I think lost in the Stansbury debate is this...

Dawgbreeze

Redshirt
Jun 11, 2007
1,655
0
0
Coach, Fish , and a few others are incapable of being rational. It will always be Stans fault and they actually get off when we lose. They will ***** until we get to the sweet 16 one day and then they'll ***** if we don't win it all. anybody that thinks depth hasn't hurt us is so anti-Stansbury that they can't think rationally anyway. I'm heading to the tourney, stay on here and get your jollies bitching.
 

fishwater99

Freshman
Jun 4, 2007
14,072
54
48
[b said:
msudogsrule01[/b]]I guess many missed my point. Why should we expect much more from this year's team over last year? We had inexplicable losses last year, we had them this year. We won the same number of SEC games this year. I just don't see why everyone is getting all angry when we should have seen this team for what it was, the same as last year, more or less. I will admit I like Stansbury, and he has always been very good to me. Have we had some bad times this year, yeah, but at the end of the day, we won the West, won more than 20 games and set a few records in the process. Pretty much what we do every year. At this point we know what we are getting with Rick, and personally, although the bad losses hurt, I would take that (knowing the situation our athletics department is in, competing against much bigger budgets) over a roller coaster like LSU is. But that is just me. Coach, D@A, Fish - Flame Away!
I want more than what we are getting with Standsbury. I want a coach who can implement a real offense, not living and dying by the 3 ball. The Standsbury "Motion" is motionless. I want a coach who does not subsitute like he is coaching a damn hockey team. I want a coach who has his team prepared to play and with a gameplan. I want a coach who beats teams he is supposed to beat, like Rider, Richmond, WKU, Bama, Arkansas, & Auburn. I want to see MSU make a deep run in the NCAA tourney. You go ahead and enjoy your 20 win season, another SEC West Co-championship, SWAT and Randy's recrord and the NIT tourney.
 

msudogsrule01

Redshirt
Mar 3, 2008
702
0
0
I will enjoy it. I am no sheep btw, just have a point of view. At the end of the day, I can never get rid of my blinders for Rick, because I know him and his family personally, and I know the kind of man he is. He knows basketball. He knows what the team should do. He has good scouting reports. But you play the hand you are dealt. If no one on the team wants to step up and be the Brandon Vincent/Timmy Bowers/Winsome Frazier/Marcus Bullard/Derrick Zimmerman/Charles Rhodes role of the veteran leader, well that is something you cannot teach. Either they have it in them or they don't. There is so much more to a team than just 'we should run this offense and defense'. You make it sound like it is a switch. And for Coach, you bring up Butler all the time. They play in a traditionally weak conference where all the teams have tiny budgets, basically, they are the Kentucky of their conference. There is an amazing amount of talent that is a good fit for what they run just sitting in their back yard. Our recruiting area is littered with great athletes, who don't usually have refined basketball skills. If there is a kid with great skills and he is a good athlete as well, he is playing at North Carolina or Kentucky or Duke, etc. We have to take chances on athletes who play basketball and hope they turn out to be able to learn to be a good fundamentals player. You also hope that a kid can gain weight and put on muscle, but sometimes they just can't. You have all of these expectations, but sometimes you just don't end up with guys turning out like you planned. And despite the 'standing around' on offense, we somehow managed to end up 7 out of 12 in the league in scoring offense, fifth in scoring margin, fourth in three point percentage (yes, I know that our field goal percentage is low, but that is a case of the number of threes we shoot), third in rebounding margin, the SEC's second-leading assist man... I mean, the stats just don't back that up. And for those who didn't think Elgin Bailey would make a difference, would we have given up as many offensive rebounds in the games we lost if he were available? I don't think so. Oh, and Stansbury has always built his teams around defense first, because you should always be able to have good effort on D. Guess what, we were virtually tied with Kentucky on team D. Guess that means nothing. Anyway, resume your previous flaming of me.