Do you think Izzo would have started Magic at Point Guard?

It took him 3.5 years to figure it out with Denzel. And that was mostly by accident.

Jesus Christ, man. Are you really this dumb?

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Jesus Christ, man. Are you really this dumb?

Yes, he is.

My issue is that I'm too logic based. Too much of a guy who wants to reason with everyone and bring them back to a logical conclusion. It's just not possible. People emote differently and I can't control that.

"He probably would have lost the crootin battle for him"

-some dumbass

Not to change the subject, but I heard Dantonio wanted to start Cook at safety.

Turtleneck wrote:Not to change the subject, but I heard Dantonio wanted to start Cook at safety.

Le'Veon would've been an OG if Dantonio had gotten his way.

I think he would have played Magic at all 5 positions because Izzo teams get in foul trouble a lot.

Izzo's gang no longer green giant
by Jim Carty

Wednesday, January 30, 2002

It'll be easy to remember when it became clear Michigan State's basketball dynasty had peaked and was on the way down.

Easy to remember because Tom Izzo himself delivered the message.

It was just last week. Izzo popped up on the television, in between games on ESPN, doing college basketball analysis in the middle of his own season. There he was, sitting next to some hair-sprayed anchor, talking basketball when he could be coaching it.

Writing his own obit to Michigan State's amazing run of three straight Final Fours, four straight Big Ten titles and the 2000 national championship.

Greatness takes everything you've got, sometimes more than you even think you can give. Izzo could have never built what he's built in Lansing by taking time out mid-season to play Howard Cosell on national television.

The fact that he's willing to do it now is proof in living color that on some level he's ready for a change. Make all the excuses you want about having a lot of time off between games or the ESPN gig being a fun way to promote the program, the bottom line is that basketball suddenly isn't enough to keep Izzo busy. He needed a getaway, a little fun, something different at a point in the season when most big-time basketball coaches are in the office 10 or more hours a day six or seven days a week.

Those are the kind of hours University of Michigan coach Tommy Amaker puts in.

Amaker has the drive and focus Izzo had back in 1995 when he replaced Jud Heathcote, when he had to prove he deserved the job, had to win over Mateen Cleaves and everybody else.

Amaker won't take time out to do 15 minutes on Detroit sports radio - he tells his media relations guy he's just too busy during the season - let alone give ESPN a day of his time. He and his staff don't have time to watch TV, let alone appear on it. They're mad, they're this bad and consumed by making sure they never are again.

Some folks will tell you Izzo can and will coach circles around Amaker. Maybe. They'll tell you Izzo is much, much better at promoting his program in the media. That's true, but nobody ever won a game that way.

They'll say the Spartans again outrecruited Michigan this year, and that this year's little slump in Lansing is to be expected, and that even in a bad year Michigan State will make the NCAA Tournament.

Maybe.

But maybe everyone has yet to grasp just how big a threat Amaker and Michigan are, just how hard it's going to be to maintain Michigan State's dynasty, even if Izzo's at his best.

If Amaker isn't the best young recruiter in America, he's close. At Seton Hall he attracted the nation's No. 1 recruit and No. 1 recruiting class to a school with on-campus facilities comparable to some Michigan community colleges, a school that sits on the outskirts of a Newark slum. They came for one reason: Kids and parents fall in love with and trust Tommy Amaker.

It's starting already here. Amaker may have already found his own Cleaves in Texas guard Daniel Horton. He's going to sign super junior Dion Harris of Detroit Redford next year, just watch, and Harris will only be part of yet another great class.

The University of Michigan, meanwhile, is this state's historically dominant basketball program, and Michigan kids will flock here over any other option if the Wolverines are decent.

What Izzo has accomplished the last four years towers over the Fab Five years at Michigan in terms of achievements, but for some reason Michigan State has never approached that Fab level of buzz outside of ... say ... Lansing and some Flint neighborhoods. The Fab Five were a national story. Every little kid with a pair of Jordans and a hoop in his neighborhood knew C Webb and the boys.

