Grading Rick Stansbury and MSU Basketball...

[DowntownDawg]

At the end of the day, I think we are all fairly proud of this team for nutting up and going 18-6 after a terrible 5-5 start.

Rick has definitely improved as a "floor coach," despite what fishwater and Peaches say, which, by the way, encompasses way more than when to switch to a zone, or when to call a timeout. I'd even go so far as to say that he has turned into a pretty damn good gameplanner. Yesterday's gameplan was great, the gameplan against South Carolina was great, and that happened several times this year. In fact, the only gameplan that I fault him for this season would be Georgia. I am still at loss as to why we didn't run them up and down the floor. His in game decision making could still improve at times, but overall, he is so much better than he used to be, you have to give the man some credit.

To those that say his biggest weakness is his "floor coaching," prepare yourselves for the offseason. We could lose 3 starters, or we could lose 1, and that will go a long way in determining who we are next year. The offseasons are way too rocky and eventful, and we are not still playing for 3 primary reasons: 1) The start, 2) the Vandy game, and 3) The Georgia game. Starting out 5-5 is the biggest reason, and it's hard to put that on the team. 3 new starters, zero proven depth, and a tough schedule, and that's what you get. As much as we all dislike the Delks now, we don't start out 5-5 if they are still on the team, and you have to put some of that on the shoulders of Rick, not because he can control a kid with a sorry attitude, but because there definitely appears to be some issues with him having control of the thing. I understand that you can have some bad apples (Sharpe), but if you have this many people leaving prematurely, either you are recruiting the wrong kinds of players, or you lack the ability to get them to come in and want to be a part of a winning program. Also, shouldn't have run off Rimmer. He could've given us some sorely needed minutes at times this year.

I single out the Vandy game because we had a chance to win that game, and it definitely would've affected seeding, and we would've won had it not been for a super human effort by Shan Foster.

And obviously Georgia. What can you say about that? We would've been a borderline 7, and State would've beaten any of the 2 seeds yesterday, save maybe Texas.

All in all, I applaud the job that Rick and the team did on the court this season, considering the circumstances that hamstrung us at the beginning of the year, and now I hold my breath until practice starts next fall. If we only have two returning starters, you can forget the dance. We simply can't continue the trend of players leaving the program.

 

[DowntownDawg]

At the end of the day, I think we are all fairly proud of this team for nutting up and going 18-6 after a terrible 5-5 start.

Rick has definitely improved as a "floor coach," despite what fishwater and Peaches say, which, by the way, encompasses way more than when to switch to a zone, or when to call a timeout. I'd even go so far as to say that he has turned into a pretty damn good gameplanner. Yesterday's gameplan was great, the gameplan against South Carolina was great, and that happened several times this year. In fact, the only gameplan that I fault him for this season would be Georgia. I am still at loss as to why we didn't run them up and down the floor. His in game decision making could still improve at times, but overall, he is so much better than he used to be, you have to give the man some credit.

To those that say his biggest weakness is his "floor coaching," prepare yourselves for the offseason. We could lose 3 starters, or we could lose 1, and that will go a long way in determining who we are next year. The offseasons are way too rocky and eventful, and we are not still playing for 3 primary reasons: 1) The start, 2) the Vandy game, and 3) The Georgia game. Starting out 5-5 is the biggest reason, and it's hard to put that on the team. 3 new starters, zero proven depth, and a tough schedule, and that's what you get. As much as we all dislike the Delks now, we don't start out 5-5 if they are still on the team, and you have to put some of that on the shoulders of Rick, not because he can control a kid with a sorry attitude, but because there definitely appears to be some issues with him having control of the thing. I understand that you can have some bad apples (Sharpe), but if you have this many people leaving prematurely, either you are recruiting the wrong kinds of players, or you lack the ability to get them to come in and want to be a part of a winning program. Also, shouldn't have run off Rimmer. He could've given us some sorely needed minutes at times this year.

I single out the Vandy game because we had a chance to win that game, and it definitely would've affected seeding, and we would've won had it not been for a super human effort by Shan Foster.

And obviously Georgia. What can you say about that? We would've been a borderline 7, and State would've beaten any of the 2 seeds yesterday, save maybe Texas.

