I think two things were proven about Stansbury today

[Stormrider81]

1. He isn't as great a recruiter as he is made out to be. He works hard and gets attention from some players that would normally never consider MSU. However, he has missed on a lot of players, has trouble getting players to stay, and mainly signs solidly talented players. He is a good recruiter, but I wouldn't call him great. The lack of depth on his teams kill us. His backcourt now outside of Gordon is not really up to par.

2. He is a better coach than most give him credit for. A few have labeled him a "joke" of a floor coach, which is just laughable. More have labeled him an average floor coach, which I don't agree with either. I think he's a good coach and I believe he proved it today. He made adjustments that helped keep us in it, such as going to man defense when they had mastered our zone. Stansbury still has a few WTF moments, but what coach doesn't?

I think it should be obvious to all today that the success he has gotten isn't simply because of his recruiting. Our opponent today had more talent and depth, and their coach is pretty darn good as well. We hung in there and had our chances to win it. Stansbury has come a long way. If he keeps getting us in the Dance, sooner or later we will break through.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

I will say aGAIN, we have no idea what kind of depth we have because he refuses to allow them to play and make mistakes. If you are a starter for Rick, you can do no wrong. If you are a bench player, you have approximately one mistake before you go back to the bench, and when you go it might be for the half, the game, or several weeks.

You cannot tell me that 10-12 minutes of Turner and Ravern every night would not have helped this team. They could hardly have been worse than Ben and Barry in Atlanta and against Oregon until Barry hit those three shots. Same with Bailey and Johnson, and for that matter Augustus. We also INSIST on putting them in as a unit most of the time, although we did not do that today. I am not sure about Benock. He looked like a redshirt to me but that's water under the bridge now.

 

[prairiedawg]

and could not afford to learn on the run. Those games that were won because he kept his starters in got us to the position we were in today.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

he had games in november, december, january, and february to get them ready. i am not a stans basher but this is on him. it's not like this was the first time it happened. did the same thing with zimmerman, bowers and frazier.

 

[KurtRambis4]

but to say this game is on stans is laughable, at best

 

[DawgatAuburn]

What is on Stans is our lack of depth and playing our starters about 35 minutes a game each.

Today's game plan was fine. My only criticism is that it would, for example, have been nice to stick Ravern in there in the second half when Barry threw up his third airball.

 

[VegasDawg13]

I get tired of the people who rip on Stans for everything he does, but some people blindly defend him and ignore his mistakes also. He has always failed to develop a bench. It hurts our depth and might contribute to some our problems with transfers.

Also, Stormrider, you say he made the switch to man defense to keep us in it. I'm not a basketball expert by any means, but I could tell that we needed to get out of the zone with a few minutes left in the half. If we hadn't been down by so many at halftime, who knows what would've happened. That run they went on at the end of the first half really hurt us.

Having said all that, I think Rick coached a good game today. We needed to be perfect to win. We were really good, but not quite good enough.</p>

 

[Coach34]

1. He is a very good recruiter. Now, keeping the recruits here is another matter entirely. Hans threw in 19 today against a good team. Jamont is considered to be one of the best PG's in the nation. Rhodes had one of the highest scoring games of the tourney. Varnado gave all of Mempho's big men problems. Stewart shot terribly, but played his *** off defending. We showed today we that we had talent. Memphis showed they were very talented but very raw in their skills. Texas sends their *** packing next round. Hell, one could make the argument that we were nearly as talented considering they had alot of trouble guarding us and got in foul trouble.
What about developing a bench? We have very capable subs to give us some time off the bench, but yet we feel we cna never use them. Or if we do, its 4 of them at once, as opposed to blending them in.
</p>

2. What coaching move today impressed you? I think he did an fairly good job, but it was far from a masterpiece. Everybody, and I mean everybody knows Mempho doesnt like the slow down game. Playing zone was hardly a stroke of genius. We went man and had much more success in the 2nd half and cut the gap.
Its on Stans that we dont have more of a bench to help us in games. Why doesnt Ravern play in the 2nd half? He looked good in the first, and then doesnt play again.
Offensively, it was more of the same. Only difference was that Hans made some shots.

I'm not saying Ricky is terrible in any way. We looked good on national TV against a good team.

But why were we in this position of having to play a 1-seed in the 2nd round?

Because Ricky doesnt have alot of stability in the program, we blew early games in our schedule, and flopped in the SEC Tourney. Thats why we were an 8 seed, instead of a higher one that our talent and program should have had. CBS even showed a graphic on Ricky's Tourney troubles. Did we have a good season? Yes. Was it what it should have been? Not to me it wasnt. Just more of the same- 12 years and counting without a Sweet 16</p>

 

[Stormrider81]

Memphis then proceeded to go on a run. Then they came out and were pretty much scoring at will versus our zone so we went man to man. No it wasn't a genius move, but it was a good move that helped keep us in the game.

