Vic without a dominant player

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basedog

Most of the time the best team wins, especially playing in the familiar surroundings. The Ducks were and are the better overall team. They have good size, quickness, very athletic ball handlers and good shooters. Yes we would have a better chance in Starkville, but regardless if they shoot 13-26 from the 3 point line and shoot free throws like they do it would still be close and IFFY.

---

Teams shoot better at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparrows2

Vic is a good coach but the last 3 years he has had a dominant player
Victoria than T. One year we had two and probably should have won it all.

The point is it ain?t coaching its players

I don?t think we have a dominant player on the roster
May have to settle for a few steps back for the next few years

---

We'll almost certainly take a step back next year; how big is a question. Personally, I think we'll be similar to SC this year, about a 3-4 seed.

After that, I think we'll jump right back to contending.

Vic is a top-notch recruiter and a good coach. We aren't done getting talented players in Starkville.

Ah, Elite Dawgs... where the best coaches in America reside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeshouldveflanked

Bibby,
Espinoza-Hunter
Carter
Precious Taylor
Scott
Rickea Jackson
Jayla Hemingway
JaMya Young
We have 1 McDonalds AA in Rickea Jackson and 4 other incoming players nominated for McDonalds AA....Vic is also getting closer on 6-7 5 Star Kamillo Cardosa for next years signing class.

---

I really hope we get Cardosa. It would be like getting Junior McCowan as a freshman.

I think some are sleeping on Promise Taylor.. She was all-SEC freshman and now has a year under Vic. I think She will be a force. She is 6'5'' and can score. Put Her Carter and Bibby on the floor, you are 6'5", 6'5" and 6'1".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcdog70

I think some are sleeping on Promise Taylor.. She was all-SEC freshman and now has a year under Vic. I think She will be a force. She is 6'5'' and can score. Put Her Carter and Bibby on the floor, you are 6'5", 6'5" and 6'1".

---

Exactly and Carter is long and rangy as well. We will have more depth and better scorers next season. Defense will be a question mark as well as rebounding, but I am willing to bet we compete again for the SEC title. We are going to have really good outside shooting next season. Which will allow better spacing teams keys on Hunter at the end of the year with Danberry and Holmes never taking 3 pt baskets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcdog70

I think some are sleeping on Promise Taylor.. She was all-SEC freshman and now has a year under Vic. I think She will be a force. She is 6'5'' and can score. Put Her Carter and Bibby on the floor, you are 6'5", 6'5" and 6'1".

---

Not sure with this lineup we could guard from the outside. Carter has potential and lets hope she puts in the work this summer to improve. I'm not familiar about Taylor's skill, Bibby's outside shooting will be a plus.

Btw, I read about Cardosa, seems some think she is a UConn lean. Geno has been seen at some of her games, I think she is rated #2 for a Center. Her team lost the in the Tn state finals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparrows2

Coaches don?t turn someone into a dominant player at best they help a player achieve their potential

Coaches mistake diamonds for lumps of coal sometimes but they never actually turn a lump of coal into a diamond

If they could then Saban and Gino are spending way too much time and travel on recruiting

---

Yeah, not true. What do you think coaches do? One of the main jobs is to refine the raw material they have been given. Pressure that coal until it becomes a diamond, take a diamond and cut it, then take a cut diamond and polish it. No mistake, a player has the biggest role in their own development but great coaches get the players to buy in to that development.

Now if you want to discuss how raw an athlete coaches have to start with because of their recruiting, reputation etc., that?s a totally different discussion. Saban developed well raw athletes when he was not able to cherry pick the best diamonds but he still developed. He still coached and taught the players and had a good plan.

Go back and watch McGown as a Fresh/Soph...compare to today and you don?t think the coaches had much to do with that????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

Yeah, not true. What do you think coaches do? One of the main jobs is to refine the raw material they have been given. Pressure that coal until it becomes a diamond, take a diamond and cut it, then take a cut diamond and polish it. No mistake, a player has the biggest role in their own development but great coaches get the players to buy in to that development.

Now if you want to discuss how raw an athlete coaches have to start with because of their recruiting, reputation etc., that?s a totally different discussion. Saban developed well raw athletes when he was not able to cherry pick the best diamonds but he still developed. He still coached and taught the players and had a good plan.

Go back and watch McGown as a Fresh/Soph...compare to today and you don?t think the coaches had much to do with that????

---

So basically you are saying that Vic should get credit for turning a terrible player into the most dominant big player in the game and the SEC player of the year
While he was performing that miracle of coaching why didn’t he coach her on being able to play the pick and roll so we can win in Oregon?

