ever considered not playing Barky or Malik, who were not very good defensive players, but were his best shooters and would have given them eleven minutes, or three minutes in any game where he wanted to win?

I can remember that Malik couldn't play much defense at all, but he was a terrific shooter, so they made allowances for him and utilized his strengths. And Barky wasn't known to play much defense either.

We are struggling to win games, we have a kid who has a career 177 three point shots sitting on the bench and playing guys who have no experience and are not contributing enough to help us win games. I know this is repetitive, but damn, what sense does this make. Maybe Steve is withholding him out of stubborness, or maybe because I've complained on the board about Matt not getting the respect he should get, but you can make up all the excuses you want about Matt not playing defense or what, but when push comes to shove, it makes absolutely no sense.

How, when he has been one of our leading scorers the past three years, does it against all competition, and now he can't get on the floor with guys who are mediocre at best playing most of the minutes? If for no other reason, Chris should be asking some questions about that.

(12-31-2010 11:36 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  ever considered not playing Barky or Malik, who were not very good defensive players, but were his best shooters and would have given them eleven minutes, or three minutes in any game where he wanted to win?

I can remember that Malik couldn't play much defense at all, but he was a terrific shooter, so they made allowances for him and utilized his strengths. And Barky wasn't known to play much defense either.

We are struggling to win games, we have a kid who has a career 177 three point shots sitting on the bench and playing guys who have no experience and are not contributing enough to help us win games. I know this is repetitive, but damn, what sense does this make. Maybe Steve is withholding him out of stubborness, or maybe because I've complained on the board about Matt not getting the respect he should get, but you can make up all the excuses you want about Matt not playing defense or what, but when push comes to shove, it makes absolutely no sense.

How, when he has been one of our leading scorers the past three years, does it against all competition, and now he can't get on the floor with guys who are mediocre at best playing most of the minutes? If for no other reason, Chris should be asking some questions about that.

Repetitive? Na. Although it probably is the reason most on the board now hate a player we used to love.

Dang Stevee.

(12-31-2010 12:52 PM)mjs Wrote:  Repetitive? Na. Although it probably is the reason most on the board now hate a player we used to love.

Hate is a strong word. I thought you didn't hate any Trojans. And I wouldn't necessarily say the most people on this board hate Matt.

(12-31-2010 01:29 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(12-31-2010 12:52 PM)mjs Wrote:  Repetitive? Na. Although it probably is the reason most on the board now hate a player we used to love.

Hate is a strong word. I thought you didn't hate any Trojans. And I wouldn't necessarily say the most people on this board hate Matt.

I guess we could take a poll. I have taken my own "unofficial" poll- I would agree that hate maybe a little too strong. Personally, it was hard not to like Matt after hearing speak at a luncheon last year- but somehow all this nonsense on the board has had a cumulative effect on me and others.

(12-31-2010 01:34 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(12-31-2010 01:29 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(12-31-2010 12:52 PM)mjs Wrote:  Repetitive? Na. Although it probably is the reason most on the board now hate a player we used to love.

Hate is a strong word. I thought you didn't hate any Trojans. And I wouldn't necessarily say the most people on this board hate Matt.

I guess we could take a poll. I have taken my own "unofficial" poll- I would agree that hate maybe a little too strong. Personally, it was hard not to like Matt after hearing speak at a luncheon last year- but somehow all this nonsense on the board has had a cumulative effect on me and others.

I can understand why you might hate my constant lobbying for Matt, but why would anyone dislike the young man. He has done nothing to deserve your bad feelings. Under the circumstances, I think he's behaved admirably. Many kids who have accomplished what he has and given to the school what he has, and being treated like he's being treated, would have told the coach to shove it and move on. But he's a team player and continues to do as well as he can when given his few opportunites. Last night. 11 minutes. 2-2. 5 points.

