R. Williams or R. Stansbury??

[Thick]

If Ray was fired today and you only had 2 options (Williams/Stansbury), who would you take?

[msstate7]

Bc stansbury never left the game, I'd choose him. I do believe Williams is the better coach though.

[smootness]

Stans, and I don't know how it's even a question. He was clearly more consistent, and while he didn't have the Tourney success, he was pretty unlucky with some if those early teams while Williams basically rode one group of guys.

[cujo]

Williams

[Coach34]

Both- Williams to coach- Stands to recruit

[ScoobaDawg]

Neither. Close up shop.

[Liverpooldawg]

Williams. You are wrong in one thing 34. He would need a feather smoother more than a recruiter.

[Coach34]

Stans, and I don't know how it's even a question. He was clearly more consistent, and while he didn't have the Tourney success, he was pretty unlucky with some if those early teams while Williams basically rode one group of guys.

This is hilarious.

Williams had 2 groups. The 1st group he and Brady recruited that revived the program- went to NIT in 90 and then won the SEC in 91. He then had the two year lull in 92 and 93- but in 94 laid the groundwork for the 95 and 96 teams. Then was another 2 year lull- but he would have had that 99 team back in the NCAA's had he been able to coach it. Stands screwed that one bad- but it was his 1st as a HC, so he gets a little pass there.

Stands certainly was more consistent overall because he loved the recruiting aspect of coaching. But all in all- Stands had the good 4 year run from 2002-2005...and everything else was average. Outside of that 4 year run in which he recruited very well and landed LR by the craziest shit happening in NCAA history- he only had 1 team good enough to make the NCAA Tourney in his other 10 seasons at the end of the regular season.

[sleepy dawg]

Stans, and I don't know how it's even a question. He was clearly more consistent, and while he didn't have the Tourney success, he was pretty unlucky with some if those early teams while Williams basically rode one group of guys.

Stans, but only because he's still in the game. Also, I wouldn't consider Stansbury's lack of success in the tournament bad luck. He just got out coached.

[ScottH]

Williams

[smootness]

The fact that you had to pull out an NIT team in discussing Williams' handful of best teams says it all.

The group I'm talking about is obviously the 94-96 group. THAT is where Williams gets his reputation. Outside of that, he wasn't even average. Stans' last 7 years, while not good enough for me to want to keep him, we're unquestionably better than most of Williams' tenure.

As to sleepy, the reason I say unlucky at times is because he simply was. His two best teams were absolutely good enough to go to the Sweet 16 and beyond, and the 04 was a Final 4 team just waiting to happen. But in 02, we faced lower seeded Texas in Dallas, and in 04, every team in the country would have lost that day to Xavier.

The Butler loss was just a bad loss, and his other teams just weren't good enough. But his two best ran into things I just think we're out of his hands.

[Coach34]

The fact that you had to pull out an NIT team in discussing Williams' handful of best teams says it all.

The group I'm talking about is obviously the 94-96 group. THAT is where Williams gets his reputation. Outside of that, he wasn't even average. Stans' last 7 years, while not good enough for me to want to keep him, we're unquestionably better than most of Williams' tenure.

So you are just going to ignore the group that won one of our few SEC titles? Seriously? Where the program was when Williams took over- 6 losing seasons out of the last 7- an NIT was a big deal.

[Homedawg]

The fact that you had to pull out an NIT team in discussing Williams' handful of best teams says it all.

The group I'm talking about is obviously the 94-96 group. THAT is where Williams gets his reputation. Outside of that, he wasn't even average. Stans' last 7 years, while not good enough for me to want to keep him, we're unquestionably better than most of Williams' tenure.

As to sleepy, the reason I say unlucky at times is because he simply was. His two best teams were absolutely good enough to go to the Sweet 16 and beyond, and the 04 was a Final 4 team just waiting to happen. But in 02, we faced lower seeded Texas in Dallas, and in 04, every team in the country would have lost that day to Xavier.

