[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement:
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: Wednesday, December 31, 02:57:03pm
Author: Sludge
Subject: Always happy to answer any legitimate questions
In reply to:
Peacock
's message, "Fully understanding that your beliefs are very selfish" on Tuesday, December 30, 04:43:39pm
Unfortunately, your's must always carry with it a predestined agenda. Your hubris does not allow for acceptance of other opinion or balanced examination. In only your short return, presumably with a regenerated plume, you have allowed us to share in the wisdom of how the selection of Dunne was accomplished. Please excuse my lack of reading comprhension which can cause the less endowed, such as myself, to miss your epistolary intercourse on the conspiracy that existed among Stein, the new Pres. and now, somehow to include the new AD Elliott. Lacking your infallibilty, I was not able to recognize in advance that there were four better choices available, and that the choice of Dunne had already been determined well before the selection committee had met.
While I assume you already know the outcome and process for determining the bb staffing two year's hence (I'm sure you will offer us your timely answer by 2011), I will provide feed by attempting to give a brief and pedestrian view of future events. No doubt in my mind that the losing will continue. Physical facility, history and, no doubt, the poor image now attached to Dunne, will severely hamper any efforts to bring in better talent. This will result in the perfunctory new hire and the process will play once again through a fourth, failure regime.
Here's some fodder for you to bottom feed:
While I must still defend John's game management skills, earned player's respect and effort, I will question some of his (and staff), player evaluations. Much, as I have repeatedly offered in his defense, is still due to school limitations, his ability to evaluate talent should be more critically examined. The recruitment of some with little D-1 interest, such as Mumford and Reid, have left me empty. Other choices, namely Costner, Hill, Hall and Shumate, again with few suitors, has left me with questions. Maybe there were few options, given what I have repeatedly offered in his defense. In these cases, it may be more out of desperation, looking for the so-called, diamond in the rough, or the late bloomer, young for his class, who may just have flown under the radar. By example, our primary fall target, might well fit into this same category. As fate would have it, the kid received a second offer from an even lower-rated league school and, guess what, we lost out to a better campus.
From my vantage, one of the best means for judging the potential talent of a recruit is to look at others who are interested and offering. JCHoops in his blog yesterday presents a rather interesting and, I think, revealing measure of the caliber of recruit we have brought in these last two years, using amount of interest/offers as the barometer. He makes the comparison with Iona, although I think he could have substituted any number of MAAC schools. See from this the amount of interest or offers for Iona recruits vs. ours. Meaningful? Sure, to some extent. Again, just one more indicator of what it will take to return some level of respectability to the Program.
As our clairvoyant one, Mr. Peacock, has opined repeatedly: there is plenty of opportunity for improvement, it just takes the right people. Well, maybe then there is hope. An historical event will shortly take place in Washington with the anointment of the new Mesiah. Maybe another can be found and somehow find a way to bring change we can believe in to Jersey City.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[> [> [> [> [> [>
One only needs to read your first sentence to understand how disingenuous you are -- Peacock, Thursday, January 01, 12:24:00pm [1]
And I quote "Unfortunately, your's must always carry with it a predestined agenda." Predestined is a judgment made by you without any idea of my thoughts before. In fact you were personally aware of my positive feeling at Dunne's first Lehigh game, but as usual you have a need to alter and change issues to make you look like the " defender of the faith". You have shown your self to be both non-committal and an astute liar who will state anything to support your case. You practice shifting premises and fabrication constantly and even show a very astute capability of not reading very well. We all know about the WMD issue SPC has been under attack from as you have eloquently and repeatedly argued for all the issues why SPC can never compete against the Monmouth's of the world. And to top it off you are the epitome of hypocrisy. Your statement states "allow for acceptance of other opinion or balanced examination." and yet you practice exactly what you disagree with. The disagreement of opinions are exactly what these boards are about and the "love all embrace all" you seem to like is more appropriate unless one is not following your party line. For some reason you actually think your thoughts are balanced, but when one reads your comments on SPC location etc, you here total destruction with n hope of redemption. Hell you still can't get over the fact that your senile old man lost an election because of his parties stupidity in addressing the issues facing the country today. Furthermore what else shows that is you who holds and embraces the "predestined agenda" technique with you cleverly hidden statement "An historical event will shortly take place in Washington with the anointment of the new Mesiah. "
You sir are the supreme hypocrite.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Oh my! So much for civility in the New Year -- Sludge, Thursday, January 01, 10:44:44pm [1]
Your lack of comprehension has again showed. Yes, it is precisely your early positives on Dunne that I have made reference to. The message I gave is that you now attempt, through more than inference, to suggest that you harbored misgivings about JD from the start. The implication that the choice had already made by Stein before the ensuing selection process and that you felt there were better candidates available, was never mentioned by you until our shortcomings began to show. It has been you, among several others, that have over hyped the recruits much like the feeble-minded that dominate the other boards. Again, one doesn't have to be an on-site observer or recruiting expert to recognize talent level. Just examine the interest these recruits receive from others. When I raised skepticism on Mumford and questioned Costner, Leon and Hogga, among others, you simply dismissed by citing something obscure, probably from some biased source.
