Relax people

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on March 28, 2014, 11:35:23 PM

Quote from: SJUFAN on March 27, 2014, 10:41:39 PM

Sampson is not a big loss, he had little impact on the game. Sampson's potential is what makes his departure feel worse than it actually is.

Are we so good that we can just absorb the loss of BE rookie of the year guys and it's nothing?  Silly.

It's not nothing, but I do believe we can absorb the loss of a player who didn't make all BE 3rd team. Lets be realistic here guys. What skill set does Sampson bring that will be hard to replace that equated to us winning games? We will miss his mid range game, but that's about it. His scoring will be absorbed. Will we miss his rebounding, defense, free-throw shooting, passing, dribble penetrating, screening, decision making, etc, etc. Its these and other intangibles that's difficult to measure but contributes to the success of the team, Sampson lack those. If we can find players that are strong in these areas, we can be a better team. 

Agree completely. Not a winning player. Fun to watch but didnt always help the team. People are getting on me for saying we will be fine with Jones as our PF. I stand by that. I think Jones will be a top 5 starting PF in the league next year. He wont be the problem. What the problem will be is if we dont have a backup big.

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on March 28, 2014, 07:11:12 PM

Quote from: DFF6 on March 28, 2014, 01:59:13 PM

Quote from: desco80 on March 28, 2014, 01:48:10 PM

Branch is more than a backup pg.   

Our best lineup is Branch, Harrison, Jordan, Jones and Obekpa.   And it's not close.

Not going to argue wih you about Branch.  It's not at the Carmine/Phil level, but I know you feel strongly about what he brings to the table.  Your lineup works if the other team's 3 is not a brusier, but I'd rather have Dom on the floor against the bigger teams for his defense. 

Really, dom in for his defense? This notion still exists? He is not a good defender. Harrison at the 3 is better then dom in every aspect of the game. Defense, rebounding, passing, shooting, DECISION MAKING. Some of us have been saying it since before the season. Jamal, rysheed, Dlo is the best way to go.

Mase, not saying Harrison vs Dom, but Branch vs. Dom at the 3. Harrison is always in at 2 and Jordan should always be at 1, IMO.

Understood DFF6, but if those three are in together then Harrison is the 3. Hes the biggest and best rebounder. On offense it doesn't really matter.

Quote from: MCNPA on March 28, 2014, 09:56:54 PM

People here are crazy...  We have zero front court who can rebound nor score.  Teams will pack it in and zone us to death.   People downplaying Sampson's importance?  Really?  The kid was a mega athletic forward with a great midrange game who also helped us shut down McDermott this season when he committed to defense.  Who is going to replace Sampson and our only other skilled forward in Sanchez?  If we don't replace those two with some better than decent players, we are going to be horrible next year imo.  I don't know what Lavin has up his sleeve if anything at all, but I hope he has something...

The consensus seems to be that Jones will be better than Sampson

Dont think he will put up better numbers. Think he will help us more. Hopefully people dont confuse this.

Quote from: desco80 on March 28, 2014, 10:19:44 PM

Quote from: MCNPA on March 28, 2014, 09:56:54 PM

People here are crazy...  We have zero front court who can rebound nor score.  Teams will pack it in and zone us to death.   People downplaying Sampson's importance?  Really?  The kid was a mega athletic forward with a great midrange game who also helped us shut down McDermott this season when he committed to defense.  Who is going to replace Sampson and our only other skilled forward in Sanchez?  If we don't replace those two with some better than decent players, we are going to be horrible next year imo.  I don't know what Lavin has up his sleeve if anything at all, but I hope he has something...

The consensus seems to be that Jones will be better than Sampson

Dont think he will put up better numbers. Think he will help us more. Hopefully people dont confuse this.

I understand the difference Mase.   And I think it's possible.  After all, there were countless games this year where Sampson was like a black hole every time he touched the ball.    I just don't know that it's likely we're a better team with Jones over Sampson.  Possible though.

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on March 29, 2014, 10:58:26 AM

Quote from: desco80 on March 28, 2014, 10:19:44 PM

Quote from: MCNPA on March 28, 2014, 09:56:54 PM

People here are crazy...  We have zero front court who can rebound nor score.  Teams will pack it in and zone us to death.   People downplaying Sampson's importance?  Really?  The kid was a mega athletic forward with a great midrange game who also helped us shut down McDermott this season when he committed to defense.  Who is going to replace Sampson and our only other skilled forward in Sanchez?  If we don't replace those two with some better than decent players, we are going to be horrible next year imo.  I don't know what Lavin has up his sleeve if anything at all, but I hope he has something...

