I know they are talented. Maybe so talented that even Stansbury can't 17 this one up. Jalen Steele (I know he's coming off injury) had probably the second best true freshman seasons besides Jamont Gordon since Stansbury has been coach and NOBODY has mentioned his name because he's like 8th man.
How wooly are you with this basketball team?
- Thread starter DAWG61
- Start date
I know they are talented. Maybe so talented that even Stansbury can't 17 this one up. Jalen Steele (I know he's coming off injury) had probably the second best true freshman seasons besides Jamont Gordon since Stansbury has been coach and NOBODY has mentioned his name because he's like 8th man.
I don't understand what makes people so optimistic about this team. Many starters are new, the rest have something in their history that makes me question them. Recipe for bad chemistry. I think we start the year off slow, lose to a team we shouldn't, lose a starter to a dismissal or transfer, get kind of hot around SEC play, and be on the bubble at the end and miss out.
1. We have a senior PG with tons of experience. When you look back at out history, this typically bodes well for us.
2. We have a transfer that I wasn't expecting to be anything more than a role player, but it's looking like he may be the best player on the team. Also, he appears to be a rebounding machine which is 90% effort. We've lacked that for several years.
3. While we have some talented freshmen, for once we won't be depending on any of them to play a lead role. Hood and Smith will both be key players for us, but they won't be asked to lead the team.
4. Looking at the roster, I think we're about 9 deep with significant talent and then we have a couple others that may some minutes here and there. We may not have any all-americans, but the talent is there.
5. We have an incredibly talented player in Sidney that I feel can only have upside this year. He'll either work his butt off and help the team or he'll be gone. Either way, the team will be good without him.
All that said, it won't surprise me at all for us to 17 this up somehow and not even make the dance.
2. We have a transfer that I wasn't expecting to be anything more than a role player, but it's looking like he may be the best player on the team. Also, he appears to be a rebounding machine which is 90% effort. We've lacked that for several years.
3. While we have some talented freshmen, for once we won't be depending on any of them to play a lead role. Hood and Smith will both be key players for us, but they won't be asked to lead the team.
4. Looking at the roster, I think we're about 9 deep with significant talent and then we have a couple others that may some minutes here and there. We may not have any all-americans, but the talent is there.
5. We have an incredibly talented player in Sidney that I feel can only have upside this year. He'll either work his butt off and help the team or he'll be gone. Either way, the team will be good without him.
All that said, it won't surprise me at all for us to 17 this up somehow and not even make the dance.
I think of one main thing when I read about this team and it can be summarized pretty easily:
Moultrielooks like a bigger, better Brandon Vincent.
This will take Stans, or any coacha long way. And I don't mean a Vincent on the top of the 1-3-1, I mean like a Vincent who could go off for 15 pts consistently. Guesses from sub patterns, preseason stats which all mean nothing, etc...but it looks like Smith might get a lot of minutes at the point, shuffling Dee to 2. That means less min for Bryant and Steele, which is fine. Hood (solid 10-15 pts in all games, Ravern +defense) should play lots at the 3. Moultrie should get 30-35 at the 4, Wendell Lewis should be good enough at 5 but he can't play all 40 min. Maybe the European kidwill arrive coached up and remain coached up to move without the ball and crash the boardsand give a little depth at 3-4. Maybe a few min here and there for Roquez Johnson? Which brings us to Sidney........can Stans keep from pissing off the team by inserting Sid into the lineup and saying to the team:"For the next 4-6 minutes every time down the floor get the ball in to him and let him "create/score" and nevermind about him playing any defense." Maybe he would be retarded not to use Sidney's talent to do this? Maybe this will be the kick in the nuts to the team who has worked hard allsummer.
Yes I am excited about this team.
Moultrielooks like a bigger, better Brandon Vincent.
This will take Stans, or any coacha long way. And I don't mean a Vincent on the top of the 1-3-1, I mean like a Vincent who could go off for 15 pts consistently. Guesses from sub patterns, preseason stats which all mean nothing, etc...but it looks like Smith might get a lot of minutes at the point, shuffling Dee to 2. That means less min for Bryant and Steele, which is fine. Hood (solid 10-15 pts in all games, Ravern +defense) should play lots at the 3. Moultrie should get 30-35 at the 4, Wendell Lewis should be good enough at 5 but he can't play all 40 min. Maybe the European kidwill arrive coached up and remain coached up to move without the ball and crash the boardsand give a little depth at 3-4. Maybe a few min here and there for Roquez Johnson? Which brings us to Sidney........can Stans keep from pissing off the team by inserting Sid into the lineup and saying to the team:"For the next 4-6 minutes every time down the floor get the ball in to him and let him "create/score" and nevermind about him playing any defense." Maybe he would be retarded not to use Sidney's talent to do this? Maybe this will be the kick in the nuts to the team who has worked hard allsummer.
