Toggle sidebar

Simple questions about Stans w/ facts. See comments at bottom of post.

P

paindonthurt_

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2009
9,529
2,045
113
98-99: 20 and 13
schedule rank 109
loss in NIT 1st round

99-00: 14 and 16
schedule rank 77
no post season play

00-01: 18 and 13
schedule rank 31
NIT quarterfinals

01-02: 27 and 8
3 seed and loss to 6 seed texas in 2nd round. I agree it was bad luck drawing Texas in Texas.
losses to cinncinatti in league play.
zimmerman, austin, et al

02-03: 21 and 10
loss to lousiana-lafayett in first game.
Butler beat us in the first round. Definite underachievement all season after the previous years finish and the talent we had.

03-04: 26 and 4
loss to Xavier in 2nd round. I agree they were hot.

04-05: 23 and 11
losses to syracuse and arizona in non-conference play
we won the SEC west at a very mediocre 9-7. Due to this record we got a mediocre seed and loss in 2nd round to Duke.

05-06: 15 and 15
losses to northwestern state, sela, and akron before league play

06-07: 21 and 14
losses to winthrop, george mason, clemson, missouri in non-conference play
made a strong run in the NIT and got beat to WVU

07-08: 23 and 11
losses to clemson, southern illinois, miami (OH), Miami, South Alabama, in non-conference play.<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></span>
b/c of the crappy non-conference record we got screwed with playing Memphis in 2nd round

08-09: 23 and 13
losses to wash. state u, texas tech, charlotte, cinn., and san diego
b/c of this crappy non-conference record we had to win the SEC tourn. to even play in the NCAA tourn.
We also got a crappy seeding b/c of this.

09-10: we'll see. but it is starting off much like 07-08 and 08-09. Underachieve early and it kills us late.

I'll give the Texas game as bad luck, but it is still underachievement.
I'll give the Xavier game as even more bad luck, but it is still underachievement.
Butler........enough said.
Duke.........crappy seed yes. Why? Crappy conference record.
The biggest issue with me is over the last 2 years and the beginning of this year. We are losing a large amount of games we shouldn't and it is hurting us come tournament time.

Basically, I'm saying there are tons of reasons we have underachieved. Some out of our control, but THERE IS A TREND. AN 11 YEAR TREND GOING ON 12.
 
P

paindonthurt_

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2009
9,529
2,045
113
98-99: 20 and 13
schedule rank 109
loss in NIT 1st round

99-00: 14 and 16
schedule rank 77
no post season play

00-01: 18 and 13
schedule rank 31
NIT quarterfinals

01-02: 27 and 8
3 seed and loss to 6 seed texas in 2nd round. I agree it was bad luck drawing Texas in Texas.
losses to cinncinatti in league play.
zimmerman, austin, et al

02-03: 21 and 10
loss to lousiana-lafayett in first game.
Butler beat us in the first round. Definite underachievement all season after the previous years finish and the talent we had.

03-04: 26 and 4
loss to Xavier in 2nd round. I agree they were hot.

04-05: 23 and 11
losses to syracuse and arizona in non-conference play
we won the SEC west at a very mediocre 9-7. Due to this record we got a mediocre seed and loss in 2nd round to Duke.

05-06: 15 and 15
losses to northwestern state, sela, and akron before league play

06-07: 21 and 14
losses to winthrop, george mason, clemson, missouri in non-conference play
made a strong run in the NIT and got beat to WVU

07-08: 23 and 11
losses to clemson, southern illinois, miami (OH), Miami, South Alabama, in non-conference play.<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></span>
b/c of the crappy non-conference record we got screwed with playing Memphis in 2nd round

08-09: 23 and 13
losses to wash. state u, texas tech, charlotte, cinn., and san diego
b/c of this crappy non-conference record we had to win the SEC tourn. to even play in the NCAA tourn.
We also got a crappy seeding b/c of this.

09-10: we'll see. but it is starting off much like 07-08 and 08-09. Underachieve early and it kills us late.

I'll give the Texas game as bad luck, but it is still underachievement.
I'll give the Xavier game as even more bad luck, but it is still underachievement.
Butler........enough said.
Duke.........crappy seed yes. Why? Crappy conference record.
The biggest issue with me is over the last 2 years and the beginning of this year. We are losing a large amount of games we shouldn't and it is hurting us come tournament time.

Basically, I'm saying there are tons of reasons we have underachieved. Some out of our control, but THERE IS A TREND. AN 11 YEAR TREND GOING ON 12.
 
