He was a man out there today. He showed me why the coaches obviously feel he's the guy at the point. He took over and made a lot of strong plays. But Devonte can make plays also, so we're in good shape at the point guard position. I wouldn't be upset no matter which one is in the game most of the time.

(11-23-2014 05:16 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  He was a man out there today. He showed me why the coaches obviously feel he's the guy at the point. He took over and made a lot of strong plays. But Devonte can make plays also, so we're in good shape at the point guard position. I wouldn't be upset no matter which one is in the game most of the time.

Devonte did not look very happy after the game. Can't really blame him, since I'd probably feel the same if I was him. But, for a team to be successful the players have to put the team first.

If you are the returning starter, and it's your Senior season, that must be hard to take. I feel it would have been better to give Devonte the priviledge of starting. You can play J.T. as much as you want, but let the Senior start, especially one who was a terrific point guard last year. They are doing that with Ben Dillard. Should he be starting ahead of Josh? Maybe. Maybe not. If history is any indication, Josh is the more productive player. I believe it's a matter of attitude. Ben is pretty solid and Josh is still maturing. Josh needs to realize that if he's an all conference player, he has to act like one. He can't sulk everytime they take him out of the game, no matter if it's a good or bad coaching decision. But let me add that Ben played a very solid game last night, except for one bonehead play that could have cost us the game. A CSUN player came down and made a stupid play by gunning up a three in about two seconds in one of the overtimes, we got the rebound, and Ben, tried to drive to the basket with two or three big guys blocking his way instead of pulling up and taking a short jumper, and he turned the ball back over when it wasn't necessary. But he was lucky because his play didn't cost us the game, but it could have.

(11-24-2014 10:47 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  If you are the returning starter, and it's your Senior season, that must be hard to take. I feel it would have been better to give Devonte the priviledge of starting. You can play J.T. as much as you want, but let the Senior start, especially one who was a terrific point guard last year. They are doing that with Ben Dillard. Should he be starting ahead of Josh? Maybe. Maybe not. If history is any indication, Josh is the more productive player. I believe it's a matter of attitude. Ben is pretty solid and Josh is still maturing. Josh needs to realize that if he's an all conference player, he has to act like one. He can't sulk everytime they take him out of the game, no matter if it's a good or bad coaching decision. But let me add that Ben played a very solid game last night, except for one bonehead play that could have cost us the game. A CSUN player came down and made a stupid play by gunning up a three in about two seconds in one of the overtimes, we got the rebound, and Ben, tried to drive to the basket with two or three big guys blocking his way instead of pulling up and taking a short jumper, and he turned the ball back over when it wasn't necessary. But he was lucky because his play didn't cost us the game, but it could have.

I also feel bad for Devonte. Not sure why he didn't come in, even briefly, in the last 30 minutes to give us a "burst of energy". I will say that JT never looked the least bit tired despite playing the last 30 minutes. With regard to playing a junior over a senior, if they are of basically equal ability, I would argue (just to be devil's advocate) that playing the guy who will be back is better for the future of your basketball team.

I would argue just the opposite. Senior should always get the benefit of the doubt if it's an even deal. Situation would be different if the Senior was a marginal player, but when he was a starter who had one of the best seasons ever for a UALR point guard, you don't make that change. What does it say about players who play their entire career (four or 2 years) and are productive players and start as a Junior, but then the starting job is given to an underclassman. Not good coaching politics. You have an argument as a coach that you wait your turn until you're a Junior or Senior, and then it's your turn. You should play each game for this year. You worry about next year after the season. Of course if you can get an underclassman some experience for next season, that's nice, but you don't do it at the expense of a Senior. Wouldn't make me want to play for a coach who has no loyalty to his Seniors. Think of how many of our best players we have lost before their Senior season. Could it all be their fault, or maybe the coach's?

(11-24-2014 10:59 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  I would argue just the opposite. Senior should always get the benefit of the doubt if it's an even deal. Situation would be different if the Senior was a marginal player, but when he was a starter who had one of the best seasons ever for a UALR point guard, you don't make that change. What does it say about players who play their entire career (four or 2 years) and are productive players and start as a Junior, but then the starting job is given to an underclassman. Not good coaching politics. You have an argument as a coach that you wait your turn until you're a Junior or Senior, and then it's your turn. You should play each game for this year. You worry about next year after the season. Of course if you can get an underclassman some experience for next season, that's nice, but you don't do it at the expense of a Senior. Wouldn't make me want to play for a coach who has no loyalty to his Seniors. Think of how many of our best players we have lost before their Senior season. Could it all be their fault, or maybe the coach's?

