hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on May 10, 2008 11:15:51 GMT -5
I got the "can't confirm" error too, but never got an e-mail asking to clarify the problem.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on May 10, 2008 8:32:57 GMT -5
I don't understand why people are obsessed with splitting up what already is a relatively low-traffic forum. With decent modding, this shouldn't be a problem. As long as people don't start a thread about every guy who mentions GU (sorry, ID) or the mods move it to a rolling thread, we should be fine. If a guy is getting close to a decision or there is big news, he can have his own thread - with new updates posted there. Random guys go to the rolling threads, and mods warn people who don't follow the rules. This site doesn't have nearly the traffic that necessitates having 8 forums, or whatever there would be with another recruiting added. This is asking alot of the mods who provide this forum for free and receive no compensation for their labor of love. Not really. It would take a few minutes a week, and I don't see why it would be harder than having to move erroneously-placed posts to another forum. Besides that, as RBHoya said, I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers to help. This is a pretty tame board and doesn't provide too much work for the mods as it stands . . . except to move threads to one of the existing subforums.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on May 10, 2008 8:26:06 GMT -5
GIGA - that's who I was talking about.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on May 9, 2008 18:08:40 GMT -5
Coach didn't use them. At all. I imagine that if they were good enough to play last season, they would have played. I certainly trust III's judgment on that issue. When has JTIII had a player who became a significant contributor to the team that didn't play immediately? I can't think of a single player. See, e.g., EgersonSee also, Joe Alexander, 11 F. Supp 2 (W. Va. 2009). If I felt like getting carpal tunnel I'd list all the guys who didn't play as freshman and never amounted to anything. I saw Egerson play as a freshman in Kenner; he looked way better than Wattad or Nikita did. While them not playing as freshman isn't a good sign, a worse one is not standing out from all the random small school guys in a summer league. Nikita at least showed flashes, but if I didn't know better I would have expected the announcer to say "Omar Wattad . . . from Niagara" after the few times he scored. As I said in another thread, it's certainly possible that they improved a ton since last summer, but until we have a reason to believe that it's tough to expect much from them.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on May 9, 2008 18:03:54 GMT -5
Remember the prospect subforum on hoyareport? Nobody went there and it never gets updated.
I don't think having to spend 13 seconds to search for a thread is a good enough reason to move the recruiting topics off the main board.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on May 9, 2008 17:36:38 GMT -5
I don't understand why people are obsessed with splitting up what already is a relatively low-traffic forum. With decent modding, this shouldn't be a problem.
As long as people don't start a thread about every guy who mentions GU (sorry, ID) or the mods move it to a rolling thread, we should be fine. If a guy is getting close to a decision or there is big news, he can have his own thread - with new updates posted there. Random guys go to the rolling threads, and mods warn people who don't follow the rules.
This site doesn't have nearly the traffic that necessitates having 8 forums, or whatever there would be with another recruiting added.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on May 7, 2008 19:41:34 GMT -5
All indications are that Wattad is ready to step in right now and Nikita will be by the end of summer. What indications? I saw all of their games in Kenner, so I have at least a general idea of their abilities, and I don't think it's ideal for either one of them to have to contribute much this year. Play 5 quiet minutes a game, sure - but I'm not exactly comfortable having to rely on them. I really hope that they've both improved a ton, and we'll certainly have a better idea after the summer. If Braswell doesn't qualify they'll be needed.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on May 7, 2008 18:01:50 GMT -5
So we are now probably looking at a 7 man rotation with Omar and/or Nikita having to play out of necessity. Braswell coming is huge, both in terms of big man depth and because it would allow Summers to occasionally switch to the 3 and Freeman to the 2.
Rivers was about as bad as a high major guard can be on offense, and I don't think we would have needed a defensive specialist as much this year with Wallace gone. Still, he would have provided valuable depth and it will hurt (probably just for 1 season) to lose him.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Apr 24, 2008 13:09:54 GMT -5
Right, the only difference being that Hibbert was good and Macklin was not. Coach had the option of playing Macklin serious minutes for 2 years and didn't seem interested in doing it. Must be that Macklin was going to be the secret weapon for those last two years just like Tyler Crawford. Give me a break. He was and always would have been a backup. and why would you say that hibbert was good? back then not many outside the program were saying that. he wasnt playing consistent minutes (he wasnt ABLE, physically to) and wasnt very efficient out there. Your logic is flawed Dhall. You are way off, jgalt. As a soph Roy put up 11.6, 6.9 and 1.6 blocks in 24 minutes. He shot 59% from the field and 72% from the line. Comparing that to Macklin's production so far is asinine.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Apr 23, 2008 19:26:46 GMT -5
Well, this sucks. At least we won't need to argue over the starting lineup anymore, since it seems pretty obvious now.
It's kinda weird timing - Macklin would have gotten good minutes next year, and it seemed likely that we would play at a faster pace.
We really need Braswell to qualify at this point.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Apr 21, 2008 12:47:13 GMT -5
All this stuff about Monroe is #1 so he has to start, or Vernon was an AA and has been here 2 years so he has to start, etc., is stupid. Whoever is the better player should start, and I assume the coaches will figure that out by the first game or sometime early in the OOC schedule.
I'm not very high on Macklin, since he hasn't shown me much other than an ability to get up and down the court and convert easy buckets when he doesn't get fouled. That's enough for a big man when he rebounds and plays D, but so far Vernon hasn't done either of those things. From what I've seen of and read about Monroe, I think he'll contribute more. However, should Vernon improve a ton and Monroe struggle, he should start. I just want the best players out there.
