Mike Lonergan has been running the team for the past couple of years.  It's not premature to give him a mid-term grade on this body of work thus far.

Now, I know there are a lot of folk around here that know more than me, but I'd give Lonergan a C- based on what I've seen of him so far. Said another way, if I were Nero, I'd be looking for a new coach if things don't start improving soon. 

I'd say Lonergan chased Copes away when he dissed uncle Roland by not trying to retain his services.  On the other hand he lucked into Armwood who is much better than Copes.  Could you imagine how horrible we'd have been if Armwood had been happy at Nova??? I'd say we'd have been the worst team in the A10 last year.  Lonergan got some a few nice foreign recruits in Larsen and Garino.  But so far he's failed miserably in achieving his goal of getting high quality local players to commit to GW.  McDonald and Savage didn't show me much this past year.  Lonergan has also run some pretty nice players out of Washington, includingn Pellom and Kromah.  Kopriva followed Lonergan to DC, which was nice of Kopriva, but maybe not so good for GW.  Mikic has regressed each year under Lonergan and Marakgos looks like a bust.  This recuiting season looks to be an unmitigated disaster.

Personally, I think Lonergan brings some pretty decent structure to an offense that was a mess under Karl Hobbs.  The problem with Lonergan, as I see it, is that he's inflexible.  Yes, I know he runs the flex (which I don't love but suits the current talent on the team), but he won't change things up when he needs to. He either doesn't trust his players or he is scared. I'm not sure which, but neither is a good quality and probably has something to do with an obviously unhappy Pellom, Kromah, Smith and sometimes Bynes.  Also, I think Lonergan can come off as very arrogant and condescending toward his players.

 OMG

 Spot on, Tuna.

Mom, mom, mom, mom, mommy, mother, mom, mom, mom, mom...

WHATTTTT?

Hi!

Got your attention, good. Now, while I have you, Just Killing Time, I want you to take every negative comment ever made about Coach Lonergan on this board and say it here. OH WAIT you just did that. Based on what you just wrote, Mr. Lonergan would not be receiving a C- but a big fat F maybe he would have already dropped the class (or Nero dropped it for him).

I am sorry but really? REALLY? REALLY?

While I bet some of this is true, you simply restated what several members of this board have already said, but who make it clear that their comments are opinion and not fact. In the few cases that it is fact they are sure to back up their points.

With that said, thank you for sharing with us and please come again.

We all hope ML can turn it around or achieve his master plan,

But evaluating his prospects is not unfair. Just premature at this point. See after next year when he's had three years under his belt and no Hobbs recruits left.

ML's seemingly strong will obviously has an effect on things including recent transfers, but if he can make it work without crossing any lines, that is his right.

Not impressed with his recruiting this year, except for the recent fine verbal, to say the least, but he can clearly spot talent, if not necessarily land it.

In fairness to ML, he did land Armwood who turned out to be way better on the offensive end than we would ever have expected.

Hatchet Retaliator, I'm not sure why this post is worth criticizing.  Of course these are opinions and some vary from what others have written here.  For example, Joe McDonald has apparently showed me more than he has Just Killing Time.  His characterization of Lonergan coming off as arrogant is also news to me.

I think I'd probably give the grade of C at this point, a slight upgrade due to the team's competitiveness.  Clearly though, if GW doesn't start turning some of these close losses into wins next season, that grade is subject to plummet.  Conversely, I do think we will win a greater share of close games (that's what experience usually does for a team) and I'd be surprised if that grade wasn't a B- or better a year from now.

I think a "C" is a fair grade to this point.  Can't see giving anything higher right now.  I think your arguements are way off base on a couple points.  

1) Having seen "nothing" out of Joe McDonald and Kethan Savage?  I strongly disagree, McDonald really started to show a lot once conference play started last season.  He was a freshman PG and I think he will be a very good player in the A-10 under ML.  Savage didn't have the same success but do say you don't see anything from him is too strong.  Also, these are both players from the DMV that we highly rated in my opinion.  So your assessment that he can't land top local talent is off base to me.  He also signed Nick Griffin in this past class.  Who did he miss out on that he "should" have got?  He went after some of the best from the DMV and those players ended up at schools like Villanova, Missouri and other BCS level schools.

