C
Curly Bill
Guest
stems, at its root, from Stans being here a decade, having success and ultimately raising expectations and being a victim of his own success - not lack of coaching ability. Houston Nutt syndrome.
C
Curly Bill
Guest
stems, at its root, from Stans being here a decade, having success and ultimately raising expectations and being a victim of his own success - not lack of coaching ability. Houston Nutt syndrome.
C
Curly Bill
Guest
stems, at its root, from Stans being here a decade, having success and ultimately raising expectations and being a victim of his own success - not lack of coaching ability. Houston Nutt syndrome.
C
Curly Bill
Guest
He is actually very good at developing players also. So overall I would buy. He has a better program overall than most of the SEC.
Richard Williams raised the bar when we went to the Final Four. One day, the masses are going to be dissatisfied with poor NCAA performance by Stansbury. Western Division titles are nice, but who really cares if they aren't complemented by the occasional deep run in the NCAA tournament?
most of our counterparts in the SEC would be very pleased to have Stans as their coach and if we had to play a coach like Stans year in and year out we would HATE him because of his consistency as a coach.
i by no means am satisfied that we aren't undefeated but at the same time we could have, and have had, much worse than Stansbury.
/also buy. Stansbury's success has risen the bar (along with some of Williams' production prior to Stans)
//the biggest issue I see is that Stans wants to stay at MSU where a lot of coaches with his resume would have been on the job market by now. so a lot of the guys dissatisfied with Stans seem to feel like we are stuck with him.
i by no means am satisfied that we aren't undefeated but at the same time we could have, and have had, much worse than Stansbury.
/also buy. Stansbury's success has risen the bar (along with some of Williams' production prior to Stans)
//the biggest issue I see is that Stans wants to stay at MSU where a lot of coaches with his resume would have been on the job market by now. so a lot of the guys dissatisfied with Stans seem to feel like we are stuck with him.
Frustrating thing is watching our team play well most of the time, but getting into some real slop that lets teams get points on us really quickly. Like in the first half last night when we were up by, I think, 13. They cut our lead to 2 points in just a couple minutes. We were playing sloppy as hell in that time.
I would love to hear an explanation of this comment. One of Stansbury's worst faults is that he DOESN'T develop players. Tang Hamilton and Lawrence Roberts are the only two players to have stepped onto an NBA floor (I think), and Stansbury was gift wrapped one of them.
How well did he develop Mario Austin? Marcus Campbell? Jamont Gordon? Bernard Rimmer? Gary Ervin? When is he going to turn one his "greatest" recruits into an NBA prospect? You think 5 star recruits aren't paying attention to his track record there?
You're exactly right on this one.... but when is he going to quit being satisfied with beating up Arkansas, LSU, Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina, and the likes.... and start trying to beat teams on a national stage? Its getting old JUST winning the SEC West. Let's tweak some things, coaching wise, and try to be a nationally recognized team, along with being a powerhosue SEC West team. I'm not calling for Stansbury to be fired.... I just wished he'd try to some new things offensively to make us a more diverse team.
TBone - Not trying to pick on you at all here, just stating my opinions.
The topic is:
But, some kind of frustration is present in more than a minority segment of the MSU fan base. That point is not arguable.
So, what causes the frustration? If it's not regular season and sec tourney play, what's left? Answer: The NCAA tournament.
Stans has done a great job in every aspect of his coaching career leading up to the most important time of the year in college basketball. We have performed miserably when it counts the most.
Stansbury's demise, if he doesn't perform soon in the post-season, will be due to higher post season expectations created in the late 90's by Richard Williams. That's why I sell. Williams may very well have been a below average coach overall and Stans may overall be an above average coach. But, my point is that the frustration is based on post-season performance which Williams excelled at and Stansbury fails.
The frustration stems from fan's desire for Sweet 16's and better. Therefore, the frustration can't be a result of any "bar raising" Stans has accomplished, because, honestly, he's brought down the expectations in that department, not raised them.
<span style="font-weight: bold;">
</span>
Stans is a proven regular season winner and has even been successful in the conference tourney. That point is not arguable. Nobody is frustrated with western division dominance.
But, some kind of frustration is present in more than a minority segment of the MSU fan base. That point is not arguable.
So, what causes the frustration? If it's not regular season and sec tourney play, what's left? Answer: The NCAA tournament.
Stans has done a great job in every aspect of his coaching career leading up to the most important time of the year in college basketball. We have performed miserably when it counts the most.
Stansbury's demise, if he doesn't perform soon in the post-season, will be due to higher post season expectations created in the late 90's by Richard Williams. That's why I sell. Williams may very well have been a below average coach overall and Stans may overall be an above average coach. But, my point is that the frustration is based on post-season performance which Williams excelled at and Stansbury fails.