The consensus seems to be that Jones will be better than Sampson

Dont think he will put up better numbers. Think he will help us more. Hopefully people dont confuse this.

I understand the difference Mase.   And I think it's possible.  After all, there were countless games this year where Sampson was like a black hole every time he touched the ball.    I just don't know that it's likely we're a better team with Jones over Sampson.  Possible though.

I think the differen is that Sampson was distracted by going pro and he try to do things that help his draft stock. Jones will be focused on get playing time and will be more focused on a team first attitude.

Quote from: SJUFAN on March 28, 2014, 11:02:30 PM

I'm not saying Sampson wasn't a good player for us, I'm saying he was a terrible rebounder

Sampson led the team in rebounding two years in a row. In those two years he had 420 total rebounds, more than two year players Ron Artest, Billy Goodwin, Lamont Middleton, and Wayne McKoy. Those guys must have  been really really terrible rebounders.

At 420 total he's slightly behind three year players Jason Williams (490) and Billy Singleton (500). Had he returned for his Jr year he would have passed them and terrible rebounders Chris Mullin (509) and Willie Glass (618), putting him just behind terrible rebounders Bill Wennington (644) and David Russell (667). Had he played 4 years he likely would have ended his career as only the third player in SJ history with 800 rebounds, behind Z Hamilton and Malik Sealy.

Its all relative. He's a poor rebounder who plays on a bad rebounding team. The ball has to fall in someone's hands. Those guys you mentioned did not play on bad rebounding teams. Similar to the notion of the best player on a bad team may not be a good player on a good team. If you have an eye for that sort of thing you could see he is not a good rebounder, numbers aside. Sometimes you have to look past the statistics.   

Quote from: Foad on March 29, 2014, 08:27:07 AM

Quote from: SJUFAN on March 28, 2014, 11:02:30 PM

I'm not saying Sampson wasn't a good player for us, I'm saying he was a terrible rebounder

Sampson led the team in rebounding two years in a row. In those two years he had 420 total rebounds, more than two year players Ron Artest, Billy Goodwin, Lamont Middleton, and Wayne McKoy. Those guys must have  been really really terrible rebounders.

At 420 total he's slightly behind three year players Jason Williams (490) and Billy Singleton (500). Had he returned for his Jr year he would have passed them and terrible rebounders Chris Mullin (509) and Willie Glass (618), putting him just behind terrible rebounders Bill Wennington (644) and David Russell (667). Had he played 4 years he likely would have ended his career as only the third player in SJ history with 800 rebounds, behind Z Hamilton and Malik Sealy.

Its all relative. He's a poor rebounder who plays on a bad rebounding team. The ball has to fall in someone's hands. Those guys you mentioned did not play on bad rebounding teams. Similar to the notion of the best player on a bad team may not be a good player on a good team. If you have an eye for that sort of thing you could see he is not a good rebounder, numbers aside. Sometimes you have to look past the statistics.   

The ball just happened to fall in his hands more often than it fell in everyone else's hands for a period of two years, and I'd realize that if I were as discerning as you. That's a load of nonsense and you'd recognize it for that if you had a keen eye for bullshit, as I do.

Quote from: SJUFAN on March 28, 2014, 11:02:30 PM

I'm not saying Sampson wasn't a good player for us, I'm saying he was a terrible rebounder

Sampson led the team in rebounding two years in a row. 

This reminds me of when it was written that the triangle is a terrible passer and I pointed out that he led the team in assists.  Funny how askew perception and reality can be.

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on March 28, 2014, 11:35:23 PM

Quote from: SJUFAN on March 27, 2014, 10:41:39 PM

Sampson is not a big loss, he had little impact on the game. Sampson's potential is what makes his departure feel worse than it actually is.

Are we so good that we can just absorb the loss of BE rookie of the year guys and it's nothing?  Silly.

It's not nothing, but I do believe we can absorb the loss of a player who didn't make all BE 3rd team. Lets be realistic here guys. What skill set does Sampson bring that will be hard to replace that equated to us winning games? We will miss his mid range game, but that's about it. His scoring will be absorbed. Will we miss his rebounding, defense, free-throw shooting, passing, dribble penetrating, screening, decision making, etc, etc. Its these and other intangibles that's difficult to measure but contributes to the success of the team, Sampson lack those. If we can find players that are strong in these areas, we can be a better team. 

Anyway you slice it, n Deliliah was the second or third best player on the team.  Could have been special his third or fourth season and snuck us into the tournament for a change.  Napier is a senior.  Boatright is a junior.  Life is not fair.

