but I wonder if Stansbury thought about putting Jarvis and Brian Johnson into the game at the same time. Let Johnson guard Brockman. It was obviously more effective.
I am sure this has been discussed...
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
but I wonder if Stansbury thought about putting Jarvis and Brian Johnson into the game at the same time. Let Johnson guard Brockman. It was obviously more effective.
but I wonder if Stansbury thought about putting Jarvis and Brian Johnson into the game at the same time. Let Johnson guard Brockman. It was obviously more effective.
but I wonder if Stansbury thought about putting Jarvis and Brian Johnson into the game at the same time. Let Johnson guard Brockman. It was obviously more effective.
I thought the same thing. We needed a big body on Pondexter and Phil was getting shot over and wasnt able to contest his shots. A big body like Brian or Kodi on Pondexter changes that entire game. He killed us with his length, and Brian would have been a great guy to put on him because Brian has played defense this year pretty well.
replacement during the latter half of the season, so who do you bring in to spell V?
V's 2 quick foul trouble made it all a moot point in the first half.
I was more disappointed that Kodi did not try to assert himself more especially when he was on the court with V. He did that several times during our stretch run but really seemed to have the deer-in-the-headlights look in the Washington game.
It's going to be an interesting off-season if everyone stays. Stans will have his hands full figuring out our lineup with more experienced post guys (Kodi, Osby, Bailey) this time around, especially if they continue to develop well in the off-season.
V's 2 quick foul trouble made it all a moot point in the first half.
I was more disappointed that Kodi did not try to assert himself more especially when he was on the court with V. He did that several times during our stretch run but really seemed to have the deer-in-the-headlights look in the Washington game.
It's going to be an interesting off-season if everyone stays. Stans will have his hands full figuring out our lineup with more experienced post guys (Kodi, Osby, Bailey) this time around, especially if they continue to develop well in the off-season.
they were not supposed to be a good shooting team so why not zone more? That allows you to pack it inside and stay away from the foul trouble a man to man creates.
I think that if Kodi comes back, he has to start at 4, with Romero backing him up. If Varnado stays, Elgin backing him up. Then we can have Twanny backing up Dee, Phil backing up Barry, and Riley backing up Ravern. Shaugnessy redshirts because of how many shooters we have. Brian may be back next year because he is applying for a medical redshirt and there is a good possibility he may get it. Thats a pretty deep roster if we can go 11 deep.
The problem is what do you do when they have to come out? Neither one is good for 35+ minutes in a game. Varnado's maybe good for 32 or so and Johnson maybe 20. When they come out, who do you sub in? But yeah, looking back, it couldn't have been much worse than what we did was.
"It's going to be an interesting off-season if everyone stays. Stans will have his hands full figuring out our lineup with more experienced post guys (Kodi, Osby, Bailey) this time around, especially if they continue to develop well in the off-season."
If some transfer. its interesting. If we keep everyone it is interesting trying to figure out how people are going to get minutes and are guys going to be able to accept their roles?
As to DS's point- that wouldnt have been a bad thing to try at all. But we had so much trouble scoring, I dont really think it matters.</p>
And to IBleed- totally disagree- Augustus looked more comfortable on the court against Washington than Jarvis did. He played pretty well. I've never really seen anybody say that our Player of the Game had a "deer-in-the-headlights look"</p>
If some transfer. its interesting. If we keep everyone it is interesting trying to figure out how people are going to get minutes and are guys going to be able to accept their roles?
As to DS's point- that wouldnt have been a bad thing to try at all. But we had so much trouble scoring, I dont really think it matters.</p>
And to IBleed- totally disagree- Augustus looked more comfortable on the court against Washington than Jarvis did. He played pretty well. I've never really seen anybody say that our Player of the Game had a "deer-in-the-headlights look"</p>
let those two play...then rotate Augustus in at the 4...and let those guys rotate at the 5 to get some rest, and once they have pull Augustus and go back to it...Hell, Swat only played about 6 minutes of the 1st half- we could have gone to that rotation easily- he wouldnt have gotten tired
you have two players who work off the block. No room to make offensive moves plus easier to defend with off side help.
Also, let me tell some folks about zone defenses, when you have Ravern and Phil both on the blocks it doesn't give you any inside presents meaning they will get banged around by bigger bodies. You get killed in zones with small bodies, bigger guys lean on you and push you underneath the basket, remember long shots that are missed usually bounce off the rim harder and away from the goal.
Also, let me tell some folks about zone defenses, when you have Ravern and Phil both on the blocks it doesn't give you any inside presents meaning they will get banged around by bigger bodies. You get killed in zones with small bodies, bigger guys lean on you and push you underneath the basket, remember long shots that are missed usually bounce off the rim harder and away from the goal.
There are plenty of offensive sets you can run with two low post players. You could also put one of them at the high post. Jarvis and Brian are both adept enough passers to have done this. The offensive advantage is an automatic offensive rebounder, an area in which we struggled mightily this year.
And while I agree with most of what you said about zone, a good offensive coach will find a way to isolate the mismatches whether we are in zone or man. The point about the UW game was they were KILLING us in man with Pondexter backing Phil down and shooting over him, so go zone and make them shoot from the perimeter, and see if you can find a way to rebound.
