How do you define "talent"? We are going in cirlces about this.

[DerHntr]

Everyone else in the entire country thinks we do. It is constantly said by commentators, players on other teams, opponents' coaches, etc.

I am going out on a limb and say that the way shsdawg and goat define talent will not line up with what a pro scout would say.

So, respond with how you define talent of a college basketball player.

 

[DerHntr]

Everyone else in the entire country thinks we do. It is constantly said by commentators, players on other teams, opponents' coaches, etc.

I am going out on a limb and say that the way shsdawg and goat define talent will not line up with what a pro scout would say.

So, respond with how you define talent of a college basketball player.

 

[Coach34]

can you answer?

 

[Goat Grindin]

on our team.

 

[patdog]

It wouldn't make any sense to say our talent is overrated if there weren't people saying we did have a lot of talent. We'll see how many of those "NBA draft picks" actually wind up playing in the NBA. I really only see one of them ever making it in the league. The rest simply aren't as good as they're hyped up to be.

 

[DerHntr]

nm

 

[RonnyAtmosphere]

..Auburn when it really matters.

Of course, I'm using the absurd metric of judging talent on final scores of games, so what do I know.

 

[patdog]

Point is, we do not have as much talent as a lot of you would like to believe. Every player other than Moultrie has some major holes in their game. Bost is a turnover machine and takes a lot of bad shots. Sidney is just a complete waste. Hood isn't physical at all and is a good role player, but he's not going to carry a team anywhere (maybe in a couple of years but definitely not now).

 

[DerHntr]

don't you have to rate players based on some sort of litmus test for their level of talent for them to then be called overrated?

 

[Faustdog]

Point is, we do not have as much talent as a lot of you would like to believe. Every player other than Moultrie has some major holes in their game. Bost is a turnover machine and takes a lot of bad shots. Sidney is just a complete waste. Hood isn't physical at all and is a good role player, but he's not going to carry a team anywhere (maybe in a couple of years but definitely not now).

I agree with everything here, except for that there are no holes in Moultrie's game. Any time he puts the ball on the floor it's a disaster waiting to happen.

<div>Edited to add: Even in this year, which is the worst NBA draft class in years, that projection showing Moultrie going sixth is a joke. I hope the best for him, but I'll bet that he ends up more like late first round or early second. And again, that is only because this is such a weak class.</div>

 

[shsdawg]

athletic gifts and the heart, fire, and(insert the applicable sport here)intellectto use them. Example: Sid certainly has the gifts, perhaps more than any basketball player that has ever been at MSU. The rest is lacking. I'd take Darryl Wilson over him ANY day.

 

[DerHntr]

now Coach34, you respond. I really just want to see where the difference lies.

 

[patdog]

I'm putting the over/under at 1. Not that the others don't have some talent, they just don't have nearly as much as some people are saying they do. And again, we just don't have nearly enough of them.

 

[Todd4State]

after college- Renardo and Moultrie. Problem is someone hasn't developed them.

Dee is at worst a good college player. Hood is a freshman All-SEC guy.

 

[CadaverDawg]

That makes me feel a lot better about your argument.

 

[engie]

Point is, we do not have as much talent as a lot of you would like to believe. Every player other than Moultrie has some major holes in their game. Bost is a turnover machine and takes a lot of bad shots. Sidney is just a complete waste. Hood isn't physical at all and is a good role player, but he's not going to carry a team anywhere (maybe in a couple of years but definitely not now).

I agree with everything here, except for that there are no holes in Moultrie's game. Any time he puts the ball on the floor it's a disaster waiting to happen.

<div>Edited to add: Even in this year, which is the worst NBA draft class in years, that projection showing Moultrie going sixth is a joke. I hope the best for him, but I'll bet that he ends up more like late first round or early second. And again, that is only because this is such a weak class.</div>

Wow.

Unanimous amongst the talking heads, due to the # of players that stayed in school last year with the lock out...

 

[Coach34]

athletic gifts and the heart, fire, and(insert the applicable sport here)intellectto use them. Example: Sid certainly has the gifts, perhaps more than any basketball player that has ever been at MSU. The rest is lacking. I'd take Darryl Wilson over him ANY day.

Talent can be measured- size, speed, shooting, etc....

Heart and desire are intangibles- you can become a millionaire in pro sports on talent alone- JaMarcus Russell, Tommy Kelly...

The private school leagues are full of kids with heart and desire- but not enough talent. Hell, I had tons of heart and desire, and knew the game of baseball better than my juco coach did- but at the end of the day- I could still only throw 80 mph. Guys that didnt work hard or know ****, got drafted though because they could throw 88-90. Thats talent

 

[patdog]

But if we have 4 legitimate NBA players on the team like so many say we do, how in the world could we possibly be a bubble team no matter who the coach is? Hell, I could coach 4 NBA players into the NCAA tournament and I haven't coached a game above the junior high church league level.</p>

 

[8dog]

win at Vandy. We have a guy that will likely playing the NBA in Moultrie. That's a push on your over/under and it would be the same number of NBAers as the 04 team.

So we sure have enough talent to win 2 of 3 games against GA, LSU, and Auburn. I don't know why, of all times, these last 3 games have sparked the "we don't have all that much talent" argument.

 

[shsdawg]

it's the sum total of all that. I'm not a coach but I've beenpretty closely involved with a successful hs team over the last 30 years. I've seen plenty of kids who had one or two of the things I mentioned. None weregood players, some were adequate. I've seen some that had 3 of the four, some of those guys weregood players, provided they weren't totally lacking in the forth. The truely good ones had all four. The very few great ones had all four in spades. That's on the HS level. For the NCAA level it is the same, the levels requiredfor each are just higher. By my measure we have twogood players and one who has the potential to begreat. We have one that has the best gifts of all, but is devoid of the other three things needed.

