tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by tashoya on Jan 3, 2016 23:25:20 GMT -5
When you see bullet points if you don't want to read a page skip it!? This is clearly going in circles but you have the ability to start another thread focusing on the scoring drought with something about brevity in the thread title. That way you'll serve another group of posters that don't want to read the longer posts. Everyone is happy.
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on Jan 3, 2016 23:26:24 GMT -5
No one on this team nor I would have the attention span to get through it. Bulletin Board material is a sentence. To each his own I guess. I don't have an attention disorder but, for those that do, by all means don't read the longer posts. Certainly don't bother commenting on the post that you didn't read. That seems fair, no? You didn't take the time to read the post but you did take the time to criticize its length. Seems odd is all. But, again, to each his own. I read it big guy which is why I was annoyed and realized that's why I'm annoyed. It serves no purpose on this type of board. I mean we are fans and if you are going back to watching the game over and commenting on possessions I think you need your own post (if that's what you what). Maybe you guys can dress up like former Hoyas and meet somewhere for a convention. Watch the game and you know what's going on!
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on Jan 3, 2016 23:29:32 GMT -5
When you see bullet points if you don't want to read a page skip it!? This is clearly going in circles but you have the ability to start another thread focusing on the scoring drought with something about brevity in the thread title. That way you'll serve another group of posters that don't want to read the longer posts. Everyone is happy. Don't give bicentennial a hard time. Focus on yourself.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 3, 2016 23:33:51 GMT -5
I actually wouldn't mind that post on a bulletin board in the locker room because it was an awful stretch of basketball that, as has been the case oftentimes this year, came down to poor execution. It's a theme and it should be pointed out at every opportunity. I hope they are drilling that stretch in practice because you can't have stretches like that and expect to win most nights. Luckily, they started well and Marquette isn't very good. But, as we've seen, we can lose to not very good teams. When our guys play like the stretch enumerated, we're not a very good team either. The margin for error is small. No one on this team nor I would have the attention span to get through it. Bulletin Board material is a sentence. I sure hope everyone on the team has the attention span to go through it. Every possession. Every game. How else are they going to analyze what goes right and wrong? Otherwise, you end up with things like "play at a faster pace," which it turns out isn't really right.
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on Jan 3, 2016 23:36:44 GMT -5
No one on this team nor I would have the attention span to get through it. Bulletin Board material is a sentence. I sure hope everyone on the team has the attention span to go through it. Every possession. Every game. How else are they going to analyze what goes right and wrong? Otherwise, you end up with things like "play at a faster pace," which it turns out isn't really right. Hopefully they aren't poring through the analysis of this board but are watching video where that type of analysis actually means something.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by tashoya on Jan 3, 2016 23:39:15 GMT -5
No one on this team nor I would have the attention span to get through it. Bulletin Board material is a sentence. I sure hope everyone on the team has the attention span to go through it. Every possession. Every game. How else are they going to analyze what goes right and wrong? Otherwise, you end up with things like "play at a faster pace," which it turns out isn't really right. That's not at all what was said or what happens. But, similar to the initial post, I hope Isaac is nailed to a chair and watches the plays that he blew. He doesn't need to watch the whole game. Only pivotal plays that were either successful or not successful so that he understands what went right and wrong in both cases such that he can improve moving forward. Same goes for each guy. I don't think 10 minutes of watching game film is too much to ask. And, possibly, you may have hit on an additional issue. A well-played game requires focus and attention to detail for the whole game.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Jan 3, 2016 23:42:19 GMT -5
Great post SF, obviously some people need a TL;DR (although the last paragraph is all they need). Also the concept of framing an idea could be valuable to them as well.
Execution always solves a lot of problems. We were also shooting great in the first half, which always helps (I'd link the percentages but I don't want to offend anyone into thinking they didn't watch the game and know it all already).
