Overall, I agree somewhat but I would take issue with two things: I'll get bashed for this but what is the caliber we all know it should be? Somewhere we've never been before, I guess because we sure as hell have never had a basketball program of any championship caliber. We had decent teams, sure, but they never accomplished anything. A couple teams went to the Final Four in the 80's but after a cup of coffee they were out of there never to be heard from again. I just wonder where is it that we "belong" since we are pretty much where we've always been. First off, Davis will be a freshman which means you are placing an awfully heavy burden on him. After him you have basically the same team as this year which, frankly, needs more than a years experience to carry this team to an elite status. If Brady's future at LSU depends on 2 wins in next years big dance then, I'm afraid, he may as well go now. I guess my biggest disagreement with the anti-Brady faction here is that, somehow, it's believed that LSU has a right to "return" to the elite of College Basketball when, in fact, the program has vever been anything but the SEC's b*tch. That's how I see it. Flame away.
while i am on record for saying he should get another year, I am not so optimistic about the team and the talent. This team regressed long after jaime left. they played ky tough as i thought they would and figured emotionally they'd suffer through adjusting w/o him. they never did. they never showed any cohesiveness as a team and Hudson just doesn't bring any leadership that it seems they need. I saw Bass go into a shell when Jaime left though the last couple of games he showed a little promise. He should be the leader next year but I dont see it in him as well. Something is missing and I dont think any freshmen will save them. Brady will have to earn it if he plans to save his skin. that's my 2 cents.
You're wrong SabanFan For 2 1/2 decades we weren't the SEC's bitch. Did we win 8 National Titles? No. Were we the SEC's bitch under Charlie Mac then? No! But we didn't rise to the National Championship either. I don't guess I get what you are saying. You need to go back and look up the seasons of the 80s and the early to mid 90s. Those weren't bad years my friend. And we didn't get beat consistently at home by Ole Miss and Auburn either. All I want is a competitive team that under the right circumstances can reach the Final Four year in and year out. You blow off the final four like that means nothing? Whatever......
It depends on your definition of success. Frankly, I loved LSU basketball in the 80s and 90s. In my mind they were successful, but, aside from getting into the NCAAs every year, that was it. One or 2 and out. If that means success, fine, I think it's attainable. Final Four? Sorry, that's reserved for the Dukes and Kentuckys of the world.
Whatever.... Just like Kentucky this year? Loses happen like their one to UAB. Just like ours to Navy way back in the tourney. All I'm saying is that I think LSU always being the SEC's bitch in basketball is a misconception. I don't think anyone here is saying that we need to win the NC every other year ya know? Is that what you're saying? And if it is, you think Brady is the man to do that? Once again you blow off getting into the tourney as nothing....we went like 12 or 13 times in a row and went to two final fours during that span. You've got to get there to win it. How many times have we gone to the final four since and before? Under your definition, then we've always been the SEC's bitch in football too until Saban. Is that right?
That is success, winning 20 games a year and making the NCAA tourney. I would like to see LSU play like some of the teams in the tourney but I will remind you if you look at Bob Knight's record, he makes the tourney almost every year but how many times did he lose in the 1st round compared to his teams doing something in the tourney? More times than not his teams were 1 game and out of the tourney. :lsup: I don't agree with you that we're the SEC b*tch, I will remind you that Dale is #2 in wins in the SEC, he gave 25 years to us and 4 years at the end were pretty bad along with most of the 90's but I would say that we were in the tourney under him like North Carolina and Duke or any basketball school. Most of the time we were 1 game and out in the tourney just like Bob Knight. I do realize he has a couple championships but check out Knights record at this link http://www.hoophall.com/halloffamers/Knight.htm
so you think if LSU had won 2 more games the season was a success as opposed to everyone claiming it was a complete failure? I disagree with 20 wins being called a success and simply making the tournament. I think its all relative to a program at a given time.
lloreda's injury is not brady's fault, so if you are judging brady on this season the grade is B. --without the injury we would have been something like 23-5 going into post season, and, while the team would have the NC, they had a good chance of beating any opponent and could have made a run. next years team is leaderless---whipple stinks 8 out of 10 games and hudson doesnt have fire (that can change going into a players last year) davis may not be on the team (see recent yahoo article on high schoolers to nba) the sec is unique in that no team is consistently bad (no northwestern, oregon state, rutgers, kansas state, florida state) not all brady's teams fade--last years team finished strong (except last game of course) He should be kept on at least one more year. I have doubts--still young, poor guard play, coaching style. BUT, i had doubts this year (i thought 9-7 was the BEST we could do in sec), but with lloreda we would have done better/much better.
