|
Post by volleyballhawk on Jun 27, 2012 23:23:32 GMT -5
Folks, get off of the Clark and any other college player band wagon. It is one thing to shine in the MPSF and quite another to bring it against 3 Russian blockers with their tits over the net. Clark is a good player, he could be a great player for team US, but not yet. I don't think anyone's saying that someone like Clark or Sander is the immediate answer for USAV. It's all about the future. What legitimate option do we have at opposite for the next couple Olympiads? Clark may never be THE guy, but we have no way of knowing that yet. Name someone who, at this point, is more qualified than a guy like Clark? (I'm talking about young players for the next couple Olympics).
|
|
|
Post by volleyballhawk on Jun 27, 2012 23:26:09 GMT -5
Do I think he's ready to be the full time starter in the Olympic games? Most likely no. But I do think he's ready to be the heir apparent, serving sub, change up? Yes for sure. I believe him to be mature and composed as a player. Plus he's a winner. I believe playing for Speraw this year (especially when you consider all the mental training they did) he's the perfect choice. The other three options (four if you want to include Troy) are all flawed as well. I just think he's the best of the bunch. Ok, fair reasoning. I apologize for thinking you were just a fanboy. That being said I don't think he's the future for Team USA, and certainly not the heir apparent. He's a very good player, and I'm sure he'll be a part of the program going forward, but I don't think he's the answer at opposite for the next ten years or anything. So, the heir apparent at oppo is someone else? Give me one player you can see ahead of Clark for the next 10 years? I'm not saying Clark is the guy, or will be the guy. But, I don't see anyone AHEAD of him at this point. Yes I know I just made two very similar posts.
|
|
|
Post by volleyball23 on Jun 28, 2012 2:51:15 GMT -5
maurice torres, murphy troy are potential guys in the future
|
|
|
Post by 30killspergame on Jun 28, 2012 13:09:24 GMT -5
Stanley is 34, Mckenzie is 33, gardner is 36 and patak is 28. 3 of them are out for sure for the next olympic cycle and the coaches don't appear to be high on Patak. Therefore they should start with Price, Troy and Clark. Those are the 3 top young guys. They have all played for A-2 team and a little for the A team. Price had a GREAT season in france, likewise Troy in Italy. Clark is about to get a contract in italy based on what I saw on some team websites.
|
|
|
Post by Gorflorg Orshforg on Jun 28, 2012 13:47:17 GMT -5
Ok, fair reasoning. I apologize for thinking you were just a fanboy. That being said I don't think he's the future for Team USA, and certainly not the heir apparent. He's a very good player, and I'm sure he'll be a part of the program going forward, but I don't think he's the answer at opposite for the next ten years or anything. So, the heir apparent at oppo is someone else? Give me one player you can see ahead of Clark for the next 10 years? I'm not saying Clark is the guy, or will be the guy. But, I don't see anyone AHEAD of him at this point. Yes I know I just made two very similar posts. Yes, I think the 'heir apparent' at oppo could be someone else. Maybe it ends up being Clark. But I'd bet the field. There's a lot of good talent both ahead of Clark (Murphy Troy, Price) and behind him (Torres, Sangrey). Maybe he does end up being the guy, but I don't think, given the fact that he has yet to play a lick of professional, world class volleyball, that he should be anointed the 'heir apparent'. I'm fully on board with you guys thinking that Gardner/McKenzie etc. need to be replaced by younger talent as soon as possible (After The Olympics), but why is Clark a better option than Troy? I don't have a horse in this race, I'm not a USC fan, and I'm not any of these guys uncles, I'm just not sure why everyone thinks Clark the strongest candidate.
|
|
|
Post by 84olympicsviewer on Jun 28, 2012 17:33:09 GMT -5
Oppo 5 years from now? Joe Smalzer, Loyola.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jun 30, 2012 22:28:24 GMT -5
That may be true, but Patak has a ton of potential. Why not give him a shot? He should at least have been given a chance against Korea or something. The Olympics are here. They aren't going to "give" anybody anything unless it serves the good of the team. Once the seeds are out the only thing that matters is get the team ready for London.
|
|
|
Post by Gorflorg Orshforg on Jun 30, 2012 22:32:28 GMT -5
Uh, they've given plenty of other people chances this World League. I wasn't suggesting they give Stanley a rest against Italy tomorrow just to get a look at Patak, but since a lot of the starters were sitting or not with the team earlier in pool play, why was he not one of the guys given a look in a low risk game that we didn't need to have our best guys in for?
