Steven Pearl

#52
#52
There is no excuse for forcing your team to play 2 minutes of basically play 4 on 5 basketball because you have a slow 6'5 unathletic PF on the floor because you want your boy to play in an NCAA tournament game.
 
Last edited:
#53
#53
Urinal Mint said:
There is no excuse for forcing your team to play 2 minutes of basically play 4 on 5 basketball because you have a slow 6'5 athletic PF on the floor because you want your boy to play in an NCAA tournament game.
Click to expand...

after I read through your post about three times I believe I can understand and translate your post. The part I can't quite comprehend is the fragment in bold. Is that supposed to be the insulting part of the paragraph or are you trying to complement his athleticism.

I will be the first to agree that Steven pearl is not a sec caliber player.

Then I will be the first to tell you that his insignificant limited minutes are the least of my concerns for this basketball team right now. He does not really hurt our team for the few minutes he may see in a game. Because he is giving someone a quick breather or keeping them from further foul trouble, he knows the offense and does not try to play out of his role.
 
#54
#54
Urinal Mint said:
There is no excuse for forcing your team to play 2 minutes of basically play 4 on 5 basketball because you have a slow 6'5 athletic PF on the floor because you want your boy to play in an NCAA tournament game.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember the Louisville game, do you? Pearl actually played a solid two minutes, got two rebounds and gave a breather to the posts, who were in foul trouble. So, he did exactly what he was supposed to do, steal a couple of minutes.

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about, just another anti-Pearl rant with no rhyme or reason.
 
Last edited:
#55
#55
Bassmanbruno said:
if he wasn't such a tool he would get less heat - haha - you should've heard some of the stuff yelled from the student area last night - the students hate him with a passion.
Click to expand...

We don't hate him. We just laugh hysterically at his sucktitude every time he gets in the game.
 
#56
#56
The thing some of you don't understand is that 2-minutes of Steven Pearl is 2 minutes too much of him. He's IS that BAD. Our players can suck it up and play those extra 2-minutes if Chris Lofton and CJ Watson were able to play the entire game basically and that's a lot more minutes than the current players Steven Pearl comes in "to give a breather" for.
 
#58
#58
Bassmanbruno said:
The thing some of you don't understand is that 2-minutes of Steven Pearl is 2 minutes too much of him. He's IS that BAD. Our players can suck it up and play those extra 2-minutes if Chris Lofton and CJ Watson were able to play the entire game basically and that's a lot more minutes than the current players Steven Pearl comes in "to give a breather" for.
Click to expand...

No, he's not. Name one game the kid has cost us. The answer is ZERO because he doesn't play enough and he does his job well. And, yes, you do need those two minutes sometimes to get a guy a breather or sit a guy in foul trouble.

God, I swear, this place sometimes is a cesspool of idiocy. Let's review. Plays, at most, 2 minutes a game. Not on scholarship. Asked to do a very limited, specific role, which he does just fine.

Non-issue. Good lord people, some of you will complain about the most trivial crap.
 
#59
#59
Unimane said:
No, he's not. Name one game the kid has cost us. The answer is ZERO because he doesn't play enough and he does his job well. And, yes, you do need those two minutes sometimes to get a guy a breather or sit a guy in foul trouble.

God, I swear, this place sometimes is a cesspool of idiocy. Let's review. Plays, at most, 2 minutes a game. Not on scholarship. Asked to do a very limited, specific role, which he does just fine.

Non-issue. Good lord people, some of you will complain about the most trivial crap.
Click to expand...

Since it's immaterial, let's just pick random students to spell people.

Support the kid all you want, but he has no business on the floor with our basketball team.

Nobody is arguing that he is killing us, just that he should never see the floor, which is correct.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#60
#60
Unimane said:
No, he's not. Name one game the kid has cost us. The answer is ZERO because he doesn't play enough and he does his job well. And, yes, you do need those two minutes sometimes to get a guy a breather or sit a guy in foul trouble.

God, I swear, this place sometimes is a cesspool of idiocy. Let's review. Plays, at most, 2 minutes a game. Not on scholarship. Asked to do a very limited, specific role, which he does just fine.

Non-issue. Good lord people, some of you will complain about the most trivial crap.
Click to expand...

Haha - keep it up man - hilarious.

There's no reason the kid should ever see the floor besides a blow out - it isn't a hard concept to grasp - just because he's not on scholarship and he can give a foul doesn't mean he should ever see the floor. He not good... at all.. he has a hard enough time converting a layup and nearly turns it over ever time he touches the ball - no reason to have him out there - it's not like we're running a 6-7 man rotation where we need to give someone a constant breather or have huge foul issues.
 
