AO Article On CBS Sports

[mauconnfan]

My thinking is that this is not 100% - 0% issue, maybe 60%-40%. AO is not all wrong and JC was not 100% right. Can't blame AO for taking it badly after winning a ring and having JC kick him to the curb for the shiny new toy. They should have been able find some common ground. It's wrong to put all the responsibility for the result on the kid, the adult shoud get some blame as well.

BS that "tiny new toy" could have played on the side of AO if AO was any player at all......that's crap.......!!

 

[UChusky916]

BS that "tiny new toy" could have played on the side of AO if AO was any player at all......that's crap.......!!

Agree Mau... pretty sure AO won't be GIFTED or ENTITLED to playing time in the league... he's gotta learn to play with anyone. Calhoun prepares players to be men and professionals so they can make it in the league. AO failed, hence why he won't make it in the league.

 

[Husky68]

2 for 3 and 5 points and 5 rebounds against 1-6 App State. Maybe he is what he showed last year. Not sure how you don't put a player in position to succeed if you play him 21 minutes a game, have a lottery pick at center to play with who plays 28 minutes and play a lot of 3 guard offense where AO was the (or one of two) inside threat(s). Lamb, Bazz and Boat all averaged more than 30 minutes and substitute Calhoun for Lamb and last year and this year team both needed inside threats. So that AO couldn't get it done was on him, it isn't easy for TO and DD this year but AO had his chances last year and didn't make it happen. No one could possibly suggest that TO and DD don't have a chance to shine this year if they are capable, how would you as a coach keep AO with his 21 minutes per game from shining, you get the minutes you can shine unless you are just not capable. Even Nolan and Wolf in their limited minutes have been given a chance to shine, and have actually a couple of time, yet AO wasn't given a chance. I call crapolla.

By the way he had more turnovers than baskets.

 

[huskyharry]

AO was team captain, TEAM CAPTAIN!...then threw the team and his coach under the bus and displayed ultimate disloyalty by transferring.
Very immature and displays very poor character!

 

[mauconnfan]

Donny Marshall was doing the color on the tourney Mizzou played in Thanksgiving week. Donny said that "Oriakhi was not put in a position to succeed last year in UConn." Someone remind me why Donny Marshall is out to get Calhoun again? (Or accept the possibility that there are a lot of people who think AO reacted poorly to being treated poorly.)

Pretty simple BL, Donny wants to do more games as a color analyst. Can't show loyalties or personal differences..........guessing he doesn't like the kid!!! I actually know what he thinks of him........

 

[upstater]

Donny Marshall was doing the color on the tourney Mizzou played in Thanksgiving week. Donny said that "Oriakhi was not put in a position to succeed last year in UConn." Someone remind me why Donny Marshall is out to get Calhoun again? (Or accept the possibility that there are a lot of people who think AO reacted poorly to being treated poorly.)

But Donny's comment was strictly about Pressey feeding him the ball. It wasn't about being treated poorly. It was based on gameplay and strategy.

So, then, the question begs, did we see Oriakhi being fed the ball at all last year? And when he was fed the ball, what did Alex do with it?

 

[ctchamps]

But Donny's comment was strictly about Pressey feeding him the ball. It wasn't about being treated poorly. It was based on gameplay and strategy.

So, then, the question begs, did we see Oriakhi being fed the ball at all last year? And when he was fed the ball, what did Alex do with it?

He was fed the ball and many times it either slipped out of his hands, it was stripped, or it was blocked. He did get into streaks where he got his baby hook going, but he was woefully inconsistent for a big.

And on the defensive he was great at getting rebounds but if the opposing big set screens on the perimeter AO was horrible and handling this situation.

 

[Huskies4ever]

2 for 3 and 5 points and 5 rebounds against 1-6 App State.

I thought Pressey was getting him 8 ppg?

 

[CTBasketball]

If Dyson didn't go down in 08-09' JC would have 4 rings. We were killing teams early/mid in that season. The only teams that gave us a game was Gonzaga and surprisingly, Buffalo.

You can't compare JD to AO ever. JD got into some trouble, had some dumb plays, but he kept his mouth shut. AO was terrible at basketball and opened his mouth whenever he saw the opportunity. I have no respect for AO. I have respect for JD.

