(05-18-2015 10:08 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 09:40 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 09:10 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 06:50 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 11:41 PM)Stammers Wrote:  You think he fouled like crazy here, but he really didn't. He fouled almost twice as much at Kansas. Here he committed 1 foul every 7 minutes. At Kansas he committed a foul every 4.7 minutes. That isn't speculation. The last 5 games before Embiid was injured his role was so marginalized that he was committing fouls at an average of ever 3.4 minutes. At that rate he fouls out of every game in 17 minutes. His season rate at Kansas was 8.5 fouls per 40 minutes. In the 5 games before Embiid's injury, when his role was completely marginalized, he was fouling at a rate of 11.8 per 40 minutes. Again, none of these numbers are speculation.


If Embiid isn't injured you think that he would have averaged more than 11 minutes, 4 points and 3 rebounds per game? I don't, Kansas fans don't, and there is nothing speculative about that.

If Embiid isn't injured. Black's legacy at Kansas is as a failure; end of story.

"Ifs" are really only an effective arguing points when debating the future. When you are arguing past results with "well, if xyz had(nt) happened then abc would not have occurred" then you have probably already lost the debate. "Ifs" do not change what has already occurred...

That makes a lot of sense. I guess you would argue that if Austin isn't injured, that Godfrey would have played 33,32 and 28 minutes the last 3 games; correct?

No, I would argue that it is irrelevant to argue "if" since we know the "if" did (not) and will not ever occur and thus does not change what actually occurred. What "if" Michael Jordan never picked up a basketball or what "if" Josh Pastner had never been hired or what "if" Black had stayed here and played the lion share of minutes at center his senior year... You can play that game all day long but it is totally irrelevant to what actually occurred and is thus a hollow argument.

So, to specifically address your question. No, if Austin stays healthy then of course Godfrey plays less minutes. But my question, is how does that change the fact that Austin did get hurt and thus Godfrey did play the minutes. You are trying to minimize Blacks end of year success by claiming it should have never occurred if not for an injury, but the injury did occur, so the "if" that could have prevented it, happened and did not prevent it. Thus, making your argument no more than a silly distraction from the reality that occurred regardless of the circumstances that lead to it. Again, your point is hollow and void of the reality that happened, which makes it rather pointless...

I just read the first part and ignored the rest of the nonsense. Glad you agree with me.

Awe, the epitome of, "I have nowhere left to go so I will claim hollow victory based on my hollow argument"...

I wonder if Pookie wants a mulligan now that Damon is coming back.

(05-18-2015 01:14 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  I wonder if Pookie wants a mulligan now that Damon is coming back.

Ha, I was just thinking the same thing...

(05-18-2015 01:06 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 10:08 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 09:40 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 09:10 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 06:50 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  "Ifs" are really only an effective arguing points when debating the future. When you are arguing past results with "well, if xyz had(nt) happened then abc would not have occurred" then you have probably already lost the debate. "Ifs" do not change what has already occurred...

That makes a lot of sense. I guess you would argue that if Austin isn't injured, that Godfrey would have played 33,32 and 28 minutes the last 3 games; correct?

No, I would argue that it is irrelevant to argue "if" since we know the "if" did (not) and will not ever occur and thus does not change what actually occurred. What "if" Michael Jordan never picked up a basketball or what "if" Josh Pastner had never been hired or what "if" Black had stayed here and played the lion share of minutes at center his senior year... You can play that game all day long but it is totally irrelevant to what actually occurred and is thus a hollow argument.

So, to specifically address your question. No, if Austin stays healthy then of course Godfrey plays less minutes. But my question, is how does that change the fact that Austin did get hurt and thus Godfrey did play the minutes. You are trying to minimize Blacks end of year success by claiming it should have never occurred if not for an injury, but the injury did occur, so the "if" that could have prevented it, happened and did not prevent it. Thus, making your argument no more than a silly distraction from the reality that occurred regardless of the circumstances that lead to it. Again, your point is hollow and void of the reality that happened, which makes it rather pointless...

I just read the first part and ignored the rest of the nonsense. Glad you agree with me.

