Stans stays in the SEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcdog70

Never got the strength program bitch. under Stans we were usually a great rebounding team who played good defense.

---

Strength program makes bigger, stronger, faster...helps you to be in better shape and avoid injuries...it also teaches mental toughness

We had players that never got close to being the players they could have been with some harder work in the strength program. You look at them and see what they did- many of us look at them and see what they could have been. You cant have a team culture where the ones that want to work hard do- and the ones that dont are allowed to tell the strength coach they dont want to- and then Stands backs the player instead of the SC.

Stands did P90X with Sidney in an attempt to try and get him to just do something- instead of telling him to get his fatass in the weightroom and do what he is told or get gone. And that is just one of the last examples of things like that that went on over the years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Machine Dawg

Exactly. Name just 1 player in Stans' tenure that significantly changed his body while he was here. Spoiler: None did.

---

That's where you're wrong....Sidney got fatter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I seen it dawg

That's where you're wrong....Sidney got fatter

---

Well played.

Sidney had his own gravitational field by the time he left.

We got the same strength coach now? What happened? Ray kick him in the ass to make him do his job?

Disappointing that the thread has devolved to the same ol' shit. Play on, well or otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shannondawg

We got the same strength coach now? What happened? Ray kick him in the ass to make him do his job?

---

RR is letting him do his job... And not letting the players dictate what they will and wont do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shannondawg

We got the same strength coach now? What happened? Ray kick him in the ass to make him do his job?

---

Rick Ray lets him do his job. If they dont want to do something, Ray tells them "tough shit, get your ass back in there and work"

Stands didnt let him do his job. If they didnt want to work, Stands would excuse them and tell the SC to not make them do it.

Big damn difference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

Rick Ray lets him do his job. If they dont want to do something, Ray tells them "tough shit, get your ass back in there and work"

Stands didnt let him do his job. If they didnt want to work, Stands would excuse them and tell the SC to not make them do it.

Big damn difference

---

That sounds like you are getting just one side of the story...Always 2, always..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shannondawg

That sounds like you are getting just one side of the story...Always 2, always..

---

ok- well mine comes from the SC...and I know he is alot happier now...when he says- "I'm allowed to do my job now"- I tend to believe him

Why should we be shocked about anything you say negatively about Rick. Can you just simply shut up and move on with Rick Ray. Geez, you are one obsessed individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

ok- well mine comes from the SC...and I know he is alot happier now...when he says- "I'm allowed to do my job now"- I tend to believe him

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coastdoglover

Why should we be shocked about anything you say negatively about Rick.

---

Because:

A) There is negative stuff to say about Stands
B) The truth is the truth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Machine Dawg

Exactly. Name just 1 player in Stans' tenure that significantly changed his body while he was here. Spoiler: None did.

---

John Reik went from a newborn baby giraffe laying on the ground to developing his first miracle steps to slightly stand up before wobbling and falling back on his face when he attempted to run the floor. That's development.

Hey we agree on something, Of course he is happy, he got to stay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by engie

You are right. You shouldn't have clicked -- and then posterized yourself.

None of the players you listed were considered elite players coming out of highschool. You even listed 3 different 3*s in your assessment. And you are seriously using Ravern Johnson to prop up your ideal of an elite player?

My point is that the players that ALWAYS carried Stansbury teams were the workhorses. The workhorses were the guys that felt like they had something to prove. He quit getting those at the end. Period -- end of story. It was completely over when he ran Phil Turner off.

---

So now you are saying that Jarvis, Dee, and Arnett were not elite players coming out of high school and our coaches developed 2 of them into NBA players? And Dee Bost is SO much better than any of our point guards that are on our team now - he must have developed. You cannot have it both ways - either they were good when they got here or developed. But, the initial debate was that we haven't had good players in many years - 2 of the 3 above play in the NBA. And, I mentioned Ravern and Barry because they could shoot - which nobody on our team can now.

All you try to do is win arguments and most of your debate is full of it. The bottom line in this argument is - we had good players in the past few years. See how long you have to wait to see another Jarvis or Arnett or even Bost. (Bost's replacement will playing against us on LSU's team.) Don't hold your breath waiting - never mind, please hold your breath so we don't have to read your posts anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcdawg

So now you are saying that Jarvis, Dee, and Arnett were not elite players coming out of high school and our coaches developed 2 of them into NBA players? And Dee Bost is SO much better than any of our point guards that are on our team now - he must have developed. You cannot have it both ways - either they were good when they got here or developed. But, the initial debate was that we haven't had good players in many years - 2 of the 3 above play in the NBA. And, I mentioned Ravern and Barry because they could shoot - which nobody on our team can now.

---

Jarvis got better because he had a ton of raw talent and was a self-motivated, hard worker. Same with Dee, despite the fact that he was a huge source of locker room cancer. No one can definitively say Stansbury didn't have a hand in their development, but when you look at players like Ravern who lacked that self-motivation and didn't get a whole lot better during his college career, you can't fault people for wondering. And Moultire was still very raw going into the NBA. It was becoming apparent in SEC play in 2012 when his production dropped that he still didn't have much of a low post game; he was pretty much a 6'11" slasher. Bost made him look real good with all those dishes on cuts and alley-oops, which as I said, the better SEC teams started recognizing and shutting down.

I'm not going to say Stansbury couldn't develop players, because no one can really know for sure, but there is undeniable evidence indicating the possibility he wasn't great at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thf24

Jarvis got better because he had a ton of raw talent and was a self-motivated, hard worker. Same with Dee, despite the fact that he was a huge source of locker room cancer. No one can definitively say Stansbury didn't have a hand in their development, but when you look at players like Ravern who lacked that self-motivation and didn't get a whole lot better during his college career, you can't fault people for wondering. And Moultire was still very raw going into the NBA. It was becoming apparent in SEC play in 2012 when his production dropped that he still didn't have much of a low post game; he was pretty much a 6'11" slasher. Bost made him look real good with all those dishes on cuts and alley-oops, which as I said, the better SEC teams started recognizing and shutting down.

I'm not going to say Stansbury couldn't develop players, because no one can really know for sure, but there is undeniable evidence indicating the possibility he wasn't great at it.

---

I don't know whether you've ever taught or coached. If you have, you will not argue with me when I say that nobody does anything worth a damn unless he or she is motivated. That's an ironclad rule that is never broken except by occasional accident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcdawg

So now you are saying that Jarvis, Dee, and Arnett were not elite players coming out of high school and our coaches developed 2 of them into NBA players? And Dee Bost is SO much better than any of our point guards that are on our team now - he must have developed. You cannot have it both ways - either they were good when they got here or developed. But, the initial debate was that we haven't had good players in many years - 2 of the 3 above play in the NBA. And, I mentioned Ravern and Barry because they could shoot - which nobody on our team can now.

All you try to do is win arguments and most of your debate is full of it. The bottom line in this argument is - we had good players in the past few years. See how long you have to wait to see another Jarvis or Arnett or even Bost. (Bost's replacement will playing against us on LSU's team.) Don't hold your breath waiting - never mind, please hold your breath so we don't have to read your posts anymore.

---

How many years since we made the tournament with all these "good players"?

None of those players were elite recruits -- which is what the initial argument was about that you went full retard and misrepresented -- and have continued to straw man the entire situation.

Keep going with the full retard though...

If they were not elite recruits, then Stans did a hell of a jobs Coaching them up. Where as MSU under RS had a First team all Sec player several times. sometimes even two players on the First Team. I Believe He had the SeC Defensive player of the Year who set the all time record for blocked shots. Pretty damn skippy for not so elite talent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drunkernhelldawg

I don't know whether you've ever taught or coached. If you have, you will not argue with me when I say that nobody does anything worth a damn unless he or she is motivated. That's an ironclad rule that is never broken except by occasional accident.

---

I won't argue with what you've said there, but I'd say that there are varying degrees and extents of motivation. Also, there's a difference between willingness to be motivated and self-motivation. Ravern Johnson was obviously motivated enough in high school to work and translate his talent into 40% 3-point shooting in college. Similarly, Renardo Sidney was motivated enough in his earlier years to develop a wide enough range of skills and ability to warrant being ranked as the #1 recruit in the country at one point. That motivation apparently ended when they got to college, as Ravern didn't get any bigger or stronger despite having the frame to do so and access to college training facilities, or work on an inside game that would have made him a lottery pick; and Sidney... no need to go there. Jarvis and Dee, on the other hand, continued to improve, expanded their games, and put themselves in a position to play at the next level. Why did the former two stagnate and the latter two flourish in the same program? Like I said in my last post, there's no way of knowing for sure, but it would appear to me that Jarvis and Dee had the self-motivation characteristic, while Ravern and Sidney required an external motivator and didn't have one. Sidney even said so much in an interview with the CL; something to the effect of he wished he'd had someone to push him and keep him in line after leaving high school. Maybe Stansbury was/is a great developer of players who are willing to put in the work without being pushed, but he doesn't know how to provide that motivation for the ones who don't have it on their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcdog70

Now On Rick Ray-I have seen nothing to make me feel like He can be a HC. He was left a shitty deal and He has proceeded to **** it up worse. He can't even figure out how to attack a 1-3-1. He can't recruit.

