Ken Bone left Montana...

[avabob11]

Speaking of revisionist history, I don't keep track of who said what, but I certainly remember a lot of guys ragging every aspect of Klays game when he was a soph, including his body language. The consensus was that he was no where near NBA ready. Now people use Klay as the poster child for why Bone under achieved badly.

I said numerous times during Klays soph season that he would be a better pro than college player.

Bone wasn't getting it done in Pullman. His last year was bad. Nowever I thought he did a very good coaching job his third year for the following reasons. He lost Klay and Casto early. Moore and Aden both had injuries to start the season. Lodwick suffered a bad ankle sprain a week prior to the opener. Aden goes down with a season ending injury right after leading us to a sweep over Cal and Stanford.

 

[CougEd]

I bet you didn't even notice that he did that at WSU (called TO during close games where we had all the momentum). Be honest Ed. No historical revisionism. By the way, I don't think a lot of people noticed it.

1. Given that he had no history showing he was better than that at the Pac-12 level at any time prior to WSU, then yes.
2. Given that his recruiting was not showing promising results each year, then yes.
3. Given that his teams were getting worse, not better, then yes.

By the way, do you realize that he had one of the premier players in the world at the college-level when he coached at WSU?

Kent has shown he could win. So I guess the record really isn't the record in this case.
Yes, I get Thompson is now a premier basketball player. When WSU was playing UCLA, win and your in the tourney where was that premier player?

 

[jourdand]

People seem to think coach Kent's record is better than it really is. Kent only had 2 winning seasons in conference play out of 6 seasons at St Marys and only 4 winning conference seasons out of 13 at Oregon, plus 2 at 500. He has a losing record in both conferences.

 

[CougEd]

At least two things suggest Bone wronged Thames: he recruited someone at his position when he already had that position covered, and he didn't value Thames' skillset. I think Bruce Fisher would of picked Thames over Moore because he valued his skillset, and subsequent events proved him right. Even if Moore had never had the drug problem, his skillset never translated to winning basketball.

Bogusto--- When Moore was a freshman where were the points going to come from. Even if we could hold a team to 55, where were the 56 points going to come from? The skillset needed in THAT year was a PG who could score about 10-12 a game and could get 7 assists and create looks for other players.

 

[CougEd]

I bet you didn't even notice that he did that at WSU (called TO during close games where we had all the momentum). Be honest Ed. No historical revisionism. By the way, I don't think a lot of people noticed it.

Do I remember timeouts? Sure. And your point being?

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Kent has shown he could win. So I guess the record really isn't the record in this case.
Yes, I get Thompson is now a premier basketball player. When WSU was playing UCLA, win and your in the tourney where was that premier player?

Ed, I was ready for you.

Regarding Kent (who I didn't support as our hire)...reference #2 and #3 above. Why did you ignore those points?

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Do I remember timeouts? Sure. And your point being?

Nice dodge Ed. Read my post again.

 

[bogusto]

Bogusto--- When Moore was a freshman where were the points going to come from. Even if we could hold a team to 55, where were the 56 points going to come from? The skillset needed in THAT year was a PG who could score about 10-12 a game and could get 7 assists and create looks for other players.

Just as many points can be derived (or prevented) from good defense, rebounding and facilitating. The Bennetts understood this--Bone and Ernie, not so much.

 

[Glad Cougar]

He was gone by December 1 of his freshman year. When does a player quit vs. leave? His decision was made for purely selfish reasons. He didn't stay to help the team get better, see D Low. He didn't want to sacrifice not handling the ball all of the time.

The problem was he took over an 8-10 team losing there two best players in Baynes and rochestie. He plugged the hole at PG with a freshman. The problem is two of his best players when they were seasoned left early, something this program has never had the depth to deal with. To make matters worse is the Witherill class was a bust.

Wow, Ed. At least do some homework before writing this stuff. What do you mean Thames was gone December 1 of his freshman year? He played the entire season and then transferred.