Awe, the epitome of, "I have nowhere left to go so I will claim hollow victory based on my hollow argument"...

Yes, Godfrey would have averaged 31 minutes per game if AN wasn't injured, and Black would have magically averaged more than 11 minutes, 4 points, and 3 rebounds per game if Embiid wasn't injured. Funny.

Game, set, match.

(05-18-2015 12:15 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 02:01 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 10:57 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 01:43 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 12:45 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Being an afterthought behind a lottery pick is regressing?

When he got more minutes and a more defined role he excelled.

I am not blaming Bill Self for that like you are.

You are blaming Tarik for being on the same team with a lottery pick. I am not blaming bill self for anything

Buddy, you just said that he needed more minutes and a defined role. That only happened when Embiid got injured. Again, I'm not blaming Self like you are.

I said he didn't regress, he just didn't get time, big difference.

You are saying he regressed because he was not playing which is clearly false. Tarik didn't get better magically when Embiid got hurt, he just got an opportunity. Regressing would imply his skills were less than they were when he was at Memphis which is not true. Black was what he was all year long.

Your argument is akin to saying Joey Dorsey became less of a player when Dwight Howard came back from injury

11 minutes, 4 points, 3 rebounds, 5 fouls for every 23.5 minutes played. That doesn't sound like regressing at all. Unlike you, I am not blaming Bill Self.

(05-19-2015 08:01 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 01:06 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 10:08 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 09:40 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 09:10 AM)Stammers Wrote:  That makes a lot of sense. I guess you would argue that if Austin isn't injured, that Godfrey would have played 33,32 and 28 minutes the last 3 games; correct?

No, I would argue that it is irrelevant to argue "if" since we know the "if" did (not) and will not ever occur and thus does not change what actually occurred. What "if" Michael Jordan never picked up a basketball or what "if" Josh Pastner had never been hired or what "if" Black had stayed here and played the lion share of minutes at center his senior year... You can play that game all day long but it is totally irrelevant to what actually occurred and is thus a hollow argument.

So, to specifically address your question. No, if Austin stays healthy then of course Godfrey plays less minutes. But my question, is how does that change the fact that Austin did get hurt and thus Godfrey did play the minutes. You are trying to minimize Blacks end of year success by claiming it should have never occurred if not for an injury, but the injury did occur, so the "if" that could have prevented it, happened and did not prevent it. Thus, making your argument no more than a silly distraction from the reality that occurred regardless of the circumstances that lead to it. Again, your point is hollow and void of the reality that happened, which makes it rather pointless...

I just read the first part and ignored the rest of the nonsense. Glad you agree with me.

Awe, the epitome of, "I have nowhere left to go so I will claim hollow victory based on my hollow argument"...

Yes, Godfrey would have averaged 31 minutes per game if AN wasn't injured, and Black would have magically averaged more than 11 minutes, 4 points, and 3 rebounds per game if Embiid wasn't injured. Funny.

Game, set, match.

What in the hell are you even talking about? I guess you are distorting what point I am making so you can claim message board victory. Cool, in Stammers book it is 2-0. What is your address I will send a ribbon for first place in a debate with yourself... You can regurgitate the same "if x injury didn't happen then y player would have had less minutes". But that is completely hollow. The point is the injuries occurred, they got more minutes so to try to base an argument on a known false "if-then" hypothesis is futile because we know the outcome...

(05-19-2015 08:26 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 08:01 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 01:06 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 10:08 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 09:40 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  No, I would argue that it is irrelevant to argue "if" since we know the "if" did (not) and will not ever occur and thus does not change what actually occurred. What "if" Michael Jordan never picked up a basketball or what "if" Josh Pastner had never been hired or what "if" Black had stayed here and played the lion share of minutes at center his senior year... You can play that game all day long but it is totally irrelevant to what actually occurred and is thus a hollow argument.

So, to specifically address your question. No, if Austin stays healthy then of course Godfrey plays less minutes. But my question, is how does that change the fact that Austin did get hurt and thus Godfrey did play the minutes. You are trying to minimize Blacks end of year success by claiming it should have never occurred if not for an injury, but the injury did occur, so the "if" that could have prevented it, happened and did not prevent it. Thus, making your argument no more than a silly distraction from the reality that occurred regardless of the circumstances that lead to it. Again, your point is hollow and void of the reality that happened, which makes it rather pointless...

