The "let's throw Stans under the bus ever chance we get" crowd or the "let's put Stans on a pedestal, he can do know wrong, his naysayers are idiots" crowd?
Does it ever occur to <span style="font-style: italic;">anyone</span> here that reality may lie somewhere between the two?
Rick has been here long enough for us to understand the kind of coach he is and what we can expect from him. We likely will win most of the games we are supposed to, lose one or two we shouldn't, do well in the SEC, get on a hot stretch at some point, give ourselves a chance to win the West and a chance to earn a decent seeding in the tournament. Most, even under the highest of expectations, should be happy with the man up until that point in time. However, in the postseason, we'll likely come out flat and look clueless against a team we aren't familiar with and head back to Starkville with a disappointing March performance. I don't think there's much room to argue with what I've just stated. He's been here for over a decade now and this is what has been consistently shown by his teams.
After 11 and a half years of being the head coach, his critics don't give him credit for his upside - consistent solid regular season performances and SEC West titles and conference tournament championships. But, the coddlers aren't willing to accept there are major downside to the guy as well - the propensity for his teams to choke when it counts the most (March).
The real argument is about what you want from the program? It's not a question of whether not Rick Stansbury is a capable coach or not. If he wasn't, he wouldn't have put together his record that he has (240-130), 4 Western Division Championships, 1 SEC Championship, and a couple of tourney championships. The proof is in the pudding there. If regular season performance is all you care about and that means the most to you, then Rick Stansbury is your guy - he's going to achieve -no doubt about it. However, if you want a coach that can figure out how to get his team to win in March and make the occasional deep tourney run, then I'm not so sure Stans is what you want - he hasn't excelled remotely in this regard.
Your opinions on Rick ultimately should be based on what your expectations are for the program - at this point, you know what you are going to get from the guy. Unfortunately, for most reasonable people, the problem is coming up with expectations. Do you chose A) regular season success/post season disappointment or B) modest regular season performance/post season success? In reality, that answer isn't always a clear choice. I'd choose B right now because I'm starved for a Sweet 16 or better. But, I'm not ready to devalue the achievement of A either. In the perfect world, we'd have some A's and B's mixed together and all would be well. But, we've seen <span style="font-style: italic;">only</span> A for over a decade now, some of the B folks are getting a little restless - which is perfectly legitimate. But, at the same rate, the folks that claim B is the only measure of success are being shortsighted and unrealistic. There's value to A as well.
So, I guess what I'm getting at is, here's a big <font size="6"><span style="font-weight: bold;">17 YOU</span></font> to all the posters that turn this into a daily polar argument of "Stans, the 2nd Coming" vs "Stans is better off shining my shoes". It's getting old.
Does it ever occur to <span style="font-style: italic;">anyone</span> here that reality may lie somewhere between the two?
Rick has been here long enough for us to understand the kind of coach he is and what we can expect from him. We likely will win most of the games we are supposed to, lose one or two we shouldn't, do well in the SEC, get on a hot stretch at some point, give ourselves a chance to win the West and a chance to earn a decent seeding in the tournament. Most, even under the highest of expectations, should be happy with the man up until that point in time. However, in the postseason, we'll likely come out flat and look clueless against a team we aren't familiar with and head back to Starkville with a disappointing March performance. I don't think there's much room to argue with what I've just stated. He's been here for over a decade now and this is what has been consistently shown by his teams.
After 11 and a half years of being the head coach, his critics don't give him credit for his upside - consistent solid regular season performances and SEC West titles and conference tournament championships. But, the coddlers aren't willing to accept there are major downside to the guy as well - the propensity for his teams to choke when it counts the most (March).
The real argument is about what you want from the program? It's not a question of whether not Rick Stansbury is a capable coach or not. If he wasn't, he wouldn't have put together his record that he has (240-130), 4 Western Division Championships, 1 SEC Championship, and a couple of tourney championships. The proof is in the pudding there. If regular season performance is all you care about and that means the most to you, then Rick Stansbury is your guy - he's going to achieve -no doubt about it. However, if you want a coach that can figure out how to get his team to win in March and make the occasional deep tourney run, then I'm not so sure Stans is what you want - he hasn't excelled remotely in this regard.
Your opinions on Rick ultimately should be based on what your expectations are for the program - at this point, you know what you are going to get from the guy. Unfortunately, for most reasonable people, the problem is coming up with expectations. Do you chose A) regular season success/post season disappointment or B) modest regular season performance/post season success? In reality, that answer isn't always a clear choice. I'd choose B right now because I'm starved for a Sweet 16 or better. But, I'm not ready to devalue the achievement of A either. In the perfect world, we'd have some A's and B's mixed together and all would be well. But, we've seen <span style="font-style: italic;">only</span> A for over a decade now, some of the B folks are getting a little restless - which is perfectly legitimate. But, at the same rate, the folks that claim B is the only measure of success are being shortsighted and unrealistic. There's value to A as well.
So, I guess what I'm getting at is, here's a big <font size="6"><span style="font-weight: bold;">17 YOU</span></font> to all the posters that turn this into a daily polar argument of "Stans, the 2nd Coming" vs "Stans is better off shining my shoes". It's getting old.