A lot of those kids are now going to the Nike or ABCD camps, and they remember those years. Most of them can't name four members of the five, but it doesn't matter. When it comes down to Michigan vs. Michigan State, Amaker vs. Izzo for a recruit, the Fabs are going to be a tie-breaker. Mark it down.

Izzo's been lucky up until now, he hasn't had to really deal with Michigan. He's received a huge boost in his program building by circumstances like the Ed Martin scandal, the ugly end of the Steve Fisher era, the inability of Brian Ellerbe to figure out he needed good kids, not just good players, to succeed at Michigan.

This isn't to say Izzo and the Spartans are done now, mind you.

They'll probably beat the heck of Amaker and Michigan tonight at the Breslin Center.

They need to. The free pass has been canceled. Michigan vs. Michigan State is an even fight again, and it's going to be a fight. The Spartans are ahead now, and will be a factor as long as Izzo is in Lansing, but in the long run my money is on the guy who's too busy coaching to appear on the radio.

Herbie Green wrote:It took him 3.5 years to figure it out with Denzel. And that was mostly by accident.

Funny. I seem to remember a couple of pretty damn good point guards that played with DV.

As for it taking Izzo 3.5 years to figure it out, truth is it took Denzel that long too. News flash: it sometimes takes a minute for college players to develop. To you actually think DV was ready to run the team his first three years ? Was he a better option than Appling or Trice ?

duffy munn wrote:

Herbie Green wrote:It took him 3.5 years to figure it out with Denzel.  And that was mostly by accident.

Funny. I seem to remember a couple of pretty damn good point guards that played with DV.

As for it taking Izzo 3.5 years to figure it out, truth is it took Denzel that long too. News flash: it sometimes takes a minute for college players to develop. To you actually think DV was ready to run the team his first three years ?  Was he a better option than Appling or Trice ?

Yes, he was a better option than Appling in the NCAA tourney we should have won in 2014.

Giant Moose wrote:

duffy munn wrote:

Funny. I seem to remember a couple of pretty damn good point guards that played with DV.

As for it taking Izzo 3.5 years to figure it out, truth is it took Denzel that long too. News flash: it sometimes takes a minute for college players to develop. To you actually think DV was ready to run the team his first three years ?  Was he a better option than Appling or Trice ?

Yes, he was a better option than Appling in the NCAA tourney we should have won in 2014.

After Trice, maybe. Sophomore DV was not leading us to another pathetic Final Four at point guard. Let alone the title.

duffy munn wrote:

Giant Moose wrote:
Yes, he was a better option than Appling in the NCAA tourney we should have won in 2014.

After Trice, maybe. Sophomore DV was not leading us to another pathetic Final Four at point guard. Let alone the title.

You mean Trice who had no points and 2 assists in 18 minutes against UConn in the Elite 8 that year?

duffy munn wrote:

Giant Moose wrote:
Yes, he was a better option than Appling in the NCAA tourney we should have won in 2014.

After Trice, maybe. Sophomore DV was not leading us to another pathetic Final Four at point guard. Let alone the title.

What? Players develop and get better?? How come you didn't reach that same conclusion with Travis walton?

Duffy just stop. You, like nigel, are blinded by hate to ever make a decent argument

duffy munn wrote:

Herbie Green wrote:It took him 3.5 years to figure it out with Denzel. And that was mostly by accident.

Funny. I seem to remember a couple of pretty damn good point guards that played with DV.

As for it taking Izzo 3.5 years to figure it out, truth is it took Denzel that long too. News flash: it sometimes takes a minute for college players to develop. To you actually think DV was ready to run the team his first three years ? Was he a better option than Appling or Trice ?

Exactly.

Giant Moose wrote:

duffy munn wrote:

After Trice, maybe. Sophomore DV was not leading us to another pathetic Final Four at point guard. Let alone the title.

You mean Trice who had no points and 2 assists in 18 minutes against UConn in the Elite 8 that year?

