Maddux is more consistent and better winning %..... but who do you want on the hill in game 7?
My answer - At their peak, Knight was clearly better, maybe the best of all time. Roy has the better resume, though.
So, define the question again...
