What I liked about Hatch

[Snapshot9]

I agree with Royal, there is a lot more to the game than pure athleticism.
I believe 'Larry Bird' was touted for not being athletic, and he turned out ok!!!

The only thing that counts are how well you played in each and every game, and how it turned out, as well as good sportsmanship along the way. Durley is not particularly good at defense right now, but he can sure finish an offense play well.

Hatch showed poise on the court, and a pretty good BB IQ, and decision-making on the court, and has a good shot. Let's use those skills to our advantage, which I think we can. I think if Hatch knows he is going to get some playing time, he will work even harder to make sure he is successful, especially for the team and CGM.

[SpanglerFan316]

I guess I have a problem with a coach who can't see the potential of a particular player and try to develop this potential. I'm thinking of a couple players MT did not recruit who is doing OK for another Valley team.

Evansville - Jay Couisnard
Indiana State - Jay Tunnell (2005-06: MVC All-Freshman Team)
Bradley - Theron Wilson

I'm not such a BCS fan that only athletic ability matters. Larry Bird is a great example. Was John Stockton an athletic guard? Was Kevin McHale athletic?

[Maggie]

I agree there are ways to overcome a lack of natural athletic ability – Chris Mullin is another example. However, you have to be careful when mentioning players like Bird, Stockton, McHale and Mullin. All of these players were a little more athletic than you think and their abilities in other areas of the game were absolutely off the chart.

I don't know what to expect from Hatch from here on out but whatever he does that is positive for this team is a big bonus, in my opinion. I think the point some people are making is simply that Turgeon kind of took a flyer on Hatch a couple years ago and he was recruited to play in Turgeon's system. It will undoubtedly be more difficult for Hatch to play in CGM's system and I think it is safe to say that CGM would not have signed Hatch. And this is no knock on Hatch.

Can Hatch make a consistent contribution? I have no idea – I have not actually seen the kid play a single minute. But like Royal stated, if the kid can play 5-7 minutes a game, hold his own on defense, knock down the open shots and take care of the basketball – he will be a valuable asset on this team, this year.

[RoyalShock]

Can Hatch make a consistent contribution? I have no idea – I have not actually seen the kid play a single minute. But like Royal stated, if the kid can play 5-7 minutes a game, hold his own on defense, knock down the open shots and take care of the basketball – he will be a valuable asset on this team, this year.

I'm actually thinking beyond this year regarding Hatch's potential (though it looks like he'll get the opportunity this year).

I guess my big issue is how quite a few people are either buying into or suggesting the idea that if you aren't getting some PT as a freshman on this team, maybe you shouldn't be here. I understand the concept and need to sometimes get rid of "dead wood" but I also think not renewing a player's scholarship should be used judiciously.

Obviously, I want players here who are going to expel 110% effort, but I don't want WSU to get a reputation of pulling scholarships for every player who doesn't live up to expectations. That could make recruiting even more difficult.

But at this point, I'm trusting that HCGM will do the right thing, whatever he thinks the right thing is.

[MikeShox]

I guess I have a problem with a coach who can't see the potential of a particular player and try to develop this potential. I'm thinking of a couple players MT did not recruit who is doing OK for another Valley team.

Evansville - Jay Couisnard
Indiana State - Jay Tunnell (2005-06: MVC All-Freshman Team)
Bradley - Theron Wilson

I'm not such a BCS fan that only athletic ability matters. Larry Bird is a great example. Was John Stockton an athletic guard? Was Kevin McHale athletic?

Little Cooz: 5.2 points per game; 1.8 reb per game; 24 assists; 22 TO's 42% FG Pct.; 53% FT Pct.

Tunnell: 7.6 points per game; 4.2 reb per game; 7 assists; 15 TO's 48% FG Pct; 80.6% FT Pct.

Wilson: 8.5 points per game; 6.3 reb per game; 23 assists; 23 TO's; 46% FG Pct; 66% FT Pct.

A few decent numbers, some pretty weak numbers. Personally I don't see that these guys would have turned WSU into a powerhouse. What am I missing? I see all of them as adequate role players with some helpful skills, but I don't necessarily see them blowing away players the Shockers have.

[Maggie]

Can Hatch make a consistent contribution? I have no idea – I have not actually seen the kid play a single minute. But like Royal stated, if the kid can play 5-7 minutes a game, hold his own on defense, knock down the open shots and take care of the basketball – he will be a valuable asset on this team, this year.

I'm actually thinking beyond this year regarding Hatch's potential (though it looks like he'll get the opportunity this year).

I guess my big issue is how quite a few people are either buying into or suggesting the idea that if you aren't getting some PT as a freshman on this team, maybe you shouldn't be here. I understand the concept and need to sometimes get rid of "dead wood" but I also think not renewing a player's scholarship should be used judiciously.

