[teejers1]

So in your world, that means Silva for 32-34 minutes a game.  Enough said. We aren't going to agree on this topic.  At least barring a whole lot of additional information coming in.

I can't help but notice your group "not Pac 12 quality guys" and what they have in common.  Look, I'm as guilty as the next guy in accepting hoops stereotypes, and if you throw in "walk on" vs. scholie player on top of that, well . . . how does Beskind even get on the court, right?  But tell me, has Beskind looked outclassed to you in games yet?  Has he been torched on D?  And more specifically, any moreso than other perimeter players on the roster? 

There was only one perimeter guy that was repeatedly abused tonight on D, and that was your boy, Silva.  But that's okay - gonna happen sometimes, especially to newbies.  And his D wasn't horrible (unlike when the SJSU player Ingram was guarding just dribbled from the top off a screen for uncontested layups the other night - that was on Ingram or the big guarding the screener).  Valpo PG took a lot of shots and was feisty.

If you want to say Stanford is offensively challenged and needs its best 5 scorers out there . . . okay.  That would be Ingram, Raynaud, Delaire, a PG (I'd take MOC, you'd take Silva), and . . . um . . . Jones?  It wouldn't surprise me at all if in practice Murrell is a big scorer, and maybe Angel, and Taitz, too (their strokes looked sweet tonight).  The point is:  it's not like there is a Clear Cut 5, followed by 2 or 3 other guys.  The mosh pit is pretty mixed right now.  But it will get sorted out, presumably, as time goes on.

Last point:  little concerned about Delaire's body language, etc. on the court . . . and I'll just leave it at that.

I didn't say Silva is a 32-34 minutes guy. There's other guys in the rotation. 40 minutes don't need to be, and aren't by Haase, literally allocated between those two. You'll note that Silva played more than O'Connell last night and I'm hopeful that was because of what I'm advocating: give the more talented frosh the chance to get minutes and make mistakes in a meaningless pre-season game because we're going to need him to have a hope of being competitive with the big boys.

I'll admit that some of my "not Pac-12 quality" is pie in the sky in the sense that that's the roster that we have. We have a bunch of guys who play that wouldn't see the floor except in garbage time for the top teams in the Pac-12, and I've been around enough decades to maybe be a little wistful about our seemingly ever-declining place in the conference. (Though, to be fair, I've been around long enough (pre-Monty) to remember when we hadn't made the tournament in 3+ decades or whatever it was). But, given the state of the roster, I'll say again that my point is a gripe about Haase that I don't think these particular guys should be playing big minutes. The roster is what it is, and we have 200 minutes to fill, so I'd like to see those types of players in sub roles playing limited minutes. If the second half against SJSU was any indication, and it may or may not be, then maybe I'll get my wish.

As far as who they are, you like lumbering, unskilled players? If you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting, my immediate love for Raynaud in the first minutes against Tarleton was that is was obvious that he moves well (i.e., reasonably athletic) and has some touch in addition to his height. Before he did anything meaningful on the court my eye-test said he could play in the Pac-12. And he has gotten better every game. Maybe in an ideal world Murrell stands in the corner and shoots open 3's that may come his way, but this isn't the NBA and Haase's offensive scheme doesn't work to create open looks for shooters. 

Yes on your comment on Delaire. I noticed it too. I'm starting to wonder if this is a Haase problem. Seriously. Not trying to be knee-jerk anti-Haase and an apologist for every disgruntled player (if that's what it is), but at what point is it the coach and not the players?

Anyway, if I'm negative it's because I have zero faith in Haase at this point, which probably doesn't come as a surprise given my long missives. :-) I'll be going to most every game and hoping for the best of course, so maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised in which case I'll happily eat my words!

I think your down-ness on Haase is blinding you to other, at least as equally plausible, explanations for what we're seeing.

As for the roster and prospects going forward, it's amazing what 50% from trey-land will do to how things look.  (That can't be relied on long-term, either, but at least the strokes from Angel and Taitz looked good/smooth).

And needle, Silva dribbled right side/baseline; jumped in the air with no idea what he was going to do with the ball; passed it toward the top of the key; stolen for breakaway and ultimate tap-in (after layup missed).  It was an awful "junior high" mistake, but I don't define his game with that one play.  I'm still waiting for someone to tell me when Beskind has looked outmatched athletically while on the court.  [And btw, if you're on the court long enough, you're going to get beaten off the dribble - but my point is that it's not like Beskind is a turnstile out there, at least so far . . . and certainly not anymore than others on the court.  But I'm sure the next time he gets beaten to the rack we'll read about it here].  Finally, the point here is NOT to defend Beskind as a guy who has to be on the court, the best option at 2/3 for Stanford, etc.  Rather, it's just to caution folks to actually have a non-surface reason for their disdain of him ever being on the court.