Napier ate Appling and Trice alive in that game. What do you think he would have done to a sophomore who had never played the point in college ? BTW, DV had 2 assist and 4 turnovers in the game. Trice had 1 turnover.

So yes, while it didn't turn out well, Trice was the best option. At least Izzo thought so. Silly to trust his judgment, I know.

Blanch32 wrote:

duffy munn wrote:

After Trice, maybe. Sophomore DV was not leading us to another pathetic Final Four at point guard. Let alone the title.

What? Players develop and get better?? How come you didn't reach that same conclusion with Travis walton?

Duffy just stop. You, like nigel, are blinded by hate to ever make a decent argument

WTF are you babbling about now ? Of course Walton developed and I have no idea where you are getting that I didn't think so.

I just know Chris Hill was a better defender. Because steals.

duffy munn wrote:

Giant Moose wrote:
You mean Trice who had no points and 2 assists in 18 minutes against UConn in the Elite 8 that year?

Napier ate Appling and Trice alive in that game. What do you think he would have done to a sophomore who had never played the point in college ? BTW, DV had 2 assist and 4 turnovers in the game. Trice had 1 turnover.

So yes, while it didn't turn out well, Trice was the best option. At least Izzo thought so. Silly to trust his judgment, I know.

Izzo thought a clearly injured player should play, and that clearly injured player cost us the game. That was a really stupid judgment by him, but you'll never admit it.

Giant Moose wrote:

duffy munn wrote:

Napier ate Appling and Trice alive in that game. What do you think he would have done to a sophomore who had never played the point in college ? BTW, DV had 2 assist and 4 turnovers in the game. Trice had 1 turnover.

So yes, while it didn't turn out well, Trice was the best option. At least Izzo thought so. Silly to trust his judgment, I know.

Izzo thought a clearly injured player should play, and that clearly injured player cost us the game. That was a really stupid judgment by him, but you'll never admit it.

It's debatable an injured Applig should have played. I'll give you that.

But you pointed out Trice struggled badly. ( and yes he was the next best option). So are you saying if DV played 35 minutes at the point MSU wins the game ? Were you calling for the sophomore 3 man to run the point "at the time" ?

Sorry but putting the loss on Appling or is bullshit. The better team won and went on to win the title.

Actually I was calling for Izzo to not recruit wastes of space like Byrd at the time who didn't even play when we clearly needed guards who could contribute something with Appling injured.

I'm not putting the loss on Appling. It's on Izzo. But Appling's play did cost us the game. His coach put him in, though, so what are you going to do? Say no, I won't play? Not everyone is Pippen.

Giant Moose wrote:Actually I was calling for Izzo to not recruit wastes of space like Byrd at the time who didn't even play when we clearly needed guards who could contribute something with Appling injured.

I'm not putting the loss on Appling. It's on Izzo.

Only he did recruit a very good point guard that was Appling's back-up at the time. He just wasn't ready for the moment. The better team won and Napier was not going to lose that day. I don't care who the back-up was.

I recall that same point guard doing what Appling couldn't: leading MSU to a completely pathetic, shameful and national disgrace Final Four.

As for Byrd, I get he nailed every female member of your family, but he was a huge recruit with crazy bad luck with injuries that didn't pan out. It happens and it's been 3 years since he left MSU. For the love of god, let it go.

PS. Just for fun, tell us who Izzo should of landed to back up Appling ( another high school all-American and huge recruit ). And how the kid beats Napier and UCONN that day.

Can we get this thread back on topic?

(How dumb Herbie is...)

duffy munn wrote:

Giant Moose wrote:Actually I was calling for Izzo to not recruit wastes of space like Byrd at the time who didn't even play when we clearly needed guards who could contribute something with Appling injured.

I'm not putting the loss on Appling. It's on Izzo.

Only he did recruit a very good point guard that was Appling's back-up at the time. He just wasn't ready for the moment. The better team won and Napier was not going to lose that day. I don't care who the back-up was.