In any event, whoever loses the starting battle (assuming only 1 does start) will still get plenty of minutes assuming they play well, since beyond Macklin and the time Summers will spend at the 4 we have no returning big men.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Apr 16, 2008 11:20:27 GMT -5
I'll go with Spurlock. Reports on Riley haven't been very positive lately, and it seems like he might not be quite as high on us as he was.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Apr 10, 2008 15:03:41 GMT -5
It's not just that both systems use letters. You're right that we went over this, but I didn't think your logic was right then and I don't think it is right now. I think reasonable minds can disagree on whether the logical inference that some want to draw can be drawn. In fact, the whole joke rests upon drawing the inference that you'll like GUGS burgers because they're big, just like you like breasts when they're big. The latter doesn't at all logically follow. I can't think of a good slogan for this right now, but say meat quality was graded 1-4, 1 being the best. The shirt then said "Grade 1, Waist Size 40." Would this then be saying you'll like GUGS burgers because they are big, just like you like waists when they are big? Even arguing about this ridiculous topic gives too much credit to the issue, but I find it absurd to say that you aren't making a leap based on the assumed intentions/attitudes of the shirt makers when you assign a sexist meaning to the slogan. It clearly isn't inherent, unless men mentioning the measuring system for cups is always wrong.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Apr 10, 2008 12:14:07 GMT -5
Reinforces stereotypes that a woman's breast size defines her worth. Also reinforces stereotypes that a woman's sexuality defines her worth. Yea . . . I don't get this from the slogan at all. Perhaps if you are looking for this kind of stuff, you see it everywhere. This was already gone over on the first page, but using a breast size measure to say the burgers are big because it also uses letters, like the system used to measure meat quality, does not equal anything you said above.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Apr 7, 2008 21:20:19 GMT -5
Exactly. If you're Shavlik Randolph I'm guessing you'd prefer to keep getting your $1,130,000 a year for 2.7 minutes, 0.9 points and 1.4 rebounds per game, and don't want some punk kid who happens to be 6'10"+ to take it away from you. If you can force them to wait an extra year, that's another $1.1M for you. The only draft that will have fewer eligible players will be the first one after the rule is enacted - every year after that will be the same overall as before the rule change, except with no freshman and a lot more sophomores. So while I suppose it helps in the very short-run, I'm not sure why it benefits the players' association long-term.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Apr 7, 2008 10:49:40 GMT -5
Looks like the NBA is going to try to push for a 2 year limit - not sure if it could be done fast enough to impact incoming recruits. tinyurl.com/4u2bpo
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Mar 31, 2008 19:20:29 GMT -5
Again, I think the team might be better with an extra big guy and one less guard. But there is no reason to think DaJuan will be any better, since he basically played the 3 on offense this year anyway.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Mar 31, 2008 18:52:48 GMT -5
Freeman was at a disadvantage against Louisville (Terrance Williams), UConn (Robinson), etc. I didn't say Dajuan wasn't good. All I say is that he's more comfortable at the 3. He prefers the 3. He is a 3. You can spin it however. He may not have been forced to be Sweets, but his unwillingness to "mix it up" on a consistent basis, while at the same time staying almost exclusively on the perimeter was evident. Other than the numbers, how'd he play better? Yeah he showed more of a willingness to drive, but how effective was he? He just seemed out of sinc. Still the 3 is his natural position; despite him playing the post in HS. Freeman easily outplayed Robinson (13 to 2), and outscored Williams in both games as well. Most of this stuff is in fans' minds. As for DaJuan, he obviously didn't have a great year - but he didn't as a freshman either. Why would moving him back to the three change anything if he's going to play the exact same way? He doesn't have a great handle, he struggles to finish, and he's only a mediocre shooter. The abbreviation next to his name in the starting lineup isn't the problem - he plays the same role regardless. As to your comment about "other than the numbers, how did he play better" . . . well, I don't feel like getting into that argument.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Mar 31, 2008 18:44:33 GMT -5
Omar and Nikita will probably either be the sole Georgetown reps on a team or together, which is how it usually works for the guys at the end of the roster. I don't know. Sapp got stuck on one of those teams before. As did DJ Owens. Tyler Crawford is the one guy that I know who repeatedly got stuck on these teams (his final three years/summers). Yea, somebody else might too, but Omar and Nikita almost certainly won't be on either of the 2 main teams.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Mar 31, 2008 13:53:29 GMT -5
You can throw all the stats out you want about his scoring not being that different, but the fact is he didn't look comfortable at the 4 and he wasn't. He'll prob tell you that himself. The offense runs smoother with him at the 3, plus his defensive responsibility changes at that position. He's clearly not a banger and has no desire to bang. Now, can he bang? Yes, but how willing was he to do so last year? How often was he effective? And how is the offense more effective with Austin undersized at the 3? III likes to exploit mismatches and the tables were reversed last season cause AF was often caught guarding a 6'6, 6'7, 6'8 three-man. Dajuan can implement what he learned playing the 4 into a new, revised 3 role next season, while preparing for the draft. I guess we'll see what happens, the advantage is Dajuan on the wing. He essentially could become Earl Clark, who is a three in a collegiate four's body. So is Dajuan. First off, I prefer to focus on performance rather than perception - DaJuan did play better, whether you thought he looked comfortable or not. He doesn't like to bang, and he isn't going to whether he plays the 3 or the 4. He pretty clearly prefers to be on the perimeter, and that's where he played last year. It isn't as if he was forced to play like Mike Sweetney. And, although people always forget this, more college teams have 3 guards than a big small forward. When was Freeman overmatched at the 3? In NBA terms, most college teams looks like this PG, PG, SG, SF, PF. People get too obsessed with size.
|
|