I don't see "loyalty" as having anything to do with this situation. First of all, Devonte has been here all of one season. It's not like Gus who has been here 5 years. JT was the starter last season before he got hurt. Devonte did a great job as the back-up point guard replacing JT. That's why you want to have depth. The coaches thought JT was the better player at the start of last season. They think he is the better player now. The best player should start- end of discussion- and I leave the decision on who is the "best" player to the coaching staff.

Well JT was definitely a good player last night. I can't argue that. But I still believe Devonte earned the starting job with his performance last season. I think he was the recruit that caused us to lose John Gillon. I think I heard that when we recruited Devonte, it made Gillon mad, and that's why he transferred. If I'm going to run off a potential star (Gillon led the team in 3 point shots made his Freshman season), and the player we sign proves to be a winner on the court, I'm going to give him the honor of starting as a Senior. But since my job isn't on the line, I guess the coach does what he thinks he has to do. I just feel bad for the young man.

(11-24-2014 03:13 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  Well JT was definitely a good player last night. I can't argue that. But I still believe Devonte earned the starting job with his performance last season. I think he was the recruit that caused us to lose John Gillon. I think I heard that when we recruited Devonte, it made Gillon mad, and that's why he transferred. If I'm going to run off a potential star (Gillon led the team in 3 point shots made his Freshman season), and the player we sign proves to be a winner on the court, I'm going to give him the honor of starting as a Senior. But since my job isn't on the line, I guess the coach does what he thinks he has to do. I just feel bad for the young man.

You frequently argue that the coach's main job is to "win". Not to reward loyalty, honor past performance, etc., but to put the best team on the floor now. I guess the argument of whether a starter should lose his job, when he is out due to an injury, goes back to Lou Gehrig. If Gehrig wasn't a superstar the guy he replaced would have gotten his job back. I honestly don't know who is a better player, Devonte or JT, but I think the decision of who starts should be determined by who gives us the best chance to win and nothing else. I also have no idea why Gillon left- Would he be getting starters minutes here? Who knows, but he'd probably be playing more than he is at Colorado State. Regardless, he is a shooting guard, not a point guard, and we seem to have enough of those at the moment. Also if a player gets "mad" when we recruit talented players we are better off without them.

(11-24-2014 10:59 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  I would argue just the opposite. Senior should always get the benefit of the doubt if it's an even deal. Situation would be different if the Senior was a marginal player, but when he was a starter who had one of the best seasons ever for a UALR point guard, you don't make that change. What does it say about players who play their entire career (four or 2 years) and are productive players and start as a Junior, but then the starting job is given to an underclassman. Not good coaching politics. You have an argument as a coach that you wait your turn until you're a Junior or Senior, and then it's your turn. You should play each game for this year. You worry about next year after the season. Of course if you can get an underclassman some experience for next season, that's nice, but you don't do it at the expense of a Senior. Wouldn't make me want to play for a coach who has no loyalty to his Seniors. Think of how many of our best players we have lost before their Senior season. Could it all be their fault, or maybe the coach's?

I see your point Doc, but the average coach has to play what he thinks are his best players. He needs to win. In some cases, now means whether or not he has a job the next year. In Shields case, that isn't a problem. He's here regardless of how things turn out.

(11-24-2014 04:34 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 10:59 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  I would argue just the opposite. Senior should always get the benefit of the doubt if it's an even deal. Situation would be different if the Senior was a marginal player, but when he was a starter who had one of the best seasons ever for a UALR point guard, you don't make that change. What does it say about players who play their entire career (four or 2 years) and are productive players and start as a Junior, but then the starting job is given to an underclassman. Not good coaching politics. You have an argument as a coach that you wait your turn until you're a Junior or Senior, and then it's your turn. You should play each game for this year. You worry about next year after the season. Of course if you can get an underclassman some experience for next season, that's nice, but you don't do it at the expense of a Senior. Wouldn't make me want to play for a coach who has no loyalty to his Seniors. Think of how many of our best players we have lost before their Senior season. Could it all be their fault, or maybe the coach's?

I see your point Doc, but the average coach has to play what he thinks are his best players. He needs to win. In some cases, now means whether or not he has a job the next year. In Shields case, that isn't a problem. He's here regardless of how things turn out.

I wouldn't bet on that. Firing the men's basketball coach would be a very hard thing for a new AD to do, a couple of months (at most) after he takes the job. Still, if we don't have a good season I could see it happening. Everyone is different, but I would think some new AD's might want to put their mark on the program as quickly as possible- and a poor season would give them the opportunity to do that.

If J.T turns out to be Lou Gehrig we might win the national championship!

(11-24-2014 06:33 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  If J.T turns out to be Lou Gehrig we might win the national championship!

S***, I didn't know he played baseball too. Great, we can always use a good power hitting first baseman.

I think Wally Pipp should get more playing time!

(11-24-2014 10:18 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  I think Wally Pipp should get more playing time!

That was a hell of a headache Wally had. He never saw first base again as a Yankee.