Secondly, the Witherill class was a bust? You mean the same recruiting class that brought in Klay Thompson, DeAngelo Casto, and Marcus Capers? Wow, you have pretty high standards for what would be considered a decent recruiting class. See the following link:

Cougar recruits 2007-08

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Wow, Ed. At least do some homework before writing this stuff. What do you mean Thames was gone December 1 of his freshman year? He played the entire season and then transferred.

Secondly, the Witherill class was a bust? You mean the same recruiting class that brought in Klay Thompson, DeAngelo Casto, and Marcus Capers? Wow, you have pretty high standards for what would be considered a decent recruiting class. See the following link:

Cougar recruits 2007-08

Don't forget, we won only 7 league games in Tony's last season too.

 

[YakiCoug]

Kent has shown he could win. So I guess the record really isn't the record in this case.
Yes, I get Thompson is now a premier basketball player. When WSU was playing UCLA, win and your in the tourney where was that premier player?

Momentarily distracted by stellar football recruits named Barrington and Atofau? By the way, those are some exemplary run-on sentences. Devaluing a WSU degree as always, but I'm assuming you actually graduated.

 

[YakiCoug]

Wow, Ed. At least do some homework before writing this stuff. What do you mean Thames was gone December 1 of his freshman year? He played the entire season and then transferred.

Secondly, the Witherill class was a bust? You mean the same recruiting class that brought in Klay Thompson, DeAngelo Casto, and Marcus Capers? Wow, you have pretty high standards for what would be considered a decent recruiting class. See the following link:

Cougar recruits 2007-08

The Ediocy continues.

 

[ElComanche]

Ed may worship the Patron Saint of Lost Causes. Who actually cares about the Bonehead? Let rest as well as other coaches gone by the wayside.

 

[YakiCoug]

Wow, Ed. At least do some homework before writing this stuff. What do you mean Thames was gone December 1 of his freshman year? He played the entire season and then transferred.

Secondly, the Witherill class was a bust? You mean the same recruiting class that brought in Klay Thompson, DeAngelo Casto, and Marcus Capers? Wow, you have pretty high standards for what would be considered a decent recruiting class. See the following link:

Cougar recruits 2007-08

Ediot's post to which you refer is one that has found its way to this board dozens of times. Hence, "repEDitive drivel." Yet on and on it flows. Mental illness is a river that runs through his family.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Speaking of revisionist history, I don't keep track of who said what, but I certainly remember a lot of guys ragging every aspect of Klays game when he was a soph, including his body language. The consensus was that he was no where near NBA ready. Now people use Klay as the poster child for why Bone under achieved badly.

I said numerous times during Klays soph season that he would be a better pro than college player.

Bone wasn't getting it done in Pullman. His last year was bad. Nowever I thought he did a very good coaching job his third year for the following reasons. He lost Klay and Casto early. Moore and Aden both had injuries to start the season. Lodwick suffered a bad ankle sprain a week prior to the opener. Aden goes down with a season ending injury right after leading us to a sweep over Cal and Stanford.

Amazing that he took so long to figure out that the pack line defense was a pretty good concept.

As for Klay, Bone didn't develop him. He has proven he had the talent and will to be one of the top players in the world. I am certain a good coach would have gotten much more out of Klay. As Save pointed out, Bone caste his lot with Reggie which was a poor decision.

Oh, and those ridiculous timeouts too...

 

[avabob11]

If Bone didn't develop Klay, who did? Klay went from a one dimensional spot up shooter as a frosh, to an NBA lottery pick as a junior. My personal feeling is that a coach has much less to do with developing a kid who is an NBA talent than the players own work ethic. Bone at least got Klay to expand his game. He went from shooting 33 free throws as a frosh to about 130 as a soph. Klay probably would have done this under any coach, but I doubt he would have done any better. Also interesting that Klay is considered a pretty good NBA defender. I wonder how this happened under Bone!!!