The Butler loss was just a bad loss, and his other teams just weren't good enough. But his two best ran into things I just think we're out of his hands.

Couple of things to consider, williams took over a shitty program. He built it into a conference championship team in 91 then the 95-96 teams sweet 16 and final 4. Stans took Over a program that he helped recruit. Second, the 04 team was a final four team in the making, but we couldn't make it to the sweet 16 once! Hell the 2012 team had the makings of a sweet 16 team and it crashed and burned. With all that said its a close call. Williams or stans, not a huge difference either way, IMO.

[smootness]

So you are just going to ignore the group that won one of our few SEC titles? Seriously? Where the program was when Williams took over- 6 losing seasons out of the last 7- an NIT was a big deal.

No, it matters on his resume certainly. But Stans also won an SEC title and had more SEC Tourney success, so that doesn't separate him from Stans. And when people think of Williams, they're not thinking of that 91 team. They're just thinking, 'Man, I would love to get back to some Sweet 16s and Final 4s.' But again, that was all based on that one group that came together.

The Sweet 16 and Final 4 would look much less out of place on Stans' resume.

[DanDority]

I'm not sure we'd be able to get Williams to leave N.C. I'm betting he makes more than Mullen. But you never know.*******

[preachermatt83]

Neither of them were very good coaches to be honest.. I would take Stands in a heartbeat over Williams though. Williams was overrated big time.

[thf24]

Hell the 2012 team had the makings of a sweet 16 team and it crashed and burned.

I'd argue Final Four team. I'd love to see what a good floor coach who could have figured out how to get just half of Sidney's potential out of him could have done with that team.

[starkvegasdawg]

Williams and all the pom squad members he wanted.

[coastdoglover]

Not even close. Williams was an awful recruiter and as far as his coaching, just check around, he has been going to Ray's practices for the last month and they still have no idea how to run an offense. The records speak for themselves and the SEC records including the SEC tourney are even more eye opening. it is a moot point so I don't even know why it was posted except to keep the debate the same old issue witch gives Coach his jollies. In fact, many wonder why Williams is even allowed around the program again since he blatantly tried to help other coaches recruit against us. Like Templeton, I guess it is the MSU way.

[MadDawg]

Neither. Close up shop.

We already did that.

[War Machine Dawg]

Williams. You are wrong in one thing 34. He would need a feather smoother more than a recruiter.

No, C34 nailed it. Stands wasn't just The Recruiter for Williams. He was the "good cop" to Williams' "bad cop." He was the buddy to the players while Williams was the asshole. It's why he struggled with discipline issues early in his tenure. Trying to make the transition from buddy to hard ass didn't go over well.

[Johnson85]

No, it matters on his resume certainly. But Stans also won an SEC title and had more SEC Tourney success, so that doesn't separate him from Stans. And when people think of Williams, they're not thinking of that 91 team. They're just thinking, 'Man, I would love to get back to some Sweet 16s and Final 4s.' But again, that was all based on that one group that came together.

The Sweet 16 and Final 4 would look much less out of place on Stans' resume.

It shows that Williams was not the beneficiary of blind luck like some people argue. He had a couple of different core groups with success and also managed to do it while rebuilding a program (or maybe just building one; not sure if any success we had ahd before Williams was close enough in time to count as rebuilding).

The reality is both had some strong points and some weak points that resulted in an above average package, but not elite. IT would have taken some luck or a good eye for talent for us to get a coach as good as either of them to replace Stansbury. Neither are good options for us now though. I would be interested to see what would happen if Stansbury got to start over fresh at State and whether he would do some things differently that might result in him being able to maintain control while still recruiting well. But it's not going to happen.

[War Machine Dawg]

So you are just going to ignore the group that won one of our few SEC titles? Seriously? Where the program was when Williams took over- 6 losing seasons out of the last 7- an NIT was a big deal.

