Why not give Felix more PT for exp. I agree it doesnt make sense to play the walkon before Felix was injured. Felix is a lot better than the walk on.
Branch's injury has more to do with Lipcomb playing than Felix's injury. Lipscomb is a PG, Felix is not. So it does make plenty of sense the Lipscomb plays ahead of Felix as he is not a better PG than Lipscomb, and a PG is what this team needs.
Quote from: STJFAN on April 07, 2013, 05:39:48 PMBranch's injury has more to do with Lipcomb playing than Felix's injury. Lipscomb is a PG, Felix is not. So it does make plenty of sense the Lipscomb plays ahead of Felix as he is not a better PG than Lipscomb, and a PG is what this team needs.Did you see Lipscomb running the offense? Playing point guard? I didn't. I saw him standing in the corner.
Quote from: carmineabbatiello on April 05, 2013, 01:04:01 PMQuote from: STJFAN on April 05, 2013, 10:20:07 AMQuote from: carmineabbatiello on April 03, 2013, 01:27:12 PMQuote from: STJFAN on April 01, 2013, 04:50:46 PMWhy is that inexplicable?Because on a team that is fully funded scholarship wise, walkons should only play when you are up or down by a lot late in the second half; or when 1/2 your team is suspended for indescretions with prostitutes in Pittsburgh.QuoteTheir playing time had no impact on us winning or losing the game.Wouldn't say that. 7-0 and 5-0 runs for the opponent in tight ballgames were the initial results of walkongate. QuoteIt was a classy move by coach,I would call it more of a stupid or inexplicable move.Quoteimo, to get them at least 1 minute of action in what maybe their final game in an STJ uniform. We don't know if they will be on the team next year. These kids work their tails off all year, just as hard as the scholarship players. Why is that so terrible?It was postseason play. Everybody involved at least deserves our best shot at winning the games. And that doesn't involve playing walkons. The good of the team and going for the win has got to take on more importance than a "nice gesture" towards walkons.I find it hard to believe that 1 minute of playing time equated to a combined 12-0 run for the opposing team. It appears you believe that playing the walkons 1 minute cost us the game, I don't believe that. They played better than Marco so I could care less about their label. In that context, I don't have an issue with it. We can agree to disagree.I don't know how long they were initially on for. Seemed like more than 1 minute and a 12-0 or even a 14-0 run for the bad guys was the net result. I don't like playing walkons in the most important, post-season, games of the year that hadn't even had 1 second of meaningful non-garbage time play in the 30+ games prior to that. You do. Why re-invent the wheel then? We can agree to disagree.Thought it was interesting to see a Louisville team dead in the water down by double digits and Hall of Fame coach Rick Pitino decides to put in Tim Henderson......A player who averages 3.5 minutes a game this year. He hits back to back three's and injects life into the team. Oh yeah, he's a walk-on. In the most important game of the year, Pitino thought a walk-on gave them a better chance at winning.
Quote from: STJFAN on April 05, 2013, 10:20:07 AMQuote from: carmineabbatiello on April 03, 2013, 01:27:12 PMQuote from: STJFAN on April 01, 2013, 04:50:46 PMWhy is that inexplicable?Because on a team that is fully funded scholarship wise, walkons should only play when you are up or down by a lot late in the second half; or when 1/2 your team is suspended for indescretions with prostitutes in Pittsburgh.QuoteTheir playing time had no impact on us winning or losing the game.Wouldn't say that. 7-0 and 5-0 runs for the opponent in tight ballgames were the initial results of walkongate. QuoteIt was a classy move by coach,I would call it more of a stupid or inexplicable move.Quoteimo, to get them at least 1 minute of action in what maybe their final game in an STJ uniform. We don't know if they will be on the team next year. These kids work their tails off all year, just as hard as the scholarship players. Why is that so terrible?It was postseason play. Everybody involved at least deserves our best shot at winning the games. And that doesn't involve playing walkons. The good of the team and going for the win has got to take on more importance than a "nice gesture" towards walkons.I find it hard to believe that 1 minute of playing time equated to a combined 12-0 run for the opposing team. It appears you believe that playing the walkons 1 minute cost us the game, I don't believe that. They played better than Marco so I could care less about their label. In that context, I don't have an issue with it. We can agree to disagree.I don't know how long they were initially on for. Seemed like more than 1 minute and a 12-0 or even a 14-0 run for the bad guys was the net result. I don't like playing walkons in the most important, post-season, games of the year that hadn't even had 1 second of meaningful non-garbage time play in the 30+ games prior to that. You do. Why re-invent the wheel then? We can agree to disagree.