All in all, I applaud the job that Rick and the team did on the court this season, considering the circumstances that hamstrung us at the beginning of the year, and now I hold my breath until practice starts next fall. If we only have two returning starters, you can forget the dance. We simply can't continue the trend of players leaving the program.

 

[DowntownDawg]

At the end of the day, I think we are all fairly proud of this team for nutting up and going 18-6 after a terrible 5-5 start.

Rick has definitely improved as a "floor coach," despite what fishwater and Peaches say, which, by the way, encompasses way more than when to switch to a zone, or when to call a timeout. I'd even go so far as to say that he has turned into a pretty damn good gameplanner. Yesterday's gameplan was great, the gameplan against South Carolina was great, and that happened several times this year. In fact, the only gameplan that I fault him for this season would be Georgia. I am still at loss as to why we didn't run them up and down the floor. His in game decision making could still improve at times, but overall, he is so much better than he used to be, you have to give the man some credit.

To those that say his biggest weakness is his "floor coaching," prepare yourselves for the offseason. We could lose 3 starters, or we could lose 1, and that will go a long way in determining who we are next year. The offseasons are way too rocky and eventful, and we are not still playing for 3 primary reasons: 1) The start, 2) the Vandy game, and 3) The Georgia game. Starting out 5-5 is the biggest reason, and it's hard to put that on the team. 3 new starters, zero proven depth, and a tough schedule, and that's what you get. As much as we all dislike the Delks now, we don't start out 5-5 if they are still on the team, and you have to put some of that on the shoulders of Rick, not because he can control a kid with a sorry attitude, but because there definitely appears to be some issues with him having control of the thing. I understand that you can have some bad apples (Sharpe), but if you have this many people leaving prematurely, either you are recruiting the wrong kinds of players, or you lack the ability to get them to come in and want to be a part of a winning program. Also, shouldn't have run off Rimmer. He could've given us some sorely needed minutes at times this year.

I single out the Vandy game because we had a chance to win that game, and it definitely would've affected seeding, and we would've won had it not been for a super human effort by Shan Foster.

And obviously Georgia. What can you say about that? We would've been a borderline 7, and State would've beaten any of the 2 seeds yesterday, save maybe Texas.

All in all, I applaud the job that Rick and the team did on the court this season, considering the circumstances that hamstrung us at the beginning of the year, and now I hold my breath until practice starts next fall. If we only have two returning starters, you can forget the dance. We simply can't continue the trend of players leaving the program.

 

[Goat Holder]

I've seen him do some bone-headed things in his career, and I was almost there with Peaches on the Anti-Stansbury bandwagon earlier this year, although nowhere near as vocal.

He did some great things this year. The way he handled the team that we have was brilliant, from slowing the game down to having Jamont at PG. He was an excellent floor coach this year, doing EXACTLY what people praise coaches for: Doing the best with what we have and putting our players in position to make plays. Where Stans must improve is handling the actual players, their egos, and motivation. We look lackluster at times, but I also think that goes along with the territory of being a slow-it-down team.

Now, Stans must step up, land some of these bigtime recruits, and keep them from transferring. If he continues to do so, to say we could win a National Title is not far-fetched.

 

[Woof Man Jack]

My main issue with Stans is, an apparent lack of motivation the players seem to start some games with. Maybe it's another issue that appears to be a lack of motivation, but there's no arguing that in quite a few games MSU looked like we didn't give a **** to be playing a game. Most times we righted the ship and cranked things up, but damn..we need to start games wide *** open.</p>

 

[DowntownDawg]

...but again, I don't have a problem with what happened on the floor this year, after our 5-5 start. Stansbury knows how to win games. I'm much more concerned about attrition.

 

[Todd4State]

I don't understand people that think he has a "lack of control" of his team. Jamont has become less selfish over his career, Varnado, Stewart, and Hansbrough don't cause problems. C-Rhodes is going to be C-Rhodes. But even so, Rick got him to play better on the offensive end.

Also, anyone that has been a problem, he has kicked them off of the team- the Delk sisters, Sharpe, Robert Jackson, guy from Mountain Brook that I can't recall right now.

And if he has such a lack of control, why do we keep winning about 20 games a year? It seems to me that if he has such a lack of control we would be winning about 10 games or less a year.

JWS had a lack of control. Maybe Polk has that now, but Stans has pretty good control of this program right now.

 

[Dawgbreeze]

He is a much better floor coach than the so-called church league coaches on here give him credit for. His players are good, not necessarily great but they do play hard most of the time. I think we will be right at the top of the league again next year, and if Jamont comes back, we actually have a problem with so many good players. Barry has to work on his shot more this offseason and return to where he should be. My biggest concern is our inside presence because Jarvis will take a beating and he needs to add some strength.</p>

 

[DowntownDawg]

....and I struggle to figure out why. Lack of control is the way some people define it. I don't know. Reggie Delk, Dick Delk, Gary Ervin, Walter Sharpe, Jerrell Houston, asking Rimmer and Goodridge to leave? Who am I leaving out? Rhodes calling the CL and saying he's transferring? It's just a big cluster17 in the offseason around here, and you can't have that to build a championship program.

 

[jakldawg]

ROB-ERT JACK-SON

but that was in the middle of the season, wasn't it?

 

[statedogg]

what about bringing in Power, Roberts, and Johnson? What about making room for this Bailey, Augustus, Ravern, Turner, and Benock?

 

[williecunningham]

Taking into account what those before him managed to accomplish at MSU, I would say he's the best we've ever had and one of the top 5 coaches in the league.</p>

 

[DowntownDawg]

...losing starters is another. Are you going to look at it in such a positive way if Gordon leaves to "make room" for Osby or whoever?

Come on, man. Are you really happy that we lost a two year starter in Reginald Delk to make room for Riley Benock?

 

[DawgatAuburn]

I agree it is frustrating to live this soap opera every off season, but there appear to be pretty solid reasons on all of them.

Ervin - wanted more uptempo and didn't like our offense; left on bad terms with fans
Delks - psycho father who wanted PT promised to his sons; when they didn't get it, they bolted, and overvalued Richard's desireability to other programs
Sharpe - please
Houston - not sure
Rimmer - mutual; Rick helped place him
Goodridge - not skilled enough and smart enough to contribute, so he left for more PT; can't argue with that
Jackson - Rick's first problem child, but while he was talented and played in a Final Four, he apparently was not a great teammate since they didn't want him back

 

[DowntownDawg]

*

 

[statedogg]

but if Gordon leaves I won't blame Stansbury for it either.

And no I wasn't happy about losing either delk. Obviously we are better with Stewart/Delk x2 than Stewart/Johnson/Turner.

</p>

 

[8dog]

Positives are that we took care of business in conference.

Negatives are his refusal to play some of the younger guys earlier, his sub pattern, and the 5 losses to start the year.

When you have 3 of the 10 best players in the league, you shouldn't lose to S. Bama, Clemson and Miami, FL.

 

[statedogg]

That about sums it up for me as well.</p>

 

[DowntownDawg]

...and I guess that my biggest problems is still with the Delks, because those guys were not selfish players, and they played defense and did the little things. They weren't prima donnas, at least on the court. And I can buy that they had an overzealous dad, I guess, but if Ben leaves, that makes what's already a trend a very disturbing one.

The fact of the matter is that I believe that other coaches across the country probably inherit just as many "problem" players as Stans, and you don't see the attrition rate that we have here. Other than Sharpe, who wouldn't make it anywhere, we should've been able to handle the rest and make them a valued part of the program. There are alot of overzealous dads out there, and there are alot of kids who want more PT, or who want to play in a faster tempo. He's got to handle these problems better for us to compete on a national level.

 

[Bulldog Backer]

...and I guess that my biggest problems is still with the Delks, because those guys were not selfish players, and they played defense and did the little things. They weren't prima donnas, at least on the court. And I can buy that they had an overzealous dad, I guess, but if Ben leaves, that makes what's already a trend a very disturbing one.

The fact of the matter is that I believe that other coaches across the country probably inherit just as many "problem" players as Stans, and you don't see the attrition rate that we have here. Other than Sharpe, who wouldn't make it anywhere, we should've been able to handle the rest and make them a valued part of the program. There are alot of overzealous dads out there, and there are alot of kids who want more PT, or who want to play in a faster tempo. He's got to handle these problems better for us to compete on a national level.

I know the true story with the Delks. This comes from someone within the program, not a player. During the 2006/2007 season, the Delks were upset with their decreasing playing time over the season. They were not "nice" to Ben, and midway that season, they had him so upset, he almost left. Barry had been a teammate with the Midstate Ballerz, so they didn't bug him as much. Ben's "slump" during the middle of that season, and grumbling about leaving, was caused by feeling these two teammates didn't want him there. Rick cooled things down with Ben, and his Mom moved to Starkville. After the season, Rick heard that the Delks planned to come to him in the scheduled annual evaluation meeting with individual players with some demands. He went ahead and prepared their release papers based on what he had heard. They both entered the meeting with Rick and presented their demands. They wanted Richard to start at Point Guard, Jamont moved to the 3, and they both wanted to get about 30 minutes per game "or they would transfer." Giving into the Delks' demands meant less time for Barry and Ben, and, at that point both were playing as well as, or better than, the Delks. Rick handed them the release documents.</p>

Richard Delk averaged about 22 minutes per game. Reggie averaged about 24. Barry and Ben were getting about 23. Losing the Delks helped team chemistry, but hurt depth this year. </p>

 

[Stormrider81]

They wanted Richard to start at Point Guard, Jamont moved to the 3, and they both wanted to get about 30 minutes per game "or they would transfer."</p>

</p>JR = Daddy Delk?

 

[williecunningham]

So they weren't "nice" to Ben?

Do yourself a favor and quit being so gullible.

 

[DowntownDawg]

...except that it doesn't explain why the Ben transfer rumors didn't flare up until AFTER the Delks announced they were leaving. I'm sure you will say that it is a case of old news that just got out at the wrong time, and I hope you're right. The proof is in the pudding. Hopefully, Ben will stick around.

 

[Dog in the Know]

who in the hell you guys think can do better at MSU. We compete for the West consistently. We beat Ala, Ark, Ole Miss, etc etc and are routinely playing post season basketball. You guys have lost it if you think Mississippi State University, the one located in Starkville MS, can get better coaching and production for less than the current $1 million per year. Do I want more for our program? I sure do, but to act like this is a "B" year is absurd. Go up to Oxford and start rooting for the Rebs.

 

[ChatGPT]

who in the hell you guys think can do better at MSU. We compete for the West consistently. We beat Ala, Ark, Ole Miss, etc etc and are routinely playing post season basketball. You guys have lost it if you think Mississippi State University, the one located in Starkville MS, can get better coaching and production for less than the current $1 million per year. Do I want more for our program? I sure do, but to act like this is a "B" year is absurd. Go up to Oxford and start rooting for the Rebs.

That's pretty much a bannable post. Or at least it should be.</p>

 

[War Machine Dawg]

from that post. It was my first thought before I even read your post. Dog in the Know, I believe you're in the wrong place. I believe you were looking for Gene's Page.

 

[8dog]

where you saw anyone say they wanted Stans to not be our coach?

I'd also like to know not your criticisms of other people's opinions of this year but for you to offer why it wasn't a "B" year?

Because we are poor (as opposed to "dear") ol State?

Well, poor ol State had Jarvis Varnado, Jamont Gordon and Charles Rhodes, in my opinion 3 of the 10 best in the league. When that's the case, you should beat those out of conference foes and be better than an 8.

 

[Stormrider81]

I grade this season in two parts:

Non-conference = D

SEC = A

The OOC record got us an early date with a high seed, and thus an early exit. Hopefully Rick will use this example in years to come when getting his team ready for the season.

 

[DowntownDawg]

....I think he scheduled it correctly, under the assumption that we would have a veteran team that could get a high seed and do tournament damage. Obviously, he didn't count on the Delks leaving. Had they stayed, and we'd won our nonconference games, we'd have easily been a top 5 seed. Hell, Vandy played a **** schedule, did worse than us in conference and got a 4 seed.

All of that gives you another reason why you can't have people transferring out. You put your all your eggs in one basket, coming up with a very good home schedule in a year that you should be stacked with veterans, and two of those veterans leave. All of the sudden, your schedule beats your *** and hamstrings you, and you end up with an 8.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

The D is earned because of the results, but if memory serves, and I am not about to go back through all the play by plays, but I think we had late-game leads in several of those non-conference losses. That tells me the game plan was relatively solid but the end game execution was not there. You can argue til the sun goes down whether the fault for lies in the preparation (coach) or the execution (players). The point being that the average floor coach won 22 games and had us in position to win most of the rest of them. In very few if any instances did a late game decision by Stansbury determine the outcome of the game.

 

[patdog]

We had a good season, better than average for sure. But we lost several close games that we should have won. And that, combined with a down SEC, is what got us an 8 seed and a second round exit. Overall, Stans did a good job, but this season could have been that Sweet 16 breakout season for him.

 

[MSUCostanza]

we had late leads. Miami FL, Miami OH, Clemson and USA. Only Southern Illinois really beat us down.

 

[Frances Drebin]

...and they played their best ball in their last game of the year, so it's hard to be overly critical. If I had one major beef, it's why we started the year so slowly. Every year, it seems, we take two or three steps backwards. I know there is player turnover, but he can still build on what he's doing year over year. It shouldn't take well into December before guys start playing well.

 

[DowntownDawg]

...Clemson in Game 2 was too early to play a good team with 3 new starters for us. The "no excuse" game was Miami (OH), and we really should've beaten Miami, FL and South Alabama (since we had a double digit lead in the second half). Again, I give the team and coaches somewhat of a pass for having to adjust to new starters and a new style of play while playing a tough schedule. It's hard to give the coaches a complete pass for having to adjust to new starters due to attrition.

 

[Stormrider81]

I don't think I'm being overly criticial of Stansbury at all. I've been a defender of his on here for quite some time. That being said, he did a poor job in December. They went 5-5 before they went on a tear. And they had to go on that great run just to get an 8 seed because the OOC results were poor. If we do ok in the OOC portion of our schedule, we have a 4 or 5 seed and are probably discussing our matchup this weekend. I give Stansbury and the team a lot of credit for not giving up at 5-5, for winning the SEC West and earning a NCAA bid, and for nearly beating Memphis. But our play in December killed us, and I can't simply ignore that when discussing this season. Again, hopefully he will use this example to get his team to really value every single game by showing them how it can impact seeding in the postseason tournaments.

 

[8dog]

line. Barry, Ben and Jarvis all played significantly last year. The problem is that in the last 5 minutes of all of those games, we froze on offense b/c we don't have a very good concept of motion offense. Go back and watch them if for some reason you are able to, we just stand around and no one knows what to do. It's not a coincidence to lose 4 games you should win that all came down to the last 5 minutes. But we seemed to turn that around when we played conference opponents, winning against SC and Ark when the game was close near the end.

And Im not sure what our "new style of play" was.

 

[williecunningham]

I love it when somebody starts throwing out "the coach didn't have our team ready to play" accusations just because of an unexpected loss. Specifically what did Stansbury not do before the Miami OH game that cost us that win?

Nobody's better than Pitino and he almost lost to Miami OH at home during that same part of the season. They did lose to Dayton and Cincinnatti at home before they hit there stride.

Do you think anybody at Louisville cares right now about those losses?

 

[8dog]

they got a 3 seed. And that is the whole point. Those losses resulted in our playing Memphis in Round 2.

 

[Stormrider81]

Here's what I'm saying: Stansbury's team lost 5 OOC games early, which then put us behind the 8 ball on even getting a NCAA bid. When we did earn one, we ended up a 8 seed, which matched us against a 1 seed. Stansbury did a poor job early because an experienced team lost 5 games early. I'm not saying he didn't have his team ready to play, I'm saying they didn't win and Stansbury gets the credit/blame for the outcome of games. Credit to him for turning the thing around after the team went 5-5, it would have been easy to mail it in at that point. However, he doesn't get a total pass for that terrible start. Overall, he did a good job this year and cemented himself as a good coach. Unfortunately for him the shaky start lead to a premature exit in the NCAAs.

 

[1MSUDawgFan]

Now this is the kind of logical post I can agree with. I tihnk Stans is a good coach, but noone here has said he's John Wooden. Yes he makes boneheaded decisions sometimes, but overall he has us competitive and most of us feel lucky to have him.