Grading Rick Stansbury and MSU Basketball...

[Frances Drebin]

...we were starting a bunch of freshmen(s) to start the year. Ben, Randy, and Jarvis were not strangers to this program. Stansbury was not in the dark as far as what to expect from them. Also, I'm confused by the "new style of play" comment, because there was nothing new about how we were playing. I wouldn't exactly call our schedule "tough" either. There were some tough opponents, sure. But overall, the schedule was a lot lighter than it should be.

 

[DowntownDawg]

in that we were playing with two bigs instead of playing small. Last year, we were one of the best offensive teams in the conference. We scored alot of points, and we got up and down the floor. Remember, the Delks were our best defenders. This year, we were more of a half court, defensive team once we found ourselves. It was quite a transition to go from an up and down the floor type team to a defensive minded team, especially when you lose your best defenders. That's why I give the players a little bit of a pass for that adjustment period, but the situation never should've happened in the first place.

 

[DowntownDawg]

The new style of play was playing with two bigs instead of being an up and down the floor, transition type team. And I agree that the problem was that we couldn't close people out, but that also happens on the defensive end, and when you lose your best defenders, and you are playing 3 new starters, of which 2 really struggled defensively the year before, you're going to have trouble getting that crucial stop at the end of the game. And then, when you can't get the stop, and it's up to the offense to win it, it becomes the Jamont show, which it's been the whole time he has been here.

 

[Hanmudog]

I heard that exact same story about Stansbury and the Delks. If I was Stans I would have wadded up their papers and threw them at the punks for bringing those demands to me in the first place.

 

[williecunningham]

Specifically, what did he do so poorly that cost us 5 non-conference games?</p>

And I get the fact that our seeding had a lot to do with our draw. Who doesn't?</p>

And I get that the non-conference record had an affect on the seeding. I also think the strength (or the lack thereof) of the SEC had just as much of an affect on the final seeding.</p>

Ultimately, I think the Vanderbilt game was the most crushing defeat of the season when it comes to where we ended up in the bracket. Get the win there, and we are a 6. And I can assure you, Stansbury put his team in a position to win that game.</p>

 

[DowntownDawg]

...except that I think there is a larger problem out there regarding Stansbury and the transfer rate. I don't think there was much X's and O's wise that he could've done differently in those first 10 games. Again, 3 new starters playing with two bigs instead of running up and down the floor. There was going to be an adjustment, and Clemson, who turned out to be a top 25 team, comes in the second game.

And I completely agree about Vandy. We were in a position to win that game, and we would've gotten a 6, and we would've been playing next weekend.

And Georgia. Winning that one might've gotten us a 7. Losing definitely made us look bad to the committee.

 

[ArrowDawg]

....a bonafide outside threat since Timmy Bowers, and a drought between him and Super D. Untiul we start getting more consistent production from our guards, we'll probably always have a cap preventing us from being more than just a blip on the NCAA Tournament radar.