Obviously, I want players here who are going to expel 110% effort, but I don't want WSU to get a reputation of pulling scholarships for every player who doesn't live up to expectations. That could make recruiting even more difficult.

I agree with you that deciding not to renew a player's scholarship should only happen on rare occasions. WSU should not make a habit of yanking kid's scholarships. And didn't mean to imply that I thought Hatch has no future at WSU because I am not in a position to judge Hatch. Also, I hope I didn't give the impression that just because a kid does not get any PT as a freshman that he should be let go – that is just silly.

In this type of situation, however, I tend to give the new coach (CGM) more leeway. When you have a new coach players recruited by the old staff commonly leave or are asked to leave within a year for a variety of reasons. My only point is, and I could be wrong, that based on what I know about Hatch's skill set he does not seem to be the best fit for Marshall's system. Frankly, Turgeon's would have been better for Hatch. Whether or not Hatch can make a positive contribution within CGM's system is up to the coaches to decide. He could end up being a heck of a player.

The only thing I know about Hatch so far is this:

(1) When CGM called his number he played pretty well;
(2) Hatch was confident and didn't get rattled;
(3) He hit one of two threes and even drove the ball for a lay up; and
(4) He started the second half so the coaching staff had some confidence in him.

For a kid that I have some questions about, that is a good start. It tells me that Hatch has been working hard and paying attention in practice.

[SpanglerFan316]

I guess I have a problem with a coach who can't see the potential of a particular player and try to develop this potential. I'm thinking of a couple players MT did not recruit who is doing OK for another Valley team.

Evansville - Jay Couisnard
Indiana State - Jay Tunnell (2005-06: MVC All-Freshman Team)
Bradley - Theron Wilson

I'm not such a BCS fan that only athletic ability matters. Larry Bird is a great example. Was John Stockton an athletic guard? Was Kevin McHale athletic?

Little Cooz: 5.2 points per game; 1.8 reb per game; 24 assists; 22 TO's 42% FG Pct.; 53% FT Pct.

Tunnell: 7.6 points per game; 4.2 reb per game; 7 assists; 15 TO's 48% FG Pct; 80.6% FT Pct.

Wilson: 8.5 points per game; 6.3 reb per game; 23 assists; 23 TO's; 46% FG Pct; 66% FT Pct.

A few decent numbers, some pretty weak numbers. Personally I don't see that these guys would have turned WSU into a powerhouse. What am I missing? I see all of them as adequate role players with some helpful skills, but I don't necessarily see them blowing away players the Shockers have.

I would take any of them over Arbry Butler, Ryan Bradley, Chris Brown, etc. I didn't say they were superstars but players who could be getting minutes and contributing to our team.

[ABC]

Was Kevin McHale athletic?

McHale was athletic and frickin' unbelievable. There have been few with his abilities down low. He was unstoppable in his prime.

He blocked shots, scored, rebounded and could hit a jump shot.

I have always been surprised we don't see more "McHale" moves today.

Watch him school Kareem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtDNTt5p3F8

Funny quote from Charles Barkley about Bird and McHale

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlSZC4TAYVc

[MikeShox]

I guess I have a problem with a coach who can't see the potential of a particular player and try to develop this potential. I'm thinking of a couple players MT did not recruit who is doing OK for another Valley team.

Evansville - Jay Couisnard
Indiana State - Jay Tunnell (2005-06: MVC All-Freshman Team)
Bradley - Theron Wilson

I'm not such a BCS fan that only athletic ability matters. Larry Bird is a great example. Was John Stockton an athletic guard? Was Kevin McHale athletic?

Little Cooz: 5.2 points per game; 1.8 reb per game; 24 assists; 22 TO's 42% FG Pct.; 53% FT Pct.

Tunnell: 7.6 points per game; 4.2 reb per game; 7 assists; 15 TO's 48% FG Pct; 80.6% FT Pct.

Wilson: 8.5 points per game; 6.3 reb per game; 23 assists; 23 TO's; 46% FG Pct; 66% FT Pct.

A few decent numbers, some pretty weak numbers. Personally I don't see that these guys would have turned WSU into a powerhouse. What am I missing? I see all of them as adequate role players with some helpful skills, but I don't necessarily see them blowing away players the Shockers have.

I would take any of them over Arbry Butler, Ryan Bradley, Chris Brown, etc. I didn't say they were superstars but players who could be getting minutes and contributing to our team.

I don't disagree that they could contribute, some. A couple questions though.

1. Wilson went the Juco route. If MT did not recruit him (I really don't know who all the staff recruited) was it because he wasn't ready for Division 1? Was it due to academics. Maybe you can enlighten me as I really don't know.

