Purvis Returning | Page 4 | The Boneyard

Purvis Returning

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi-Low said:
Don't forget Terry Larrier....Adams, Gilbert, Purvis & Larrier....I'll take it....hope Purvis comes back.
Expand ...
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.
 
Stairmaster said:
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.
Expand ...
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.

Stairmaster said:
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.
Expand ...
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).
 
Last edited:
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.
 
TasteofUConn said:
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).
Expand ...
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.
 
TasteofUConn said:
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).
Expand ...
Damn, you just left Stairmaster with a bad taste in his mouth lol
 
.-.
InKembaITrust said:
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.
Expand ...

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?
 
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.
 
TasteofUConn said:
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).
Expand ...

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.
 
TasteofUConn said:
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).
Expand ...

Maybe you are over-reacting and losing perspective?
On the facts, calling our top scorer and best defensive player valueless, regardless how flawed and frustrating he is, seems silly. We have a team of flawed, frustrating players.
 
Cheddie said:
And shooting better than 44% at the free throw line.
Expand ...

If you're going to quote stats, at least check them out. Rodney is a bit over 60% for the season, but more importantly, he appears to have cleaned up his FT woes. Since the first of the year (an 18 game sample), he is shooting 71.5% from the line (30 of 42). We have enough real problems on this team to be harping on ones that have already been fixed.
 
.-.
It would be awesome to have him back for another year. Not without his flaws, but he had gotten better every season and we will definitely be better having more experience and continuity on the roster next season. Hope it is true.
 
David 76 said:
Maybe you are over-reacting and losing perspective?
On the facts, calling our top scorer and best defensive player valueless, regardless how flawed and frustrating he is, seems silly. We have a team of flawed, frustrating players.
Expand ...

Yes flawed and frustrating but not all play defense, we know Rodney does!
 
lange10 said:
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.
Expand ...
I rather have this lineup:
1. Adams
2. Purvis
3. Larrier
4. DHAM
5. Enoch

This allow DHAM to play his more natural 4 at the college level. He can cover the slower guys and get bye them easier and rebound even there. I don't really want to see AB as a starter as I think he has proven he just isn't high division 1 material. Let's give the keys to SE who can handle himself inside due to his stronger physique and better hands while being a true low post scorer which we will need next year with SM leaving. Great news if RP comes back. UCONN can make a run next year.
 
JimOllie said:
Still don't think he'll start next year. I think it should be Adams, Gilbert, Larrier, Hamilton, Brimah.
Expand ...
What is all these starting lineup's with AB. After last night I'm through seeing him anymore than spot minutes. I have watched enough in 3 years to know he isn't high division 1 center material. Love the kid but he is a very weak basketball player and has horrible fundamentals. Time to move on to our younger guys.
 
3rdbass said:
What is all these starting lineup's with AB. After last night I'm through seeing him anymore than spot minutes. I have watched enough in 3 years to know he isn't high division 1 center material. Love the kid but he is a very weak basketball player and has horrible fundamentals. Time to move on to our younger guys.
Expand ...

Who would start over him? Enoch? Durham will probably use his RS next year if I had to guess. Zach Brown isn't coming next year. So that leaves just Brimah @ Center
 
.-.
SE would start see my other post. SE already is playing there and has the body and post game to play there. He just needs to improve his D which he has been doing. It isn't like AB is some great defensive center. He just block shots.
 
ucp990411 said:
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? what. 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.
Expand ...

Adams was hurt and ill. Cassell hadn't played in weeks, but if Adams couldn't go was going to have to give them some minutes. KO did EXACTLY what Calhous always did in that situation, which is give the kid who hadn't been playing a short stint early so that if he was needed later he would have already seen the flow of the game.

But hey -- what did JC know about using seldom used players compared to you.
 
.-.
The level of f@cktardedness exhibited in this thread makes me embarrassed to be a UConn fan. A skilled, tremendously experienced 5th year senior who is an exemplary ambassador of the program may want to come back and we have a thread full of people who don't want him. Truly a testament to the mental ineptitude of our fellow Bonyarders.
 
Does anybody remember 3 years ago how much we used to debate whether Rodney was going to play point or the 2 when he got here? Seems so funny to even think about him as a PG now, but he was supposedly transferring here to play point, after Gotfried wouldn't let him at NC State. No attempt to be critical of RP here, just funny how many months we went back and forth on that.
 
Are the people on drugs who DONT want Rodney back next year? The kid is a GOOD player. Yeah he's not a "Superstar" but how many people are. The kid plays the game 110% at all times. How many other guys on our team can you say that about? His hustle is second to none. Yeah not a great FT shooter. His numbers are better. We need to get back to running the court and full court pressure. No idea why we are not doing that right now. Those have ALWAYS been trademarks of UConn basketball. Do the haters watch the games with your eyes closed? Because obviously we are a much better team if Rodney comes back.
 
I see many people on this board overhyping Larrier. I really don't think he starts right away. Yes, he's good but he had a putrid offensive rating at VCU. Granted he was a freshman and by the time he suits up for us to play in a real game 2 years will have passed but I still think Purvis should start from day 1 if he returns.

A little bit of a side note but I think Purvis never should have been demoted to the bench. He has an ego (my friend is a manager and is around the team quite often) and it took a hit when he was moved to the bench. He was arguably our best performing player when Adams replaced him in the starting line up. Hind sight is 20/20 but I think it should've been Gibbs. And as for next year you don't start Alterique over Purvis or there will be chemistry issues again.
 
lange10 said:
I see many people on this board overhyping Larrier. I really don't think he starts right away. Yes, he's good but he had a putrid offensive rating at VCU. Granted he was a freshman and by the time he suits up for us to play in a real game 2 years will have passed but I still think Purvis should start from day 1 if he returns.

A little bit of a side note but I think Purvis never should have been demoted to the bench. He has an ego (my friend is a manager and is around the team quite often) and it took a hit when he was moved to the bench. He was arguably our best performing player and Adams replaced him in the starting line up. Hind sight is 20/20 but I think it should've been Gibbs. And as for next year you don't start Alterique over Purvis or there will be chemistry issues again.
Expand ...
To be fair, he played in havoc, which meant he was encouraged to put up a number to terrible shots.

That said, tempering expectations is best for all involved.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,166
Messages
4,555,574
Members
10,441
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom