John A's comments on Heather

[nan linds]

Recent;y John posted.: " Heather has taken a lot of junk from message boards during her career. But maybe its time to start thinking that she has found her niche and is beginning to excel at it."

Surely he couldn't have referred to the BY. As I recall folks have been very supportive and wondering why she didn't get more time. Negatives must have been on other boards. Right?

 

[speedoo]

No, there have been negative comments here. Not so many recently, and I think most of us agree that she is playing well in her niche. I am delighted to see her doing well.

 

[EricLA]

does anyone REALLY think the negative comments were unwarranted? i certainly do not. the BY has simply echoed Geno's comments. and 99% of the negative comments were always followed by something like "i'm really rooting for Heather... etc etc..."

and would it make anyone feel better if the phrase "negative comments" was replaced with "frank and honest assessments"? because frankly that's what the comments were.

bottom line is i think we ALL appreciate Heather and have rooted for her with a frenzy and passion rarely seen with regards to UCONN players. i'm not saying she's more of a favorite than players like Maya, Diana, or other fan favorites, etc., but those guys were terrific and we mostly simply appreciated them. Heather's support has been vocal and passionate. just listen to fan reaction when she scores in a game...

 

[Icebear]

Yes, the negatives are unwarranted because individuals reduce WCBB to singular talents and responses.

 

[EricLA]

Yes, the negatives are unwarranted because individuals reduce WCBB to singular talents and responses.

well i disagree 100% with this. i defy you to find posts where people went at Heather in a negative way. i certainly can draw a distinction between negative criticism and between pointing out someone is simply not playing well, or not "getting it". i have NEVER seen a BY'er say she is a bad teammate or doesn't belong on the team.

 

[Icebear]

well i disagree 100% with this. i defy you to find posts where people went at Heather in a negative way. i certainly can draw a distinction between negative criticism and between pointing out someone is simply not playing well, or not "getting it". i have NEVER seen a BY'er say she is a bad teammate or doesn't belong on the team.

Disagree all you want. Sorry you don't like it but it is true.

 

[EricLA]

Disagree all tou want. Sorry you don't like it but it is true.

100% not true. show me threads where UCONN fans went at Heater in a negative and unwarranted way. never happened on this board. not ever. sorry but pointing out that a player is not playing well is not nearly the same as going at her with negative criticism. disagree all you want but you are wrong. show some proof.

 

[Wonkster]

... Negatives must have been on other boards. Right?

.
There are other boards?
.

 

[bajapugsley]

i'm not sure what Ice is talking about but i 've never seen a player more supported than Heather has been on this board.

 

[Kevin G]

I have to agree. I have never seen anything written in a NEGATIVE tone. We all discuss the why's and why not's of the players. Heather works hard every time she is out there. It is more of a mental thing for her. The BY has been nothing but supportive of Heather and we will continue to do so because she is Husky and a great young woman.

 

[gradplus]

I have to agree. I have never seen anything written in a NEGATIVE tone. We all discuss the why's and why not's of the players. Heather works hard every time she is out there. It is more of a mental thing for her. The BY has been nothing but supportive of Heather and we will continue to do so because she is Husky and a great young woman.

 

[VAMike23]

Yes, the negatives are unwarranted because individuals reduce WCBB to singular talents and responses.

Could you translate this into English, please?

 

[pinotbear]

It's a been a while, but I do think I recall some pretty negative stuff - it goes back a year or two, and falls under what I call the "eat our own" syndrome. There seems to be a small group of posters who go after, negatively, local kids. They went after Maria, pretty heavily, and went after Heather to a degree. I don't know if it's because these folks automatically downgrade CT talent, or if Heather & Maria beat their kids, or their local teams, in high school play or AAU play, and they still bear a grudge, but, yeah: there was a bit of it.

 

[pppggg]

She is coming back for a 5th year. Lets keep it positive and hope she improves even more!

A front line of SD at 6-5, HB at 6-3 and BS at 6-4 would be unmatched in WCBB.
Geno would be Lord of the Rings-The Triple Towers.

 

[speedoo]

It's a been a while, but I do think I recall some pretty negative stuff - it goes back a year or two, and falls under what I call the "eat our own" syndrome. There seems to be a small group of posters who go after, negatively, local kids. They went after Maria, pretty heavily, and went after Heather to a degree. I don't know if it's because these folks automatically downgrade CT talent, or if Heather & Maria beat their kids, or their local teams, in high school play or AAU play, and they still bear a grudge, but, yeah: there was a bit of it.

