52 replies to this topic

[DJ MC]

The point is many thought Crean would be gone and it was only a matter of time. Easy to look back in hindsight and say Indiana made the right decision. And losing at Indiana is tolerated even less than it is at Maryland.

Again though, the situation was different. That was a time where you HAD to have patience; again, like Gary Williams when he was hired at Maryland.

While I agree with you, Turge had a "better situation," it's not like GW left it in great shape.

Nor did he leave it in a shambles.

In terms of the 20 games, we all know that's mostly due to it's OOC schedule (which you mentioned). It wasn't too long ago, we were talking about the "winning streak" and people were whining about the lack of respect since Maryland wasn't in the Top 25.

And yeah it will be tough to say things are going right, but this team hasn't even made the NIT the past two seasons. But could I see Turge getting a 4th year even if they missed the tournament next year, absolutely. You do need to look at other factors besides wins/losses such as recruiting.

You also need to look at what happens with those recruits, which is what I was referring to by "worrying signs". There hasn't been much progression this season from anyone who was on the team last year, nor over the course of the season from the freshmen, and the three Williams recruits have regressed.

I know that there is a belief out there that recruiting can cure all, but unless that talent is simply overwhelming it still needs to develop from its raw state. I haven't seen that, and another season not making the tournament would likely be from the same issue.

At some point--and to reiterate, we are not there yet--that question will need to be answered. I hope it is, and in the best possible way.

[Oriole85]

I think a big question at the end of next year -- assuming they miss the tourney two years in a row -- will be do they want to give Turge a shot in the Big 10 or do they want a fresh start?

[bnickle]

There should be nearly any criticism these first 2 years. He had a gazzilion walk ons last year. That was Gary's fault for leaving the team in a bad spot. Again, Turge finally has mostly his players but every single one them is an underclassman. The 2 Gary holdovers are the only upperclassmen and one of them completely sucks(Howard) and the other is inconsistent and ideally a 7 or 8 min a game glue guy.

Starting next year the criticism should be heavier. Turge will then have a roster of his players that have a number of upperclassmen and experienced college players. Still, next year should be the first year that really counts against Turge. It would be laughable if you fired a guy after his 3rd year when the majority of his players just finished their sophomore season.



Again, the double standard is laughable. You got tons of people who would have let Gary run off 5 or 6 non NCAA tourny appearances in a row and still been down on their knees for him. Lifetime contract talk. The same people want to get rid of a coach after 3 years when not a single one of his recruits will have graduated. Oh, and it's not like he's been horrible. No Matt Dougherty 8 win season on the record book. He won 17 games last year with a shitty roster and will win 20+ this year with a bunch of underclassmen.

[SportsGuy]

Turg's job shouldn't be in jeopardy.

But to act as if Gary doesn't/didn't deserve more of a benefit of the doubt than Turg is what is truly laughable.

[You Play to Win the Game]

I know that there is a belief out there that recruiting can cure all, but unless that talent is simply overwhelming it still needs to develop from its raw state. I haven't seen that, and another season not making the tournament would likely be from the same issue.

At some point--and to reiterate, we are not there yet--that question will need to be answered. I hope it is, and in the best possible way.

I agree with this. I was as excited as anyone on the recruiting front, but recruiting is just part of the battle.

I'd add you also need character recruits, and not just pure raw talent recruits. Turge has referenced a few times this year that his guys don't listen to him.

[BSLChrisStoner]

There should be nearly any criticism these first 2 years. He had a gazzilion walk ons last year. That was Gary's fault for leaving the team in a bad spot. Again, Turge finally has mostly his players but every single one them is an underclassman. The 2 Gary holdovers are the only upperclassmen and one of them completely sucks(Howard) and the other is inconsistent and ideally a 7 or 8 min a game glue guy.

Starting next year the criticism should be heavier. Turge will then have a roster of his players that have a number of upperclassmen and experienced college players. Still, next year should be the first year that really counts against Turge. It would be laughable if you fired a guy after his 3rd year when the majority of his players just finished their sophomore season.

Again, the double standard is laughable. You got tons of people who would have let Gary run off 5 or 6 non NCAA tourny appearances in a row and still been down on their knees for him. Lifetime contract talk. The same people want to get rid of a coach after 3 years when not a single one of his recruits will have graduated. Oh, and it's not like he's been horrible. No Matt Dougherty 8 win season on the record book. He won 17 games last year with a shitty roster and will win 20+ this year with a bunch of underclassmen.

You have two people in this thread that suggested Turgeon could feel a bit of a hot seat if Maryland does not make the tournament next year. Two. (Sorry, I've edited this to two after seeing Madison's comments.)