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on Jan 3, 2016 23:43:09 GMT -5
I sure hope everyone on the team has the attention span to go through it. Every possession. Every game. How else are they going to analyze what goes right and wrong? Otherwise, you end up with things like "play at a faster pace," which it turns out isn't really right. That's not at all what was said or what happens. But, similar to the initial post, I hope Isaac is nailed to a chair and watches the plays that he blew. He doesn't need to watch the whole game. Only pivotal plays that were either successful or not successful so that he understands what went right and wrong in both cases such that he can improve moving forward. Same goes for each guy. I don't think 10 minutes of watching game film is too much to ask. And, possibly, you may have hit on an additional issue. A well-played game requires focus and attention to detail for the whole game. You now are denying the post? You can't have it your way all the time.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by tashoya on Jan 3, 2016 23:43:27 GMT -5
I sure hope everyone on the team has the attention span to go through it. Every possession. Every game. How else are they going to analyze what goes right and wrong? Otherwise, you end up with things like "play at a faster pace," which it turns out isn't really right. Hopefully they aren't poring through the analysis of this board but are watching video where that type of analysis actually means something. And I'm sure they are. This board isn't something the players give a rip about. It's for the fans. The players have coaches and teammates and, you know, real information. We have this. If they were looking here for anything to inform them, there would be much larger issues with the entire program.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by tashoya on Jan 3, 2016 23:44:41 GMT -5
That's not at all what was said or what happens. But, similar to the initial post, I hope Isaac is nailed to a chair and watches the plays that he blew. He doesn't need to watch the whole game. Only pivotal plays that were either successful or not successful so that he understands what went right and wrong in both cases such that he can improve moving forward. Same goes for each guy. I don't think 10 minutes of watching game film is too much to ask. And, possibly, you may have hit on an additional issue. A well-played game requires focus and attention to detail for the whole game. You now are denying the post? You can't have it your way all the time. Not at all. You said every possession, every game. This thread started with a play by play of a stretch of one part of one half of one game. Not remotely the same thing.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 3, 2016 23:50:28 GMT -5
Who could even read these posts? brevity is a great charm of eloquence. The reason why this post has a lot of words is that it actually backs up what it is attempting to say with facts. I know that's a strange, new concept for some posters, who just like to post one liners of what they feel, but the problem with that is that much of the time, that is completely and utterly wrong. That's why I went back and documented what really happened. Just look at SDHoya's post, which has been the same as many people -- "we slowed down so we stopped scoring." Not really. We got sloppy -- and really, if you want to tab ONE thing -- Isaac Copeland got super sloppy. We didn't slow down the pace -- in fact, turnover #3 is LJ Peak pushing the pace to poor effect! I know reading is hard, because that's like 300 words or something and everything should be in pretty pictures, but there's actual value in examining something critically. At least for me. You've got to love when the criticism is "wow, you've got a well-documented, thought out and supported opinion. I wish you had just done a hot take!"
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 3, 2016 23:54:59 GMT -5
I'm completely wrong. It was like 700 words. I'm sorry for straining your brain and wasting the what, 30? 40? minutes it must have taken you to read it.