Right and I specifically recall a very stupid post a few years back that accused her of being lazy with bad practice habits. I ripped into that poster and demanded that evidence be provided and of course there was never an answer. And that poster is still here posting, sorry to say.

 

[Icebear]

We have had someone say they hoped she didn't come back and waste a scholarship for a fifth year and take it from someone worthy. Still others are ignorant of the game and simply don't understand it enough to make valid criticism. Other posters, Pinot and speedoo, have already given other examples. it isn't worth the time to go back and drag up those old posts. It is certainly, however, true.

 

[Vowelguy]

This all goes back to a long-standing debate on the BY regarding comments about performance.

Some, and I'm guessing JohnA falls in this category, view any critiques of performance or concerns about ability as "negative". I do not. As long as they're not personal and are based on actual plays or events, I think they're fair game. Others view this as a purely pro-UConn place. (Clearly they don't read the FB board, lol.)

In the past, I've commented on when Heather had had bad games or played poorly, and I've expressed doubts that she would get meaningful playing time - based on years of watching Geno's PT decisions.

Am encouraged to hear that she's been playing more; not sure Dolson can carry the entire load all season. Baylor game will be interesting.

 

[Icebear]

Not sure the FB board is anything to aspire to.

Many comments have exceeded comments about performance. Many seem to be more based in the disappointment and excessive expectations.

 

[VAMike23]

We have had someone say they hoped she didn't come back and waste a scholarship for a fifth year and take it from someone worthy. Still others are ignorant of the game and simply don't understand it enough to make valid criticism. Other posters! Pinot and speedoo, have already given other examples. it isn't worth the time to go back and drag up those old posts. It is certainly, however, true.

These kinds of points are a lot more specific and meaningful than your earlier post re: "negatives are unwarranted". Terms like "negatives" or "negative comments" are so broad they could cover almost anything.

 

[Icebear]

These kinds of points are a lot more specific and meaningful than your earlier post re: "negatives are unwarranted". Terms like "negatives" or "negative comments" are so broad they could cover almost anything.

However, anyone who reads the board regularly should have been well aware of them as pinot and speedoo were. John A.'s comments were likely simple observations of many of those same types of posts.

 

[Icebear]

i'm not sure what Ice is talking about but i 've never seen a player more supported than Heather has been on this board.

The vast majority have given Heather tremendous support that does not mean there aren't a small number who have throw a lot of crap her way. Nor am I talking about critiques on performance. Such critiques, however, are best served when focused and articulated about specific areas for development or repeated errors in play. Meghan C. is right when she notes that Heather frequently brings the ball down too low instead of standing tall and holding the ball high and strong. Whining that Heather is simply playing terrible adds no information and is often blind to the things that she is doing right and is often based only in false comparisons to Tina or others.

 

[meyers7]

We have had someone say they hoped she didn't come back and waste a scholarship for a fifth year and take it from someone worthy.

I don't recall that at all. I do recall people saying they wondered if she would come back for her 5th year (considering her lack of playing time up to that point). I don't think we are going to be short of scholarships. We have plenty available.

Still others are ignorant of the game and simply don't understand it enough to make valid criticism.

Careful there.

Other posters, Pinot and speedoo, have already given other examples. it isn't worth the time to go back and drag up those old posts. It is certainly, however, true.

Well there probably has been some negative stuff (also depending on your definition of negative), but certainly not a lot or enough to make the "boards negative". Truthfully, she hasn't contributed much (on the floor) until this year. (and that's not negative, just factual)

 

[Icebear]

You may not recall it, Meyers, but it was about the time John A. chipped in with comfirmation that Heather would be returning.

 

[Vowelguy]

Still others are ignorant of the game and simply don't understand it enough to make valid criticism.

lol
How fortunate these poor souls are to have you to show them the light about the game's finer points.

 

[speedoo]

I don't recall that at all. I do recall people saying they wondered if she would come back for her 5th year (considering her lack of playing time up to that point). I don't think we are going to be short of scholarships. We have plenty available.
....

Well there probably has been some negative stuff (also depending on your definition of negative), but certainly not a lot or enough to make the "boards negative". Truthfully, she hasn't contributed much (on the floor) until this year. (and that's not negative, just factual)

I specifically recall the negative 5th year comment. There was at least one such comment.

There has definitely been negative stuff. I don't know how many more specifics people need to hear about, but several have been cited and we are not making them up. And, truthfully, she contributed quite a bit to last year's win against Baylor, and she played well in a number of other games. And that is factual.