@Temple

[jacobkdoyle]

been here for the away games i wasn't at in person, boss. there hasn't been much worth posting on as a lot of this repeat cycle nonsense gets old.

your broad, sweeping conclusions to a post simply asking what's wrong with offering a critical assessment of a player when it's important to the overall conversation are off base.

I hope so.

 

[waterhead]

Hey guys we won. We are fans. Let’s move on to SMU.

I agree. We played a bad game. It will happen again. We won. A lot of teaching moments to prepare for SMU. At least we didn't play a bad game and lose. We get to learn some critical things to work on from a win.

 

[jacobkdoyle]

https://youtu.be/xqGOYc20HR0

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

I agree. We played a bad game. It will happen again. We won. A lot of teaching moments to prepare for SMU. At least we didn't play a bad game and lose. We get to learn some critical things to work on from a win.

Actually it’s nice to play as bad as we did and still walk away with a win. I’ll bet the Temple locker room was like what the heck just happened.

 

[waterhead]

been here for the away games i wasn't at in person, boss. there hasn't been much worth posting on as a lot of this repeat cycle nonsense gets old.

your broad, sweeping conclusions to a post simply asking what's wrong with offering a critical assessment of a player when it's important to the overall conversation are off base.

If you think saying a player sucks is a "critical assessment"....that may be part of the issue.

 

[Madman81]

I would assume sometimes friends or family of players come in here to read up and I don't think it's a good look for them to see fans denigrating players.

Anyone capable of articulating a point can say that Scott doesn't offer us much on the offensive side but could also point out he rebounds fairly well, sets picks, passes fairly well, plays pretty good D etc.

He is below average in scoring ability...but he realizes this and doesn't hunt shots. Does this mean he "f-ing sucks" or is "awful"? I don't think so but I guess it depends on what perspective you are looking at it. I mean he is the first back up to Clark.

are we really sure that scott plays good defense? that seems to be the (at least as stated) clear consensus, perhaps based on his general athletic ability, but are there any metrics or statistics that back that up? to me, from an eye test perspective, i don't know that i've seen good defense.

 

[jacobkdoyle]

are we really sure that scott plays good defense? that seems to be the (at least as stated) clear consensus, perhaps based on his general athletic ability, but are there any metrics or statistics that back that up? to me, from an eye test perspective, i don't know that i've seen good defense.

Go look it up yourself. Come back when you're informed. The rest of us don't have to waste our time running stat errands for you bc you're feeling frisky and want to double down on some half-brained hot takes.

 

[david aka the TYZ]

I think Scott can be useful in certain situations. He's not an option to score so he becomes a facilitator on offense. His D is good but he's no Justin Jackson. He's good for 5-10 back up minutes when needed but not much more.

This doesn't mean he's not D1 BB player. If you can guard at the D1 level you are a D1 BB player. Maybe that means only spot minutes...but we need those too. What we will need next year is a D1 starter.

Scott is good in an up and down game. Great in transition because he's athletic and plays above the rim. Also great in the press because he's long and quick and again can jump high...... But here's my eternal gripe with Cronin. He recruits these types of players then falls into his half court grinders like last night. Scott had no business in last night's game but with foul trouble we had no choice. Also, Temples bugs were big and strong, if Clark is ineffective, Scott won't do anything.

 

[Madman81]

Go look it up yourself. Come back when you're informed. The rest of us don't have to waste our time running stat errands for you bc you're feeling frisky and want to double down on some half-brained hot takes.

feeling a little touchy today? if you're not interested in conversation or are only looking for views that align with yours, i'm not sure what you're doing moderating a forum. the vast majority of time spent commenting on this forum could effectively be considered wasted time.

in response to a comment about a bench player supposedly playing good defense, a point that has been raised in response to other criticism of that player, a question asking if we're aware of statistics that demonstrate he's a good defensive player because he hasn't seemed to look that way in my opinion is not exactly a "half-brained hot take."

 

[TheShoeFits]

Does anyone have a link to Dunphy's water bottle incident? If so please share.

I was one of the many who didn't get to see the last few minutes of the game due to ESPN2 blacking out.

Thanks guys.

 

[Madman81]

Does anyone have a link to Dunphy's water bottle incident? If so please share.

