Let's assume it's Payne.

[ckDOG]

The recruiting potential is obvious. Throw that out. What can we expect on the floor? Anyone have any insight? All I can gather from reading about him is that he's good with post players. Not much else is out there...

 

[Goat Still Grindin]

that doesn't bother me, as long as we are playing a little defense to go along with it.<div>
</div><div>I'm looking for talent and effort. We all can see talent. Effort shows in defense and offensive rebounds.</div>

 

[CadaverDawg]

I am curious about this as well. Are we looking at Stansbury 2.0, where he recruits well but that's it? Or has this guy proven to be a developer and a X's and O's guy? I think the Harrelson development at UK that everybody credits Payne for is impressive, but what else has he done. Also, does anybody know how he is perceived by fellow coaches.....meaning, would he try to get assistants that are "yes men" like Stan's had, or guys that he allows to help in play calling and coaching.

My biggest concern is that Payne could get good players, but there will not be a Calipari over him that manages those egos, and gets them to play as a team. If that's the case, we will be looking at more of the same when it comes to attrition and chemistry issues.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

And listen to them unlike Stansbury. Recruiting only gets you so far.

 

[DowntownDawg]

....and simultaneously run a disciplined program in which the players play with effort, he'll win a bunch of games. Rick did both for 4 years and we won a bunch of games. Floor coaching didn't make a huge difference in 2004.

I am hopeful Payne can do that. I have no desire to go out and get a basketball genius who can't bring in talent. Just because Rick had some weaknesses doesn't mean we need to throw out the whole mindset of placing a priority on recruiting.

 

[Hanmudog]

I don't want to bring in a coach that teaches great floor spacing and runs a Princeton offense while we get beat by 30 points with a team full of SWAC rejects.

Lets face it. If you watch just about any team in America outside of a chosen few, you will not see great offensive basketball. Effort and defense with some talent thrown in is the recipe for success in college. For awhile Stansbury did a great job of that but when the effort fell off so did the wins.

 

[icedawg]

Why was Stans not able to take MSU basketball to the next level?

• Recruiting talent - above average. It is hard to get talent to come to Vegas. MSU classes were generally in the middle to upper middle of the SEC pack.
• Coaching - average (at best) but he wasn't as bad as many made him out to be
• Managing talent - well below average (relative to top tier teams). If MSU wants to move to the next level, it takes talent. Having talent requires managing egos, etc. Cal's real accomplishment is getting his prima donnas to play defense, rebound, etc. Stans transfers were mostly due to his inability to handle their egos. Do you really think the UK players don't have egos?

<div>I think that he realized that he needed to up the talent level after the consecutive second round losses and he couldn't deal with what he brought in -> transfers, dissension, Sidney, resignation</div>

 

[B Rock]

it's up to you whether to believe anything that comes out of his mouth though. I don't know about his x's and o's, but if he can recruit as good as Stans, develop players and have them disciplined, then that's improvement before we even start talking x's and o's.

 

[DowntownDawg]

.....I think he quit recruiting after the Rhodes/Gordon years and we ended up with a shortage of talent for a few years. He decided to go back in heavy with Sidney and put all his eggs into that basket. He gambled and lost big.

 

[maroonmania]

exactly what he would be like as a coach in charge of a program. He's only had 8 years of coaching experience since ending his overseas playing experience, 6 at Oregon and now 2 at KY. For comparison, Kirby has 26 years of coaching with 12 of those as Stans' top assistant before moving onto Georgetown the past 2 years. However, Scott should have a lot of info on Kirby and if he chooses to go the Payne direction I will assume there is a good reason. Maybe we just want to go the younger route as Payne would be in his early fourties while Kirby is in his early fifties.

 

[icedawg]

Didn't he interview with and get turned down by a SWAC school?