Did Morgan Help UConn By Leaving?

[Los24]

There are 200 minutes available to a team in a college bball game, a maximum of 40 per player. If Tuck came back, and was healthy, she would get 25-30+ minutes per game. That's 25-30+ minutes that somebody else is not getting.

Watching someone do something and doing it yourself are two different things. Gabby watched Tuck for 2 years, and when she got her opportunity, she struggled for several games with fouls until learning how to play without fouling. In addition, if Tuck was back, Gabby would have been a wing with Lou moving to the 2-guard. Nat would have backed up Tuck in the post. Next year, when Z & Batouly are eligible, Gabby will not be defending the post.

In addition, Pheesa would not have developed the monster low post offensive game that she has because Tuck would have been the 1st option inside on offense.

With Lou at the 2 and Kia at the 1, Saniya and Crystal would have had far less minutes and their development could have been limited as well.

Your last argument about Gabby & Pheesa going down with injury is completely irrelevant to this thread. My only point is that as great as Tuck is, she has micro-fractures in her knees that will limit her basketball playing days, and could have limited her had she come back as a redshirt senior.

I think game #1 Pheese took over a dominated in the post so her development and skills were pretty good to start with.... I doubt Tuck would have a negative impact. Geno often talks about wanting and needing more depth so I guess we should tell him that not having Tuck is better because than them playing 30mins a game versus 25 mins since it would have stunted their growth. Nat is the only one that argument makes sense for and since we have a potential AA and NPOY candidate coming in next year its not as critical. Its also funny how folks act as if they are UConn coaches and make statements this person would go here and that person there. Gabby is a great athlete and defender but she should not be guarding the real bigs. Tuck was/is better defending the bigger players. May not be as flashy and exciting but better. Perhaps this year is stunting her growth against guarding players she will be guarding next year or the WNBA?

Lastly, I made the point about the others going down with injury because there are a lot of circumstances to an injury. Tuck played the whole year last year and could have possibly played fine all year this year. So I was using the same argument. I guess that is not allowed but ironic when you look at Gabby's medical history.

 

[Los24]

You people do know that losing games is not the end of the world. I feel the same ways as geno in that this team needs a good ass kicking. So as far as tuck making the team better, she would only make them deeper because you can't get better than undefeated.

That is incorrect. Ask Geno just because you win that does not mean you can not improve (Be better.) That is a core philosophy to coaching these great teams.

 

[meyers7]

There is no debate here because you refuse.

You're right, because it's not possible. To debate with someone both people must have the same sphere of reference. We don't.

This is what I said, "This team would be deeper, but would they be better? Probably yes but I'm not sure the starting five would be better or more effective with Tuck." That's a reasonable take, not purple water.

As I've explained a few times now (not sure why you don't get it - well actually I do know why you don't get it),
THIS is what you said:

......And I think right now KLS, Gabby and Collier are all better players than Tuck. ....... but she would hold back this starting unit. Her role would be coming off the bench.

THAT is purple water.

 

[meyers7]

I made this point earlier in this thread, as did some others, but it appears to have been lost in the discussion.

There is no way that a "healthy" Morgan Tuck would not be a great benefit to this team for all the reasons outlined previously. But since we are playing "what if" here, what if Morgan were to play well into the season only to go down with her fragile knees, UConn would be in a real pickle.

With their top post defender out and the prospect of a FF rematch with Baylor, SC, MD or another team with size and strength in the post, Gabby, Pheesa & Nat would have to go on a crash course on how to defend the post against lesser teams.

Under that scenario, the Huskies would not be as good as they are right now without Morgan.

See, now that is an debatable argument. Clearly wrong, but none the less it's in the same sphere of reality, hence debatable.

Los24 does fine showing it's fallacy.

Disagree. Gabby, Pheese and Nat (to lesser degree) would still have had plenty of minutes. The first couple games Gabby was on the bench for much of the game in foul trouble so if Tuck was around we might not have been one shot from losing. Perhaps she could have seen how to defend without fouling, which then if she did go down with injury they would be more prepared/skilled in defending the post.

Also, there is still plenty of season to go so if Gabby or Pheese go down with injury is your argument you wish you did not have them so Nat and Kyla had more minutes?

 

[meyers7]

You people do know that losing games is not the end of the world. I feel the same ways as geno in that this team needs a good ass kicking. So as far as tuck making the team better, she would only make them deeper because you can't get better than undefeated.

Very, very, very wrong. Absurdly wrong. What team have you been watching???

 

[bizarro aj]

^An undefeated team thats going to win another championship without tuck! Care to put your money where your keyboard is!