I just read the first part and ignored the rest of the nonsense. Glad you agree with me.

Awe, the epitome of, "I have nowhere left to go so I will claim hollow victory based on my hollow argument"...

Yes, Godfrey would have averaged 31 minutes per game if AN wasn't injured, and Black would have magically averaged more than 11 minutes, 4 points, and 3 rebounds per game if Embiid wasn't injured. Funny.

Game, set, match.

What in the hell are you even talking about? I guess you are distorting what point I am making so you can claim message board victory. Cool, in Stammers book it is 2-0. What is your address I will send a ribbon for first place in a debate with yourself... You can regurgitate the same "if x injury didn't happen then y player would have had less minutes". But that is completely hollow. The point is the injuries occurred, they got more minutes so to try to base an argument on a known false "if-then" hypothesis is futile because we know the outcome...

You lose. No need to go into hysterics.

(05-19-2015 08:03 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 12:15 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 02:01 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 10:57 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 01:43 PM)Stammers Wrote:  I am not blaming Bill Self for that like you are.

You are blaming Tarik for being on the same team with a lottery pick. I am not blaming bill self for anything

Buddy, you just said that he needed more minutes and a defined role. That only happened when Embiid got injured. Again, I'm not blaming Self like you are.

I said he didn't regress, he just didn't get time, big difference.

You are saying he regressed because he was not playing which is clearly false. Tarik didn't get better magically when Embiid got hurt, he just got an opportunity. Regressing would imply his skills were less than they were when he was at Memphis which is not true. Black was what he was all year long.

Your argument is akin to saying Joey Dorsey became less of a player when Dwight Howard came back from injury

11 minutes, 4 points, 3 rebounds, 5 fouls for every 23.5 minutes played. That doesn't sound like regressing at all. Unlike you, I am not blaming Bill Self.

You are a child

Bill self payed his best players. Tarik didn't magically improve when Embiid got hurt, he was the same player the day after he got hurt as he was the day before

(05-19-2015 09:15 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 08:26 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 08:01 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 01:06 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 10:08 AM)Stammers Wrote:  I just read the first part and ignored the rest of the nonsense. Glad you agree with me.

Awe, the epitome of, "I have nowhere left to go so I will claim hollow victory based on my hollow argument"...

Yes, Godfrey would have averaged 31 minutes per game if AN wasn't injured, and Black would have magically averaged more than 11 minutes, 4 points, and 3 rebounds per game if Embiid wasn't injured. Funny.

Game, set, match.

What in the hell are you even talking about? I guess you are distorting what point I am making so you can claim message board victory. Cool, in Stammers book it is 2-0. What is your address I will send a ribbon for first place in a debate with yourself... You can regurgitate the same "if x injury didn't happen then y player would have had less minutes". But that is completely hollow. The point is the injuries occurred, they got more minutes so to try to base an argument on a known false "if-then" hypothesis is futile because we know the outcome...

You lose. No need to go into hysterics.

Okay, 3-0 now... Please stop running the score up on me... Hysterics, this from a guy who has now claimed "victory" 3 times on a message board.

(05-19-2015 09:33 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 08:03 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 12:15 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 02:01 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 10:57 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  You are blaming Tarik for being on the same team with a lottery pick. I am not blaming bill self for anything

Buddy, you just said that he needed more minutes and a defined role. That only happened when Embiid got injured. Again, I'm not blaming Self like you are.

I said he didn't regress, he just didn't get time, big difference.

You are saying he regressed because he was not playing which is clearly false. Tarik didn't get better magically when Embiid got hurt, he just got an opportunity. Regressing would imply his skills were less than they were when he was at Memphis which is not true. Black was what he was all year long.

Your argument is akin to saying Joey Dorsey became less of a player when Dwight Howard came back from injury

11 minutes, 4 points, 3 rebounds, 5 fouls for every 23.5 minutes played. That doesn't sound like regressing at all. Unlike you, I am not blaming Bill Self.