 

[SaveFerris]

Over the years I have credited Bone for 'expanding' Klay's game. I think that's an accurate way to put it.

 

[CougEd]

I guess it's what context you take the "you". His follow up comments suggest he was making a general statement not one specific to his ability.

Thompson, Casto, a young Motum and Thames isn't exactly leaving the cupboard bare. He never quite seemed to connect with the returning players and that was nail 1. You compared Low to Thames. Obviously Low had a few years with Tony & was recruited by Tony as well. Did Thames have the same history with Bone? Sure didn't and to say Thames "quit" is a ridiculous statement when he made a lateral move and then soon a better program in SDSU.

Cougar recruits 2007-08[/QUOTE]
My bad, he was actually gone by January 1. He was such a team player that he went home for Christmas Break and when he came back he was put out because the ball wasn't in his hand all the time. He was put out because the 18 minutes a game wasn't enough in the preseason schedule.

He could have been like Low and let things play out, but his mind was made up to transfer before the first Pac 10 game. (that is a fact) If he let things play out instead of deciding on the program 45 days into the season, things could have been vastly different for him and the team. No coach has things set in stone 45 days into a program.

Yes, Capers, (6 pts a game) Casto (10 pts a game) and Thompson (17 a game) was a very nice start. But the misses in that class, Watson, Harthune and Witherill left zero room for error. Couple that with Enquist, Boeke, Lodwick and Sauls, the prior year, and what should have been the experience on the team was Nick K, Hopson and Ambercromie. While the cupboard wasn't bare, it was no where near what was left to Tony.

So it is true they got three nice players from the Witherill class, but because they missed the prior two classes it was a tough situation, especially with Thompson and Casto leaving early.

This whole "Bone hitched his wagon to Moore" is simply ridiculous. When he took over he did not have a point guard on the roster. Thames was talking about backing out of his scholie. Thames could have let it play out, he could have given it more than 45 days. His issue (unlike Low and Weaver) is he wanted the ball in his hand. It has been shown Low and Rochestie were equally effective. He chose to quit and transfer. And at the end of the day it was a bad thing for Cougar basketball.

 

[SaveFerris]

My bad, he was actually gone by January 1. He was such a team player that he went home for Christmas Break and when he came back he was put out because the ball wasn't in his hand all the time. He was put out because the 18 minutes a game wasn't enough in the preseason schedule.

He could have been like Low and let things play out, but his mind was made up to transfer before the first Pac 10 game. (that is a fact) If he let things play out instead of deciding on the program 45 days into the season, things could have been vastly different for him and the team. No coach has things set in stone 45 days into a program.

Thames wasn't happy so he transferred. No different than a lot of players have for one reason or another. He wanted to play the point and ended up a pretty good one at SDSU. Why would a Tournament program take on a "quitter"? He played in all 31 WSU games according to his release.

The comparison to Low doesn't make much sense. Low was the point guard his first 2 seasons and was "given the keys to the car" from day 1. Thames obviously did not have the same kind of relationship with Bone or the length of time in the program. Going further Thames best friend was Moore. It wasn't about letting things player out but how Bone managed Moore and Thames. It was obvious to everyone under the sun that Moore was his guy. So if Thames wanted to play point guard it didn't appear it was going to happen in Pullman.

 

[Glad Cougar]

Cougar recruits 2007-08

My bad, he was actually gone by January 1. He was such a team player that he went home for Christmas Break and when he came back he was put out because the ball wasn't in his hand all the time. He was put out because the 18 minutes a game wasn't enough in the preseason schedule.

He could have been like Low and let things play out, but his mind was made up to transfer before the first Pac 10 game. (that is a fact) If he let things play out instead of deciding on the program 45 days into the season, things could have been vastly different for him and the team. No coach has things set in stone 45 days into a program.
[/QUOTE]

I'm not understanding you. Do you still contend that Thames left the team January 1? He played the entire season for the Cougars and then transferred. Are you denying that?

