VoyForums
[ 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):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 123456[7]8910 ]


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Thursday, August 14, 05:01:16pm
Author: Sludge
Subject: A quick question
In reply to: Peacock 's message, "Re: Just a short thought" on Wednesday, August 13, 01:03:06am

What have you heard on CF, the kid you felt should have been given a better look a couple year's back? Heard grades were the hurdle. I believe I saw mention where he just finished up at a JC in Texas. Kid certainly can muscle inside.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A quick question -- Peacock, Thursday, August 14, 05:52:34pm [1]

Funchess. I believe he has one more year to go in JC. Made people notice in the local activities they play in around here during the summer. Would readily help, but I am sure he is not eligible this year. He was very pro SPC. Don't know if Dunne cares now.

Still wondering if that sixth kid in orientation was a recruit or just a possible walk on. With Conley coming on, you don't need to go necessarily that big and the tweener is OK if he is talented, such as Goodwin. Now have no idea if Goodwin is even in the mix or even eligible, but there are a quite a lot middle size kids always available. On the other hand, Conley has to pass and we have no idea on any sanctions.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A quick question -- Sludge, Friday, August 15, 07:31:27am [1]

Again, many names were tossed in the past, none with any certitude. Surprised me that a sixth was even mentioned, given what was deemed available and, from my view, the threat posed by the potential sanction. A big was once in the mix but, as I have said, not one looked at for immediate help. If there is a sixth, a tweener, as you deduce, is likely the choice, based on best available. On the other hand, Conley is at best a year away, so I would not necessrily say that a big is not a first or at least a major priority. As things now stand, Bacon is our only servicable 4/5, and he hangs perilously as in one concussion away from watching in civies.

Many question marks again this year. To have any hope for double digits, more than one of the current core will have to surprise and step up.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A quick question -- Peacock, Friday, August 15, 11:00:42am [1]

You don't like when I say this, but is not it about time for Dunne to step up and with all due respect, this season is more about him than any of the players stepping up. Considering that we are the consensus 11th team in this league speaks volumes about us. Along with some others outside this board, the talent last year was deemed to be decent. They didn't show it, or the structure didn't show it. So your comment about the core applies to more than the players.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A quick question -- Sludge, Friday, August 15, 11:27:32am [1]

Whether justified or not, agree that John will be put to greater scrutiny this year.

On the other hand, based on what I saw last year, talent level was considerably less than what was first thought.

Hard to step up when you may not have the horses to ride. Add to that the lack of pedigree in any of the new arrivals.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I just don't think you are expert enough -- Peacock, Friday, August 15, 02:01:02pm [1]

to know if the issue was the talent you saw or the improper use of that talent and the schemes used to bring the talent out. In fact I doubt you saw enough games to even make that evaluation. How many times did people wonder what offense was being run. End game scenarios were atrocious. The best retort to you was the turnaround with virtually the same personnel of Dukiet taking over from Kelly. Coaches can make crap out of steak. Now we all make crap out of steak but not before we eat it. Coaches do the preparation.

Secondly, I am glad you are well versed on the quality of the incoming freshman. With a little more practice you could make a first team Siena poster.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No need for me to be judged an expert....... -- Sludge, Friday, August 15, 07:51:21pm [1]

since I can generally count on you to make the case for me.

Do you need to be reminded of your praise for the likes of Lampley, Costner, Leon, and even our redshirt in hiding, Mumford? How, I was asked, could I downgrade the talented MVP of the North Division, Catholic League. Why did I offer that Costner was not showing development in the early practice. How could I deny the exploits of the MVP of the PSAL Championship game. Or, how about our consumate team player from Linden who, I argued, was only the second best guard on that championship team. One only needs to look at the other schools involved with our recruits. Aside from Daryl getting a sniff from Hofstra, don't believe other's saw more than maybe a D-2 offer on the table.

Maybe now you will add recruiting to John's resume of shortcomings. At the same time you can tell us of the attraction of playing in a high school gym in Jersey City for a school that has almost a decade of losing seasons and an administration that, until recently, was known for its hostility toward athletics.

You talk of a different age when you speak of the partimer Kelly and Dukiet. An age where there was no Big East, A-10, and you had a tiny schools in New York gaining the likes of a Smits and a Ruland. Lust or complain all you wish, but attracting players (and coaches), to Jersey City, just gets harder.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Its only harder for those who can't cut it. -- Peacock, Friday, August 15, 10:38:09pm [1]

Like it or not SHU is not exactly a garden spot on the edge of property worse than JC, nor are schools like Drexel or Temple. It would readily appear that one only needs the commitment of the administration to be successful. With all your rhetoric, you forget that teams change dramatically when a good coach comes in. Hell Siena just showed it, Iona MIGHT be turning it around, and we have you spouting every reason why poor ole SPC can't turn it around because you lack any ability to question the coach. When you analyze all your postings, one comes to the conclusion that you have a serious problem thinking any SPC coach is bad and it is only the school. You may well be right as anyone who has come out with your form of logic, must come from an inferior school.

As for a different age, I am not sure why that disparages the fact that a poor coach does poorly regardless of the age and how the age has anything to do with Dukiet turning around a team with the same personnel. I guess I need you in your convoluted manner to explain your non-sequitor piece of logic here.

Wonder if you have noticed what JC has attracted in the past few years. Care to explain that one away.

As far as your basketball comments, you fail to address the poor game planning and poor defense knowledge the staff brought to the games. Adjustments were few and far between. Since you have been to as many games as you have, tell me how the failure to execute was the main problem. Your problem will be trying to understand if there was anything there to execute. As far as recruits go, your source on all the schools casing the kids is as flawed as the self praise practiced by Sienites.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Is it your inability to comprehend or...... -- Sludge, Saturday, August 16, 01:56:10pm [1]

do you just twist my words to suit your own view of the world?

You match with us properties such as South Orange and Philadelphia yet overlook the venues, leagues, budgets, resources that these schools have to work with. Hell, even Drexel plays in a more formidable league, the CAA.

And don't rearrange the Kelly/Dukiet thing. The talent was there in circa '80. Those kids could play with any area school....not now. Kelly was a part time coach who taught nothing and let the kids run loose.

You continue in your demonizing attempt to paint me as an apologist for the staff. I have said that there are weaknesses. Lack of experience in the ranks, preparation and game adjustment, inability to close, are some of the elements that are certainly open to criticism. My words, which you seem to conveniently fail to acknowledge, are not so much a blanket defense of the coaching, but rather an attempt to balance and point out that it is not as easy as you suggest to bring to J.C. How do you suddenly reverse year's of neglect, a budget that is half of what other member schools spend, a gym that, until this year, did not receive a dime worth of improvements. Have you ever visited the athletic offices? Take a tour. Compare these with what you see at SHU, Temple, and even Drexel. I'm amused by the comparison with Iona and a program seemingly on the rise. How many times have you made reference to what this program has done to win. Maybe we'll call it stronger administration support, as in, bringing in kids that are marginally qualified, recruiting over and running off those that do not show the talent, allowing donors more access and thus, further influence in attracting athletes. Yes, Willard may be a better or more experienced coach. Why not? He has learned from the master in Patino and enjoys an environment where he is allowed to "test the limits".

It seems all you wish to do is overhype the talent and minimize the impediments to attracting talent. Thus, allowing you to vent your frustrations by simply coming to the conclusion that it is the coaching that is responsible for most of our ills. Hopefully the environment will change, however gradually, given the new powers above. If not, I suspect we will see the same words from you. Flash ahead and one can see you welcoming in again a new coach with promise and better recruits. Forward further, and I suggest you simply default to the archives for your material, as the same scenario will likely be orchestrated by you.

Maybe we will all learn some day from you, as in....repeat after me...it's the coach, stupid. I guess it's really that simple.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why bother -- Peacock, Saturday, August 16, 04:44:58pm [1]

You have no ability to understand premise and logic. That is why you had to bring up the age of basketball. The premise worked regardless of any age, but you fail to understand that. One needs not twist your words, as you are clearly wrapped up in your self intelligence. I don't hype the players anywhere near what you imply, but I also don't like you defend the abysmal display that has been put up in two seasons, none of which is defensible despite your claims of poor talent.

I don't need to demonize you as you are clearly a bold faced apologist with little ability to take it to the staff unless it is a done deal. You seem to forget it is 11 wins in two seasons and with experienced players the first year. I am willing to cut him some slack for the coming year but refuse to accept you predetermined logic for failure. Like it or not that is the picture you paint and you try to structure it as the coach will not be responsible for it. Impediments start with recognizing talent and I think John has done that. However he has not shown he knows what to do with what he has. In your logic, he canít bring in talent. That is an absurd position and one you constantly take as you attempt to blame the school, the city, the fans/ Lack of, and the facilities. In the end, why do you even care as you premise is that they can never do it. And all of this around climbing to double digit wins, not winning the league. Wonder how many others see the stupidity of your position.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A rare talent you have -- Sludge, Saturday, August 16, 05:22:05pm [1]

To see all in either black or white.

You certainly can provide sound logic....so long as it starts with a mischaracterization of my position.