I recall that same point guard doing what Appling couldn't: leading MSU to a completely pathetic, shameful and national disgrace Final Four.

As for Byrd, I get he nailed every female member of your family, but he was a huge recruit with crazy bad luck with injuries that didn't pan out. It happens and it's been 3 years since he left MSU. For the love of god, let it go.

PS. Just for fun, tell us who Izzo should of landed to back up Appling ( another high school all-American and huge recruit ). And how the kid beats Napier and UCONN that day.

How about you stop making excuses for Izzo for once in your life?

Giant Moose wrote:

duffy munn wrote:

Only he did recruit a very good point guard that was Appling's back-up at the time. He just wasn't ready for the moment. The better team won and Napier was not going to lose that day. I don't care who the back-up was.

I recall that same point guard doing what Appling couldn't: leading MSU to a completely pathetic, shameful and national disgrace Final Four.

As for Byrd, I get he nailed every female member of your family, but he was a huge recruit with crazy bad luck with injuries that didn't pan out. It happens and it's been 3 years since he left MSU. For the love of god, let it go.

PS. Just for fun, tell us who Izzo should of landed to back up Appling ( another high school all-American and huge recruit ). And how the kid beats Napier and UCONN that day.

How about you stop making excuses for Izzo for once in your life?

We get it, Izzo is not good enough for you. And never will be.

How you tell us which coach beats UCONN that day ? And which stud back up point guard shuts down Napier ?

duffy munn wrote:

Giant Moose wrote:
How about you stop making excuses for Izzo for once in your life?

We get it, Izzo is not good enough for you. And never will be.

How you tell us which coach beats UCONN that day ? And which stud back up point guard shuts down Napier ?

The game was 51-49 with like 2 minutes left. It was winnable with a serviceable alternative to an injured Appling, but the coach making huge money to figure that out couldn't figure it out for some reason.

Giant Moose wrote:

duffy munn wrote:

We get it, Izzo is not good enough for you. And never will be.

How you tell us which coach beats UCONN that day ? And which stud back up point guard shuts down Napier ?

The game was 51-49 with like 2 minutes left. It was winnable with a serviceable alternative to an injured Appling, but the coach making huge money to figure that out couldn't figure it out for some reason.

So with sophomore DV at the point we win ? Or is it with the unnamed back up point guard that was better than Trice ?

duffy munn wrote:

Giant Moose wrote:
The game was 51-49 with like 2 minutes left. It was winnable with a serviceable alternative to an injured Appling, but the coach making huge money to figure that out couldn't figure it out for some reason.

So with sophomore DV at the point we win ? Or is it with the unnamed back up point guard that was better than Trice ?

I think the best solution was to not put DV at the point and then parade around the sucky bench player who didn't play and left the team so we could help his self-esteem.

I suppose I could ask an alternative version of this question -

If the season were to start over and Tum Tum was healthy, do you think Izzo would still think his best lineup is Tum Tum at PG and DV at the wing?

Giant Moose wrote:

duffy munn wrote:

So with sophomore DV at the point we win ? Or is it with the unnamed back up point guard that was better than Trice ?

I think the best solution was to not put DV at the point and then parade around the sucky bench player who didn't play and left the team so we could help his self-esteem.

Good God. Let's make a little deal here Moose. I'll stop defending Izzo when you stop ripping him for only winning one title. And when you let the whole Russell Byrd thing go.

Deal ?

Herbie Green wrote:I suppose I could ask an alternative version of this question -

If the season were to start over and Tum Tum was healthy, do you think Izzo would still think his best lineup is Tum Tum at PG and DV at the wing?

That's an alternative to this dumb ass question:

Do you think Izzo would have started Magic at Point Guard?



Herbie!!! Are you still stuck at the bottom of a dry well with no water? And it's all Izzo's fault?

duffy munn wrote:

Giant Moose wrote:
I think the best solution was to not put DV at the point and then parade around the sucky bench player who didn't play and left the team so we could help his self-esteem.