Glad Cougar

 

[avabob11]

Well actually he played quite a bit of pg his freshman season. The problem with Thames was that WSU was his backup choice. Tony recruited the heck out of him, and he never committed until it became clear we were his only Pac 10 option. If Cal or Stanford wanted him we would have never gotten a whiff. I liked Thames game, but we weren't going anywhere with him as our only pg, and a totally freshman and soph lineup. Tony could only win 8 conference games with a much more experienced lineup the prior year. The fact we won 6 conference games and got jobbed out of another does not strike me as a bad coaching job by Bone given the inexperience on his first team.

 

[CougEd]

My bad, he was actually gone by January 1. He was such a team player that he went home for Christmas Break and when he came back he was put out because the ball wasn't in his hand all the time. He was put out because the 18 minutes a game wasn't enough in the preseason schedule.

He could have been like Low and let things play out, but his mind was made up to transfer before the first Pac 10 game. (that is a fact) If he let things play out instead of deciding on the program 45 days into the season, things could have been vastly different for him and the team. No coach has things set in stone 45 days into a program.

I'm not understanding you. Do you still contend that Thames left the team January 1? He played the entire season for the Cougars and then transferred. Are you denying that?

Glad Cougar[/QUOTE]
Glad he decided to leave before Jan 1 and mailed it in.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

If Bone didn't develop Klay, who did? Klay went from a one dimensional spot up shooter as a frosh, to an NBA lottery pick as a junior. My personal feeling is that a coach has much less to do with developing a kid who is an NBA talent than the players own work ethic. Bone at least got Klay to expand his game. He went from shooting 33 free throws as a frosh to about 130 as a soph. Klay probably would have done this under any coach, but I doubt he would have done any better. Also interesting that Klay is considered a pretty good NBA defender. I wonder how this happened under Bone!!![/QUOTE

"Klay probably would have done this under any coach..."
Yes, he would have. He would have been a more disciplined shooter too.
As for defense, he was a good defensive player when Bone arrived. A coach that would have taught defense would have made him even better than did Bone.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Do I remember timeouts? Sure. And your point being?

You raised the white flag Ed.

 

[SaveFerris]

I'm not understanding you. Do you still contend that Thames left the team January 1? He played the entire season for the Cougars and then transferred. Are you denying that?

Glad Cougar
Glad he decided to leave before Jan 1 and mailed it in.

So why did Bone continue to play Thames if he was essentially a malcontent? Why would Fisher and others take a malcontent quitter as a transfer? Why didn't Bone end up with a better option than Winston with 3+ months to find someone else if Thames "mailed it in"? As you said above Thames wavered during the coaching change. What did Bone promise to get him to come in? Think that might have been the first clue why Thames wasn't happy when he landed? Why would Thames end up at a program with arguably more talent at the point guard position than WSU? Why go to a situation where he was potentially further down the bench?

There is no reasonable comparison to Low. I really wanted Thames to stay but I understood why he was leaving for another program. If I was him I wouldn't have felt I would get a fair chance. It was clear Reggie was Bone's guy. Bone mismanaged Thames, seemed to pretty much allow Reggie Moore to do whatever he wanted to do to the detriment of the program, only seemed to punish Moore when it came from above, never came close to connecting with Casto, and if it wasn't for Dad we probably would have watched another "quitter" leave in Klay Thompson.

Bone's not a bad guy. He just made a lot of mistakes and had enough bad luck that all ended up snowballing on him over time. Losing Thames was the first nail in player management. If he was left with such marginal talent he needed to find a way to connect with the talent he had in town especially when with 3+ months he could only sign a Winston-type talent.

