Osby going off vs Texas, 22 & 8 so far
- Thread starter DAWG61
- Start date
Can admit, I never saw this type of player at MSU...although, its easy to see what a good coach can do.
How could you? He averaged 12 minutes a game, and was constantly looking over his shoulder every time he missed a shot or had a turnover to see when he was coming out. He was also playing in the era of the "line shift" subs that Stansbury became enamored with and he would pull four or five starters and have in some crazy *** lineup like Osby, Benock, Phil, Twanny and Kodi. Shockingly, that combo would fail to produce, and they would all come out and be banished to the bench.
That's a stout Texas team they're playing too.
All things said, I'd love for him to be here this year (even though his eligibility would've been up I think).
All things said, I'd love for him to be here this year (even though his eligibility would've been up I think).
Exactly all you can compare for Osby is what he did last year because if he had stayed at MSU he would have already used up his eligibility. He was a highly rated talented guy so its not surprising that as a 5th year SR he's doing well. No way would he have agreed to redshirt though if he had stayed with us.
as mentioned above by D@A
Osby was stuck in the second string substitution lineup in which he was obviously the best player. He was playing "the Jamont", the position to which, after passing the ball around the perimiter for 25 seconds someone throws the ball to with no screens, no plays, no anything and they are asked to "create". He did pretty well in that role all considered.
How in the world could he expect to crack the starting lineup when you offensive powerhouse Benock playing 35 Min per game at the SHOOTING GD position forcing Phil Turner to play powerforward. Of course you have defensive powerhouse Ravern Johnson playing 35+ min @ three so you would never get a shot there..........? Can't blame him for leaving, I really wish that guy well.
Two instances in which you want to slap your head looking back:
1. Injuries force Stans to play both Osby and Augustus together in the SEC tourney and we kick the hell out of FLA....who knew? Then Osby goes back to the bench.
2. Ravern gets suspended for being a dumbass ______________insert reason here...........Osby comes in and plays at 3 doing great against Kentucky in a losing effort, but still great. Osby goes back to the bench.
It was obvious.
Face palm.
Might add in here:
Cherrington getting tons of minutes.
Devin Jones playing at all
LDP up the middle with Griffin on the bench. Mullen uncrosses arms long enough to chest bump Hevesy.
Osby was stuck in the second string substitution lineup in which he was obviously the best player. He was playing "the Jamont", the position to which, after passing the ball around the perimiter for 25 seconds someone throws the ball to with no screens, no plays, no anything and they are asked to "create". He did pretty well in that role all considered.
How in the world could he expect to crack the starting lineup when you offensive powerhouse Benock playing 35 Min per game at the SHOOTING GD position forcing Phil Turner to play powerforward. Of course you have defensive powerhouse Ravern Johnson playing 35+ min @ three so you would never get a shot there..........? Can't blame him for leaving, I really wish that guy well.
Two instances in which you want to slap your head looking back:
1. Injuries force Stans to play both Osby and Augustus together in the SEC tourney and we kick the hell out of FLA....who knew? Then Osby goes back to the bench.
2. Ravern gets suspended for being a dumbass ______________insert reason here...........Osby comes in and plays at 3 doing great against Kentucky in a losing effort, but still great. Osby goes back to the bench.
It was obvious.
Face palm.
Might add in here:
Cherrington getting tons of minutes.
Devin Jones playing at all
LDP up the middle with Griffin on the bench. Mullen uncrosses arms long enough to chest bump Hevesy.
Stansbury's handling of Osby was the most confusing aspect of Stansbury's tenure. Osby always seemed to play hard when he came in and seemed to play well, although he did try too hard sometimes. But that would have gone away if he was a little more secure in his playing time. I would normally give the coach the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an attitude problem, but 17ing Ravern and Kodi were playing big-time minutes. Unless Osby was snorting coke off of Jebediah's *** crack during practice, I have trouble imagining what he could have done attitude/behavior wise to make Ravern and Kodi look like the more attractive alternatives.