I was one of the many who didn't get to see the last few minutes of the game due to ESPN2 blacking out.

Thanks guys.

this gif does it the most justice: https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/949127980915314688

the moderator probably would have told you to look it up yourself.

 

[waterhead]

are we really sure that scott plays good defense? that seems to be the (at least as stated) clear consensus, perhaps based on his general athletic ability, but are there any metrics or statistics that back that up? to me, from an eye test perspective, i don't know that i've seen good defense.

I think when you have a big who can block a few shots in the paint and be able to switch off on guards, get deflections and steals etc...you know you have a pretty good defender. He is very useful in that way. I am not saying he's quite on the level of Jackson or Rubles...but he isn't too far off so he is a capable back up from that perspective. We don't need 20 minutes from him...just spot minutes. If he is asked to do more than that (minutes)...we may have a scoring problem.

I don't want to get into the "eye test" thing. My eyes may be looking for different things than yours.

 

[david aka the TYZ]

but temple is one of the worst rebounding teams in college. we allowed them to rebound 42.5% of their misses they average 29%.

They rebounded well cause they threw up bricks and had long rebounds. Also we just seemed to be out of sorts and always a step behind. But bottom line, we didn't box out worth sh*t last night and it almost cost us. No excuse for the number of second chance opportunities they had. Also killed any chance we could even try to pick up the pace. It seemed Temple had the ball a full minute every possession. Ridiculous.

 

[TheShoeFits]

this gif does it the most justice: https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/949127980915314688

the moderator probably would have told you to look it up yourself.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[TheRealUC]

I would assume sometimes friends or family of players come in here to read up and I don't think it's a good look for them to see fans denigrating players.

Exactly. "Evans plays like a wuss in big games", "Cumberland is a big ball of shit right now". Those were some gems. Meanwhile, this was all being said with the game still well in reach...

 

[jacobkdoyle]

feeling a little touchy today? if you're not interested in conversation or are only looking for views that align with yours, i'm not sure what you're doing moderating a forum. the vast majority of time spent commenting on this forum could effectively be considered wasted time.

in response to a comment about a bench player supposedly playing good defense, a point that has been raised in response to other criticism of that player, a question asking if we're aware of statistics that demonstrate he's a good defensive player because he hasn't seemed to look that way in my opinion is not exactly a "half-brained hot take."

I'm touchy bc our fans are a bunch of ingrates.

And yes, "we" are aware of statistics that demonstrate that he's a good defensive player. But something tells me your eye test will rule the day on this one. Not interested.

 

[TheRealUC]

They rebounded well cause they threw up bricks and had long rebounds. Also we just seemed to be out of sorts and always a step behind. But bottom line, we didn't box out worth sh*t last night and it almost cost us. No excuse for the number of second chance opportunities they had. Also killed any chance we could even try to pick up the pace. It seemed Temple had the ball a full minute every possession. Ridiculous.

Valid points. No doubt an awful performance, but how many past teams play like that and still win at temple? That's the difference in my book.

 

[jacobkdoyle]

this gif does it the most justice: https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/949127980915314688

the moderator probably would have told you to look it up yourself.

There is a basic level of knowledge that is assumed when someone creates a username to talk UC hoops. We shouldn't have to recite player statistics to you.

 

[Nayers]

this gif does it the most justice: https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/949127980915314688

the moderator probably would have told you to look it up yourself.

Jenifer and evans look like a couple having a fight in the lower right hand corner haha

 

[Madman81]

I think when you have a big who can block a few shots in the paint and be able to switch off on guards, get deflections and steals etc...you know you have a pretty good defender. He is very useful in that way. I am not saying he's quite on the level of Jackson or Rubles...but he isn't too far off so he is a capable back up from that perspective. We don't need 20 minutes from him...just spot minutes. If he is asked to do more than that (minutes)...we may have a scoring problem.

I don't want to get into the "eye test" thing. My eyes may be looking for different things than yours.

which is fine and is the reason for my comment. this is, as i understand it, a discussion forum.

i think the least competent portion of his defensive game is his low post defending - it seems to me like he gets himself sealed down low in the paint with greater frequency than our other forwards after the mass of switches that take place.

he might be far better than our other forwards at sticking with a guard that he gets switched on to, but i don't know that we've faced the level of competition yet to make much of an assessment there.