 

[Icebear]

In case no one noticed,























TROLL!!!​

 

[Wolfdog]

Morgan was a great player at UCONN and was a calming influence on the court as leader. She also had a thick, heavy, and sturdy endomorphic body that allowed her to play against taller post players. Morgan was also fearless in her 3 point shooting, which allowed her to get better as her career at UCONN progressed. But, Morgan was never the shot blocker or the rebounder that Napheesa is, and was not the perimeter defender and rebounder that Gabby is. Would she have helped this team in her 5th season, of course. Would she start, probably. Would they be undefeated, maybe. I remember last season when Gabby would flash to the high post, Mariah would almost always pass the ball to Morgan if presented with the choice. In my opinion, Morgan is not the passer that Gabby is. Neither is she as strong as Gabby. And many of the higher points and higher rebounds that Morgan posted last season were due to the higher number of minutes she played. In some games, Morgan was indispensable, in other games she was steady, some she couldn't make a chippy, and when she took time off to rest her knee UCONN didn't miss a beat. Last year's team was an undefeated championship squad primarily because of Stewie and Mo. Their weakness, left unexposed was youth. Everyone else on that team was a role player. This year's team is made of role players who meld wonderfully. Their weakness is lack of depth, and it is apparent to everyone. That's why Natalie and Crystal's development is so crucial.

 

[CocoHusky]

You lost it here. No one said that Tuck would be a detriment to this team.

I know, but...I'll go there. This team would be deeper, but would they be better? Probably yes but I'm not sure the starting five would be better or more effective with Tuck.

Morgan is a great player and the more good players you have the better, but she would hold back this starting unit. Her role would be coming off the bench.

Talk about alternative facts!

 

[Waquoit]

Talk about alternative facts!

Wrong again, another failed gotcha. My statements are wholly consistent. The "starting five" and the "team" are not the same thing. Stating that a player would be an asset to a team though not a starter is not the same a saying the player would be detriment. You are being either dishonest or obtuse to make that leap.

I had a feeling that "holding back" might ruffle some. After the Baylor game, the talk was how UConn would have to attack bigger teams with quickness because they don't have the height in past years. It was a revelation. You put Tuck in there, the team's pace would slow and I'm not sure her added height is enough to make up the difference. And who sits? Collier? She just went 12-14 from the floor, she's a better low post scorer than Tuck. Gabby? You are going to sit the most dynamic player in the country? KLS' shooting is a must and you need two ball handlers. That leaves Tuck as a great 6th man. Her team play was always one of her assets.

 

[Waquoit]

You're right, because it's not possible. To debate with someone both people must have the same sphere of reference. We don't.

It's not that tough. I gave my side, you give your side. Give it a try, it's all for fun. I've tried several times to draw your reasons out, each time you decline and double down on insult. That is so lazy and easy. I'm thinking you probably know I could poke holes in anything you come up with so you just stick to personal attacks.

 

[CocoHusky]

Wrong again

 

[CocoHusky]

Morgan was a great player at UCONN and was a calming influence on the court as leader. She also had a thick, heavy, and sturdy endomorphic body that allowed her to play against taller post players. Morgan was also fearless in her 3 point shooting, which allowed her to get better as her career at UCONN progressed. But, Morgan was never the shot blocker or the rebounder that Napheesa is, and was not the perimeter defender and rebounder that Gabby is. Would she have helped this team in her 5th season, of course. Would she start, probably. Would they be undefeated, maybe. I remember last season when Gabby would flash to the high post, Mariah would almost always pass the ball to Morgan if presented with the choice. In my opinion, Morgan is not the passer that Gabby is. Neither is she as strong as Gabby. And many of the higher points and higher rebounds that Morgan posted last season were due to the higher number of minutes she played. In some games, Morgan was indispensable, in other games she was steady, some she couldn't make a chippy, and when she took time off to rest her knee UCONN didn't miss a beat. Last year's team was an undefeated championship squad primarily because of Stewie and Mo. Their weakness, left unexposed was youth. Everyone else on that team was a role player. This year's team is made of role players who meld wonderfully. Their weakness is lack of depth, and it is apparent to everyone. That's why Natalie and Crystal's development is so crucial.

I found this definition of "endomorphic"-a person with a soft round body build and a high proportion of fat tissue.
I find your description of Morgan as "heavy & endomorphic" to be highly offensive & insulting.
Is that what you intended?

