Kenny Manigault leaving

[SB Shock]

From a coaching standpoint, what do you do? Go with the guys who got you there and should get you to the NCAA that year, or do you give the newer players more minutes and build for a run in 2006?

I think you are reading too much into it. A coach always tries to put the best player at the moment in.

That is not necessarily true. Coaches make some decisions based on players potential and their upside.

[quote[The best way to guarantee your future (i.e., "a run in 2006") is to win TODAY with any and every weapon you have.[/quote]

I don't believe this is true. Sometime coaches sacrifice a year to get younger players development knowing that will bring more success to a program down the road than playing some senior who's year will be mediocre at best.

[Kung Wu]

From a coaching standpoint, what do you do? Go with the guys who got you there and should get you to the NCAA that year, or do you give the newer players more minutes and build for a run in 2006?

I think you are reading too much into it. A coach always tries to put the best player at the moment in.

That is not necessarily true. Coaches make some decisions based on players potential and their upside.

[quote[The best way to guarantee your future (i.e., "a run in 2006") is to win TODAY with any and every weapon you have.

I don't believe this is true. Sometime coaches sacrifice a year to get younger players development knowing that will bring more success to a program down the road than playing some senior who's year will be mediocre at best.[/quote]

I have never known a coach to choose to lose an entire year. I've heard fans assume they are doing that, but what coach ever said he was willing to lose a year for some supposed gain in the future? I'd like to see that quote.

Sure coaches put in developing players over better players for short bursts, but they aren't going to intentionally put an entire season at risk.

From your example: If a senior is going to have a "mediocre" year then he's not the best weapon. If a senior and a freshman are on equal footing, OF COURSE you develop the freshman. But if the senior is clearly better, you play the senior to the extent you are getting quality play out of him, then you sub him for a the developing player.

[SB Shock]

From a coaching standpoint, what do you do? Go with the guys who got you there and should get you to the NCAA that year, or do you give the newer players more minutes and build for a run in 2006?

I think you are reading too much into it. A coach always tries to put the best player at the moment in.

That is not necessarily true. Coaches make some decisions based on players potential and their upside.

The best way to guarantee your future (i.e., "a run in 2006") is to win TODAY with any and every weapon you have.

I don't believe this is true. Sometime coaches sacrifice a year to get younger players development knowing that will bring more success to a program down the road than playing some senior who's year will be mediocre at best.

I have never known a coach to choose to lose an entire year. I've heard fans assume they are doing that, but what coach ever said he was willing to lose a year for some supposed gain in the future? I'd like to see that quote.

Sure coaches put in developing players over better players for short bursts, but they aren't going to intentionally put an entire season at risk.

From your example: If a senior is going to have a "mediocre" year then he's not the best weapon. If a senior and a freshman are on equal footing, OF COURSE you develop the freshman. But if the senior is clearly better, you play the senior to the extent you are getting quality play out of him, then you sub him for a the developing player.

Of course they are not going to say that - they are payed to win, not lose. But that doesn't mean they always put the "best" players at that time on the field/court so they can win.

Case in point - Jamie Arnold. Nobody can argue if he was playing he would maximize WSU ability to win games. But he didn't because of his selfishness would hurt the program in the long term.

JT Durley - was redshirted and held out because all though he could have have helped WSU win - the long term benifits were much greater. I watch Turgeon almost pull his red shirt in STL because he was so frustrated with the lack of offense from his "best players".

If you start looking at baseball - there are some head scratchers there also.

[Aargh]

Since I started the area of discussion that's taken over the thread, let me clarify a bit.

First, I do not fault Turg for building his resume. Anything less would have been a disservice to WSU.

Second, I was making the observation that the Sr's in 2005 had been the go-to guys for 3 years. Then in their Sr year, there were a lot of new faces. If it was clear to that Sr class that the new players were going to get significant minutes, then for the first time in their careers, it wasn't "their" team.

That situation may have contributed to the results in 2005 that appeared to be underachievement. I'm not sayng the new players that year were undeserving or development projects. Rather, that the Sr class may have lost some enthusiasm over the situation where they were losing PT to other players in their Sr year after being the only option for the 3 previous years.

That loss of enthusiasm may have contributed to the years those guys had as Sr's. I'm only suggesting another possibility that may have been involved in some unexpected results from that class in their Sr years. Going into the season, that 2005 team looked about as good as this year's team.

[Kung Wu]

Case in point - Jamie Arnold. Nobody can argue if he was playing he would maximize WSU ability to win games. But he didn't because of his selfishness would hurt the program in the long term.

JT Durley - was redshirted and held out because all though he could have have helped WSU win - the long term benifits were much greater. I watch Turgeon almost pull his red shirt in STL because he was so frustrated with the lack of offense from his "best players".

Our definition of "best player" is a bit different. If Jamie Arnold was going to "hurt the program in the long term", then he wasn't the best player to have in the game. He might have been technically better than some other player getting time, but tactically he was not. The best players (in my mind) are those that work together, play within the system, are technically great, and give you the best opportunity to win each night out.

You assess that and put the best guy on the floor each night, in order to win each game. You don't throw in a towel on a season.

I don't recall ever seeing a perfectly healthy player get redshirted that didn't already clearly have a better player in his position. I'll admit redshirting might be an exception, but I can't think of an example of a D1 coach doing that.

[Snapshot9]

I would like to know what your basis is for feeling like a coach would sacrifice a year to have better years in the future, other than just your feelings???

Any coach that would admit to that would be crucified! Coaches are there to win, each and every season, plain and simple! I think you are reading a lot of things into situations that does not, in reality, exist.

[Aargh]

I would like to know what your basis is for feeling like a coach would sacrifice a year to have better years in the future, other than just your feelings???

Any coach that would admit to that would be crucified! Coaches are there to win, each and every season, plain and simple! I think you are reading a lot of things into situations that does not, in reality, exist.

At no time did I say Turg sacrificed a season. I suggested a reasonable theory that may have affected the Srs in 2005. If the Srs were less motivated because there were newcomers sharing their minutes, you might think that Turg would notice that, which would result in the newcomers getting more minutes because they offered an option for winning that had to be evaluated. That could result in the Srs losing more motivation.

If you think a coach would never throw away the Sr years of a couple of players in order to develop younger players who might give him a better resume, I think you're living in a delightfully innocent world.

If a coach looks at his squad and sees a potential top-25 team if he plays the experienced guys and also sees a top-20 team next year if he puts more emphasis on developing players for next year than on giving a lot of minutes to the experienced players, then I'm going to support the coach who develops the team for the next year.

Turgeon may have done that. If he did, the result was a S16 for WSU.

[Bigshotmaker]

The Citidel it is for KM.

[SubGod22]

You're a couple weeks late on that news. :D

[shocker22]

The Citidel it is for KM.

I am not sure if you heard but Brack Obama won the election too! :yahoo:

[WstateU]

The Citidel it is for KM.

I am not sure if you heard but Brack Obama won the election too! :yahoo:

[Bigshotmaker]

That's funny!Kenny called me yesterday to confirm,now it's official.

[wu_shizzle]

Here's some news that may shed some light on why Kenny is no longer on scholarship at WSU: Unable to make the grades, Kenny will not be attending The Citadel.

Kenny is now at Division II USC-Aiken.

[InWuWeTrust]

I figured that played a role in why he left wsu

[Zardoz]

Makes you wonder about even the remaining prep schools. How much do they do on the academic level?