[ 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, October 17, 02:07:42pm
Author: Peacock
Subject: I did read
In reply to: figgyprez 's message, "Re: Where's your correctness?" on Friday, October 17, 10:08:29am

And I see you take off into a comment about my views which you have no clue about. Rather than be the puppet supporter or non-patriot the blind partisans would have you choose, I object to your use of the word clouded, and feel your use of an unsubstantiated comment "no D1 program even the low majors in the metro area felt they could contribute enough to make room for them. " has little merit and is nothing more than an attempt to make you feel smart. Since you have no idea if any were even contacted or what the situation was I concede to your divine knowledge of the reality here. I always feel people who have and admit zero knowledge on a situation are the core of the problems that faced SPC athletics in the past as they make their decisions and comments in a vacuum, which seems to characterize the sum total your position.

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


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I did read -- figgyprez, Friday, October 17, 03:57:03pm [1]

You are what your record says you are. D2 is D2. While these facts might not fit your "correct" view of the world, they are the reality nonetheless. Get over your anger issues. What happens on a basketball court among adolescents neither elevates nor reduces your worth or any one's as a human being.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I did read -- loyal, Friday, October 17, 04:30:15pm [1]

Dunne's long term success or failure will be determined by what he does with the "groceries he bought" these past two years.
Let's wish Spann, Martin, Owes and Brock all the best and leave it at that.
Any practice reports would be appreciated.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Loyal -- oldtimer#1, Saturday, October 18, 12:06:30pm [1]

Loyal, some preliminary observations (only my own), hope it helps.

1) Schumate - wirey strong and looks closer to 6'7". Excellent fighter inside and has nose for ball. Has little outside shot and as with freshman will probably be a role player. Potential but needs to develop.

2) Hill - interesting player. Runs the floor amazingly well for a big man. Also handles the ball very well. Other positives is that he does have some inside moves and often dunks on put backs. A worker and hustler. Negatives are that he doesn't know positioning as well as Schumate and does not have much of an offensive game at this point. My guess is that he will get decent playing time in that he has significant upside.

4) Reid - another work in progress. Exceptionally physical and can do a lot of things well but at this point not great. Can handle, pass, shoot, defend and rebound. Just needs playing time.

5) Hall - another well built player. Haven't seen much of him. Pass first, shoot when open type who can be a steady player and helpful. Does a lot of little things well.

6) Bacon - better than ever. Looks dominating at times but that is against fellow teammates. Wonderful inside moves, put backs, dunks and shot rejections. Not much away from the basket. Can't do it all by himself but with help will eventually be an All-MAAC player.

7) Jenkins - just as good as ever

8) Leon - perhaps the best shooter and driver on the team. In pick-up games teammates regard him and Jenkins as the go to guys. Will probably play point which will test his decision making ability.

9) Lampley- actually looks much better and is more under control. Realizes that he will not be the man and is adjusting to the fact that he will be a spectacular player in spurts. Still needs to finish those drives but is shooting better.

10) Gooding - Assuming the role of co-leader. Does a lot of things that go unnotced but still can't shoot the ball. Will be big help on what I suspect will be more of a running and trapping team.

11) Costner - nice kid, solid but plays a quiet game. Will not hurt you but questionable how much he can help.

12) Traore - has gotten even stronger (remember he missed a lot of pre-season last year). Don't expect much but he is working exceptionally hard and may suprise all in that he is not terrible. How much he plays will depend on the developmernt of Hill and Schumate.

13) Others - Mumford can shoot the ball and can be used in spot situations. The other guys appear adaquate but bench players. Conley cannot practice but it's a shame he's not eligible this year. His presence would have been big.

Much to early to guess about starting lineups but I think it will be Leon, Jenkins and Gooding along with Bacon up front. It will be interesting to see who gets that #4 spot.My guess is that it will be rotational until someone emerges. It's very early to be definitive so evaluate my evaluations as you will. The fact that most of these guys have been playing togather for over a year should help.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Loyal -- loyal, Saturday, October 18, 04:53:04pm [1]

Nelson (PG we nabbed out from under Felician)....unintentionally omitted or (gulp!) classifed as a bench player?

Was hoping against hope he could relieve Leon...or at least eat some minutes without us having NO ballhandlers on the floor.

Seeing the projected starting five gives me pause...but I am hoping!

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Loyal -- oldtimer#1, Saturday, October 18, 06:50:02pm [1]

Loyal, think you have the names confused. The freshman point guard is Brandon Hall. From what little I've seen he has a D1 body and attitude. Also has some size. Pretty good player who should get a decent amout of floor time. However, I think we'll run much more than last year since Sowell is gone. All are big men (if you can call them that) run the floor exceptionally well. Also think you'll see Leon and Lampley eventually on the floor together depending on matchups. We will be fast but can we get the rebound to start the break?

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hall -- loyal, Monday, October 20, 09:06:21am [1]


I get Hall confused with Nelson, the PG from Union County that Niagara recruited and signed last year.

Memory is the second thing to go. :>)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Loyal -- figgyprez, Tuesday, October 21, 12:36:24pm [1]

I was hoping for a bit more positive reports on Hill and Reid, but you're right in that it is early. Also I think we need to be a trapping/ running team. In the halfcourt we may not yet be strong enough to sustain down low and on offense players like Leon, Gooding Bacon and Lampley are probably better suited to going up and down. We probably need to make opponents uncomfortable with the pace of the game. Some nights you get killed, but we are not yet good enough to play it totally straight up, I don't think. I guess we'll see.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Loyal -- oldtimer#1, Tuesday, October 21, 10:01:33pm [1]

Good analysis. Everyone seems to run the floor well and from what little I've seen that is exactly what JD is working on. Even after made baskets we are trying to push the ball upcourt.

Don't know how Hill and Reid will perform until we see them against opponents. Reid is somewhat impressive and could definitely be a sleeper. Hall is also solid but will find it difficult initially to break into the lineup. Hill is the big question mark. Interesting to see if and how he develops. Hate to sound like a broken record but Conley (who cannot practice now) is definitely the real deal.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I did read -- Peacock, Friday, October 17, 06:23:44pm [1]

I only get angry at stupidty and you obviously embrace it. I have to assume your comment "You are what your record says you are." implies that Dunne is a poor coach.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I did read -- figgyprez, Saturday, October 18, 10:55:42am [1]

Loyal is reasonable in his view. But Peacock- you clearly thought that Dunne should be let go right after he was introduced. More sensible posters, like loyal recognize that at some point poor record=poor staff. But sensible posters also understand the size of the project undertaken and that program building rarely follows a straight line. We do agree that at some point the coaching staff will need to be judged based on performance. It seems that you needed some immediate gratification and refuse to recognize what the new staff faced. I am more in line with loyal that we now are entering the appropriate time for a judgment phase. Even if it doesn't work out I can't get angry or assault someone based on what teens running around in shorts do. As someone who actually played intercollegiate sports at SPC I always remember its still is just kids playing a game.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> When you make a statement like that -- Peacock, Tuesday, October 21, 02:37:33pm [1]

You show that you have zero knowledge on virtually any thing you print. Even my most vitrolic (Guess who) commentor would not make the statement." But Peacock- you clearly thought that Dunne should be let go right after he was introduced."

Now we all know the subject of this thread is the idioic opinion from people who post without a semblance of logic, background or intelligence, and not the kids who are playing. As my vitriolic commentator knows, I believe this is a great group of kids, something he is not exactly in tune with.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the mention -- Sludge, Tuesday, October 21, 04:06:48pm [1]

You never cease to disappoint with your personal invectives. I believe figgyprez is fast learning, one can not debate and accomplish anything in a discourse with you when only armed with the facts.

Perhaps we can learn more from your "behind the shower curtain reporting" (read: your retreat to an intimate, end all account of what occurred behind the scenes for which we are not privy).

Maybe, like your senior Senator, you can convince some that you were in front of the TV when FDR's gave his talk to the nation back in '29.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Talk about misdirection -- Peacock, Friday, October 24, 01:32:23pm [1]

Shows how well you come to the defense of statements that violate every piece of logic known to man. As you resort to your pseudo intellectualism and pass comments on issues you clearly have decided you can't conclude anything, you show the face of someone who fears commenting on issues by claiming facts when they suit you but reject them when they don't. One thing one can pin on you, is the ability to never have an opinion unless it involves voicing one on anotherís.

As far as inside, ask your non-commenting buddy who if I am not mistaken is the ultimate insider and feeds you daily with the inside info which as I recall you vehomently deny. Funny how you pretend but expose yourself more and more.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: When you make a statement like that -- figgyprez, Tuesday, October 21, 04:10:52pm [1]

Another ad hominem diatribe which proves and accomplishes zero. You're boring me now.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And you accomplished what? -- Peacock, Friday, October 24, 01:35:57pm [1]

Only to show that you are a boring person with little to zero about what you post.

[ 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.