You are a child

Bill self payed his best players. Tarik didn't magically improve when Embiid got hurt, he was the same player the day after he got hurt as he was the day before

He sure was a different player. You have to give him credit for taking advantage of the situation and playing out of his mind. Before the injury he was a laughingstock among Jayhawk fans and his season was a failure.

Again, I am not blaming Bill Self for not defining his role and for not giving him an opportunity, like you did.

(05-19-2015 09:51 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 09:15 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 08:26 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 08:01 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 01:06 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  Awe, the epitome of, "I have nowhere left to go so I will claim hollow victory based on my hollow argument"...

Yes, Godfrey would have averaged 31 minutes per game if AN wasn't injured, and Black would have magically averaged more than 11 minutes, 4 points, and 3 rebounds per game if Embiid wasn't injured. Funny.

Game, set, match.

What in the hell are you even talking about? I guess you are distorting what point I am making so you can claim message board victory. Cool, in Stammers book it is 2-0. What is your address I will send a ribbon for first place in a debate with yourself... You can regurgitate the same "if x injury didn't happen then y player would have had less minutes". But that is completely hollow. The point is the injuries occurred, they got more minutes so to try to base an argument on a known false "if-then" hypothesis is futile because we know the outcome...

You lose. No need to go into hysterics.

Okay, 3-0 now... Please stop running the score up on me... Hysterics, this from a guy who has now claimed "victory" 3 times on a message board.

Repeat hollow another 10 times and send the ribbon. That is your best bet for winning.

11 minutes
4 points
3 rebounds

(05-19-2015 10:56 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 09:33 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 08:03 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 12:15 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 02:01 AM)Stammers Wrote:  Buddy, you just said that he needed more minutes and a defined role. That only happened when Embiid got injured. Again, I'm not blaming Self like you are.

I said he didn't regress, he just didn't get time, big difference.

You are saying he regressed because he was not playing which is clearly false. Tarik didn't get better magically when Embiid got hurt, he just got an opportunity. Regressing would imply his skills were less than they were when he was at Memphis which is not true. Black was what he was all year long.

Your argument is akin to saying Joey Dorsey became less of a player when Dwight Howard came back from injury

11 minutes, 4 points, 3 rebounds, 5 fouls for every 23.5 minutes played. That doesn't sound like regressing at all. Unlike you, I am not blaming Bill Self.

You are a child

Bill self payed his best players. Tarik didn't magically improve when Embiid got hurt, he was the same player the day after he got hurt as he was the day before

He sure was a different player. You have to give him credit for taking advantage of the situation and playing out of his mind. Before the injury he was a laughingstock among Jayhawk fans and his season was a failure.

Again, I am not blaming Bill Self for not defining his role and for not giving him an opportunity, like you did.

Bill Self is not to blame...He had a better option. So yes when the coach has a better option you play them. That is not blame that is common sense.

Tarik was a victim of his circumstances, but he was still the same player the day before Embiid got injured as he was the day after. He didn't play out of his mind, he played the way he was always capable.

The only affect that Embiids injury had on Tarik was additional playing time and minutes Tarik could count on.

Please explain to me how Embiid getting injured made Tarik a better player?

(05-19-2015 12:09 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 10:56 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 09:33 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 08:03 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 12:15 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  I said he didn't regress, he just didn't get time, big difference.

You are saying he regressed because he was not playing which is clearly false. Tarik didn't get better magically when Embiid got hurt, he just got an opportunity. Regressing would imply his skills were less than they were when he was at Memphis which is not true. Black was what he was all year long.

Your argument is akin to saying Joey Dorsey became less of a player when Dwight Howard came back from injury

11 minutes, 4 points, 3 rebounds, 5 fouls for every 23.5 minutes played. That doesn't sound like regressing at all. Unlike you, I am not blaming Bill Self.

You are a child

Bill self payed his best players. Tarik didn't magically improve when Embiid got hurt, he was the same player the day after he got hurt as he was the day before

He sure was a different player. You have to give him credit for taking advantage of the situation and playing out of his mind. Before the injury he was a laughingstock among Jayhawk fans and his season was a failure.

