Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2014 9:16:35 GMT -5
my agenda now is to help you comprehend English, then. PM me your address so I can start by mailing you "Hooked on Phonics" for Christmas. No thanks. I understand English perfectly. I also understand snide comments by people who twist the meaning of people posts to fit their agenda. So, I guess I will ask you. Rather than going by 'some accounts', let me ask you your opinion. How do you feel the loss first of Silas, then Bisping Long and Cole in a matter of 2 weeks affected the chemistry of this team? And since you brought up the new comers, what were your expectations of them one month into the season? What kind of impact did you expect? Since you asked so nicely (and only about team chemistry), 1) I don't think the lose of Silas hurt chemistry much. 2) Losing Bisping and Long probably demoralized the team greatly 3) Losing Cole seems to have improved chemistry greatly. As for the newcomers: Cole was called the best player on the team last year and Brandwijk was called an A-10 level recruit, so I had high expectations.
|
|
indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Dec 21, 2014 9:33:26 GMT -5
No thanks. I understand English perfectly. I also understand snide comments by people who twist the meaning of people posts to fit their agenda. So, I guess I will ask you. Rather than going by 'some accounts', let me ask you your opinion. How do you feel the loss first of Silas, then Bisping Long and Cole in a matter of 2 weeks affected the chemistry of this team? And since you brought up the new comers, what were your expectations of them one month into the season? What kind of impact did you expect? Since you asked so nicely (and only about team chemistry), 1) I don't think the lose of Silas hurt chemistry much. 2) Losing Bisping and Long probably demoralized the team greatly 3) Losing Cole seems to have improved chemistry greatly. As for the newcomers: Cole was called the best player on the team last year and Brandwijk was called an A-10 level recruit, so I had high expectations. I thought chemistry would also correlate to play, so I should have been clearer. I disagree strongly with #1. Silas had a great deal to do with our defense last year, which was a strong point and we have seen its effects this year. Then to lose Bisping, who was also in the middle, took charges, and had a great number of blocked shots amplifies issues on the defensive end. #2 - Demoralization certainly relates to play, so in addition to losing what they obviously contribute on-court play, demoralization amplifies their losses as well. As for new comers, you are still going by 'other accounts'. So it sounds like you expected those 2 to make a huge impact in the first month? Again, I disagree. I was expecting some contributions, but to go to your comments about starters (like you did with me about Silas a couple weeks ago) - neither was slated to be a starter by Jimmy, so I was not expecting much early in the season. I was expecting bigger things, esp on the defensive end from Silas. The team started off slow last year and came around. I was expecting similar results, but this is now a much different team than it was in early October, which is the gist of many posters' points which I believe you nitpick on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2014 9:45:05 GMT -5
Since you asked so nicely (and only about team chemistry), 1) I don't think the lose of Silas hurt chemistry much. 2) Losing Bisping and Long probably demoralized the team greatly 3) Losing Cole seems to have improved chemistry greatly. As for the newcomers: Cole was called the best player on the team last year and Brandwijk was called an A-10 level recruit, so I had high expectations. I thought chemistry would also correlate to play, so I should have been clearer. I disagree strongly with #1. Silas had a great deal to do with our defense last year, which was a strong point and we have seen its effects this year. Then to lose Bisping, who was also in the middle, took charges, and had a great number of blocked shots amplifies issues on the defensive end. #2 - Demoralization certainly relates to play, so in addition to losing what they obviously contribute on-court play, demoralization amplifies their losses as well. As for new comers, you are still going by 'other accounts'. So it sounds like you expected those 2 to make a huge impact in the first month? Again, I disagree. I was expecting some contributions, but to go to your comments about starters (like you did with me about Silas a couple weeks ago) - neither was slated to be a starter by Jimmy, so I was not expecting much early in the season. I was expecting bigger things, esp on the defensive end from Silas. The team started off slow last year and came around. I was expecting similar results, but this is now a much different team than it was in early October, which is the gist of many posters' points which I believe you nitpick on. To say neither was projected as a starter could be considered misleading to some. I guess that would depend on WHEN? If the head coach calls a player "our best player", I take that to denote a starter. So yes, I would expect a huge impact. But yes, you are right, I was basing that on " others " (the head coach, silly me) observations. As for Willem (and every other Patsos recruit so far), yes, 100% I was relying on the word of others, just as most of us do, because we haven't seen them ourselves.