So what is it bout Him (other than He is not Stansbury) that people Like? I'm over the Stans deal, water under the bridge, It is now Ray time. He needs to step Up and be worth a **** or don't let the doorknob hit Him in the ASS.

I want MSU basketball to be a factor not a joke.

---

Why would you not support the coach you have when you know he's going to get several years to turn around the dumpster fire? All we know so far is that he hasn't been perfect and has not done anything special in recruiting. That's concerning, but Mullen 17ed up his third year by not recruiting any decent OL and leaving us exposed. That wasn't an indication that he can't coach, it was an indication he 17ed up. The difference is that he wasn't left quite the dumpster fire that Ray was. He did have some raw materials, even if the team was completely bare in a few positions and overall poorly coached up to that point, so it was just a setback rather than a season killer. Ray needed to come in and shock people with recruiting to make a difference this early and he didn't do it, and with the shape the program was in, it was a season killer. We'll see after this year whether he has put together a team that is at least competitive. If he can't compete for an NIT bid with his recruits so far, then we'll know a lot more about him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whatever

Underrated post... the C34 and 7 dwarfs narrative for years is that we needed to get rid of him because we couldn't get to the Sweet 16, because we wanted to take a chance on increasing our ceiling.

Now that everyone's realized that it's a real possibility that we've lowered our ceiling, while also making our floor much lower in the process, they're changing the Stans narrative to "he needed to go because of his lack of discipline."

It's funny to hear c34 say now that "Stans didn't get fired b/c of his lack of success," when that was all he harped on for years. I think one of the reasons all of the Stans haters are being even more vocal now against him is because they realize it's a possibility that we might not ever be a consistent NCAA tourney type program and they're scrambling to defend that they were still right.

---

They were still right. Everybody with a brain knew chances were slim that we would get somebody to match Stansbury's peak and at best even to match his post peak teams prior to the dumpster fire, but we didn't have the option of getting Stansbury at his peak and it was highly questionable whether he could even put out the dumpster fire. We had a bunch of average and better than average players made below average by character problems, and the ability to discipline them was compromised. We were in a shitty position and complicated it by hiring a new coach without any apparent recruiting ties in the SEC, although maybe the situation was viewed as toxic by the better candidates at that point.

I'm a Stansbury fan and am glad he's getting another good job and think that he could be a pretty good coach again in the right situation, but I don't think there's anyway he could have turned it around at State. He couldn't have gotten his current players to change and he probably couldn't have jettisoned them either without repercussions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcdog70

Never got the strength program bitch. under Stans we were usually a great rebounding team who played good defense. Now we have this great strength program under Ray and get maybe ten rebounds a games and get pushed around like a bunch of pussies.

---

Used to be great rebounding teams with good defense. Unfortunately we got away from that identity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnson85

Used to be great rebounding teams with good defense. Unfortunately we got away from that identity.

---

we still out rebounded teams, but Sidney played no defense. So yes our defense was Bad with RS. But , all the more reason to have given RS another Year to get back to basic. Even sorry ass stand in one spot RS out rebounded most on our current team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnson85

Why would you not support the coach you have when you know he's going to get several years to turn around the dumpster fire? All we know so far is that he hasn't been perfect and has not done anything special in recruiting. That's concerning, but Mullen 17ed up his third year by not recruiting any decent OL and leaving us exposed. That wasn't an indication that he can't coach, it was an indication he 17ed up. The difference is that he wasn't left quite the dumpster fire that Ray was. He did have some raw materials, even if the team was completely bare in a few positions and overall poorly coached up to that point, so it was just a setback rather than a season killer. Ray needed to come in and shock people with recruiting to make a difference this early and he didn't do it, and with the shape the program was in, it was a season killer. We'll see after this year whether he has put together a team that is at least competitive. If he can't compete for an NIT bid with his recruits so far, then we'll know a lot more about him.

---

I see where you are coming from but you still didn't answer my question? what is it you like about Rick Ray. What does His teams do that make you go WOW. I know they hustle, at least sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcdog70

I see where you are coming from but you still didn't answer my question? what is it you like about Rick Ray. What does His teams do that make you go WOW. I know they hustle, at least sometimes.