I wish the rest of the world worked like that
You get credit for other people success and blame them when you fail

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparrows2

So basically you are saying that Vic should get credit for turning a terrible player into the most dominant big player in the game and the SEC player of the year
While he was performing that miracle of coaching why didn’t he coach her on being able to play the pick and roll so we can win in Oregon?

I wish the rest of the world worked like that
You get credit for other people success and blame them when you fail

---

Huh?

I don't know why we have to separate all these things. McCowan had a good bit of natural talent (read: being 6'7"). Schaefer did a great job of coaching her up, she did a great job of responding and implementing that coaching. She still had some weaknesses, which teams were able to exploit. Schaefer did a very good coaching job this year, the roster had a good bit of talent but also some pretty glaring holes, and ultimately there were some things Schaefer could have possibly done differently.

All those things can be true.

Schaefer is a great recruiter. He is also a great coach. To deny any of that is asinine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basedog

Not sure with this lineup we could guard from the outside. Carter has potential and lets hope she puts in the work this summer to improve. I'm not familiar about Taylor's skill, Bibby's outside shooting will be a plus.

Btw, I read about Cardosa, seems some think she is a UConn lean. Geno has been seen at some of her games, I think she is rated #2 for a Center. Her team lost the in the Tn state finals.

---

Coach Schaefer has stated many times that he thinks power forward is J Carter?s best position. I?m sure it will depend on how much P Taylor develops and depth in the post. If we are getting a grad transfer I?d hope it?s a post player. That or we could rotate Bibby back down to power forward when we need to rest P Taylor or J Carter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparrows2

So basically you are saying that Vic should get credit for turning a terrible player into the most dominant big player in the game and the SEC player of the year
While he was performing that miracle of coaching why didn’t he coach her on being able to play the pick and roll so we can win in Oregon?

I wish the rest of the world worked like that
You get credit for other people success and blame them when you fail

---

The world does work like that but that’s not what I’m saying and irrelevant. Stay on topic. When the players not only acknowledge coach help but give the coaches bulk of credit for their development, then they know and believe that’s what happened. Why is this even a question? Maybe you had terrible peewee coaches but that’s not true with a lot of coaches at that level. Some are much better at developing different aspects of the game and the staff have roles but for the most part a HC does get the bulk of the credit. Why would you think otherwise and is a separate issue from the player growth from within, as I already stated.

That has nothing to do with blaming whatever on wins and losses. Totally different discussion. But if you don’t give the Vic and the staff credit for developing McGown...then either you are just ignorant or have an agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

Huh?

I don't know why we have to separate all these things. McCowan had a good bit of natural talent (read: being 6'7"). Schaefer did a great job of coaching her up, she did a great job of responding and implementing that coaching. She still had some weaknesses, which teams were able to exploit. Schaefer did a very good coaching job this year, the roster had a good bit of talent but also some pretty glaring holes, and ultimately there were some things Schaefer could have possibly done differently.

All those things can be true.

Schaefer is a great recruiter. He is also a great coach. To deny any of that is asinine.

---

Yep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

Huh?

I don't know why we have to separate all these things. McCowan had a good bit of natural talent (read: being 6'7"). Schaefer did a great job of coaching her up, she did a great job of responding and implementing that coaching. She still had some weaknesses, which teams were able to exploit. Schaefer did a very good coaching job this year, the roster had a good bit of talent but also some pretty glaring holes, and ultimately there were some things Schaefer could have possibly done differently.

All those things can be true.

Schaefer is a great recruiter. He is also a great coach. To deny any of that is asinine.

---

The original post said that coaches don’t make dominant players
They just don’t
Coaching doesn’t make greatness, they help marginally
In the case of the Oregon game Vic hurt T by taking a dominant low post player and asking her to guard on the perimeter

To suggest otherwise is asinine

Looks like an agenda 47 post bad-mouthing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparrows2

The original post said that coaches don’t make dominant players
They just don’t
Coaching doesn’t make greatness, they help marginally
In the case of the Oregon game Vic hurt T by taking a dominant low post player and asking her to guard on the perimeter

To suggest otherwise is asinine

---

And game situation has a totally different discussion...has nothing to do with player development. That’s not even close to the same discussion.