 

[hoophuskee]

Morgan was a great player at UCONN and was a calming influence on the court as leader. She also had a thick, heavy, and sturdy endomorphic body (1) that allowed her to play against taller post players. Morgan was also fearless in her 3 point shooting, (2) which allowed her to get better as her career at UCONN progressed. But, Morgan was never the shot blocker or the rebounder that Napheesa is, (3) and was not the perimeter defender and rebounder that Gabby is. Would she have helped this team in her 5th season, of course. Would she start, probably. (4) Would they be undefeated, maybe. (5) I remember last season when Gabby would flash to the high post, Mariah would almost always pass the ball to Morgan if presented with the choice. (6) In my opinion, Morgan is not the passer that Gabby is. Neither is she as strong as Gabby. And many of the higher points and higher rebounds that Morgan posted last season were due to the higher number of minutes she played. In some games, Morgan was indispensable, in other games she was steady, some she couldn't make a chippy, (7) and when she took time off to rest her knee UCONN didn't miss a beat. Last year's team was an undefeated championship squad primarily because of Stewie and Mo. Their weakness, left unexposed was youth. Everyone else on that team was a role player. This year's team is made of role players who meld wonderfully. Their weakness is lack of depth, and it is apparent to everyone. That's why Natalie and Crystal's development is so crucial.

1-- Yes Morgan was able to guard good post players. Only one player in which the opposing team was any type of thread had their way UCONN, right?

2-- Yes Morgan shot better from 3. She also passed better as well. With her passing last year - she had 115 assists and 53 tunrovers. And could you imagine how much better Morgan's numbers would have been if she had the soph Collier, the Soph Lou, the junior Nurse, the jr (and healthy Chong) and a better player in Gabby? Her assist numbers vs to's would have been much higher. What I find laughable is anyone that thinks Tuck would have held back the player's and/or team like the poster waquit believes. Collier clearly said that last year she needed to work on her upper strength. She was saying that because she wasn't FINISHING WELL INSIDE-- why? BECAUSE SHE WAS A FROSH- she needed to work on her strength. In game ONE as the poster Los24 cites, she was super. How can anyone think tuck would "hold back" Collier if Collier had already shown after THE 1ST GAME OF THE SEASON she was a force?

3-- Yes Tuck was not the perimeter defender and rebounder that Gabby is. But no one is the overall defender Gabby is, right? But Tuck was pretty darn good vs low post players like Coates, wasn't she?

4/5/7-- Who would have beaten UCONN? You mean - you meant to use a scenario that IF Morgan missed her shots vs Baylor while only giving a few minutes to Danger while Nurse would remain in a funk while Gabby would have gotten into foul trouble while Collier wouldn't do much until late -- then UCONN would have lost?

5-- While you can cherry pick specific situations of last year and define them as meaningful to you. I can remember specific plays that Tuck did -- and can easily watch the games too vs the teams last year that were potentially the biggest threat to UCONN. -- vs ND, Vs MD, vs Fla State, vs USC, Vs Texas, vs Oregon State, and vs Syracuse. Every one of these games she played well- to - great.

6-- Too bad we couldn't have Gabby passing to Morgan Tuck. And defensively who has the strength Gabby does? And on the perimeter, too bad we don't have her out there and maybe she could "grow" by leading more fastbreaks and posting smaller players and offensive rebounding more players in a half court motion offense with Nurse, Lou, Tuck and Collier?

7-- I think your statement-- is absurd in the manner you speak. A player that should have been a 1st team a/a for two years but just got one year - and you say -- Last year's team was an undefeated championship squad primarily because of Stewie and Mo.
Morgan tuck only played only 26.8 and 25.5 minutes her final two years. Mostly when Tuck was pulled - and with so few minutes played-- she wouldn't have been able to stay in late as often in games to accumulate "numbers." Anyhow last year your disregard for Morgan's importance-- I'll cherry-pick as you've done (when you said - some she couldn't make a chippy) and highlight the games I felt going in that the opposing team was a threat/rival big game. They were vs ND, Vs MD, vs Fla State, vs USC, Vs Texas, vs Oregon State, and vs Syracuse.

Morgan averaged 34.83 minutes.Other avgs - ppg 19.5. fg% 55% overall and 39% from 3. Only averaged 4.67 rebounds But also avgd 4.5 assists vs 2.67 turnovers -- which is an assist to turnver ratio for a post of 1.6875 which is terrific. Her efg% vs the top completion in the biggest games was 60.9%. That is tremendous. She was a HUGE THREAT each game - thus making it difficult to plan for Stewie and YOU are minimizing that? Do you realize the one game we lost two years ago had a lot to do with Morgan coming back from her injury. If she was healthy or had a few more games in her, Stanford doesn't win. As you cite the plays in which MoJeff didn't pass to the underclassman - Gabby- I'll cite how Morgan started to become a beast late in the game before she fouled out. Over the past year or two there was a lot of talk about how Chong was pulled. But so was Stokes -- to Tuck. And Tuck wound up becoming a beast.

