http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI6CJwE8pEA

Though it goes without saying that there are many key players for next year's squad, I would make the case that none are as important as Micah Williams. I have always felt that Micah is on the cusp of busting out. He's a big, athletic guard that gives the team another dimension. His inconsistency has been a function IMHO of inconsistent PT and the reality of playing behind Tiggs. I really thought he played soundly against JU in the championship game.

I don't know if he'll start next year over Tubbs and/or Hubbard, but I'm sure he'll get plenty of PT.

Micah should have played 5-10mins every game last year, Bartow and Co did a horrible job trying to develop our younger players and IMO it will lead to a slower start for them next year.

"Erratic" is the best word for Micah's season, with "frustrating" a close second. When he was on, he could look like an all-conference player. But too often he disappeared. In the end, the difference in the Pittsburgh game was that they had two guards to bring off the bench to give them a lift when we stuffed their starting guards. We did not get that lift from our guards off the bench.

The average minutes given Micah were fair, given his erratic play - 13.8 minutes per game in the regular season and 14 minutes per game in conference. It's hard to look at his average of 4.4 points per game (which was consistent in conference and out of conference) 2.0 rebounds per game (rising only to 2.2 in conference) with nothing much in the way of steals (.3 per game), blocks or assists (.3 per game) and say "this is a guy that earned a lot more minutes".

Murry also gets credit for giving him a lot of early season minutes to prove himself: in the 7 games from Temple through Mercer I, Micah got an average of 17 minutes per game (19.4 if you don't count the DNP-Coaches Decision at SIU.). Production was only 6.1 points per game, the same as his season average of 4.4 on a per minute basis. That's a pretty good opportunity to establish oneself - but Micah did not take full advantage.

What I often criticized Murry for was the erratic nature of the minutes given to Micah. Take this 15 game sequence from Mercer I to UNF II: 27 minutes; 7; 14; 12; 9; 8; 26; 8; 4; 5; 22; 7; 14; 21; 7. Rick Byrd invested more regular minutes in players like Drew Hanlen and Mick Hedgepeth who initially did not produce even as much as Micah. Of course those guys were true freshman, while Micah was a redshirt soph. It might have been better for Micah if he had a more regular schedule of minutes per game. Too often it was "miss your first three and you're going to the bench for the night".

But Micah's play was every bit as erratic as the minutes played: 15 points at UNF I were followed by 3 games of 0 points on 5.7 minutes per game. 11 points at Belmont I were followed by 2 games with 1.5 points. 13 points at Mercer I were followed by 0 points, then 7, then two more games of 0 points. Then at the end of the season - Micah burst out for a 16 point explosion against Jacksonville. But in the very next game gave us only 2 in 6 minutes versus Pitt (0-2 from 3). One very good game followed by two weak ones just does not cut it.

I'm rooting for Micah to step it up next year. With 2 years of college experience and good size and athleticism, he should be better positioned to help than our incoming freshman. But he's definitely got something to prove. If he doesn't make his move this year, others will pass him by.

It would be great to see Micah average 10.0 plus points a game next season.

you earn playing time. The guy was erratic and got what he deserved. I agree that he should mature and step up to the plate next year. A good coach is playing the game in front of him, not running a developmental class. The guy is ready to contribute or he isn't. I never understand the wimpy Coach Bartow "bench coach" poll that took place early. I'm kind of a win-loss record first and then look at other stuff kind of guy.

Free throws on a highlight reel?

(06-03-2009 07:50 AM)buckybuck Wrote:  you earn playing time. The guy was erratic and got what he deserved. I agree that he should mature and step up to the plate next year. A good coach is playing the game in front of him, not running a developmental class. The guy is ready to contribute or he isn't. I never understand the wimpy Coach Bartow "bench coach" poll that took place early. I'm kind of a win-loss record first and then look at other stuff kind of guy.

You actually don't see the link between player development and win/loss?

Really?

i would love to see what would be written on this board or in the newspapers if coach bartow said after a game (a loss) that because he was worried about player development he continued with his player rotation that provided for a standard set of minutes for 8-10 players despite the score. the primary time for player development is in practice. now obviously you have to gain game experience but you earn that. and quite frankly the coaches have to coach to the situation (score, match-ups, foul issues, etc.).

(06-04-2009 09:44 AM)silence dogood Wrote:  i would love to see what would be written on this board or in the newspapers if coach bartow said after a game (a loss) that because he was worried about player development he continued with his player rotation that provided for a standard set of minutes for 8-10 players despite the score. the primary time for player development is in practice. now obviously you have to gain game experience but you earn that. and quite frankly the coaches have to coach to the situation (score, match-ups, foul issues, etc.).

There are some players who aren't "practice" players but once the lights come on there are people in the seats the lights come on. On the flip side there are some players who are practice players but fall apart when its game time. Plenty of teaching goes on in practice, real growth and development doesn't happen in practice, it happens with game PT(if you've ever seen an ETSU practice you`d really believe that.) You can't simulate game conditions in practice, you just can't.

