The reason Stans will never get us to where we want to go ...

[msugolf]

I don't know how many of you have actually known an MSU player (my roommate was on the bkball team) but if you are halfway close to them then you'll quickly understand where are problems lie. Stans is a big believer in "playing with toughness" or "wanting it more than them", basically a big emotion type of coach. That can only take you so far. He does very little scheming, game-planning, which is why so many of his teams always seem to run into problems when facing well-coached teams in critical situations. The bottom line is you shouldn't have to rely on being emotional if you have a good plan. Hell, you shouldn't have to worry about emotion in D1 athletics regardless because of pride. But Stans gets away with it because he always has average to slightly above average talent in a weak division of a weak conference. Anyone who has ever been successful at a sport at a high level will tell you that the days they came to the game not thinking about emotion, but instead focused on a plan and execution were the days they probably were more likely to come away with a victory. I think its good to have both but emotion only lasts for the first minute or 2 and then it's gone; after that you better have a damn good idea of what you're trying to accomplish or you're gonna be at the end of the line when the day is over.<div>
</div><div>IMO, Stans' teams wear their emotions on their sleeves, they get rattled, there is no sense of team chemistry or plan, and there is always drama within the team. That is very poor leadership characteristics by the coach(es) that lead to a team and its players becoming frustrated, each one feeling like it has to carry the team themselves, bickering between players, which all leads to failure.</div>

 

[Thick]

The 2 common themes are he's a players' coach and he plays favorites, which in my opinion is the death penalty in coaching any sport. Players' coach is ok at times, but only if you are coaching them up and holding them accountable for poor performance - Stands doesn't do it. Playing favorites - just creates animosity anong the team and results in poor team chemistry (examples: Hans and the Delks).

 

[demarkcus cuzins]

Well I damn sure didn't see much emotion in these last two most important games of the season. I know we constantly are getting 20 win seasons and ****, but I would rather take a chance on a new coach. I say give Stans one more year to try and keep Sidney here, then if the same ole **** happens again, show his *** the door. If we flop with our new coach, then 17 it, it is better than being on the bubble every year b/c you lost games you shouldn't have and can't get up for big games and don't game plan. That's just a big 17ing tease. I'd rather take a chance on someone who can take us to the next level. It might or might not work, but taking bigger risk can get you bigger reward.

 

[weblow]

It is simple. He doesn't posses the knowledge or the understanding of how to coach his teams at this level. The lack of improvement in Stans players year to year should make it obvious.

He doesn't have the basketball knowledge and obviously, based on his half time interview tonight, he lacks 3rd grade grammar.

 

[alabamadog]

msugolf wrote: Anyone who has ever been successful at a sport at a high level will tell you that the days they came to the game not thinking about emotion, but instead focused on a plan and execution were the days they probably were more likely to come away with a victory. I think its good to have both but emotion only lasts for the first minute or 2 and then it's gone; after that you better have a damn good idea of what you're trying to accomplish or you're gonna be at the end of the line when the day is over.

Emotion helps but focusing on a game plan and execution really helps you control your emotion.

 

[Todd4State]

is because we actually had guys that could play with emotion and could play hard. Like Timmy Bowers, Frazier, Vincent, Power, Charles Rhodes, Zimmerman, and etc.

Stansbury's style to me is pretty much, defend, rebound, and then run a very basic offense that his guys can handle without thinking too much. It has been pretty effective so far. But let's look at our team.

This team has:

Dee Bost- A guy who probably will fit Stansbury's mold, but he has yet to step up as a leader consistently.

Barry Stewart- A guy that tried to lead, but when he did he forced shots and set a NCAA record for air balls.

Ravern- A guy who can not play defense.

Kodi- A guy who has an attitude problem.

Varnado- A guy who while he is an awesome defender, he is lacking on the offensive end. This is a problem because we can't count on him as a go to guy when our threes aren't falling like we could with Lawrence Roberts, Mario Austin, or heck even Charles Rhodes.

So, we only have a couple, maybe three guys who can defend, and one guy who is a consistent rebounder. I think that's the problem right now.

And that's what worries me about next year- we lose our top two defensive guys, and I seriously doubt that Ravern is going to become a good defender overnight, and as of now Renardo has yet to play a game for us. The only guys that we return that are even halfway good defenders are Dee, Benock, and Phil.

 

[Todd4State]

The 2 common themes are he's a players' coach and he plays favorites, which in my opinion is the death penalty in coaching any sport. Players' coach is ok at times, but only if you are coaching them up and holding them accountable for poor performance - Stands doesn't do it. Playing favorites - just creates animosity anong the team and results in poor team chemistry (examples: Hans and the Delks).

Barry Stewart?

And the favorites thing is why Riley Benock is probably our shooting guard next year.

 

[Thick]

player for UT move the most, while the perimeter defenders never had to fight through multiple screens out side of the one that JV set. Then when we shoot no one goes to the glass except for the post player who is already down there sometimes, because the perimeter players are standing there admiring the shot instead of forcing the defense to keep them off of the offensive glass.

RS is incapable of allowing anyone besides himself to make in game decisions, those bench "coaches" (use that term lightly) are nothing more than stat keepers. The problem starts at the top

 

[LR1400]

It is best to plan and rely on things you can control - your offensive game plan, defensive game plan, etc. To rely on things you cannot control is a bad idea. If you are relying on getting your team emotionally "up" or hoping the other team is flat you are an idiot. Focus on the things you have control over.

 

[Irondawg]

1) He wasa big fan of not relying on emotion to win games. He wanted other teams to have to rise to a level they had already attained as their baseline through tough practice.

2) He wasn't a fan of having to scream and holler during games b/c he believe that if he hadn't gotten them ready to play by gametime and taught them what they needed to know then they weren't going to figure it out with one more minute of yelling at them.

3) He was always honest with guys about their roles on the team. Many didn't like it but they respected him enough to accept the roles. I know times have changed in this area a lot with player mentalities

 

[LR1400]

I agree with Wooden.

You don't have to tell the players their roles until they get on campus either