And while I agree with most of what you said about zone, a good offensive coach will find a way to isolate the mismatches whether we are in zone or man. The point about the UW game was they were KILLING us in man with Pondexter backing Phil down and shooting over him, so go zone and make them shoot from the perimeter, and see if you can find a way to rebound.
I think Stans is our best coach and I'd hate to lose him, but I do think that the gameplan vs. Washington could have been more effectively conceived. I think Johnson and Brocman with Jarvis in would have been an excellent thing to try. Of course, I don't understand the subtleties of the game and our personel that may have made that a non option.
Leaving Jarvis on the bench after his second foul turned out hurting us. In retrospect, we probably should have taken the chance of playing him for three or four more first half minutes.
The bad three near the first half buzzer really ended up hurting us.
The committee playing us on the othe side of the world on Thursday afternoon was a bad move too. I question the ethics of it. I'm not excusing our play or taking anything from Washington but those idiots need to remember that all college atletes deserve a fair chance, not just those on the teams they follow.
Leaving Jarvis on the bench after his second foul turned out hurting us. In retrospect, we probably should have taken the chance of playing him for three or four more first half minutes.
The bad three near the first half buzzer really ended up hurting us.
The committee playing us on the othe side of the world on Thursday afternoon was a bad move too. I question the ethics of it. I'm not excusing our play or taking anything from Washington but those idiots need to remember that all college atletes deserve a fair chance, not just those on the teams they follow.
It probably would have been more effective, but both were in foul trouble the whole game. Given their foul situation, I think it would have been too risky to have them on the floor together since they are the only two guys on the roster that can play the center spot. That was the only game Bailey's injury really hurt us. Our post depth got exposed as soon as Jarvis got into foul trouble.
neither played together this year. I'm not saying it want work I'm saying it wouldn't cause neither played facing the goal this year. I realize you can have two low post players in and run sets, but it ain't what we did this year.
The fact is Pondexter would have killed anyone we put on him. This was the worse defending team Stans has had since he became HC. Kodi is a little slow in guarding a 6'6" Pondexter, and Phil was just to small. IF Ravern had some "balls" he would have been the best match up, but like some have said, he is a bad defender, he doesn't rebound nor defend.
When we went to a zone they scored pretty easy. Oh, what Washington did along with a few SEC teams, Au and Tn, was guard the ball tight, this is something we didn't do very well, we don't get up on them and take away the passing lanes, so if you don't or can't do it in man you sure as hell can't do it in zone. There is a major reason why you don't see much zones in college basketball. I will say if we HAD practiced more zone, we may have been better but the little zone we played this year we were sick looking.
The fact is Pondexter would have killed anyone we put on him. This was the worse defending team Stans has had since he became HC. Kodi is a little slow in guarding a 6'6" Pondexter, and Phil was just to small. IF Ravern had some "balls" he would have been the best match up, but like some have said, he is a bad defender, he doesn't rebound nor defend.
When we went to a zone they scored pretty easy. Oh, what Washington did along with a few SEC teams, Au and Tn, was guard the ball tight, this is something we didn't do very well, we don't get up on them and take away the passing lanes, so if you don't or can't do it in man you sure as hell can't do it in zone. There is a major reason why you don't see much zones in college basketball. I will say if we HAD practiced more zone, we may have been better but the little zone we played this year we were sick looking.
I don't think Kodi had seen that kind of defense in a long time. Overton was dominating Bost and the rest of UW was playing good pressure D.
Coach34 said:
I might have figured you would have seen it that way because you have been on his side all season. I didn't see it that way, or at least I did not see the player I saw playing against Georgia and his had his chances.
Hopefully he can learn to be assertive all of the time next season because I am hearing that no one is leaving.
I am sure you see that one different too but I am moving on to spring football discussions and will leave basketball discussions till later this summer.
If everyone returns and continues to improve we should be one of the top 15 teams in the country.
And transparent. Start building us up now to be a 30 game winner now, so if we fall short of 30 next year, you can blast away again. Pitt, UConn and UNC all stand at 29 wins NOW and there is no chance our team next year is comparable with those this year.
With Coach, you have to ignore some of the troll aspects of what he says or else lose your sanity trying to exchange posts with him.
Why not just say that Stansbury is a failure if he loses any games at all next season? We will be better next year but there is not a soul in the nation outside of your skull that expects us to win 30 games next season. Of course, if we do win 30 then you would probably shift your expectations to 31 wins instead.
to other teams you consider to be loaded. You can use "loaded" teams from this year's NCAA tourney for purposes of this comparison. I just want to understand exactly what you consider "loaded" to be, so I can assess how many other teams might be "loaded" next year (obviously very few, because that's how many will win 30 games).</p>
while "rebuilding" as many of you have said this season was. We have rebuilt. Next year:
1. We will have one of the most dominant defensive post players in the nation. He could also have a solid back-up in Brian Johnson who is applying for a medical redshirt.