Another thing to think about: SEC basketball mid-90s >>>>> SEC basketball mid-2000s. You had a UK team with guys like Tony Delk, Corliss Williamson and co. at UPig, Shaq at LSU, etc.

[shoeless joe]

No, C34 nailed it. Stands wasn't just The Recruiter for Williams. He was the "good cop" to Williams' "bad cop." He was the buddy to the players while Williams was the asshole. It's why he struggled with discipline issues early in his tenure. Trying to make the transition from buddy to hard ass didn't go over well.

Apparently that transition never did occurr.

[coastdoglover]

Both of them were sat down and turned out to be very good players in the end. Coach tends to paint everything with a broad brush and forgets the things that were done well. No question Sidney was a problem but folks who knew the reasons why, understand what happened. Williams spent all his spare time chasing with Brady and it wasn't about players. Coach backed himself in a corner over 15 years ago by lambasting Stansbury and it was way long before the end of Stans career. He got what he wanted and now we see the results.





No, C34 nailed it. Stands wasn't just The Recruiter for Williams. He was the "good cop" to Williams' "bad cop." He was the buddy to the players while Williams was the asshole. It's why he struggled with discipline issues early in his tenure. Trying to make the transition from buddy to hard ass didn't go over well.

[Coach34]

No, C34 nailed it. Stands wasn't just The Recruiter for Williams. He was the "good cop" to Williams' "bad cop." He was the buddy to the players while Williams was the asshole. It's why he struggled with discipline issues early in his tenure. Trying to make the transition from buddy to hard ass didn't go over well.

couldnt be more correct

[Coach34]

Apparently that transition never did occurr.


No kidding. It almost cost Stands his job after Year 2. Fortunately, he had recruited some higher character guys that got that 4 year run going from 2002-2005

[MadDawg]

No kidding. It almost cost Stands his job after Year 2. Fortunately, he had recruited some higher character guys that got that 4 year run going from 2002-2005

I realize you have a agenda, but there were several more very good years under Stans than the limited timeframe you reference.

[Coach34]

I realize you have a agenda, but there were several more very good years under Stans than the limited timeframe you reference.


Sure there were some other good years- but the fact remains that outside of that 4 year span- Stands only had 1 team out of 10 that clinched an NCAA berth by the end of the regular season.

[I seen it dawg]

Williams. He built it. Stains dismantled it.

[War Machine Dawg]

I realize you have a agenda, but there were several more very good years under Stans than the limited timeframe you reference.

Good years, yes. But they all had drama surrounding every season whether it be off court or on court issues. And usually both.

To be fair, I think the Xavier Tourney loss changed Stans' coaching philosophy. Prior to that loss, we were a more traditional hoops program built around two true big men, pounding the ball inside offensively, defense, and rebounding. Following that loss, we went small and tried to load up on "shooters." Stans tried to have five guys all capable of being superstars and carrying a team on any given night. But you can pretty clearly see the change in the program before and after the Xavier game.

[coastdoglover]

and how many did tricky Dick have? The fact is we made the dance and the NIT and won several SEC tourney's and should have won 2 more except for the crooked SEC refs. Okay, I let you drag me in again but Stans ain't coming back nor is Williams, so this is a fruitless discussion for the 100th time.


Sure there were some other good years- but the fact remains that outside of that 4 year span- Stands only had 1 team out of 10 that clinched an NCAA berth by the end of the regular season.

[Liverpooldawg]

No, C34 nailed it. Stands wasn't just The Recruiter for Williams. He was the "good cop" to Williams' "bad cop." He was the buddy to the players while Williams was the asshole. It's why he struggled with discipline issues early in his tenure. Trying to make the transition from buddy to hard ass didn't go over well.

Ugh, what do you think a feather smoother is? That's exactly what I was talking about. LOL. Williams needed that a lot more than he needed help recruiting.

[MadDawg]

Sure there were some other good years- but the fact remains that outside of that 4 year span- Stands only had 1 team out of 10 that clinched an NCAA berth by the end of the regular season.

