Purvis Returning

[TasteofUConn]

I was wrong about this, and I am pleasantly surprised. All you folks who are booing this news are the worst kind of reactionary s. .

And here you are not two days from your "Perspective" post, calling people who disagree with you "s." Nice.

I'm not reactionary at all. I just disagree, from a basketball perspective, that Purvis is a a good fit for the team. People point to his scoring and his "lock down" defense.

Let's start with the "lock down" defense. Guy averages a block every 10 games and just under 1 steal a game, and doesn't rebound particularly well. Dyson averaged a block every other game and almost 2 steals and 4 boards a game. I'm missing something here. Purvis is a good on-ball defender. Team D? Lock down? Not buying it.

Regarding his offense, he's streaky as hell, and he's not a high BBALL IQ player. That results in things like double dribbles in the closing minutes, turnovers at inopportune times, and the like.

I don't like him getting big minutes on the team because I think he has a net negative impact on everybody around him. I don't think he's being intentionally damaging, I just don't think he plays good team ball, which is almost always the key to winning.

I'd like to see a team without him on it because I want to see the talent gel without him being in the mix.

That's just an opinion - no more, no less. It can certainly be stupid and wrong and baseless or whatever, but no need to say "reactionary" - I've had two years to reach this opinion on his bball game (not him personally) or that I'm an - it's a basketball conversation for lord's sake. Take your own advice and chill out.

 

[Fishy]

No problem with this at all - Rodney might be the best recruiter in the program outside of Kevin Ollie.

He's frustrating and out of control at times, but that might be part of being the only player outside of Jalen who thinks it's a good idea to move towards the basket sometimes.

This will run better with Jalen/Alterique next year - that'll help Rodney in a big way.

 

[Richmondhsky]

I don't mind Purvis coming back if Ollie learns to run sets that gets guys open 3's with their feet set (wish we were doing it this year with Gibbs). Purvis is a shaky ball handler and Adams/Alterique need to be running the show next year.

1. Adams
2. Purvis
3. Hamilton
4. Enoch/Larrier/Facey
5. Brimah

6th man: Alterique

Sure, playing Brimah and Enoch at the same time may be a bad idea but I think it could work. Enoch has shown a nice stroke. If he learns KO's defensive principles I think he can play the 4.

Larrier is a 3 not a 4...take a look at a pic of him. He's skinnier than Rudy Gay.

 

[Kitaman]

I'm happy to hear this. Give AG some development and adjustment cushion. Having a senior veteran guard is not a bad thing.

 

[BUConn10]

I'm still she'll-shocked from the first 5 minutes of the game last night when I believe I saw Sam Cassel SR. on the court in one of our biggest games of the season.

 

[Tenspro2002]

I'm still she'll-shocked from the first 5 minutes of the game last night when I believe I saw Sam Cassel SR. on the court in one of our biggest games of the season.

If only it were Sam Sr.

 

[Burnsbros23]

Larrier is a 3 not a 4...take a look at a pic of him. He's skinnier than Rudy Gay.

With the way basketball is played now Larrier will be fine at the 4. No team has two legitimate post up guys. plus hopefully in the year off he has put on some weight.

 

[superjohn]

Dude, come on. They are giving the ball to the PGs. You don't think Ollie wants to have dynamic, skilled PGs? That would 'magically' fix a LOT of our issues this year.

Any sane person would think so but I'm beyond frustration with Ollie's lineups, he had Cassell in the game last night for crissakes.

 

[intlzncster]

Agree with the bolded part. KO needs to do better with his rotations.

If true, this is key for our depth. As others have pointed out, the backcourt would be quite thin next year since aside from Gilbert, the new guys are mostly 3-4-5's. The only question is whether KO can properly handle the rotations.

Any sane person would think so but I'm beyond frustration with Ollie's lineups, he had Cassell in the game last night for crissakes.

One of the reason I think KO is so bad with rotations this year, is he just doesn't have the options. He's mixed and matched so much, just hoping to find something. But the reality is, as I've mentioned ad nauseum, he's got .5 PGs on this team.

I mean, I just don't think it's because KO has mental deficiencies. His rotations in 2014 were fantastic. We had the personnel.

 

[intlzncster]

No problem with this at all - Rodney might be the best recruiter in the program outside of Kevin Ollie.

He's frustrating and out of control at times, but that might be part of being the only player outside of Jalen who thinks it's a good idea to move towards the basket sometimes.

This will run better with Jalen/Alterique next year - that'll help Rodney in a big way.

Totally agree with that. I mentioned in another thread, that the lack of an experienced top shelf PG this year, has exacerbated every one else's deficiencies, particularly those of Purvis, Gibb, and Hamilton.

 

[Stainmaster]

And here you are not two days from your "Perspective" post, calling people who disagree with you " s." Nice.

