|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jan 24, 2019 13:52:39 GMT -8
LOL... cherry pick much. For you with the short memory... Marie, Ruth, Syd and others were all sat at different times when struggling. Of course you can just just argue it was normal substitution. Oh those with selective memories that try to support a point SR himself stated. It just didn't suddenly become a practice/philosophy. It was in his coaching as far back as GFox. For those of us who knew young ladies lucky enough to play for home then and attended games you'd know that. But, then again of course you're right and Rueck was JUST speaking to the current team! Wow... Ha, you're a hoot. SR did not bench Ruth, Sydney or Marie for long periods of time, and insert a lesser-talented player, for extended minutes simply to give the lesser player a chance to become a leader, as the previous poster on this thread suggested, which generated the ensuing conversation. There is a big difference between subbing Goodman for Slocum as opposed to subbing someone for Tres - who we have no comparable backup for - or for playing Vernon for Stevie or Ethan for an extended period. Syd Weise averaged at least 33 minutes a game every year she played. She played 33 or more minutes in almost every game as a senior. Other than an occasional rest, she did not sit, even when not playing well, her entire career unless it was a blowout or she was in foul trouble. Same with Marie Gulich last year. The best players get the most minutes, whether they're playing at their best or not. Always have, always will. And citing numerous examples, using a number or players from a variety of seasons, isn't cherry-picking. to be clear, I am not even talking about "extended minutes" I am talking about seeing a guy go like 3 for 18 or whatever, and not exactly have eyebrow raising rebound, steal or block numbers, and log 39 minutes. My statement is about managing the court and knowing when I guy has to cool off a bit and get right and putting him out there. If Tinkle only played Stevie for 25 minutes of a game when he was otherwise healthy... that is utter stupidity. But so is playing a full game when he is obviously struggling! That is my point. You can't build your bench if you never play them. I am not going to claim Vernon and Washington and such are equals, but I will claim they are not scrubs. lets not sell them short. and they will never ascend to equal talent if they do not have the opportunity to play meaningful minutes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 14:00:45 GMT -8
That is good point. You couldn't be full of anything else. What about beer? hmm let's try it out 48 minutes ago Judge Smails said:
I put your response in my post and you still had to reiterate it.....full of yourself beer much?Yeah that retort maybe works in Germany or something. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 24, 2019 14:01:47 GMT -8
LOL... cherry pick much. For you with the short memory... Marie, Ruth, Syd and others were all sat at different times when struggling. Of course you can just just argue it was normal substitution. Oh those with selective memories that try to support a point SR himself stated. It just didn't suddenly become a practice/philosophy. It was in his coaching as far back as GFox. For those of us who knew young ladies lucky enough to play for home then and attended games you'd know that. But, then again of course you're right and Rueck was JUST speaking to the current team! Wow... Ha, you're a hoot. SR did not bench Ruth, Sydney or Marie for long periods of time, and insert a lesser-talented player, for extended minutes simply to give the lesser player a chance to become a leader, as the previous poster on this thread suggested, which generated the ensuing conversation. There is a big difference between subbing Goodman for Slocum as opposed to subbing someone for Tres - who we have no comparable backup for - or for playing Vernon for Stevie or Ethan for an extended period. Syd Weise averaged at least 33 minutes a game every year she played. She played 33 or more minutes in almost every game as a senior. Other than an occasional rest, she did not sit, even when not playing well, her entire career unless it was a blowout or she was in foul trouble. Same with Marie Gulich last year. The best players get the most minutes, whether they're playing at their best or not. Always have, always will. And citing numerous examples, using a number or players from a variety of seasons, isn't cherry-picking. Ok... cherry picking shouldn't have to be defined here, but picking out random examples, especially of far inferior subs when there were other options at each position... cherry picking. And... also involves inferences that were NEVER made. "Long periods" never mentioned, and IF you've ever coached (I'm betting from your numerous know-it-all posts that lack any credibility you haven't above youth ball... yet it applies even there) LONG PERIODS are not necessary to make a point. And seldom are LONG PERIODS ever used with very talented players. Lastly... Tres has been out of games... NUMEROUS games... there have been several players who sub for him short term and of course for entire games. The same goes with the Thompsons. Again you just make up crap. Where was the fact that the best players shouldn't play the most