here's a thought....

[molly jabali]

...you get 12 guys or so a year on the team....USE THEM ALL! one way or another...let them play some! i hope matt can come back, and God bless the fine man if he can't, but now we HAVE to play hatch...and preadom...and michael...we're not winning the ncaa this year...except for lack of hustle, let's play them all!

thank you...you've been a wonderful audience.

[SFL]

Re: here's a thought....

...you get 12 guys or so a year on the team....USE THEM ALL! one way or another...let them play some! i hope matt can come back, and God bless the fine man if he can't, but now we HAVE to play hatch...and preadom...and michael...we're not winning the ncaa this year...except for lack of hustle, let's play them all!

thank you...you've been a wonderful audience.

[boneshock]

they should get orange slices and a soda after the game as well.

[fuball7]

they should get orange slices and a soda after the game as well.

no crap.. this isnt little league. you play your best players that give you the chance to win the game. Marshal was brought here to win and i fully expect him to and do it his way.

[shockar25]

LOL... orange slices. That's great. Brings back some memories for sure--but usually after soccer games!

There are things that the coaches see in practice (they see them every day and obviously know their strengths and weaknesses better than anyone else) that help shape their decisions on whether or not certain players play or not. If players aren't getting playing time, it's likely (with Matt being a definate exception) they're not cutting it in practice. I would be hesitant to play ANY player--regardless of how bad the season is going--that isn't going to help you win the game.

That's why Coach Marshall gets paid the high 6 figure salary I suppose. To make those tough decisions.

[Snapshot9]

If this situation existed in Baseball in lieu of Basketball, would you be stating the same thing?

You play the players that you can win with. Many players can not 'cut it' for one reason or another. My point of contention is: Why were they recruited in the first place?, and how are we changing our recruiting methods to be more effective?

To me, various parts of coaching, should be evaluated, and graded, just like when companies compare 'budgets' vs. 'actuals', and recruiting is no exception, and if 'recruiting' is at a 'B' level or below, you need to examine your methods of recruiting to be more effective. Recruiting players who end up not be effective for the team, and just ride the bench taking up space, does not reflect favorably on the coaching staff.

[SB Shock]

LOL... orange slices. That's great. Brings back some memories for sure--but usually after soccer games!

Ahhh! Soccer...it's such an <<<ELECTRIC>>>> sport.

[shockar25]

LOL... orange slices. That's great. Brings back some memories for sure--but usually after soccer games!

Hey, when you're 10 it's pretty fun! Besides, with that sport it's a lot more fun to play than watch...

[molly jabali]

well, my post was MOSTLY tongue in cheek, but not totally...i have always wondered why more coaches don't play kids even a little each game if they are not redshirting...can promote involvement, AND there are players who come alive in game time.

i DO like the orange slices reference...as a parent, i hated it when it was our turn!

[boneshock]

well, my post was MOSTLY tongue in cheek, but not totally...i have always wondered why more coaches don't play kids even a little each game if they are not redshirting...can promote involvement, AND there are players who come alive in game time.

i DO like the orange slices reference...as a parent, i hated it when it was our turn!

No worries. The funny thing is, I never got orange slices in soccer. We usually got an assortment of Rocky Top sodas though.

[shockar25]

For us it was Shasta cola! Yeah! The Saccharine after taste is still in my mouth from those!

;-)

[im4wsu]

Why were they recruited in the first place?, and how are we changing our recruiting methods to be more effective?

To me, various parts of coaching, should be evaluated, and graded, just like when companies compare 'budgets' vs. 'actuals', and recruiting is no exception, and if 'recruiting' is at a 'B' level or below, you need to examine your methods of recruiting to be more effective. Recruiting players who end up not be effective for the team, and just ride the bench taking up space, does not reflect favorably on the coaching staff.

Most coaches, including HCGM, want a 8-man or 9-man rotation. In an extrarodinary case, ten will play consistently. It is impossible to scrimmage in practice with only 8 or 9 or 10 players. Simple arithmetic reveals that there are usually more players on a team than those that will actually play many minutes. By your theory, all coaches have unfavorable ratings.

Looking back to last year, WSU had two walk-ons that saw extremely limited playing time who perhaps did as much to help the team as many of the 8 or 9 who played significant minutes. The fans don't often see their contributions, but coaches and players surely do. Analogy: A boxer without a sparring partner will be very good at beating up a punching bag, but how will he do in the ring?

[Snapshot9]

Why were they recruited in the first place?, and how are we changing our recruiting methods to be more effective?

To me, various parts of coaching, should be evaluated, and graded, just like when companies compare 'budgets' vs. 'actuals', and recruiting is no exception, and if 'recruiting' is at a 'B' level or below, you need to examine your methods of recruiting to be more effective. Recruiting players who end up not be effective for the team, and just ride the bench taking up space, does not reflect favorably on the coaching staff.

Most coaches, including HCGM, want a 8-man or 9-man rotation. In an extrarodinary case, ten will play consistently. It is impossible to scrimmage in practice with only 8 or 9 or 10 players. Simple arithmetic reveals that there are usually more players on a team than those that will actually play many minutes. By your theory, all coaches have unfavorable ratings.

Looking back to last year, WSU had two walk-ons that saw extremely limited playing time who perhaps did as much to help the team as many of the 8 or 9 who played significant minutes. The fans don't often see their contributions, but coaches and players surely do. Analogy: A boxer without a sparring partner will be very good at beating up a punching bag, but how will he do in the ring?

Yes, I am aware of all that, but are they recruited to be just practice players? - That is a valid point, I think? Do you think one of the assistant coaches is thinking when out recruiting, gee, nice kid, good attitude, average skills, but will make a great practice player, lets recruit him!

See my point?????? Most 'practice' players are those not developed enough in skills or BB IQ to be able to get playing time, and yes, those that can not lead, usually follow.

My point is, why isn't the coaching staff proefficient enough to recognize
that point upfront, instead of 4 years later? And I believe they should be graded on recruiting, as a means, to integrate change into the recruiting process that will yield them better results.

And some guys are not athletic because they never learned how to be, and worked at it. Although, extreme, I could probably watch the team
dance, and tell you which ones were most athletic. Perhaps they need some dance lessons, like in 'The Replacements'. You may laugh, but I believe some pro football teams have had dance therapy in order to be more familiar with how to move their body, thus resulting in being more athletic than before.

And, is Mrs. GM, working with players on Free Throws? Many do not have a good form that will yield consistent results, and it shows.

[Maggie]

Snap – whose recruiting are you calling into question?

[BostonWu]

Snap – whose recruiting are you calling into question?

Exactly. Snap keeps on refering to coaches being held accountable for recruiting (which I don't disagree with) yet it's unclear which recruits he's talking about. This would either seem premature or misdirected.