Players auditioning for team?

[tgcshock]

Durley gives up way too much on the defensive end to start. I agree he is consistent. He is a consistent threat to score ... and to allow his man to score. I hope that he'll get better (and tougher) on that end during the course of the season.

phil is just as bad

No, he's not.

[NCAABound]

It's kind of a catch 22 with JT. We need defense...but we also need scoring. When we can't score more than 60 against UMKC and UTA, we definitely need offense. I say give him a start and more minutes and see if his offense can provide a spark. If he can score more points than he gives up, then it is a victory (that can be said of each player.)

[SpanglerFan316]

Spangler, Come on. Winthrop last year knocked Missouri State completely out of an NCAA Tournament. Missouri State was steam rolling at that point and lost at home to Winthrop 77-66. I would venture to say Winthrop would have competed for the Missoure Valley Championship last year. And by the way, in that game, Winthrop was leading by 20 or so. The loss hurt so bad, if you go to Missouri States web site, they left the game completely off their 2006-2007 season results. If I was a betting man, I would bet this was no accident. http://www.missouristatebears.com/Sp...&Q_SEASON=2006

I have the following problem with your comments; how well will Marshall do when he doesn't get all of the players he "needs"? His team last year was an example of a "perfect storm" of talented players which might never be repeated at Winthrop. His earlier NCAA teams (1998 (play-in game), 2000 (play-in game), 2001 ("in 2001 as Winthrop ... advanced to its first-ever opening round game in NCAA tournament history"), etc.) were not this talented. How well does he deal with the talent at hand? There is some talent at WSU right now; how well is he taking advantage of it? The South has a lot of basketball talent, certainly more than is in Kansas. Do you think Marshall could have recruited the level of talent he had last year if Winthrop had been located in Kansas?

EDIT: My mistake. The NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Play-In Game started in 2001. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Me...l_Play-In_Game
Year Date Winner Loser #1 Seed Faced
2001 March 13 Northwestern State 71 Winthrop 67 Illinois
2002 March 12 Siena 81 Alcorn State 77 Maryland
2003 March 18 UNC Asheville 92 Texas Southern 84 Texas
2004 March 16 Florida A&M 72 Lehigh 57 Kentucky
2005 March 15 Oakland 79 Alabama A&M 69 North Carolina
2006 March 14 Monmouth 71 Hampton 49 Villanova
2007 March 13 Niagara 77 Florida A&M 69 Kansas

[SpanglerFan316]

This post is not really about Gregg Marshall; I am happy he is coach and I expect him to be successful at WSU. I'm getting ready for the party in three years when we win the national title. ;-) This post is about my argument that one could judge Marshall's coaching ability, at least in small part, based on his success in the NCAA tourney. Arguments were raised based on the seeding Winthrop received.

Winthrop did just fine during the regular season against the big boys. the problem in the tournament was the seedings. when you are playing a 1 or 2 seed year after year see how your record is. i seriously doubt the mvc or 4th place teams from a bcs conference would fare any better in those circumstances. what really hurt the wu was the conference rating and the subsequent rpi. marshall did just fine coaching "hustle" (which i feel is an innate bit of temperament vs something gained in practice) or coaching up talent. Winthrop is a more talented team than WSU this year and arguably the same was true of last year. g needs athetes who can execute his style of play and attitudes that match his competitiveness. having watched stutz last summer, he's got the talent and i'll trust g has checked out his heart and not with a cardiologist.

Shockdawg kind of beat me to it….but anyway:

Spangler – I don't know what your point is either. But I don't think you should judge Marshall's system on his success rate playing in the NCAA tournament and I don't think comparing the MVC success to his old conference is fair either.

Winthrop, despite its record, always had a very low seed. I am not going to look it up but I will bet they faced 1, 2 or 3 seeds in the first round each year. One of the reasons Marshall accepted the WSU job is the fact that no matter how many wins his Winthrop teams had – they still received crappy seeds. When MVC teams have had those types of seeds – they don't have a high success rate either. The MVC is obviously on a different level than the Big South. However, I think Marshall's Winthrop teams would have done very well in the MVC.

Many of the players on this team were recruited and signed by Turgeon for his system. Marshall has a completely different style. Some of the players may be having a hard time making the adjustment or they simply don't have the skill set required.