2) Paris being a bust.  This may turn out to be the case, but where did you expect his minutes to come from?  This team has a Center (Larsen) and Power Forward (Armwood) that play major minutes.  It also had Smith (Sr) and Kopriva (So) as backup reserve big men who were rotation players.  I think this upcoming season Paris will probably only get 5-10 minutes a game as a reserve.  So your expectations may be too high at this point.  I don't think the coaching staff is expecting him to contribute until Armwood graduates. 

3) The staff lucking into Armwood.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say the staff did a bad job recruiting and then say, oh they got lucky the landed one transfer player who's been a huge impact on the team.  Armwood could easily have gone to a number of other schools, but chose GW.  It wasn't his only option.  

4)  How can you classify this upcoming class as an unmitigated disaster.  That's absolutely insane.  That's just ridiculous.  These kids haven't even played a game yet.  So get that out of here.  Being disappointed at the decommitment of Nigel Johnson is fine but god give the kids they are bringing in a chance.

I agree that C is an acurate assessment for ML up until this point ...Nero on the other hand gets an A. 

Nero gets an A so far.

That can go down to A- or B+ depending on how ML does next season (or two) and how long Nero puts up with him if wins don't come.

Patrick Nero's performance is not going to be measured solely by the performance of the men's basketball team. His mission, and one that has to date been performed admirably, is to enhance and upgrade the entire athletic department for the school and the student-athletes. Winning on the court is the obvious primary metric, but not exclusively so. Coach Lonergan received a 5 year contract because there was a realistic assessment made that it would take time to change the direction of the program. I doubt many would disagree that the results to date in terms of wins and losses has been disappointing. ML would likely be the first to acknowledge that. But it hardly speaks to the impatience often expressed here, especially with regard to incoming recruits we've never seen play. The quicker turnaround under Coach Tsipis is not the measuring stick for Coach Lonergan. Two years is not the timetable either. We just need to be a little more realistic about what and when things will happen. The AD is driven to win as much as anyone. If an assessment is inevitably made that Lonergan can 't do it, changes will be made. I just don't believe that we are anywhere close to that  evaluation except for maybe here. In the meantime, success is busting out all over the athletic teams on and off their fields of competition. Pretty good record to me.

Nero's great. He's the Athletic Director, not the Basketball Director. He's done great things for GW Athletics

The reality is that absent some type of scandal or calamity, ML's performance is not going to be seriously scrutinized until his 4th year (2014-15). After that year, Nero will have to decide whether ML will be offered an extension or have to play out his last year under contract and hope for the best. So if 13-14 is another losing or a middling season, then the expectation will be that there needs to be some very visible progress evident in 14-15. And lots of things can happen between now and then to swing things in either direction. For instance we still don't even know the exact composition of the team for THIS Fall. Domonique Bull could be a player like Tim Johnson who had amazing athleticism and limited BBIQ or he could be a guy like Armwood, who just needed to be at the right place/level to be awesome. We also don't even know for sure if he is even coming or when he'll be elligible.

So I think it's way premature to really being able to be sure how this whole thing turns out. One could make the argument either way, projecting from this moment.

Not sure I'd give Lonergan higher than a C either. Not sure I'd give Nero an A either - probably a B+. Yes he has done some good things but much like Kvancz he will solely be measured externally by the men's basketball program. That's not fair but that is the way it goes at GW. His first test as AD may well come in about 9 months if things go backwards. Then we will see what kind of AD he is and how he navigates the situation. Hopefully, it doesn't come to that.

Solid B thus far considering it's what any impartial observer would call a total rebuild project. 

 I'll wait until mid-terms to give ML a mid-term grade. He has proven he know the difference between 5 and 6, so if you are grading on a curve...

  "Could you imagine how horrible we'd have been if Armwood had been happy at Nova??? I'd say we'd have been the worst team in the A10 last year."

Could you imagine if Martin Luther got laid? OR if Paul Revere didn't give a shit OR dare I say that Austrian dude made it in the art world? 

I say C- is very fair.  This isn't a summary of everything bad that's been written.  It's my assessement of his performance to date.  Hooper1, Tuna Can, Poog and The Hatchet Retaliates, I think if you're honest with yourselves, you'd probably agree that the grade is in the right ballpark.

 Nero will be measured on the mens basketball program more than anything else. Womens bball is important too and everything else is significantly down the food chain. He's done a nice job with marketing etc but the cluster fck of the Hobbs firing and the mediocre start to Lonergan's tenure puts him at a B/B- in my eyes.

