|
|
Post by Ball Coach on Jan 10, 2007 10:22:16 GMT -5
27 you are right, but a blind monkey could have won with those teams in the past. Although having a younger more energetic Pierce on the bench didn't hurt either.
|
|
|
|
Post by peeblee on Jan 10, 2007 13:05:25 GMT -5
doesnt anyone remember Mark Stepp???
|
|
27
Rookie
Posts: 29
|
Post by 27 on Jan 10, 2007 19:02:20 GMT -5
I agree Redhound, Pierce was younger and more energetic that's for sure the attitudes were different then. Alot of things played into the success of those players. Times were different then also. Then basketball was all we had to do and we worked hard at it. There wasn't the craze of computers, cell phones, and not everybody was lucky enough to have their own vehicles. There's been some great players since then to though, every year it seems there's great talent coming in. Some stay with the game and some don't. It would've been an explosive team to watch for next few years that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jan 10, 2007 21:57:31 GMT -5
I agree with you 27, players didn't have all of this other stuff to occupy their time. They had plenty of time to concentrate on their sport and work it to get better. Most of the players during this time also just concentrated on mainly one sport. I know that Coach Hunley liked for his players not to participate in football and solely concentrate on basketball. I don't know if this was a good rule or not, but it seemed to work. There was good athletes that should have probably played both sports. Just look at the Legend Josh James, he excelled at both and he will tell you about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cougs on Jan 10, 2007 22:21:57 GMT -5
doesnt anyone remember Mark Stepp??? I remember Mark...peeblee...one heck of a player! |
|
27
Rookie
Posts: 29
|
Post by 27 on Jan 10, 2007 23:00:56 GMT -5
I played for coach Hunley, he was the girls coach then. He was a pretty stern coach which demanded respect. He was a good coach. He knew the game of basketball and he expected his players to also. Like I said, times were different then. I remember going to LMU basketball camp back in the 80's, it was a drill camp then!!! Talk about thinking you were gonna die, we did!!!! Players complain about practises now and having to condition. I just wonder if the kids now would have survived back then? Some would I'm sure but I'm afraid not alot of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by peeblee on Jan 11, 2007 11:06:56 GMT -5
27 you are right, but a blind monkey could have won with those teams in the past. Although having a younger more energetic Pierce on the bench didn't hurt either. talent was definitely abundant on those teams...but sometimes it is harder to coach a team with an abundance of players who could be the "star" player on that team or any other team... redhound, think about all the talent at runing back on teh outstanding middle school team you played on at jacksboro...I personally heard some of those running backs talk/discuss (in a team player type demeanor) the number of carries they were (or better were not) getting in each game...a good coach has to find a way to keep "every player" happy on this type of team...but then again, every team "loaded" with talent does not face this scenario... I watched several games in which teh only way teh ball "got inside" to Paul Provins was when he would get a rebound of a missed outside shot...just something to ponder about a coach of a a talent loaded team... |
|
|
|
Post by peeblee on Jan 11, 2007 11:11:27 GMT -5
I agree with you 27, players didn't have all of this other stuff to occupy their time. They had plenty of time to concentrate on their sport and work it to get better. Most of the players during this time also just concentrated on mainly one sport. I know that Coach Hunley liked for his players not to participate in football and solely concentrate on basketball. I don't know if this was a good rule or not, but it seemed to work. There was good athletes that should have probably played both sports. Just look at the Legend Josh James, he excelled at both and he will tell you about it. I like josh and enjoyed watching and braodcasting the games at that time... but, he also quit both sports at some time or other during his high school sports career... |
|
|
|
Post by Ball Coach on Jan 11, 2007 12:16:09 GMT -5