 

[DrewDog85]

Jamal Coombs-McDaniel bad mouthed JC publicly while he was a player. Nothing to the degree of AO or AO's dad. That didn't bother me. For that matter AO could live in his own fantasy world as far as I'm concerned. He either will learn from his immaturity and grow or it will bite him in the butt.

My issue was the degree of vitriol directed towards JD during the 2009 season. It was unwarranted. What concerns me is that I consider most people in this this forum to be very intelligent. If intelligent people can be so easily manipulated by the likes of Chief00 who knows what type of thing can happen in the world. OK my tongue is removed from my cheek!

We all know how someone like chief00 get things going. There is a reason a corporal can excite a populous to exterminate million of people, a colonel can get on the radio and with one speech get people to hack hundreds of thousands of people with machetes or some guy can scream against the sins of society and get people to toss millions his way even after it is revealed and proven he committed those very sins.

We see others duped by rhetoric that appeals to human emotions. We just don't believe we are that susceptible. Well we all are and imo have to constantly resist succumbing to mob mentality.

I TOTALLY AGREE,,,, I THINK......

 

[diggerfoot]

If Dyson didn't go down in 08-09' JC would have 4 rings. We were killing teams early/mid in that season. The only teams that gave us a game was Gonzaga and surprisingly, Buffalo.

You can't compare JD to AO ever. JD got into some trouble, had some dumb plays, but he kept his mouth shut. AO was terrible at basketball and opened his mouth whenever he saw the opportunity. I have no respect for AO. I have respect for JD.

I'm responding to this not to dis Dyson but to give Austrie his due. His freshman year he started as point guard for the only tourney they won that year. It was a supremely talented squad that should have gone to the Final Four, so obviously they did not need Austrie to be a star but to facilitate the performance of the rest of the team, and that's precisely my point. At the end of that year we had horrible games against Albany and George Mason (ouch!), but Austrie was one of the only bright lights in both those important games.

Then comes the '08 season. Our best stretch of basketball, including beating Indiana at their place and some other surprise victories, came with Dyson down and Austrie in the starting line-up. Is Austrie a better individual player? Absolutely not. Can he facilitate the others around him to play better. Absolutely. So that brings us to '09, for which you make the rather far out claim that with Dyson we would have won it all. There are two problems with that claim. Yes, we beat up inferior competition except for Buffalo, but no inferior team did we beat more handily than Chattanooga, with Austrie as starting point guard. He missed all his three pointers, which contributes to the perception of the team being able to do better with Dyson, but he led the team in assists, steals and, once again, that was the worst beating we gave any team that year, including mid-majors not good enough to make the tournament.

We did as well against a top ten and twenty team in the tournament with Austrie starting, as we did against top those teams with Dyson as starting guard. You can provide plenty of evidence that Dyson is a better individual player but, please, I challenge you to provide some piece of evidence that shows Dyson makes his team play better than does Austrie.

But let's face it, even if Dyson does make a team around him play better than does Austrie, despite the solid evidence to the contrary, we were not beating North Carolina that year.

 

[CTBasketball]

I'm responding to this not to dis Dyson but to give Austrie his due. His freshman year he started as point guard for the only tourney they won that year. It was a supremely talented squad that should have gone to the Final Four, so obviously they did not need Austrie to be a star but to facilitate the performance of the rest of the team, and that's precisely my point. At the end of that year we had horrible games against Albany and George Mason (ouch!), but Austrie was one of the only bright lights in both those important games.

Then comes the '08 season. Our best stretch of basketball, including beating Indiana at their place and some other surprise victories, came with Dyson down and Austrie in the starting line-up. Is Austrie a better individual player? Absolutely not. Can he facilitate the others around him to play better. Absolutely. So that brings us to '09, for which you make the rather far out claim that with Dyson we would have won it all. There are two problems with that claim. Yes, we beat up inferior competition except for Buffalo, but no inferior team did we beat more handily than Chattanooga, with Austrie as starting point guard. He missed all his three pointers, which contributes to the perception of the team being able to do better with Dyson, but he led the team in assists, steals and, once again, that was the worst beating we gave any team that year, including mid-majors not good enough to make the tournament.