As far what role a coach develops...if you think this particular player would have been as good as she is on her on...that’s a clueless and ignorant statement or you have an agenda. Coaching and discipline absolutely had a lot to do with where she is today. Shouldn’t even be a question to be raised about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparrows2

The original post said that coaches don’t make dominant players
They just don’t
Coaching doesn’t make greatness, they help marginally
In the case of the Oregon game Vic hurt T by taking a dominant low post player and asking her to guard on the perimeter

To suggest otherwise is asinine

---

I read an article where Oregon said their strategy was to drag T around the floor to wear her out. They said that the player and was guarding wouldn't shoot 3s, but they wanted her out of the lane. They also said they wanted to pick and roll her to death. Kinda weird for Vic to play an opponent again and not change up the strategy at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparrows2

The original post said that coaches don’t make dominant players
They just don’t
Coaching doesn’t make greatness, they help marginally
In the case of the Oregon game Vic hurt T by taking a dominant low post player and asking her to guard on the perimeter

To suggest otherwise is asinine

---

If you think coaching and development didn't make T great/dominant, then what did? She was not that way pre Vic/johnnie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparrows2

The original post said that coaches don’t make dominant players
They just don’t
Coaching doesn’t make greatness, they help marginally
In the case of the Oregon game Vic hurt T by taking a dominant low post player and asking her to guard on the perimeter

To suggest otherwise is asinine

---

It depends.

Sometimes they help marginally. See Maya Moore, Brittany Griner, Diana Taurasi, etc. who were huge recruits, were beasts from day 1 in college, and got better from there.

Sometimes they help quite a bit. See Teaira McCowan, Megan Gustafson on the women's side, Jarrett Culver and Rui Hachimura on the men's side.

No one is denying that there needs to be something there to work with, the makings of greatness. No one would argue a great coach can take any player and make them great. But to deny that they can really help much at all is ridiculous. All of those players had the makings of what they are today, sure. McCowan was a very good recruit; not one of the top handful in the country, but certainly highly regarded. But was she destined to become the #1 pick no matter what? Heck no. She shot under 50% from the field as a freshman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by confucius say

If you think coaching and development didn't make T great/dominant, then what did? She was not that way pre Vic/johnnie

---

First thank you for mentioning Johnnie, I think Vic would appreciate that
Second, do you imagine Tiger Woods sprang from the womb knowing how to play golf or did he have a teacher?
Did Da Vinci know how to paint as an infant?
Everyone has teachers and Vic is an excellent teacher, talent evaluator and recruiter
But he isn’t making anyone great or dominant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparrows2

First thank you for mentioning Johnnie, I think Vic would appreciate that
Second, do you imagine Tiger Woods sprang from the womb knowing how to play golf or did he have a teacher?
Did Da Vinci know how to paint as an infant?
Everyone has teachers and Vic is an excellent teacher, talent evaluator and recruiter
But he isn?t making anyone great or dominant

---

Without Earl Woods (for good or ill) you don?t have Tiger?s success. In fact I would say it?s a much smaller percentage of great athletes who are great solely from within. Yes they have to have the make up with in themselves but it is a lot smaller percentage of players that it comes strictly from within without an external person developing or pushing or driving them also to be great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

Without Earl Woods (for good or ill) you don?t have Tiger?s success. In fact I would say it?s a much smaller percentage of great athletes who are great solely from within. Yes they have to have the make up with in themselves but it is a lot smaller percentage of players that it comes strictly from within without an external person developing or pushing or driving them also to be great.

---

1st not just no but hell no. The only evidence I need is good old American capitalism
In professional sports the athlete gets paid more. If the coach could create greatness they would get paid more. After all which is more valuable a fish or knowing how to fish?
2nd it’s thinking like in this thread that deified Polk and ruined him for MSU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparrows2

First thank you for mentioning Johnnie, I think Vic would appreciate that
Second, do you imagine Tiger Woods sprang from the womb knowing how to play golf or did he have a teacher?
Did Da Vinci know how to paint as an infant?
Everyone has teachers and Vic is an excellent teacher, talent evaluator and recruiter
But he isn?t making anyone great or dominant

---

Answer the question. Why did she become dominant between ages 20 and 22? The only variable added to her basketball life was coaching, both physical and mental.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by confucius say

Answer the question. Why did she become dominant between ages 20 and 22? The only variable added to her basketball life was coaching, both physical and mental.

---

No you answer, there is a 5 star guard that has been on the bench for two years why hasn’t Vic made her great?
He has been too busy with T?
People mature at different rates and at different times. If you could MAKE someone great wouldn’t you do it all the time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparrows2

No you answer, there is a 5 star guard that has been on the bench for two years why hasn’t Vic made her great?
He has been too busy with T?
People mature at different rates and at different times. If you could MAKE someone great wouldn’t you do it all the time?

---

You can't make someone great without them having the potential to be great, no doubt. A coach could work with me every day and I would never be great.

Is your point that being great is solely a result of the player and coaching plays no part in it? Or that the player herself/himself is the primary reason he/she becomes great?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparrows2

1st not just no but hell no. The only evidence I need is good old American capitalism
In professional sports the athlete gets paid more. If the coach could create greatness they would get paid more. After all which is more valuable a fish or knowing how to fish?
2nd it’s thinking like in this thread that deified Polk and ruined him for MSU

---

ETA. If you don’t think Earl Woods drove a lot of what help make Tiger great in his early years, then you are disagreeing with Tiger himself. Yes, it all has to fit from within and from external but his father helped shape a lot of what Tiger was able to achieve.