Why don't you take a good look at the 2014-2015 game at ND -- while Stewie was 3-12 and MoJeff 0-8? These type of games make the opposition PLAN FOR TUCK ALONG WITH after the Stanford game from 2 years ago we saw what she was capable of doing -- thus UCONN/Geno put her in the starting lineup over Stokes.

http://www.uconnhuskies.com/sports/w-baskbl/stats/2014-2015/ndconn-w.html

 

[hoophuskee]

I found this definition of "endomorphic"-a person with a soft round body build and a high proportion of fat tissue.
I find your description of Morgan as "heavy & endomorphic" to be highly offensive & insulting.
Is that what you intended?

I didn't notice that before. You're right-- it is just all that and more.

You and Meyers and los24 have nailed this thread from the start.

I'm also stunned wolfdog minimized Tuck's contribution when the poster said: Last year's team was an undefeated championship squad primarily because of Stewie and Mo.

IMO that is so wrong.

 

[hoophuskee]

Wrong again, another failed gotcha. My statements are wholly consistent. The "starting five" and the "team" are not the same thing. Stating that a player would be an asset to a team though not a starter is not the same a saying the player would be detriment. You are being either dishonest or obtuse to make that leap.

I had a feeling that "holding back" might ruffle some. After the Baylor game, the talk was how UConn would have to attack bigger teams with quickness because they don't have the height in past years. It was a revelation. You put Tuck in there, the team's pace would slow and I'm not sure her added height is enough to make up the difference. And who sits? Collier? She just went 12-14 from the floor, she's a better low post scorer than Tuck. Gabby? You are going to sit the most dynamic player in the country? KLS' shooting is a must and you need two ball handlers. That leaves Tuck as a great 6th man. Her team play was always one of her assets.

How about all of us that feel you are completely wrong-- it's oaky we think that, right? A difference of opinion. SO in our view you are completely wrong -- and when you say -- Stating that a player would be an asset to a team though not a starter is not the same a saying the player would be detriment.

We think Tuck would no doubt start. If you took a poll - don't you think most posters would predict Tuck would start. Thus in your scenario you are EXACTLY implying she would be a detriment for those of who believe (KNOW) that she would start. So if she did- realizing that a poster such as yourself feels she would be a detriment as a starter-- can you see why you are getting the type of replies you are getting? You're implying that "my team" in which I would start Tuck would "hold back" the others is just sooooo wrong. We don;'t agree that you don't think a lineup of Nurse, Lou, Gabby, Tuck and Collier wouldn't thrive. Not to mention but I will Tuck only played 25-.5 and 26.8 minutes per game.

And then you infleixible comment of that YOU happen to prefer starting two gaurds-- therby implying Chong over Tuck to fit your team because you are so inflexible in your views that YOU MUST have "2 guards?"
Gabby handles the ball like a guard, lou shoots the ball like a guard and Collier has wing skills in which she is more-or-less often pinned to play the paint. You don't think Geno could run a great offense with the five I just mentioned? We tend to see seniors improve - and now we would havehad Tuck as a 5th year senior to boot and she wouldn't have also improved especially since Collier and Gabby and Lou and Chong all showed you EALRY in the season they improved? Chong WAS HURT a lot last year.

We hear players get a soph jump. We got super recruits in Lou and Collier yet Tuck who is a terrific passer for a post and such a threat in the box and such a terrific defender wouldn't have helped them improve? We ehar how players "wear down" instead of having both so much inside in the paint -- wouldn't it make sense to have Tuck handle some inside players so players like Collier don't wear down and ofc have Collier also work on her perimeter game? Can you imagine what Collier will be as she plays more on the perimeter instead look what happened vs Baylor. She got smothered a bit. And more than likely Gabby isn't getting only 25 minutes vs Baylor.

As for "quickness." Isn't Tuck quicker than any of the Baylor posts?

 

[Wolfdog]

I should have made the original statement clearer. Very few individuals can be described as a pure Endomorph, Ectomorph, or Mesomorph, but are usually a combination of all three generally. Typically however, they are primarily a combination of two predominate body types. Without examining Tuck personally, I can't tell if she is an Endo-Mesomorph or a Meso-Endomorph.

Anyone who thinks I was insulting Tuck is looking for a fight. I am an endo-mesomorph who played Division 1 football. I was recruited as a running back and a defensive back, and played both in high school and college. It was my endomorphic qualities of lower center of mass, sub-cutaneous fat, and thick bone structure that made me hard to tackle and harder to injure. It also helped me as a team leader because endomorphs have a tendency to calmness, as does Tuck. It was my higher ratio of mesomorphic tendencies that made me appear slimmer in body structure than Tuck. It also gave me a 44 inch vertical jump. KML also had a high ratio of endomorphic tendencies.