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on Jan 3, 2016 23:56:17 GMT -5
Who could even read these posts? brevity is a great charm of eloquence. The reason why this post has a lot of words is that it actually backs up what it is attempting to say with facts. I know that's a strange, new concept for some posters, who just like to post one liners of what they feel, but the problem with that is that much of the time, that is completely and utterly wrong. That's why I went back and documented what really happened. Just look at SDHoya's post, which has been the same as many people -- "we slowed down so we stopped scoring." Not really. We got sloppy -- and really, if you want to tab ONE thing -- Isaac Copeland got super sloppy. We didn't slow down the pace -- in fact, turnover #3 is LJ Peak pushing the pace to poor effect! I know reading is hard, because that's like 300 words or something and everything should be in pretty pictures, but there's actual value in examining something critically. At least for me. You've got to love when the criticism is "wow, you've got a well-documented, thought out and supported opinion. I wish you had just done a hot take!" I think you could do it more succinctly if you tried. You have a nice title then follow that with a list of plays that everyone watched and doesn't care to reread. Try just adding analysis about what you think is positive and negative and get to the point.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 4, 2016 0:02:55 GMT -5
The reason why this post has a lot of words is that it actually backs up what it is attempting to say with facts. I know that's a strange, new concept for some posters, who just like to post one liners of what they feel, but the problem with that is that much of the time, that is completely and utterly wrong. That's why I went back and documented what really happened. Just look at SDHoya's post, which has been the same as many people -- "we slowed down so we stopped scoring." Not really. We got sloppy -- and really, if you want to tab ONE thing -- Isaac Copeland got super sloppy. We didn't slow down the pace -- in fact, turnover #3 is LJ Peak pushing the pace to poor effect! I know reading is hard, because that's like 300 words or something and everything should be in pretty pictures, but there's actual value in examining something critically. At least for me. You've got to love when the criticism is "wow, you've got a well-documented, thought out and supported opinion. I wish you had just done a hot take!" I think you could do it more succinctly if you tried. You have a nice title then follow that with a list of plays that everyone watched and doesn't care to reread. Try just adding analysis about what you think is positive and negative and get to the point. It's 700 words. Unless English is your second language, that should be succinct enough. Seriously, how long did it take for you to read it? Seven hundred words. And if you even bothered, did you actually try to think about it, or just ignore it? After all, you already saw the game -- you know everything! I've seen your posts -- you've wasted a lot more people's time with your stupid editing war here and incredible evidence such as "I saw the game and saw who was better. And the stats show the same for someone like you who needs to reference it." Awesome.
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on Jan 4, 2016 0:07:59 GMT -5
I think you could do it more succinctly if you tried. You have a nice title then follow that with a list of plays that everyone watched and doesn't care to reread. Try just adding analysis about what you think is positive and negative and get to the point. It's 700 words. Unless English is your second language, that should be succinct enough. Seriously, how long did it take for you to read it? Seven hundred words. And if you even bothered, did you actually try to think about it, or just ignore it? After all, you already saw the game -- you know everything! I've seen your posts -- you've wasted a lot more people's time with your stupid editing war here and incredible evidence such as "I saw the game and saw who was better. And the stats show the same for someone like you who needs to reference it." Awesome. You're defensive. I'm just telling you no one wants to read through your play by play accounts (TAS excluded). Try breaking it down, filtering it and having a point. Attack me if you you want, I'm used to it on this board.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 4, 2016 0:08:00 GMT -5
To actually respond to a substantive point, I think the problem on the PNR with DSR isn't really that he (like Peak) makes up his mind too quickly (although I'm sure that happens some). Instead, I think the problems are
(1) he doesn't have the quickness to attack downhill and get an uncontested blow by and he has a hard time making contested layups. So he isn't inclined to attack off the pick. And without the attack, the D has time to recover. (I think that's why he refuses the pick a lot.)
(2). The guys we have rolling can't finish worth a darn. It's why I've wanted someone other than the five setting the pick for him. If he can't blow by the five, you may as well make it four so that Ike or Marcus can roll and finish (or pop). I mean if you're DSR, you have to be thinking that a bounce pass to Bradley that he catches ten feet from the basket isn't an ironclad option.
One answer is his mid-range jumper. If he makes it, the D has to commit more. It seems, thkugh, that he is very hesitant to take it at least early in games or early in shot clocks. Probably because its been drilled in that semk-contested eighteen footers are as bad as it gets. The problem is that it's the best way to open up the PNR for him, given his physical attributes.
