Isaiah Whaley is back! | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Isaiah Whaley is back!

Status
Not open for further replies.
djct1999 said:
100%. Without Bouk, this current roster is less talented, not more. What a joke. Whaley is a nice surprise and certainly helps our depth and defensive pressence in our frontcourt. As is, this team will struggle to score points. Our backcourt remains a concern. To me, on both ends. We don't have to look to far to see what this team looks like without Bouk. Maryland doubled him all night and we had 4 others who stood still and couldn't hit a side of a barn. I feel part of the problem late in the year was Cole was completely exposed. Gaffney is not a pg and I am not sure he is even a 2. He attacks the rim well, but thats just about it. He cannot run an offense. My guess is this team will play old school basketball. Pound the ball down low and play relentless defense. Games in the 50s, we win. Games in mid 60s and higher, we lose. But more talented without Bouk? What a joke.
Expand ...
I do think Gaffney will surprise you on the upside.
 
superjohn said:
So I see you're just going to gloss over/still pretend I called Bouknight a headache. I don't want you to have another nervous breakdown and threaten lawsuits so I'll ease up...
Expand ...
He was lumped into your headache bucket. However, the main point I made was you saying we would be more talented team next year without Bouknight, when you also pegged him as a high lottery pick. A crazy contradiction.
 
Chief00 said:
Bottom line you said we have more talent than last season, which contradicts your view that Bouknight will go high lottery. What high lottery guy is coming in or developing with high confidence? So wonder you lose bets so often you can’t make good.
I never threaten to sue anyone. Where’s your evidence on that accusation?
Expand ...
Somehow what you keep repeating makes sense in your head, you're a crazy person.
 
Chief00 said:
He was lumped into your headache bucket. However, the main point I made was you saying we would be more talented team next year without Bouknight, when you also pegged him as a high lottery pick. A crazy contradiction.
Expand ...
You continue to misinterpret what I said and you clearly have no idea what contradiction means.
 
Chief00 said:
He was lumped into your headache bucket. However, the main point I made was you saying we would be more talented team next year without Bouknight, when you also pegged him as a high lottery pick. A crazy contradiction.
Expand ...

At the risk of immediately regretting wading into this, it's not that contradictory if you could just exercise a modicum of rational thought. The argument is that the addition of several new players plus the development of existing players will - COLLECTIVELY - lead to a team with more talent than this years, even including a lottery pick. Whether that ends up being true or not remains to be seen, but it's not a particularly complicated idea to understand.

I recognize in advance that there is a 0% chance of a response that isn't a mischaracterization or deflection.
 
You said we would be a far more talented next year. Since we are losing our most talented player (Bouknight), that just doesn’t make sense.
F466C213-B750-4704-A12B-9D97C7BCBC61.png
 
.-.
BigErnMcCracken said:
At the risk of immediately regretting wading into this, it's not that contradictory if you could just exercise a modicum of rational thought. The argument is that the addition of several new players plus the development of existing players will - COLLECTIVELY - lead to a team with more talent than this years, even including a lottery pick. Whether that ends up being true or not remains to be seen, but it's not a particularly complicated idea to understand.

I recognize in advance that there is a 0% chance of a response that isn't a mischaracterization or deflection.
Expand ...
This is just sad, there's no rational thought with this guy. As I'm typing this he screenshots my post thinking this proves what he's trying to say. Dude's brain is broken.
 
Chief00 said:
You said we would be a far more talented next year. Since we are losing our most talented player (Bouknight), that just doesn’t make sense.
View attachment 66699
Expand ...
UConn adds 4 players who are very talented in Akok, Hawkins, Diggins, and Johnson. They return two ultra talented players in Jackson and Sanogo who will make a leap. Players who hadn't played together will have a season together and an offseason together and everyone Hurley wanted to return are returning and I think another talented player who will fill a need will come in. Bouknight is a great talent, he's also just one player.

Others may disagree and think we'll be worse next season than this past season but you're the only one who would think what I said is contradictory and would think I called Bouknight a headache.
 