I found this definition of "endomorphic"-a person with a soft round body build and a high proportion of fat tissue.
I find your description of Morgan as "heavy & endomorphic" to be highly offensive & insulting.
Is that what you intended?

didn't notice that before. You're right-- it is just all that and more.

Finally, how can a statement about someone else be highly offensive and insulting to you (CocoHusky and Hoophuskee). "Insult"- speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse. Describing someone's body type is not insulting if it is the truth.
Characteristics of Endomorph: large frame, thick neck, large hands, rounded contours, round face, tends to weight around the abdomen, relaxed posture, slow emotional response, calm, even temperament, high stress tolerance. I have a lot of respect for Tuck. She was a valuable role player for UCONN, in my opinion. She was not a transcendent player like Stewie or the Defensive tone setter and floor general like Mo. Just because other Boneyard contributors don't agree with your assessment of Tuck, doesn't mean we don't hold her in high esteem. "Politically Correct" - conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated. You may be sincere in your outrage, but I think your outrage is more about others disagreeing with your "obviously correct opinion". Adding Tuck to this year's team would certainly make it deeper and more flexible. It is unprovable whether the team would be better. Every time an element in a team changes, the chemistry and possibly the results achieved by that team may change. Tuck had her time here at UCONN and made her choice to move on with her classmates. I am happy for Tuck, and I am happy with the team as it is today. And with the exception of the bench's development, I wouldn't change a thing.

 

[msf22b]

I think the problem with this thread is that you have two issues which cannot be combined.

1.Morgan was, is, a great and rightfully admired player who could help any team, give our team the required depth to make a Nat'l championship inevitable, yada, yada

2. This year's team (and especially the starting 5) have evolved into the BB version of the Miracle on Ice, by some combination of unforeseen growth, some intangible balance, athleticism, ability to (perhaps better than most, even (gasp) all) comprehend and execute Geno's schemes. That make them super students of BB 101 as taught by the more and more acknowledged master of all time...The results: Voila!

I find it impossible to combine the two premises to come to the conclusion that the presence Morgan might have diminished my second thesis.

The arguments are mutually exclusive, no comparison is possible.

 

[CocoHusky]

I should have made the original statement clearer. Very few individuals can be described as a pure Endomorph, Ectomorph, or Mesomorph, but are usually a combination of all three generally. Typically however, they are primarily a combination of two predominate body types. Without examining Tuck personally, I can't tell if she is an Endo-Mesomorph or a Meso-Endomorph.

Anyone who thinks I was insulting Tuck is looking for a fight. I am an endo-mesomorph who played Division 1 football. I was recruited as a running back and a defensive back, and played both in high school and college. It was my endomorphic qualities of lower center of mass, sub-cutaneous fat, and thick bone structure that made me hard to tackle and harder to injure. It also helped me as a team leader because endomorphs have a tendency to calmness, as does Tuck. It was my higher ratio of mesomorphic tendencies that made me appear slimmer in body structure than Tuck. It also gave me a 44 inch vertical jump. KML also had a high ratio of endomorphic tendencies.





Finally, how can a statement about someone else be highly offensive and insulting to you (CocoHusky and Hoophuskee). "Insult"- speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse. Describing someone's body type is not insulting if it is the truth.
Characteristics of Endomorph: large frame, thick neck, large hands, rounded contours, round face, tends to weight around the abdomen, relaxed posture, slow emotional response, calm, even temperament, high stress tolerance. I have a lot of respect for Tuck. She was a valuable role player for UCONN, in my opinion. She was not a transcendent player like Stewie or the Defensive tone setter and floor general like Mo. Just because other Boneyard contributors don't agree with your assessment of Tuck, doesn't mean we don't hold her in high esteem. "Politically Correct" - conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated. You may be sincere in your outrage, but I think your outrage is more about others disagreeing with your "obviously correct opinion". Adding Tuck to this year's team would certainly make it deeper and more flexible. It is unprovable whether the team would be better. Every time an element in a team changes, the chemistry and possibly the results achieved by that team may change. Tuck had her time here at UCONN and made her choice to move on with her classmates. I am happy for Tuck, and I am happy with the team as it is today. And with the exception of the bench's development, I wouldn't change a thing.

That you persist with this description of Morgan is repulsive.
Please do not confuse your repulsive description with my disagreement with BY's about Morgan's contribution to the team or any form of political correctness. That you do not understand (or pretend not to) know why someone would be offended by that description is very telling.
Your body type is?........