I'm not ignoring Stansbury's mistakes. In case you missed it I ripped on him heavily after the Delks left for his lack of stability in the program and he has missed on quite a few signees through the years. However, overall I think he's a good coach and good recruiter and gets thrown under the bus far too often.

 

[statedogg]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Before I start, let my record show that I have been consistent about not settling for mediocrity in any area. I think Stansbury is the most under appreciated asset that MSU athletics has, and probably one of the most under appreciated coaches in the SEC. You have to realize how hard it is to win a National Championship in any sport, and basketball may be the hardest. Long schedule, high level or parity, and lose one tournament game and you are gone. We consistently have at least a bubble team, and about every 3 years have a team that can make a deep run. Other than Florida, Tennessee, and pre-03ish Kentucky no other SEC team can say that. You may say what good is it to have a team capable of a big run if you never do, and thats true to an extent. In any sport you will get good breaks and bad breaks, some days all the calls and lose balls go your way and some they all go against you, but in the long run it should even out. I think we are somewhat having a bad experience with variance. I think if we keep with the way this is going two things will happen. First, eventually we will get the breaks and our potential will be realized. Second, we are raising the national expectation for the program. We will get to the point where we will be penciled in the tournament by the analysts in November. That will further help recruiting.

As it seems now we range from NIT team - 5 seed NCAA. I don't think its a stretch to say current pace in 8 years we are a 8 seed - 1/2 seed type team.

Where roster management is concerned, I think its proven that Rick is a very good recruiter. Nobody could have landed Monta, Bender, or Outlaw. If NBA scouts and/or agents dont get to those guys who knows how this story goes. But, even without those guys...Austin, Rhodes, Sharpe, Gordon, Osby all pretty sought after guys that we got. On the transfer side, L Rob, and Power. "But he can't keep guys they all leave." Sharpe was a bum, Ervin hasn't been missed, Robert Jackson was a good player, the Delks hurt us this year, but with them here we probably miss out on some combo of Ravern, Turner, Augustus, Bailey, Benock so time will tell on that one. I think history will judge Rick fairly well in the transfer department. Especially considering we transfered in some good players.

I think that to win, you have to be in a position to win and catch some breaks. Rick puts us in a position to win and that is more than you can say for us in any other sport and for a lot of other SEC programs. We see what a few good years and no consistency has done for our football program.</p>

 

[fishwater99]

statedogg[/b]]<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> We consistently have at least a bubble team, and about every 3 years have a team that can make a deep run.

I think that to win, you have to be in a position to win and catch some breaks. Rick puts us in a position to win</p>

"deep run" = 2nd round NCAA Loss ???
What???

Stans does put us in position to win, but he can't get the monkey off his back and into the Sweet 16.
Maybe next year.</p>

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

that we actually make a deep run, he said that we have a team that can make a deep run; i.e. we have the personnel that is capable of making a deep run. We had that this year and nearly made the sweet 16. We had the team in place at other points in Stans career as well. To this point, we have not gotten over that hump.

 

[Stormrider81]

A team that can make a deep run doesn't mean they do, just that the potential is there. For instance, the 2003 team had the potential for a serious run, but fell in the first round to Butler.

 

[fishwater99]

So if Stans was a better floor coach we would make deeper runs in the NCAA tourney?
By deeper runs I mean the second weekend.

 

[Dawgbreeze]

</p>

 

[hatfieldms]

Fish, have you ever coached anything? have you played anything? Nobody has ever said on here that Stans is Dean Smith or for that matter Donovan, but he is pretty good for what we have given him in support. If you want to sit back and criticize, then give us your game plan everytime we suit up and we'll critique you and coach. If this guy can't coach, then how does he consistently win 20 a year and win the SEC west as much as he has?

You are giving the village idiot about 1 paragraph to much in this response. Trust me when I say he isnt worth it</p>

 

[rebelrouseri]

criticize the man who has never been to the 16.

 

[Stormrider81]

"So if Stans was a better floor coach we would make deeper runs in the NCAA tourney?"

No, that's not what he was saying. The following teams were considered capable of making deep Tourney runs by the experts but are now eliminated: Pitt, Marquette, Drake, UConn, Duke, and Georgetown. Then there's the long list of dangerous teams that are now putting away their jerseys for the summer. By the way, UT was dangerously close to losing yesterday. Imagine that, a 2 seed SEC Champ losing in the second round. 2 Seed Georgetown lost to Davidson. Who in the world is Davidson? Vandy lost by 19 to Siena. Surely by now the reality of the NCAA Tournament is settling in. They don't call it March Madness because the teams considered ripe for a nice run always end up accomplishing that.