 

[Glad Cougar]

Well actually he played quite a bit of pg his freshman season. The problem with Thames was that WSU was his backup choice. Tony recruited the heck out of him, and he never committed until it became clear we were his only Pac 10 option. If Cal or Stanford wanted him we would have never gotten a whiff. I liked Thames game, but we weren't going anywhere with him as our only pg, and a totally freshman and soph lineup. Tony could only win 8 conference games with a much more experienced lineup the prior year. The fact we won 6 conference games and got jobbed out of another does not strike me as a bad coaching job by Bone given the inexperience on his first team.

Thames isn't the first recruit who had WSU as a backup choice. Klay came to Pullman when no other Pac-12 school offered. Mark Hendrickson would've jumped at the chance to play at UW, but they weren't interested. I would venture to guess that a vast majority of the players WSU recruits would end up at another Pac-12 school if they have that option. That's why we consistently end up battling mid-majors for most of our recruits. So if Thames having WSU as a backup choice was "a problem" as you put it, then we've had a lot of problems over the years.

Glad Cougar

 

[SaveFerris]

Thames isn't the first recruit who had WSU as a backup choice. Klay came to Pullman when no other Pac-12 school offered. Mark Hendrickson would've jumped at the chance to play at UW, but they weren't interested. I would venture to guess that a vast majority of the players WSU recruits would end up at another Pac-12 school if they have that option. That's why we consistently end up battling mid-majors for most of our recruits. So if Thames having WSU as a backup choice was "a problem" as you put it, then we've had a lot of problems over the years.

Glad Cougar

I'm learning a lot this week. Transfer = quitter. WSU as backup choice I guess means not committed to being a Coug? The list of former Cougar greats who had WSU as their likely backup is too long to post.

 

[avabob11]

I guess I would turn that malcontent question around. Save Ferris asks why Thames continued to play so much if he was a malcontent. Fair question. I would ask why Bone continued to play Thames so much if Reggie was the chosen one.

 

[CougEd]

Thames wasn't happy so he transferred. No different than a lot of players have for one reason or another. He wanted to play the point and ended up a pretty good one at SDSU. Why would a Tournament program take on a "quitter"? He played in all 31 WSU games according to his release.

The comparison to Low doesn't make much sense. Low was the point guard his first 2 seasons and was "given the keys to the car" from day 1. Thames obviously did not have the same kind of relationship with Bone or the length of time in the program. Going further Thames best friend was Moore. It wasn't about letting things player out but how Bone managed Moore and Thames. It was obvious to everyone under the sun that Moore was his guy. So if Thames wanted to play point guard it didn't appear it was going to happen in Pullman.

Save...it makes perfect sense. He gave this all of 45 days. He was going to play point guard. he didn't give the program time to mature. Yeah, he came back after Christmas break, and the coaches knew he was gone.

Low was dedicated to the program, and if that meant he had a few less touches and that was for the betterment of the team, so be it. And as we all saw it really didn't matter who brought the ball up, they (Low, Rochestie and Weaver) were going to touch the ball. The fact he gave it a total of 45 days instead of seeing how things were going to take shape, yeah I call that quitting on the team.

I didn't call him a malcontent, you did. What did Bone "promise him"? You think he promised Thames or Moore playing time?

Yes Moore was the starter for a very logical reason. At that point in their careers, while be it young careers he was the more dynamic of the two scoring. Bone fully intended to play both in the years to come, and my guess the years to come if Moore didn't have his problems he probably would have moved Moore off the ball a little more like Low. But Thames didn't want to be there.

Yeah, if he gave it until mid way through his soph year and wanted to transfer, I would agree. But he was gone and the coaches knew it before the first Pac 10 game.

In terms of Moore, Bone will be the first to tell you his failing was not getting a PG in his second and third years. It was not because he didn't attempt to get one, but he was not successful in landing one. Not all that different than Tony getting Mac Hopson and Stephen Saul.

