Chemistry Warning Signs?

Quote from: paultzman on November 21, 2016, 05:44:59 PM

Quote from: Foad on November 21, 2016, 05:28:25 PM

Quote from: hnk on November 21, 2016, 04:31:42 PM

Paultzman has issued his edict on the other blog.  Apparently, this is an inane topic so please stop responding to it.  Thank you.

I think this is a stupid topic but I think that posts telling people not to post about what they think is interesting are even more stupid. So I will respond: I don't see a chemistry problem, I see a talent problem. When Mussini starts shooting > than 25 percent from three they should maybe set him up. Should Ellison shoot better than oh for six they should feed him. Until then Lovett should take 30 shots and Ponds should take 25, at least that's interesting basketball.

Agree posts telling people not to post what they think is wrong & I never issued an "edict" WASJU & I were going back and forth and he cited this thread. I simply responded;

"Why react to one guy starting an inane thread like that one on JJ? Btw, when I last looked most guys thought it was silly. Thus, most guys support, value & appreciate LoVett, no?"

If this is an edict, some sensitive little soul needs to reread it. "Why react" meant why get upset, not why respond. Don't want to waste time of those I respect on JJ. Moving on.

 I did not see your post elsewhere but you often tell people that what they are posting about is less than interesting. I could easily cite 50 posts where someone says something they find interesting and you say 'time to move on' or the like, as if you're the arbiter of what's worthy of discussion. The saying of which is your prerogative. But otoh personally I'm not interested in recruiting - I cannot think of anything less interesting than the workings of teenage minds - and so find many of your posts about recruiting pointless and boring. But I wouldn't say that because others find those posts fascinating, as evidently do you, and I don't begrudge you your interests or your readers theirs. As silly as I find this thread of hnk's if he and others want to discuss chemistry I don't see how or why someone who's authored THIRTY THOUSAND #SJUBB   posts should begrudge others bandwidth especially when if no one finds it interesting it'll die its own death  without your help. But that's just me, so carry on.

Quote from: paultzman on November 21, 2016, 05:44:59 PM

Quote from: Foad on November 21, 2016, 05:28:25 PM

Quote from: hnk on November 21, 2016, 04:31:42 PM

Paultzman has issued his edict on the other blog.  Apparently, this is an inane topic so please stop responding to it.  Thank you.

I think this is a stupid topic but I think that posts telling people not to post about what they think is interesting are even more stupid. So I will respond: I don't see a chemistry problem, I see a talent problem. When Mussini starts shooting > than 25 percent from three they should maybe set him up. Should Ellison shoot better than oh for six they should feed him. Until then Lovett should take 30 shots and Ponds should take 25, at least that's interesting basketball.

Agree posts telling people not to post what they think is wrong & I never issued an "edict" WASJU & I were going back and forth and he cited this thread. I simply responded;

"Why react to one guy starting an inane thread like that one on JJ? Btw, when I last looked most guys thought it was silly. Thus, most guys support, value & appreciate LoVett, no?"

If this is an edict, some sensitive little soul needs to reread it. "Why react" meant why get upset, not why respond. Don't want to waste time of those I respect on JJ. Moving on.

 I did not see your post elsewhere but you often tell people that what they are posting about is less than interesting. I could easily cite 50 posts where someone says something they find interesting and you say 'time to move on' or the like, as if you're the arbiter of what's worthy of discussion. The saying of which is your prerogative. But otoh personally I'm not interested in recruiting - I cannot think of anything less interesting than the workings of teenage minds - and so find many of your posts about recruiting pointless and boring. But I wouldn't say that because others find those posts fascinating, as evidently do you, and I don't begrudge you your interests or your readers theirs. As silly as I find this thread of hnk's if he and others want to discuss chemistry I don't see how or why someone who's authored THIRTY THOUSAND #SJUBB   posts should begrudge others bandwidth especially when if no one finds it interesting it'll die its own death  without your help. But that's just me, so carry on.

Quote from: hnk on November 21, 2016, 04:31:42 PM

Paultzman has issued his edict on the other blog.  Apparently, this is an inane topic so please stop responding to it.  Thank you.