No need for me to waste time responding again to your personal invectives. They grow tired and old and apparently stem from your inability to provide anything tangible to this discussion other than continue with your demoniac crusade on the ineptness of our entire athletic staff. These people work hard, have competence, but suffer from a lack of resources and, until recently, support from the top. No, I don't think the cause here is hopeless. It will just take a great deal of patience and better understanding of the limits we face. You certainly remain consistent in one respect; that being a desire to attack and criticize any and all things that don't meet your standards. A standard which is measured not on the facts but on what is convenient for that moment or purpose. Three staffs over the past 12-13 years, all incidentally which you initially supported, have failed at winning. Why? Well maybe its just a bit more than the guys that continue to work hard at this level.
Some of your attacks make me question whether you deliberately challenge or deceive to support a position, or simply, have a mindset that is incapable of hearing what others have to say. Much like one who lies when he claims he doesn't hear the hate that spews from his pastor's lips, or simply is not competent to judge what is ugly.
Incidentally, the senile old man was not my choice but certainly the lesser of two evils when one examines character and integrity. Well let's hope for our country's sake that "your man" can wash his hand's clean before the Chicago Fed's get the chance to question him.
Enough said. Time for me to get back to my posh surrounds. Happy New Year.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The issue with you is your absolute stupidty -- Peacock, Friday, January 02, 02:52:26pm [1]
You only state what you want to believe as nowhere do I state a misgiving, only that he would not have been my first choice. Strange how you always attempt to twist what exists to fit your need to show how balanced you are, what with the penchant to have lied on too many occasions before. Comments on what has transpired in the past are not evidence of the feelings back then but are the result of commenting on results, an act you need to explain away with excuses. Best way to say this is the excuses you make for Bush after four years and blame the bit players. I guess you see WMD in every thing you don't like.
You go to great lengths to make this personal, when in fact you make the first comments about an opinion. Using your self anointed intelligence through innuendo you play on other's lack of knowledge. In fact you wonder if I deceive, but have yet to ever challenge or prove wrong most of the issues I bring forth. If I am to deceive, you need to come out with more substantial rebuttals than the Chicken Little" defense of the "Sky is Falling".
A perfect example of your logic is the statement "Three staffs over the past 12-13 years, all incidentally which you initially supported, have failed at winning. " Since Dunne has not approached any of the prior two, you wonder why one would question his competence now. And as usual you get it wrong, I probably felt better about Dunne than I did for Rodger or Leckie, both of whom I did not like as selections. As far as support, I would always give it until the time they showed they did not deserve it. Blind lost it only in his fifth season, Leckie in his fifth season and Dunne right now.
Probably you even miss the fact that as you state I had better feelings about his second year recruits and dismissed your skepticism. If this does not imply support at that time, what does. Guess you feel real good about the poor performance we see. Well I don't and this Pollyanna good guy character and integrity does not exactly measure up to a good coach. In fact I wonder who you are inferring were candidates of poor character and integrity. I agree I might have given his evaluation more credit than it deserved but I also understood what these kids were like in HS. And while you are not exactly the most astute analyzer on the board, there is the possibility that Dunne does not manage well what he has. A 20 % winning record should give you pause to consider that there well be more than talent selection at the root cause.
[ Edit | View ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]
Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