I'm not reactionary at all. I just disagree, from a basketball perspective, that Purvis is a a good fit for the team. People point to his scoring and his "lock down" defense.

Let's start with the "lock down" defense. Guy averages a block every 10 games and just under 1 steal a game, and doesn't rebound particularly well. Dyson averaged a block every other game and almost 2 steals and 4 boards a game. I'm missing something here. Purvis is a good on-ball defender. Team D? Lock down? Not buying it.

Regarding his offense, he's streaky as hell, and he's not a high BBALL IQ player. That results in things like double dribbles in the closing minutes, turnovers at inopportune times, and the like.

I don't like him getting big minutes on the team because I think he has a net negative impact on everybody around him. I don't think he's being intentionally damaging, I just don't think he plays good team ball, which is almost always the key to winning.

I'd like to see a team without him on it because I want to see the talent gel without him being in the mix.

That's just an opinion - no more, no less. It can certainly be stupid and wrong and baseless or whatever, but no need to say "reactionary" - I've had two years to reach this opinion on his bball game (not him personally) or that I'm an - it's a basketball conversation for lord's sake. Take your own advice and chill out.

I recognize that there are many fair points of criticism as it pertains to Purvis's game, be it BBIQ or inability to finish. However, I took a lot of umbrage at the ideas that "he isn't UConn special and never has been", or "thanks, but your effort wasn't good enough", or insinuating that Purvis is somehow the main culprit behind this season as if he's so much more responsible than any other player or coach. We are a depressingly flawed team as it is. I also disagree vehemently that he should be relegated to playing 5-10 minutes a game. Thinking he offers zero value to the team speaks to a direct personal bias against him on the part of whomever says that. What are you going to do, put Jalen out there for 40 minutes and Alterique for 35? As for the defense thing, his man-to-man defensive ability is an eye test thing and not based on block and steal totals in the box score. Most people who don't have a pre-existing disposition against him would agree.

Bottom line, I have a very strong personal stance against people being d.icks to players here. You and others may disagree for a variety of reasons, but it's not cool in my book and that's an opinion I will continue to assert.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

For the past week everyone on here has been telling me how stupid I am for saying there's no way he's leaving. Love the vindication.

Nah. You're still stupid.

This thread is a travesty. That anyone would express disappointment if Rodney decides to come back is just beyond comprehension.

 

[CallMeBruce]

Nah. You're still stupid.

This thread is a travesty. That anyone would express disappointment if Rodney decides to come back is just beyond comprehension.

Reading some of these responses is

 

[mauconnfan]

Crack just beat me to it but anyone who thinks it's not good for a Rodney Purvis to be part of the program for another year is whacked. He is frustrating at times, who isn't on this team? But he plays defense better than anyone, gets the tough assignment and does a really good job on that end. He's improved his 3 point shooting and we can expect that and some more. Love him to finish when going to the hoop and maybe he will. This is a 5th year guy with a great attitude and does great things away from the court too - please rethink your position on him I am very happy he will be back. Makes us deeper and more experienced. Have you seen the 25th ranked player int he country at PG for us as a frosh? Up and down so to have people this incoming class can learn from is huge.

 

[krinklecut]

Nah. You're still stupid.

This thread is a travesty. That anyone would express disappointment if Rodney decides to come back is just beyond comprehension.

ah okay thanks for the clarification

 

[BleedHuskyBlu]

Dammit......Im over him such a dissapointing player I just want to move on from these dark two seasons with him

 

[Thirty Three]

Don't forget Terry Larrier....Adams, Gilbert, Purvis & Larrier....I'll take it....hope Purvis comes back.

No offense but I find it strange that there are people on this board (it's not just you) who think Larrier is a shooting guard. He's 6'8" and shot 26% from three and 34% overall last season. How many 6'8" shooting guards are there at all in college basketball? Let alone 6'8" guys playing shooting guard who are terrible shooters? I don't remotely see Larrier as a 2 guard and the thought of us possibly needing to use him there scares the hell out of me. Don't get me wrong, he has some very nice skills and I'm very happy to have him, just not at shooting guard.

 

[TasteofUConn]

Bottom line, I have a very strong personal stance against people being d.icks to players here. You and others may disagree for a variety of reasons, but it's not cool in my book and that's an opinion I will continue to assert.

Yeah, but that's not what you did. What you did was you called everybody who disagreed with you overreacting a-h0les, including me, young fella. What you did in your counterargument was you narrowed the scope of your attack to a scope that is so narrow that everybody agrees with it (I defend players, darn it!!).

We can agree that no player should be attacked personally, but for anything that happens on the court, it's fair game. That's the whole point of this message board.

I also disagree vehemently that he should be relegated to playing 5-10 minutes a game. Thinking he offers zero value to the team speaks to a direct personal bias against him on the part of whomever says that.

This is complete nonsense, and, ironically, it's where you completely lose all perspective. It's called "having a different opinion." Any time you catch yourself in life making an absolute statement like "anybody who ------ must be ------" you're simply stating your own bias, and not sagely pointing out the bias of others.

Here's an example - "Anybody who votes for (Trump/Hillary, pick one) doesn't understand politics." That's an absolute statement alleging a fault or bias, but is itself a terribly biased comment to make.

I think Purvis offers very little value to the team (but more than zero). I'd be happy to have somebody else come in and try to provide that value.

Winning teams aren't built on streaky players who are prone to making foolish mistakes on the court. The guy is not, in my view, a team player. He makes those around him worse, not better. Again, I don't believe it's a selfishness thing, it's just the way he plays the game. So when I look at his 20 points on the night he has a good scoring game, I'm also looking for his impact on everybody else.

The bias here is not my opinion that we'd be better off without him next year, the bias is in you believing that my opinion can only be underpinned by a personal hatred/dislike/bias against Purvis the person.

I know that's a tough concept for a young, fired up person to understand, and you'll no doubt get some help ignoring it from the people who agree with you on Purvis' basketball impact on the team, but give it a shot . . . .

Hey, we all do it to an extent. I, for one, can't believe anybody isn't questioning Ollie at this point, but I do leave open the possibility that they actually believe all is well and only more time is needed, foreign as that is to me . . .

You remind me of me at age 20. Believe me when I say that you'll wake up one day and giggle when you think about the man you used to be (not in a bad way, necessarily).

 

[David 76]

If Purvis doesn't improve at all, he is a benefit for the team on and off the court. Unless you are a big fan of SC Jr. and having no guard if there is an injury, you gotta see this.

Not surprised people were jumping on the false free-throw stuff.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Yeah, but that's not what you did. What you did was you called everybody who disagreed with you overreacting a-h0les, including me, young fella. What you did in your counterargument was you narrowed the scope of your attack to a scope that is so narrow that everybody agrees with it (I defend players, darn it!!).

We can agree that no player should be attacked personally, but for anything that happens on the court, it's fair game. That's the whole point of this message board.


This is complete nonsense, and, ironically, it's where you completely lose all perspective. It's called "having a different opinion." Any time you catch yourself in life making an absolute statement like "anybody who ------ must be ------" you're simply stating your own bias, and not sagely pointing out the bias of others.

Here's an example - "Anybody who votes for (Trump/Hillary, pick one) doesn't understand politics." That's an absolute statement alleging a fault or bias, but is itself a terribly biased comment to make.

I think Purvis offers very little value to the team (but more than zero). I'd be happy to have somebody else come in and try to provide that value.

Winning teams aren't built on streaky players who are prone to making foolish mistakes on the court. The guy is not, in my view, a team player. He makes those around him worse, not better. Again, I don't believe it's a selfishness thing, it's just the way he plays the game. So when I look at his 20 points on the night he has a good scoring game, I'm also looking for his impact on everybody else.

The bias here is not my opinion that we'd be better off without him next year, the bias is in you believing that my opinion can only be underpinned by a personal hatred/dislike/bias against Purvis the person.

I know that's a tough concept for a young, fired up person to understand, and you'll no doubt get some help ignoring it from the people who agree with you on Purvis' basketball impact on the team, but give it a shot . . . .

Hey, we all do it to an extent. I, for one, can't believe anybody isn't questioning Ollie at this point, but I do leave open the possibility that they actually believe all is well and only more time is needed, foreign as that is to me . . .

You remind me of me at age 20. Believe me when I say that you'll wake up one day and giggle when you think about the man you used to be (not in a bad way, necessarily).

Like a lot of people associated (however tangentially) with this year's team, you are not maximizing your contribution to the program. How about redirecting your talents and efforts toward a Rodney Purvis drinking or Bingo game.
I'm confident you've got lots to work with, and I believe it'll improve your mood. I really think nobody could lose on this.

 

[sammydabiz]

Yeah, but that's not what you did. What you did was you called everybody who disagreed with you overreacting a-h0les, including me, young fella. What you did in your counterargument was you narrowed the scope of your attack to a scope that is so narrow that everybody agrees with it (I defend players, darn it!!).

We can agree that no player should be attacked personally, but for anything that happens on the court, it's fair game. That's the whole point of this message board.


This is complete nonsense, and, ironically, it's where you completely lose all perspective. It's called "having a different opinion." Any time you catch yourself in life making an absolute statement like "anybody who ------ must be ------" you're simply stating your own bias, and not sagely pointing out the bias of others.

Here's an example - "Anybody who votes for (Trump/Hillary, pick one) doesn't understand politics." That's an absolute statement alleging a fault or bias, but is itself a terribly biased comment to make.

I think Purvis offers very little value to the team (but more than zero). I'd be happy to have somebody else come in and try to provide that value.

Winning teams aren't built on streaky players who are prone to making foolish mistakes on the court. The guy is not, in my view, a team player. He makes those around him worse, not better. Again, I don't believe it's a selfishness thing, it's just the way he plays the game. So when I look at his 20 points on the night he has a good scoring game, I'm also looking for his impact on everybody else.

The bias here is not my opinion that we'd be better off without him next year, the bias is in you believing that my opinion can only be underpinned by a personal hatred/dislike/bias against Purvis the person.

I know that's a tough concept for a young, fired up person to understand, and you'll no doubt get some help ignoring it from the people who agree with you on Purvis' basketball impact on the team, but give it a shot . . . .

Hey, we all do it to an extent. I, for one, can't believe anybody isn't questioning Ollie at this point, but I do leave open the possibility that they actually believe all is well and only more time is needed, foreign as that is to me . . .

You remind me of me at age 20. Believe me when I say that you'll wake up one day and giggle when you think about the man you used to be (not in a bad way, necessarily).

Damn, you just left Stairmaster with a bad taste in his mouth lol

 

[businesslawyer]

Yeah I'm not too worried about Purvis coming back. Just his on ball defense alone makes me happy he'll be returning. And I agree with whoever said that when we have our 2 PG system back it'll take some pressure off of him to open up for 3s. Lets just get Gibbs out of here, he's a cancer wherever he goes.

Now Hamilton is a completely different animal. If this guy doesn't improve his defense, turnover & FG% we are doomed. Wouldn't mind seeing him leave and bring in Larrier to fill the void.

Could we stop this lunacy. Hamilton has been very disappointing this year, but he has tools. Larrier played a full season on a ranked A-Ten Team. Exactly what did you see in his play that makes you conclude that he is going to make us better by taking Hamilton's minutes? Or are we supposed to just ignore a full season of results because Hamilton has disappointed you?

 

[Stainmaster]

Damn, you just left Stairmaster with a bad taste in his mouth lol

Nah man. I'm just chillin'.

 

[ucp990411]

Yes. I could not believe it. I turned the game on 3 minutes in and on the floor were Brimah, Facey, Hamilton, Purvis and Cassell. I am a KO apologist but come on. Biggest game of the year, game we had to have and he has our 3rd team point guard on the floor? WTF. And Sam does seem like a point guard to me. Nice 1 handed pass. He does that and Gibbs does it. I taught my 7th grade AAU players not to do that.

 

[CallMeBruce]

Yeah, but that's not what you did. What you did was you called everybody who disagreed with you overreacting a-h0les, including me, young fella. What you did in your counterargument was you narrowed the scope of your attack to a scope that is so narrow that everybody agrees with it (I defend players, darn it!!).

We can agree that no player should be attacked personally, but for anything that happens on the court, it's fair game. That's the whole point of this message board.


This is complete nonsense, and, ironically, it's where you completely lose all perspective. It's called "having a different opinion." Any time you catch yourself in life making an absolute statement like "anybody who ------ must be ------" you're simply stating your own bias, and not sagely pointing out the bias of others.

Here's an example - "Anybody who votes for (Trump/Hillary, pick one) doesn't understand politics." That's an absolute statement alleging a fault or bias, but is itself a terribly biased comment to make.

I think Purvis offers very little value to the team (but more than zero). I'd be happy to have somebody else come in and try to provide that value.

Winning teams aren't built on streaky players who are prone to making foolish mistakes on the court. The guy is not, in my view, a team player. He makes those around him worse, not better. Again, I don't believe it's a selfishness thing, it's just the way he plays the game. So when I look at his 20 points on the night he has a good scoring game, I'm also looking for his impact on everybody else.

The bias here is not my opinion that we'd be better off without him next year, the bias is in you believing that my opinion can only be underpinned by a personal hatred/dislike/bias against Purvis the person.

I know that's a tough concept for a young, fired up person to understand, and you'll no doubt get some help ignoring it from the people who agree with you on Purvis' basketball impact on the team, but give it a shot . . . .

Hey, we all do it to an extent. I, for one, can't believe anybody isn't questioning Ollie at this point, but I do leave open the possibility that they actually believe all is well and only more time is needed, foreign as that is to me . . .

You remind me of me at age 20. Believe me when I say that you'll wake up one day and giggle when you think about the man you used to be (not in a bad way, necessarily).

Yes, you're entitled to your opinion, as stupid as that opinion may be. We're entitled to criticize you for it. If you think that Purvis provides very little value to the team, you're either out of your mind or it's something unrelated to his basketball play. You can deny that if you want, but no one worth listening to is going to take you seriously.