Last edited:
#61
#61
Unimane said:
This? Seriously?

Are we talking about the tournament game that he played 2 minutes or the two other tourney games he played one minute?

Are we really going to complain about this, too? Are you going to make me ask more rhetorical questions that show my incredulity at the ridiculousness of this thread?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm going to complain. He doesn't deserve to be on the floor at any time that's not garbage time or pre-season ball. Here's my question for ya. If his name was Steven Smith, you think he would still be seeing those two minutes of playing time in an NCAA Tourney game? Do you honestly think that? Of course he wouldn't. And that's the problem. And if our post players can't handle an extra two minutes at the end of the half, then our conditioning is wildy overrated.
 
#62
#62
I feel like I'm talking to a wall, but it's just like this place to complain about something just to complain about something. You are complaining because a kid got 4 total minutes of playing time in three games. Out of 600 minutes available, he got 4, or 0.6% of the time.

His job, his only purpose was to steal a minute or two from a forward in foul trouble. His production, two rebounds, zero turnovers. He did exactly what he was supposed to do and then sat his ass on the bench. And this was TWO DAMN YEARS AGO!!!!

Seriously, do any of you understand basketball at all? Because, if you do, then you wouldn't whine about a kid who plays in half our games (nearly all blowouts) and averages hardly a minute when he does. Nor would you fail to understand players having specific roles in which they use to benefit the team, which he does, even though it's extremely minute.

If you all are so blinded by some ridiculous need to criticize the basketball team for every minute detail, then, by all means, chase this rainbow. But, this is, quite possibly, the dumbest "outrage" of all the stupid outrages on this board regarding Pearl. It's about as stupid as the morons whining about the black uniforms.
 
Last edited:
#63
#63
Unimane said:
I feel like I'm talking to a wall, but it's just like this place to complain about something just to complain about something. You are complaining because a kid got 4 total minutes of playing time in three games. Out of 600 minutes available, he got 4, or 0.6% of the time.

His job, his only purpose was to steal a minute or two from a forward in foul trouble. His production, two rebounds, zero turnovers. He did exactly what he was supposed to do and then sat his ass on the bench. And this was TWO DAMN YEARS AGO!!!!

Seriously, do any of you understand basketball at all? Because, if you do, then you wouldn't whine about a kid who plays in half our games (nearly all blowouts) and averages hardly a minute when he does. Nor would you fail to understand players having specific roles in which they use to benefit the team, which he does, even though it's extremely minute.

If you all are so blinded by some ridiculous need to criticize the basketball team for every minute detail, then, by all means, chase this rainbow. But, this is, quite possibly, the dumbest "outrage" of all the stupid outrages on this board regarding Pearl. It's about as stupid as the morons whining about the black uniforms.
Click to expand...

You still didn't answer my question. If his name was Steven Smith, would he see any of those minutes? No, because he is no good. And like I said, if our posts cannot last two minutes at the end of the half, we are wildly overrated in the conditioning department.
 
#64
#64
zjcvols said:
You still didn't answer my question. If his name was Steven Smith, would he see any of those minutes? No, because he is no good. And like I said, if our posts cannot last two minutes at the end of the half, we are wildly overrated in the conditioning department.
Click to expand...

First of all, it has nothing to do with conditioning. It has to do with foul trouble.

Secondly, who cares if it's Stephen Smith or Steven Pearl? It's 1 or 2 minutes in, maybe, half our games, for the 12th man. Tell me this, does he serve the purpose he is supposed to? The answer is yes, because he is asked to do very little for a very small amount of time. That's it.

However, I do think if he was the exact same player and his name was Stephen Smith, then nobody would give a flip about something so unimportant. However, since his last name is Pearl and this is Ground Zero for the anti-Pearl agenda brigade, it becomes some kind of ridiculous issue.

But, let me end the suspense, as it seems to be a pressing issue for some. Steven Pearl's play will mean jack as far as how successful we will be this year, positive or negative.
 
Last edited:
#66
#66
Unimane said:
First of all, it has nothing to do with conditioning. It has to do with foul trouble.

Secondly, who cares if it's Stephen Smith or Steven Pearl? It's 1 or 2 minutes in, maybe, half our games, for the 12th man. Tell me this, does he serve the purpose he is supposed to? The answer is yes, because he is asked to do very little for a very small amount of time. That's it.