Again, I am not blaming Bill Self for not defining his role and for not giving him an opportunity, like you did.

Bill Self is not to blame...He had a better option. So yes when the coach has a better option you play them. That is not blame that is common sense.

Tarik was a victim of his circumstances, but he was still the same player the day before Embiid got injured as he was the day after. He didn't play out of his mind, he played the way he was always capable.

The only affect that Embiids injury had on Tarik was additional playing time and minutes Tarik could count on.

Please explain to me how Embiid getting injured made Tarik a better player?

Field goal and free throw percentages up, fouling way down.

(05-19-2015 01:09 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 12:09 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 10:56 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 09:33 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 08:03 AM)Stammers Wrote:  11 minutes, 4 points, 3 rebounds, 5 fouls for every 23.5 minutes played. That doesn't sound like regressing at all. Unlike you, I am not blaming Bill Self.

You are a child

Bill self payed his best players. Tarik didn't magically improve when Embiid got hurt, he was the same player the day after he got hurt as he was the day before

He sure was a different player. You have to give him credit for taking advantage of the situation and playing out of his mind. Before the injury he was a laughingstock among Jayhawk fans and his season was a failure.

Again, I am not blaming Bill Self for not defining his role and for not giving him an opportunity, like you did.

Bill Self is not to blame...He had a better option. So yes when the coach has a better option you play them. That is not blame that is common sense.

Tarik was a victim of his circumstances, but he was still the same player the day before Embiid got injured as he was the day after. He didn't play out of his mind, he played the way he was always capable.

The only affect that Embiids injury had on Tarik was additional playing time and minutes Tarik could count on.

Please explain to me how Embiid getting injured made Tarik a better player?

Field goal and free throw percentages up, fouling way down.

So Embiid getting injured improved which one of Tariks skills to allow for these improvements on the floor (You are giving stats).

Did Embiid getting injured make Tarik a better FT shooter by improving his form? Of course not.

(05-19-2015 01:43 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:09 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 12:09 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 10:56 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 09:33 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  You are a child

Bill self payed his best players. Tarik didn't magically improve when Embiid got hurt, he was the same player the day after he got hurt as he was the day before

He sure was a different player. You have to give him credit for taking advantage of the situation and playing out of his mind. Before the injury he was a laughingstock among Jayhawk fans and his season was a failure.

Again, I am not blaming Bill Self for not defining his role and for not giving him an opportunity, like you did.

Bill Self is not to blame...He had a better option. So yes when the coach has a better option you play them. That is not blame that is common sense.

Tarik was a victim of his circumstances, but he was still the same player the day before Embiid got injured as he was the day after. He didn't play out of his mind, he played the way he was always capable.

The only affect that Embiids injury had on Tarik was additional playing time and minutes Tarik could count on.

Please explain to me how Embiid getting injured made Tarik a better player?

Field goal and free throw percentages up, fouling way down.

So Embiid getting injured improved which one of Tariks skills to allow for these improvements on the floor (You are giving stats).

Did Embiid getting injured make Tarik a better FT shooter by improving his form? Of course not.

We both agree that he didn't improve, but his stats did get better, which means that he played over his head. You are arguing with yourself and you don't even realize it.

You blame Bill Self for not defining a role for him or giving him enough minutes. I don't.

(05-19-2015 02:02 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:43 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:09 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 12:09 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 10:56 AM)Stammers Wrote:  He sure was a different player. You have to give him credit for taking advantage of the situation and playing out of his mind. Before the injury he was a laughingstock among Jayhawk fans and his season was a failure.

Again, I am not blaming Bill Self for not defining his role and for not giving him an opportunity, like you did.

Bill Self is not to blame...He had a better option. So yes when the coach has a better option you play them. That is not blame that is common sense.

Tarik was a victim of his circumstances, but he was still the same player the day before Embiid got injured as he was the day after. He didn't play out of his mind, he played the way he was always capable.

The only affect that Embiids injury had on Tarik was additional playing time and minutes Tarik could count on.