All I can think is that Osby rubbed Stansbury the (really) wrong way for some reason, and Stans let his personal animosity get the better of him. It sucked because it was obvious Osby playing more would have made the team better.
Any Pro-Stans vs. Anti-Stans argument should begin, end and be forever finalized
by the names Ben Hansbrough and Romero Osby, unless the argument is whether or not he brought in talented players.
by the names Ben Hansbrough and Romero Osby, unless the argument is whether or not he brought in talented players.
My hypothesis was that Stans loved passive players like Stewart and Benock. Yes sir, yes coach, etc......So because he HAD to play Benock at the 2, "great defense (not really), on the court leader (not really), mumble mumble," that left him with Turner who should have been playing 2 "Turner can't dribble with his left hand, mumble mumble" playing the 4 because if Stans had two larger players in the post they would stand around and allow their defenders to collapse on whomever tried to drive to the basket "create" in the final 5 seconds of the shot clock. Couldn't have that could we?
To summarize my babble: Stans played Benock over Osby which was a ****** decision. We ran no offense to speak of and our "stategy" if you can call it that was terrible. Players knew this, fans watched it and it pissed us off, and to see Osby do well on another team is no big surprise. I am happy for him.
Another thing with these coaches that play favorites with players, that is highly disruptive: Benock sucking but playing tons of minutes, stuff like Rayvern not having to play defense, but Osby getting *** chewed and benched at the sign of the first mistake.
Mullen ***-chewing Hud, Wilson, et al. but not giving his Yankee buddies a hard time in the same manner........that kind of stuff is very disruptive. Stansbury did it and lost control of things. I hope Coach Mullen can keep the train rolling, for the record I am very happy with mid level bowl games and 7- 8 win seasons.
Answer me this maroonmania:
In his two years at State, Osby averaged roughly 12 minutes a game, 4 ppg and 2 rpg.
Then he sat out one year while transferring.
In his two years at OU, he has averaged roughly 27 minutes, with 14 ppg and 7 rpg. By year, that was 13/7 last year and 14.5/6 so far this year.
Are you saying that the redshirt year is why he's putting up better numbers at OU? My stance would be that the talent was always there, and even as a FR he could have, with proper usage, have put up about 10/5, and his last three years at State would have been more in line with the two seasons he has had at OU. I doubt the redshirt year and playing as a fifth year is impacting his numbers much at all. As you can see, he's basically the same player this year as he was last year. The 29 last year was a career high, besting his old mark of 24 that he established last year.
In his two years at State, Osby averaged roughly 12 minutes a game, 4 ppg and 2 rpg.
Then he sat out one year while transferring.
In his two years at OU, he has averaged roughly 27 minutes, with 14 ppg and 7 rpg. By year, that was 13/7 last year and 14.5/6 so far this year.
Are you saying that the redshirt year is why he's putting up better numbers at OU? My stance would be that the talent was always there, and even as a FR he could have, with proper usage, have put up about 10/5, and his last three years at State would have been more in line with the two seasons he has had at OU. I doubt the redshirt year and playing as a fifth year is impacting his numbers much at all. As you can see, he's basically the same player this year as he was last year. The 29 last year was a career high, besting his old mark of 24 that he established last year.
Osby and Stans didn't get along. He was the odd man out..
Romero called out Stans lack of an offense when he left..
http://sdnmsu.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/breaking-news-romero-osby-transferring-from-msu-program/
Romero called out Stans lack of an offense when he left..
http://sdnmsu.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/breaking-news-romero-osby-transferring-from-msu-program/
“My decision was based on the fact that I don’t think I was able to showcase my skills and versatility as a player at Mississippi State,” Osby said. “That’s no knock on the coaching staff but the system here wasn’t really what I needed.’
Osby said he struggled finding his rhythm as a player in the four out/one in based sets because he felt uncomfortable on the perimeter as much as the offense called for.