 

[cordarone]

at the level of entropy of this thread.
I don't think Sheldon's Somatotype Theory ever found its way onto this forum before.
My only comment is that this theory (to put it charitably) is by no means universally accepted in modern psychology.
Y'all can carry on otherwise.

 

[hoophuskee]

Anyone who thinks I was insulting Tuck is looking for a fight. I am an endo-mesomorph who played Division 1 football. I was recruited as a running back and a defensive back, and played both in high school and college. It was my endomorphic qualities of lower center of mass, sub-cutaneous fat, and thick bone structure that made me hard to tackle and harder to injure. It also helped me as a team leader because endomorphs have a tendency to calmness, as does Tuck. It was my higher ratio of mesomorphic tendencies that made me appear slimmer in body structure than Tuck. It also gave me a 44 inch vertical jump. KML also had a high ratio of endomorphic tendencies.
Finally, how can a statement about someone else be highly offensive and insulting to you (CocoHusky and Hoophuskee). "Insult"- speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse. Describing someone's body type is not insulting if it is the truth.
Characteristics of Endomorph: large frame, thick neck, large hands, rounded contours, round face, tends to weight around the abdomen, relaxed posture, slow emotional response, calm, even temperament, high stress tolerance. I have a lot of respect for Tuck. She was a valuable role player for UCONN, in my opinion. She was not a transcendent player like Stewie or the Defensive tone setter and floor general like Mo. Just because other Boneyard contributors don't agree with your assessment of Tuck, doesn't mean we don't hold her in high esteem. "Politically Correct" - conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated. You may be sincere in your outrage, but I think your outrage is more about others disagreeing with your "obviously correct opinion". Adding Tuck to this year's team would certainly make it deeper and more flexible. .

You're calling someone almost fat. I think your comment is insulting- but not worth going over a fight - because you didn't specifically call her fat. But the reason why I said your prior comment "it's all that and more" is that you are imo denigrating Tuck as a player. You've doubled down now by calling the 1st team all-american a role player. You know the world isn't based on only your pov, right? Therefore, surely any poster that calls out a former 1st team all-American (whom should have been 1st team twice) in the manner you dengrate Tuck- even now as you call her a role player-- you should expect some type of rough feedback, shouldn't you? Because in my opinion I think it is ridiculous for anyone to call a 2-time all-American - a 1st teamer at that "A role player." Thus your post IS insulting to "the value" of Tuck. You can't understand that?

I'm just wondering how you were so adept to point out Tuck's slumps yet in her senior year but conveniently disregard "the role player" competing vs the teams that before the game would have threatened UCONN the most in which she averaged of 19.5ppg while having a 60.9% efg% in which she played good defense?

So in summary:
1-- You are ignoring the big games
2-- You are ignoring the all-amercian status

and then you appear taken aback because some of us think your comment of "endomorphic" didn't imply "fat" despite what some of us feel is that you've already "insulted" Tuck's "value?" How many people do you think agree with you that Tuck was nothing more than - your comment - "Last year's team was an undefeated championship squad primarily because of Stewie and Mo?" And then you don't expect to get a lot of backlash with your "endomorphic" comment? Now you double down with your ridiculous comment that Tuck was a role player? And I'm supposed to read your mind that you aren't; implying that Tuck was fat? You've already made some other comments I felt ridiculous imo.

 

[Wolfdog]

That you persist with this description of Morgan is repulsive.
Please do not confuse your repulsive description with my disagreement with BY's about Morgan's contribution to the team or any form of political correctness. That you do not understand (or pretend not to) know why someone would be offended by that description is very telling.
Your body type is?...

I am an endo-mesomorph who played Division 1 football.

I understand you are repulsed by my description of Morgan's body-type. Politically Correct people alway major in minor things and can't help but get upset with imagined slights and outrageous insults. That's why people call them snow flakes. They whine about their hurt feelings, while trying to shame and bully others.

at the level of entropy of this thread.
I don't think Sheldon's Somatotype Theory ever found its way onto this forum before.
My only comment is that this theory (to put it charitably) is by no means universally accepted in modern psychology.
Y'all can carry on otherwise.

Cordarone, I never quoted Sheldon's somatotyping, you did. Body-typing is settled science in the field of Exercise Science. A tendency toward endomorphy is established in the 4th to 8th week of embryonic development and is due in part to the increased development of the endodermic layer, and produces a body with more emphasis on the anabolic activity of digestion and assimilation (which leads to a tendency for increased weight gain in the form of fat and muscle). The expression of this tendency can be modified by a specific type of diet and exercise, which I won't go into because that would put this discussion further in the weeds. Ayurveda and Chinese medicine have a similar take on mind/body types. Most people will also admit that some people can eat anything and remain slender (called hard-gainers in body building) and those who can just look at food and gain weight.