DawgatAuburn

DawgatAuburn

Well-known member
Apr 25, 2006
10,841
1,385
113
Duke.........crappy seed yes. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Why?</span> Crappy conference record.
Click to expand...
He answered it, but you could offer your answer too.
 
P

patdog

Well-known member
May 28, 2007
52,793
19,735
113
DawgatAuburn said:
Duke.........crappy seed yes. <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Why?</span> Crappy conference record.
Click to expand...
He answered it, but you could offer your answer too.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that crappy conference record didn't have anything to do with Winsome Frazier getting hurt in the 1st conference game and missing pretty much the entire conference season.
 
M

MadDawg.sixpack

New member
May 22, 2006
3,358
0
0
done each year, or at least could have done with a half-decent coach. Please be specific. It will help to demonstrate just how much we underachieve each year.
 
GhostOfJackie

GhostOfJackie

Well-known member
Apr 20, 2009
3,680
546
113
Are you saying he should be fired for this? That is where the real disagreement is with most people on this site. I can't speak for people on other boards because I rarely read them. Mostly because they are filled with stupid people who have no idea what they are talking about.

Yes, we have mostly underachieved but I still don't think he should go...... Yet.</p>
 
D

Dawgfan61

Member
Mar 2, 2008
725
99
28
Stansbury has built up plenty of goodwill and we are Mississippi State. I think its more than safe to say that he will be here for as long as he wants unless he were to miss the tourney two years in a row, then he would only be on the hot seat.
 
K

KurtRambis4

New member
Aug 30, 2006
15,926
0
0
is all this "talent" you talk of. Other than maybe 1 or 2 guys, I don't seem to remember many players under Stansbury playing in the NBA.
 
P

paindonthurt_

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2009
9,529
2,045
113
along with a timeline should be made by our AD.

It may or may not go something like this........
1. If you fail to do this or that (i don't pretend to be educated enough to fill this blank) in 2010 (this year), then you need to find an offensive assistant of which you and I both agree on. You need to give him control of teaching and calling the offensive.
2. If you fail to do this or that (see above) within the next 2 to 3 years (certain milestones should be set), then we are going in a different direction.

Something along those lines.
 
P

paindonthurt_

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2009
9,529
2,045
113
I would be happy with.................

<span style="font-style: italic;">07-08: 23 and 11</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">losses to clemson, southern illinois, miami (OH), Miami, South Alabama, in non-conference play.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">b/c of the crappy non-conference record we got screwed with playing Memphis in 2nd round</span><span style="font-weight: bold;">
Winning 2 of the 5 losses in non conference. That alone would have given us a better seeding NOT TO MENTION MORE MOMENTUM going into the regular season. My reasoning for that is with better coaching to win 2 of the 5 we probably also (by default) have better coaching to win 1 or 2 more SEC games. Bottom Line: we were better than those 5 losses. I'll say 3 losses met our talent level.
</span>
<span style="font-style: italic;">08-09: 23 and 13</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">losses to wash. state u, texas tech, charlotte, cinn., and san diego</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">b/c of this crappy non-conference record we had to win the SEC tourn. to even play in the NCAA tourn.</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">We also got a crappy seeding b/c of this.</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Winning 2 or 3 of the losses in non conference. See the exact same as above. We win more SEC games. We aren't a 9 seed. We don't play a team that matches up with us well (ala Washington).</span>

<span style="font-style: italic;">09-10: we'll see. but it is starting off much like 07-08 and 08-09. Underachieve early and it kills us late.</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold;">we should have at most 2 losses. I'd settle for 3 though. 16-3 is a whole lot better at this point that 15-4.</span>
 
P

paindonthurt_

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2009
9,529
2,045
113
I don't expect to be a power house at this point. I expect to not consistently lose to OOC teams that we should beat. We don't do that.

By default:
If we win 2 to 3 more of those games a year on average, we'll also likely win 1 or 2 more SEC games.
Then we'll likely get a higher seeding.
Then we'd have a much better shot at making it further in the tournament.
Then it be even easier to recruit this top talent that we don't have.

Are you following me here? Should I speak slower.
 
K

KurtRambis4

New member
Aug 30, 2006
15,926
0
0
Yes, I'm a moron. You got me there. You still haven't answered the question. In numerous posts of yours, you continue to talk of our "talent" as if we're some kind of NBA factory. I was just simply asking where all of this talent is? Should I "speak" slower?
 
P

paindonthurt_

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2009
9,529
2,045
113
Rider
Richmond
WKU
Alabama (currently)
San Diego
Charlotte
Miami (OH)
South Alabama

I'm too tired to name the rest of them. I know we don't have the talent to consistently make the Sweet 16 etc. We do have the talent and have had the talent to make it several times in the last 12 years. We haven't made it yet. B/c of that we continue to get less and less talent.

Its cause and effect. Logical reasoning. this happened so now that happens.
 
seshomoru

seshomoru

Active member
Apr 24, 2006
5,519
138
63
as I would expect with the caliber of players Stans consistently gets at MSU. I still can't believe he got that team a #2 seed and went undefeated on the road.

I've given up trying to make that point that his recruiting has been sub par and his coaching and player development has been quite good. Talking Bulldog basketball on here is like getting together with Pat Robertson and Nancy Pelosi and talking abortion.
 
K

KurtRambis4

New member
Aug 30, 2006
15,926
0
0
you expect us to be undefeated every year going into the SEC? As someone pointed out, you pretty much expect us to win 28-30 games a year? That's pretty freakin' incredible, regardless of schedule.

To Sesh: That's what I've always thought. Stansbury may not be John Wooden, but given the talent level that he brings in and what he does with it, it's pretty impressive...to me, at least.
 
P

paindonthurt_

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2009
9,529
2,045
113
All I ask is that we don't consistently underachieve. Underachieve 2 out of every 3 years? I can buy that. I'd rather underachieve 1 year, perform as expected 1 year, and overachieve 1 year.
 
K

KurtRambis4

New member
Aug 30, 2006
15,926
0
0
if we win every game taht we're "supposed to" that is what would happen, we would have 28-30 wins a year.
 
seshomoru

seshomoru

Active member
Apr 24, 2006
5,519
138
63
KurtRambis4 said:
To Sesh: That's what I've always thought. Stansbury may not be John Wooden, but given the talent level that he brings in and what he does with it, it's pretty impressive...to me, at least.
Click to expand...
Exactly. My biggest gripe with him is that he still brings up Ellis, Outlaw, and Bender. We're gonna hear about Sidney forever now, too. I'm sick of the what ifs, but I'm also pretty sure that if he gets a certifiable star like that into school then he's got the coaching "goods" to make a deep run. Stans needs a Melvin. Or a World Wide Wes.
 
K

KurtRambis4

New member
Aug 30, 2006
15,926
0
0
**Editors Note: Last year only 4 teams won 28+ games that were in the NCAA tourney. 3 of them were #1 seeds and one was a 2 seed. I'm sure if I looked past last season it would be more of the same.
 
P

paindonthurt_

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2009
9,529
2,045
113
Where have I said we should be undefeated in OOC? I said we have the talent to have beaten all 3 OOC teams we lost to. If we had lost to 2 of those and then Bama, we'd be in a lot better shape right now. Same thing last year. If we don't lose to 5 OOC teams (say we lose 2 or 3 games). We have a higher seed going into the NCAA tournament (even if we don't win the SEC tourn.).
 
M

MadDawg.sixpack

New member
May 22, 2006
3,358
0
0
I'm not beating around any Bush. In a year we won 23 games, you say we should have won 2-3 more non-conf and 2-3 more conf games. That would be 27-29 wins. And like I said, that's great and all. Just not sure how realistic it is. It also explains why there is such a disconnect between the pro- and anti-Stans folks. Some are grounded in reality while some think we should win 30 games a year and never lose a game we shouldn't.

It's hard for anyone to defend losing a game we shouldn't. But it's just as ridiculous to demand perfection in a game where upsets happen all the time.
 
J

Johnson85

New member
Nov 22, 2009
1,206
0
0
it's the problems that are never addressed. Clearly Stans and/or his staff do some things right to have the success they've had. But I would say that save for a few years, there has been an inability to run much of an offense, and much worse, an inability to execute set plays either in the half court or on inbounds plays.

Rightly or wrongly, people think of this as a good sign that someone can't coach, probably because so many schools can execute on offense. When people see a team full of inferior talent scoring b/c they are playing smart, using screens correctly, and generally running an offense, people wonder why that coach can do it and not Stansbury. Some of this is probably not fair. A lot of the smaller schools can probably execute b/c when picking through the leftovers of bigger schools, the good coaches probably grab plenty of smart players that just miss being athletic enough toget schollies to big name programs.

Meanwhile, the things stansbury's teamsdo well, such as defend and (save the past twoyears) rebound, apparently just don't impress people as a result of good coaching.Clearly ateam that consistently rebounds and plays defense iswell coached, but it's just not as impressive, especially when the defense is relatively passive.I've seen plenty of games where at the end of the game, nothing about the D stood out, but you look at the box scores and the other teams FG% was horrendous. I'm guessing Stans would get more credit if his D's were aggressive and trapping, even if the end result wasn't any better.

While I'm not close to jumping on the fire Stansbury wagon, I amfrustrated with our inability to execute on offense; clearly we're fine if we're shooting well, but to be good you really have to have a way to generate points when you're having an off shooting night.I know people like to know our talent, but I think our talent this year is good enough to be a top 15 team. If we could have spent another $200k to get an offensive guru on the staff, I would thinkhe would have paid for himself. There might be some tradeoff if time was taken away from rebound/defensive drills, but Ithink it would have been worth a shot. Also, it's worth remembering that Stansbury became a head coachat a fairly young age. He probablycould still learn a lot from rotating in a new assistant with a particular specialty every three to four years.
 
K

KurtRambis4

New member
Aug 30, 2006
15,926
0
0
I'll give it one more try. Until the bama game, we only had 3 losses. If you are saying that we have the talent to beat all 3 of those opponents, then does that mean you expected us to beat all 3 of those opponents (and be undefeated)? Is that not correct? Maybe I'm missing something? So either you're saying we have better talent (which i agree with) than the 3 OOC teams and should have beaten them (and be undefeated), or you are saying that we have better talent than the 3 OOC teams and shouldn't have beaten them???</p>
 
P

paindonthurt_

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2009
9,529
2,045
113
I said in my original posts that:

We are better/more talented than all 3 teams that beat us, but I expected we'd lose 1 or 2 we shouldn't. It happens to to teams that aren't great and even to some that are. I also specifically stated that 16-3 would be a whole lot better than 15-4. Did I not? Simple yes or no will suffice.

A better argument there would be looking back at 07 and 08 where we lost 5 OOC games. I also stated there that if we had just lost 2 or 3 of those 5 we would have not underachieved.

I don't expect any of that every year. I expect it 40 to 50% of the time. I don't expect to underachieve every 17ing year. Every single 17ing year.
 
M

MadDawg.sixpack

New member
May 22, 2006
3,358
0
0
The perception is we can't/don't run any plays on offense due to poor coaching. The reality is that we are one of the better scoring SEC teams. Perception is that without pressing all the time and constantly rotating defensive sets, we appear lazy on defense due ultimately topoor coaching. Reality is that we are very good defensively and, as you said,several teams have horrendous shooting %'s against us.

If I had to be critical of Stans it would be that we seem to start every year off slow, and might lose a game or two early that we shouldn't. The trade-off is that we get better as the year goes along and are usually playing our best come February.
 
P

paindonthurt_

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2009
9,529
2,045
113
he is clearly not an offensive guy. If we can't shoot we can't score. Like against Alabama.
 
P

patdog

Well-known member
May 28, 2007
52,793
19,735
113
paindonthurt said:
If we can't shoot we can't score.
Click to expand...
there are very few teams that can scorewhenthey can't shoot. Every coach talkedabout on this board as being so much better than Stans has teams go through scoring droughts because they aren't shooting well.
 
J

Johnson85

New member
Nov 22, 2009
1,206
0
0
but I think where Stansbury is limited is that we don't seem to do a great job working the ball to get a high percentage shot when we need a bucket and three's aren't falling.

Part of the problem with this year is simply a lack of a dominant offensive player; we just don't have anybody that can power his way to a high percentage shot. That would make "coaching" a lot easier for Stansbury. With this team, if the threes aren't falling, and you need to get the team some confidence, I think the best options are either JV getting the ball on the block, Bost penetrating, or Kodi getting the ball in the high post with some space, none of which are as good as Rhodes on the block or high post or getting Gordon in position to score.

Even when we have had thatkind of option, it hasn't seemed like we've taken advantage of it as well as we should, and that it cost us some games we could have won where we weren't playing well.

Even so, this year we've basically played a good 1/2 to 3/4 game against UM, a good 1/2 versus Ark, less than a good l/2 v. UGA and came away with wins. I'd like to see us play better, but it is a good sign that we're winning games where we aren't playing well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom