[olldflame]

I think proto makes some good points, but quite frankly, I disagree with a lot of what he wrote also. What have Stephene or Austin done so far to indicate they should start? Austin has committed 7 fouls in a total of 19 minutes, while scoring 2 points and grabbing 3 rebounds. Sanders has played more minutes than Stephene, but on a per-minute basis has been more productive in scoring and rebounding, has fewer turnovers, with assists about equal. Considering all the hours RMK and staff have had to evaluate these kids in practice, as opposed to the 2 games we have seen them, I think I'll trust his judgement on the lineup.

Kyle has played out of control at times. He needs to calm down a bit (without losing his agressiveness) and cut down on the turnovers, but he has done a surprisingly good job on the boards and has shot a good % from 3. I wish we had Tyler available to start, so Kyle could come off the bench. I agree that 6th man would be his best role, but with the players available now, IMHO he should start. Laugh if you will, but right now,a healthy Tyler Baker would make a huge difference on this team.

I like the idea of playing some man to man defense, and there is no question as a group we need to rebound more agressively.

I have never been one to say how a coach should deal with his players during a game. Last year a lot of us were praising RMK for his calm demeanor and emotional control in some close games (and contrasting it with coaches with, shall we say "less calm demeanors"). I'm not going to judge him because he didn't go postal on these kids when they were having a bad day.

[olldflame]

With all due respect to Prototype and his cult-like following, why do you like Stephene over Sanders at PG?

Because Sanders hasn't done much. He distrubuted the ball "ok" against MC but did NOTHING against UNCA. Stephene can at least score.

Stephene has scored 2 points total in 2 games, 33 minutes.

Jesse has scored 9 points in 50 minutes.

[Cider Jim]

Starting a brand new guard against an ACC team on Tuesday sounds like suicide to me.

[olldflame]

Let's face it CJ, new guards are all we have.

[prototype]

first of all D3 schools don't start five guards - not even lowly Lynchburg and Randolph starts five guards. if you think that then you've never seen a D3 game and have no business making any statements on it...

other than that, good post.

Randolph - 9 Guards and 4 Forwards listed on roster - Tallest one is Chris Morrison at 6'5" and he hasn't seen the court once.
Lynchburg - 8 Guards and 5 forwards (3 listed at 6'3"), one 6'9" Center who has 17 rebounds in 24 games last year and average 5 mins per game listed on theirs.

I was recruited out of high school by 3 colleges that played that way. Smaller schools have a tough time attracting taller players with skill (They go to bigger schools) so they tend to play a upper tempo game and shoot a lot more threes.

But anyways, you helped prove my point - no one does it!!!

[prototype]

With all due respect to Prototype and his cult-like following, why do you like Stephene over Sanders at PG?

Thanks for the compliment Cider - you can't jump on board the bus anytime;)

Where to begin on the reasoning behind this - Here we go:

Stephene can get to the basket, Sanders can't. This is what TJ did so well last year and when a guard penetrates it does two things - gets a post defender to leave his man to help and creates kick out opportunities to two shooter named Curry and Anthony Smith.

Stephene has experience, Sanders doesn't. Stephene has a year of practice under his belt and you cannot overlook that.

Stephene is a better athlete and if McKay is going to stick with this style - we need to be as athletic as possible.

I also think Stephene is a better defender.

And more of a personal issue - Sanders needs to wear shorter shorts, my sisters were forced to wear skits that long in school. He spent more time pulling on his shorts than playing defense. Ohman too - what is the deal??? I understand not wanting to look like a player from the 80s, but give me a break!! Curry's are fine - right at the knee - still looks cool, but doesn't say, "hey look at me - I'm trying to look cool with my shorts touching the floor." It's got to add 4 pounds - maybe he would have scored on Tuesday if he wasn't so weighted down?

[ATrain]

maybe he would have scored on Tuesday if he wasn't so weighted down?

Thats what she said

[prototype]

LOL. Oh no he comes BJ to slap your hand...

That's what she said.

[prototype]

What have Stephene or Austin done so far to indicate they should start?

I forgot to mention about Austin. Hey, we just need a big body down there. And he is the only one that fits the bill right now. If we can get him some confidence, maybe he can provide some rebounds and a few layups.

[SuperJon]

Austin has fouled a lot in two games. That doesn't look too good.