We did as well against a top ten and twenty team in the tournament with Austrie starting, as we did against top those teams with Dyson as starting guard. You can provide plenty of evidence that Dyson is a better individual player but, please, I challenge you to provide some piece of evidence that shows Dyson makes his team play better than does Austrie.

But let's face it, even if Dyson does make a team around him play better than does Austrie, despite the solid evidence to the contrary, we were not beating North Carolina that year.

That is arguable. You can say what you want about stats. Dyson scored more, dished out more passes, and stole more passes. One of the biggest things is the intangibles. He attacked the basket like no other and created fouls. Having Dyson in the lineup meant you had one other player that could score 30 points in a game. Austrie, as good as he was, was not capable of scoring 30ppg. He was cold at the time and teams basically left him open and double-teamed Thabeet, Price, or whoever. Having Dyson in the lineup was so important.

And Austrie didn't primarily play point guard. AJ Price was the primary point guard on that team by far. And you can't say that Austrie was a better scorer than Dyson.

 

[Gurleyman]

I think we all saw what that team was capable of at full strength when we gobsmacked a top-five Louisville team on the road.

Austrie and Dyson brought different things to the table - Austrie was steady, Dyson more explosive. Dyson would have given us another creator against Michigan State, when Price was pretty much locked up by MSU's defensive specialist and Kemba had a case of the freshmans.

We'd have been underdogs against UNC, but I'd have taken my shot against them. Not sure why anyone would think a top-five UConn team with Calhoun wouldn't have had a chance to win a game (other than UNLV '90).

Sent from my BlackBerry 9930 using Tapatalk

 

[CTBasketball]

I think we all saw what that team was capable of at full strength when we gobsmacked a top-five Louisville team on the road.

Austrie and Dyson brought different things to the table - Austrie was steady, Dyson more explosive. Dyson would have given us another creator against Michigan State, when Price was pretty much locked up by MSU's defensive specialist and Kemba had a case of the freshmans.

We'd have been underdogs against UNC, but I'd have taken my shot against them. Not sure why anyone would think a top-five UConn team with Calhoun wouldn't have had a chance to win a game (other than UNLV '90).

Sent from my BlackBerry 9930 using Tapatalk

If we could beat Duke in 99' I think we could have beaten UNC in 09'

 

[Tenspro2002]

By 2008-09, AJ Price had emerged as the undisputed leader of that team and had Dyson under control. He was a much better team player that season than any other year. A brief summary of that era:

2006-07: Dyson was basically the only offensive threat and was given free reign; team was awful
2007-08: AJ was finally back in game shape and took over the team when Dyson was suspended
2008-09: Dyson deferred to AJ's leadership and we played as a team, dominantly
2009-10: Dyson was the leader by default, with disastrous results

So it's not a contradiction to say that Dyson was (overall) a bad team player, while saying that in 2009 we were a much better team with Dyson.

 

[diggerfoot]

That is arguable. You can say what you want about stats. Dyson scored more, dished out more passes, and stole more passes. One of the biggest things is the intangibles. He attacked the basket like no other and created fouls. Having Dyson in the lineup meant you had one other player that could score 30 points in a game. Austrie, as good as he was, was not capable of scoring 30ppg. He was cold at the time and teams basically left him open and double-teamed Thabeet, Price, or whoever. Having Dyson in the lineup was so important.

And Austrie didn't primarily play point guard. AJ Price was the primary point guard on that team by far. And you can't say that Austrie was a better scorer than Dyson.

You are correct that Austrie was not starting point guard, obviously, since he replaced Dyson. That was just careless on my part, carrying over from when he replaced Williams as a point guard in a previous year. That matters not in the least to the case I was presenting.

I don't think you understood my argument. By evidence I did not mean stats, and I conceded that Dyson was a better scorer, and let me add a better stat stuffer in general. My case was about making teammates better, which is not reflected in one's own individual stats. My evidence was in the team's performance with Dyson v. Austrie. In '08 the evidence was clearly in favor of Austrie. In '09 we played 8 top ten teams at the time that we played them and went 4-4. With Austrie as starter and Dyson not even available we went 1-1. Not a clear verdict in favor of Austrie, but not in favor of Dyson either, certainly not enough to extrapolate definitively that if we only had Dyson we would win it all.