 

[Glad Cougar]

I guess I would turn that malcontent question around. Save Ferris asks why Thames continued to play so much if he was a malcontent. Fair question. I would ask why Bone continued to play Thames so much if Reggie was the chosen one.

I'll let Save answer your question, but the issue of Reggie being the chosen one for me is that even after Thames moved on, Bone seemed to put all his eggs in the Moore basket. I don't know if he ever truly recruited a point guard to either back up Reggie or be ready in case Reggie was hurt or left/kicked off the team. It was Reggie Moore or bust, and bust won. To me, it's obvious there was an undue reliance by Coach Bone on Reggie and when he had no choice but to remove him, the program was never the same. That's why I concur with the statement that Ken Bone, to his detriment, hitched his wagon to Reggie Moore.

All of this means very little to today's program except that Ernie Kent inherited a downtrodden program that deteriorated under Bone's watch. Reggie Moore was just one log on the fire.

Glad Cougar

 

[CougEd]

I'll let Save answer your question, but the issue of Reggie being the chosen one for me is that even after Thames moved on, Bone seemed to put all his eggs in the Moore basket. I don't know if he ever truly recruited a point guard to either back up Reggie or be ready in case Reggie was hurt or left/kicked off the team. It was Reggie Moore or bust, and bust won. To me, it's obvious there was an undue reliance by Coach Bone on Reggie and when he had no choice but to remove him, the program was never the same. That's why I concur with the statement that Ken Bone, to his detriment, hitched his wagon to Reggie Moore.

All of this means very little to today's program except that Ernie Kent inherited a downtrodden program that deteriorated under Bone's watch. Reggie Moore was just one log on the fire.

Glad Cougar

Glad, here is my issue. People act like Bone was married to Moore, and was going to make him a star PG in the Pac 10/12. He brought Moore in for insurance purposes. He knew he needed a second point guard. Then when practice started he was one of the top offensive players on the team. It was a team that if you do the math they needed point production. And once practice started he realized Nic W wasn't Pac 10 material, Hartune couldn't hit the side of the barn and was above his grade. So you look how the team is constructed, you have Thompson at that point a 14 pgs a game player, Lodwick 6, Casto 8, Capers 6, Thames 6, Nic K 10 a game. Even if Bone was the defensive coach the Bennett's were on the best shooting nights we would have to keep the opponents under 51.

Bone's failing was he couldn't get another point guard into the program. Wasn't that he didn't try, or that he was married to Moore. He wasn't.

But his struggles are no different than a coach with back to back winning seasons and recruiting Hopson and Sauls. It was a difficult sell and when he did get a good PG committed that player left.

Finding out what you have, what combinations work, who works best off the bench and who is a better starting, what are the players roles takes more than 45 days to develop.

 

[CougEd]

I'm learning a lot this week. Transfer = quitter. WSU as backup choice I guess means not committed to being a Coug? The list of former Cougar greats who had WSU as their likely backup is too long to post.

"Transfer" doesn't = quitter. What does equal quitter is when the guy player decides rotations and the such are etched in stone, and that he wanted the ball in his hand instead of Moores. It would be like me complaining that you brought up the ball against the press. You need more than one guard out there. If he hadn't decided to transfer 45 days into practice, yeah, I would call him a transfer. If after his soph year his role isn't what it could have evolved into, then transfer.

Did Dan Rowlands quit or retire? Shelton Danzy quit or transfer? Did Jake Rodgers quit or did he choose a better program. Did Alex Jackson transfer or quit? Did Golden, Duckett, Simmons quit or did they get run?

I personally think Danzy quit. Three months and you leave because you aren't playing as a freshman? How about sticking it out? Jake Rodgers? Sorry you don't respect Leach or McGuire. How about sticking it out and making it better.

 

[SaveFerris]

I guess I would turn that malcontent question around. Save Ferris asks why Thames continued to play so much if he was a malcontent. Fair question. I would ask why Bone continued to play Thames so much if Reggie was the chosen one.