Winthrop's NCAA Record:
1999 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament
South #16 Winthrop Gregg Marshall Round of 64 #1 Auburn L 80-41
Auburn went on to beat #9 Oklahoma State and then lose to #4 Ohio State. Auburn underperformed in 1999.

2000 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament
West #14 Winthrop Gregg Marshall Round of 64 #3 Oklahoma L 74-60
Oklahoma lost to #6 Purdue in the next round. Oklahoma underperformed in the 2000 tourney.

2001 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament
Midwest #16 Winthrop Gregg Marshall Preliminary Round #16 Northwestern State L 71-67
Winthrop lost in the play-in round to Northwestern State, which lost to #1 Illinois (96-54). Winthrop was not playing a #1 or #2 or #3 seed in the Preliminary Round.

2002 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament
South #16 Winthrop Gregg Marshall Round of 64 #1 Duke L 84-37
Duke beat #8 Notre Dame and lost to #5 Indiana. Duke underperformed in the 2002 tourney.

2005 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament
Albuquerque Regional #14 Winthrop Gregg Marshall Round of 64 #3 Gonzaga L 74-64
Gonzaga lost to #6 Texas Tech in the next round. Gonzaga underperformed in the 2005 tourney.

2006 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament
Washington, D.C. Regional #15 Winthrop Gregg Marshall Round of 64 #2 Tennessee L 63-61
Tennessee lost in the next round to #7 Wichita State. Tennessee underperformed in the 2006 tourney.

2007 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament
Midwest Regional #11 Winthrop beat #6 Notre Dame (W 74-64) and then lost to #3 Oregon. Oregon then beat UNLV and lost to #1 Florida. Oregon got one round beyond their expected place based on seeding; since UNLV beat #2 Wisconsin, Oregon performed in each game according to their seeding (i.e. beat #14 Miami (Ohio), #11 Winthrop and #7 UNLV before losing to #1 Florida).

Each of the teams, except Northwestern State and Oregon, that beat Winthrop did not perform up to the level expected by their seeding. Based on the actual outcomes of the tourneys, Winthrop never lost to a "#1 seed" and only lost to one "#2 seed" (Oregon). Saying "when you are playing a 1 or 2 seed year after year" does not explain why Winthrop lost to #16 Northwestern State, #3 Oklahoma or #3 Gonzaga. Each of the teams Winthrop played, except Oregon, was not as good as its seeding indicated. According to its performance in the tourney, in 1999 Auburn should have been a #3 or #4 seed, in 2000 Oklahoma should have been a #5-#9 seed, in 2002 Duke should have been a #3 or #4 seed, in 2005 Gonzaga should have been a #5-#9 seed and in 2006 Tennessee should have been a #5-#9 seed.
Conclusion: My argument was not as invalid as shockdawg and Maggie suggested; Winthrop had chances to win in the NCAA tourney.

[wu_shizzle]

This post is not really about Gregg Marshall

Sure it is...

Winthrop's NCAA Record:
1999 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament
South #16 Winthrop Gregg Marshall Round of 64 #1 Auburn L 80-41
Auburn went on to beat #9 Oklahoma State and then lose to #4 Ohio State. Auburn underperformed in 1999.


2002 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament
South #16 Winthrop Gregg Marshall Round of 64 #1 Duke L 84-37
Duke beat #8 Notre Dame and lost to #5 Indiana. Duke underperformed in the 2002 tourney.

Based on the actual outcomes of the tourneys, Winthrop never lost to a "#1 seed"

That has got to be the weakest argument yet. To you rankings and seedings obviously mean nothing. Marshall says his seedings were bad (they were), and he was tired of 1st round matchups with higher seedings. And your argument to that is "it doesn't matter what their opponents were seeded, they didn't make the Final 4 so they were over-rated".

Conclusion: My argument was not as invalid as shockdawg and Maggie suggested; Winthrop had chances to win in the NCAA tourney.

I'm still trying to find the point your making, but if you want to judge Marshall's success at Winthrop based on their performance in the tournament you're more than welcome to.

Just realize it makes you look completely foolish.

