My Sources Are Saying That Elgin Bailey Has Seriously Injured His Knee.........
- Thread starter ExtremeDog
- Start date
Stansbury said a week or two ago that he could play right now but he wasn't going to waste him for 7-8 games.
No better feeling for a team than when the coach has given up on you and your post season potential...</p>
...we just have nothing behind Varnado down low. If he could've played 2 weeks ago and helped us against Kentucky, we might've won the game. And if we win that game, we have a decent chance at a tournament run. I keep going back and forth on the issue, but I think we should've considered playing him. It would be one thing if we had any kind of viable option behind Jarvis. Lack of post size and depth is this team's biggest weakness and it has cost us basketball games. To think that we have somebody on our bench that could remedy that bothers me.
I just liked the way it was worded.I don't believe he really thinks the season will be over in 7 or 8 games either. Just made me laugh.
the KY game is the only one where we needed Bailey, but we need Bailey in the 2011-2012 year more than we need him for 8 games this year at 8 minutes a game.
Wendell Lewis is a viable option for 5 min a game. Why we don't do that, I'll never know. And if he had been playing more, we could have used him more against KY and we wouldn't need Bailey for that one game.
Wendell Lewis is a viable option for 5 min a game. Why we don't do that, I'll never know. And if he had been playing more, we could have used him more against KY and we wouldn't need Bailey for that one game.
I agree with 8dog. We need Elgin, but no sense using him this late in the season. My main gripe with Stans is the way he has kept Lewis on the bench. I know he's a freshman and has made some mistakes, but you don't learn sitting on the bench. We should have never wasted a scholarship on Reik, but since he's on the team, I say put him in and let him foul somebody when we need it.
...some post offense. I don't know. Like I said, I am back and forth on the issue. But I am inclined to think that if this team was capable of getting into the tournament with Bailey and we chose not to play him, that's a mistake. I may be crazy but it seems like an NCAA tournament is worth a kid's year of eligibility. I am just hoping that there is a conditioning issue there. Or he is not fully healthy. Regardless, Rick probably shouldn't have said that.
I agree on Lewis. And actually, one thing that the KY game showed was that Augustus is pretty effective down low offensively. He's just a defensive liability all the way around.
I agree on Lewis. And actually, one thing that the KY game showed was that Augustus is pretty effective down low offensively. He's just a defensive liability all the way around.
...it seems like I read that Rick said that he could play, flat out, and didn't mention conditioning, like he did with Sidney. Even so, how much conditioning do you need to play as a backup?
You don't play a player before he's ready to play. If we'd put Lewis out there more, there's a good chance we're not even on the NCAA bubble right now. Actually, players DO learn a lot from a year of practice and watching.sarge said:
As for the Stans quote on Bailey that DS referenced, if he was ready to play andhelp us win games2-3 weeks ago, we probably should have played him. Again, you play for this year not the future. However, not knowing how ready he was or how much he might have been able to contribute, it's hard to say whether Stans made the right decision or not. I suspect he probably did. Few coaches are going to sacrifice wins this year just to get an extra year from a player 3 years from now.
in basketball and you get better by playing (assuming you want to burn a RS which we did with Lewis). We could easily have worked Lewis in 5 minutes a game. We would be so far ahead of where we are in post depth if we had.
All we are really asking him to do is get physical in the post and grab a couple of rebounds. This is not pass protection or reading a zone blitz. And if he is getting you beat, you can just pull him and not play him...and guess where you are? Right where we are now with post depth.
All we are really asking him to do is get physical in the post and grab a couple of rebounds. This is not pass protection or reading a zone blitz. And if he is getting you beat, you can just pull him and not play him...and guess where you are? Right where we are now with post depth.
Playing a player who's not ready to play for even 1 minute can easily cost you both of those games. So no, you don't play someone who's not ready just to get him experience. You get him ready and then you play him. Timmy Bowers didn't play much at all as a freshman because he wasn't ready. Yet somehow he got better, a lot better. There are plenty of other examples.
This is the Stansbury way. Only play freshmens when you have to. And then, only in non-conference.dawgstudent said:
patdog said:
Yet we have people on thi very board that have stated that fans shouldn't have placed such high expectations on this poor team that was only returning 5 starters and their top 2 subs. So, which is it? You can get better by sitting on the bench watching the action but we shouldn't expect much from guys that have 30+ starts?
in basketball whether they redshirt or not and wehther they play a lot or not their freshmen year. Lewis played a minute against KY and was fine. The only reason he fouled is b/c a guard got beat off the dribble.
That's fine if we dont' want to stick him in in the 2nd half of a huge game. But if we had gotten him minutes in other games, we'd be more comfortable with him, and he'd be more comfortable too. Hell, we are willing to play zone this year so go zone when we put him there.
aGAIN, if he's killing you, you can always take him out and we are at the same place we are now.
That's fine if we dont' want to stick him in in the 2nd half of a huge game. But if we had gotten him minutes in other games, we'd be more comfortable with him, and he'd be more comfortable too. Hell, we are willing to play zone this year so go zone when we put him there.
aGAIN, if he's killing you, you can always take him out and we are at the same place we are now.
I don't remember Stans quote directly, but in it I remember he said it wasn't fair to Bailey for us to burn his RS so far into the season. I agree with Stans on this one; he made the right call. Its similar to Croom burning the RS of the WR (can't recall his name) 7 games into the season a few years ago. Bailey has his years of eligibility and its unfair for him to essentially waste one of those for him to play 10 games or so. He could probably help us a little bit, but its still the right call. True, Stans has to make the decisions that are best for his team, but at the same time, you have to look out for your players. Its a fine line to walk.
to provide 7 or 8 minutes per game relief to Varnado. Secondly, if playing Bailey is the difference between being in the NCAAs this year and not being in the NCAAs then I say play him and that could actually be what we are currently facing. In fact, I would say given the current minutes we are asking our starters to play, to win the SEC tourney OR go very deep is going to be nearly impossible without some additional bodies that can contribute QUALITY minutes. What gets me is that people wanted to burn Russell's redshirt year in the hopes of MAYBE getting to 6 wins and a bottom line bowl game. Now Russell, one of the most highly recruited QBs we've ever signed, could be a guy that might lead us to something really, really special as a 5th year SR QB yet people were willing to throw that year away. However folks want to save a year on Bailey for down the line even if it cost us making the post-season this year in basketball. Sorry, but I just don't see Bailey as an irreplaceable player 2 years from now and its not fair to not let this year's team use him (especially given the Sidney situation) if he is healthy enough to contribute.
but his ability to move that Stansbury is talking about. When he played a couple of minutes in some OOC game, he was moving at Riek speed. His ankle could be ok but since spent so much time away from basketball he isn't as good of an athlete as he normally is.
i'm sure stansbury considered it, and then decided not to. or did you mean thesixpack when you said "we"? i have to agree, bailey had a ton of potential. he could beTHE guy in a couple of years instead of just a 5minute per gameguy for half a dozen games this year. especially ifhe's not 100%. just because hecould play doesn't mean he was 100%.DowntownDawg said: