John A's comments on Heather

[Icebear]

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

I never said anything about them being poor souls nor have I mocked them. But from the comments some have made it is clear they do not understand what players are being asked to execute or focus on when in the game. As I have said before it is easy to criticize, harder to critique, and hardest of all to offer real suggestions to correct a situation. The kind of comments I am talking about are as soon as any player misses a shot in close a statement will fly that so and so has to start making her layups. This was said about a kid shooting 65% at the time.

 

[meyers7]

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. .

Well there has only been a couple "specifics" neither of which I recall. I'm sure we could find some "negatives" about almost any player. I just don't think she has gotten any more gruff than other players.

And 1 comment from 1 poster, really doesn't make the board "negative".

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.

Contributing in in a couple games isn't really contributing much over the course of her career. Factually she hasn't contributed much on the floor.

I think a lot of people expected more from her, maybe unjustly.

 

[Icebear]

Could you translate this into English, please?

Mike! the best example is the kind of folks who whine about Kelly's scoring some nights and completely ignore the all the other ways I which she may have helped dominate the play.

 

[Icebear]

And 1 comment from 1 poster, really doesn't make the board "negative".

The board not being negative doesn't mean that Heather hasn't taken a lot of unwarranted flack.

 

[Vowelguy]

I never said anything about them being poor souls nor have I mocked them.

I guess I missed the memo where "ignorant" came to be a compliment.

In that case...
Nan/JS/Biff -- you are the most ignorant mods we could ever hope to have!

 

[Aluminny69]

I thought that the board Moderators didn't allow negative posts about the players?

 

[Icebear]

Ignorant simply means do not know, as in, ignorant of the facts. Saying someone is ignorant of the game is simply saying they do not understand the facts affecting the play. I don't know how you use the term.

 

[Aluminny69]

Ignorant simply means do not know, as in, ignorant of the facts. Saying someone is ignorant of the game is simply saying they do not understand the facts affecting the play. I don't know how you use the term.

In my humble opinion, you use terms like FACTS and TRUTH very loosely. I don't agree with your use of these terms.

It takes a wise person to understand the difference between FACTS and OPINIONS.

 

[meyers7]

The board not being negative doesn't mean that Heather hasn't taken a lot of unwarranted flack.

Does imply though, that the board has not been negative towards Heather. (which was the point the OP was making I believe).

I think most of the flack she has taken, has been warranted. However, I don't think she has taken a lot of flack.

 

[jsloanjr]

Heather has finally come out of her shell and everybody should be ecstatic. She could be Geno's missing piece he did not have last season even with the great MM...Heather will wear the others teams post players out with her motion and speed. I am not sure who got her to take this leap, but we can not be more proud of her.......Go Heather!!

 

[Icebear]

You are correct, Alum, I sometimes am given to a colloquial use of the phrase, "Fact is." I, often, go back and clean up that phrase in posts when it is inappropriate. There is substantial difference between facts and truth as well. facts are static and fixed, truth is interpretive of the facts.

 

[speedoo]

I thought that the board Moderators didn't allow negative posts about the players?

I think the moderators act completely in accordance with the Boneyard Rules, which are very clear on this subject.... it's Rule #1 and very easy to find. Maybe some who are debating this subject should read that rule, so they are clear about the subject of negative posts about players.

And if you are implying that there have been no negative posts about Heather, you are dead wrong. Specific examples have been cited.

 

[Icebear]

Does imply though, that the board has not been negative towards Heather. (which was the point the OP was making I believe).

I think most of the flack she has taken, has been warranted. However, I don't think she has taken a lot of flack.

And that is simply an issue of valuation and agreeable disagreement.

 

[Vowelguy]

Mike! the best example is the kind of folks who whine about Kelly's scoring some nights and completely ignore the all the other ways I which she may have helped dominate the play.

Yeah, so?

I disagree with their statements (and have said so), but aren't those debates part of what a fan board is about? And I think Kelly's play has disproved those comments.

But fact is, Geno had said he thought Heather could be great. And for much of last season, many on the BY were saying that Buck would be a significant contributor on the floor by March. Neither has panned out. The jury is still out, legitimately so, on this season.

 

[Kevin G]

Are we done with this conversation/post yet? I think we should be

 

[Cafe Poliziano]

A good argument on the pros and cons of a team and its players performance is always fun, appropriate and should happen regularly especially on a sports MB, only being a self admiration club for the UCONN Huskies can get mighty boring. It is good to spice things up now and again regardless of how anyone or a group feels about it. Opinion about this sort of thing generally gets in the way of somebodies righteousness but hey thats life. Me I like to feel Heather is becoming a more useful member of the team when it comes to game day, but thats jmo.

 

[vtcwbuff]

I think the moderators act completely in accordance with the Boneyard Rules, which are very clear on this subject.... it's Rule #1 and very easy to find. Maybe some who are debating this subject should read that rule, so they are clear about the subject of negative posts about players.