---

They play hard and have discipline. That's all I have seen from Ray, and it's just not enough to win games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thf24

I won't argue with what you've said there, but I'd say that there are varying degrees and extents of motivation. Also, there's a difference between willingness to be motivated and self-motivation. Ravern Johnson was obviously motivated enough in high school to work and translate his talent into 40% 3-point shooting in college. Similarly, Renardo Sidney was motivated enough in his earlier years to develop a wide enough range of skills and ability to warrant being ranked as the #1 recruit in the country at one point. That motivation apparently ended when they got to college, as Ravern didn't get any bigger or stronger despite having the frame to do so and access to college training facilities, or work on an inside game that would have made him a lottery pick; and Sidney... no need to go there. Jarvis and Dee, on the other hand, continued to improve, expanded their games, and put themselves in a position to play at the next level. Why did the former two stagnate and the latter two flourish in the same program? Like I said in my last post, there's no way of knowing for sure, but it would appear to me that Jarvis and Dee had the self-motivation characteristic, while Ravern and Sidney required an external motivator and didn't have one. Sidney even said so much in an interview with the CL; something to the effect of he wished he'd had someone to push him and keep him in line after leaving high school. Maybe Stansbury was/is a great developer of players who are willing to put in the work without being pushed, but he doesn't know how to provide that motivation for the ones who don't have it on their own.

---

It's a cliche, but attitude really is the most important factor. It's hard to succeed at a high level. Few are strong enough to give 100 percent all the time, but the great ones do it more often than not. Sidney did start to play with motivation toward the end of that last season, but he never got past the stage in which one bad play or bad call, or even hearing or reading the wrong thing, put his motivation in reverse. I have some sympathy for him as he did have to deal with more negativity that just about any Bulldog I can think of in our history.
That's one reason I refrain from criticizing Coach Ray and our current team; overcoming the negativity being thrown at them is so difficult that success is almost impossible. That's one place where Coach34 is right; we need to be cheering our team and appreciating the sacrifices that our student-athletes make. We've got enough micro managers already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drunkernhelldawg

It's a cliche, but attitude really is the most important factor. It's hard to succeed at a high level. Few are strong enough to give 100 percent all the time, but the great ones do it more often than not. Sidney did start to play with motivation toward the end of that last season, but he never got past the stage in which one bad play or bad call, or even hearing or reading the wrong thing, put his motivation in reverse. I have some sympathy for him as he did have to deal with more negativity that just about any Bulldog I can think of in our history.
That's one reason I refrain from criticizing Coach Ray and our current team; overcoming the negativity being thrown at them is so difficult that success is almost impossible. That's one place where Coach34 is right; we need to be cheering our team and appreciating the sacrifices that our student-athletes make. We've got enough micro managers already.

---

I'll agree--we all need to cheerleaders like 34****

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thf24

I won't argue with what you've said there, but I'd say that there are varying degrees and extents of motivation. Also, there's a difference between willingness to be motivated and self-motivation. Ravern Johnson was obviously motivated enough in high school to work and translate his talent into 40% 3-point shooting in college. Similarly, Renardo Sidney was motivated enough in his earlier years to develop a wide enough range of skills and ability to warrant being ranked as the #1 recruit in the country at one point. That motivation apparently ended when they got to college, as Ravern didn't get any bigger or stronger despite having the frame to do so and access to college training facilities, or work on an inside game that would have made him a lottery pick; and Sidney... no need to go there. Jarvis and Dee, on the other hand, continued to improve, expanded their games, and put themselves in a position to play at the next level. Why did the former two stagnate and the latter two flourish in the same program? Like I said in my last post, there's no way of knowing for sure, but it would appear to me that Jarvis and Dee had the self-motivation characteristic, while Ravern and Sidney required an external motivator and didn't have one. Sidney even said so much in an interview with the CL; something to the effect of he wished he'd had someone to push him and keep him in line after leaving high school. Maybe Stansbury was/is a great developer of players who are willing to put in the work without being pushed, but he doesn't know how to provide that motivation for the ones who don't have it on their own.

---

I thought RS had John Lucas as His motivator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcdog70

I see where you are coming from but you still didn't answer my question? what is it you like about Rick Ray. What does His teams do that make you go WOW. I know they hustle, at least sometimes.

---

He's our coach, our teams hustle, we've done some good things on defense that make me think he will be good with switching up defenses once he gets better personnel. The truth is I'm not particularly optimistic. I think he was basically put into an impossible situation with the roster he had and trying to recruit in a region he hasn't spent much time in, and without the full support of our juicy jumbo men. If he doesn't get Newman, I think he'll run out of time before he can build the talent up to where it needs to be. That said, it's hard to judge his coaching ability because he has been so far behind the 8 ball talentwise (I really hope the way we attacked UM's 1-3-1 in the SEC tourney was a result of exhaustion and a lack of outside shooters b/c otherwise we actually downgraded w/r/t Stansbury's biggest weakness, zone offense). Hopefully there won't be any surprises this year as far as upper classmen transferring/refusing to play and key players suffering injuries, and we'll be able to judge how his players execute.

But I get that there hasn't been a lot to wow anybody. I just don't get why people are dogging him now. We have him for another year regardless and whatever signs their have been positive or negative, we really won't have enough information to fairly judge him until we see him with this year's team. So might as well be supportive until then.