minutes? Yeah NO WHERE! Again you make those substitutions to make a point. OF COURSE you're subbing an inferior player. Goodman is inferior in some aspects. But, the point of said substitutions is... see if you can get your head around this... TO MAKE A POINT. Sometimes it is a water break, heated coaching point and reenter at the next dead ball. Others... it a bit longer "ignoring session" to get the point across. AND... your wrong. All the above mention great players have sat at one time or another in their last couple years during bad stretches of play. EVERY SINGLE ONE. But, of course you'll want to toss in some other phantom precursor. But, simple as pie dude... your wrong. It's an everyday part of coaching to use PT as a form of getting coaching points across. The comment was basically that WT needs to learn from SR. Yeah cuz SR does it... his own words. AND... it isn't a new thing. Jeezus... |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 24, 2019 14:02:52 GMT -8
Ha, you're a hoot. SR did not bench Ruth, Sydney or Marie for long periods of time, and insert a lesser-talented player, for extended minutes simply to give the lesser player a chance to become a leader, as the previous poster on this thread suggested, which generated the ensuing conversation. There is a big difference between subbing Goodman for Slocum as opposed to subbing someone for Tres - who we have no comparable backup for - or for playing Vernon for Stevie or Ethan for an extended period. Syd Weise averaged at least 33 minutes a game every year she played. She played 33 or more minutes in almost every game as a senior. Other than an occasional rest, she did not sit, even when not playing well, her entire career unless it was a blowout or she was in foul trouble. Same with Marie Gulich last year. The best players get the most minutes, whether they're playing at their best or not. Always have, always will. And citing numerous examples, using a number or players from a variety of seasons, isn't cherry-picking. to be clear, I am not even talking about "extended minutes" I am talking about seeing a guy go like 3 for 18 or whatever, and not exactly have eyebrow raising rebound, steal or block numbers, and log 39 minutes. My statement is about managing the court and knowing when I guy has to cool off a bit and get right and putting him out there. If Tinkle only played Stevie for 25 minutes of a game when he was otherwise healthy... that is utter stupidity. But so is playing a full game when he is obviously struggling! That is my point. You can't build your bench if you never play them. I am not going to claim Vernon and Washington and such are equals, but I will claim they are not scrubs. lets not sell them short. and they will never ascend to equal talent if they do not have the opportunity to play meaningful minutes. You or anyone else mentioned LONG PERIODS or extended minutes... anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jan 24, 2019 14:09:45 GMT -8
to be clear, I am not even talking about "extended minutes" I am talking about seeing a guy go like 3 for 18 or whatever, and not exactly have eyebrow raising rebound, steal or block numbers, and log 39 minutes. My statement is about managing the court and knowing when I guy has to cool off a bit and get right and putting him out there. If Tinkle only played Stevie for 25 minutes of a game when he was otherwise healthy... that is utter stupidity. But so is playing a full game when he is obviously struggling! That is my point. You can't build your bench if you never play them. I am not going to claim Vernon and Washington and such are equals, but I will claim they are not scrubs. lets not sell them short. and they will never ascend to equal talent if they do not have the opportunity to play meaningful minutes. You or anyone else mentioned LONG PERIODS or extended minutes... anywhere. This did turn into a kerfuffle. Said in another way. If Tinkle sees a guy spend 10 minutes of a half taking a bunch of bad shots and is going O-fer, I am saying sit him down for a couple minutes, let the assistants talk to him, coach him up, then run him back out there. That is the significant thing I do not see happening on a regular basis. Fouls are the only thing I see pull a star off the floor. I get that stars are stars and you gotta play them, but a coach needs to know when his star just ain't doing it right now and manage that. I honestly feel that is the difference between a W and a L in at least 3 games this year. Willingness to pull a guy off the court that wasn't being effective and trying to get him mentally back in the game. |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Jan 24, 2019 14:34:49 GMT -8
The players earn their game minutes in practice, every day. Tres and the Thompsons play 30+ minutes per game in PART because of their obvious talent, and MORE because they can be trusted to execute the game plan. The coaches calculate - correctly, I'm sure - that a cold Stevie is still more effective than anyone on the bench. The bench player is not going to hit his spots on time, offensively or defensively, and that is going to throw off every other player on the court. This should be obvious to everyone watching Kylor Kelley. KK does a lot of things well and is surely more talented than Big G, but the team is visibly crisper with Big G in (especially on D).