Lonergan is probably a C-. Recruits showed promise and Armwood is a nice player but he got nothing out of any Hobbs players and that is a serious mark on him. ONe Hobbs player Taylor is a borderline pro, I think he started every Dleague game this year for the Thunder. And two more, Pellom and Kromah are playing for two of the best schools in the country, yet we couldn't get anything from them? The sign of a good coach is one who can coach any type of player, not just the people he handpicks. 

Nero will be measured by the totality of the athletic department performance. Men's basketball is a major component but not the end all be all. If Lonergan doesn't work out as hoped, and it's WAY TOO EARLY to even go down that path and make judgements, then the success in other sports will deflect much of any criticism that would matter. Bigger concern may be whether GW supporters make their presence felt with ticket sales and financial contributions. It's symbiotic, not simply give me a winner and maybe then I'll give you my support. Knapp's push for GW as an institutional research center probably doesn't require the Ramsey/Levine vision of athletic elevation. This is not going to be determined in 2 years and 1 recruiting class. If next year's incoming recruits don't set the world on fire, then the '14 class will have to be stronger. Gonna take time. Give Lonergan whatever grade you want to fill the off-season vacuum. Just understand how little it means in the overall evaluation of his tenure, let alone that of Nero's. And while I wish the best for our two departing transfers, let's see how they do before making a big deal about where they're playing next year as an indictment of the current staff. Is Jay Wright an idiot because Zeke fit in and performed well at GW? Kids move on for a variety of reasons. If the glove don't fit...

Poog, I think you are kidding yourself. How much criticism or praise did Kvancz ever get for things unrelated to men's basketball? To borrow a phrase from a former Yankee, the straw that stirs the drink at GW is men's basketball. Nero/Levine/Ramsey have much invested in the success of men's basketball. GW has much invested because it realizes it is its highest profile sport. If men's basketball fails, it will adversely affect the University. Look at the difference between in GW pre-Jarvis to post-Jarvis. We may all know what a great institution GW is but for the rest of the world it needs exposure. One way to get exposure is through a successful sports program. Basketball is really the only thing that will gain wide national attention. If we are not good next year, 2014-15 will be the make or break year for the current coaching staff. GW simply has too much invested in men's basketball to fail continually for long periods of time.

Thinker is right, 2014-2015 is an important year as Nero will have to decide whether to extend Lonergan a contract extention before ML's last year of his 5 year deal.  Nero hired Lonergan and there's no evidence that he or any of GW's decion makers has lost faith in that choice. 

Last year's Freshman 5 will almost certainly be given the chance to see what they can achieve under their coach, Lonergan and staff.  If they can't get it done by their senior seasons, then Nero will have some tough decisions to make.  But there is small chance that Lonergan won't be given his full 5 years to prove his worth.

Nobody is questioning whether men's basketball is the marquee intercollegiate sport at GW. But the athletic department of which it is the preeminent sport is not the same entity as the one headed by Jack Kvancz, Steve Bilsky or Bob Faris, the 3 previous athletic directors that span my experience with GW. Biggest difference -- there are vibrant women's athletic teams which simply did not exist before. Since the athletic reevaluation headed by Randy Levine, the role and expectations (and support) for student-athletes from all sports has expanded well beyond simple wins and losses, though at its core, that is the metric by which all programs and coaches will undoubtedly be judged both internally and externally. Men's basketball needs to be successful because it is the feature program at GW. It is obviously also the sport likely to generate the most exposure for the school as well as any meaningful gate and advertising revenue. But I also believe that the transformation of the athletic department was intended to be a top to bottom upgrade across the board in all sports. If GW baseball, tennis, softball, and women's basketball (to name a few rising programs) raise their national profile, it will not be good enough for men's basketball or any other sport to be consistently lagging behind at the bottom of the conference. In that regard, I tend to agree with those who see the 2014-15 basketball season as a critical year for how the program is doing. Is it continuing to head in the "right direction" or is it stagnating? They don't need to be Phi Beta Kappa or Phi Slamma Jamma, just a very competitive team that regularly vies for conference and NCAA success and represents and reflects the school well. That's 2 seasons and 2 recruiting classes away. Plenty of time for things to play out. And well within the timeframe granted to Coach Lonergan to bring about the desired positive changes in the men's basketball program. By all accounts, Patrick Nero is fully engaged as both a supportive and demanding athletic director. With that comes an understanding and patience about what GW was in the past and what GW wants to be in the future.  The up-front investment in GW athletics is clearly being made. The return on that investment will be determined not only by the success of men's basketball, but by the success of all other sports teams and by the response of the GW community at-large in supporting the school's sports teams and the institution in general.