2. We will have 2 guys at the 4 that are multi-threat- able to shoot 3's, drive to be the basket, or post-up
3. We will have a 6'7 shooter or one of the hardest working players in the NCAA in Phil Turner at the 3
4. We will a slew of guards able to sub in and out to constantly stay fresh. Plenty of experience in the guard ranks, especially both PG's who will be Sophs
5. We had a pretty good year shooting 3's this past season, next season should see that percentage go even higher.
6. We will have the ability to play big or play small, giving us the ability to create bad match-ups for other teams for us to exploit- especially because our staff is so good at offensive basketball.
And I havent even mentioned You Know Who's favorite in Elgin Bailey plus signee Shan Smith.
This team is so loaded. No way we arent a top 15 talented team. And with the way we have notoriously scheduled, 30 wins could very well be achieved.
1. We will have one of the most dominant defensive post players in the nation. He could also have a solid back-up in Brian Johnson who is applying for a medical redshirt.
2. We will have 2 guys at the 4 that are multi-threat- able to shoot 3's, drive to be the basket, or post-up
3. We will have a 6'7 shooter or one of the hardest working players in the NCAA in Phil Turner at the 3
4. We will a slew of guards able to sub in and out to constantly stay fresh. Plenty of experience in the guard ranks, especially both PG's who will be Sophs
5. We had a pretty good year shooting 3's this past season, next season should see that percentage go even higher.
6. We will have the ability to play big or play small, giving us the ability to create bad match-ups for other teams for us to exploit- especially because our staff is so good at offensive basketball.
And I havent even mentioned You Know Who's favorite in Elgin Bailey plus signee Shan Smith.
This team is so loaded. No way we arent a top 15 talented team. And with the way we have notoriously scheduled, 30 wins could very well be achieved.
Tell me what loaded is based on teams playing in this years NCAA tourney. Please name all of them you consider to be loaded. I consider us to have a nice collection of returning players next year, but not even remotely "loaded". What is loaded? Examples please, other than MSU.
I will tell you that I think Louisville is a team that is loaded this year. They have a player named Delk, who is typically 9th to 11th in playing time on that team. This Delk is now a 4th year junior with two years of significant playing experience in a major basketball conference. Yet, he can't find the court for Louisville.
I am pretty confident that this Delk would have been a major contributor this year for his former team and if he happened to have a year left at that school, he would be one of the guys coming back that you would refer to in saying that MSU would be loaded next year. Yet, he can't find the court for Louisville.
That is because Louisville and a number of other programs are truly loaded most years. MSU has a solid coach who consistently brings in more athletes than anyone who preceded him. He then coaches those above average, but rarely top tier college talents very well and wins a lot more games than he rightfully should at that school.
I will not let you try to pretend this team is overly talented without facts to back it up, because you will use that perception of talent next year to tear down Stans after every loss. The 30 win statement was ridiculous and you know it. If you don't know it then you have less knowledge than I thought.
I am pretty confident that this Delk would have been a major contributor this year for his former team and if he happened to have a year left at that school, he would be one of the guys coming back that you would refer to in saying that MSU would be loaded next year. Yet, he can't find the court for Louisville.
That is because Louisville and a number of other programs are truly loaded most years. MSU has a solid coach who consistently brings in more athletes than anyone who preceded him. He then coaches those above average, but rarely top tier college talents very well and wins a lot more games than he rightfully should at that school.
I will not let you try to pretend this team is overly talented without facts to back it up, because you will use that perception of talent next year to tear down Stans after every loss. The 30 win statement was ridiculous and you know it. If you don't know it then you have less knowledge than I thought.
Would be a team that won 23 games with a bunch of Freshman and Sophomores, returning everyone on that team, that is going to play a weak schedule just like they do every year, thats able to play 10-11 players, and has power forwards knocking down 3's to make the defense have to defend the entire court.</p>
Thats a team thats loaded.</p>
15 OOC games - 14-1 or 13-2
12-4 in the SEC- 26 wins heading into the SEC Tourney
Tourney Final Appearance- 2 wins- 28 wins
NCAA's- Sweet 16- 2 wins- 30 wins
Very reasonable this team could approach that number</p>
Thats a team thats loaded.</p>
15 OOC games - 14-1 or 13-2
12-4 in the SEC- 26 wins heading into the SEC Tourney
Tourney Final Appearance- 2 wins- 28 wins
NCAA's- Sweet 16- 2 wins- 30 wins
Very reasonable this team could approach that number</p>
on the face of this earth, we will win 30 games. It's impossible. That is preposterous for you to even post that.
I think we'll need some more muscle in the middle to make your scenario become reality. 12-4 and 13-1 would give us a great shot to win 30 games. If we're that good, they'll be ringing cowbells atop the Empire State Building. I'm not going to buy that Coach Rick Stansbury is a subpar coach if it does not happen. I've said it before and I'll repeat it: if we had a football coach with his achievements, we'd have a statue of him on our campus.
You won't answer because you know that, in the realm of teams that actually are loaded, we are not. If we are not, then that means much of our success comes from great coaching. I'm going the insult route with you from now on, because you really aren't worth an intelligent discussion.