[teejers1]

So in your world, that means Silva for 32-34 minutes a game.  Enough said. We aren't going to agree on this topic.  At least barring a whole lot of additional information coming in.

I can't help but notice your group "not Pac 12 quality guys" and what they have in common.  Look, I'm as guilty as the next guy in accepting hoops stereotypes, and if you throw in "walk on" vs. scholie player on top of that, well . . . how does Beskind even get on the court, right?  But tell me, has Beskind looked outclassed to you in games yet?  Has he been torched on D?  And more specifically, any moreso than other perimeter players on the roster? 

There was only one perimeter guy that was repeatedly abused tonight on D, and that was your boy, Silva.  But that's okay - gonna happen sometimes, especially to newbies.  And his D wasn't horrible (unlike when the SJSU player Ingram was guarding just dribbled from the top off a screen for uncontested layups the other night - that was on Ingram or the big guarding the screener).  Valpo PG took a lot of shots and was feisty.

If you want to say Stanford is offensively challenged and needs its best 5 scorers out there . . . okay.  That would be Ingram, Raynaud, Delaire, a PG (I'd take MOC, you'd take Silva), and . . . um . . . Jones?  It wouldn't surprise me at all if in practice Murrell is a big scorer, and maybe Angel, and Taitz, too (their strokes looked sweet tonight).  The point is:  it's not like there is a Clear Cut 5, followed by 2 or 3 other guys.  The mosh pit is pretty mixed right now.  But it will get sorted out, presumably, as time goes on.

Last point:  little concerned about Delaire's body language, etc. on the court . . . and I'll just leave it at that.

I didn't say Silva is a 32-34 minutes guy. There's other guys in the rotation. 40 minutes don't need to be, and aren't by Haase, literally allocated between those two. You'll note that Silva played more than O'Connell last night and I'm hopeful that was because of what I'm advocating: give the more talented frosh the chance to get minutes and make mistakes in a meaningless pre-season game because we're going to need him to have a hope of being competitive with the big boys.

I'll admit that some of my "not Pac-12 quality" is pie in the sky in the sense that that's the roster that we have. We have a bunch of guys who play that wouldn't see the floor except in garbage time for the top teams in the Pac-12, and I've been around enough decades to maybe be a little wistful about our seemingly ever-declining place in the conference. (Though, to be fair, I've been around long enough (pre-Monty) to remember when we hadn't made the tournament in 3+ decades or whatever it was). But, given the state of the roster, I'll say again that my point is a gripe about Haase that I don't think these particular guys should be playing big minutes. The roster is what it is, and we have 200 minutes to fill, so I'd like to see those types of players in sub roles playing limited minutes. If the second half against SJSU was any indication, and it may or may not be, then maybe I'll get my wish.

As far as who they are, you like lumbering, unskilled players? If you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting, my immediate love for Raynaud in the first minutes against Tarleton was that is was obvious that he moves well (i.e., reasonably athletic) and has some touch in addition to his height. Before he did anything meaningful on the court my eye-test said he could play in the Pac-12. And he has gotten better every game. Maybe in an ideal world Murrell stands in the corner and shoots open 3's that may come his way, but this isn't the NBA and Haase's offensive scheme doesn't work to create open looks for shooters. 

Yes on your comment on Delaire. I noticed it too. I'm starting to wonder if this is a Haase problem. Seriously. Not trying to be knee-jerk anti-Haase and an apologist for every disgruntled player (if that's what it is), but at what point is it the coach and not the players?

Anyway, if I'm negative it's because I have zero faith in Haase at this point, which probably doesn't come as a surprise given my long missives. :-) I'll be going to most every game and hoping for the best of course, so maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised in which case I'll happily eat my words!

I think your down-ness on Haase is blinding you to other, at least as equally plausible, explanations for what we're seeing.

As for the roster and prospects going forward, it's amazing what 50% from trey-land will do to how things look.  (That can't be relied on long-term, either, but at least the strokes from Angel and Taitz looked good/smooth).

And needle, Silva dribbled right side/baseline; jumped in the air with no idea what he was going to do with the ball; passed it toward the top of the key; stolen for breakaway and ultimate tap-in (after layup missed).  It was an awful "junior high" mistake, but I don't define his game with that one play.  I'm still waiting for someone to tell me when Beskind has looked outmatched athletically while on the court.  [And btw, if you're on the court long enough, you're going to get beaten off the dribble - but my point is that it's not like Beskind is a turnstile out there, at least so far . . . and certainly not anymore than others on the court.  But I'm sure the next time he gets beaten to the rack we'll read about it here].  Finally, the point here is NOT to defend Beskind as a guy who has to be on the court, the best option at 2/3 for Stanford, etc.  Rather, it's just to caution folks to actually have a non-surface reason for their disdain of him ever being on the court.