I know Tyler plays a wing mainly on offense, but if he can provide us a big body on defense and get some rebounds then I'm all for him getting in there once he gets healthy.

If Brolin can learn to play down there he's certainly big enough to handle his own in the Big South. The AZ Reid comparison is definitely legit.

Johnny has to play with more authority and less tentative at times. If he can do that, he'll be very successful. Right now, I think Jesse is a better game manager and can run an offense. However, if Seth is bringing the ball up the floor mainly, then Jesse doesn't really have a position. He's not a scoring threat. Johnny is at least a threat to score. From the little I've seen, it seems as though Jesse is better at taking care of the ball, getting it down the floor, and running an offense. Johnny is better at driving, penetrating, and scoring. Both are valuable depending on the other players on the floor at the time. I think depending on the team we are playing, each one can be very successful at their position.

[Champion]

Well, I guess the one thing we have to remember is that as great a freshman class as this is....they are still freshman playiing against experienced competition. There are going to be days when they play like freshman and there are going to be days when they become supermen. I truly believe that we are going to see a transition in the program much like the football team going from 1-10 to 2X conference champions. It is difficult to completely right the ship immediately. In a year or two, if they keep these guys in the program, they are going to be really scary. A lot of criticism has been thrown at Anthony Smith as well. He is the pre-season BSC player of the year, but hasn't dominated opposition thus far. I think it is somewhat unjustified to launch a lot of criticism in his direction. He has never even been on the all-conference team before and now teams are designing defenses to stop him. Give it some time folks. Maybe everthing will come together by mid-season and maybe it won't. .... but eventualy .... this team is going to be very, very good.

[flamesbball84]

first of all D3 schools don't start five guards - not even lowly Lynchburg and Randolph starts five guards. if you think that then you've never seen a D3 game and have no business making any statements on it...

other than that, good post.

Randolph - 9 Guards and 4 Forwards listed on roster - Tallest one is Chris Morrison at 6'5" and he hasn't seen the court once.
Lynchburg - 8 Guards and 5 forwards (3 listed at 6'3"), one 6'9" Center who has 17 rebounds in 24 games last year and average 5 mins per game listed on theirs.

I was recruited out of high school by 3 colleges that played that way. Smaller schools have a tough time attracting taller players with skill (They go to bigger schools) so they tend to play a upper tempo game and shoot a lot more threes.

But anyways, you helped prove my point - no one does it!!!

Heights are misleading. Charles Barkley was the height of an NBA shooting guard - heck, some NBA PGs are taller than him - and he played power forward, Magic Johnson was the hieght of an NBA power forward but played PG. A player's position is defined by the way he plays - you can be 6-3 and be an absolutely terrible guard if you don't have the skill set for it but can be a much better post player.

I agree, they do have a harder time, but the majority of D3 schools often have 2 or more players list at 6'7" or 6'8" and taller, and most of the time one of them, if not both, is getting major playing time. The ones that don't are typically the ones that suck - Lynhchburg, Eastern Mennonite, Randolph, Washington & Lee, etc. - where most people with talent don't want to go there in the first place. For example, Guilford College had two 6'10" players the past two years, one graduated this past year after a stellar four-year career and is now playing in one of the top pro leagues in Europe now and when he went to the Pete Newell camp for three summers and the coaches there considered him one of the better players at the camp, a camp which of course has future NBA players and top notch D1s every year. Also, UW Stevens Point had TWO seven footers on their team a couple years ago who were both really good, of course UWSP is always good.

[jcmanson]

Most, no ALL, people with talent don't want to go to ANY DIII school

[flamesbball84]

Most, no ALL, people with talent don't want to go to ANY DIII school

Another fallacy. If Randolph-Macon didn't have any talent, they wouldn't have beaten George Mason. Also, Devean George was a D3 player, yeah I guess he isn't very talented, only been in the NBA for 9 years, what a scrub.

[jcmanson]

I'm not saying they don't have talent, I'm saying those with talent didn't want to be there.

[flamesbball84]

I'm not saying they don't have talent, I'm saying those with talent didn't want to be there.

Funny, since I occasionally talk to their best player and he chose RMC over a couple very low D1s (think Centenary level D1) and some mid-level D2s.

