KeEpEr
Resident Troll
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2011
- Messages
- 2,494
- Reaction score
- 55
Back in 2002, we gave USC a coach with no ability to create an inbounds play for a 3 star transfer to be named later.
What coach was that?
Back in 2002, we gave USC a coach with no ability to create an inbounds play for a 3 star transfer to be named later.
Isn't Gill a SF? That's the last thing we need.
Maybe Woolridge will start channeling his dad for his contract year.
It's not ridiculous at all. I didn't say the team would be better. All I said was these specific guys would have more opportunity.
don't extrapolate from there. If I had meant it to say something else, I would have said it.
What I said was absolutely accurate.
Cav, Moto, Tree and Dre really benefited from Carson's departure. Each will play more. One will start.
If you had said each will get more opportunity with Carson leaving then sure. However you said benefited which implies that Carson leaving was a good thing for the four of them. Not really sure how you can make that assertion. More playing time is not necessarily a good thing. My bad though if I misrepresented/misunderstood your position.
"If RJ wants to say something, he will say it. Don't read anything into it."
When you say they benefited, and you don't know for a fact that they did, there is plenty of room for interpretation. Deal with it. Until you limit yourself to completely factual statements, you're just going to have to deal with differing interpretations of your intent.
How come it's a "fact" for me, but it's an opinion for you? Why isn't it also a fact for you?
I don't personally believe that the incoming recruits benefited, in the short term at least, from the transfers. Even if the recruits did benefit, I think it was a blow to the team as a whole.
I am not reading into anything other than what you have said. You stated that Carson leaving was beneficial to the four players and just now repeated that them getting more playing time will be good for them. Where have I argued that you said something different? My initial first post was directed towards DV7's claim that they would not benefit from additional playing time. The only mention of you was at the end when I said your claim was ridiculous as well. That is it. I did not go into your claim, just that it was ridiculous. You were the one that put words into my mouth saying that I was claiming that you asserted the team would be better off which I never did. You then changed what you said from beneficial to opportunity(big difference) and then after I said my bad if I got you wrong, you continue to be defensive. My entire argument here is that it is silly for both of you to be saying authoritatively that Carson's departure will good/bad for the four players you mentioned. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less.
And what DV7 said regarding how it could be bad. Some players are projects that need to be gently guided towards additional playing time. Playing them a bunch right away against some of the better ACC teams might shatter their confidence and with a lack of experienced big men to practice again, their development could be slower. In addition having to fight for their minutes might better motivate the players to improve their game than if they are given minutes on a silver platter.
Who is going to attend the prelim game before the Jordan all-star game in Charlotte and report back on how CMM,Aaron and Madison performed?
Who is going to attend the prelim game before the Jordan all-star game in Charlotte and report back on how CMM,Aaron and Madison performed?
Oh good God people just shut the fuck up about this.
How can getting more PT be bad for a player?
That's easy!
More PT for a player that isn't ready can destroy their confidence, which would then in turn hurt them for future years.
Not all PT is good PT if the person receiving PT isn't ready for PT. Psyche's are fragile sometimes.