"The theory of an opposing coach gaining the upper hand because of what we write is something you drummed up, Rock. I've been pretty clear on the real reason we are not to discuss privledged information."

Nope, try again.

https://web.archive.org/web/201407101330...nformation

"These boards are definitely read by members of the W&M athletic department AND members of other school's athletic departments. They are also visited by players, players' families, and members of the press."

And no, don't tell me that things are different because that's the old board.

You can frame your efforts to criticize Mitchell after every miscue and point out how McKee would be better however you wish, but it sure looked like it was criticism of a current player. It looked similar to the McKee criticism that got you annoyed. All of which is fine- we're fans, and ultimately that's all we can do. We can and should keep it within reason, and unloading on a college kid is unhealthy.

Well, that is our old forum and the moderator of that forum posted his concerns. I'm telling you that [a certain person] is no longer welcome to attend closed basketball practices because he didn't keep his mouth shut. That's my reason. Closed practices are closed for a reason...thats all you need to know. I respect the mandates placed by our coaches and I intend to do what I can to honor their demands.

It's laughable that you think I would ever slam one of our players. You've lost your mind if you think that. I simply stated that I felt McKee gave us the best chance to win because, in my eyes, the poor QB stats had more to do with other factors. Turns out, I was correct. You hate that.

Now, back to sarcastic attacks on our players and programs. I'm sure you're working on something special for us.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(12-02-2017 01:19 AM)Tribal Wrote:  I simply stated that I felt McKee gave us the best chance to win

It is impossible to determine if McKee gave us a better chance to win in any of those games because, in fact, W&M did not win any of those games (and only McKee played in those last games).

While I actually agree that by the end McKee was more experienced and that it could be surmised that he offered the best chance to win, my point is that we will never actually know the truth of it because he was the only one who got the chance and because he did not actually win any games.

The only way to know for sure would be for each QB to compete in each game and then compare their success.

It is obvious when you watch that Knight could play the power forward slot in our offense. It would have been nice to see a lineup of Cohn, Milon, Pierce, Knight and Whitman with Burchfield and Rowley coming off the bench.

(12-01-2017 11:45 PM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  Glad this team is gelling, but anyone who doesn't think we could badly use Whitman this year is out of their damn mind. Knight is flourishing - when he's on the court. Like any big man (and especially younger big man), there's going to be more than a handful of games where he's limited to 18-20 minutes with foul trouble. We're going to lose almost all those games. Losing Whitman probably cost us anywhere from 2-5 wins (in my extremely scientific analysis).

When did our board turn into rampant discontent? While precedent exists in all areas of life now, contradicting positions are allowed even from the same poster. It is also the moderator's job to monitor this forum and make sure certain rules are followed. In the 2 current examples, Shaver praised Connor Burchfield. He never actually mentioned anyone else and has not in any public forum. Mamy coaches have in the past, but none of our coaches did. This is what twitter and message board posters do.

As for Mckee, he was criticized right away. Expectations for Mitchell and the team were unreasonable (I was guilty of it myself). Nothing was said here that thousands (hopefully, not tens watching) were not thinking as the games unfolded. None of us knew if Mckee could not play, if he was merely running what the coaches called, or if it was poor blocking and receiving. We knew the offense was boring and could not score. We knew the team was not as good and we reacted and were disappointed. After tge reasonable suggestion, i stopped commenting. I guarantee Mckee has heard much worse than what was posted here on social media because unfortunately tgat is what kids deal with today. Still it was 100% right to post that 50+ yr old fans shouldn't criticize 20 yr old players. But, it occurs every day from every walk of life on social media. When teams lose, postings are negative. Life was actually better without the attacks of social media, but it is out there now. All Tribe team menbers and coaches should ignore what is posted, because there will always be criticism even if we went undefeated. Let it go everyone and move on to Savannah State. We all bleed green and gold.

(12-02-2017 01:19 AM)Tribal Wrote:  Well, that is our old forum and the moderator of that forum posted his concerns. I'm telling you that [a certain person] is no longer welcome to attend closed basketball practices because he didn't keep his mouth shut. That's my reason. Closed practices are closed for a reason...thats all you need to know. I respect the mandates placed by our coaches and I intend to do what I can to honor their demands.

It's laughable that you think I would ever slam one of our players. You've lost your mind if you think that. I simply stated that I felt McKee gave us the best chance to win because, in my eyes, the poor QB stats had more to do with other factors. Turns out, I was correct. You hate that.

Now, back to sarcastic attacks on our players and programs. I'm sure you're working on something special for us.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Must be nice to be able to take swipes at posters that wouldn't be tolerated by others and derail threads at your whim when you have your beloved sash to protect you.

