[ 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: Friday, August 15, 10:38:09pm
Author: Peacock
Subject: Its only harder for those who can't cut it.
In reply to: Sludge 's message, "No need for me to be judged an expert......." on Friday, August 15, 07:51:21pm

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.

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


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 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 ]

[ 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.