2. Did MT really not recruit Little Cooz. I thought from this board that he was at least recruited some. Once again, I have no way of knowing who the staff recruits because they say anything until they sign.

3. Who's minutes should Tunnell take in your opinion. I do respect your opinion. I may or may not agree, but that's perfectly okay.

I'm not trying to argue. I just wonder how so many people know who a staff recruits and who they don't. I'd like to have all that inside info, but all I know is what Rivals, Scouts, etc. have to say and we have signed a lot of players that none of those sources ever mentioned.

Have a great day.

[SpanglerFan316]

MikeShox: I don't honestly know the answers to your questions. If I had any inside information, I would not share if it was confidential. :D

There were reports here about Little Cooz and Tunnell which seemed to indicate that neither of them was an important target for MT.
Wilson http://www.shockernet.net/sn/viewtopic.php?t=5674
Jay Couisnard http://www.shockernet.net/sn/viewtopic.php?t=7076

Also http://www.shockernet.net/sn/viewtopic.php?t=8787

[WSUwatcher]

Tunnell

Spangler, you seem to forget that Tunnell had no interest in WSU. He wanted to go someplace where he could play a lot right away, and WSU with Miller and Wilson starting was not that place. In addition, his production is less now that it was his freshman year, and he certainly doesn't appear to be a "Marshall type" player.

As for Hatch, Turgeon described him as a bigger, more athletic Matt Clark. This year, especially with Braeuer hurt, that combination will likely come in handy. He performed well at bradley, and I'm glad the Shocks have him.

Whether he'll be able to as much in the future when guys like Murry and Kyles come on board remains to be seen -- personally I suspect not -- but Hatch appears to a mature and level-headed guy who is much more likely than the average college freshman to do what makes sense for himself and his future. So if Marshall tells him after this season his future playing time at WSU is likely to be minimal, I'd expect his scholarship to be one that becomes available, with no hard feelings on either side.

[SpanglerFan316]

3. Who's minutes should Tunnell take in your opinion. I do respect your opinion. I may or may not agree, but that's perfectly okay.

This is a good question. Jay Tunnell is a junior now. As a freshman, he would have competed with Paul Miller, Kyle Wilson and Ryan Martin and others for minutes. At a sophomore, he would have competed with Wilson and Martin for minutes.

Think about this. Wendell Preadom is also a junior. He played in all but one game as a freshman and in every game as a sophomore. Imagine if we could have traded Preadom for Tunnell; we might have been forced to play a bigger lineup at times. :cry: Remember that Tunnell was the Gatorade Player of the Year in Kansas for 2004-05 and was the Kansas Mr. Basketball; I think we would have found a way to use him.

[SpanglerFan316]

Re: Tunnell

Spangler, you seem to forget that Tunnell had no interest in WSU. He wanted to go someplace where he could play a lot right away, and WSU with Miller and Wilson starting was not that place. In addition, his production is less now that it was his freshman year, and he certainly doesn't appear to be a "Marshall type" player.

I considered mentioning this fact; WSU might not have been attractive to him because of playing time. Imagine if we could have traded Jarad Young for Jay Tunnell. Jarad gave us some nice guard height (and lots of problems). Tunnell is not a guard but some extra height and mass might have been nice in the Sweet 16 game. Could MT have landed Tunnell if he really tried? I don't know. Did he really try? I don't know. Could Marshall have landed Tunnell if he really tried? My guess is yes. Is it possible that Tunnell, as a freshman, could have given us some help in the NCAA tourney? Sure, it is possible.

[wu_shizzle]

3. Who's minutes should Tunnell take in your opinion. I do respect your opinion. I may or may not agree, but that's perfectly okay.

This is a good question. Jay Tunnell is a junior now. As a freshman, he would have competed with Paul Miller, Kyle Wilson and Ryan Martin and others for minutes. At a sophomore, he would have competed with Wilson and Martin for minutes.

Think about this. Wendell Preadom is also a junior. He played in all but one game as a freshman and in every game as a sophomore. Imagine if we could have traded Preadom for Tunnell; we might have been forced to play a bigger lineup at times. :cry: Remember that Tunnell was the Gatorade Player of the Year in Kansas for 2004-05 and was the Kansas Mr. Basketball; I think we would have found a way to use him.

Mark thought he could do better than Tunnell. And after our Sweet 16, who can blame him when we were in on higher level forwards?

If you think we should have signed him, your expectations for this program are way too low. We are competing with MAJOR programs for recruits, don't get too concerned when we don't show major interest to guys who end up playing for lower level Valley teams.

[SubGod22]

Little Cooz had an offer from WSU. And I still say if Chris Brown didn't have the back problems he'd be a contributor here.