I`m sorry but you have to actually attempt to develop a bench in order to have one. Other than his first season I have never seen a Bartow coached team where the bench was even a factor. Anything we've ever gotten from the bench has been a plus, not an norm. Bartow has NEVER used his bench with any regularity, even with talent and experience sitting on that bench. Year before last with Greg Hamlin is a prime example, every time he stepped on the floor good things happened, yet he got buried. Bartow even publicly acknowledged that he didn't use Hamlin enough, yet he still got buried. I don't know if it's fear, a lack of trust, or it's just the way he coaches but Bartow has never gone deep into the bench.

(06-03-2009 02:21 PM)BucNut22 Wrote:  

(06-03-2009 07:50 AM)buckybuck Wrote:  you earn playing time. The guy was erratic and got what he deserved. I agree that he should mature and step up to the plate next year. A good coach is playing the game in front of him, not running a developmental class. The guy is ready to contribute or he isn't. I never understand the wimpy Coach Bartow "bench coach" poll that took place early. I'm kind of a win-loss record first and then look at other stuff kind of guy.

You actually don't see the link between player development and win/loss?

Really?

Sure I do..but I don't follow reasoning that a player "deserves" minutes in a regular season. Coaches can "develop" themselves out of jobs that way. You old farts have some bizarre ideas.

(06-04-2009 09:44 AM)silence dogood Wrote:  i would love to see what would be written on this board or in the newspapers if coach bartow said after a game (a loss) that because he was worried about player development he continued with his player rotation that provided for a standard set of minutes for 8-10 players despite the score. the primary time for player development is in practice. now obviously you have to gain game experience but you earn that. and quite frankly the coaches have to coach to the situation (score, match-ups, foul issues, etc.).

Now that makes sense.

That free throw he made was AMAZING! Looking forward to next season. I think ETSU will be pretty good again next year.

(06-05-2009 12:53 PM)buckybuck Wrote:  

(06-03-2009 02:21 PM)BucNut22 Wrote:  

(06-03-2009 07:50 AM)buckybuck Wrote:  you earn playing time. The guy was erratic and got what he deserved. I agree that he should mature and step up to the plate next year. A good coach is playing the game in front of him, not running a developmental class. The guy is ready to contribute or he isn't. I never understand the wimpy Coach Bartow "bench coach" poll that took place early. I'm kind of a win-loss record first and then look at other stuff kind of guy.

You actually don't see the link between player development and win/loss?

Really?

Sure I do..but I don't follow reasoning that a player "deserves" minutes in a regular season. Coaches can "develop" themselves out of jobs that way. You old farts have some bizarre ideas.

Wow "old fart" is a new label for me, what label do I get when I reach 25?

One good reason to hope for a breakout from Micah – much improved shooting the last two/thirds of this season. His first year he was .300 from three point range (.313 in conference) on 12-40. This year he started out badly from three (5-27 for .185 over the first 10 games) but heated up nicely in conference where he shot .414 on 12-29, and showed an occasional nice move slashing to the hoop. If he can maintain the 40% three point average that he had in conference this year, while taking about 3 times as many shots, add some tough defense and slash to the hoop a bit, then we’ve got one heckuva player.

Or maybe we could just arrange for him to play Jacksonville all the time: his last two games against the Dolphins he totaled 30 points on 10 for 13 shooting, was PERFECT from three (5-5) and 5-6 from the free throw line, and added 5 rebounds.

He can do it. He has done it... from time to time. He just has to do it consistently.

I agree with Bucnut that it is fair to question Murry’s development of bench players like Hamlin. His use of Andrew Reed was also frequently mystifying, although Andrew’s lack of consistent passion and intensity was always frustrating. Silence has got a point, but a coach has to juggle multiple conflicting, even contradictory, goals. It’s not just winning tonight’s game. It’s also trying to develop a bench that has punch at the end of the season, AND trying to get your starters conditioned to play long minutes under pressure conditions AND building a program that develops young players at key positions for the next year. And we WOULD criticize him if he ignored one of those goals for another. It’s just that Murry favors limited substitution compared to, say, a Rick Byrd, and if he has erred in the past, it has typically been in not giving some young players enough chance to develop. It ain’t an easy job.

That said – Murry’s use of the bench this year was pretty good. It’s hard to say that Sollazzo or Jarvis or Micah deserved more minutes than they got (although a more consistent pattern of substitution might have helped Jarvis and Micah develop). I wish that a way could have been found to help Seth Coy maintain the promise that he showed in his first four games before reinjuring the stress fracture. I think that we are really going to need him next year. But all in all, Murry did a good job of spreading around opportunities, despite the inconsistent play of some of his young players, while also answering tough questions at point and post, dealing with injuries to Davis, Hubbard and Coy and peaking the team at just the right moment. That’s a good year for any coach.