Yet out of the 7 years after this timeframe, Stans only missed the post-season twice.

[Jack Lambert]

Could we have both the way it was arranged back in the mid 90's?

[tcdog70]

Stans, but only because he's still in the game. Also, I wouldn't consider Stansbury's lack of success in the tournament bad luck. He just got out coached.

Not in all cases. Did he get out Coached when we played Duke? Did He get Out coached when we Played Xavier? or did they just light it up? Was it His fault that as a higher seed He basically Played Texas in their backyard? He did get out coached against Butler. We had a foul to give and didn't use it.

[tcdog70]

Would I take Stans right now--you damn skippy I would and so would the vast majority of State fans. Bring Him and Kirby back with Joe Carter and Grant.

[tcdog70]

Williams. He built it. Stains dismantled it.

Dick's assistant coaches built it. Scott ruined it

[tcdog70]

The fact that you had to pull out an NIT team in discussing Williams' handful of best teams says it all.

The group I'm talking about is obviously the 94-96 group. THAT is where Williams gets his reputation. Outside of that, he wasn't even average. Stans' last 7 years, while not good enough for me to want to keep him, we're unquestionably better than most of Williams' tenure.

As to sleepy, the reason I say unlucky at times is because he simply was. His two best teams were absolutely good enough to go to the Sweet 16 and beyond, and the 04 was a Final 4 team just waiting to happen. But in 02, we faced lower seeded Texas in Dallas, and in 04, every team in the country would have lost that day to Xavier.

The Butler loss was just a bad loss, and his other teams just weren't good enough. But his two best ran into things I just think we're out of his hands.

This all day ^^^^^^^---good job Smoot

[Coach34]

Not in all cases. Did he get out Coached when we played Duke? Did He get Out coached when we Played Xavier? Was it His fault that as a higher seed He basically Played Texas in their backyard? Yes, Yes, and YesZoning Duke is his worst in-game coaching decision he ever made. We didn't play Texas on their home floor in Austin- I get so tired of that excuse

[Coach34]

And for those that have forgotten- Stands tried to zone Duke with JJ Redick- the NCAA all-time 3pt shooter

5 possessions we zoned them- they scored 12 points on those 5 possessions with 2 of them Redick 3-balls

[MadDawg]

We didn't play Texas on their home floor in Austin- I get so tired of that excuse

You are the first person I've ever heard take issue with the notion that we got screwed by having to go to Dallas to play a #6 Texas when we were the #3 seed. Wonder why that is?

[Coach34]

It's not ideal- but we played in Dallas and had plenty of fans there. It wasn't their home floor. We didn't lose that game because it was in Dallas.

[MadDawg]

Yes, Yes, and YesZoning Duke is his worst in-game coaching decision he ever made.

I have to give you credit for sticking to your agenda, even when you have to take extremely weak positions to do so. That takes commitment. I commend you.

Having said that, are you really going to argue that #9 seed MSU losing to #1 Duke was due to being outcoached? Really? And your one shining example of that is 5 possesions where we zoned them? Keeping in mind we held Duke to 15 points below their season average. (78 vs. 63)

[tcdog70]

It's not ideal- but we played in Dallas and had plenty of fans there. It wasn't their home floor. We didn't lose that game because it was in Dallas.

We have plenty of fans in Oxford when we play Ole Miss. Shit even the talking Heads said it was a head scratchier . I don't think you believe have the shit you post on Basketball

[Coach34]

I have to give you credit for sticking to your agenda, even when you have to take extremely weak positions to do so. That takes commitment. I commend you.