|
|
indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Dec 21, 2014 9:56:52 GMT -5
I thought chemistry would also correlate to play, so I should have been clearer. I disagree strongly with #1. Silas had a great deal to do with our defense last year, which was a strong point and we have seen its effects this year. Then to lose Bisping, who was also in the middle, took charges, and had a great number of blocked shots amplifies issues on the defensive end. #2 - Demoralization certainly relates to play, so in addition to losing what they obviously contribute on-court play, demoralization amplifies their losses as well. As for new comers, you are still going by 'other accounts'. So it sounds like you expected those 2 to make a huge impact in the first month? Again, I disagree. I was expecting some contributions, but to go to your comments about starters (like you did with me about Silas a couple weeks ago) - neither was slated to be a starter by Jimmy, so I was not expecting much early in the season. I was expecting bigger things, esp on the defensive end from Silas. The team started off slow last year and came around. I was expecting similar results, but this is now a much different team than it was in early October, which is the gist of many posters' points which I believe you nitpick on. To say neither was projected as a starter could be considered misleading to some. I guess that would depend on WHEN? If the head coach calls a player "our best player", I take that to denote a starter. So yes, I would expect a huge impact. But yes, you are right, I was basing that on " others " (the head coach, silly me) observations. As for Willem (and every other Patsos recruit so far), yes, 100% I was relying on the word of others, just as most of us do, because we haven't seen them ourselves. And you believe every word that comes out of Jimmy's mouth? My point remains. This is a whole lot different team than it was early October and for which the coaching staff was gearing towards. A lot of shifting now. Much harder to win with 8 than the 12 everybody had been planning. @ clear startes and 2 that would have played a good portion of minutes. And those are by my accounts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2014 10:12:26 GMT -5
To say neither was projected as a starter could be considered misleading to some. I guess that would depend on WHEN? If the head coach calls a player "our best player", I take that to denote a starter. So yes, I would expect a huge impact. But yes, you are right, I was basing that on " others " (the head coach, silly me) observations. As for Willem (and every other Patsos recruit so far), yes, 100% I was relying on the word of others, just as most of us do, because we haven't seen them ourselves. And you believe every word that comes out of Jimmy's mouth? My point remains. This is a whole lot different team than it was early October and for which the coaching staff was gearing towards. A lot of shifting now. Much harder to win with 8 than the 12 everybody had been planning. @ clear startes and 2 that would have played a good portion of minutes. And those are by my accounts. Well, by my accounts, Patsos plays 8 players "a good portion of minutes" . So the chances of Silas being 1 were slim. Lavon is supposed to be out for 2-3 games. Most consider the loss of Cole a good thing. So, in my account, Bisping is the only major loss. By your account, who were the 12 "everybody had been planning"?
|
|
|
Post by SaintsFan on Dec 21, 2014 10:27:34 GMT -5
To say neither was projected as a starter could be considered misleading to some. I guess that would depend on WHEN? If the head coach calls a player "our best player", I take that to denote a starter. So yes, I would expect a huge impact. But yes, you are right, I was basing that on " others " (the head coach, silly me) observations. As for Willem (and every other Patsos recruit so far), yes, 100% I was relying on the word of others, just as most of us do, because we haven't seen them ourselves. And you believe every word that comes out of Jimmy's mouth? My point remains. This is a whole lot different team than it was early October and for which the coaching staff was gearing towards. A lot of shifting now. Much harder to win with 8 than the 12 everybody had been planning. @ clear startes and 2 that would have played a good portion of minutes. And those are by my accounts. Without a doubt, Wolfe, injuries, and now Cole.. a talent, speed, athletically deficient roster rapidly became "just get 5 out there and play hard". Long will help a good amount but still down three guys expected to have been major contributors. Cole was a gamble given roster issues when Patsos took over. Patsos brought all of his recruits from Loyola regardless of fit or need because he had no time to recruit when he took over. He was kind of forced into recruiting certain positions last year. He had poole hymes Oliver Cole white Wright at guard. He was pretty much forced to go big
|
|
gorvy
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 10,020
Dislikes:
|
Post by gorvy on Dec 21, 2014 10:52:50 GMT -5
I thought he should have waited and focused on the following year to recruit using the Siena resources. But, the roster is sorting itself out now anyway. Fisher is a three star recruit let's see what the next several offer.
|
|
indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Dec 21, 2014 11:04:45 GMT -5
And you believe every word that comes out of Jimmy's mouth? My point remains. This is a whole lot different team than it was early October and for which the coaching staff was gearing towards. A lot of shifting now. Much harder to win with 8 than the 12 everybody had been planning. @ clear startes and 2 that would have played a good portion of minutes. And those are by my accounts. Well, by my accounts, Patsos plays 8 players "a good portion of minutes" . So the chances of Silas being 1 were slim. Lavon is supposed to be out for 2-3 games. Most consider the loss of Cole a good thing. So, in my account, Bisping is the only major loss. By your account, who were the 12 "everybody had been planning"? Silas started 32/38 games (more than Bisping) last year. Averaged almost 17 mins/game, had 63 blocks (almost double the next player) and 4.7 rpg. I understand he has offensive deficiencies, but that was not his role. But still he averaged almost 4 ppg in those 17 mins. Plus 5 more fouls, if nothing else. His loss threw off the chemistry/game play immensely, esp on defense, which is where we have been hurting since day 1 this year. You can downplay him if you want, but we will have to agree to disagree. And we had 12 back in Oct that we were planning on in some capacity, whether 3 mins to give a rest, save fouls or only in practice. I see no reason to name them. Never said they would all be major contributors, but now we have to rely on some for that if we are to succeed. But that's part of the game.