What could he do if the offense was designed to get him his shots and he played 36 minutes like Solo. He'd hit thirty without a free throw some nights. Guaranteed. He's had three games of around 25-27 points against D1 competition and we won all three games. How many games has Solo scored that many points. None that I know of, and when he scores those points, how many games have we won. Practically none. So don't blame Matt for the inequities in his playing time as pointed out by yours truly. I make no apologies. The coaches are the ones who should be apologizing to the fans.

I like to watch Matt play. As a matter of fact, the last 3 years, on some nights, Matt was the reason I drove over an hour to watch the Trojans. I know Outsideualr is an over the top fan but some of you others are over the top anti Matt. Bottom line is he's the best shooter in the last 4 years and possibly the entire Sheilds era and count me in the pro Matt faction.

Glad some can see what the coaches obviously can't or won't acknowledge. That a walk on (albeit an invited walk on) has contributed much more than more they have recruited. I've started believing that LRTrojan is correct. They don't want someone who they didn't even offer a scholarship for two years to be outshining nearly every person they have recruited. Hell If he was still alive, even Ray Charles could see that.

(12-31-2010 03:13 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  Hell If he was still alive, even Ray Charles could see that.

Oh snap. I didn't even see the R/C reference coming.

I don't know if I ever told you all about a blind piano tuner, now deceased, who used to tune our piano. His wife drove him to his client's home and would wait for him. He had been blind since he was a child. Well a medical miracle occurred and through a new procedure, his sight was restored, and he actually started driving himself to his appointments. Well, the funny thing, he told me one time that he had clients he had serviced for years, and after he regained his sight, some of the ladies would walk through the room where he was tuning their piano, either scantilly clad or not clad at all, forgetting he could now see. Pretty great story. That's it. What occurred after that, I wasn't privy to.

(12-31-2010 04:16 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  I don't know if I ever told you all about a blind piano tuner, now deceased, who used to tune our piano. His wife drove him to his client's home and would wait for him. He had been blind since he was a child. Well a medical miracle occurred and through a new procedure, his sight was restored, and he actually started driving himself to his appointments. Well, the funny thing, he told me one time that he had clients he had serviced for years, and after he regained his sight, some of the ladies would walk through the room where he was tuning their piano, either scantilly clad or not clad at all, forgetting he could now see. Pretty great story. That's it. What occurred after that, I wasn't privy to.

****, he probably never told them that he'd regained his eyesight. He was smarter than a third grader. He didn't ever tell you what your wife looked like naked, did he?

No, and I didn't ask.

[q[/b]uote='outsideualr' pid='6073041' dateline='1293813418']
ever considered not playing Barky or Malik

No.

who were not very good defensive players

[b] They were fine defensive players.


we have a kid who has a career 177 three point shots sitting on the bench and playing guys who have no experience and are not contributing enough to help us win games. Maybe Steve is withholding him out of stubborness, or maybe because I've complained on the board about Matt not getting the respect he should get.

Why do you think Matt doesn't play more than he does?[/b]


guys who are mediocre at best playing most of the minutes?

I've started believing that LRTrojan is correct. They don't want someone who they didn't even offer a scholarship for two years to be outshining nearly every person they have recruited. Hell If he was still alive, even Ray Charles could see that.
[/quote]


You're not really ascribing that crazy theory to my good friend, LRT, are you? He's too sane for that and might really get p-----d at your putting that one on him.

That's definitely his theory. He has stated it on numerous occasions in the past. Maybe he'll respond. I don't know if that's the case, but it makes as much sense as anything.

(01-01-2011 10:44 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  That's definitely his theory. He has stated it on numerous occasions in the past. Maybe he'll respond. I don't know if that's the case, but it makes as much sense as anything.

I believe that there may be something to that theory, but I'm staying out of this Matt thing from now on. I'm tired of it, and regardless of what I or anyone else thinks, things aren't going to change anyway.

Probably a good plan. Nothing to gain by it. I've said everything I can say about it. If anyone else wishes to express an opinion fine, but whatever is going to happen is going to happen. As someone has said, our problem is not our guards, but our inside play that is our weak spot. I think we'll win some games, maybe quite a few, but against a team with decent inside players, we'll have a hard time competing.