The coaches see the players in plenty of 5-on-5 action in practice. They know who's ready and who's still getting lost on the court. Each player will get PT in proportion to their success during the week. Favoritism has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by vhalum92 on Jan 24, 2019 16:10:00 GMT -8
To be fair, Stevie sat much of the Arizona game. He picked up early fouls but was also not hitting his shot/finding a way to score.
Just one game and I too have thought WT needs to sit some dudes when they are hurt, sick, or just not on that night more often....
Frankly he plays a non coaches son for longer stretches than I believe he should.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 17:05:49 GMT -8
That's what reiterate means... "to state or do over again or repeatedly sometimes with wearying effect". Sort like the excuses repeatedly given.... even more wearying! And... HA... who else would I be "full of"? One of the dumbest colloquialisms ever. I am 100% positive that you are full of something else. There's a reason that you have 6 million posts and less than half of them are liked.......LOL.....LOL......LOL Ahh grasshopper...it is far better to like, than be liked. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jan 24, 2019 17:10:38 GMT -8
From Bill82:
So I’d like to see more playing time given to non family members to see if a leader emerges. We know from one of our best wins (USC) we do not need Tres to win.
It's obvious he's talking about extended PT. No leader emerges from 2-3 minutes of spot time. He's also suggesting, from the incredibly small sample of one game against one of the worst teams in the league, that we are better without Tres, which is absolute lunacy.
SR would never bench one of his top three players for extended minutes so a "leader would emerge" from the bench. Replacing Slocum with Goodman is almost a push. Such options do not exist on the men's team.
|
|
bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,000 
|
Post by bill82 on Jan 24, 2019 17:11:55 GMT -8
The players earn their game minutes in practice, every day. Tres and the Thompsons play 30+ minutes per game in PART because of their obvious talent, and MORE because they can be trusted to execute the game plan. The coaches calculate - correctly, I'm sure - that a cold Stevie is still more effective than anyone on the bench. The bench player is not going to hit his spots on time, offensively or defensively, and that is going to throw off every other player on the court. This should be obvious to everyone watching Kylor Kelley. KK does a lot of things well and is surely more talented than Big G, but the team is visibly crisper with Big G in (especially on D). The coaches see the players in plenty of 5-on-5 action in practice. They know who's ready and who's still getting lost on the court. Each player will get PT in proportion to their success during the week. Favoritism has nothing to do with it. WT at many pressers has said the players do not listen, do not follow the game plan, do not communicate etc.. He has said that with his son sitting next to him. Yet still he plays my three sons without sitting them. I think that is the point being made. You refute the point with an idealistic scenario for which there is no evidence. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 17:16:26 GMT -8
The players earn their game minutes in practice, every day. Tres and the Thompsons play 30+ minutes per game in PART because of their obvious talent, and MORE because they can be trusted to execute the game plan. The coaches calculate - correctly, I'm sure - that a cold Stevie is still more effective than anyone on the bench. The bench player is not going to hit his spots on time, offensively or defensively, and that is going to throw off every other player on the court. This should be obvious to everyone watching Kylor Kelley. KK does a lot of things well and is surely more talented than Big G, but the team is visibly crisper with Big G in (especially on D). The coaches see the players in plenty of 5-on-5 action in practice. They know who's ready and who's still getting lost on the court. Each player will get PT in proportion to their success during the week. Favoritism has nothing to do with it. WT at many pressers has said the players do not listen, do not follow the game plan, do not communicate etc.. He has said that with his son sitting next to him. Yet still he plays my three sons without sitting them. I think that is the point being made. You refute the point with an idealistic scenario for which there is no evidence. So... bench the players you are invested in? To show them how to listen? Kids these days. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 24, 2019 18:37:24 GMT -8