It's not a case of never doing it. It is a case of realistically understanding the landscape before you begin to make repair. We all wish to dream the dream, unfortunately a cold dose of reality sometimes forces us to paint with more than one color.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not rare just on the money -- Peacock, Monday, August 18, 03:03:39pm [1]

I understand your motto is "Paralysis by Analysis" as you attempt to make things more complicated than they are and avoid staying within any premise broadening it to fit your need. Again we are talking about you feeling that we actually have poor talent, of which we will now have for virtually all of John's five year run, and two consecutive single digit seasons. Really wonder what your standards are or what you need to question performance. But stay cool, hurricane season is coming and you just might have another reason to defend the staff. Mind you all of this acknowledging the staff has a chance to right themselves, but in your analytical glory you just canít see how they could be at the center of the problems the team has seen so far. As I have said, a classic example of an apologist.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nothing complicated -- Sludge, Monday, August 18, 09:28:00pm [1]

Only for some who are close-minded.

If it suits, paint me as the apolgist you hope to create. Manufacture whatever premise you wish; I'm sure it will fit the outcome you've chosen for us.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> For once, one would hope -- Peacock, Wednesday, August 20, 01:30:24pm [1]

that you actually would have a firm premise. For you coming to a conclusion with available input is considered closed minded. One must wonder what they would find in that open minded approach you think you have. One need not manufacture your shifting premise tendencies and inability to ever come to a conclusion of substance without being hit in the head facts after the fact.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Three years and no horses to ride -- Peacock, Friday, August 15, 03:15:29pm [1]

Tell me what you make about that. Even Blind and Leckie had some horses. Leckie didn't even work at it and both had the extreme pressure of Loughran. Somewhere along the line you are going to make a conclusion without resorting to misdirection.. As of now I am still going with the " we do have horses" and we just need to utilize their real talents and no force fit them into some preconceived notion of what a team should be. On that will Dunne be measured.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A quick question -- loyal, Friday, August 15, 11:44:19am [1]

Right on the money.

JD has shopped for the groceries and is in charge of preparing the meal.

We'll have the MAAC's lowest scoring front line.....ZERO half court offensive skills are possessed by ANY returning front line player. Hard to realistically see that translating into very many wins.

We have one player who would start on more than HALF the MAAC clubs at his position (Jenkins). No other Peacock starter (Gooding, PG, Bacon) would be more than a backup at his position on most every other MAAC club....and some would not see more than 5-6 minutes a game.

JD is darn lucky he got that extension, or he would likely be out of a job next April, based on three seasons of futility. I can't imagine the new AD appreciates being hamstrung, but it is what it is.

Fellow Peacock fans, mark it down. We are in for a long, cold winter....again. :-(

Our only hope for the future is that a few of the frosh are gems. I sure hope so!!!


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A quick question -- jimsouls, Friday, August 15, 12:31:18pm [1]

Let's be honest. Outside of NJIT, St. Peter's might be the least attractive job in Division I. That's certainly the case in the northeast. Jersey City is about high school basketball. No one cares about college hoops. Heck, they couldn't even give tickets away a few years back.
It's the ultimate no-win situation.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A quick question -- loyal, Friday, August 15, 01:05:29pm [1]

That is currently the case, yes.

Does that mean you believe we should just accept five or six win seasons every year, and renew contracts of coaches producing those type of results?

Or, should accountability (after this year) play a role in the retention period of the SPC men's head coach?


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A quick question -- Peacock, Friday, August 15, 02:15:05pm [1]

The only reason the job could classified as such was the impact of Loughran. When your administration strangles a program, you can't give tickets away. You show your lack of reasoning by refusing to understand that fact. It is a new administration that has yet to prove anything but that has clearly gone in an opposite direction to Loughran. As far as location goes it is still in the hot spot of talent and any decent coach can be very successful here. That is what has been disappointing about Dunne. If Dunne doesn't cut it, watch the applicants that apply and we will not have impact of the one man selection committee of Bill Stein.

The biggest problem facing Elliot will be a program for generating a fan base. The first thing he should do is create a more active information center. Think about it, nothing has been confirmed on who is coming in this year on either the men's or woman's team.

As far as High School basketball there is only Bob Hurley and his tenure will also come to an end as he ages. Hudson County has no way been the hot spot you find in the other counties and you live strictly off a one man who recruits for his success. How many JC kids play at St As now. Back a few years ago, yes, but now few and far between. You build a successful college basketball team and you will attract fans.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A quick question -- Gray Poll, Friday, August 15, 11:45:37am [1]

These are JD's kids. If he can't win with them, the fault lays squarely on his shoulders...warm up the bell ringer.


[ 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.