Where is the major criticism of Turgeon? It isn't here. It's not at Testudo Times, or IMS, or Scout. I'm not hearing a ton on talk radio. I've seen comments/feelings similar to mine. That people feel this team could be doing more, even with their PG issues, but they still want him as the coach long-term.

Last year's MD team sucked primarily because Jordan Willams, and Palsson had left early, Mosley had never developed into the scorer people expected he would become when he came to MD, and Howard's injuries/play. Still, after Len got back, they had 9 players who were at-least useable until Howard again got hurt (Faust, Mosley, Padgett, Howard, Pankey, Parker, Stoglin, Weijs).

*Parker is at NAIA Georgetown College where he has started 1 game, and averages 7.9 ppg. Pretty remarkable, for a guy that was consensus Top 50 (4 star Scout, 4 star Rivals, 95 ESPN).

**Pankey is at Manhattan, and eligible next year.


However, if you want to talk about double-standards, saying Turgeon doesn't deserve criticism until year 3 is a double-standard. Turgeon took over a limited roster sure. People expect it takes sometime to get the players he wants to run his system. This isn't college football though.

Most of this post is besides the point though. I'll go back to my original thought. Where are you seeing all of this major criticism of Turgeon? I don't know that I expect MD to go 4-1 in these next 5 games (and possibly win a game in the ACCT), but it's possible. If he does that, everyone else in this thread that expects Turgeon to be here long-term, will only have had their opinions reinforced.

[Oriole85]

Turg's job shouldn't be in jeopardy.

But to act as if Gary doesn't/didn't deserve more of a benefit of the doubt than Turg is what is truly laughable.

Don't think it's better stated than this.

[bnickle]

You have two people in this thread that suggested Turgeon could feel a bit of a hot seat if Maryland does not make the tournament next year. Two. (Sorry, I've edited this to two after seeing Madison's comments.)

Where is the major criticism of Turgeon? It isn't here. It's not at Testudo Times, or IMS, or Scout. I'm not hearing a ton on talk radio. I've seen comments/feelings similar to mine. That people feel this team could be doing more, even with their PG issues, but they still want him as the coach long-term.

Last year's MD team sucked primarily because Jordan Willams, and Palsson had left early, Mosley had never developed into the scorer people expected he would become when he came to MD, and Howard's injuries/play. Still, after Len got back, they had 9 players who were at-least useable until Howard again got hurt (Faust, Mosley, Padgett, Howard, Pankey, Parker, Stoglin, Weijs).

*Parker is at NAIA Georgetown College where he has started 1 game, and averages 7.9 ppg. Pretty remarkable, for a guy that was consensus Top 50 (4 star Scout, 4 star Rivals, 95 ESPN).

**Pankey is at Manhattan, and eligible next year.


However, if you want to talk about double-standards, saying Turgeon doesn't deserve criticism until year 3 is a double-standard. Turgeon took over a limited roster sure. People expect it takes sometime to get the players he wants to run his system. This isn't college football though.

Most of this post is besides the point though. I'll go back to my original thought. Where are you seeing all of this major criticism of Turgeon? I don't know that I expect MD to go 4-1 in these next 5 games (and possibly win a game in the ACCT), but it's possible. If he does that, everyone else in this thread that expects Turgeon to be here long-term, will only have had their opinions reinforced.

Just one thought of Turge losing his job after 3 years in one too many.

[DJ MC]

Just one thought of Turge losing his job after 3 years in one too many.

Why?

It would be four years without a tournament bid. Two years of Turgeon's own recruits, when recruiting was supposed to be the whole problem. The university would be moving to a new conference, which would be a good time to make a fresh start if they wanted to make one.

I don't think it would happen after next year; as I originally said, I think he would be given one more chance (so a minimum of four years). But it isn't an insane thought if it doesn't seem like Turgeon is the right coach for the future.

All of this is dependent on two hypotheticals anyway: not making the tournament this season or next season. Either happens and the discussion is rightfully moot.

[Oriole85]

There should be nearly any criticism these first 2 years. He had a gazzilion walk ons last year. That was Gary's fault for leaving the team in a bad spot. Again, Turge finally has mostly his players but every single one them is an underclassman. The 2 Gary holdovers are the only upperclassmen and one of them completely sucks(Howard) and the other is inconsistent and ideally a 7 or 8 min a game glue guy.

Starting next year the criticism should be heavier. Turge will then have a roster of his players that have a number of upperclassmen and experienced college players. Still, next year should be the first year that really counts against Turge. It would be laughable if you fired a guy after his 3rd year when the majority of his players just finished their sophomore season.