Even LC has two players who chose LC over D1. Mason Wooldridge got out of his scholarship at Marshall, and according to his high school and post grad coach at FUMA, had a few offers from other D1s but went to LC instead. Steven Echols, who was the top private league player in the state of VA his senior year, had offers from East Tennessee State and Chattanooga, but chose LC between those two D1s, Hampden-Sydney, and Eastern Mennonite - despite the fact his AAU coach, Buddy Mason, never wanted him to go D3.

often times you'll see very low major D1 prospects choose to go to a lower level because they don't want to ride the bench for 2 or more years and not get PT until their junior or senior year for a bad team. They would rather go down to D2 and D3 with the possibility of being able to be a major contributor for a decent to good team.

[thepostman]

D3 does have some talent...but please stop trying to pretend that D3 is THAT great, there is a reason why they are Division 3.

I have watched some D3 basketball and it was fun to watch, but aside from a rare occurrence, the talent level is very low and there is not a ton of good post players....

[flamesbball84]

D3 does have some talent...but please stop trying to pretend that D3 is THAT great, there is a reason why they are Division 3.

I have watched some D3 basketball and it was fun to watch, but aside from a rare occurrence, the talent level is very low and there is not a ton of good post players....

I didn't say D3 is great, but it is simply ignorance to basically say ALL talented D3 players are only at D3 because they had to settle for D3. You can believe that if you want, but it is simply factually wrong - if you continue to think that, then it's just ignorance, plain and simple. If you'd ask the talented D3 players you'll find that most chcose D3 because they wanted to, not because they had to settle for it.

[thepostman]

very true...but that is the case for the majority...and like with everything, there are exceptions for sure

[jcmanson]

If you'd ask the talented D3 players you'll find that most chcose D3 because they wanted to play, not because they had to settle for it.

FTFY

[flamesbball84]

If you'd ask the talented D3 players you'll find that most chcose D3 because they wanted to play, not because they had to settle for it.

FTFY

I know I'd rather be getting playing time on a lower level team that was competitive and had a chance to win a conference and/or national championship than some low major team like Centennary or Chattanooga that has no realistic hope of ever being able to compete nationally - as is the case with Randolph Macon and their best player this year. even if the lower level team you go to sucks, at least you'll have the opportunity to have a pretty good career and be able earn conference, region, and national honors for your individual play.

[Fumblerooskies]

I'm not saying they don't have talent, I'm saying those with talent didn't want to be there.

I would not argue with that. As you know, my son is a D3 athlete...who developed while he was there...into an athlete who could possibly play at the D1 level. Those are the ones you are likely to see at that level...passed over for some reason at D1...then got bigger and faster and more athlete as their bodies matured. Why do they stay, then? Because they like it there and KNOW they can play at their school...not to mention they would have to sit out a year moving to D1.

[inthebeginning]

I have never been one to say how a coach should deal with his players during a game. Last year a lot of us were praising RMK for his calm demeanor and emotional control in some close games (and contrasting it with coaches with, shall we say "less calm demeanors"). I'm not going to judge him because he didn't go postal on these kids when they were having a bad day.[/quote]


Maybe he becomes the Dr. Spock of basketball and can help in Durham, Chapel Hill and Lawrence when they go postal?

[Purple Haize]

One thing I think has been over looked in the "How Do We Improve" discussion and really ties into the game thread as well is the effect of PLAYING on national TV had on our players. Being on TV does not always bring out the best. In fact it can make some teams flat and other teams play out of their minds. This is the same phenomoen that is seen when smaller schools "Play Up' The "lower" caliber team may just be in awe of the situation and sort of play in a fog (which it sounds like we did) while other teams will shoot lights out and go basically CRAZY for a nite and beat or challenge the better team. (I remember a Montreat team doing that........) In short. I thing that the TV did have an affect on the players but just not the one we wanted.
As for more improvment I would recommend a stretch rack and some type of new HGH and masking agent!!

[JDUB]

I have never been one to say how a coach should deal with his players during a game. Last year a lot of us were praising RMK for his calm demeanor and emotional control in some close games (and contrasting it with coaches with, shall we say "less calm demeanors"). I'm not going to judge him because he didn't go postal on these kids when they were having a bad day.

Maybe he becomes the Dr. Spock of basketball and can help in Durham, Chapel Hill and Lawrence when they go postal?[/quote]

very rarely does someone go postal in durham. i only saw k get fired a few times last year, mostly during time outs