|
|
|
Post by volleyballhawk on Jun 30, 2012 22:52:29 GMT -5
So, the heir apparent at oppo is someone else? Give me one player you can see ahead of Clark for the next 10 years? I'm not saying Clark is the guy, or will be the guy. But, I don't see anyone AHEAD of him at this point. Yes I know I just made two very similar posts. Yes, I think the 'heir apparent' at oppo could be someone else. Maybe it ends up being Clark. But I'd bet the field. There's a lot of good talent both ahead of Clark (Murphy Troy, Price) and behind him (Torres, Sangrey). Maybe he does end up being the guy, but I don't think, given the fact that he has yet to play a lick of professional, world class volleyball, that he should be anointed the 'heir apparent'. I'm fully on board with you guys thinking that Gardner/McKenzie etc. need to be replaced by younger talent as soon as possible (After The Olympics), but why is Clark a better option than Troy? I don't have a horse in this race, I'm not a USC fan, and I'm not any of these guys uncles, I'm just not sure why everyone thinks Clark the strongest candidate. Wow, way to go out on a limb and take the field versus one guy in Clark. Clark is as good as any of the young guys we have, guys like Troy. Maybe it'll be Sangrey, maybe it'll be some sophomore who's going to breakout in the next few years. We don't know. At this point though, Clark has as good a shot as any of the young guys. I think that's all anyone is saying. As we've all seen, making the transition from being a star in the NCAA to being a good player in the international game is extremely difficult. It's impossible to anoint Clark or anyone else yet. It'll be a process. But, Clark will definitely be in the discussion, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by volleyballhawk on Jun 30, 2012 22:54:40 GMT -5
Uh, they've given plenty of other people chances this World League. I wasn't suggesting they give Stanley a rest against Italy tomorrow just to get a look at Patak, but since a lot of the starters were sitting or not with the team earlier in pool play, why was he not one of the guys given a look in a low risk game that we didn't need to have our best guys in for? Everyone on the roster has been given a shot. Patak has been around for years. It's not like playing him tomorrow will give Knipe a eureka moment, realizing that Patak is incredibly talented. Everyone has been "given a look".
|
|
|
Post by Gorflorg Orshforg on Jul 1, 2012 1:04:43 GMT -5
Yes, I think the 'heir apparent' at oppo could be someone else. Maybe it ends up being Clark. But I'd bet the field. There's a lot of good talent both ahead of Clark (Murphy Troy, Price) and behind him (Torres, Sangrey). Maybe he does end up being the guy, but I don't think, given the fact that he has yet to play a lick of professional, world class volleyball, that he should be anointed the 'heir apparent'. I'm fully on board with you guys thinking that Gardner/McKenzie etc. need to be replaced by younger talent as soon as possible (After The Olympics), but why is Clark a better option than Troy? I don't have a horse in this race, I'm not a USC fan, and I'm not any of these guys uncles, I'm just not sure why everyone thinks Clark the strongest candidate. Wow, way to go out on a limb and take the field versus one guy in Clark. Clark is as good as any of the young guys we have, guys like Troy. Maybe it'll be Sangrey, maybe it'll be some sophomore who's going to breakout in the next few years. We don't know. At this point though, Clark has as good a shot as any of the young guys. I think that's all anyone is saying. As we've all seen, making the transition from being a star in the NCAA to being a good player in the international game is extremely difficult. It's impossible to anoint Clark or anyone else yet. It'll be a process. But, Clark will definitely be in the discussion, I believe. I don't recall saying Clark had no shot, or that he shouldn't be considered. I'm not sure why you seem to think I did. I wasn't trying to go out on a limb, just addressing what, on the basis of a few posts I'd seen, I perceived as an undue amount of enthusiasm and certainty about Clark.
|
|
|
Post by Gorflorg Orshforg on Jul 1, 2012 1:07:01 GMT -5
Uh, they've given plenty of other people chances this World League. I wasn't suggesting they give Stanley a rest against Italy tomorrow just to get a look at Patak, but since a lot of the starters were sitting or not with the team earlier in pool play, why was he not one of the guys given a look in a low risk game that we didn't need to have our best guys in for? Everyone on the roster has been given a shot. Patak has been around for years. It's not like playing him tomorrow will give Knipe a eureka moment, realizing that Patak is incredibly talented. Everyone has been "given a look". I see now I wasn't clear enough. I think Patak is our second best opposite. I think he should have been the guy to replace Stanley in the matches that he missed. I think he should be the backup at opposite in the WL finals and in London. I can see how the language I used made it seem like I was saying something else.
|
|
|
Post by MarsH on Jul 3, 2012 6:54:30 GMT -5
My vote is for McKienzie. And David Mckienzie is indeed going to London. Congrats to him
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Jul 3, 2012 6:55:07 GMT -5
I think Hansen gets the nod as the second setter. If you get in a position where the backup setter has to play, I think you want the experience of a 3-time olympian in there. Not saying that Thornton isn't a better future option, but for one tournament, Hansen might be the better option.
We keep leaving Salmon out of the equation at outside. Are Rooney and Lottman both locks? If you need someone to go in as a passing sub, who do you want? I don't think I want Rooney in there passing, and not so sure about Lottman. Salmon might just be our next best passing option, and that might get him on the roster.
|
|
|
Post by halesvb11 on Jul 3, 2012 8:30:27 GMT -5
Not sure if you're mixed up or not, but Hansen has been in one Olympics, in '08 - he was a junior in college in '04. And living in the USA, I/we didn't get to see much action, but I'd venture to say he saw next to no court time. IMHO, if he's been with the program for 5/6 years and hasn't been able to do it yet, I don't think it will come.
IMO, I take Thronton. Younger, runs a faster/crisper offense, and seems to be more athletic (which if Rooney and Anderson are passing can only help).
|
|