GRIZ/MT Tech

[Growler1]

I did watch the game PR and they missed the third TO by Wood. Two where he had chance to take to hole hard but threw behind Cherry or Steward and out of bounds.The third one he threw to our bench and over Stockton's (I believe) head. Today's paper says Tech is 4 - 4 but I can't say I know more than that.

I'm really not here to bash the Griz and have watched them passionately since 1978....but let's not spin this game as anything but ugly for the Griz nor that Tech is a good team. We got our first lead of the game 29 minutes in???

I hope the FB team stayed away from this one.

Tech had 1 loss coming into last night's game, according to Tech's website.

http://www.godiggers.com/schedule.aspx?path=mbball&schedule=64&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Do you EVER get sick of spewing ridiculous sucrose about every aspect of Grizzly athletics, as if they are perfect in every way and could NEVER improve in any area? You credibility is lower than Obama's poll numbers!

I didn't even comment on the game, so don't accuse me of spinning anything about the game. You are the one who needs to be more objective. I see no reason for you or anyone to pooh pooh Ward's 22 points. I see no reason for you to try to undercut his performance. He didn't score all of those points against one guy. In fact, there was a taller post player than the one you mentioned, also playing for Tech. He's the one who got the opening tip.

 

[citygriz]

i remain baffled why we so nonchalantly burn up redshirt years for players with potential. it's clear now that neither henderson nor gregory is going to get significant minutes this year, so why trade a wasted year for what might be a great year from each player four years down the road? did the same thing essentially with qvale. how great would he be this year verus that lost true freshman year? seems to me one key to success at a mid-major like montana is to stockpile talent a bit, so you're getting seasoned fifth-year players in the mix, rather than wasting years as we seem to be doing--again--with gregory and henderson.

I thought you had a love-fest going for Tinks, Ci-tay? What happened?

love is fire in the heart and smoke in the brain. tinks is a great recruiter and has matured greatly as a head coach, but on this issues of redshirts and substitution patterns, the smoke is clearing.

 

[temp]

i remain baffled why we so nonchalantly burn up redshirt years for players with potential. it's clear now that neither henderson nor gregory is going to get significant minutes this year, so why trade a wasted year for what might be a great year from each player four years down the road? did the same thing essentially with qvale. how great would he be this year verus that lost true freshman year? seems to me one key to success at a mid-major like montana is to stockpile talent a bit, so you're getting seasoned fifth-year players in the mix, rather than wasting years as we seem to be doing--again--with gregory and henderson.

The final say on whether a player red-shirts is up to the discretion of the player himself. The coach will advise the player that it would be in his and the teams best interest but the player can refuse. We seen this last year with Autry. As I understand it Tinks tried to red-shirt him but he turned it down. The player doesn't have to red-shirt, but the coach doesn't have to play him either.

I have no idea on if that is what happened with Henderson and Gregory but it is a possibility so it might not be all on Tinkle.

I have said that this would have been a good year to redshirt for those guys. Best case (like DeShields) still doesn't add up to much PT in the end. We just have a bunch of more experienced talent on the perimeter.

This may also be the down side of bringing in more highly rated and sot after kids. Maybe when they have a bunch of options they put it upfront that they don't want to red-shirt so to get them we have to promise that we won't ask them to.

 

[Agent G]

i remain baffled why we so nonchalantly burn up redshirt years for players with potential. it's clear now that neither henderson nor gregory is going to get significant minutes this year, so why trade a wasted year for what might be a great year from each player four years down the road? did the same thing essentially with qvale. how great would he be this year verus that lost true freshman year? seems to me one key to success at a mid-major like montana is to stockpile talent a bit, so you're getting seasoned fifth-year players in the mix, rather than wasting years as we seem to be doing--again--with gregory and henderson.

The final say on whether a player red-shirts is up to the discretion of the player himself. The coach will advise the player that it would be in his and the teams best interest but the player can refuse. We seen this last year with Autry. As I understand it Tinks tried to red-shirt him but he turned it down. The player doesn't have to red-shirt, but the coach doesn't have to play him either.

I have no idea on if that is what happened with Henderson and Gregory but it is a possibility so it might not be all on Tinkle.

I have said that this would have been a good year to redshirt for those guys. Best case (like DeShields) still doesn't add up to much PT in the end. We just have a bunch of more experienced talent on the perimeter.

This may also be the down side of bringing in more highly rated and sot after kids. Maybe when they have a bunch of options they put it upfront that they don't want to red-shirt so to get them we have to promise that we won't ask them to.

In most cases (I'd bet about 95% of the time) the decision to redshirt a player is up to the coach. Even if a player can refuse to redshirt, he/she is depending on what the coach tells them. If the coach indicates that they feel the player will have a realistic chance at getting playing time and that they'll help the team, pretty much every player that is a competitor will want to play. If the coach is up front and honest with the player and tells him/her that it will be tough to get significant time (because of many experienced upper classmen, more time needed to develop, etc.) then the player may more easily accept being redshirted. The coaches really control this situation.