Good God. Let's make a little deal here Moose. I'll stop defending Izzo when you stop ripping him for only winning one title. And when you let the whole Russell Byrd thing go.

Deal ?

Moose is an idiot/troll. He's not going to stop.

duffy munn wrote:

Giant Moose wrote:
I think the best solution was to not put DV at the point and then parade around the sucky bench player who didn't play and left the team so we could help his self-esteem.

Good God.  Let's make a little deal here Moose. I'll stop defending Izzo when you stop ripping him for only winning one title. And when you let the whole Russell Byrd thing go.

Deal ?

I'll stop talking about Izzo having one title when he actually gets that second title. Hopefully that will be this April.

I think it's worthwhile for me to continue to mention Byrd. MSU and the local media made sure we were aware of him for an entire year after he left the program, so I am just doing my part to continue this so the great Spartan is never forgotten.

Giant Moose wrote:

duffy munn wrote:

Good God.  Let's make a little deal here Moose. I'll stop defending Izzo when you stop ripping him for only winning one title. And when you let the whole Russell Byrd thing go.

Deal ?

I'll stop talking about Izzo having one title when he actually gets that second title. Hopefully that will be this April.

I think it's worthwhile for me to continue to mention Byrd. MSU and the local media made sure we were aware of him for an entire year after he left the program, so I am just doing my part to continue this so the great Spartan is never forgotten.

When Izzo wins number 2 you will immediately switch the narrative to winning a third.

And the Byrd thing is childish and beyond played.
So I'm guessing we don't have a deal.

duffy munn wrote:

Giant Moose wrote:
I'll stop talking about Izzo having one title when he actually gets that second title. Hopefully that will be this April.

I think it's worthwhile for me to continue to mention Byrd. MSU and the local media made sure we were aware of him for an entire year after he left the program, so I am just doing my part to continue this so the great Spartan is never forgotten.

When Izzo wins number 2 you will immediately switch the narrative to winning a third.

And the Byrd thing is childish  and beyond played.
So I'm guessing we don't have a deal.

I honestly won't. When Izzo gets his second, he joins an elite club. He will then forever be an elite coach and will have done something few have ever done. Right now he is a HoF coach, but with work still left to be done to join this group.

I agree that the Byrd thing is played, but MSU media continued to cover him during our Final Four in 2015 when he was no longer on the team, when he deluded himself he had a shot in the NBA, and onto his "pro" basketball career that didn't do anything. They were the ones who made a mockery out of Byrd with some help from Izzo.

DWags wrote:

Giant Moose wrote:
Izzo thought a clearly injured player should play, and that clearly injured player cost us the game. That was a really stupid judgment by him, but you'll never admit it.

Like Dantonio with Cook vs Iowa?  Or Dantonio with Cook vs  Bamma?

Guys with hind sight get all the breaks of seeing what happened. It makes them great second guessers but that's it.

Appling had been injured for much of the year. It was obvious. Cook wasn't as badly injured that he couldn't be effective, and the rest between the end of the season and the bowl could have made a difference. Appling played in an intense tourney that gives you no time to heal.

We lost the Alabama game because our defense sucked royally not because of Dantonio playing Cook. O'Connor may have helped make the score a little closer, but maybe not. Another guard would have made the difference in that UConn game. Izzo screwed up there. It was obvious.

DWags wrote:

Giant Moose wrote:
I honestly won't. When Izzo gets his second, he joins an elite club. He will then forever be an elite coach and will have done something few have ever done. Right now he is a HoF coach, but with work still left to be done to join this group.

.

GM having criteria for Izzo to be "elite"

Izzo is a HoF coach, but there are lots of HoF coaches. duffy says we'll never get another coach of his calibre, but we've already had a one-title winning HoF coach, so I strongly disagree with that notion. If Izzo gets #2, maybe duffy is right that it will be hard to replace a multiple-title winning coach.

But as of now, it's not unreasonable to think MSU's next coach or coaches can't win one title in a 20-year span.