Sorry if guten tag, but I didn't see if posted elsewhere.
http://www.cdispatch.com/...?aid=15855#ixzz1nhEPRyvX
http://www.cdispatch.com/...?aid=15855#ixzz1nhEPRyvX
Interesting read about Luczak's comments of team chemistry
- Thread starter msudawg200
- Start date
Sorry if guten tag, but I didn't see if posted elsewhere.
http://www.cdispatch.com/...?aid=15855#ixzz1nhEPRyvX
http://www.cdispatch.com/...?aid=15855#ixzz1nhEPRyvX
You had a coach who had no control over his penis. You had Jones who came in for one season after taking 30 plus credit hours in the Summer. Could not be much chemistry from him. Hell he was one and done. Then there is Ballard who was on probation for drugs related problems who's number changed from 22 to No. 51603A in just matter of months after the final four run. He could not have been that great of a team mate. Don't really rememberWilson or Walters too much but Dampier must have been the cement that held the team together. I could seehim being a leader and cracking some heads.Maybethey had their ownbrandof team chemistry.
First the coach was not a pervert. He allegedly strayed from his marriage with a younger woman. Not the first and won't be the last. ( I see you edited that.)
Dontae was a great teammate once he started playing a little defense. He loved the game and it showed.
Bullard, not Ballard, was #3. Bart was #22. I've never heard anything bad about Bullard except one lingering rumor about the Cuse game. Other than that, his teammates loved him.
Darryl was the glue of that team. Anyone who watched them knew that our MVP was the guy who would never play in the NBA.
Walters could have been a #1 post option on some teams. Instead, he came to State, got his touches when he could, and never, ever complained.
Dampier was not a head cracker. Quiet and unassuming, but a beast in the paint.
Dontae was a great teammate once he started playing a little defense. He loved the game and it showed.
Bullard, not Ballard, was #3. Bart was #22. I've never heard anything bad about Bullard except one lingering rumor about the Cuse game. Other than that, his teammates loved him.
Darryl was the glue of that team. Anyone who watched them knew that our MVP was the guy who would never play in the NBA.
Walters could have been a #1 post option on some teams. Instead, he came to State, got his touches when he could, and never, ever complained.
Dampier was not a head cracker. Quiet and unassuming, but a beast in the paint.
I love russell walters but on what planet would he have been the number one post option for someone?
respected their coaches, and enjoyed playing with one another. If Super D was hot, they fed him, if Damp was having his way inside, they fed him, and it goes on. They were discipline in the offense and on defense, and when they strayed Williams would call time out and bring them back in. Every team has some chemistry issues at times, but it's how the coaches and players resolve it that separate the good from the bad.
Big D said:
I made a great deal of money the years we had a President with this problem. Maybe Stans needs some relief. Maybe Meo flapping her arms and yelling "GET UP!!" in the boudoir is not the type of confidence building and support a coach needs at home.
Rumor is that Bullard took money to throw the Syracuse game in the Final Four. I'm not so sure I buy that. He did have 9 turnovers, but he wasn't a true PG and Syracuse's active 2-3 zone defense wasn't like any other defense he had ever seen. Wilson and Dampier had 4 turnovers each, which is also high for a non PG. Other than the turnovers, Bullard had a pretty good game 4-9 from the field (3-7 on 3-pointers), 8 assists and 5 rebounds.
schedule, had better chemistry than probably any team I have seen at MSU in any sport. Once Jones bought into playing defence it all came together. That team was tough minded too. When Whit Hughes or Russel Walters set a screen, the object of that screen found himself on the floor more often than not. You did NOT fight through their screens. Nobody on that team was easy TO screen either. The only reason Dampier didn't block as many shots per game as Vanardo did is because it got to the point, real quick, that people didn't even challenge him in the lane. I still remember the year after he left in the first game some guard drove the lane and made a layup. Everybody at the Hump was in shock, we hadn't even seen anyone TRY that in about 2 1/2 years. Everybody who hit the floor for that team was absolutely relentless on defence.
something about a lack of team chemistry until they had their own air-it-all-out team meeting. Everybody talked about their differences and such. After that, they came together and started winning. Like you mentioned, that happened about half-way through the SEC schedule.
From what I've read about luczak, he has his sights set a little higher than an elusive bball grad assistant spot.
that being the fact that when Stans was asked about team chemistry problems his response was "Ain't no problems there". So I was just jesting that maybe Luczak is giving the response needed to join up with our coaching staff.
A "spark," so to speak. We all know Stans will NEVER admit anything is wrong in the media.... the Officer Barbrady approach, so to speak. A player stepped out in the media and broke the ice, and that could have lead to this "Come to Jesus" meet that the team had... and this could be the thing that really helps us or kills any chance of us making any run. This team could still come together... it just depends on what this meeting they had did to influence that. I'll be honest... I'm interested in watching us play tonight just for that reason.
I have never been an insider, but that year, I had family that was close to a couple of players on the team. The team wanted Richard Williams fired. At that point in time, the players all looked to Stansbury for leadership. It may have been a good cop - bad cop routine, but they could not stand Williams. A couple of players I will not name almost walked mid season. If you watch the footage of the 96 SEC Tournament, watch carefully regarding who was doing most of the coaching from the bench. <div id="isChromeWebToolbarDiv" style="display:none"></div>
and he was posed a question like "what is something that the average fan doesn't know about the 96 team?"
Hyche answered with something about how dominating Walters was offensively in practice, but we had so many scoring options on that team that he took on the much needed role of a big rebounder/defender in the post. I think Hyche even said something to the effect that Walter's would routinely clown Dampier in practice when they went head-to-head.
I'm fully confident that it was an embellished story, but the take home message was that we only saw a fraction of Walter's total basketball package and that in another time & place he could have been an entirely different player.
Hyche answered with something about how dominating Walters was offensively in practice, but we had so many scoring options on that team that he took on the much needed role of a big rebounder/defender in the post. I think Hyche even said something to the effect that Walter's would routinely clown Dampier in practice when they went head-to-head.
I'm fully confident that it was an embellished story, but the take home message was that we only saw a fraction of Walter's total basketball package and that in another time & place he could have been an entirely different player.