He did lose that Penn State game for us.  That was ridiculous.

This reminds me of when it was written that the triangle

<hose>

Everything reminds you of Phil Greene. With you it all circles back to him. That's one of the many reasons you're such a bore.

Quote from: SJUFAN on March 29, 2014, 12:37:15 PM

Quote from: Foad on March 29, 2014, 08:27:07 AM

Quote from: SJUFAN on March 28, 2014, 11:02:30 PM

I'm not saying Sampson wasn't a good player for us, I'm saying he was a terrible rebounder

Sampson led the team in rebounding two years in a row. In those two years he had 420 total rebounds, more than two year players Ron Artest, Billy Goodwin, Lamont Middleton, and Wayne McKoy. Those guys must have  been really really terrible rebounders.

At 420 total he's slightly behind three year players Jason Williams (490) and Billy Singleton (500). Had he returned for his Jr year he would have passed them and terrible rebounders Chris Mullin (509) and Willie Glass (618), putting him just behind terrible rebounders Bill Wennington (644) and David Russell (667). Had he played 4 years he likely would have ended his career as only the third player in SJ history with 800 rebounds, behind Z Hamilton and Malik Sealy.

Its all relative. He's a poor rebounder who plays on a bad rebounding team. The ball has to fall in someone's hands. Those guys you mentioned did not play on bad rebounding teams. Similar to the notion of the best player on a bad team may not be a good player on a good team. If you have an eye for that sort of thing you could see he is not a good rebounder, numbers aside. Sometimes you have to look past the statistics.   

The ball just happened to fall in his hands more often than it fell in everyone else's hands for a period of two years, and I'd realize that if I were as discerning as you. That's a load of nonsense and you'd recognize it for that if you had a keen eye for bullshit, as I do.

Because you lack the ability to assess basketball ability and defer to statistic's to make a point that is contrary to what his actual ability shows doesn't mean what I'm saying is bullshit, stick to giving history lessons, it's a much better read. Or maybe you'll try to convince us that Branch is a better shooter than Jordan, Greene, and D'lo because his FG% is higher.

When the team wins the coach gets all the credit. When they don't he gets all the blame. An. "I failed" wouldn't make it all better, but it would at least make him seem aware of what happened.

Because you lack the ability to assess basketball ability and defer to statistic's to make a point that is contrary to what his actual ability shows doesn't mean what I'm saying is bullshit

What makes what you say bullshit are the stupid things you say. I have nothing to do with it, all I'm doing is pointing it out. In this case the bullshit comprises you saying that the 7th leading rebounder in the BE conference is a "terrible" rebounder into whose hands missed shots just happen to fall. If you don't realize how nice personic that is I can't help you.

 

Quote from: SJUFAN on March 29, 2014, 07:16:08 PM

Because you lack the ability to assess basketball ability and defer to statistic's to make a point that is contrary to what his actual ability shows doesn't mean what I'm saying is bullshit

What makes what you say bullshit are the stupid things you say. I have nothing to do with it, all I'm doing is pointing it out. In this case the bullshit comprises you saying that the 7th leading rebounder in the BE conference is a "terrible" rebounder into whose hands missed shots just happen to fall. If you don't realize how nice personic that is I can't help you.

In this case the bullshit comprises you saying that the 7th leading rebounder in the BE conference is a "terrible" rebounder into whose hands missed shots just happen to fall.

WTF! have you ever watched a game? So basically regardless that opposing teams treat him like a rag doll is irrelevant, he's a great rebounder because he's 7th in the conference. Ok, so whose a better 2pt shooter, Dom or D'lo? 

Quote from: SJUFAN on March 28, 2014, 11:02:30 PM

I'm not saying Sampson wasn't a good player for us, I'm saying he was a terrible rebounder

Sampson led the team in rebounding two years in a row. In those two years he had 420 total rebounds, more than two year players Ron Artest, Billy Goodwin, Lamont Middleton, and Wayne McKoy. Those guys must have  been really really terrible rebounders.

At 420 total he's slightly behind three year players Jason Williams (490) and Billy Singleton (500). Had he returned for his Jr year he would have passed them and terrible rebounders Chris Mullin (509) and Willie Glass (618), putting him just behind terrible rebounders Bill Wennington (644) and David Russell (667). Had he played 4 years he likely would have ended his career as only the third player in SJ history with 800 rebounds, behind Z Hamilton and Malik Sealy.

I guess our all time leading rebounder George Johnson doesn't count.