I'm adding on responses here but Louisville was #7 when we played them, not top five, and played even worse than their ranking. The highest ranked team we played that year was Pitt at #4 and we lost to them twice, certainly not a resounding case for assuming we automatically beat UNC. It's an overstatement for me to say UConn had no chance, but that's not overstating as much as saying UConn would definitely win.

 

[msgordon]

to further nit your nittery, louisville was the #1 overall seed in the tournament that year

 

[caw]

I don't think you understood my argument. By evidence I did not mean stats, and I conceded that Dyson was a better scorer, and let me add a better stat stuffer in general. My case was about making teammates better, which is not reflected in one's own individual stats. My evidence was in the team's performance with Dyson v. Austrie. In '08 the evidence was clearly in favor of Austrie. In '09 we played 8 top ten teams at the time that we played them and went 4-4. With Austrie as starter and Dyson not even available we went 1-1. Not a clear verdict in favor of Austrie, but not in favor of Dyson either, certainly not enough to extrapolate definitively that if we only had Dyson we would win it all.

I'm adding on responses here but Louisville was #7 when we played them, not top five, and played even worse than their ranking. The highest ranked team we played that year was Pitt at #4 and we lost to them twice, certainly not a resounding case for assuming we automatically beat UNC. It's an overstatement for me to say UConn had no chance, but that's not overstating as much as saying UConn would definitely win.

Umm Dyson did not play in either Pitt game, nor against MSU,

via ESPN, UConn beat the following ranked teams with Dyson: Miami (16), Wisconsin (19), Gonzaga (7), West Virginia (22) Villanova (21), ND (19), UL (7) and lost to Georgetown (8).

Without Dyson, UConn beat Marquette (10) and lost to Cuse (20) and Pittx2 (4).

They also won the Cuse game Dyson was injured in.

In the post season I think Purdue and Missouri were both ranked and MSU was also.

UConn was 7-1 against the top 25 with Dyson and 3-3 without Dyson and 1-0 with Dyson for part of the game.

Either way you are wrong, MSU and Pitt account for 3 losses without Dyson to top 10 teams (MSU was a 2 seed).

 

[Tenspro2002]

Dyson was clearly more of an asset than a liability to that 2009 team. You could debate about whether that was the case in 2007, 2008, and 2010 (and you'd have a strong case for "liability"), but in 2009 we were unquestionably a better team with him.

Among those 2009 wins vs. ranked teams, we snapped Notre Dame's like 50-game home winning streak. That was a historically good team for us, with Dyson, and we would have played a title game for the ages against North Carolina.

 

[diggerfoot]

Umm Dyson did not play in either Pitt game, nor against MSU,

via ESPN, UConn beat the following ranked teams with Dyson: Miami (16), Wisconsin (19), Gonzaga (7), West Virginia (22) Villanova (21), ND (19), UL (7) and lost to Georgetown (8).

Without Dyson, UConn beat Marquette (10) and lost to Cuse (20) and Pittx2 (4).

They also won the Cuse game Dyson was injured in.

In the post season I think Purdue and Missouri were both ranked and MSU was also.

UConn was 7-1 against the top 25 with Dyson and 3-3 without Dyson and 1-0 with Dyson for part of the game.

Either way you are wrong, MSU and Pitt account for 3 losses without Dyson to top 10 teams (MSU was a 2 seed).

I stand corrected due to the Pitt losses (careless again). Actually, for some reason I thought Dyson was available for the first Pitt game, but now I recall both games were close together. That does provide evidence in support of Dyson over Austrie, though far from conclusive. Over the course of their respective careers Austrie more reliably helped the team in the tournaments and big games he started. In years besides 2009 the results for Dyson are not impressive. In 2009 there's not much of a tournament and big game sample for Dyson since he was injured, but perhaps for that one year he would have defied the pattern.