27 you are right, but a blind monkey could have won with those teams in the past. Although having a younger more energetic Pierce on the bench didn't hurt either. talent was definitely abundant on those teams...but sometimes it is harder to coach a team with an abundance of players who could be the "star" player on that team or any other team... redhound, think about all the talent at runing back on teh outstanding middle school team you played on at jacksboro...I personally heard some of those running backs talk/discuss (in a team player type demeanor) the number of carries they were (or better were not) getting in each game...a good coach has to find a way to keep "every player" happy on this type of team...but then again, every team "loaded" with talent does not face this scenario... I watched several games in which teh only way teh ball "got inside" to Paul Provins was when he would get a rebound of a missed outside shot...just something to ponder about a coach of a a talent loaded team... It takes a good manager to coach such a team...i.e. JB on his many talented teams. Those 80's CC teams did like to shoot outside A LOT!!! Paul was great, and they didn't use him as much, but their outside shooting was great as well. It is always easier to coach with too much talent as opposed to not enough isn't it coach. |
|
|
|
Post by peeblee on Jan 11, 2007 12:33:46 GMT -5
talent was definitely abundant on those teams...but sometimes it is harder to coach a team with an abundance of players who could be the "star" player on that team or any other team... redhound, think about all the talent at runing back on teh outstanding middle school team you played on at jacksboro...I personally heard some of those running backs talk/discuss (in a team player type demeanor) the number of carries they were (or better were not) getting in each game...a good coach has to find a way to keep "every player" happy on this type of team...but then again, every team "loaded" with talent does not face this scenario... I watched several games in which teh only way teh ball "got inside" to Paul Provins was when he would get a rebound of a missed outside shot...just something to ponder about a coach of a a talent loaded team... It takes a good manager to coach such a team...i.e. JB on his many talented teams. Those 80's CC teams did like to shoot outside A LOT!!! Paul was great, and they didn't use him as much, but their outside shooting was great as well. It is always easier to coach with too much talent as opposed to not enough isn't it coach. yes AND no... yes because if talented player A is having an off game teh coach can always turn to talented plaer B or talented player C or even deeper depending on teh number other talented players available... but even then teh coach has to keep every player satisfied withhis/her role on teh team tjerefor it isnt always easier...does that make sense...in this case team chemistry is a must...jealousy among the athletes will sometimes(but not always) rear its ungly green head...this would be a prime example of NO TEAM CHEMISTRY!!! no a really good successful coach will coach even harder if his/her talent level is down ...no one likes to lose so therefore teh good/great coaches will coach harder to attain that level of success he/she achieved with more talented players... if teh coach coaches at the same leve all teh time regardless of talent or lack of talent then some outsider will say teh coach doesnt care any more...he/she has lost his/her enthusiam fo rthe game...or maybe (take note here) "the game has passed him (her) by"... WOW that so so familiar...where have I heard/read that before... |
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jan 11, 2007 13:46:00 GMT -5
I agree that the only way that Paul got the ball was when he rebounded it. I don't know how good the team chemistry was on that team, but each understood their roles. From my understanding not many of them liked Kermit to great, but he was their main gun and they knew this. Kermit was a great scorer and shooter. He lacked on the defense a bit, but heck you can overlook that with somebody of his talent. His brother made up for his lack of defense, he was a good defensive player.
|
|
|
|
Post by peeblee on Jan 11, 2007 15:10:22 GMT -5
"understanding one's role" is part of team chemistry...
|
|
|
|
Post by thejungle on Jan 11, 2007 16:51:50 GMT -5
When we talk about greatest basketball players at CCHS, are we talking about only scoring? Several players on this list did only that! I voted for Housley because he was an all around great player at his time..19 ppg,8rpg,and 6 apg...not bad numbers if you ask me. I didnt get to see all the players on this list but its only my opinion and my vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jan 12, 2007 18:19:04 GMT -5
When I think of the greatest player, I think it has to be someone that did everything well. I agree that some people on this list were known more for their scoring than anything. I believe you have to take into account rebounding, defense, passing, and scoring when considering the greatest player. Theirs only a few on this list that could do all of this.
|
|