I think this is a stupid topic but I think that posts telling people not to post about what they think is interesting are even more stupid. So I will respond: I don't see a chemistry problem, I see a talent problem. When Mussini starts shooting > than 25 percent from three they should maybe set him up. Should Ellison shoot better than oh for six they should feed him. Until then Lovett should take 30 shots and Ponds should take 25, at least that's interesting basketball.

Quote from: paultzman on November 21, 2016, 05:44:59 PM

Quote from: Foad on November 21, 2016, 05:28:25 PM

Quote from: hnk on November 21, 2016, 04:31:42 PM

Paultzman has issued his edict on the other blog.  Apparently, this is an inane topic so please stop responding to it.  Thank you.

I think this is a stupid topic but I think that posts telling people not to post about what they think is interesting are even more stupid. So I will respond: I don't see a chemistry problem, I see a talent problem. When Mussini starts shooting > than 25 percent from three they should maybe set him up. Should Ellison shoot better than oh for six they should feed him. Until then Lovett should take 30 shots and Ponds should take 25, at least that's interesting basketball.

Agree posts telling people not to post what they think is wrong & I never issued an "edict" WASJU & I were going back and forth and he cited this thread. I simply responded;

"Why react to one guy starting an inane thread like that one on JJ? Btw, when I last looked most guys thought it was silly. Thus, most guys support, value & appreciate LoVett, no?"

If this is an edict, some sensitive little soul needs to reread it. "Why react" meant why get upset, not why respond. Don't want to waste time of those I respect on JJ. Moving on.

 I did not see your post elsewhere but you often tell people that what they are posting about is less than interesting. I could easily cite 50 posts where someone says something they find interesting and you say 'time to move on' or the like, as if you're the arbiter of what's worthy of discussion. The saying of which is your prerogative. But otoh personally I'm not interested in recruiting - I cannot think of anything less interesting than the workings of teenage minds - and so find many of your posts about recruiting pointless and boring. But I wouldn't say that because others find those posts fascinating, as evidently do you, and I don't begrudge you your interests or your readers theirs. As silly as I find this thread of hnk's if he and others want to discuss chemistry I don't see how or why someone who's authored THIRTY THOUSAND #SJUBB   posts should begrudge others bandwidth especially when if no one finds it interesting it'll die its own death  without your help. But that's just me, so carry on.

Quote from: Foad on November 21, 2016, 08:28:59 PM

Quote from: paultzman on November 21, 2016, 05:44:59 PM

Quote from: Foad on November 21, 2016, 05:28:25 PM

Quote from: hnk on November 21, 2016, 04:31:42 PM

Paultzman has issued his edict on the other blog.  Apparently, this is an inane topic so please stop responding to it.  Thank you.

I think this is a stupid topic but I think that posts telling people not to post about what they think is interesting are even more stupid. So I will respond: I don't see a chemistry problem, I see a talent problem. When Mussini starts shooting > than 25 percent from three they should maybe set him up. Should Ellison shoot better than oh for six they should feed him. Until then Lovett should take 30 shots and Ponds should take 25, at least that's interesting basketball.

Agree posts telling people not to post what they think is wrong & I never issued an "edict" WASJU & I were going back and forth and he cited this thread. I simply responded;

"Why react to one guy starting an inane thread like that one on JJ? Btw, when I last looked most guys thought it was silly. Thus, most guys support, value & appreciate LoVett, no?"

If this is an edict, some sensitive little soul needs to reread it. "Why react" meant why get upset, not why respond. Don't want to waste time of those I respect on JJ. Moving on.

 I did not see your post elsewhere but you often tell people that what they are posting about is less than interesting. I could easily cite 50 posts where someone says something they find interesting and you say 'time to move on' or the like, as if you're the arbiter of what's worthy of discussion. The saying of which is your prerogative. But otoh personally I'm not interested in recruiting - I cannot think of anything less interesting than the workings of teenage minds - and so find many of your posts about recruiting pointless and boring. But I wouldn't say that because others find those posts fascinating, as evidently do you, and I don't begrudge you your interests or your readers theirs. As silly as I find this thread of hnk's if he and others want to discuss chemistry I don't see how or why someone who's authored THIRTY THOUSAND #SJUBB   posts should begrudge others bandwidth especially when if no one finds it interesting it'll die its own death  without your help. But that's just me, so carry on.

I like Paultzman but find those move along posts both arbitrary and infuriating.
We're grown men talking about kids playing sports...every post is inane.

Quote from: paultzman on November 21, 2016, 05:44:59 PM

Quote from: Foad on November 21, 2016, 05:28:25 PM

Quote from: hnk on November 21, 2016, 04:31:42 PM

Paultzman has issued his edict on the other blog.  Apparently, this is an inane topic so please stop responding to it.  Thank you.

I think this is a stupid topic but I think that posts telling people not to post about what they think is interesting are even more stupid. So I will respond: I don't see a chemistry problem, I see a talent problem. When Mussini starts shooting > than 25 percent from three they should maybe set him up. Should Ellison shoot better than oh for six they should feed him. Until then Lovett should take 30 shots and Ponds should take 25, at least that's interesting basketball.

Agree posts telling people not to post what they think is wrong & I never issued an "edict" WASJU & I were going back and forth and he cited this thread. I simply responded;

"Why react to one guy starting an inane thread like that one on JJ? Btw, when I last looked most guys thought it was silly. Thus, most guys support, value & appreciate LoVett, no?"

If this is an edict, some sensitive little soul needs to reread it. "Why react" meant why get upset, not why respond. Don't want to waste time of those I respect on JJ. Moving on.

 I did not see your post elsewhere but you often tell people that what they are posting about is less than interesting. I could easily cite 50 posts where someone says something they find interesting and you say 'time to move on' or the like, as if you're the arbiter of what's worthy of discussion. The saying of which is your prerogative. But otoh personally I'm not interested in recruiting - I cannot think of anything less interesting than the workings of teenage minds - and so find many of your posts about recruiting pointless and boring. But I wouldn't say that because others find those posts fascinating, as evidently do you, and I don't begrudge you your interests or your readers theirs. As silly as I find this thread of hnk's if he and others want to discuss chemistry I don't see how or why someone who's authored THIRTY THOUSAND #SJUBB   posts should begrudge others bandwidth especially when if no one finds it interesting it'll die its own death  without your help. But that's just me, so carry on.

None of our current bigs will ever be consistently good.  Not even fair to classify Owens a big @ 200 lbs preseason and likely 190 by mid season. 

Sima lacks intensity and has reflexes of a piece of sheet rock.

These two are not the guys that can carry the load down low.


Yakwe is being asked to play big at 6'7 cause he can jump high but his offense is just as questionsble.  Watching the ball come out of his hands is like spinning a globe.  Awkward rotation.  Like a curveball.

Quote from: RedStormNC on November 26, 2016, 12:53:19 AM

None of our current bigs will ever be consistently good.  Not even fair to classify Owens a big @ 200 lbs preseason and likely 190 by mid season. 

Sima lacks intensity and has reflexes of a piece of sheet rock.

These two are not the guys that can carry the load down low.


Yakwe is being asked to play big at 6'7 cause he can jump high but his offense is just as questionsble.  Watching the ball come out of his hands is like spinning a globe.  Awkward rotation.  Like a curveball.

Sima seems like a solid Ruben Garces type. He is getting good back-to-the-basket shots off, they just keep barely missing. Owens looks like a very, very solid first
big off the bench player. His slight frame will limit what he can do this year, but his hustle and hands are very positive signs for the future. Ahmed will get the hang of it and his future is inside. Yakwe is just as mess. Horrible hands. Never boxed out. Poor on-ball defender.

Guys hurt Paultzman's feelings.  Now he's on strike from JJ.  Wonder how long it will last.   BTW, chemistry has been great last few games....showing signs of a little inside outside game....and real glimpses of ball movement.   Ponds is really something.

I agree Paultz IS an important asset.   However, he shouldn't be so sensitive.  Considering the back and forth dialogue between certain posters, the occasional comments regarding Paultz are mild by comparison and certainly not offensive.  HE IS APPRECIATED.