Chief00 said:
You said we would be a far more talented next year. Since we are losing our most talented player (Bouknight), that just doesn’t make sense.
View attachment 66699
Expand ...
Try to follow along with us Chief. Imagine you have 5 pennies. A bad man comes and takes 2 pennies from you. But then 3 friends come and give you 1 more penny each. How many pennies do you have now? Is it more than you started with?
 
BigErnMcCracken said:
At the risk of immediately regretting wading into this, it's not that contradictory if you could just exercise a modicum of rational thought. The argument is that the addition of several new players plus the development of existing players will - COLLECTIVELY - lead to a team with more talent than this years, even including a lottery pick. Whether that ends up being true or not remains to be seen, but it's not a particularly complicated idea to understand.

I recognize in advance that there is a 0% chance of a response that isn't a mischaracterization or deflection.
Expand ...
Pretty weak argument. We don’t “collectively” take a shot to score and win a game. You need that talented star player. He said we would be “far more talented” and you are hanging your hat on the incremental development of mostly role players to get us there. We don’t have “several” new players as you cited nor “4” as @superjohn mentioned, thus far we have 3 barring a reclass or a transfer such as Corey Floyd, who currently is 2022. Of the three, I think Hawkins is the best but he’s not as athletic as Bouknight. Sanogo played well this season and will continue that trajectory. Jackson needs to demonstrate he can shoot, although Chief likes other aspects of his game.
 
Last edited:
Get a Job said:
Try to follow along with us Chief. Imagine you have 5 pennies. A bad man comes and takes 2 pennies from you. But then 3 friends come and give you 1 more penny each. How many pennies do you have now? Is it more than you started with?
Expand ...
We aren’t talking quantity we are talking “far more talented” per @superjohn. I would love that and maybe we will make some good pickups but as things stand today - - it’s just not true.
 
.-.
Chief00 said:
Pretty weak argument. We don’t “collectively” take a shot to score and win a game. You need that talented star player. He said we would be “far more talented” and you are hanging your hat on the incremental development of mostly role players to get us there. We don’t have “several” new players as you cited nor “4” as @superjohn mentioned, thus far we have 3 barring a reclass or a transfer such as Corey Floyd, who currently is 2022. Of the three, I think Hawkins is the best but he’s not as athletic as Bouknight. Sanogo played well this season and will continue that trajectory. Jackson needs to demonstrate he can shoot, although Chief likes other aspects of his game.
Expand ...

I believe he included Akok among the new players because he was a non-factor this year due to injury. That also does not seem like a difficult concept to understand but you're really working hard not to. Again, reasonable minds can disagree but at least now you seem to realize why your statement that it was a "contradiction" was wrong. So that's progress. And that's enough for me on this thread.
 
Are you better off with Whaley for 1 year or trying to land Tre Mitchell with 3 years of eligibility? Can’t have both. Who is the team’s alpha dog? Who has the ball in their hand the last minute down by 1? Whaley doesn’t solve the team’s biggest issues
 
tennmike said:
What are you trying to say? Why so curt?
Expand ...
Simply that the thread is about Whaley returning and somehow it managed to get derailed like every other thread. Gets annoying thinking there are updates and only additions to the thread are back and forth comments from people that should probably just ignore each other. Just trying to get thread back to welcoming a player back home.
 
.-.
navery12 said:
I thought basketball was a team game and not all about which singular player was the best, apparently I'm wrong
Expand ...
It is when you need a guy to make a big play at the end. They all can’t have their hands on the ball taking the shot.
 
Magic32 said:
Simply that the thread is about Whaley returning and som get derailed like every other thread. Gets annoying thinking there are updates and only additions to the thread are back and forth comments from people that should probably just ignore each other. Just trying to get thread back to welcoming a player back home.
Expand ...
In the context of this thread's back-and-forth, I was just messing with you.
 
This thread could be a case study for phsychology students in narcissism and schizophrenia.

And FWIW Whaley's shooting in conference play seemed to improve even as his 2 pt % plummeted. If he can regress to the mean in the pain and keep his shooting around 35% on, say, 3-4 attempts per game... I think he could not be a square peg in a round hole playing the 4. I think it's doable for him.
 
imno1 said:
Expand ...