Again, the double standard is laughable. You got tons of people who would have let Gary run off 5 or 6 non NCAA tourny appearances in a row and still been down on their knees for him. Lifetime contract talk. The same people want to get rid of a coach after 3 years when not a single one of his recruits will have graduated. Oh, and it's not like he's been horrible. No Matt Dougherty 8 win season on the record book. He won 17 games last year with a shitty roster and will win 20+ this year with a bunch of underclassmen.

Again, I just think it's just a reality of coaching in a revenue sport in college athletics today. You get a little if at all honeymoon period. And in fairness, a head coach taking such a job today knows that. Ideally speaking, every coach should get a minimum of five years -- lots of the best coaches would've been fired by today's standards if they weren't given time to build their programs.

I agree with your criticism of GW on leaving a not-so great product for Turge, some refuse to say a bad word about him. And as I've stated before, I'm a big believer in that third year being a quasi-benchmark with the fifth year being a bigger judge. I was a big GW fan myself, but it's amazing how content some got with NOT making it past the 2nd round in almost a decade under him. As I said before, I thought he retired at the right time -- got to leave on his own terms, pressure was going to start to mount without real improvement. That said like SG said, he's obviously going to be given more of the benefit of the doubt after what he built here, just that the time be bought was eventually gonna run out.

[Oriole85]

I agree with this. I was as excited as anyone on the recruiting front, but recruiting is just part of the battle.

I'd add you also need character recruits, and not just pure raw talent recruits. Turge has referenced a few times this year that his guys don't listen to him.

Recruiting is exciting, but at the end of the day, if you aren't winning on the field/court that doesn't matter.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I'll just say that if this team doesn't make the tournament next year I'll be pretty disappointed.

[SportsGuy]

Just making the tourney shouldn't be the goal of this program.

[bnickle]

You have two people in this thread that suggested Turgeon could feel a bit of a hot seat if Maryland does not make the tournament next year. Two. (Sorry, I've edited this to two after seeing Madison's comments.)

Where is the major criticism of Turgeon? It isn't here. It's not at Testudo Times, or IMS, or Scout. I'm not hearing a ton on talk radio. I've seen comments/feelings similar to mine. That people feel this team could be doing more, even with their PG issues, but they still want him as the coach long-term.

Last year's MD team sucked primarily because Jordan Willams, and Palsson had left early, Mosley had never developed into the scorer people expected he would become when he came to MD, and Howard's injuries/play. Still, after Len got back, they had 9 players who were at-least useable until Howard again got hurt (Faust, Mosley, Padgett, Howard, Pankey, Parker, Stoglin, Weijs).

*Parker is at NAIA Georgetown College where he has started 1 game, and averages 7.9 ppg. Pretty remarkable, for a guy that was consensus Top 50 (4 star Scout, 4 star Rivals, 95 ESPN).

**Pankey is at Manhattan, and eligible next year.


However, if you want to talk about double-standards, saying Turgeon doesn't deserve criticism until year 3 is a double-standard. Turgeon took over a limited roster sure. People expect it takes sometime to get the players he wants to run his system. This isn't college football though.

Most of this post is besides the point though. I'll go back to my original thought. Where are you seeing all of this major criticism of Turgeon? I don't know that I expect MD to go 4-1 in these next 5 games (and possibly win a game in the ACCT), but it's possible. If he does that, everyone else in this thread that expects Turgeon to be here long-term, will only have had their opinions reinforced.

I've also read numerous thoughts from people who think Turg is the biggest problem with the team's struggles this year. Insane. That is people needing to put the blame somewhere and not understanding what it is there watching on the court. So just blame the coach.

[Oriole85]

You have two people in this thread that suggested Turgeon could feel a bit of a hot seat if Maryland does not make the tournament next year. Two. (Sorry, I've edited this to two after seeing Madison's comments.)

Where is the major criticism of Turgeon? It isn't here. It's not at Testudo Times, or IMS, or Scout. I'm not hearing a ton on talk radio. I've seen comments/feelings similar to mine. That people feel this team could be doing more, even with their PG issues, but they still want him as the coach long-term.

Last year's MD team sucked primarily because Jordan Willams, and Palsson had left early, Mosley had never developed into the scorer people expected he would become when he came to MD, and Howard's injuries/play. Still, after Len got back, they had 9 players who were at-least useable until Howard again got hurt (Faust, Mosley, Padgett, Howard, Pankey, Parker, Stoglin, Weijs).

*Parker is at NAIA Georgetown College where he has started 1 game, and averages 7.9 ppg. Pretty remarkable, for a guy that was consensus Top 50 (4 star Scout, 4 star Rivals, 95 ESPN).