I'd be willing to bet that most players would agree to redshirt if they knew coming in that they'd get very limited time, knowing they'd have their best year at the end of their college experience to look forward to...and it would take away the disappointment of going from game to game wondering if they will get into the game or not...or if they get into the game will it only be for a very short time, etc.

The bottom line is that it's a numbers game. There are 13 active players on the roster and there's not enough playing time to go around. There's really no way they can all get much time, unless someone gets hurt, becomes ineligible, etc. Even if some of the more experienced players have certain limitations and struggle to perform well on a consistent basis, the coaches give them a much longer leash than the younger guys and let them work through their mistakes or just give them more opportunities. They may not be better players but the coaches probably trust them more, even with their limitations. That philosophy may or may not pay off. I guess time will tell.

In defense of the coaching staff, they really may not have known who would do well and help the team the most within the limited amount of time the freshmen get. And they could have honestly wanted to give them all a chance to see how they do. However, just considering the numbers issue and the faith/trust given to the upper classmen, they really should have redshirted at least 2 of the freshman that are active, keeping 11 available players. Worst case scenario, if someone got hurt and if it was still early in the season, they could have pulled up one or both of those guys. If they didn't need them, they'd have their best year available at the end.

Even if those players were highly recruited and had many options, that point is irrelevant. No matter what team they go to, I don't think any of them would even discuss redshirting as a possibility until just before the games start. At that point, the player has long since already chosen their school. Even if the coaches think early on that a player may be best suited for a redshirt, they want to allow all the players to battle it out in practice, all with an equal chance to get playing time (at least they want to leave that impression), so that they will get the best effort/commitment from them for as long as possible.

Finally, I have no idea if this is an issue or not, but if a redshirted player stays in the program for an extra year, then the school ends up paying for 5 scholarship years instead of 4. Depending on budget/scholarship issues, it might be a possibility that the coaches or university don't want to have to pay for that extra expense. I may be way off with that line of thinking but it's possible.

 

[citygriz]

you're right, i don't know whether the coach or the player makes that decision. if i'm a player, adjusting not only to college life, but to a faster more physical game than i saw in high school, i'm happy for a redshirt year. you only get one shot at college. what's the hurry?

but a player not wanting a redshirt year is the only excuse i can see. two or three freshmen--deshields, henderson and gregory--who will be terrific three years from now are squandering another great year down the road in favor of riding the bench this year. do we need 13 guys this year? okay, you need another point. you keep deshields but redshirt henderson and gregory. playing 'em all makes no sense.

of course, it's happened in football too. jefferson heidelberger burned his freshman year with five minutes at sac state; jordan johnson last year played sparingly, and was never a factor in the offense. our season wouldn't have changed one iota without him. how great would it be to have another full year for johnson right now?

c'mon coaches. this isn't differential equations. this is common sense!

 

[PlayerRep]

.
"Selvig has to start believing in his abilities, and quit being so timid when he gets the ball inside. Take the ball to the damn rim HARD!!!!!! "

Sorry, but this statement provided a much-needed laugh this morning!

Seriously dude? Just stop talking! We get it

I know selvig isnt playing well, am not saying he is. Quite frankly outside of rebounding he is playing terrible, but if your the "oblectivity" expert, how can you watch selvig play and not see he has a huge amount talent?

Not a traditional BIG, but moves extremely well, long, disrupts passing lanes, can shoot the ball(i know he hasnt shot well this year), passes well when he doesnt overthink things.

He is capable of scoring inside and going to the rim "HARD", when put in the right position, and is quick and decisive. Which is one of the keys to scoring down low. Unfortunately he is not those things near enough, but IS capable. I think we will see a much better player as the season goes on and late into conference.

And on another tangent, tinks needs to get his rotation figured out. as in a couple games ago. play henderson, reader, deshields more, shoulda redshirted gregory.

oh well GO GRIZ!!!

Sorry dude, you are living in a dream world if you think Selvig is anything but a spot-up 3-point shooter. Give me break! This kid is a senior, not a young player learning to play at this level. He is NOT capable, even though so many of you think he will emerge at any time! Face the facts. I have not even seen a game this year, but I don't have to, because I already know his limitations from last year.

Last year, Selvig was 2nd in rebounding, 2nd in blocked shots, 2nd in assists, 2nd in steals, 3rd in scoring, 3rd in made free throws, 2nd in free throw percentage (among those he played more than a handful of minutes per game), 2nd in 3-pt attempts, and 1st in 3-pt percentage (about the same as Steward and Jamar).

 

[mtgrizrule]

Selvig's biggest critic would like to see him be Dwight Howard, or similar. Selvig had a better game against Nevada.