Matta will start Potter at the 5 spot next year. Write it down. Cripes he started Potter ahead of Thompson this year... and Thompson may have been the most improved guy on the team.
maybe it could read "getting talent to play together wins".
it's not a coincidence that the best recruiting teams finish near the top.
I expect that OSU competes at a level that results in finishes in the top half of the B10 every year, with an NCAA invite almost every year.
Every coach at OSU since Taylor left has had a brief level of success... Miller, Williams, Ayers, O'Brien, and Matta. Eldon had some unbelievable talent (mostly in-state), but he didn't maximize it. Nevertheless we were in the top half of the league until the year he was fired. If Gary Williams had stayed we would have been a perennial sweet 16 team. Ayers success was the result of Williams laying the foundation (led by in-state stud Jimmy Jackson). O'Brien got us to the Final Four, and after he finished in the lower half of the B10 in back-to-back seasons, he was fired.
Matta is more the rule than the exception. Back to back lower half of B10 finishes, and he's gonzo, like the rest were.
I don't think Funderberk gets many minutes at all. Tate and Diop are your starters, with A Wesson first off the bench at forward.
Playing with effort, yet losing is not acceptable.
Effort is non-negotiable. Add talent and coaching to effort and you get what we should have.
part of me wants us to accept an NIT invite and then get thrashed by some no-name team. Perhaps that would accelerate the inevitable.
This feels like the Earle Bruce years... after 1981 you could tell that we weren't going to be a NC contender with Earle. Finally the Iowa TE trucked Sean Bell and ended it all.
Earle Bruce v2.0
what does consistent mean?
consistently good like Wiscy game, or consistently bad like FAU. How'bout we drop the "consistent" crap and just say they need to be "good"
I think this "Potter is stretch 4" is a bunch of bullcrap. Matta has very, very rarely played two bigs at the same time.
Next years opening game Potter will trot out there at center, while K Wesson is worked into the game later. Potter has some potential, but I think he will continue to be a liability at center.
Most assuredly Matta will play KBD and Tate at F. with A Wesson and Funderburk (sp?) rotating in.
Potter is a player without a home in Matta's scheme.
sorry BB27, I was replying to the thread in general, not you specifically.
...and nine wins by 6 points or less. it cuts both ways.
a healthy KBD would have helped, no doubt in my mind.
why is it when we gag away wins it's attributed to "no killer instinct" and not "coaching"?
this has been going on for several years now, it's not an aberration.
we scored 83 points. we shot over 85% from the free throw line. we shot 50% from the field, and 60% from three. we had single digit turnovers.
we won because we scored.
stretch 5... uggh. Play your 6'-9" center outside to make room for your 6'-4" PF. whatever Thad.
Honestly I think a good deal of the differing opinions on here is not so much an endorsement, or lack thereof, of Matta but some people's inate fear of change. "The status quo is always better."
you need to prove that you can recruit.
as would Luke Kennard, Carlton Bragg and Esa Ahmad.
yeah, he's tall, and he hustles. he's also weak and a liability on offense. the staff sees Bell in every practice and they still go with the Potter train wreck come game time.
we need to get away from this thought process that says if you hustle that's good enough. we need talent, coaching, and hustle, and currently we have a little of each, but not enough.
"chances are running out". stop it. just stop it.
and lots of losses.
We talk as if hustle alone will make us successful, or that talent alone will make us successful. IMO, both are non-negotiable at OSU. Every team, at all levels, should play hard. At OSU, we should also be more talented than half of the B10. Put together the two and you have what OSU should be, year in and year out. We have neither now.
play the "hustle guys". what record do we finish with?
play the "talented guys". what record do we finish with?
what would you expect Smith to say?
why wouldn't Gene go big? Not enough money? I think not. I would start at the top and see who has interest. If nothing looks like it will pan out, then go after the smaller program guys.
we should add "moving screen" to the bingo card.