Sports illustrated article – Jalen Adams

[August_West]

I've got to get a message to you all. It's a tragedy. It must be the night fever, but Gibbs is not alone. He's had some lonely days, but he is more than a woman. He'll have his nights on broadway when he's stayin' alive, and that's when you should be dancing. This will be a true measure of how deep is your love for the Huskies. I mean, how can you mend a broken heart with all this jive talkin'? Maybe we've all just had too much heaven to love somebody.

Ironic I read that post while on my way to:

 

[imno1]

I've got to get a message to you all. It's a tragedy. It must be the night fever, but Gibbs is not alone. He's had some lonely days, but he is more than a woman. He'll have his nights on broadway when he's stayin' alive, and that's when you should be dancing. This will be a true measure of how deep is your love for the Huskies. I mean, how can you mend a broken heart with all this jive talkin'? Maybe we've all just had too much heaven to love somebody.

8803 take a Holiday because that post was what we call a NY Mining Disaster. Ok I'm sure you'll respond "I started a joke"

 

[intlzncster]

I've got to get a message to you all. It's a tragedy. It must be the night fever, but Gibbs is not alone. He's had some lonely days, but he is more than a woman. He'll have his nights on broadway when he's stayin' alive, and that's when you should be dancing. This will be a true measure of how deep is your love for the Huskies. I mean, how can you mend a broken heart with all this jive talkin'? Maybe we've all just had too much heaven to love somebody.

Knocked off early tonight, huh 8893.

 

[8893]

8803 take a Holiday because that post was what we call a NY Mining Disaster. Ok I'm sure you'll respond "I started a joke"

Knocked off early tonight, huh 8893.

Sadly, that was stone cold sober. I had planned to get an earlier start tonight but had to stick around for a phone call that was necessary for a filing that I had to make by the end of the day. The phone call was around a half hour late, so I was climbing the walls as the minutes ticked away and needed to do something. I kept expecting the call so I couldn't get any meaningful work done. Unfortunately for all of us, that was the result.

The good news is that the medication has kicked in now.

I'm having visions of Gibbs doing well in the CCSU game, but leaving lingering questions given the quality of the opponent. And then...Texas is his coming out party. It all makes sense now!

 

[David 76]

I think there will be a few times this year that we are really happy to have Gibbs.

 

[champs99and04]

Our best lineup this season has been Adams-Purvis-Hamilton-Miller-Brimah. With that in mind, I see no reason to consider a change in the startling lineup with any of those four.

I agree that there is no reason to bench Gibbs. If December turns to January and February and the aforementioned five still comprise our best lineup, then you consider sitting Gibbs during crunch time. But unless the slow starts become a chronic issue, I see no reason to change the starting lineup just because Adams has outplayed Gibbs over a small sample of minutes.

 

[David 76]

It is all about minutes, not starting. There will be another graduate transfer who will want to come to UConn and start. They will remember what happens to Gibbs. You adjust minutes not starting. As we have done with most talented freshmen over the years.
Plus Gibbs is better than he is showing (unless the laws of nature have changed)

 

[TasteofUConn]

First, Omar was on the bench by January 1, 2014 so your point about his benching somehow giving us an infusion in late 2014 is completely wrong.

Come on man - don't argue against a position I never took. I never wrote or suggested that "Omar's benching" gave us an "infusion," or anything like that.

I wrote:

Gibbs is not getting it done. This is like Calhoun in 14. It took 4/5ths of the season to figure out to start Giffey, then we went "BOOM."

I said it took 4/5th of the season to start Giffey. Giffey became the starter in March. So, that was just about dead-nuts on.
I mentioned Calhoun as an example of staying with a guy too long. He took some of Giffey's minutes along the way, and then, when Giff finally got those minutes, it took another 2 months to figure out to start him.

In any event, Giffey was to 14 what Lamb was to 11, which is to say, he was the critical supporting guy who stepped in and stepped up late.

This year, I don't care about fragile personalities - Get JA more time.

Maybe Gibbs is "cold." But it's hard to be a "spot up" 3 point shooter when you are the point guard.

 

[intlzncster]

In any event, Giffey was to 14 what Lamb was to 11, which is to say, he was the critical supporting guy who stepped in and stepped up late.

Maybe Gibbs is "cold." But it's hard to be a "spot up" 3 point shooter when you are the point guard.

Giffey to Lamb is a stretch, even w your qualifier. Lamb blossomed into the second most important player on the team after kemba. Giffey at best was 4th, behind Bazz, Boat, and Daniels.

Nobody is arguing JA shouldn't get more time. We just don't think he should start, or that it even matters much. I do think David is right that if we want high impact 5th year guys in the future, they should keep starting Gibbs. These kids all want to play, and they are going to look at what UConn has done w previous high impact 5th years.

And despite what people are saying Gibbs is much more than a spot up 3pt guy. He proved it all last year at SH.

 

[TasteofUConn]

We just don't think he should start, or that it even matters much.

I think Giffey was the final piece of the puzzle for the 14 team. It's not a measure of "better than." Lamb's emergence was the final piece of the puzzle. If Lamb doesn't emerge, or if Giffey doesn't get the starter's job, I don't think we win either year. Thus, I equate them in that role (not in the talent order on the team).

The problem with the "it doesn't matter who starts" argument is that it's always presented unidirectionally.

IF it doesn't matter, THEN why would Gibbs care? And why would other 5th year transfers care?

Of course it matters. It matters more than a little. I want to see Adams in the starting role because I think that gives us the best chance to come out of the gates strong, which we have not done well, to date. From my view, we always seem to rally when Adams comes in. I think it's illogical to think that it's the mere fact that he's coming off the bench and lending a "spark" or going against their second team that is causing our surges. It's his talent, and I want to see it on the floor at tip, so we can build a lead, and not bring it in when we're down 20.

 

[intlzncster]

I think Giffey was the final piece of the puzzle for the 14 team. It's not a measure of "better than." Lamb's emergence was the final piece of the puzzle. If Lamb doesn't emerge, or if Giffey doesn't get the starter's job, I don't think we win either year. Thus, I equate them in that role (not in the talent order on the team).

OK, got that, it makes sense now. I don't totally agree w the premise on Giff, in that I feel there was more to it than that, but that's OK. It's all opinion anyway.

The problem with the "it doesn't matter who starts" argument is that it's always presented unidirectionally. IF it doesn't matter, THEN why would Gibbs care? And why would other 5th year transfers care?

Because there is a huge difference between what's best for the team, and how a kid feels about his role on a team. The team play as a whole might not be affected by whomever starts, but individual kids very well may be (egos/expectations/emotions/buy-in/ability to come off the bench effectively etc). Kids aren't cogs that you just plug in where ever and expect them to function perfectly without hiccups. And you have to think that, if a potential 5th year has any kind of head on his shoulders, he is surveying the current landscape thinking (projecting), "Is that what I want?" "will I have a big enough role there?"
"Will I be successful there?"

Of course it matters. It matters more than a little. I want to see Adams in the starting role because I think that gives us the best chance to come out of the gates strong, which we have not done well, to date. From my view, we always seem to rally when Adams comes in. I think it's illogical to think that it's the mere fact that he's coming off the bench and lending a "spark" or going against their second team that is causing our surges. It's his talent, and I want to see it on the floor at tip, so we can build a lead, and not bring it in when we're down 20.

Why is it illogical? In fact, it's perfectly logical and makes sense. Obviously, it's not just because Adams plays against the second unit, but it certainly a part of it. There are a number of factors involved here, not the least of which is the team 'warms up', so to speak.

I will certainly give you the 'not coming out of the gate strong' element of things. But I'm not convinced Adams is THE fix for that. Again, I think there are a number of factors there, especially on the defensive end. Now, if the team is STILL coming out slow in Feb, and Adams is potentially the answer to that, then by all means, start him; I'm on board with that. But I don't think there's been a large enough sample size to make that determination at this point. The team has barely been given enough time to gel and for everyone to figure out their roles; it's a work in progress. Unfortunately, the impact of that is more severe, given the imbalance in the schedule. I think the starting question has yet to be determined.