And if you are implying that there have been no negative posts about Heather, you are dead wrong. Specific examples have been cited.

The applicable BY rule -
"You agree to not use this service to post any material which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violates any laws."

Can you show me the part that prohibits "negative" comments? If the mods, ignorant though they may be (in a non insulting way of course) , choose to allow a post to remain on the board it must not violate board rules.

 

[HuskyNan]

I thought that the board Moderators didn't allow negative posts about the players?

We don't allow trashing. Criticism and negative posts aren't trashing.

Yes, there was a "waste of a scholarship" post comment regarding Heather. The post was spotted and trimmed of the offensive sentence without altering the gist of the Boneyarder's post. "She's a waste of a scholarship", btw, is a good example of trashing a player.

Sometimes the problem with a post isn't so much that it contains criticism as the way it is the post is phrased. "She was always out of position that game so she was late on defense. That's why she got the dumb fouls" is different from "She's lousy at defense. I don't know why Geno plays her". I'm not saying that people have to post a certain way, just explaining why others might be annoyed with a post that's critical of a player.

It's funny, though. Some posters that don't want others to have harsh words for the players have no problem insulting their fellow posters.

 

[EricLA]

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.

oh really? how long ago were those posts? i asked you to provide proof and you didn't link anything. were the posts on the old board? i don't EVER recall seeing anyone post that she was a waste of a scholarship or that she didn't belong in a UCONN uniform. in fact, posts like that would be deleted by the mods as incredibly inappropriate. so again, where is the proof? years ago? come on ice, you are better than that. and to allude that "anyone who reads the board regularly should have been well aware" is a cheap shot.

 

[vtcwbuff]

We don't allow trashing. Criticism and negative posts aren't trashing.

Yes, there was a "waste of a scholarship" post comment regarding Heather. The post was spotted and trimmed of the offensive sentence without altering the gist of the Boneyarder's post. "She's a waste of a scholarship", btw, is a good example of trashing a player.

Sometimes the problem with a post isn't so much that it contains criticism as the way it is the post is phrased. "She was always out of position that game so she was late on defense. That's why she got the dumb fouls" is different from "She's lousy at defense. I don't know why Geno plays her". I'm not saying that people have to post a certain way, just explaining why others might be annoyed with a post that's critical of a player.

It's funny, though. Some posters that don't want others to have harsh words for the players have no problem insulting their fellow posters.

Yeah! for Nan. This whole thread is just the quarterly edition of the same old debate. The "ignorant" comment probably added a little extra fuel.

 

[EricLA]

btw the OP quoted john as saying "Heather has taken a lot of junk from message boards during her career" and ice followed up with "Yes, the negatives are unwarranted".

if you are referring to one single post that said Heather should not "waste" a scholarship by coming back for her 5th year (which was subsequently edited/deleted by the mods) then i'd agree. but you referred to negatives in the plural. as if fans across the board summarily trashed Heather in a way that was not appropriate. that is totally and completely untrue. if that's not what you meant then perhaps you should have clarified. but you didn't.

just because i never read that post, as it was deleted, does not mean i "should have been aware of it". point is i've never read a post trashing heather as a person or as a player who was a waste of a scholarship or who did not belong on the team.

the fact that she generally has not played well or contributed significantly on a consistent basis prior to the last several games this year is in no way an unwarranted or over the top criticism. it's something that even Geno has said. it may be splitting hairs, but my original issue with your comments was that you were agreeing with the OP that the criticisms OVER HER CAREER have been unwarranted - which basically means personal attacks or trashing. and that is simply not true.

 

[speedoo]

The applicable BY rule -
"You agree to not use this service to post any material which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violates any laws."

Can you show me the part that prohibits "negative" comments? If the mods, ignorant though they may be (in a non insulting way of course) , choose to allow a post to remain on the board it must not violate board rules.

I don't know where you got that quote, but it is not the BY rule I was referring to. Nan is now commenting on the rule I was referring to which is here:

http://huskynan.com/boneyardrules

Second, you seem to have misread my post. I never said the rule prohibits negative comments, and if you read the rule that applies, you will see what I'm talking about.

 

[pap49cba]

Oh boy, looks like this is gonna be a looonnnnng week on the BY

 

[HuskyNan]

The applicable BY rule -
"You agree to not use this service to post any material which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violates any laws."

I don't know where you got that quote, but it is not the BY rule I was referring to. Nan is now commenting on the rule I was referring to which is here:

http://huskynan.com/boneyardrules

Second, you seem to have misread my post. I never said the rule prohibits negative comments, and if you read the rule that applies, you will see what I'm talking about.

Pretty sure he's quoting the Scout terms of service.

 

[HuskyNan]

Oh boy, looks like this is gonna be a looonnnnng week on the BY

Maybe someone should start a game of Mafia