Quote from: carmineabbatiello on April 03, 2013, 01:27:12 PMQuote from: STJFAN on April 01, 2013, 04:50:46 PMWhy is that inexplicable?Because on a team that is fully funded scholarship wise, walkons should only play when you are up or down by a lot late in the second half; or when 1/2 your team is suspended for indescretions with prostitutes in Pittsburgh.QuoteTheir playing time had no impact on us winning or losing the game.Wouldn't say that. 7-0 and 5-0 runs for the opponent in tight ballgames were the initial results of walkongate. QuoteIt was a classy move by coach,I would call it more of a stupid or inexplicable move.Quoteimo, to get them at least 1 minute of action in what maybe their final game in an STJ uniform. We don't know if they will be on the team next year. These kids work their tails off all year, just as hard as the scholarship players. Why is that so terrible?It was postseason play. Everybody involved at least deserves our best shot at winning the games. And that doesn't involve playing walkons. The good of the team and going for the win has got to take on more importance than a "nice gesture" towards walkons.I find it hard to believe that 1 minute of playing time equated to a combined 12-0 run for the opposing team. It appears you believe that playing the walkons 1 minute cost us the game, I don't believe that. They played better than Marco so I could care less about their label. In that context, I don't have an issue with it. We can agree to disagree.
Quote from: STJFAN on April 01, 2013, 04:50:46 PMWhy is that inexplicable?Because on a team that is fully funded scholarship wise, walkons should only play when you are up or down by a lot late in the second half; or when 1/2 your team is suspended for indescretions with prostitutes in Pittsburgh.QuoteTheir playing time had no impact on us winning or losing the game.Wouldn't say that. 7-0 and 5-0 runs for the opponent in tight ballgames were the initial results of walkongate. QuoteIt was a classy move by coach,I would call it more of a stupid or inexplicable move.Quoteimo, to get them at least 1 minute of action in what maybe their final game in an STJ uniform. We don't know if they will be on the team next year. These kids work their tails off all year, just as hard as the scholarship players. Why is that so terrible?It was postseason play. Everybody involved at least deserves our best shot at winning the games. And that doesn't involve playing walkons. The good of the team and going for the win has got to take on more importance than a "nice gesture" towards walkons.
Why is that inexplicable?
Their playing time had no impact on us winning or losing the game.
It was a classy move by coach,
imo, to get them at least 1 minute of action in what maybe their final game in an STJ uniform. We don't know if they will be on the team next year. These kids work their tails off all year, just as hard as the scholarship players. Why is that so terrible?
Not all walkons are equal. Phil Messere was one who could play and help, Jamal Thomas not so much.
Quote from: Celtics11 on April 08, 2013, 07:31:26 PMNot all walkons are equal. Phil Messere was one who could play and help, Jamal Thomas not so much.Don't forget Andre Stanley - dude stepped up big time when we needed him.
Quote from: Celtics11 on April 08, 2013, 07:31:26 PMNot all walkons are equal. Phil Messere was one who could play and help, Jamal Thomas not so much.Jamal White
Quote from: Moose on April 08, 2013, 08:12:22 PMQuote from: Celtics11 on April 08, 2013, 07:31:26 PMNot all walkons are equal. Phil Messere was one who could play and help, Jamal Thomas not so much.Jamal WhiteJamal Thomas was a much better player LOL. Allowances for age Moose.
Quote from: Celtics11 on April 08, 2013, 08:16:41 PMQuote from: Moose on April 08, 2013, 08:12:22 PMQuote from: Celtics11 on April 08, 2013, 07:31:26 PMNot all walkons are equal. Phil Messere was one who could play and help, Jamal Thomas not so much.Jamal WhiteJamal Thomas was a much better player LOL. Allowances for age Moose. Jamel Thomas?
looks like Karr is working on his 3-point shot this offseason:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHbuvzrCAAAmSRM.jpg:large
I recall being at the garden for the Johnny Flynn Cuse massacre. They put in their walkons late and they were better than our starters.
Quote from: carmineabbatiello on April 09, 2013, 01:20:28 PMI recall being at the garden for the Johnny Flynn Cuse massacre. They put in their walkons late and they were better than our starters. That was an awful experience. Flynn was toying with us.
Quote from: Poison on April 15, 2013, 11:12:46 AMQuote from: carmineabbatiello on April 09, 2013, 01:20:28 PMI recall being at the garden for the Johnny Flynn Cuse massacre. They put in their walkons late and they were better than our starters. That was an awful experience. Flynn was toying with us. Flynn still in the NBA?