A look at the past may help us determine the future!
Sometimes we can look at the past of what Coach Stansbury has done to somewhat predict what we will see in the upcoming season. For instance, he will start his most experienced players at the start of the game and then substitute as he feels is necessary to keep the players rested and on top of their game. I think in the first two exhibition games he may do something similar to what occurred in Vancouver last year. He will start with experience, play them for about 5 minutes and then put in 4 of the new players just to get a feel for what they can do under game conditions. It will be almost like he will be playing a different team in 5 minute shifts. However, when we do start our schedule, the name of the game is to win. This is when he will start the experienced team, i.e. Gordon, Hansbrough, Stewart, Rhodes and Varnado. However, I think based on what he has seen in practice and the exhibition games, he will substitute liberally. I think we will see Augustus, R. Johnson , B. Johnson and Bailey see early playing time. I think we will see Hansbrough move to PG when Gordon is being rested at the first part of the season. However, as the season goes on, he may be replaced by Turner at PG. You have to realize this is all speculation on my part. I think early in the season, we may see a lot of the freshmen get into the games after we have them well in hand. When we have this many highly prized athletes on the team, playing time is what keeps them happy. Coach has said on several different occasions that this team has the best team chemistry he has had in his program. This bodes well for our program. Needles to say, but Coach will determine his best 5 players during the non-conference play and these guys will be, for a lack of a better word, “his crunch time team.” So, come on out to all of the games you are able to, and if you can’t be there, make sure some other dawg fan uses your ticket. Overall, this season will still see a very young, but talented team don the maroon and white. My prediction: overall 22+ wins and 10+ wins in conference play. GO DAWGS.
9 comments:
Regarding the coming season: Coach Stansbury recently spoke to a group in Amory. There was some reports on it on another board but someone that was there may have some additional information.
captaindawg
It's difficult to envision us playing up to 10 players based on previous Stansbury teams. However this team probably has that kind of depth and the 2008-2009 team will be even deeper.
That crunchtime team ? I believe you subtract Hansbrough and add Augustus. We simply must have that matchup ability at Small Forward. I view Ben as a strong 6th man for us but we really need Augustus causing and answering matchup problems.
Crunch time = Varnado, Rhodes, Augustus, Stewart, Gordon
Bench ranks like this..
1) Hansbrough
2) Brian Johnson
3) Turner
4) Ravern Johnson
5) Bailey
Playing time will be substantial through Turner, but Ravern and Elgin will really have to perform well to give us unusual depth. Benock and the new walk-on should red-shirt.
I have no idea how PT is meted out next year, but this year may be a dress rehearsal for playing quality depth we aren't accustomed to. ZD
depth depth dept. we have a deep team, and NEED to play as a deep team.
this didnt happen at all last year, and i think it was clearly obvious that the chemistry suffered at times.
4 players transferred out due to lack of playing time and not meshing with the offensive scheme.
everyone can say that there is now addition by subtraction and by them leaving, we are in a better situation, and that may very well be true. BUT, we will be no better off unless the lessons from the past are learned from. meaning, playing time must be dolled out to more than the top 7 players.
now, im not talking 'Little League' rules here where the coach must play everyone at least an inning, but when talented players dont feel like their value is being appreciated and used, harmony quickly dissolves.
we have the talent to play 10 guys. now, im not sayin we need to have all 10 players average 20 minutes/game, but giving 30-20 to 6 of em and 10-15 to the other 4 seems reasonable and allows all the players to contribute MEANINGFUL minutes.
now, all that is assuming that all the players stay healthy and the freshmen/new players(Bailey, Augustus, R Johnson, B Johnson, Turner) pick up the defensive sets well enough to be out on the floor.
bottom line, if they have the skills down to be on the floor, Stans needs to get them on the floor.
no more of this 6-7 man rotation only.
having 10 players able to swap in and out means fresh legs on the floor. fresh legs that can push the ball on offense and fresh legs that will have less of a chance of reaching on defense.
-mstateglfr
Golfer hits on a good point. If you recruit all these prolific players then you are eventually bound to play them.
Depth is a result of substitution. Lots and lots of substitution. ZD
Time to find out how good of a bench coach Stansbury is...
The new roster report has Kodi Augustus playing primaily at small forward. Also, speaks highly of his perimeter shooting ability and all around floor game. He and Ravern Johnson are both in the mix at small forward.
I watched every telivised game last year. And I followed the play by play stats on all the others. When I read glfr's comments suggesting that lack of playing time and failure to "mesh" with the offense is what caused 4 transfers... it didn't quite remember it that way. So, I did some checking.
Avg minutes by player:
Gordon 32
Rhodes 26
Slater 26
Reggie 26
Stewart 24
Ben 23
Richard 23
Jarvis 13
Goodrch 8
Stelmch 7
Rimer 6
I'm sorry, but that is pretty dang balanced. Rimer got as much time as they deserved. The Delks played as much as Stewart and Hansbrough. They simply didn't like seeing their minutes chipped away as Hansbrough and Stewart became more effective. One might argue that Goodrich deserved more time.
It seems obvious that the Delks left because they didn't think they'd be getting 30 minutes a game like Jamont. For crying out loud, Rhodes, an all SEC'er only go 26 minutes!
All in all things were pretty equitable. I'd have liked Vanardo to see more playing time, but, its hard to argue against the team chemistry that existed in those last 7 or 8 games.
Yes, we'll be deep and we'll play 3 or 4 deep. But, we will not see more than 7 guys with 20+ minutes this or more this year.
Jamont's minutes will not decrease. 30+
Rhodes minutes will increase (hurt had caused his numbers to decline). 28+
Hansbrough's minutes up slightly. 25
Stewart's minutes up slightly. 25
Vanardo minutes in the 20's.
Augustus 20's.
Ravern 15+
Johnson 15+
Turner 15+
Bailey 10?
And remember a lot of who gets those "minutes" with Coach Stansbury is determined in a very scientific and fair and rational way-by how you do in practices!
-Souldog
tom-
looking at your general breakdown of minutes, it looks great.
you managed to break up the minutes so that 10 players all average over 10minutes/game, which is pretty much what i was saying.
and as for last years players, the 4 that left chose to bolt due to lack of playing time. whether they deserved to play more or not is for another discussion, cuz in the end they either didnt play as much as the wanted or didnt think they would be playing as much as they wanted in the future.
im not looking to take time away from Gordon. assuming he is playing well during a game, i think he should be out there for 30-35mpg. and Rhodes being out for 25-30mpg is fine, as long as he is playing hard. but after that, i just dont see the sort of seperation needed to warrant significantly more PT for one player vs another. and i think that PT should(and hopefully will) be given out on a game by game basis depending on who is playing well that day. in the end, assuming players get PT when they are playing well, 4 or 5 players will average over 20mph and the other 3 will average 10-15mpg, and that is awesome.
that sort of PT, which is what you broke it down to be, would allow the team to feel like everyone is valued and contributing.
its a very good(and necessary) discussion to have.
-mstateglfr
Post a Comment