WTF! have you ever watched a game? So basically regardless that opposing teams treat him like a rag doll is irrelevant, he's a great rebounder because he's 7th in the conference. Ok, so whose a better 2pt shooter, Dom or D'lo? 

Sorry, it's impossible for me to take seriously the faux outraged have-you-ever-watched-basketball of someone who recently claimed that D'Angelo Harrison was not a "core member" of the SJU basketball team and had to be bludgeoned into submission on that account. I'd suggest that you'd have to do better than WTF (the exclamation point is a nice touch!!) but am confident that better than that is beyond you. OTOH I'm happy to instruct you in elementary rhetoric, so:

I did not say Sampson was a "great rebounder." I merely disagreed with your characterization of him as a "terrible" one and then presented facts -- sorry, fact (\`fakt\) is a noun meaning "a thing known to be true; something that actually exists; reality; truth" -- tending to prove your opinion of Sampson's rebounding skill false and absurd. Your restatement of my argument is a strawman, and like all strawmen lacks a brain.

I appreciate your attempt to change the subject to first Jamal Branch and then Dominic Pointer. No doubt you'd like to discuss almost anything but the stupid things you've said about Sampson in this thread. However in the interest of comity I suggest we table any discussion of what I don't doubt will be your dopey uninformed opinions about Branch and Pointer until I've finished gnawing on the bones of your dopey uninformed opinion of Sampson.

Quote from: SJUFAN on March 29, 2014, 09:39:50 PM

WTF! have you ever watched a game? So basically regardless that opposing teams treat him like a rag doll is irrelevant, he's a great rebounder because he's 7th in the conference. Ok, so whose a better 2pt shooter, Dom or D'lo? 

Sorry, it's impossible for me to take seriously the faux outraged have-you-ever-watched-basketball of someone who recently claimed that D'Angelo Harrison was not a "core member" of the SJU basketball team and had to be bludgeoned into submission on that account. I'd suggest that you'd have to do better than WTF (the exclamation point is a nice touch!!) but am confident that better than that is beyond you. OTOH I'm happy to instruct you in elementary rhetoric, so:

I did not say Sampson was a "great rebounder." I merely disagreed with your characterization of him as a "terrible" one and then presented facts -- sorry, fact (\`fakt\) is a noun meaning "a thing known to be true; something that actually exists; reality; truth" -- tending to prove your opinion of Sampson's rebounding skill false and absurd. Your restatement of my argument is a strawman, and like all strawmen lacks a brain.

I appreciate your attempt to change the subject to first Jamal Branch and then Dominic Pointer. No doubt you'd like to discuss almost anything but the stupid things you've said about Sampson in this thread. However in the interest of comity I suggest we table any discussion of what I don't doubt will be your dopey uninformed opinions about Branch and Pointer until I've finished gnawing on the bones of your dopey uninformed opinion of Sampson.

I find it interesting you failed to answer the question, perhaps its because by doing so would have exposed your reasoning or "fact" as you say as being "dopey". So you don't believe he's terrible, then what do you believe? Is he good, average, below average? Comparing him to all time leading rebounders in SJU history gives the impression that you believe he is at least good. If not, then you are even a bigger anus than I thought.

I can tell you this, and you can disagree with it all you want, you can quote all the statistics you want, but he's considered a poor rebounder/defender by those who matter most to him. Its his defense/rebounding that prevented him from being named to a All BE team. It's his defense/rebounding that may prevent him from being drafted. If that's the case, I classify that as terrible.   

I find it interesting

Yes, I'm often interesting. You should try it some time.

you failed to answer the question, perhaps its because by doing so would have exposed your reasoning or "fact" as you say as being "dopey".

I didn't answer the question because it's irrelevant. If you weren't so rhetorically feeble you'd understand why.

So you don't believe he's terrible, then what do you believe? Is he good, average, below average? Comparing him to all time leading rebounders in SJU history gives the impression that you believe he is at least good. If not, then you are even a bigger anus than I thought.

Comparing him to the leading rebounders in SJ history, to whom he compares favorably, is proof that he's not terrible. Perhaps if I repeat that over and over again it will penetrate your thick skull. The only relevant metric at skill for rebounding is number of rebounds rebounded. It has nothing to do with your impressions of his footwork or your fantasmagorical  claims that missed shots land in his hands at random. It's how many rebounds he gets. Since he is seventh in the conference in rebounding, leads the team in rebounding, and compares favorably with the leading rebounders in SJ history, he is above average at rebounding by definition. See how that works? Of course you do.