“I felt a lot last season that I could post up my guy who was usually 6-foot-4 or 6-foot-5 and get easy buckets that way but I never had the opportunity,” Osby said. “Again, coach Stansbury’s system at Mississippi State is a winning one but it’s not for me and that was a big part of why I made this decision.”
In that Kentucky regular season game you mentioned, Osby had 5 points, 3 rebounds, and 4 personal fouls in 38 minutes. In that Florida tournament game you mentioned, he had 8 points 2 rebounds in 13 minutes - so those minutes were very good.
By comparison, Ravern had 12 points and 6 rebounds in 26 minutes in that Florida game, and when Ravern got to play against Kentucky, he had 20 points and 3 rebounds.
Osby wasn't a three and he's not playing three at Oklahoma. And I'm not sure who you are talking about that he was obviously better than ... he's not better than Ravern at the 3 and he's about the same as Kodi at the 4; does your mention of Bennock suggest that you feel he should have started at the two? Surely you realize that Riley was not a starter that year; he averaged less than 12 minutes per game. Ravern played 29 mpg.
He clearly left here thinking he was a three, but ended up playing his proper position of four at Oklahoma. If you want to criticize Stans, it would be for not getting him to accept his proper role. Having said that, he still probably would not have received the minutes he wanted and would still be gone.
By comparison, Ravern had 12 points and 6 rebounds in 26 minutes in that Florida game, and when Ravern got to play against Kentucky, he had 20 points and 3 rebounds.
Osby wasn't a three and he's not playing three at Oklahoma. And I'm not sure who you are talking about that he was obviously better than ... he's not better than Ravern at the 3 and he's about the same as Kodi at the 4; does your mention of Bennock suggest that you feel he should have started at the two? Surely you realize that Riley was not a starter that year; he averaged less than 12 minutes per game. Ravern played 29 mpg.
He clearly left here thinking he was a three, but ended up playing his proper position of four at Oklahoma. If you want to criticize Stans, it would be for not getting him to accept his proper role. Having said that, he still probably would not have received the minutes he wanted and would still be gone.
He clearly left thinking he was a 3?
In the article that Fish posted just before you posted, Osby disagrees.
Osby said he struggled finding his rhythm as a player in the four out/one in based sets because he felt uncomfortable on the perimeter as much as the offense called for.
“I felt a lot last season that I could post up my guy who was usually 6-foot-4 or 6-foot-5 and get easy buckets that way but I never had the opportunity,” Osby said.
How many 6-4 or 6-5 guys....
would Osby have been posting up at the power forward spot? He's saying that he felt he could have exploited his size against other threes. If not, then what he is saying doesn't make any sense.
would Osby have been posting up at the power forward spot? He's saying that he felt he could have exploited his size against other threes. If not, then what he is saying doesn't make any sense.
on offense Osby was likely told to play the perimeter
like everyone else except for whomever was the "one in" Augustus/Varnado/Bailey?.
Osby thought he could take whomever was guarding him out on the edge (he was not the best dribbler so this might have been wrong) but at least he could have isolated on a matchup like this and back them down, Stans probably said, "no, come sit next to me on the bench" when that happened. Lets have Barry Stewart loft one up with 3 seconds on the shot clock. I like Osby isolating against a smaller defender better than the other options we saw on offense that year. Merge Osby in with the starters and he could have developed better.
like everyone else except for whomever was the "one in" Augustus/Varnado/Bailey?.
Osby thought he could take whomever was guarding him out on the edge (he was not the best dribbler so this might have been wrong) but at least he could have isolated on a matchup like this and back them down, Stans probably said, "no, come sit next to me on the bench" when that happened. Lets have Barry Stewart loft one up with 3 seconds on the shot clock. I like Osby isolating against a smaller defender better than the other options we saw on offense that year. Merge Osby in with the starters and he could have developed better.
that doesn't make sense what you said here. Osby was a four, he remains a four.