Having said that, are you really going to argue that #9 seed MSU losing to #1 Duke was due to being outcoached? Really? And your one shining example of that is 5 possesions where we zoned them? Keeping in mind we held Duke to 15 points below their season average. (78 vs. 63)

Thanks for helping my point. We did play good defense- so what kind of moron switches to a zone against the NCAA's all-time 3 pt shooter???? We zoned them for 5 possessions- and they scored on all 5. It's very telling when you look at the overall way we played D that day

[Coach34]

We have plenty of fans in Oxford when we play Ole Miss. Shit even the talking Heads said it was a head scratchier . I don't think you believe have the shit you post on Basketball

aGAIN- what's playing in Oxford got to do with it??? We did not play Texas in Austin on their home floor. We played them on the Dallas Mavericks home floor. It was a new venue for them just as it was for us

[smootness]

It shows that Williams was not the beneficiary of blind luck like some people argue. He had a couple of different core groups with success and also managed to do it while rebuilding a program (or maybe just building one; not sure if any success we had ahd before Williams was close enough in time to count as rebuilding).

I wouldn't say blind luck, but even that 91 team was just a one year deal, it wasn't any kind of a run. And they went out in the first round of the NCAA Tourney by 20 to the 12 seed.

Williams had two good groups (one extremely good), and after both, he allowed the program to collapse again.

My point is that he didn't really build anything. He just got 2 good groups together in a 12-year span.

It's also funny to me that people claim Williams was some kind of great floor coach when he couldn't produce any kind of consistency and if his teams didn't have tons of talent, they were terrible.

[I seen it dawg]

Dick's assistant coaches built it. Scott ruined it

Bull****ingshit.

[I seen it dawg]

I have to give you credit for sticking to your agenda, even when you have to take extremely weak positions to do so. That takes commitment. I commend you.

Having said that, are you really going to argue that #9 seed MSU losing to #1 Duke was due to being outcoached? Really? And your one shining example of that is 5 possesions where we zoned them? Keeping in mind we held Duke to 15 points below their season average. (78 vs. 63)

We could have beaten them that yr.

[War Machine Dawg]

We could have beaten them that yr.

Not to mention we had no business being a 9 seed and having to play them that early. In typical Stans fashion, we'd choked in the non-con to Hellen Keller's School for the Blind and Mute and cost ourselves seeding.

[basedog]

Does this debate need to exist? Damn, neither are ever coming back to coach at Msu again! All I know is we suck in basketball right now!

[tcdog70]

aGAIN- what's playing in Oxford got to do with it??? We did not play Texas in Austin on their home floor. We played them on the Dallas Mavericks home floor. It was a new venue for them just as it was for us

You acted like having plenty of fans was a factor. You have an argument that is pretty stupid. Do you not think if we played . them in Jackson it wouldn't be an advantage for us. And we hold Duke to 63 and you want to criticize Stans. Sometimes you play a zone to protect a player in foul trouble.

[tcdog70]

Not to mention we had no business being a 9 seed and having to play them that early. In typical Stans fashion, we'd choked in the non-con to Hellen Keller's School for the Blind and Mute and cost ourselves seeding.

You are right we had no business being a 9 seed, another case of Us getting screwed

[tcdog70]

Bull****ingshit.

What don't you agree with. Brady and Stans put the Players at MSU. And Scott has ****ed up our basketball program. ****ing Ray Charles can see this

[Dawgcentral]

Does this debate need to exist? Damn, neither are ever coming back to coach at Msu again! All I know is we suck in basketball right now!

^^^^
This is it, exactly. Too much time looking back will have you tripping over the current obstacles. Are we going to face these debates over the next year's time? Maybe I'm too old for this s**t.

[Liverpooldawg]

Yes, Yes, and YesZoning Duke is his worst in-game coaching decision he ever made. We didn't play Texas on their home floor in Austin- I get so tired of that excuse

So if we had played Texas in Tupelo we wouldn't have had a home court advantage? That is just laughable 34. Sometimes your blind hatred for Stans makes you go full moron mode.

[Acid mouth]

We could have beaten them that yr.

Agreed. I'll go one step further and say that had they just called 5 of Sheldon Williams 10+ fouls, we would've won

[Liverpooldawg]

I wouldn't say blind luck, but even that 91 team was just a one year deal, it wasn't any kind of a run. And they went out in the first round of the NCAA Tourney by 20 to the 12 seed.