Please explain to me how Embiid getting injured made Tarik a better player?

Field goal and free throw percentages up, fouling way down.

So Embiid getting injured improved which one of Tariks skills to allow for these improvements on the floor (You are giving stats).

Did Embiid getting injured make Tarik a better FT shooter by improving his form? Of course not.

We both agree that he didn't improve, but his stats did get better, which means that he played over his head. You are arguing with yourself and you don't even realize it.

You blame Bill Self for not defining a role for him or giving him enough minutes. I don't.

I agree with Self for not playing him, Embiid was the better option...And Tarik didn't play over his head, he played to his potential when put in the right situation.

You seem to forget he shot 69% for the year his sophomore year in Memphis.

(05-19-2015 02:37 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 02:02 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:43 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:09 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 12:09 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Bill Self is not to blame...He had a better option. So yes when the coach has a better option you play them. That is not blame that is common sense.

Tarik was a victim of his circumstances, but he was still the same player the day before Embiid got injured as he was the day after. He didn't play out of his mind, he played the way he was always capable.

The only affect that Embiids injury had on Tarik was additional playing time and minutes Tarik could count on.

Please explain to me how Embiid getting injured made Tarik a better player?

Field goal and free throw percentages up, fouling way down.

So Embiid getting injured improved which one of Tariks skills to allow for these improvements on the floor (You are giving stats).

Did Embiid getting injured make Tarik a better FT shooter by improving his form? Of course not.

We both agree that he didn't improve, but his stats did get better, which means that he played over his head. You are arguing with yourself and you don't even realize it.

You blame Bill Self for not defining a role for him or giving him enough minutes. I don't.

I agree with Self for not playing him, Embiid was the better option...And Tarik didn't play over his head, he played to his potential when put in the right situation.

You seem to forget he shot 69% for the year his sophomore year in Memphis.

Doesn't fit his agenda

(05-19-2015 02:52 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 02:37 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 02:02 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:43 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:09 PM)Stammers Wrote:  Field goal and free throw percentages up, fouling way down.

So Embiid getting injured improved which one of Tariks skills to allow for these improvements on the floor (You are giving stats).

Did Embiid getting injured make Tarik a better FT shooter by improving his form? Of course not.

We both agree that he didn't improve, but his stats did get better, which means that he played over his head. You are arguing with yourself and you don't even realize it.

You blame Bill Self for not defining a role for him or giving him enough minutes. I don't.

I agree with Self for not playing him, Embiid was the better option...And Tarik didn't play over his head, he played to his potential when put in the right situation.

You seem to forget he shot 69% for the year his sophomore year in Memphis.

Doesn't fit his agenda

That's about a half dozen agenda posts today. Another fine contribution. In case you didn't notice, I am sarcasticizing.

LMAO.

(05-19-2015 02:37 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 02:02 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:43 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:09 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 12:09 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Bill Self is not to blame...He had a better option. So yes when the coach has a better option you play them. That is not blame that is common sense.

Tarik was a victim of his circumstances, but he was still the same player the day before Embiid got injured as he was the day after. He didn't play out of his mind, he played the way he was always capable.

The only affect that Embiids injury had on Tarik was additional playing time and minutes Tarik could count on.

Please explain to me how Embiid getting injured made Tarik a better player?

Field goal and free throw percentages up, fouling way down.

So Embiid getting injured improved which one of Tariks skills to allow for these improvements on the floor (You are giving stats).

Did Embiid getting injured make Tarik a better FT shooter by improving his form? Of course not.

We both agree that he didn't improve, but his stats did get better, which means that he played over his head. You are arguing with yourself and you don't even realize it.

You blame Bill Self for not defining a role for him or giving him enough minutes. I don't.

I agree with Self for not playing him, Embiid was the better option...And Tarik didn't play over his head, he played to his potential when put in the right situation.

You seem to forget he shot 69% for the year his sophomore year in Memphis.

He never shot 75% from the field, and he never shot 68% free throws. He never did that at Memphis and wasn't doing that at Kansas. Maybe you forgot.

What about Pookie?