Yes I am excited about this team.
If we signed a top 10 recruiting class in football I think most State fans would get wooly even though they are all unproven.</p>
if he is playing like he was when he got hurt last year, he is going to play a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if he started, especially early in the season. Deville Smith is probably going to need to prove he deserves to start by contributing in some games before he actually gets to start. If I was Stansbury I would use the lineup: Sidney, Moultrie, Hood (assuming he is living up to the recruiting hype in practice), Steele, and Bost. If Smith comes off the bench and outplays Steele, I would let him start at point guard and move Bost to shooting guard.
and this is where Rick has proven in the past that he borders on retarded when it comes to making these types of decisions with Turner playing power forward, etc......
1. Is Bost a better 2 than 1?
2. Is Smith a better 1 than Bost?
3. Is Steele a better 2 than Smith is a 1?
There will be situations where we need a spark at the 1, that will favor Smith. There will be situations where we might need a lift with 3 pt shooting at the 2, that may favor Steele. There will be situations where Bost can "Create" from the 2 to drive to the basket and distribute.
Obviously this is where Rick inserts Bryant and speaks of leadership. Wait for it..........
1. Is Bost a better 2 than 1?
2. Is Smith a better 1 than Bost?
3. Is Steele a better 2 than Smith is a 1?
There will be situations where we need a spark at the 1, that will favor Smith. There will be situations where we might need a lift with 3 pt shooting at the 2, that may favor Steele. There will be situations where Bost can "Create" from the 2 to drive to the basket and distribute.
Obviously this is where Rick inserts Bryant and speaks of leadership. Wait for it..........
We have the most talented starting Five Ever in the History of MSU.. C34 and I could coach this bunch to an Elite 8...
PG - arguably the best PG in the conference - Bost
SG - very underrated & very talented with a great 3 point shot and really good defense - Steele
SF - Top 10 HS recruit, and expected to be future NBA player - Hood
PF - Possible NBA lottery pick, definitely will be drafted - Moultrie
C - (if his head is on straight) 3rd best player ever seen by John Lucas behind Bryant and James; seriously though, could be most talented in the country - Sidney
There is so much potential on this team, it's ridiculous. And the only head case is Sidney, and all reports point to him having an attitude adjustment (but I'm not holding my breath). I think the only way we have a disappointing season, is if Sidney is too much of a cancer.
SG - very underrated & very talented with a great 3 point shot and really good defense - Steele
SF - Top 10 HS recruit, and expected to be future NBA player - Hood
PF - Possible NBA lottery pick, definitely will be drafted - Moultrie
C - (if his head is on straight) 3rd best player ever seen by John Lucas behind Bryant and James; seriously though, could be most talented in the country - Sidney
There is so much potential on this team, it's ridiculous. And the only head case is Sidney, and all reports point to him having an attitude adjustment (but I'm not holding my breath). I think the only way we have a disappointing season, is if Sidney is too much of a cancer.
This is an annual occurrence. Someone declares a newcomer a Branden Vincent-type player. We're still waiting. We need to accept that Branden was a unique player for us and stop trying to replace him. I don't see Moultrie in that mold anyway. I'm gonna go back a few years and compare him to Walter McCarty. Long and lean, three point range but ability to score in the post too, good rebounder, solid defender. And I mean McCarty as a ceiling for him. Walter was a heck of a player at UK and played 10 years in the league.
Also, history tells us that Stansbury will not sit upperclassmen for a freshman unless he has no other real option or the freshman is SIGNIFICANTLY better than the upperclassman. Plus he loves Bryant. He's gonna play.
And if Sidney is eligible, he plays a lot. The notion of playing him in 4-6 minute spurts as the focal point of the offense is terrible. Even out of shape last year he played 25 minutes a night. If we are to believe the alleged conditioning improvement, then he should be good for 30+ minutes. His defense has to go from terrible to "not hurting the team."
Also, history tells us that Stansbury will not sit upperclassmen for a freshman unless he has no other real option or the freshman is SIGNIFICANTLY better than the upperclassman. Plus he loves Bryant. He's gonna play.