Williams had two good groups (one extremely good), and after both, he allowed the program to collapse again.

My point is that he didn't really build anything. He just got 2 good groups together in a 12-year span.

It's also funny to me that people claim Williams was some kind of great floor coach when he couldn't produce any kind of consistency and if his teams didn't have tons of talent, they were terrible.

That team that went out by 20 to a 12 seed had a rather significant suspension to contend with.

[Coach34]

So if we had played Texas in Tupelo we wouldn't have had a home court advantage? That is just laughable 34. Sometimes your blind hatred for Stans makes you go full moron mode.


Actually- it would be more like playing on the coast- not Tupelo. And that would help with a small crowd advantage- but a better team that is well-coached on a neutral floor finds a way to win. We never did

[mic]

What don't you agree with. Brady and Stans put the Players at MSU. And Scott has ****ed up our basketball program. ****ing Ray Charles can see this

Scott made a bad hire for sure.
Stands is the one that set our program back...

[Liverpooldawg]

Actually- it would be more like playing on the coast- not Tupelo. And that would help with a small crowd advantage- but a better team that is well-coached on a neutral floor finds a way to win. We never did

LAUGH OUT LOUD! Us playing Texas anywhere in Mississippi or even Memphis would have been a HUGE advantage for us. Just like them playing us in Texas WAS FOR THEM. Your personal hatred is making you just stupid on this. Even the media was commenting on it at the time. You are losing credibility here dude.

[Coach34]

Didn't we play Butler in Birmingham? Didn't we have a significant advantage there with the crowd? The Stands excuses just get so damn lame

[Johnson85]

You are right we had no business being a 9 seed, another case of Us getting screwed

Us getting put where our record suggested we should be is not getting screwed. Stansburys downfall was having two teams that should have had good chances to go to the sweet 16 get an 8 and a 9 seed. You can't waste good years like that.

[Liverpooldawg]

Didn't we play Butler in Birmingham? Didn't we have a significant advantage there with the crowd? The Stands excuses just get so damn lame

We weren't discussing the Butler game. I agree that was a BAD loss and we had what amounted to a home court advantage. You are saying that Texas had little or no home court advantage in DALLAS and that it was a neutral court. THAT is like of saying that Alabama at Legion Field in the old days was playing them at a neutral field. It's just stupid. Did you say it was ok when Templeton sold the Florida game to Tampa (or Orlando or what ever Florida city) because it was a neutral field?

[Liverpooldawg]

Us getting put where our record suggested we should be is not getting screwed. Stansburys downfall was having two teams that should have had good chances to go to the sweet 16 get an 8 and a 9 seed. You can't waste good years like that.

At least this man is honest. If Stans had made it to the Sweet 16 those years he would still be here. The discipline problems would not have even been noticed then.

[War Machine Dawg]

You are right we had no business being a 9 seed, another case of Us getting screwed

What. The. ****. We didn't get screwed. We lost to a couple of shitty non-con teams we should have blown out and had at least one bad conference loss. We got the seeding we earned because Stans couldn't coach his way out of a piss soaked paper sack. Furthermore....

http://i.imgur.com/E2j56iD.gif

[I seen it dawg]

What don't you agree with. Brady and Stans put the Players at MSU. And Scott has ****ed up our basketball program. ****ing Ray Charles can see this

Oh I see. So the great Brady and the great Stains did it all. Williams rode the Lightning to the final four...stains had the same lightning and wahhh wahhh wahhhhhh. No sweet 16. He was shit as a floor coach.

[I seen it dawg]

And the current hire was trailer trash. Just a step above the dumpster fire that was left for the current guy.

[Liverpooldawg]

And the current hire was trailer trash. Just a step above the dumpster fire that was left for the current guy.

Step above? If you like losing then maybe so.