You dudes can’t even get the number of new players correct. Finally @BigErnMcCracken tries to bail out his (several new players) and non @superjohn (4 new players) untruths by counting Akok as new - a guy whose been on campus for 2 1/2 years. You can’t make it up. Characterizing these guys as Casual Fans would be a huge upgrade over reality.
 
.-.
Chief00 said:
You dudes can’t even get the number of new players correct. Finally @BigErnMcCracken tries to bail out his (several new players) and non @superjohn (4 new players) untruths by counting Akok as new - a guy whose been on campus for 2 1/2 years. You can’t make it up. Characterizing these guys as Casual Fans would be a huge upgrade over reality.
Expand ...
We all know about the mental problems but you're being impossibly stupid. Mischaracterize what I say, admit to not knowing what contradiction means, not knowing what several means. Akok played 29 minutes this season, it was basically a red shirt season as I said. It will be three new players ranked in the top 70 coming in, along with the addition of a Akok actually playing, improvements from other key players, and most likely an additional player or two who fill a need.

We all liked you better when you threw your tantrums, threatened lawsuits, and ruined TOS.
 
Chief00 said:
You dudes can’t even get the number of new players correct. Finally @BigErnMcCracken tries to bail out his (several new players) and non @superjohn (4 new players) untruths by counting Akok as new - a guy whose been on campus for 2 1/2 years. You can’t make it up. Characterizing these guys as Casual Fans would be a huge upgrade over reality.
Expand ...

Honestly, man, I know we have to treat you like a baby because you're so delicate but everyone's seen you over the past few months. I don't know who you think you're kidding at this point.
 
BigErnMcCracken said:
Honestly, man, I know we have to treat you like a baby because you're so delicate but everyone's seen you over the past few months. I don't know who you think you're kidding at this point.
Expand ...
He's probably in a haze from all the partying he's been doing with Drummond.
 
FWIW, I comment on the dialogue above without taking sides.

In the old days, when there were no computers and therefore, nothing "online," sharp dialogue, screeds, and diatribes were penned in Letters to the Editor.

Today, we have online forums for anonymous sarcasm and ad hominems.

Frankly, it beats Colbert because he has screenwriters. Here, it is like Improv. Especially so when the response is almost instantaneous.

Very interesting stuff. Maybe, the Oxford Debate Society can learn something from the BY.

Nothing like the Women's Board.

Are they actually nicer or do they just reserve their barbs for face to face confrontations?
 
husky429 said:
This thread could be a case study for phsychology students in narcissism and schizophrenia.

And FWIW Whaley's shooting in conference play seemed to improve even as his 2 pt % plummeted. If he can regress to the mean in the pain and keep his shooting around 35% on, say, 3-4 attempts per game... I think he could not be a square peg in a round hole playing the 4. I think it's doable for him.
Expand ...
You would be the case study. LOL
BigErnMcCracken said:
Honestly, man, I know we have to treat you like a baby because you're so delicate but everyone's seen you over the past few months. I don't know who you think you're kidding at this point.
Expand ...
Two guys you can count on to be wrong about nearly everything. In @BigErnMcCracken case it’s kind of harmless but in @superjohn case he bets on his “insights” and he invariable loses and doesn’t pay. Still sitting here waiting for that proof, I threaten to sue someone and am therefore a baby. They keep repeating that lie and of course can’t produce the proof because it never happened.
 
Chief00 said:
You would be the case study. LOL

Two guys you can count on to be wrong about nearly everything. In @BigErnMcCracken case it’s kind of harmless but in @superjohn case he bets on his “insights” and he invariable loses and doesn’t pay. Still sitting here waiting for that proof, I threaten to sue someone and am therefore a baby. They keep repeating that lie and of course can’t produce the proof because it never happened.
Expand ...

It's okay Chief. You're definitely the smartest, you definitely have inside information, and you're definitely not completely insane. You also definitely didn't humiliate yourself with your posts on a completely different topic back in January.

(Don't tell on me, I know that's your thing.)
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,214
Messages
4,557,487
Members
10,442
Latest member
StatsMan


Top Bottom