[Maggie]

Spangler,

I do not think your argument has much merit. Winthrop was seed #14-#16 every year except last year when they received the #11 seed (still a crappy seed). Just because the teams that beat Winthrop did not do as well as their seeding does not mean all that much. The only thing that matters is Winthrop was playing solid opponents that either earned an at-large bid or dominated a major conference. In my mind, you can only point to one match up – the one in 2001 as one where you would think Winthrop "should" have won. You cannot seriously suggest that a 1, 2,3,4 or 5 seed is going to have a harder time making it to the second weekend than a #14? Furthermore, even with this advantage teams with a higher seed are still going to face more difficult opponents as tournament goes forward. I happen to think that the NCAA tournament is one of the most difficult around – one bad day, one bad bounce and you are finished.

Was Dean Smith a bad coach or even Roy Williams (I hate the man) before they won a national title? They certainly had the talent all those years. Is Bill Self a bad coach because his teams were knocked out in the first round several years in a row, prior to last year? I don't think it is that simple.

I am not trying to offend you but you seem to have come to a conclusion about Marshall's coaching abilities based upon your theory. Do you care to share with the class?

If you are trying to make a different point all together, what is it?

[rrshock]

Spangler, this year's team isn't even close in talent compared to what he had at Winthrop last year. I'd even go as far as saying that there are a few players on this team severely lacking it. Yes there is talent in the South, but there is also alot of talent in this region too. I think HCGM did a wonderful job of finding talent around here for this recruiting class so far. Plus it appears he is gonna keep recruiting the south, so he'll be just fine.

And even if this team does have all this talent you speak of, as long as they don't play with heart, pride and desire, it don't mean squat. And if one person steps up, it's gonna be easy to shut them down, because no one else will step up and do anything. I think this team is still melting down from last year, and coach just got caught up in a bad thing. He'll right the ship, but as for this year, the players need an adjustment, or it's gonna be really long till march.

[SpanglerFan316]

"Just realize it makes you look completely foolish."
OK. I guess someone has to. :D

There are many ways to judge a coach and I have been very impressed by Gregg Marshall. His recruitment ability seems to be outstanding and getting Aaron Ellis, for example, was great for WSU. I am excited to see Clevin Hannah, David Kyles, Toure Murry and Garrett Stutz in the future. WSU defense is stronger, at times, than last year; the second half of the UMKC game may be an exception. Gregg is a strong spokesman for WSU. He has NCAA tourney experience. He seems to have passion for the game while treating the refs fairly and appropriately (and this must have been difficult during the UMKC game). His wife seems to be a big fan. What is there not to like about him?

At a school like KU or UIUC (Illinois), success in the NCAA Tournament is usually considered one of the most important indicators of success; feel free to visit their sports message boards and see for yourself. Is it reasonable for WSU fans to look at Gregg Marshall's record in the NCAA tourney? From your reply, I guess the answer is "NO" and anyone doing so may "look completely foolish." Will Gregg's style of play take WSU as far in the NCAA tourney as Turgeon's style took us in 2006? My guess is that WSU will be more successful under Marshall but what do I, as a "completely foolish" person, know? For NCAA tourney success, is it more important to stress shooting skills or "hustle skills"? (Of course, both are important.)

How does WSU shooting this year compare with last year (for returning players)?

Free Throws
Couisnard, PJ 2006: 79-116 .681 2007: 18-29 .621
Braeuer, Matt 2006: 44-56 .786 2007: 12-21 .571
Thomasson, Phillip 2006: 26-52 .500 2007: 29-36 .806
Mekel, Gal 2006: 22-34 .647 2007: 19-20 .950
Preadom, Wendell 2006: 14-25 .560 2007: 2-6 .333

Shooting
Couisnard, PJ 2006: 121-243 .498 2007: 36-87 .414
Braeuer, Matt 2006: 51-137 .372 2007: 32-72 .444
Thomasson, Phillip 2006: 82-144 .569 2007: 30-64 .469
Mekel, Gal 2006: 43-97 .443 2007: 30-77 .390
Preadom, Wendell 2006: 28-64 .438 2007: 1-11 .091

3-Pt Shooting
Couisnard, PJ 2006: 22-63 .349 2007: 13-39 .333
Braeuer, Matt 2006: 32-82 .390 2007: 20-48 .417
Thomasson, Phillip 2006: 0-4 .000 2007: 2-7 .286
Mekel, Gal 2006: 17-48 .354 2007: 12-38 .316
Preadom, Wendell 2006: 4-18 .222 2007: 1-6 .167

I don't see a clear pattern here; PJ is down on all three, Matt is down on free throws but up on shooting, Phillip is up on free throws and 3-Pt shooting but down on overall shooting, Gal is up on free throws and down on shooting and Wendell is down on all three. WSU shot 745-1623 .459 and 219-599 .366 from the three last year. WSU is shooting 195-477 .409 and 54-178 .303 this year. With a different cast of characters, it may not be fair to compare shooting percentages in 2006 and 2007 but one does notice differences between the years.