EDIT: And as i mentioned in the game thread, I actually think they may be using the PNR with him to either force a defender to sag off a three point shooter right next to him or try to allow the five to get a mismatch in the Post or better position. In other words, its not always designed for him to get into the lane but instead is meant for him to quickly pass to the four, who either shoots or feeds the post.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 4, 2016 0:11:40 GMT -5
It's 700 words. Unless English is your second language, that should be succinct enough. Seriously, how long did it take for you to read it? Seven hundred words. And if you even bothered, did you actually try to think about it, or just ignore it? After all, you already saw the game -- you know everything! I've seen your posts -- you've wasted a lot more people's time with your stupid editing war here and incredible evidence such as "I saw the game and saw who was better. And the stats show the same for someone like you who needs to reference it." Awesome. You're defensive. I'm just telling you no one wants to read through your play by play accounts (TAS excluded). Try breaking it down, filtering it and having a point. Attack me if you you want, I'm used to it on this board. Plenty of people will read it. Plenty may not. But I sincerely hope it's not because they can't read 700 words.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 4, 2016 0:15:27 GMT -5
To actually respond to a substantive point, I think the problem on the PNR with DSR isn't really that he (like Peak) makes up his mind too quickly (although I'm sure that happens some). Instead, I think the problems are (1) he doesn't have the quickness to attack downhill and get an uncontested blow by and he has a hard time making contested layups. So he isn't inclined to attack off the pick. And without the attack, the D has time to recover. (I think that's why he refuses the pick a lot.) (2). The guys we have rolling can't finish worth a darn. It's why I've wanted someone other than the five setting the pick for him. If he can't blow by the five, you may as well make it four so that Ike or Marcus can roll and finish (or pop). I mean if you're DSR, you have to be thinking that a bounce pass to Bradley that he catches ten feet from the basket isn't an ironclad option. One answer is his mid-range jumper. If he makes it, the D has to commit more. It seems, thkugh, that he is very hesitant to take it at least early in games or early in shot clocks. Probably because its been drilled in that semk-contested eighteen footers are as bad as it gets. The problem is that it's the best way to open up the PNR for him, given his physical attributes. Is #2 settled? I mean, I've seen both Hayes and Govan blow this play (and Hayes does later in the game). But I've also seen them finish as well. They certain don't finish like Tyson Chandler, and Hayes has no real pick and pop ability, but I feel like they are both something more like 2-5 than 10-25 from a sample size. I suppose DSR has seen them in practice, but it is SO open I just wonder if you don't give them the chance to prove they can or can't finish. Especially when the cross court pass is to Kaleb and not a shooter.
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on Jan 4, 2016 0:17:02 GMT -5
You're defensive. I'm just telling you no one wants to read through your play by play accounts (TAS excluded). Try breaking it down, filtering it and having a point. Attack me if you you want, I'm used to it on this board. Plenty of people will read it. Plenty may not. But I sincerely hope it's not because they can't read 700 words. It's not about the word count friend.
|
|
hoyasaxa2003
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,918
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jan 4, 2016 0:19:52 GMT -5
I, for one, enjoyed reading SFHoya99's post. It's a nice breakdown to show what actually happened in that timeframe. Basketball moves quickly, and it is impossible to pay attention, while watching, to everything that happens. It's impossible to catch all detail watching a game - after all, that's why coaches in virtually every sport now watch videotape.
Since there was a debate about "execution" versus "effort" in the main thread, I actually think the play-by-play was illuminating and demonstrated that it was about execution. When you have people remembering fictional 3/4 presses that didn't even happen (see the game thread), I think this type of analysis is hugely beneficial.
Lastly, eagle54, we get it, you don't like to read this type of post. Then, don't read it. But plenty of others have no problem reading 700 words or type of analysis. If you're not capable of reading through a play-by-play and learning from it, that's not a problem, but I don't think it's fair to criticize others for posting things.
Over the last several weeks, there have been many, many things I have taken issue with in many posts on Hoyatalk, but not once have I told somebody to stop posting. That's essentially bullying. If you don't like it, don't read it. It's pretty simple, really.
|
|