You are just wrong. Spending some time actually coaching athletes, teaching children, etc. The vast differences in their personalities, psyche, not mention actual ability they are born with. The differences are just too great. You just can’t be more wrong. And if money is the only motivation...why is everyone not rich? Lot of ways to make money but thinking that is what an athlete needs to push themselves toward greatness without anyone else coaching, mentoring, pushing them...capitalism is the only driving factor? Goodness that’s incorrect. And you don’t think coaches at this level don’t get paid a lot already?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by confucius say

You can't make someone great without them having the potential to be great, no doubt. A coach could work with me every day and I would never be great.

Is your point that being great is solely a result of the player and coaching plays no part in it? Or that the player herself/himself is the primary reason he/she becomes great?

---

The player is the primary reason they are great. There is no “special sauce “ coaching involved. This should be unspeakably obvious because if it was that special touch by Vic and johnnie than every player they coached would be dominant. Good teachers get the most out of their students they don’t put something there that was never there to begin with

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparrows2

The player is the primary reason they are great. There is no “special sauce “ coaching involved. This should be unspeakably obvious because if it was that special touch by Vic and johnnie than every player they coached would be dominant. Good teachers get the most out of their students they don’t put something there that was never there to begin with

---

I don't think anybody on here would disagree that the player is the primary reason he/she becomes great.

I think the only disagreement is that, in your previous posts, you seem adamant that a coach plays no part, or only a marginal part, in a player becoming great. That may be true sometimes, but would vary for each player depending on his/her circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparrows2

The player is the primary reason they are great. There is no “special sauce “ coaching involved. This should be unspeakably obvious because if it was that special touch by Vic and johnnie than every player they coached would be dominant. Good teachers get the most out of their students they don’t put something there that was never there to begin with

---

So by that logic (which I do agree that the player/student has to put in the work...there is no question about that) but the flip side of that logic is that there are no good teachers/coaches because they don’t get ALL of the students to greatness. Is that what you think? That because not all of the players are dominate then the coach is not good? That because all of the students are not carrying a 4.0 in a class then that teacher is bad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by captaindog

Coach Schaefer has stated many times that he thinks power forward is J Carter?s best position. I?m sure it will depend on how much P Taylor develops and depth in the post. If we are getting a grad transfer I?d hope it?s a post player. That or we could rotate Bibby back down to power forward when we need to rest P Taylor or J Carter.

---

I could see Carter at the 4 spot, not sure how good her mid range shooting is but if Taylor is the answer at center we will or could be strong in the middle on defense I hope. Not sure about our perimeter quickness although Bibby, Scott and hunter can shoot the 3's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparrows2

First thank you for mentioning Johnnie, I think Vic would appreciate that
Second, do you imagine Tiger Woods sprang from the womb knowing how to play golf or did he have a teacher?
Did Da Vinci know how to paint as an infant?
Everyone has teachers and Vic is an excellent teacher, talent evaluator and recruiter
But he isn’t making anyone great or dominant

---

I'd say he sprang from the womb w God given taken yes. Now he needed instruction to make him his best but I could have coached him and he would have been a great golfer. Maybe not the best ever but great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homedawg

I'd say he sprang from the womb w God given taken yes. Now he needed instruction to make him his best but I could have coached him and he would have been a great golfer. Maybe not the best ever but great.

---

A lot of times with phenomenal talent it is not the coaching of x and o as much as it is coaching the mental aspect and the drive needed to be great

This is a terrible post with absolutely zero anything to back it up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparrows2

1st not just no but hell no. The only evidence I need is good old American capitalism
In professional sports the athlete gets paid more. If the coach could create greatness they would get paid more. After all which is more valuable a fish or knowing how to fish?
2nd it’s thinking like in this thread that deified Polk and ruined him for MSU

---

Why does the coach get paid anything at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparrows2

Vic is a good coach but the last 3 years he has had a dominant player
Victoria than T. One year we had two and probably should have won it all.

The point is it ain?t coaching its players

I don?t think we have a dominant player on the roster
May have to settle for a few steps back for the next few years

---

You say that like we have less talent coming back....

On next years roster

5*'s
Myah Taylor
JESSIKA CARTER
Jackson


4*'s
Wiggins
Promise Taylor
Tate
hemingway
Young

3*
Scott

FYI
Holmes, Howard were a 3*'s
Danberry and T were a 5*'s

we lose 2 3*'s and replace both 5*'s we lost.

I think Vic will be fine

Don't forget AEH was a 5 star.