[SpanglerFan316]

I am not trying to offend you but you seem to have come to a conclusion about Marshall's coaching abilities based upon your theory. Do you care to share with the class?

If you are trying to make a different point all together, what is it?

I am a big fan of Gregg Marshall as our coach. I think, or at least hope, that we are paying the price now for future success. My uninformed guess is that Marshall is stressing hustle over shooting drills and this might explain Matt's 12-21 .571 free throw shooting this year; however, it might be fatigue because last year he averaged 25.3 minutes per game and this year he is averaging 34.9 minutes per game. I think the team will be tougher in March because of Gregg's efforts.

Another point of view is that our offense is down and we cannot win without better offense. Last year we averaged 68.6 points per game (and our opponents averaged 64.1 points per game). We have not entered the tough MVC portion of the schedule and we are averaging 62.4 points per game; our opponents are averaging 60.2 points per game. I expect our average points per game to go down in MVC play. We do not seem to have the zone busters (e.g. Ogirri vs Syracuse) we had over the last couple of years and a team like SIU is going to kill us.

I don't know which point of view is correct. I expect this to be a bad year for the Shocks with the possibility of being swept by Drake, for example. I don't expect to see Marshall's system fully in place until the 2009-10 season. I have high hopes for 2008 and 2009.

[rrshock]

But shooting is something that those guys can work on in their own time. If they truly want to go places, they will put in the extra effort.

[shockdawg]

Having made the trip to Dayton for the play-in game against Northwestern State that year I can tell you, they were better that day. They had size that we did not and they hit shots while we missed ours. It happens, it is a game played by kids who for the most part are old enough to serve their country but not get served, who maybe just maybe think about their classes and relationships during "chalk-talks". I know it is their apparent role to entertain us in our lives but sometimes they are 20 year olds who are pretty good ball players that just aren't that into it. Is everyone on here "into" their job everyday?
It's a game folks, just a glorified version of what we do at our gym. When you encounter a player, try not asking about hoops, try asking how school is? etc.. Far more of a rant and boy a tangential one than I expected. If you are on this board posting more words than you speak to your wife/S/O, BF,GF; you might want to take a break, breathe, and go watch a game of basketball where maybe wsu wins and if not you'll still see some pretty cool stuff.
Let the "veteran posters" sally forth.

[shockmonster]

The poster above who said that JT Durley needed to start is wrong in my opinion. He had a lot of minutes this past game and he is one of the players in my opinion who really lacks toughness. He has so much offensive talent that if he was tough, he would be scoring much more than he is. He disappears in some games for a while and then he puts up two or three baskets in a row. PT is tougher with significantly less talent. Hopefully JTD grows up into a dominant offensive player (his talent says he should).

[jocoshock]

14,15,and 16 seeds by design are seeded to LOSE to superior teams. To have ANY expectation that they could win a national championship is hallucinogenic.....

Just look at the statistics, especially 15 and 16 - only a handful of 15 seeds have ever won a first round game, and no 16 seed has ever beaten a number 1.

Why do you think KU fans are so obsessed with getting a 1 or 2 seed? It's because it virtually guarantees them a first round victory...and we know how badly they have needed 1 or 2 seeds the last few years....once you're seeded 3 or below, all bets are off...

We're getting way ahead of ourselves...

[Zardoz]

The only player we can be sure that will be in the starting line-up tonight in Matt Braeuer. PJ may have health issues and we don't know who has shown the coach that they want to play tonight.

[SpanglerFan316]

Somebody said that I was wrong about PT toughness. Well, for this (LSU) game, I could not be happier to say that I was wrong and the other poster was right. Matt was tough. PJ was tough. PT was tough. Heck, Wendell even scored a tough shot under the basket. I think Marshall's toughening of the team is starting to pay off. Now 1-17 (or 2-18??) from the three is not good shooting and we will lose a lot of games shooting like that but, still, ... what a game!!!