You're calling someone almost fat. I think your comment is insulting- but not worth going over a fight - because you didn't specifically call her fat. But the reason why I said your prior comment "it's all that and more" is that you are imo denigrating Tuck as a player. You've doubled down now by calling the 1st team all-american a role player. You know the world isn't based on only your pov, right? Therefore, surely any poster that calls out a former 1st team all-American (whom should have been 1st team twice) in the manner you dengrate Tuck- even now as you call her a role player-- you should expect some type of rough feedback, shouldn't you?

I never called Tuck" fat or almost fat". You seem to think body-typing is insulting. Again that is a result of your political correctness. And I certainly didn't denigrate Morgan's ability as a player at UCONN. Morgan is a very attractive woman with endomorphic tendencies, not much difference in that tendency from Beyonce or Marilyn Monroe. Your (you and Cocohusky) insistence that I am insulting Morgan is a typical ploy in political correctness to foster guilt and stifle debate. Terms you both used like: "ridiculous comment", "description of Morgan is repulsive","all of us feel you are entirely wrong". Meyers7 joined you by insisting to Waquoit: "Yea, you're way far gone. People are not even making fun of you, it's beyond that. Gobsmacked was one of the words used to describe peoples' thoughts". I am not impressed by your argument, reading ability, or intimidated by your attempt at bullying me and other posters.

Finally, I know my POV is only that. But you, Hoophuskee seem to think your POV is Gospel.

Therefore, surely any poster that calls out a former 1st team all-American (whom should have been 1st team twice) in the manner you dengrate Tuck- even now as you call her a role player-- you should expect some type of rough feedback, shouldn't you?

The beauty of this current team is they are all fantastic role players, doing what they are individually good at doing. And I believe there are several among them that should be 1st team All-Americans.

 

[hoophuskee]

I never called Tuck" fat or almost fat". You seem to think body-typing is insulting. Again that is a result of your political correctness. And I certainly didn't denigrate Morgan's ability as a player at UCONN. Morgan is a very attractive woman with endomorphic tendencies, not much difference in that tendency from Beyonce or Marilyn Monroe. Your (you and Cocohusky) insistence that I am insulting Morgan is a typical ploy in political correctness to foster guilt and stifle debate. Terms you both used like: "ridiculous comment", "description of Morgan is repulsive","all of us feel you are entirely wrong". Meyers7 joined you by insisting to Waquoit: "Yea, you're way far gone. People are not even making fun of you, it's beyond that. Gobsmacked was one of the words used to describe peoples' thoughts". I am not impressed by your argument, reading ability, or intimidated by your attempt at bullying me and other posters.

Finally, I know my POV is only that. But you, Hoophuskee seem to think your POV is Gospel.

The beauty of this current team is they are all fantastic role players, doing what they are individually good at doing. And I believe there are several among them that should be 1st team All-Americans.

Noooooooooooo--- imo the issue is that imo you seem to have some ingrained excuse of political correctness for anyone that doesn't agree with you and you use that as an excuse to cover up what I feel are flat our wrong analytical statements about the game yet you deliberately avoid the context of the game and keep trying to make it about political correctness . It's almost like in the movie Jaws your Hooper imo trying to cover up your own mistakes and not admit when you're wrong:

Click on below "Quint Character" for the link.


Quint (Character)

[Hooper pulls as the lines snaps and he crashes his head into the wall]
Quint: [picking up the line] Gamin' fish, eh? Marlin? Stingray? Bit through this piano wire? Don't you tell me my business again! You get back on the bridge...
Hooper: Quint, that doesn't prove a damn thing!
Quint: Well it proves one thing, Mr. Hooper. It proves that you wealthy college boys don't have the education enough to admit when you're wrong.

Again I'll have to reiterate to you but I shouldn't have to -- but it seems you are the one intent on arguing not coco or the others which you have inferred/accused just want to argue with you. I'll reiterate that it isn't worth arguing about your use of endomorph but as I look up the definition it does say its' characterized a lot by body fat. But you're trying to turn my main points into a political issue instead of addressing the game of basketball.

IMO your calling Tuck and saying all players on this team are role players is ridiculous. That is MY OPINION. It is not one of a bully. Your calling them role players like me calling Jerry Rice a role player because all eh basically did was catch balls and block a bit yet the primary "players" were his quarterbacks of Montana and Young. And the very fact you are using the word bully is that you don't want to be challenged, thus you use words like bully to try to stifle debate. Sorry but that doesn't work here.

I'm skeptical of every thing you say if you keep insisting on calling players like Tuck, Katie Lou, Gabby and Napheesa "role players." Was Jerry Rice the old Niner WR a role player too?