 

[mauconnfan]

I stand corrected due to the Pitt losses (careless again). Actually, for some reason I thought Dyson was available for the first Pitt game, but now I recall both games were close together. That does provide evidence in support of Dyson over Austrie, though far from conclusive. Over the course of their respective careers Austrie more reliably helped the team in the tournaments and big games he started. In years besides 2009 the results for Dyson are not impressive. In 2009 there's not much of a tournament and big game sample for Dyson since he was injured, but perhaps for that one year he would have defied the pattern.

There is no doubt who the better basketball player was, talent wise. The numbers bring up an interesting point as to who was more important to the team but in the end I don't believe Austrie was as instrumental to winning as Dyson was over the course of their careers. Craig was a nice player despite being limited and while he may have been part of big wins I would guess coincidence played a part in may of the numbers you guys speak of. Nonetheless a pretty intriguing comparison!

 

[Rico444]

I stand corrected due to the Pitt losses (careless again). Actually, for some reason I thought Dyson was available for the first Pitt game, but now I recall both games were close together. That does provide evidence in support of Dyson over Austrie, though far from conclusive. Over the course of their respective careers Austrie more reliably helped the team in the tournaments and big games he started. In years besides 2009 the results for Dyson are not impressive. In 2009 there's not much of a tournament and big game sample for Dyson since he was injured, but perhaps for that one year he would have defied the pattern.

What's not conclusive? We were 7-1 against top 25 teams with Dyson, and lost 4 games without him.

The only thing conclusive in this thread is your bitterness towards JD.

 

[Waquoit]

Dyson was clearly more of an asset than a liability to that 2009 team. You could debate about whether that was the case in 2007, 2008, and 2010 (and you'd have a strong case for "liability"), but in 2009 we were unquestionably a better team with him.

Among those 2009 wins vs. ranked teams, we snapped Notre Dame's like 50-game home winning streak. That was a historically good team for us, with Dyson, and we would have played a title game for the ages against North Carolina.

You are right, something clicked with Dyson in 2009 and it stinks that he got hurt. But whatever it was, it got unclicked in 2010.

 

[diggerfoot]

What's not conclusive? We were 7-1 against top 25 teams with Dyson, and lost 4 games without him.

The only thing conclusive in this thread is your bitterness towards JD.

I have no bitterness towards Dyson. From the start I stated I was here to promote Austrie, not dis Dyson. I've conceded that Dyson was the better scorer and stat stuffer. I never said he was bad for the team. When Austrie started the team reliably performed well (though not necessarily Austrie's own stats) in big games in tournaments. The evidence is still not conclusive for Dyson because how many big games or tournaments did Dyson play in during 2009? Louisville was the one big game that I recall. Certainly he does not have the overall body of work of the team playing well in a big game or tournament that Austrie has.

I can sympathize with you if you are a fan who thinks a player you support is unfairly attacked. Dyson certainly has fallen into that category. So, too, has Austrie, which makes me that kind of fan as well. I always felt he was not fully appreciated because as an individual player he does not measure up to others. But basketball is a team game and Austrie was the consummate teammate. He made the teams he started on better, or at least play to their potential.

Hmm. Let me phrase it this way, then. Dyson was unavailable for the Final Four. If Austrie was the one unavailable instead our chances of winning the championship that year would have been no better.

 

[diggerfoot]

There is no doubt who the better basketball player was, talent wise. The numbers bring up an interesting point as to who was more important to the team but in the end I don't believe Austrie was as instrumental to winning as Dyson was over the course of their careers. Craig was a nice player despite being limited and while he may have been part of big wins I would guess coincidence played a part in may of the numbers you guys speak of. Nonetheless a pretty intriguing comparison!

Thanks, mauconnfan, you at least understand what I was getting at. "Coincidence" is a plausible argument, particularly coupled with an argument that 2009 is an outlier as a year. I think the overall bodies of work are enough to rule out "coincidences," we'll just have to disagree on that.

I also think the tournament Austrie started in right off the bat is particularly telling. That, of course, in no way disses Dyson because he was not even an option then. Calhoun had the confidence to start the freshman Austrie in that particular situation, and the freshman responded by facilitating all the stars on the team to play up to their potential, which they often failed to do over the course of that particular season.