we had a 13-pt. lead and doing well in the first half....Wright St. goes on a run and Stansidiot waits until the get within 2-pts till he calls a time out.....ANY decent coach calls the TO after Wright St. gets to the 8-0 point MAX.....this is a clear sign of a POOR bench coach....and the thing is....he does it ALL THE 17ing TIME.......
My biggest complaint with Stansbury is this.....
- Thread starter MSU2012CHAMPS
- Start date
So you're calling Phil Jackson a poor bench coach? Before you get distracted I'm not saying that Stans is equal to Phil Jackson, but Jackson is notorious for letting his teams find their way without calling a timeout when opponents go on runs and I would bet lesser known coaches try this as well. Its called coaching philosophy and every coach's is different. Now I don't know a whole lot about Stans philosophy when it comes to TOs and such, and I didn't watch the game, but it seems to me that we had a pretty good control of this game from the start. So maybe Stans just wanted to see how his team would react and how they would handle it when a team pushes back and goes on a run. Like I said, I didn't see the game so a lot of this is just conjecture, but the point is, there are reasons coaches don't call timeouts every time a team goes on a run and trims a lead, and him not doing so does not make him a poor coach.
They don't magically turn into insightful comments to play devil's advocate with when we win.
If I may quote The Answer, "We talkin bout practice timeouts."
If it was the last minute of the game, I'd understand your bitching. If we were extremely inexperienced I might see the need for calling a timeout more often. But neither of those apply. You're diggin, man.
If I may quote The Answer, "We talkin bout practice timeouts."
If it was the last minute of the game, I'd understand your bitching. If we were extremely inexperienced I might see the need for calling a timeout more often. But neither of those apply. You're diggin, man.
i see what your saying MSU2012, but i completely agree with blinddawg on this one. Its coaching strategy, he was letting the team try to figure it out on their own before he stepped in.
I do not have a problem with the timeout situation. He should not have to call one against Wright State. You have to let your team figure that kind of stuff out sometimes. But what I do have a problem with is our offensive philosophy. Tonight was great. Defense was struggling tonight. However, more times than not, these threes that we keep attempting ren't going to fall in many games. Jarvis does not touch it near as much as he should offensively. He gets double teamed when he gets the ball but he is good enough to beat that with his size and baby hook. We live and die by the three. It quite frankly scres me for SEC play.
It's funny that you stop your recap of that stretch of the game where you do. What happened after that timeout when they had cut it to three? We went on a 14 - 2 run to give ourselves a pretty sizeable hlaftime advantage.
Why does Stansbury never get any credit for that? If something goes wrong, it's 100% his fault. If something goes very right, even if it's after he calls a timeout, then it's in spite of Stans.
I know this double standard is part of what comes with being a coach, but damn do our fans take it to unbelievable levels.</p>
Why does Stansbury never get any credit for that? If something goes wrong, it's 100% his fault. If something goes very right, even if it's after he calls a timeout, then it's in spite of Stans.
I know this double standard is part of what comes with being a coach, but damn do our fans take it to unbelievable levels.</p>
He has been doing this for years and will cost his team at least one win a year because he is a poor in game coach.
I say get off Stans' back. We are consistently a contender in the West almost every single year. What other major sport have we had this kind of consistent success in in the past decade?
Stans did do a good job of getting the momentum back once he finally called the timeout. What if he had called the timeout sooner and we ended up by 25 at halftime. It was possible, but we will never know b/c he let them back in the game by waiting too long before calling the TO.
True, we contend with team in the likes of Arkansas, Bama, Ole Miss, LSU, and Auburn. None of those teams have ever done anything except for LSU in the 2006 Final Four when they got hot at the right time. My problem with him is that we lose to Rider and Richmond. I know this subject has been beaten to death but losses like that, which we have losses like that every year, are the ones that put us at 12 and 13 seeds and we end up playing teams that dominate us in the tournament and prevents us from getting on a roll in the tournament. If us contending for the SEC West satisfies fans, then that is not a good thing at all. With the team this year, we should be expecting to be an SEC regular season champion contender with Florida, Kentucky, and Tennessee and then getting at most a 6 seed. If it is true that Kirby is the one making all the calls, then why in the hell is Stansbury still around. We have a decent basketball tradition here at State, and somehow I personally believe he is letting that tradition slip away. He does not even seem to care on the floor, and he does not even seem to care that his players do not care. There is no excuse of us having two losses already to those teams. It was a similar story last year.sleepy dawg said:
he called the timeout sooner and THEY ended up 25 at halftime? Oh that's right, you'd ***** about that too.
but this is bordering on plain nuts. Stansbury practically <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> that decent basketball tradition. Other than the late 50's, early 60's and 3 years in the 90's, which Stansbury helped create, we have no basketball tradition whatsoever. After we hand him the reigns, we're in the NCAAs at least every other year, and almost half the time we end the year with some sort of conference performance that includes the word "champions".pgddawg said:
If you want to make the coaching-shelf-life argument, fine. If you want to say we should be going further in the NCAA's after having a coach for a decade, at least you're aiming high. But don't point to our history and try to use that to justify getting rid of the guy who made most of that history, and is still adding achievements to it as recently as last March.
