so Turner with 14 rebounds...
- Thread starter cps36
- Start date
Benock 15 minutes, Osby with only 13. That is amazing. Osby may go off on Stans next.
Turner actually played 2 more minutes than Barry. That's got to be a first. Looks like they both struggled with their shot, but Phil was much more productive.
Nice game tonight Rider.
Turner actually played 2 more minutes than Barry. That's got to be a first. Looks like they both struggled with their shot, but Phil was much more productive.
Nice game tonight Rider.
Something about basketball season that brings the stupidity out.
Fire Stans because a ninth grade baseball "coach" says so!!!!!</p>
Fire Stans because a ninth grade baseball "coach" says so!!!!!</p>
I really expected Osby to get 25 to 30 minutes in these 2 games that Kodi is suspended. Pretty shocking that he only played 13. I don't want to bash Benock, but we know what he brings to the table.
I would love to see that lineup with Barry coming off the bench like he did as a freshman, but we all know that won't happen.
He said something on the lines of how much better Benock will be as the season goes on. There is no reason for Osby to not have at least 20 minutes vs Bethune Cookman on Saturday.
I really just don't pay attention to basketball until the season gets underway.
As I have said many times, I have a love/hate relationship with Stans. I love him for what he can do (win fairly consistently, SEC titles, recruiting) and I hate him for what he can't do (develop players, run an offense, play the right players, get to the Sweet 16).
As I have said many times, I have a love/hate relationship with Stans. I love him for what he can do (win fairly consistently, SEC titles, recruiting) and I hate him for what he can't do (develop players, run an offense, play the right players, get to the Sweet 16).
I expected Osby's minutes to go up some too, but one thing that could be the reason why Benock got more minutes instead of Osby is defense. Osby is a lot better than he was last year in every way, but he still gets lost some on defense and I noticed tonight he struggles getting around, through, or over screens. Benock is a good defender. So with Turner starting at the 4 tonight, that left more minutes to be had at the guard spots, so maybe Stans went with Benock more because of his defense. I'm not trying to justify it because I think Osby should play more too, but I think that is somewhat sound reasoning also. Plus its a two minute difference. Its not like some great injustice was shown by giving Benock more minutes than Osby. One last thing, Benock played very good tonight and earned all those minutes he got tonight.
the past 4 years, it's not so hot.
This year it's Brian Bryant who is a 2 star.
Last year it was Lewis and Smith, 2 star and 3 star. Sidney kind of fell in our lap and may never suit up for us. Riek is a project.
2 years ago, it was Twanny, Holcombe, Bost, and Osby.
3 years ago, it was Benock, Bailey, Ravern, and Augustus. Ravern was a 4 star the rest were 2 and 3 stars.
So looking at the past 4 classes, counting the current signee, I only really like 4 players: Ravern, Augustus, Bost, and Osby. Recruiting hasn't been awful, but it's not as great as some perceive.
This year it's Brian Bryant who is a 2 star.
Last year it was Lewis and Smith, 2 star and 3 star. Sidney kind of fell in our lap and may never suit up for us. Riek is a project.
2 years ago, it was Twanny, Holcombe, Bost, and Osby.
3 years ago, it was Benock, Bailey, Ravern, and Augustus. Ravern was a 4 star the rest were 2 and 3 stars.
So looking at the past 4 classes, counting the current signee, I only really like 4 players: Ravern, Augustus, Bost, and Osby. Recruiting hasn't been awful, but it's not as great as some perceive.
The answer to question is in your post. And it has to do with Turner playing the 4. Stansbury's reluctance to play Turner at the 2 or 3 has led to fewer minutes for Osby and Augustus for that matter.
This was the first game I've been to this year, but I was under the impression that Turner was playing guard more this year since Kodi had stepped up. I thought the only reason Turner played the 4 tonight was because of Kodi's suspension, and I got no problem with that. I'd rather Turner start there than Osby or any of our other bigs since he is arguably one of our five best players.
Also, to the people that think Turner should start, this is why I don't think he does and why I don't think he should - I'll start by saying I think he is one of our five best players, but I think the best role for him considering the rest of the guys on the team is as the 6th man because he can be a great spark and energy coming off the bench. That's a good thing to have and something that some teams struggle to find. If Turner were to start, I think the guy that would sit would be Ravern, and I don't think that he would be as good for us if he were coming off the bench. I just don't see him providing that spark and energy that Turner does. A good and similar example is what the Spurs and Mavericks do with Manu Ginobli and Jason Terry. There's no question those guys are better than the guys that start ahead of them, but those guys fill the 6th man role so much better than anyone else would. Lastly, it matters a lot more who finishes the game than it does who starts it. So I like Turner coming off the bench as long as he's on the floor at to end the games which Stans typically does.
Also, to the people that think Turner should start, this is why I don't think he does and why I don't think he should - I'll start by saying I think he is one of our five best players, but I think the best role for him considering the rest of the guys on the team is as the 6th man because he can be a great spark and energy coming off the bench. That's a good thing to have and something that some teams struggle to find. If Turner were to start, I think the guy that would sit would be Ravern, and I don't think that he would be as good for us if he were coming off the bench. I just don't see him providing that spark and energy that Turner does. A good and similar example is what the Spurs and Mavericks do with Manu Ginobli and Jason Terry. There's no question those guys are better than the guys that start ahead of them, but those guys fill the 6th man role so much better than anyone else would. Lastly, it matters a lot more who finishes the game than it does who starts it. So I like Turner coming off the bench as long as he's on the floor at to end the games which Stans typically does.
I like Turner off the bench as well, but in the game at crunch time instead of Ravern. Not saying he is anywhere the caliber of player that JT is, but the things they do and the energy they bring aver very similar. Good comparison.
Benock....I have tried for three years to like him. I keep thinking he's a guy who can come in off the bench and if left open, stroke an open three. But his three point percentage has gone down every year. Granted there are only two games thus far, but I am just not seeing a guy deserving of 13-15 minutes a night.
Benock....I have tried for three years to like him. I keep thinking he's a guy who can come in off the bench and if left open, stroke an open three. But his three point percentage has gone down every year. Granted there are only two games thus far, but I am just not seeing a guy deserving of 13-15 minutes a night.
and you weren't. Benock played better than Osby last night, on defense, got a couple of steals, hustled harder. Not to say Osby played bad, I think he should get more minutes generally speaking. But how can you say Benock shouldn't see the floor? He's a good 7th man and the team played well when he was in last night.
I agree for the most part, but it it might be more along the lines of love/be frustrated with for me. However, you need to swap the two in the bold. Stansbury gets far, far, far to much credit for his recruiting, and far, far, far to little credit for developing players. Signing McDonald's All-Americans that don't show up on campus doesn't count. He basically brings in a four star here and there, a few threes, and then nabs a Benock or Turner. He brings in ok classes.AzzurriDawg4 said:
As for player development, just look at where guys like Bowers, Frazier, Rhodes, Varnado, Turner, and Zimmerman started as freshmen versus how they finished (or are currently). I think Stans gets far too much **** for dubmasses like Sharpe instead of getting credit for how much better most of our players are by the time they finish their careers.
he was on Varnado and got him to commit early...soon thereafter, schools were all over the guy.
No one wanted Phil Turner or Barry Stewart.
His recruiting prowess is mostly shown in his owning the State of MS. Whenever there are top players in MS worth getting, we get them. Raverne, Osby, Smith.
No one wanted Phil Turner or Barry Stewart.
His recruiting prowess is mostly shown in his owning the State of MS. Whenever there are top players in MS worth getting, we get them. Raverne, Osby, Smith.
Some guy named Scotty Hopson. Excpet when everybody else showed up, he ditched us and took the money.8Dog said:
Phil Turner is our second best player. He needs to be on the floor. And if we put him at guard, we can then put one of our most talented players at the 4.
Raverne is a great spark off the bench. He is nothing but offense and that's the kind of guy you want. You know, like the microwave Vinny Johnson.
Raverne is a great spark off the bench. He is nothing but offense and that's the kind of guy you want. You know, like the microwave Vinny Johnson.
Agree completely. We recruit ok, but we're not exactly getting NBA guys on campus. But when you think about how far players like Zimmerman, Bowers, Frazier, Rhodes, Varnado, and Turner came on during their careers you could say they were developed.Seshomoru said:
Stans has had two top 25 classes in the past five years. The first of those included Monta Ellis, the second, last years, includes Sidney and Reik.
Stans didn't want Phil Turner either. He was a very late offer after we missed on a couple of other guys.
He's missed on a few really good MS players like Mo Williams, Justin Reed, and Courtney Fells but for the most part, he does do very well in MS. He did a great job recruiting Varnado and holding onto him after Varnado had a big summer on the AAU circuit. Next year will be a big test because there are 3 or 4 really good in-state players.
Stans didn't want Phil Turner either. He was a very late offer after we missed on a couple of other guys.
He's missed on a few really good MS players like Mo Williams, Justin Reed, and Courtney Fells but for the most part, he does do very well in MS. He did a great job recruiting Varnado and holding onto him after Varnado had a big summer on the AAU circuit. Next year will be a big test because there are 3 or 4 really good in-state players.
and rightly so based on all the points made in this thread. The player development might have shifted as well. I know for at least the first half/75% of his reign here, we had trouble developing big men. It had me convinced Kirby was an idiot. Tang Hamilton, Tyrone Washington, Big Feces, etc, I really don't think those guys (among many others I don't feel like listing) got any better while they were at State. I really think Charles and Swat are exceptions to the rule. I don't know what the difference is....maybe Marcus Grant. Who knows.
I truly believe Bowers was that good right when he stepped on campus. Zimmerman just harnessed his athleticism and committed to being a defensive beast. Did their games really improve though (versus just maturing)? Something that could definitely be attributed to coaching? Its not like they became more technical or became better shooters, we still didn't know how to effectively and regularly get the ball into the post in a good position, our offense was still stagnant, we just asked these guys to out-athlete everyone else and for the most part they did (until they ran into good athletes that were coached up).
I truly believe Bowers was that good right when he stepped on campus. Zimmerman just harnessed his athleticism and committed to being a defensive beast. Did their games really improve though (versus just maturing)? Something that could definitely be attributed to coaching? Its not like they became more technical or became better shooters, we still didn't know how to effectively and regularly get the ball into the post in a good position, our offense was still stagnant, we just asked these guys to out-athlete everyone else and for the most part they did (until they ran into good athletes that were coached up).
He is getting enough minutes. Whether they come in the first 4 minutes or not. The problem is that he should be playing 2.
Osby subbed for Turner and Johnson. Turner played more minutes than Stewart. Because of injuries and suspensions, Benock is our only guard coming off the bench. Saying "Stansbury should be fired for letting Benock play at all" makes you a dubmass. Well at least its more evidence of that fact.
Phil is our second best player. Agreed.
Just because he can play 4 doesn't mean he should.
Ravern looked like a player last night vs. a crap team...much like he did in the pre-conference schedule last season, but his defensive effort last night was awful. To his credit he had a couple of aggressive offensive moves, but about 90% of the time he looked like a *****. Locking him in at the 3 for big minutes is a bad mistake. Insisting that Phil play the 4 is an awful mistake. Randy (2 for 10) and Barry (4 for 6) are too inconsistent to be relied upon as scorers, especially as we begin to face better defenses into the SEC schedule. Couple that with Ravern's hot/cold shooting and you have the recipe for LOSING on any given night against anyone with no production from the 2-3.
Benock looked pretty decent but he isn't the answer. He should play in a very limited role behind (Dee/Phil/Barry) at the guard spots and also behind (Osby/Augustus/Ravern) at the 3/4. Develop Osby now, that is what we should be doing. Not getting abused by Washington in the NCAA tournament and putting Osby in then....? He needs minutes.
In summary, our team has more than its share of pussies on it. Randy/Barry (both of them), Ravern, Benock, ~maybe Osby because he is a whiner~ and Jarvis (just because he has failed to gain any weight and often gets taken to the hole). When we get too many of those guys in there at once (which is often with the lineup combinations we have seen so far this season) we have tendency to get smacked around. Dee, Phil, and Kodi get after it and don't fall into this category. These three guys pick up the other team members and make us a better team, especially Phil.
Just because he can play 4 doesn't mean he should.
Ravern looked like a player last night vs. a crap team...much like he did in the pre-conference schedule last season, but his defensive effort last night was awful. To his credit he had a couple of aggressive offensive moves, but about 90% of the time he looked like a *****. Locking him in at the 3 for big minutes is a bad mistake. Insisting that Phil play the 4 is an awful mistake. Randy (2 for 10) and Barry (4 for 6) are too inconsistent to be relied upon as scorers, especially as we begin to face better defenses into the SEC schedule. Couple that with Ravern's hot/cold shooting and you have the recipe for LOSING on any given night against anyone with no production from the 2-3.
Benock looked pretty decent but he isn't the answer. He should play in a very limited role behind (Dee/Phil/Barry) at the guard spots and also behind (Osby/Augustus/Ravern) at the 3/4. Develop Osby now, that is what we should be doing. Not getting abused by Washington in the NCAA tournament and putting Osby in then....? He needs minutes.
In summary, our team has more than its share of pussies on it. Randy/Barry (both of them), Ravern, Benock, ~maybe Osby because he is a whiner~ and Jarvis (just because he has failed to gain any weight and often gets taken to the hole). When we get too many of those guys in there at once (which is often with the lineup combinations we have seen so far this season) we have tendency to get smacked around. Dee, Phil, and Kodi get after it and don't fall into this category. These three guys pick up the other team members and make us a better team, especially Phil.
that Turner finds a way on the floor because of his toughness. However he claims that he is not as quick as his other perimeter players and that is why he plays more in the front court. Osby is a good player and will get better with time but he still does not play full speed all the time because he is still learning the game. The coaches are high on Benock because he plays within his abilities. Everyone gets frustrated about him not shooting but he normally gives solid minutes.
Turner is as quick as anyone on the team, save Bost. The guy is a hard nosed player. He is a heck of an athlete...think about how many rebounds he gets to in the paint. He has to be able to both jump high, position himself, and be quick enough to the spot in order to rebound so well as a 6'3 post player.captaindawg said:
I'll continue to not understand why Turner isnt in the game as a perimeter player with 2 actual bigs down low more often. We could maybe win a friggin the rebounding stat for a game that way.
And Turner seems just as consistent from deep as anyone on the team. He was the 2nd best 3pt shooter last season, and he is shooting it well so far. And he had the best overall shooting % of the perimeter players last season. I mean damn!!!
I recall having this exact same discussion concerning Stewart vs Turner with either you or Hanmudog or Scoobadog about 5 games into last year's season.
Same song different verse. Turner needs to play.
the fact that we have the same discussions about obvious player substitution or playing patterns makes you want to bang your head against the wall.
One last comment about Turner vs Stewart. I would be interested for someone with time or interest to compare variance and standard deviations of the shooting %'s of Turner with Stewart's and Ravern's. My hypothesis being that Turner has less variability from game to game whereas one game Stewart goes 1-9 and the next game goes 5-6. The problem is when both Stewart and Ravern have an "off" night we SUCK badly. We wonder how we can lose with Dee and Varnado doing pretty decently. Thats how.
Same song different verse. Turner needs to play.
the fact that we have the same discussions about obvious player substitution or playing patterns makes you want to bang your head against the wall.
One last comment about Turner vs Stewart. I would be interested for someone with time or interest to compare variance and standard deviations of the shooting %'s of Turner with Stewart's and Ravern's. My hypothesis being that Turner has less variability from game to game whereas one game Stewart goes 1-9 and the next game goes 5-6. The problem is when both Stewart and Ravern have an "off" night we SUCK badly. We wonder how we can lose with Dee and Varnado doing pretty decently. Thats how.