One thing DS...
- Thread starter Hanmudog
- Start date
"Saying "if Varnado and Augustus leave" is about the same as saying if Varnado and Luczak leave."
I have seen it all now.
Augustus > Luczak all day, every day, any day.</p>
I have seen it all now.
Augustus > Luczak all day, every day, any day.</p>
Augustus is obviously more talented. All I am saying is that you could pair "Varnado and (fill in the blank)" would be a big loss because Varnado is an absolute must to return. Who gives a **** if a guy that plays about 2 minutes, has a bad attitude, and costs us 6 points for every two he scores returns? You completely took that out of context.
if Augustus leaves. Of course, Augustus is an unknown but there is a lot more upside (Hubie Brown) to Augustus than anyone else that hasn't played much on the team. And I would much rather a guard leave than a big.
Kodi is big and can shoot but he was also a major reason we went down by 10 in the first half last night. Poor defense and turnovers by Kodi gift wrapped points for SC. Osby will probably double his PT next season and our guard depth will be as good as it has ever been. I have faith that if Kodi leaves Stansbury will find someone to take his place. He always does.</p>
You might as well say Osby too...You have no Clue.......
Just b/c he is not playing now doesn't mean he won't in the near future. Kodi has the talent, just needs some PT and a little attitude adjustment.
Just b/c he is not playing now doesn't mean he won't in the near future. Kodi has the talent, just needs some PT and a little attitude adjustment.
but what you are saying is just plain dumb. If you dont think losing a talented player like Augustus is going to hurt the program, then you are a dumbass.
If you dont think losing two post players on a team that doesnt have many that are very good isnt going to hurt, then you are a dumbass.
Losing Johnson, Varnado, Augustus would leave us with Osby, Bailey, and Holmes(?) patrolling the paint....that doesnt exactly inspire success
If you dont think losing two post players on a team that doesnt have many that are very good isnt going to hurt, then you are a dumbass.
Losing Johnson, Varnado, Augustus would leave us with Osby, Bailey, and Holmes(?) patrolling the paint....that doesnt exactly inspire success
For Pete's sake, all I was saying was losing Varnado would be catastophic for this team. You just threw Augustus in there with him. You could pair any player on the team with Varnado as leaving and it would be bad for us. Augustus is just another Walter Sharpe to this point. We could lose Varnado and Billy Begley as an assistant and it would hurt. Losing Augustus would not hurt us that bad because all of our players are returning on a young team and he has not even contributed. We will only be better next year with or without Kodi as long as Jarvis comes back.
Jarvis and another big, I would agree with you. Losing Elgin Bailey would hurt about as much as Augustus.
he provides us with a lot of interior d and is good for 3-4 hard fouls and 5-12 solid effort minutes.
is that we lose role players. Every team needs a few guys who have been there a few years and know their job. If you don't think having Ben/delks/etc for at the very least least spot duty would help, your and idiot. If Kodi and JV leave, then what, we say "we're young" and wait another year. Just cause Kodi doesn't help much this year, doesn't mean he won't down the road (see earlier discussion on turner). I'd rather have a jr/sr role player on the court than a fr/so role player any day. Now, some guys just aren't good enough and leave for more playing time cause they'll never get it, but that's not what i'm talking about.
You have never even seen Kodi play in person yet you are always on here yammering about how he needs more PT. That to me is a dumbass. Watch Kodi on defense sometimes or see some of the stupid stuff he does and you will see why he would not be a huge loss other than the fact that he is a big body. He was standing with one foot about two feet out of bounds last night on offense. His brain is light years behind his body.
for younger players is a BAD idea. I can only imagine the bitching on this board (and I'd be one of them) if we were 5-6 but playing Osby 30 minutes per game. He'll be ready for that kind of minutes in a year whether he gets thim this year or not. Stans has proven that he knows how to develop players. The biggest benefit of experience is the experience a player gets on the practice court.
I think Osby should get more PT... But he really should have been getting more PT early in the year. This is one of my main beefs with stans. Why don't we play our talented freshmen more early so they're ready to play more come conference time. When they screw up early in the year, stans pulls them to teach them a lesson. But then they don't get any experience. There are other ways to get your point across, without sacrificing experience (running, etc). Maybe he tries that first, I don't know. If so, I'm a dubmass and i'll shut up. It's just rare that we have a freshman that makes a difference.
Maybe I am just a dumbass. But I think there's something there. Why does a guy who seems to be a good recruiter (convincing people to do what he wants) have such a hard time getting players to see things "his way". The last few years I've just felt like stans seems to be more of a "do it my way or leave" kind of coach. The recent transfers would point to this. I realize some players are just cancers and need to go, but the more recent ones have all appeared to be "team players" at least on the court. It's holding our program back. I'm not saying he hasn't thought of this before, but something's going on, and hopefully it stops.
is that at the 2008 LSU game in Baton Rouge - Stansbury let Augustus dictate whether or not he wanted to burn his redshirt. Stansbury is the head coach. He should not have given Augustus the choice.
But I don't agree that none of the recent transfers were cancers. I think Hansbrough and the Delks all had attitude problems to one degree or another, and there have been rumors that Goodridge had a drug issue (not to mention he sucked on the court anyway). Not to say that Stans might not also share some of the blame for those situations too.
The JR reference was a joke. He's a guy that used to post on this site a lot railing on Stans. His solution to every problem was to make the players run.
The JR reference was a joke. He's a guy that used to post on this site a lot railing on Stans. His solution to every problem was to make the players run.
I got the joke, I remember seeing JR's name before. I just think part of a coaches job is getting players here, and keeping them here. We need to work on the second part. It's hard to believe we've had that many 'bad attitudes' the last 5 years or so, and if we truly have, why? at some point its not coincidence. And yeah DS, that decision should be the coaches only.
Just a simple guess.....
Stansbury treats players differently. Period.
Of course during recruiting he tells them all that they will be a star once they get here, that is a given.....but I suspect that once they get here, he selects certain players that he kicks their *** all over the court while others are allowed to run wild. I do not attend practice so I have no clue if this is true or not, but I know what I see in the Hump. I am not the only one to have noticed this behavior either.
Example 2008
Exhibit 1a: With 5 sec on the shot clock, Jamont leans forward, dribbles to the left into a triple team knocking all three of them and him to the floor, offensive foul turnover.
Result: Stans looks at the floor
Exhibit 1b: Delk twin #2 pulls up for a wide open 3, misses, gets pulled out of the game and has his @ss chewed in front of a full gym never to return to the court during that game.
2009
Exhibit 2a: Randy with 5 sec on the shot clock throws up a fade away 3 from NBA and draws....air.
Result: Stans looks at the floor.
Exhibit 2b: Augustus steps on the out of bounds like going for a rebound or receiving a pass. Gets pulled out of the game and has his @ss chewed in front of a full gym never to return to the court during that game.
This has to get old if you are the Delk, Hans, Augustus, insert name here.....it kind of gets back to a lack of an offensive plan and having to rely on a single individual to "create" or "bail you out with 5 sec on the shot clock" either way it leads to unequal treatment of players and that is why I think some get pissed off and leave, and I am not talking about the Rimmer kind of players, I am talking about role players who should get lots of minutes.
</p>
Stansbury treats players differently. Period.
Of course during recruiting he tells them all that they will be a star once they get here, that is a given.....but I suspect that once they get here, he selects certain players that he kicks their *** all over the court while others are allowed to run wild. I do not attend practice so I have no clue if this is true or not, but I know what I see in the Hump. I am not the only one to have noticed this behavior either.
Example 2008
Exhibit 1a: With 5 sec on the shot clock, Jamont leans forward, dribbles to the left into a triple team knocking all three of them and him to the floor, offensive foul turnover.
Result: Stans looks at the floor
Exhibit 1b: Delk twin #2 pulls up for a wide open 3, misses, gets pulled out of the game and has his @ss chewed in front of a full gym never to return to the court during that game.
2009
Exhibit 2a: Randy with 5 sec on the shot clock throws up a fade away 3 from NBA and draws....air.
Result: Stans looks at the floor.
Exhibit 2b: Augustus steps on the out of bounds like going for a rebound or receiving a pass. Gets pulled out of the game and has his @ss chewed in front of a full gym never to return to the court during that game.
This has to get old if you are the Delk, Hans, Augustus, insert name here.....it kind of gets back to a lack of an offensive plan and having to rely on a single individual to "create" or "bail you out with 5 sec on the shot clock" either way it leads to unequal treatment of players and that is why I think some get pissed off and leave, and I am not talking about the Rimmer kind of players, I am talking about role players who should get lots of minutes.
</p>
First of all, with all this argument about playing time for Augustus, Osby, or whomever, who are you going to bench to get them in? Phil Turner has proven he is difficult to replace and before you say Barry, who will defend like him? Ravern, I doubt it! For anyone who has played or coached the game, they know that coaches see a hell of a lot more in practice than we do on Saturday. all this scenario about Staans is utter ********. He has put the best lineup on the floor to have a chance to win and I am still amazed how the same crowd finds a way to critcize him, win or lose. Get a life, go to a few games, and watch for yourselves. Augustus ain't ready. Neither is Osby. It would be great to redshirt all these kids but that doesn't happen much and if you don't think experience is the key, then explain how much Phil has improved. Stans experimented plenty in the preseason schedule and it cost him and I choose to believe he knows a hell of a lot more basketball than anyone on this board. We are 4-0 against the SEC East. Most of you had all of them annointed a few weeks ago and now the west teams are working them over. Go fishing, or play golf, or just do something to get in the real world. And by the way, this team plays better together than most teams Rick has had while at MSU and that is allowing Augustus to shoot plenty when at times he needs to create and dish it off.
I'm pretty sure Stans doesn't pull players and chew them out just because they miss a shot. I've seen him pull guys because they got burnt on defense and had no idea what they were doing on the court, but I'd say no coach pulls guys for missing shots, maybe taking bad shots, but not for just missing them. Anyway, if he's pulling guys and chewing their *** after that, I'm sure there is more to it than "they missed a shot."
But when every day we read about why Stans can't do this, or this guy should be playing more than another guy, it gets to be a joke. Augustus touched the ball when he went in last night night 3 times and two ended up being turnovers. Stans is trying to bring them along at the right pace and my reference to computer coaches was in gist, because if some of these folks were coaching, they would be unemployed and may already be. If we play Ravern and Augustus together, our opponents will score in the 100's very game. Stans knows what he is doing.
Classic, someone on a message board telling someone else on a message board to "get out in the real world" Good Stuff!!
I don't understand the sensitivity some of you have towards stans. It's like he can do no wrong. I personally think he does a lot right, but he has his faults. He's a good coach, not a great one. I always laughed when people said, what if kentuck tries to get him... get real. And to answer your question, Osby would be the first one off the bench. I'd take a few minutes from benock, barry, ravern when his shot is off, and maybe a few others. I like the 4 gaurd linup, but we don't need it all game.</p>
I don't understand the sensitivity some of you have towards stans. It's like he can do no wrong. I personally think he does a lot right, but he has his faults. He's a good coach, not a great one. I always laughed when people said, what if kentuck tries to get him... get real. And to answer your question, Osby would be the first one off the bench. I'd take a few minutes from benock, barry, ravern when his shot is off, and maybe a few others. I like the 4 gaurd linup, but we don't need it all game.</p>