(12-02-2017 08:11 AM)Rocco Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 01:19 AM)Tribal Wrote:  Well, that is our old forum and the moderator of that forum posted his concerns. I'm telling you that [a certain person] is no longer welcome to attend closed basketball practices because he didn't keep his mouth shut. That's my reason. Closed practices are closed for a reason...thats all you need to know. I respect the mandates placed by our coaches and I intend to do what I can to honor their demands.

It's laughable that you think I would ever slam one of our players. You've lost your mind if you think that. I simply stated that I felt McKee gave us the best chance to win because, in my eyes, the poor QB stats had more to do with other factors. Turns out, I was correct. You hate that.

Now, back to sarcastic attacks on our players and programs. I'm sure you're working on something special for us.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Must be nice to be able to take swipes at posters that wouldn't be tolerated by others and derail threads at your whim when you have your beloved sash to protect you.

The feud between you and Tribal is similar to the time you all were this age! Both need to move on and quit it.

This is fun. I'm enjoying the respectful bickering. It reminds me of my grandparents.

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, Rocco.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(12-01-2017 06:44 AM)BigTribe3 Wrote:  This team, at least in my opinion, is much better off in the long run without the guys who left. They have a synergy that the departed never would have been part of.

Agree. With the two longest-serving departed teammates (not naming names...we know who we're talking about) I always got a little worried when they struggled early, whether from the field or the FT line, and the struggles usually played out the entire game. This year's squad seems to be able to overcome a few missed shots and start making buckets.

I'm not nearly as nervous when we go to the free throw line as I've been the last few seasons.

(12-02-2017 07:04 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  It is obvious when you watch that Knight could play the power forward slot in our offense. It would have been nice to see a lineup of Cohn, Milon, Pierce, Knight and Whitman with Burchfield and Rowley coming off the bench.

(12-01-2017 11:45 PM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  Glad this team is gelling, but anyone who doesn't think we could badly use Whitman this year is out of their damn mind. Knight is flourishing - when he's on the court. Like any big man (and especially younger big man), there's going to be more than a handful of games where he's limited to 18-20 minutes with foul trouble. We're going to lose almost all those games. Losing Whitman probably cost us anywhere from 2-5 wins (in my extremely scientific analysis).

I doubt Whitman & Knight would start together, and couldn't see them on the floor together any more than 5 minutes due to concerns that they would both get into foul trouble. Tony's offense also relies on the 4 out, 1 in concept with pick and roll for Cohn and kick out by Cohn to a shooter. With Knight at the 4, you are pretty much leaving him at the 3 point line and not allowing him to assert his dominance near the hoop.

I would assume they would be close to the same rotation as last year of each being on the court for about 5 minute intervals (maybe 6 min for Knight, 4 for Whitman), with maybe both being on the floor together towards the end of the 1st/2nd half if they both were free of foul trouble. If Harrison can come in and give us 5 good minutes of basketball each half by cleaning up the glass, setting good screens, defending opposing centers, etc. (which is asking for a lot), then I honestly don't think Whitman would be missed that much. Sure, Whitman would be a huge upgrade as a backup to Harrison, but I don't see Whitman being ok with that role and don't know what effect that would have on the locker room.

Watch the game today and see where Knight plays when the defense is in man to man. If it is like with Marshall, he slides down to the block and posts up for an isolation. Put Whitman in that slot and let Knight cut to the hoop. It would not be easy to defend, and we would be much bigger on defense. I think by the time Knight finishes up here he's going to be playing a lot on the perimeter and down low. He's a pretty good shooter now and will improve.

Substituting Whitman for Rowley in the starting lineup with Paul coming off the bench is a much stronger lineup than currently constructed. Don't forget, after Cacok and perhaps Gustys, Whitman was arguably one of the best returning bigs in conference. No chance a lineup of Jack and an improved Nate wouldn't have payed dividends.

(12-02-2017 03:18 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  Substituting Whitman for Rowley in the starting lineup with Paul coming off the bench is a much stronger lineup than currently constructed. Don't forget, after Cacok and perhaps Gustys, Whitman was arguably one of the best returning bigs in conference. No chance a lineup of Jack and an improved Nate wouldn't have payed dividends.

Without ever seeing Nathan and Jack on the floor at the same time, I can't agree with this. Rowley stretches the floor better for either of those post players, and Nathan is a good shooter for a center, but is not better than anyone else we play at the 4. Well, maybe Tot unless it's from half court.

This isn't to say that they wouldn't have been able to co-exist, just that our offense would have had to change for that to happen.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...-sidelined

Looks like maybe Kansas let Jack Whitman go too soon.

This win looking more and more impressive.

Marshall ran off four straight wins after our game at Kaplan until falling this week to #9 Xavier by just four points. They are now 8-4

We're a very similar team to Marshall, with the exception of our advantage with Knight. On any given night I think we can hang with anyone but also get blown out by anyone. We're going to have very few average games.

Re Kansas, Coach Self did not let Whitman go; Whitman left after practice one day and went home.