|
|
gorvy
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 10,020
Dislikes:
|
Post by gorvy on Dec 21, 2014 11:07:53 GMT -5
Why not plan on 13, would be my point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2014 11:15:06 GMT -5
Why not plan on 13, would be my point. Or 16, since that's where the roster started. And now a 17th was added. But Patsos said all along he wanted 7-8. So realistically, some weren't going to play, and since he said from Day 1 last year "we need more talent", I think it would be expected for newcomers to be part of the 7-8. Therefore, many returnees would NOT be part of the 7-8.
|
|
indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Dec 21, 2014 11:21:11 GMT -5
Why not plan on 13, would be my point. Or 16, since that's where the roster started. And now a 17th was added. But Patsos said all along he wanted 7-8. So realistically, some weren't going to play, and since he said from Day 1 last year "we need more talent", I think it would be expected for newcomers to be part of the 7-8. Therefore, many returnees would NOT be part of the 7-8. But I would not expect one of those returnees to have been the defensive presence for whom I gave the stats above. You can believe every word that comes out of JP's mouth if you want. I learned not to early last year when he gave about 4 different starting lineups before the season began. I prefer to believe the numbers/minutes I see for myself after the fact and then base my expectations on that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2014 11:28:44 GMT -5
Or 16, since that's where the roster started. And now a 17th was added. But Patsos said all along he wanted 7-8. So realistically, some weren't going to play, and since he said from Day 1 last year "we need more talent", I think it would be expected for newcomers to be part of the 7-8. Therefore, many returnees would NOT be part of the 7-8. But I would not expect one of those returnees to have been the defensive presence for whom I gave the stats above. You can believe every word that comes out of JP's mouth if you want. I learned not to early last year when he gave about 4 different starting lineups before the season began. I prefer to believe the numbers/minutes I see for myself after the fact and then base my expectations on that. Yeah, hindsight is great. It must make you feel brilliant. I don't need to believe Jimmy, I know Javion was ahead of Imoh to start last year and would be again this year.
|
|
indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Dec 21, 2014 11:37:48 GMT -5
But I would not expect one of those returnees to have been the defensive presence for whom I gave the stats above. You can believe every word that comes out of JP's mouth if you want. I learned not to early last year when he gave about 4 different starting lineups before the season began. I prefer to believe the numbers/minutes I see for myself after the fact and then base my expectations on that. Yeah, hindsight is great. It must make you feel brilliant. I don't need to believe Jimmy, I know Javion was ahead of Imoh to start last year and would be again this year. Yeah, it makes me feel brilliant to hear 4 starting lineups before the season starts and take what he says with a grain of salt as opposed to believing every word he says. It also makes me feel brilliant to see who is actually getting minutes, rebounds and blocks to make my guess as to who would get minutes this year. What makes you feel brilliant?
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Dec 21, 2014 11:57:32 GMT -5
You guys are splitting hairs – it’s pretty clear the top would have been JO-Brett- Lavon- Poole -Wright-Oliver –Silas and Cole -- WB wouldn’t have played much more than spot minutes ( and before you say that’s not what this board says) go back and read my posts about players over 6’8” in the MAAC – so anyway we are currently playing without 4 of our top 8--- and 3 of our top 4 big men.. that is going to affect any team and not in a positive way. It doesn't take a basketball genius to see we could have absorbed the loss of Imoh or Brett but not both together, and once you add no Lavon to mix, the injuries become a train wreck- this is not the team we envisioned in October
|
|
indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Dec 21, 2014 12:05:40 GMT -5
You guys are splitting hairs – it’s pretty clear the top would have been JO-Brett- Lavon- Poole -Wright-Oliver –Silas and Cole -- WB wouldn’t have played much more than spot minutes ( and before you say that’s not what this board says) go back and read my posts about players over 6’8” in the MAAC – so anyway we are currently playing without 4 of our top 8--- and 3 of our top 4 big men.. that is going to affect any team and not in a positive way. It doesn't take a basketball genius to see we could have absorbed the loss of Imoh or Brett but not both together, and once you add no Lavon to mix, the injuries become a train wreck- this is not the team we envisioned in October Well said.
|
|