- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction Score
- 5,508
probably because stanley was a geniunely nice kid, while dyson thought he was hot from day one. people tend to give the former a longer leash than the latter.
We definitely agree on this point, HS - he gets lots of credit for working virtually as hard as humanly possible to advance his own career.Good for JD. Hope he makes it to the NBA. Have to give him credit for trying.
probably because stanley was a geniunely nice kid, while dyson thought he was hot **** from day one. people tend to give the former a longer leash than the latter.
I think it's more about a persons appearance. TB had some flaw in his appearance that bothered people. Same with JD.I think Taliek was polarizing. He had plenty of us in his corner, and some who would say "see, I told you we can't win with him" every time we lost. There are even some who, after he won a title, pointed to his one off game in the whole tournament (Duke) and said we won in spite of him. He's still picking pieces of Jarrett Jack out of his teeth, and the Alabama point guard had something like two points and two assists in the Elite Eight, but since he had a rough day against Duke, some people think we won the title without him.
Saw this on Twitter, thought I should share:
@JoeyBrander: Former UConn star Jerome Dyson has simply been dominating the D-League so far, averaging 23, 3.5 ast and 4.5 reb. Should be in the NBA soon
Good for Jerome. He's probably considered too small for the NBA, but I'm sure as hell rooting for him to make it.
"
I honestly believe JD didn't deserve all the **** he got from the boneyard.
LOL. Funny line.HS - I'm not buying this one. Usually I agree with your psych conclusions. Not this time.
I adored Dyson's scowl, court presence, moxy, toughness, effort, never-say-die, and so on. Those were his best features. I would want him next to me in war.
Just not loading a magazine into a rifle right next to me.
As I said it was hard for me to define what about his "appearance" was creating the degree of negativity he was getting. And to be clear there is no single answer regarding reactions by large numbers of people. It was a bit surprising that someone on a UConn team who played a pivotal role for a NC received the numbers and the degree of negativity he received from UConn fans. It intrigued me as much as it bothered me.I think if anyone was bothered by Taliek's appearance, it was purely basketball related. He didn't look the part of a point guard - he was more of a fullback. His shot was awkward, his game lacked polish, and some of his full-speed forays into the paint were "cover your eyes" material. Yet through it all, his teams always performed well in the postseason. The only bad postseason game on his watch (over his last three years, anyway) was a BE championship game against Pitt, and Taliek actually kept us in that one with 16 points or so in the first half. Yes, he had guys around him to carry much of the burden on offense, but that NC team he was on needed his tenacity to set the tone.
Good analysis. It makes a lot of sense. And you're correct, Taliek had to have a lot of stamina to do this. He was a strategic weapon for JC that gets overlooked. And once again JC came up with a system to gain an advantage over his rivals.Years ago I had a conversation with an insider - and he said that the coaches wanted him to play somewhat helter-skelter, since they wanted transition defense to be one of the first items on the other team's game plan. Because he pushed the ball so much and had offensive weapons around him to run with (with deep shooting range), teams would usually make sure that two players were back at all times after a shot went up, which meant that Ben and Rashad could leak out and get in transition and worry less about the defensive glass. Now there were times Taliek overdid it, and tried to get all the way to rim 1-on-3, but the method to the madness was to make sure that the 3 were back - and over the long haul of a 40-minute game, they'd be able to get more easy shots than their opponents, since they felt Emeka/Josh/Charlie could control the defensive glass on their own against the other team's bigs (i.e. if it was 3-on-3 on the boards, it was a big advantage to us, but 5-on-5 would negate some of that). Taliek also had to be incredibly fit to play that way - since he didn't have a back-up after MW was ineligible. Some teams would respond by sending 4 or 5 to the glass to force everyone to rebound and prevent us from leaking out, and then it become even more imperative for Taliek to push the ball hard in order to get them to change strategy and become more conservative. Sort of the game-within-the-game strategy that went on that year.
Jerome Dyson always struck me as the kind of player who would look at a brick wall, and think he could get an "and-1" by dribblinginto itthrough it
Regardless of anyone's feelings towards his career at UConn, the more players we have in the NBA, the better for the program going forward.
Amen.Especially if they like to write sizable checks towards a new basketball practice facility.....
Yeah, I never understood why people on this board rooted so hard for Stanley, but trashed Dyson (who was about 100 times the player) for being the sole reason that 2009-10 team failed.
But then again, there's people on this board who post things like "Drummond is a bust" after two games, "this team is horrible" after a November loss, and "Stanley Robinson isn't a Big East caliber athlete" (that dude still tries to argue that point), so I guess I shouldn't take anything the dimwits on here say seriously.