**Pankey is at Manhattan, and eligible next year.


However, if you want to talk about double-standards, saying Turgeon doesn't deserve criticism until year 3 is a double-standard. Turgeon took over a limited roster sure. People expect it takes sometime to get the players he wants to run his system. This isn't college football though.

Most of this post is besides the point though. I'll go back to my original thought. Where are you seeing all of this major criticism of Turgeon? I don't know that I expect MD to go 4-1 in these next 5 games (and possibly win a game in the ACCT), but it's possible. If he does that, everyone else in this thread that expects Turgeon to be here long-term, will only have had their opinions reinforced.

I think pressure will mount, the more missed tournament appearances they make in a row. That's just how it is, in the "what have you done for me lately" climate and expected instant gratification culture we got.

It isn't there yet, but I think it will be if things don't get turnaround soon. And turnaround means NCAA appearances.

If your cfb comment is what I think it is -- and that you need even more time for a turnaround with that, I agree with you. It's just a numbers game and players are expected to make more of an immediate impact in cbb

[You Play to Win the Game]

I've also read numerous thoughts from people who think Turg is the biggest problem with the team's struggles this year. Insane. That is people needing to put the blame somewhere and not understanding what it is there watching on the court. So just blame the coach.

I think it's more you isolating the PG and basketball IQ issues (which I think are definitely the main issues, like you), and thinking that's where the blame should stop.

Turge has made a few missteps this season. I was never a fan of an OOC schedule that soft for a program like MD... regardless of where we are, that was just pitiful. He's also referenced his guys not listening to him. After a while, I'm tired of hearing it. Part of that is on him.

Just because we have no true PG, and the basketball IQ is lacking... which are definitely big deals, but not end all be all's... doesn't mean that Turge is completely and entirely devoid of any fault or blame whatsoever.

But just like with Flacco, you put yourself in this little corner all by yourself where you're combative with anyone and everything that is negative about Turge. Not sure why you insist on behaving like this.

[bnickle]

Just making the tourney shouldn't be the goal of this program.

Of course not, and it's what the Gary "bashers "were saying nearly the last decade of his stay. Yet, all we heard was how hard it is to make the tourny, how getting to the second round was some accomplishment to hang your hat on. Now that same statement is going to be used against Turge?? Like I said, double standard. Listen, its fine if you want to slobber all over Gary Williams for what he had accomplished but show some consistency. He went nearly a decade without getting past the 2nd round.


We needed someone to take the program to the next level. I still believe Turge can do that, and I'm going to give him more than 3 years. That said, there will come a time where if this program keeps treading water that I'll step up and say it's time to move on. They have to take the next step. Gary Williams was past the point of taking us to the next step. If it's not Turge so be it but it takes more than 3 years to find that out. Again, thinking about firing him when the majority of his recruits are finishing their sophomore season is ridiculous. Especially, when he's not taking the program backwards, pending next years result. It's disappointing to tread water but again, Gary treaded water for much of his last 8 years. '06-07 and '09-10 were the only years over the last 8 where he had a winning record in the ACC.

[Mike B]

Building a program takes time. To be talking about getting rid of Turgeon just shows the impatience some fans have. We all got caught up in the early season excitement and set the bar too high. Turgeon and his staff have been tireless in recruiting and everyone of the kids he brought in can play. The Terps lack a point guard and experience. Better days are ahead for Maryland. Hopefully Roddy Peters will stabilize the point, Allen will get more comfortable there and the rest of the kids will grow. Patience people.

[bnickle]

I think it's more you isolating the PG and basketball IQ issues (which I think are definitely the main issues, like you), and thinking that's where the blame should stop.

Turge has made a few missteps this season. I was never a fan of an OOC schedule that soft for a program like MD... regardless of where we are, that was just pitiful. He's also referenced his guys not listening to him. After a while, I'm tired of hearing it. Part of that is on him.

Just because we have no true PG, and the basketball IQ is lacking... which are definitely big deals, but not end all be all's... doesn't mean that Turge is completely and entirely devoid of any fault or blame whatsoever.

But just like with Flacco, you put yourself in this little corner all by yourself where you're combative with anyone and everything that is negative about Turge. Not sure why you insist on behaving like this.

I fight stupidness and over the top,reactionary statements. Like with Flacco, I realize Turge has his issues. He has his flaws. I have no problem with some crticism directed at him. I have a problem when people lay all of the problems at his feet, when they propose potentially firing him after 3 seasons.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I've also read numerous thoughts from people who think Turg is the biggest problem with the team's struggles this year. Insane. That is people needing to put the blame somewhere and not understanding what it is there watching on the court. So just blame the coach.

Where have you seen thoughts from people that think Turgeon is the biggest problem with this team? The great majority of people basically have similar opinions to you, but it feels like you are arguing otherwise.