I can tell you this, and you can disagree with it all you want, you can quote all the statistics you want, but he's considered a poor rebounder/defender by those who matter most to him. Its his defense/rebounding that prevented him from being named to a All BE team. It's his defense/rebounding that may prevent him from being drafted. If that's the case, I classify that as terrible.   

I don't know "who matters most" to Sampson and neither do you, and even if you were capable of identifying them you have no idea what they think, and neither do you know why he wasn't selected for post season BE honors. So all of that is horseshit and what we are left with is mere repetition. You clasify him as terrible, and therefore he is terrible, and any facts or numbers or statistics that prove him other than terrible you ignore, in prose festooned with exclamation points!!!!

Allow me to cut to the chase, because I'm finding this and you pretty tedious. Your stated theory is that Lavin is a good coach who was done in this year by his players, who are not talented enough to succeed and anyway fail to execute properly his genyious-like stategies. The problem with that theory is that to anyone with eyes it is clear that Lavin is a chowderhead - he is nearly as awful a game coach as Norm Roberts, something I would not have thought possible if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. And the one thing he does well is recruit, having brought in as talented a group of players in four years as any SJ coach ever. Faced with that contrary evidence, to defend your nonsensical theory you are forced to make ever more outlandish claims: that Harrison is a marginally important player, that Sampson is a terrible rebounder, that the team is young -- despite 5 of 7 players with the most minutes being upperclassmen -- and now that you are able to read the minds of NBA scouts and BE head coaches.  All of that is nonsense, bathed in feelings, supposition and illogic, from which no wisdom or insight can be culled. Which is why I will leave this there.

Quote

you failed to answer the question, perhaps its because by doing so would have exposed your reasoning or "fact" as you say as being "dopey".

I didn't answer the question because it's irrelevant. If you weren't so rhetorically feeble you'd understand why.

Quote from: SJUFAN on March 30, 2014, 01:20:48 PM

I find it interesting

Yes, I'm often interesting. You should try it some time.

Quote

you failed to answer the question, perhaps its because by doing so would have exposed your reasoning or "fact" as you say as being "dopey".

I didn't answer the question because it's irrelevant. If you weren't so rhetorically feeble you'd understand why.

Quote

So you don't believe he's terrible, then what do you believe? Is he good, average, below average? Comparing him to all time leading rebounders in SJU history gives the impression that you believe he is at least good. If not, then you are even a bigger anus than I thought.

Comparing him to the leading rebounders in SJ history, to whom he compares favorably, is proof that he's not terrible. Perhaps if I repeat that over and over again it will penetrate your thick skull. The only relevant metric at skill for rebounding is number of rebounds rebounded. It has nothing to do with your impressions of his footwork or your fantasmagorical  claims that missed shots land in his hands at random. It's how many rebounds he gets. Since he is seventh in the conference in rebounding, leads the team in rebounding, and compares favorably with the leading rebounders in SJ history, he is above average at rebounding by definition. See how that works? Of course you do.

Quote

I can tell you this, and you can disagree with it all you want, you can quote all the statistics you want, but he's considered a poor rebounder/defender by those who matter most to him. Its his defense/rebounding that prevented him from being named to a All BE team. It's his defense/rebounding that may prevent him from being drafted. If that's the case, I classify that as terrible.   

I don't know "who matters most" to Sampson and neither do you, and even if you were capable of identifying them you have no idea what they think, and neither do you know why he wasn't selected for post season BE honors. So all of that is horseshit and what we are left with is mere repetition. You clasify him as terrible, and therefore he is terrible, and any facts or numbers or statistics that prove him other than terrible you ignore, in prose festooned with exclamation points!!!!

Allow me to cut to the chase, because I'm finding this and you pretty tedious. Your stated theory is that Lavin is a good coach who was done in this year by his players, who are not talented enough to succeed and anyway fail to execute properly his genyious-like stategies. The problem with that theory is that to anyone with eyes it is clear that Lavin is a chowderhead - he is nearly as awful a game coach as Norm Roberts, something I would not have thought possible if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. And the one thing he does well is recruit, having brought in as talented a group of players in four years as any SJ coach ever. Faced with that contrary evidence, to defend your nonsensical theory you are forced to make ever more outlandish claims: that Harrison is a marginally important player, that Sampson is a terrible rebounder, that the team is young -- despite 5 of 7 players with the most minutes being upperclassmen -- and now that you are able to read the minds of NBA scouts and BE head coaches.  All of that is nonsense, bathed in feelings, supposition and illogic, from which no wisdom or insight can be culled. Which is why I will leave this there.

Whatever, that's your position and how you reached it, I disagree with it.