 Poog--good write-up. You too were probably at the initial program reviews held by the then new AD Nero along with the board. I was totally impressed by all taking part except for one small contingient who seemed to be there by demand and who were not paying attention despite having a "minder."

One point I will throw into the mix with an eye on brevity is that what you see in all of our "projects" that frighten so many here is that these guys are all driven to do more and almost if not all of the new recruits can shoot the freakin ball. A second observation coming out of this "SO CALLED" C- season (coaching effort) would be something that these analysts don't see which is that all the players are learning to score in their catching position in the offense--it isn't JUST THE FLEX, it is what do you do with the damn ball when you get it.

I note that during one of the few garbage times last season, I turned to my friend at the game and had to suggest that J Davis didn't look half bad with the ball in the paint. THe way that a team really gets better is that everyone on the team is playing well and growing and not just the starters. I will point out finally that freshmen always look like freshmen. OR, they immediately end up in the NBA. 

I for one do not judge a team loaded with very decent Freshmen recruits and a returning work horse -- effort guy as a C- until we see what they do later on. If you can't see the movement on player development and just pass it off as the FLEX, then I think that you are missing something. One final note, if you think losing games that can be won upsets you, then try being part of a losing team.  McDonald is not a loser. Tony Taylor was not a loser but he did enough of it during his freshan year. I look at this as just so much off-season hysteria that will clear once the season starts. We have to remember that at least 25% of those players that we had to play against and who were older are gone. We have to rememmber that our complete starting 5 is returning and the extended time that they have to work together under the new rules will help us where we already strong--offensive efficiency.

 Steven - Longergan got nothing out of any of Hobbs' players? Really? Tony Taylor's senior season (under Lonergan) he led the team in scoring and assists and was a close second to Kromah in steals. His PPG were slightly lower than his junior year but his shooting percentage dropped from about 42% to just below 40%. Sounds like Lonergan got plenty of something from Taylor. Did he grow by leaps and bounds under Lonergan? No. But he sure as hell was good.

Pellom's best ever season at GW was under Lonergan. I doubt anyone here would disagree with that (I can't imagine anyone could make a case otherwise).

Kromah was our second-leading scorer the last two seasons under Lonergan. He might not have become the all-conference player we thought he could be after his freshman season but a major injury could, maybe just have a little something to do with that. And it's not like Lonergan can be blamed for Kromah's three-point shooting problems last year. 

I am not saying that Lonergan should get praise for how these guys played under him but to say Lonergan got nothing from any of them is a joke.

I wish Pellom and Kromah nothing but the best at their new schools. I enjoyed watching them at GW and want them to succeed wherever they play. If Kromah wants to play professionally after school, playing fewer minutes at UConn might give him a better shot (due to higher visibility) than playing more minutes at GW. No one should fault him for that at all. And hopefully he succeeds and represents both GW and UConn proudly if he plays professionally somewhere.

That said, I'd grade Lonergan as incomplete. The expectations and how this team performs in year 4 will be make or break for him. GW needs to be a top-tier A10 team and be going to the NCAA or at least NIT in year 4 for Lonergan to be considered even relatively successful, in my opinion. And those expectations have to be built on showing big strides in year 3 after an up-and-down, but improved year 2.

Excellent post, NYGW.  Expresses my sentiments exactly

Poog, you are the voice of reason in most everything you write.  However, I am going to take exception to the following statement:

"And while I wish the best for our two departing transfers, let's see how they do before making a big deal about where they're playing next year as an indictment of the current staff."

Unfortunately, this statement badly misses the mark.  First, how much or little both players play at their new destinations, or how well they perform, have little to do with the GW coaching staff's relationship with these two players over the past two years.  It is fair to say that these relationships were contentious at times.  In the case of Pellom, all injury reports had him returning to the team by early December.  Instead, he opts not to use up his eligibility, that's how badly he wanted a fresh start someplace else.  Lasan we've gone over a million times.  I am of the mindset that good coaches do adapt their philosophies and strategies to meet the strengths of their personnel.  Bill Parcells won with defense in the 1980's and he won with offense a decade later.  Pat Riley won with up-tempo Laker teams and then had great success with slow-it-down, grind-it-out teams with the Knicks.  Rick Pitino made his mark in coaching by relying on great three point shooting while coaching Providence, then abandoned that philosophy when his talent improved at Kentucky and Louisville. 