 

[Dawgbreeze]

Moutrie, definitely. Sidney not now and probably not ever unless he gets more stamina, toughness, and plays defense with effort. Bost, won't be drafed in first two rounds. Hood, not near ready and latter part of season has shown it. Needs more strength and stamina and will have to develop a better outside shot. So right now, one at most.

 

[MaroonedNdaRock]

What pat said.....there has been alot of talk about NBA players on this team. I am saying there is not three players on this team that will ever play in the NBA. We are not that talented.

A talentedback court playeris quick, leaper, and can shoot. Front court player, size, physical, leaper, and can shootfacing or with back to basket. Both need to be smart and have good attitudes. All those things combined, relative totheir peers.

We have three players that are above average college players. The rest are average to below average. Onemay have a cup of coffee in the NBA. One may develop into a NBA, we will see.

 

[patdog]

But we sure as hell don't have 4 NBA players. I know Moultrie is a push on my over/under. That's kind of what an over/under is supposed to be. I'll be surprised if he doesn't make it, just like I'll be surprised if anyone else on the team does.</p>

 

[Scarface10]

If we are not talented, and the only thing Stansbury is supposedly good at is recruiting, then why are we keeping him around. He definitely isn't a good basketball coach. If his best skill is getting talent, and you apologists are now saying we really don't have talent, then why are we keeping him around. If we don't make the NCAA tourney, then he has to be fired.

P.S. - I think this team is one of the more talented teams we have had at MSU. We aren't very deep, but the starting five is very talented. Stansbury is just a very bad basketball coach who needs to go.

 

[DerHntr]

C34 looks more at the natural abilities and size of a player and shs looks at those same things and the intangibles. Finally something to go on here.

Issues regarding each viewpoint.

<span style="font-weight: bold;">Talent = ability that can be directly measured</span>
1. If you have a ton of this type of "talent" then most folks would consider you a person to take a chance on. They think that in the right system and with some solid coaching, the other things will come or be overcome.
2. When you have multiple guys on the team with this type of talent you run the risk of it causing a problem for team chemistry.
3. You absolutely have to have some role players who work their asses off and know that they are likely never going to get the hype that those talented guys are going to get.
4. It is much, much harder to go far in the tournament when you don't have any of this type of talent on the team.

<span style="font-weight: bold;">Talent = ability that can be directly measured AND the intangibles</span>
1. There aren't many guys walking around who have it all and we probably only have one on our team in Hood.
2. If you have someone like Hood who is able to become a team leader then you can build something special.
3. You can have a team full of guys with the intangibles and none of the ability and it will still be very difficult to go far in the tournament.
4. Having a team full of the guys with the intangibles will likely make the fans love the hell out of them especially if they are even mildly successful.

Add more to the lists.............

 

[8dog]

what most are doing is pointing out we have 4 guys being mentinoed in mock drafts. ****, that's pretty good evidence that there is a high level of talent in starkville. Most understand they are fluid projections, but you don't get your name mentioned in those things for nothing.
Surely enough to beat GA, LSU,and AU....or OM.

 

[DerHntr]

nm

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

It's not good enough that you say you see flaws, because you argued with him you have to admit he was right in every aspect and laud him as the supreme intelligence in the MSU universe.

Every time you respond it is just another ego stroke for him as far as Rick is concerned when the days are as dark as they are now.

There is a distinct difference in what you and I feel as compared to folks like this. We have some real remorse for MSU's fall as a basketball program.

The rest just want to say how right they were and howl and throw **** with the rest of the monkeys in the cage.

Don't get in a battle of wits with a page where people say we are stupid for hoping MSU still makes the tournament.

 

[Scarface10]

We just don't have a coach, and that is all there is to it.

We aren't Kentucky talented, but we are better than Auburn, LSU, and Georgia as far as talent goes - I'll guarantee you.

I'll bet a lot of coaches would trade lineups with us across the country.

 

[Coach34]

I damn sure didnt

But we do have 3 that are likely to be drafted in Moultrie, Bost, and Hood. And that means we have some talented players

 

[shsdawg]

my friend. I've seen a lot of MSU basketball over the years, I have a pretty good handle on it by now.

 

[DerHntr]

Where I think Stans has gone wrong:

If you recruit too many guys with raw talent and not much on the side of the intangibles, then you need to be a very solid coach, have a highly recognizable offensive and defensive style that is effective even with mediocre players, be a disciplinarian who won't let their egos cause a problem, and you better have a very strong culture already built within the team that encourages hard work, hustle, and a never quit attitude.

I think we are in the scenario where we have a lot of raw talent without the solid coach and actually a negative culture in our team. Stans may have tolerated too much ******** last season and we are now seeing the long-term effects of it.

Or maybe its just because his kids are on the sidelines and I'm over thinking this thing.

 

[patdog]

Bost will probably be a late 2nd round pick, but he'll never sniff an NBA roster. I agree those 3 are plenty good for a college team. But we've got nothing behind them. We can't even put 5 quality players on the court. Don't think it was you but someone said we have more talent than the 96 team did. How many minutes would Bryant have gotten on that team? Maybe 100 for the whole season. And he starts for this team. And that team had 3 legitimate NBA players on it, plus Bullard who should have been an NBA player if he'd kept his *** out of jail.