The frustration stems from fan's desire for Sweet 16's and better. Therefore, the frustration can't be a result of any "bar raising" Stans has accomplished, because, honestly, he's brought down the expectations in that department, not raised them.
<span style="font-weight: bold;">
</span>
Huge difference in developing players for the NBA and developing them for college. I don't consider Lawrence Roberts to be one of the players he developed. Stans does an excellent job developing post players. There have been huge jumps from freshman to sophomores for many guys. Osby looks vastly improved in limited play. Austin was a great player when he was here. He should never have tried to go pro when he did. Even Robert Jackson got a lot better after his freshman season. Varnado too.
Now I'm right there with you on the guards. Some have gotten better, some haven't. It's hard to tell much of a difference for most people.
I have no idea what Stansbury is satisfied with. I'm not really a part of the "schedule several big name teams for non conference games" crowd, but i think we should definitely stop losing to crappy teams early in the season. that's on stansbury. no excuse for that. once that's taken care of, we should focus primarily on scheduling non conference games against teams in the 100-200 rpi range. maybe 125-225. i'd be interested to see how adding one (or two?) losses would affect our rpi with the improved SOS. my guess is that our rpi would go up, even if just a little bit. that's significant for seeding. go ahead and add one or two top 25 teams, just don't go overboard with it. if you're not going to be borderline for the tournament, a loss to someone like west virginia, villanova, louisville, georgetown isn't going to kill you, and might actually improve your SoS. i don't know the math. it's possible
There is alot that goes into getting drafted by an NBA team and being a great college player. Lawrence Roberts was a dominant college player but he wasn't a very good NBA player. If you saw Zimmerman, Bowers, Winsome, Mario Austin, Varnado; I think all these players have developed into good and/or great college players.
Exactly. But, what has Rick Stansbury done to make you expect a Sweet 16? My expectations from Rick are solid regular seasons and western division titles. That's fine if you (anyone) are content with those results, that's purely a matter of preference and I can't change that. If this were football, I'd agree with you and I'd vote Stans for President of the World. But, b-ball is a different situation. My preference is that we make a run in the NCAA tournament. <span style="font-weight: bold;">The frustrations present are 100% related to the lack of our post season success. </span> Any bitching/moaning in the interim periods is just voiced by those that have come to expect the inevitable: one and done. We expect Sweet 16s because of our late 90s tournament success - not Rick Stansbury. How can you argue otherwise?
There's a ton of convoluted logic in this thread. The answer to this thread is "Sell, Sell, Sell!!!!!"
Imagine being a Cowboys fan and having your season being over as soon as you get into the playoffs. That is like Notre Dame losing something like 11 straight bowl games.
I don't remember anything after the 1996 season. I just remember that when Williams "resigned," my position was that I didn't care whose daughter got sexed up and that as long as she was sixteen or older, I would look the other way faster than Pete Boone with international incidents. Did Williams' abilities not actually merit the ignore anything that's not a felony treatment?patdog said:
Patdog is correct and from being involved with both Williams and Stansbury, there is no comparison. Williams screwed up any chance to get Chris Jackson and didn't even recruit Literal Green who went on to star at Georgia until it was too late. Stans would have gotten one of them for sure. Look at Williams overall SEC record including tournament games, which he conveniently omits, and there is an alarming difference. I also know there have been overtures to Stans to leave but he has not given much thought to them and that is good. He loves MSU and so does his family. He will get us to a Sweet Sixteen and then the doomsdayers can go back in their sad little holes.
We've had some players make big jumps, but a lot of the seem to be natural improvement from freshman to sophemore year, with little to no improvement after that.TBonewannabe said:
I don't remember Mario Austin improving that much and I think his stock dropped each year he played because of that.
Rhodes got better when he trained in houston with Roberts and Lucas, but I don't remember him improving that much after that.
Varnado seemed to be improve a lot on defense, not so much on offense.
Tang was had NBA talent and could have been a decent draft pick had he shown he could drive the lane and rebound; instead he consistently had games where he hung out on the perimter and shot fade aways.
Ravern Johnson is Tang II with a better shooting touch but without quite the physical abilities.
Timmy Bowers graduated barely being able to dribble with his left hand
Barrt Stewart hasn't gotten better
And who was the freak athlete that Stans kept on the bench so that Piotr 17ing stelmach could play during a season that we sucked and weren't going to make the NIT. Not such a great job of developing him.
I don't know enough to say Stans doesn't do a good job developing players, but I haven't seen anything to make me want to buy that he does either.
and that's one reason I don't want him fired. But I will still complain about him if I desire so.
You should buy then.
The question is......Are frustrations with Stans because your expectations are raised? Or are your frustrations because he can not coach?
Which, it could be argued that the lack of post season success could be attributed to the other. Which is where I really stand.