Coach Lonergan made a conscious decision to coach the way he was accustomed to with KH players put in a position to keep up or see their playing time curtailed.  Because of this decision, the indictment is valid regardless of what happens next.

Two other points.  First, that these players have ended up at UCONN and Memphis already speaks volumes about this situation.  Neither player is intending on being a bench warmer.  These schools saw plenty of both players on film, my guess is that they worked out Pellom (if not both) in person, and obviously feel that each could prosper. Second, in the case of Jay Wright, the fundamental difference appears to be that Isaiah and Jay thought very highly of one another.  Zeke left for seemingly no other reason than playing style.  Interestingly, Zeke was going to be a team captain had he stayed at Villanova.  Instead, he and Kopriva became team captains at GW.  Two Lonergan guys, one a transfer, the other a sophomore, were captains ahead of Lasan, David, Bryan or Dwayne.  I always thought that was very telling.

MV makes a great point about ML's selection of co-captains. that's a real slap in the face to the seniors. not a classy move. ML has had 2 losing seasons but recruited a very good 2012-13 class. next season's starting 5 has lots of talent but the bench is a major concern with Mikic, Kopriva, Maragkos, Griffin, Cartegena, White, McCoy--the roster as we know it. that's a thin bench on paper. i'm waiting to see one or more players step up.

MV: I understand your position but see it a little differently. Steven made the point that Pellom and Kromah were going to high caliber programs and Lonergan could get nothing out of them. Can't argue that they are not coming back to GW but don't agree that ML got nothing out of them. Where they end up is not an indictment of the coaching staff; the fact that they are not returning, may be. I really don't think it is accurate to lump the two players together since I'm not sure both players were actually wanted back. Lots happens behind the scenes that we never hear about or only get subtle references to about what's happening in River City. Reminds me of all the hand-wringing over Montrell McDonald when we never really knew what had transpired. I'm simply satisfied to wish David and Lasan well and welcome the new and returning players for a successful season at GW.

The team votes on the team captains, coaching staff does not select them. 

In my opinion, lumping Lasan and Pellom in the same situation is misleading.  ML and staff were hard on Lasan, because they thought they could make him a better player.  ML has been outspoken about this in multiple interviews.  Although not disclosed, my impression was that Pellom was more of a challenge from a disciplinary standpoint.  I think the decision for Pellom to transfer was mutual, I think the staff wanted to get Lasan to stay.

Do you really believe, MV. that there was any way that ML could have handled both Kromah and Pellom that would have caused them to turn down the opportunity to play at UConn and Memphis?  I think that the opportunity  to play at such high profile schools would have been an offer that neither player could have refused, even if they were very happy at GW.    I truly believe that in the end, both players did what was best for their long term prospects and it had nothing to do with any personal dislike that they may have had towards the coach.

 Sorry LSF but you are wrong. Both players loved GW and Hobbs. They would have never thought about transferring under his tenure. It only became their desire after enduring two seasons under Mike Lonergan. Sorry but that it the way it is. 

The thing about Pellom is that if he and ML saw eye to eye on things (which they clearly did NOT) then he would have come back and played last year. Then his elligibility would have been used up and he'd still be gone. Pellom is a VERY different sitaution from Lasan.

When Pellom got healthy, Lonergan could have been more forceful in inserting Pellom back into the lineup.  That might have had some benifit to the team last year but wasn't in Pellom's best interest.  It's better for the player that he gets a full year to play healthy, whether that be at GW or Memphis.  I don't know this for a fact, but I believe Lonergan and staff did right by Pellom last year. 

 Sorry, LSF, even I'm going to say that their leaving is primarily a result of their relationship with the coach.  To be fair, I don't think it's all ML's fault - their unwillingness to do what ML wanted on and off the court is as much their own fault as poor performance by the coach - but it is what it is.  

Losing those guys is a short term blow,, but highly I likely to be a long term one.

Not to hijack the thread but one interesting thing is that under the new college basketball landscape, a season- long injury to a good player doesn't just mean a missed season anymore.  Now it means you probably only get three years from that player because a large percentage of fifth year seniors now transfer (not just from us, but from any school).  

 Bobo, I think they staff wanted him to play, but I'm not sure how you can force a kid to play.  I'm not sure the staff can get that much credit for preserving his eligibility, but I have no idea.