The players earn their game minutes in practice, every day. Tres and the Thompsons play 30+ minutes per game in PART because of their obvious talent, and MORE because they can be trusted to execute the game plan. The coaches calculate - correctly, I'm sure - that a cold Stevie is still more effective than anyone on the bench. The bench player is not going to hit his spots on time, offensively or defensively, and that is going to throw off every other player on the court. This should be obvious to everyone watching Kylor Kelley. KK does a lot of things well and is surely more talented than Big G, but the team is visibly crisper with Big G in (especially on D). The coaches see the players in plenty of 5-on-5 action in practice. They know who's ready and who's still getting lost on the court. Each player will get PT in proportion to their success during the week. Favoritism has nothing to do with it. WT at many pressers has said the players do not listen, do not follow the game plan, do not communicate etc.. He has said that with his son sitting next to him. Yet still he plays my three sons without sitting them. I think that is the point being made. You refute the point with an idealistic scenario for which there is no evidence. He typically does... or just makes it up from statements like "clearly he means"! Lol Cuz, of course he knows what you, I, and everyone else thinks! Whatever positives he brings to posting, it's invariably 2 steps back when he simply just makes sh!t up from other posts. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jan 24, 2019 21:38:29 GMT -8
Back in '17 OSU played Florida State and Syd made 3 layins and missed every other of her 14 shots. Not only was she not taken out, she took the bulk of the shots when compared to any of our several good shooters on the team. I was pulling my hair out that game, Kat and Katie put up a total of 5 shots between them.
Sometimes coaches stick with what works most of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by hawksea on Jan 25, 2019 12:28:30 GMT -8
Tinkle might not be the best coach, but he is the best coach we have had since Ralph Miller. He is also a great guy and fits the community. Sure we can fire him and go back to having winless seasons, but I'm happy with being competitive and occasionally making the big dance. I would give him at least 2-3 more years to see if he can continue to improve the program before considering moving on. Besides the one awful year, he has been improving the program and bringing it back from nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jan 25, 2019 14:50:52 GMT -8
Tinkpe might not be the best coach, but he is the best coach we have had since Ralph Miller. He is also a great guy and fits the community. Sure we can fire him and go back to having winless seasons, but I'm happy with being competitive and occasionally making the big dance. I would give him at least 2-3 more years to see if he can continue to improve the program before considering moving on. Besides the one awful year, he has been improving the program and bringing it back from nothing. From 1990 until 2014. 24 years. Oregon state had 5 seasons at .500 or better overall basketball. 3 of those years were EXACTLY .500 ball. Since 1990 we have had TWO seasons with a .500 record in conference play. WT has one of those years. Even Craig Robinson's 21 win year featured a 7-11 conference record. Wayne Tinkle has 3 years out of 4 full years at .500 or better ball. Not to count chickens before they are hatched, but at 12-6 and 4-2 in conference, I like the odds he is going to be 4 of 5 years at .500 or better. Heck, I am even cautiously optimistic this is our first conference WINNING record (above .500) since the 1989 season. Wayne Tinkle is significantly better than any coach we have had at Oregon state in 24 freaking years. I don't know that he is the coach that starts to take us to the final four... Or even one that consistently gets us to the NCAA...but I do know he is undeniably the best one we have had in basically a quarter century. |
|