I could be wrong but I remember a lot of Thames minutes were off the ball at the 2. Reggie was the clear choice as the PG. Year 1 of Moore/Thames is no relation to why I said Bone "hitched his wagon to Moore". That's been Ed's position/response to the notion.

 

[SaveFerris]

Save...it makes perfect sense. He gave this all of 45 days. He was going to play point guard. he didn't give the program time to mature. Yeah, he came back after Christmas break, and the coaches knew he was gone.

Low was dedicated to the program, and if that meant he had a few less touches and that was for the betterment of the team, so be it. And as we all saw it really didn't matter who brought the ball up, they (Low, Rochestie and Weaver) were going to touch the ball. The fact he gave it a total of 45 days instead of seeing how things were going to take shape, yeah I call that quitting on the team.

I didn't call him a malcontent, you did. What did Bone "promise him"? You think he promised Thames or Moore playing time?

Yes Moore was the starter for a very logical reason. At that point in their careers, while be it young careers he was the more dynamic of the two scoring. Bone fully intended to play both in the years to come, and my guess the years to come if Moore didn't have his problems he probably would have moved Moore off the ball a little more like Low. But Thames didn't want to be there.

Yeah, if he gave it until mid way through his soph year and wanted to transfer, I would agree. But he was gone and the coaches knew it before the first Pac 10 game.

In terms of Moore, Bone will be the first to tell you his failing was not getting a PG in his second and third years. It was not because he didn't attempt to get one, but he was not successful in landing one. Not all that different than Tony getting Mac Hopson and Stephen Saul.

I don't know who is a good comparison point for Thames but it's not Low. Low was a junior when he moved off the ball. Think there is a bit of a difference there Ed? Think Low had a stronger relationship from day 1 with the coaching staff?

I never said you called Thames a malcontent. I said the way you describe is sounds like malcontent. If they knew he was gone after Christmas why play him in all 31 games and why was Winston the best they could do?

You have decided to focus solely on year 1 and ignore years 2, 3, and the fact he was kicked out of school year 4. You are also forgetting about April through the first day of Thames 45 days where Bone wasn't able to develop a relationship that would have bridged those 45 days. Did Bone and Thames meet game 1 of the season?

You are also ignoring Bone's relationship with Casto and the fact Thompson was seriously considering transferring after the coaching change. He was going to give it negative 5 months from day 1 of 45 for Thames.

Finally, I don't know what Thames only gave it "45 days" although I know it has nothing to do with Low. He gave Bone a shot and for whatever reason decided WSU wasn't for him. He went to a program with as much talent and more depth at the PG position. He was with SDSU for 4 years including the transfer year. Other coaches were more than happy to take on the guy that only gave it "45 days". It seems whatever the issues he had year 1 at WSU ended when he left Bone.

 

[CougEd]

I don't know who is a good comparison point for Thames but it's not Low. Low was a junior when he moved off the ball. Think there is a bit of a difference there Ed? Think Low had a stronger relationship from day 1 with the coaching staff?

I never said you called Thames a malcontent. I said the way you describe is sounds like malcontent. If they knew he was gone after Christmas why play him in all 31 games and why was Winston the best they could do?

You have decided to focus solely on year 1 and ignore years 2, 3, and the fact he was kicked out of school year 4. You are also forgetting about April through the first day of Thames 45 days where Bone wasn't able to develop a relationship that would have bridged those 45 days. Did Bone and Thames meet game 1 of the season?

You are also ignoring Bone's relationship with Casto and the fact Thompson was seriously considering transferring after the coaching change. He was going to give it negative 5 months from day 1 of 45 for Thames.

Finally, I don't know what Thames only gave it "45 days" although I know it has nothing to do with Low. He gave Bone a shot and for whatever reason decided WSU wasn't for him. He went to a program with as much talent and more depth at the PG position. He was with SDSU for 4 years including the transfer year. Other coaches were more than happy to take on the guy that only gave it "45 days". It seems whatever the issues he had year 1 at WSU ended when he left Bone.