However, I do think if he was the exact same player and his name was Stephen Smith, then nobody would give a flip about something so unimportant. However, since his last name is Pearl and this is Ground Zero for the anti-Pearl agenda brigade, it becomes some kind of ridiculous issue.

But, let me end the suspense, as it seems to be a pressing issue for some. Steven Pearl's play will mean jack as far as how successful we will be this year, positive or negative.
Click to expand...

Unimane said:
No, he's not. Name one game the kid has cost us. The answer is ZERO because he doesn't play enough and he does his job well. And, yes, you do need those two minutes sometimes to get a guy a breather or sit a guy in foul trouble.

God, I swear, this place sometimes is a cesspool of idiocy. Let's review. Plays, at most, 2 minutes a game. Not on scholarship. Asked to do a very limited, specific role, which he does just fine.

Non-issue. Good lord people, some of you will complain about the most trivial crap.
Click to expand...

:ermm:
 
#67
#67
Unimane said:
First of all, it has nothing to do with conditioning. It has to do with foul trouble.

Secondly, who cares if it's Stephen Smith or Steven Pearl? It's 1 or 2 minutes in, maybe, half our games, for the 12th man. Tell me this, does he serve the purpose he is supposed to? The answer is yes, because he is asked to do very little for a very small amount of time. That's it.

However, I do think if he was the exact same player and his name was Stephen Smith, then nobody would give a flip about something so unimportant. However, since his last name is Pearl and this is Ground Zero for the anti-Pearl agenda brigade, it becomes some kind of ridiculous issue.

But, let me end the suspense, as it seems to be a pressing issue for some. Steven Pearl's play will mean jack as far as how successful we will be this year, positive or negative.
Click to expand...

There is one person who adamantly hates Pearl. I don't know where you get this anti-Pearl agenda. And you didn't answer my question still. If his name was Steven Smith, would he see any playing time? no, he wouldn't. You know that. And that's the problem.

and you don't know that. he could come in for those two minutes and ruin momentum, which has happened before. It could happen again because he's terrible.
 
#68
#68
zjcvols said:
There is one person who adamantly hates Pearl. I don't know where you get this anti-Pearl agenda. And you didn't answer my question still. If his name was Steven Smith, would he any playing time? no, he wouldn't. You know that. And that's the problem.
Click to expand...

If the kid didn't happen to be a prick, nobody would care that his name is Pearl.

I'm nit complaining, I just don't want guys out there that we have no expectations for. Hell, put freshmen out there and let 'em grow.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#69
#69
BigPapaVol said:
If the kid didn't happen to be a prick, nobody would care that his name is Pearl.

I'm nit complaining, I just don't want guys out there that we have no expectations for. Hell, put freshmen out there and let 'em grow.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

exactly. Why couldn't a player with some form of talent like Wooldridge come instead of Pearl? because his last name is Pearl.
 
#70
#70
zjcvols said:
There is one person who adamantly hates Pearl. I don't know where you get this anti-Pearl agenda. And you didn't answer my question still. If his name was Steven Smith, would he see any playing time? no, he wouldn't. You know that. And that's the problem.

and you don't know that. he could come in for those two minutes and ruin momentum, which has happened before. It could happen again because he's terrible.
Click to expand...

When? When has it happened? It hasn't because he doesn't play outside of one or two minutes every third or fourth game..

I went and checked, he played 14 minutes in 16 SEC games last year. 14 MINUTES!!! Quinn Cannington played 9, Tanner Wild 7.

Why is this an issue?
 
#71
#71
Unimane said:
When? When has it happened? It hasn't because he doesn't play outside of one or two minutes every third or fourth game..

I went and checked, he played 14 minutes in 16 SEC games last year. 14 MINUTES!!! Quinn Cannington played 9, Tanner Wild 7.

Why is this an issue?
Click to expand...

I'll be honest, i forgot the team, but it was an SEC road game two years ago, and he fouled some1 to give them an and-1, missed a rebound, made a turnover and finally was taken out.

b/c he played in big games before and he has the potential to hurt our team while he has no potential to help. you still haven't answered my question. If his name was Steven Smith, would he see any minutes?
 
#72
#72
^

Plus teams just won't guard him when he's in there so - during that 1-2 minutes our offense is going to be hampered.
 
#73
#73
Bassmanbruno said:
^

Plus teams just won't guard him when he's in there so - during that 1-2 minutes our offense is going to be hampered.
Click to expand...
Easy now. That's true of about half of our starters and you're crapping all over Rudy Bradshaw.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top