Taylor King Theory

[trinity92]

Well, it's Eric Boateng first of all, not Mike.

LOL leave it to DBR's name/spelling police. I think Michael Thompson's transfer to MSU was in my mind when I switched with Eric.

[Kdogg]

LOL leave it to DBR's name/spelling police. I think Michael Thompson's transfer to MSU was in my mind when I switched with Eric.

He went to Northwestern. Mike Chappell went to MSU.

[Lulu]

The focus of this thread seems to have turned to why King didn't play in the final game, rather than the whole second half of the season.

We honestly have more talent on our bench than many teams who play deeper than us (and would have likely beaten us in that final game). As has been said many times, one of the reasons we are very much hated is because of the McD AA's riding our bench, and the view that we do not accomplish what we should with such a roster. I do not mean this as an attack in any way, it is simply what is often said about us, and I honestly can't find any way of disputing this whenever one of my friendly foes decides to mention it yet again.

I wish I knew the reason for this, and so that's what I'm asking. Is it everyone's opinion that this is just part of K's philosophy about earning playing time, or should these guys really be on the bench sacrificing their time to our presumably better starters? (And if our starters are that much better than the McD's on the bench, shouldn't we be unstoppable?) Does King lose his playing time in practice? or does he lose it within the very small margin of error we seem to observe during games? I really wish I knew if it was game performance or practice time that ultimately determines the better part of our guys' PT.

We might get tired during a game occasionally, but I don't believe in the season-long tired-legs theory that every ESPN analyst seems to promote. We crack under pressure, from a team-wide viewpoint regarding season-ending do-or-die games, to individual players throughout the season who perhaps cannot afford a single mistake else ride the bench.

Yes, we were "young". But not as young as we were last year. And there seems to be a lot of comparably young teams achieving more. Perhaps with less. What's going on?

This post contains multiple ideas all thrown together willy-nilly. I make no apologies.