Yes, I am frustrated with him because we have not won more early season games. Therefore, we have had a high seed in the tournament. Therefore, again, have lost early in the tournament. Which I attribute to poor coaching and in some seasons managment of personel.
Or expectations now, because of Stans, are to make the tournament. However, everyone wants to move another step and won some. Which is where the frustration comes in. 15-20 years ago, I would have been damn happy to just make the tournament...NIT or NCAA.
I think the vast majority of fans are more than pleased with Stans and what he's been able to achieve in the regular season. We really can't ask for anything more at the risk of being unrealistic. Stans gets a big fat A in year-in/year-out regular season management. He has easily raised expectations in this regard and frequent Western Division titles are no stranger in Starkville. I applaud him for that and anyone that discredits those accomplishments is just trying to be an ***. That's why you won't routinely find me bashing the hell out of him when we have a bad game. I'm confident we will end up being a solid team one way or another....until March.
But the question is regarding frustrations around Stansbury. The most obvious and likely only legitimate reason to be frustrated with Rick Stansbury is our propensity to choke in the NCAA tournament. That's the main beef one can have with him. And I think it's fair to be frustrated since we've had a taste of success in the tournament before Rick was the HC. It's been done before in the not too distant past - it can be done again. Poll the anti-Stansbury crowd and ask them why they are frustrated. The clear answer will be losing when it most counts.
Now, back to the original statement:
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
ETA as a side note: These arguments are becoming more and more frustrating and endless as the seasons go by. Two polar and equally wrong crowds have developed: a) the defend Stans as he can do no wrong crowd and the b) Stans can't tie his own shoes, much less coach a basketball team crowd.
I understand his accomplishments and like the guy a lot as our coach. But, as seasons go by without any post season success, it's becoming tougher and tougher for me to remain patient.
But the question is regarding frustrations around Stansbury. The most obvious and likely only legitimate reason to be frustrated with Rick Stansbury is our propensity to choke in the NCAA tournament. That's the main beef one can have with him. And I think it's fair to be frustrated since we've had a taste of success in the tournament before Rick was the HC. It's been done before in the not too distant past - it can be done again. Poll the anti-Stansbury crowd and ask them why they are frustrated. The clear answer will be losing when it most counts.
Now, back to the original statement:
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
My point is, post season performance is the only legitimate reason folks can be disappointed in Stansbury. And if that's the case, Stansbury has done nothing to raise our expectations. If anything, they are now lowered. We've done nothing in this regard and the expectation is now: "successful regular season, flop in tourney, the end". If the only only legitimate reason to be frustrated is because of post-season flops, then the man can't be a victim of his own success because he's had none.
ETA as a side note: These arguments are becoming more and more frustrating and endless as the seasons go by. Two polar and equally wrong crowds have developed: a) the defend Stans as he can do no wrong crowd and the b) Stans can't tie his own shoes, much less coach a basketball team crowd.
I understand his accomplishments and like the guy a lot as our coach. But, as seasons go by without any post season success, it's becoming tougher and tougher for me to remain patient.
People like to claim that Stans can't coach. Now you're saying that he can't develop players either. Then why the hell do we win so much? Our recruiting is good, but it's not as great as a lot of people try to act like it is either. The wins have to be attributable to something.Johnson85 said:
I don't know who you're talking about unless it's Walter Sharpe. If that's the case, the problems associated with him had nothing to do with developing a player's talents.
Not Sharpe. Guy recruited out of Philadelphia, only played organized ball a few years, loved remote control cars. Was rated as one of the top five centers in his draft class based solely on athletic ability. Ended up transferring. Probably not an indictment of stan's ability to develop players, I just included it b/c I'm still bitter that I had to watch Piotr play (as a junior) for a crappy team. Once it's clear you're not making the NIT, I'd just as soon play people that might one day contribute to a winning team.
I find your inclusion of him [Bowers] on a list of players we failed to develop laughable.
Probably doesn't belong on the list, it just always killed me that somebody so coordinated couldn't dribble with his left hand. We lose the South Carolina game that year (and probably a few others) if the ref had called Bowers for an offensive foul when he used his right arm to hold people off the ball.
</p>
Not Sharpe. Guy recruited out of Philadelphia, only played organized ball a few years, loved remote control cars. Was rated as one of the top five centers in his draft class based solely on athletic ability. Ended up transferring. Probably not an indictment of stan's ability to develop players, I just included it b/c I'm still bitter that I had to watch Piotr play (as a junior) for a crappy team. Once it's clear you're not making the NIT, I'd just as soon play people that might one day contribute to a winning team.
I find your inclusion of him [Bowers] on a list of players we failed to develop laughable.
Probably doesn't belong on the list, it just always killed me that somebody so coordinated couldn't dribble with his left hand. We lose the South Carolina game that year (and probably a few others) if the ref had called Bowers for an offensive foul when he used his right arm to hold people off the ball.
</p>