And if Sidney is eligible, he plays a lot. The notion of playing him in 4-6 minute spurts as the focal point of the offense is terrible. Even out of shape last year he played 25 minutes a night. If we are to believe the alleged conditioning improvement, then he should be good for 30+ minutes. His defense has to go from terrible to "not hurting the team."
1. Bryant gets too many minutes as opposed to more talented players like Smith, Steele, or Hood.
2. Assuming Sidney flames out or is not in shape.....Moutrie is pushed into playing 5 instead of developing Lewis there early (remember this comment when we play a team in the second round of the NCAA's with big guys and Lewis has to come in and looks lost).
3. Sidney has a meltdown over officiating or something stupid and ends up punching coach Grant in the face in public, probably on TV.
4. Bost gets angry becuase Deville is a better 1 than him and tweets about it.
5. Our offense consists entirely of someone dribbling the ball down the floor and passing it to Sidney (maybe we can spend the free time working on a zone defense).
2. Assuming Sidney flames out or is not in shape.....Moutrie is pushed into playing 5 instead of developing Lewis there early (remember this comment when we play a team in the second round of the NCAA's with big guys and Lewis has to come in and looks lost).
3. Sidney has a meltdown over officiating or something stupid and ends up punching coach Grant in the face in public, probably on TV.
4. Bost gets angry becuase Deville is a better 1 than him and tweets about it.
5. Our offense consists entirely of someone dribbling the ball down the floor and passing it to Sidney (maybe we can spend the free time working on a zone defense).
I wasn't clear the way I expressed it. I should have typed, "big athletic power-forward type like Branden Vincent, who plays tough defense, rebounds well....except with the ability to score 15 points every game."
And I think Moultrie has a good possibility of being that player, especially if his stats against the Europeans is any indication of this.
I don't recall Walter McCarty, but if he had a 10 yr NBA career, then yes, I hope Moultrie plays like that for us.
If Sidney played 25 min per game and you distribute that between the two halves, that is 12 min per half and I could argue that of those 12 min he wasn't worth a **** for about half that time because he was gasedwhich leaves us with 5-6 min spurts where he was effective if you discount him hardly ever playing defense at all.That was the point I was making.
I will believe that he has improved conditioning when I see it. Maybe he has, I hope that is the case.
And I think Moultrie has a good possibility of being that player, especially if his stats against the Europeans is any indication of this.
I don't recall Walter McCarty, but if he had a 10 yr NBA career, then yes, I hope Moultrie plays like that for us.
If Sidney played 25 min per game and you distribute that between the two halves, that is 12 min per half and I could argue that of those 12 min he wasn't worth a **** for about half that time because he was gasedwhich leaves us with 5-6 min spurts where he was effective if you discount him hardly ever playing defense at all.That was the point I was making.
I will believe that he has improved conditioning when I see it. Maybe he has, I hope that is the case.
the guy averaged 9.8 points and 6.7 rebounds per game in CUSA as a sophomore. I think he can potentially be a solid player for us, but let's hold off on all the NBA hype. I don't care where some ******** site projects him to be drafted. If he was that damn good, he'd have been in the NBA last year instead of sitting out a year at MSU.
Just look at what he averaged last year... He average 14.2 points per game and 7.5 Boards in 25.2 minutes per game. If he can be in shape and play 32+ minutes per game he will average 20pts and 10 boards easily. The RSS is focused and ready to give Stans his first taste of the Sweet 16.
They all wanted this overhyped guy. While he may not be a future NBA All Star, the "bull**** sites" are pretty accurate predictors about who is going to be drafted. If they have Moultrie listed, then it's a good bet he will be chosen. No one is making him out to be a slam dunk lottery pick. He's not listed on nbadraft.net until 2013 and is a second rounder in 2012 on draftexpress. What's overhyped about that? I'd be willing to bet you haven't heard of half of the players within five spots of him on either of those mock drafts, and one of them is Rodney Hood.
Like I said, I do think he will be a decent player for us. But he didn't exactly set the world on fire against inferior competition when he did play. The site that projects him to go in the draft projects him to be drafted as a 5th year senior. How many 5th year seniors get drafted?
That sounds like it's too close to an actual offense. I think it will be more like Sidney dribbling the ball down the floor, himself, and then immediately taking on a double team while either charging or jacking up a 15-footer with four hands in his face.SallyStansbury said: