Take that Coonass34...#4 in the nation...
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
it really doesn't matter - people don't look at Sweet 16's etc. They look at tourney appearances. And although Stans has sucked as of late, and I am the first that says he should be making the tournament - we are still regarded with respect nationally.
<span style="font-style: italic;">Why I am getting this started?</span>
<span style="font-style: italic;">Why I am getting this started?</span>
As much as he's right about it... I'm just tired of seeing 34's rants. They were entertaining for a while, but his relentlessness knows no bounds.
I just don't see anything on the offensive end of the floor from him as far as coaching, and he is a horrible floor coach. I think he is good at recruiting good college basketball players, that do not necessarily turn into NBA players..
Stans is a much better coach than a lot of people think he is. Of course, he could be just average and still be a lot better than some think he is. But the fact is, he'sa good coach. Not a great one, but a good one. But he is a little overrated by most as a recruiter. He's a pretty good recruiter, but he's really only brought in a small number of All-Conference type players. And no NBA talent at all.
the unfortunate thing is that his recruiting the past few years has not matched up well with what his strengths are on coaching - which is defense and rebounding. If there was one constant with our team when we did well - we could defend and rebound. Unfortunately, we are recruiting 6'6 165 pound shooting guards.
It's pretty obvious that Stans has tried to change his philosophy in the past 5 or so years from playing defense, rebounding, and strong inside scoring to trying to play a more wide open 3-point shooting style. He's also recruited a lot more players who think they're stars than he has blue coller players like he used to have. We haven't been as good since he changed. We need to be somewhere between the two styles of play, but if we're going to be one or the other, it needs to be defense, rebounding and inside scoring.
But he was too fat and out of shape.. This year should be different if we have an in-shape RSS and with the addition of Moultre and a more experienced Lewis. I think Bailey could have really helped with depth last year, but we all know how that worked out.
Live and by by the RSS.....
Live and by by the RSS.....
all points are well taken. I will say this, however, if we land Ware and Pollard after this year's class, the recruiting credentials have to go up.
He's a great coach when we are playing terrible non-conference teams or in the SEC tournament. The rest of the time....meh. He struggles.
Why do you think Stans was the only coach to vote against doing away with the divisions? He has the most to lose, no more West titles, he will be judged on his record vs the whole conference from now on....
And also with Stans. Divisions are our best shot at advancing.
Not that I give a crap about Stans, he's the present coach.
McCarthy was the coach when I was at MSU, so I've seen a bunch of them.
Still, what I said.
And although I've been around DS for over a decade, I never knew he delved into basketball that much.
Not that I give a crap about Stans, he's the present coach.
McCarthy was the coach when I was at MSU, so I've seen a bunch of them.
Still, what I said.
And although I've been around DS for over a decade, I never knew he delved into basketball that much.
Define compete....that's not sarcasm. I just want to understand the definition more clearly because in my book, we have lost our competitive edge in the last seven years.
Admittedly some of these numbers are cherry picked, but they are all within the last seven years. In that time:
We've won double digit games in the SEC once in the last seven years. We've won 8 or 9 games five times. We're 10 games over .500 in that time span. To me that's average, not competitive. When I think competitive, I think of the top of the league, not the middle. I guess my scale is non-competitive, average, and competitive. If you want to count close losses, then maybe we are competitive, but the dreaded moral victories don't show up in the stats.
We have as many seasons of no post-season as we do NCAAs in the last six years.
I can't tell you how many significant out of conference wins we've had in the last seven years, but it has to be a small number and almost equal to the number of bad OOC losses we've had in that time.
We've been pretty good in the SEC tournament, which is a plus.
Here's hoping Stans is reinvigorated this year and we return to a team concept. Nothing more fun that winning basketball games in March.
Admittedly some of these numbers are cherry picked, but they are all within the last seven years. In that time:
We've won double digit games in the SEC once in the last seven years. We've won 8 or 9 games five times. We're 10 games over .500 in that time span. To me that's average, not competitive. When I think competitive, I think of the top of the league, not the middle. I guess my scale is non-competitive, average, and competitive. If you want to count close losses, then maybe we are competitive, but the dreaded moral victories don't show up in the stats.