Low didn't quit. Low wanted the team to get better, so yeah you are right about Low being a poor comparison, as he stuck it out.

You aren't just playing for your coach. You are playing for your teammates and your school. Thompson didn't transfer did he. How does he speak about Bone now?

Why play him? Cause you hope he grows up and doesn't quit on his teammates or school. He can't call up a player from the D league.

I am not ignoring year 2-4. What am I missing? There are two discussions. The first is he hitched his wagon to Moore and chose him over Thames. Not true. Just like all other coaches they see what they have in the preseason. And even in the regular season. Thames didn't give that time to marinate. The whole Thames situation is on Thames and no one else.

The second discussion is playing Moore and getting burnt by Moore. I agree 100%. But it wasn''t that he "hitched" his wagon and career on Moore, but rather he couldn't get a quality PG. Not the first time we have seen that happen as Tony got Witherill, Saul and Hopson in three straight classes. And that is after winning 20 plus games in two straight years. So it was a difficult position to fill. Bone didn't and lost his job. But to say he didn't want another PG, or that it was Reggie Moore or bust is not accurate. If you were to simply say Bone failed because he didn't get a point guard among other things I would 100% agree with you.

You know what is interesting. How we treat Tony and Kelvin like deity. Sampson was a cheater, (but he was our cheater), he took two of the better recruits with him to Oklahoma, and he left WSU a mess. He won 1 PAC 10 game in his third year, and he absolutely stabbed a good man (maybe not a great coach) in the back. Kelvin wanted to get out of there as soon as he could. But he is a hero among Coug Nation.

Then there is Tony who his dad set up so well that even when the program started to decline Virginia came calling. Not to say Tony isn't a good coach, but he too had problems getting a PG. He too struggled once his dad left. Yes, Thompson and Casto were nice pick ups, as were Lacy and Hawkinson. But he was a guy who wanted to leave after year one. He was never up for the LSU job. He had people leak that he was to get a raise. Same thing with Marquette.

What I guess is sad to me is that Bone was the one coach who would have never looked for another job, and if his hometown team called he would have said no regardless of the money. He would have been a Coug until he retired.

 

[SaveFerris]

The first is he hitched his wagon to Moore and chose him over Thames. Not true.

I think the poster who brought Thames into the discussion was you Ed. My original comment about "hitching his wagon to Bone" had absolutely nothing to do with Thames.

A couple simple questions. Who was the starting point guard in Low's first year? Who was the starting point guard in Low's second year? Who was the starting point guard in Thames' first year?

 

[ElComanche]

Who really cares at this time? It is bad history and the ob cession with past losing coaches continues What is the point f all this?

 

[CougEd]

You raised the white flag Ed.

About what?

 

[CougEd]

I think the poster who brought Thames into the discussion was you Ed. My original comment about "hitching his wagon to Bone" had absolutely nothing to do with Thames.

A couple simple questions. Who was the starting point guard in Low's first year? Who was the starting point guard in Low's second year? Who was the starting point guard in Thames' first year?

First people have written it was Moore or Thames. It could have been both. Yes Moore originally started and Thames was getting 18 minutes a game bs moores 27 minutes a game. Nothing was set in stone. Because the team lacked offense Bone did start the more polished offensive player. Made perfect sense through the preseason.

What Thanes did was take 45 days and made up his mind. Holy cow Josh Akgonon gave it two years. Henry, Harmeling, Caleb Forrest all let it play out. They didn't quit after 45 days.

Where I agree is that bone failed in getting a second point guard. One that as it turned out didn't have the injury and other problems Moore had.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

About what?

"Ed, I was ready for you.

Regarding Kent (who I didn't support as our hire)...reference #2 and #3 above. Why did you ignore those points?"
I posted this above.