And I don't know how many times I have to say "imo" to make you realize that my points countering yours were IMO. But again you have "politics" ingrained in you that you are the one always "offended." Reread my posts to you. How many times did I say IMO??????????????????????????

 

[Wolfdog]

Your arguments make no sense. Jerry Rice was the best wide-reciever in the game; a transcendent player. Morgan, Katie Lou, Gabby, and Napheesa are not transcendent players. The current team members may become transcendent college players in the future, but they aren't right now. In Morgan's case, not ever, since her college career is over. Your use of Jerry Rice as an example underscores your lack of understanding.

If you review my post in the Boneyard, I have never applied the term "politically correct" to anyone who disagreed with me. I've only used it in reference to you and Cocohusky, because you guys act like snowflakes feigning anger and outrage over a term and concept you don't understand. Even after I clarified my post and explained body-typing in more detail, you both continued to stick to the basic definition you found. I love a good challenge, but you don't provide one. Your rebuttals are all ad hominem attacks (you can look that up also). It doesn't matter that you qualify your statements with "In my opinion", you treat others as if they don't have a right to their own opinions. They do have that right, and so do you. So I'll leave you to them.

 

[hoophuskee]

Your arguments make no sense. Jerry Rice was the best wide-reciever in the game; a transcendent player. Morgan, Katie Lou, Gabby, and Napheesa are not transcendent players. The current team members may become transcendent college players in the future, but they aren't right now. In Morgan's case, not ever, since her college career is over. Your use of Jerry Rice as an example underscores your lack of understanding.

If you review my post in the Boneyard, I have never applied the term "politically correct" to anyone who disagreed with me. I've only used it in reference to you and Cocohusky, because you guys act like snowflakes feigning anger and outrage over a term and concept you don't understand. Even after I clarified my post and explained body-typing in more detail, you both continued to stick to the basic definition you found. I love a good challenge, but you don't provide one. Your rebuttals are all ad hominem attacks (you can look that up also). It doesn't matter that you qualify your statements with "In my opinion", you treat others as if they don't have a right to their own opinions. They do have that right, and so do you. So I'll leave you to them.

1-- What does "transcendent" mean to you vs role player? Does this mean if you aren't transcendent, then you are a role player?
2-- Do you really think when it comes to women's college basketball (not football) that most people view in your manner that you can be a 1st team all-american yet be called "a role player?" Because YOU are the 1st person EVER EVER EVER EVER that I have EVER EVER EVER heard that has referred to 1st team all-American wcbb player's as "role players."
My point with Jerry Rice was that I assumed your favorite sport was football which mine is basketball. And how do YOU like it when I minimize the impact of a great player in the sport you most likely respect the most?

********Most of the public imo will scoff at anyone that calls a wcbb 1st team all-american "a role player." And just as you saying in my example that my use of Jerry Rice as an example underscores my lack of understanding. That's EXACLTY MY POINT TO YOU ABOUT MORGAN TUCK AND PLAYERS LIKE KATIE LOU, NAPHEESA AND GABBY. I agree with you Rice is transcendent but in terms of basketball - especially UCONN wcbb- I don't think you have an understanding of what the game is the moment you called them role players. And by calling Tuck a role player you diminish what she was. I was just throwing Jerry Rice back in your face.

NOBODY or EXTREMLY FEW people that are fans of wcbb would refer to all-americans in particular Tuck in her last two years in which she was an all-American as a role player imo. Therefore -- if you could admonish me for referring to Rice as role player- which you are correct in admonishing anyone if they say he was-- please don't pretend there is any political correctness bias when I refer to you as someone that has completely no understanding of wcbb. If you could say about others- you should also expect others to say about you. Especially when you make ridiculous claims of Tuck being a role player in which extremely few people would agree with imo that absurd characterization.

And as for this comment -- I have never applied the term "politically correct" to anyone who disagreed with me.
Yes you did to coco and I. Just because you choose to bury your head in the sand doesn't mean you didn't apply the term. Who do you think you're kidding? I love how you can refer to someone like coco and I as snowflakes but then feign being insulted by calling us bullies because we disagree with you. Maybe you can break out the violins or ask someone for a hug the next time coco or I disagree with you. C'mon. Stop turning this or pretending this has anything to do with politics.

ANd here we go with your arrogant points of when I say "imo." YOU DON"T CARE about "my opinion." YOU CHOOSE to feel "wounded" and therby deliberately make up a fantasy in your own mind suggesting I treat others if they don't have a right to their opinions. YET YOU WERE THE ONE who said to me--
Your use of Jerry Rice as an example underscores your lack of understanding.

You need to look hard in the mirror buddy.