We have as many seasons of no post-season as we do NCAAs in the last six years.
I can't tell you how many significant out of conference wins we've had in the last seven years, but it has to be a small number and almost equal to the number of bad OOC losses we've had in that time.
We've been pretty good in the SEC tournament, which is a plus.
Here's hoping Stans is reinvigorated this year and we return to a team concept. Nothing more fun that winning basketball games in March.
I would think that has to have some credence since it is on a neutral floor and beating an LSU and Tenn to win it a couple of years ago says that our coach can coach. We should have beat Calipari too but that is for another day's discussion concerning the officiating bias in this league. Nobody is arguing that this is a critical year in the league, divisions or not, but regardless of coach34's and his buddy DawgatAuburn preach, we could do a lot worse than Stans.
But the chances of going back instead of forwards is pretty high. Me personally, I think the sport that we probably have the best shot at winning a championship is basketball and I just don't think Stans has it in him.
...it has to be at least in part due to Stansbury. For me it would be baseball. We have far more tradition there, and as has been pointed out repeatedly, it's easier to make the field in baseball.
I think everyone would say the last 5 years aren't what we'd hoped, and we're still 21-18 vs the SEC East in that time frame (including the SECT, 15-15 without). Going back 10 years, we're 39-36 vs the East. <div>
</div><div>Those records tell me that Stans reputation being built on winning vs the West is a little overblown, and just another myth that the detractors use to discredit him.</div><div>
</div><div>21-18 isn't great, but if that's the better side of the league by far, then it could certainly be considered competitive. I guess it depends on what you consider competitive and/or average. </div><div>
</div><div>If we went a little above .500 in any major conference in all of football each year, we'd be 8-4 or 7-5 and in a decent bowl each year. Sure that'd leave you hoping for more and after a while (when you had gotten used to being 7-5) you would start to consider that mediocre because you had gotten used to success and would naturally want to take the next step.</div><div>
</div><div>If we continue to average 7-5 to 8-4 in football for the next 5-7 years with 1 or 2 down years in football, we'll probably start longing for more and expecting more too, whereas now we're thrilled with that kind of season</div>
</div><div>Those records tell me that Stans reputation being built on winning vs the West is a little overblown, and just another myth that the detractors use to discredit him.</div><div>
</div><div>21-18 isn't great, but if that's the better side of the league by far, then it could certainly be considered competitive. I guess it depends on what you consider competitive and/or average. </div><div>
</div><div>If we went a little above .500 in any major conference in all of football each year, we'd be 8-4 or 7-5 and in a decent bowl each year. Sure that'd leave you hoping for more and after a while (when you had gotten used to being 7-5) you would start to consider that mediocre because you had gotten used to success and would naturally want to take the next step.</div><div>
</div><div>If we continue to average 7-5 to 8-4 in football for the next 5-7 years with 1 or 2 down years in football, we'll probably start longing for more and expecting more too, whereas now we're thrilled with that kind of season</div>
I'd be hard pressed to make a compelling argument trying to convince anyone that Stans isn't a good coach. If anything, I really think he's a good coach, but to bring a little bit more clarity to my point, I feel that no matter how good a coach is they're usually always going to have a ceiling with how far they'll be able to take a program. It's rare that you find a coach K type that will more than likely retire at Duke and still continue his success there even to the very end of his tenure. Right now, I just don't think Stans can take us any further than what he already has. Not trying to say he's a bad coach, I just don't think he can take MSU further than what he has.<div>
</div><div>And you're right about the baseball comment. I got ahead of myself with that statement adding a little bit of which I would like to see more so between basketball and baseball.</div>
</div><div>And you're right about the baseball comment. I got ahead of myself with that statement adding a little bit of which I would like to see more so between basketball and baseball.</div>