Author Topic: serious question for the retards (Read 1350 times)

sys · January 23, 2009, 03:44:39 PM

don't have to be a 'tard to reply though.

do you understand what big 12 average talent is?

for a long time i was thinking all of you tards were tards because you overrated ksu talent. but, thinking about it, you probably just have no idea what constitutes normal talent for a big 12 team.

jthutch · January 23, 2009, 03:51:16 PM

CU has below average talent.

KSU=average<average talent?

ku+Above average talent

I'm

But still a great

catzacker · January 23, 2009, 04:08:58 PM

Above average: UT, OU, ku, Baylor
Average: OSU, MU,
Below Average: ISU, KSU, NU, CU, TT, A&M

IMO, arguments could be made for A&M being average and OSU being above average.

michigancat · January 23, 2009, 04:16:31 PM

Top half in 2009 would be cool. OU, ku, BU, and UT will all clearly have more talent than KSU.

michigancat · January 23, 2009, 04:17:02 PM

Quote from: catzacker on January 23, 2009, 04:08:58 PM

Above average: UT, OU, ku, Baylor
Average: OSU, MU,
Below Average: ISU, KSU, NU, CU, TT, A&M

IMO, arguments could be made for A&M being average and OSU being above average.

Yes. OSU currently has two freaking Mcdonald's all-americans.

But aTm has 4 top 100's, and two of them are in their third year.

sys · January 23, 2009, 04:28:16 PM

need more retards posting.

the ones that say stuff like "we've got a handful of 3 stars, don't tell me we don't have talent".

mean big 12 talent = somewhere around 4-5 top 150s, with one or two of those a top 50?

catzacker · January 23, 2009, 04:37:42 PM

The real difficulty is that the middle class is so thin in the Big 12 and almost always has been. It's like there's elite/above average talent or no talent (relatively speaking). Couple that with KSU having below average talent and not only below average but well below average at certain spots and when we even get a sniff of "talent" it appears (based on the past 16) to be above average.

sys · January 23, 2009, 04:42:34 PM

Quote from: catzacker on January 23, 2009, 04:37:42 PM

The real difficulty is that the middle class is so thin in the Big 12 and almost always has been. It's like there's elite/above average talent or no talent (relatively speaking).

pretty true. not many teams are right in the middle. maybe a&m and mu would be closest.

Stupid Fitz · January 23, 2009, 04:47:43 PM

It is obviously Frank's fault this team is bad. This team won 2 games in the dance last year and should have built on that. Frank is the problem, he is not a good game manager. KSU should have hired a top flight coach instead of Frank. I bet tons of big time coaches wanted to come to manhattan.

Brock Landers · January 23, 2009, 04:49:46 PM

I am proudly

and love to bathe myself in a vat of purple kool aid.

I guess it depends on exactly how talent is measured. Is it by the recruiting rankings, is it pure athletic ability, is it talent to run a particular style??

michigancat · January 23, 2009, 04:52:29 PM

Quote from: sys on January 23, 2009, 04:42:34 PM

Quote from: catzacker on January 23, 2009, 04:37:42 PM
The real difficulty is that the middle class is so thin in the Big 12 and almost always has been. It's like there's elite/above average talent or no talent (relatively speaking).

pretty true. not many teams are right in the middle. maybe a&m and mu would be closest.

Yes. OSU might be, too.

ltrain37 · January 23, 2009, 04:59:53 PM

Quote from: sys on January 23, 2009, 04:42:34 PM

Quote from: catzacker on January 23, 2009, 04:37:42 PM
The real difficulty is that the middle class is so thin in the Big 12 and almost always has been. It's like there's elite/above average talent or no talent (relatively speaking).

pretty true. not many teams are right in the middle. maybe a&m and mu would be closest.

You shoulda banned hbbiq types from posting cause now all of the vlbbiq types (like me) are just gonna say..."um...ya, aTm and mu are average"

I don't have the time and energy to look at rosters and recruiting rankings...so I'll base it on the product I see on the floor...uk, UT, OU and Baylor are above the line...KSU, ISU, CU, TT and NU are definitley below and I'll throw aTm and OSU into the average category and I guess MU too (against my better judgement)

ltrain37 · January 23, 2009, 05:08:18 PM

Another thing to think about...how many of the current 'Cats could start or see serious minutes on any of the teams considered average or above average?

sys · January 23, 2009, 05:12:10 PM

Quote from: ltrain37 on January 23, 2009, 05:08:18 PM

Another thing to think about...how many of the current 'Cats could start or see serious minutes on any of the teams considered average or above average?

yes, this is a great way to do comparos if you don't want to use recruit rankings.

sys · January 23, 2009, 05:15:31 PM

Quote from: michigancat on January 23, 2009, 04:52:29 PM

OSU might be, too.

osu is different, imo. they have elite talent @ multiple spots, just v. thin elsewhere.

mcmwcat · January 23, 2009, 05:52:19 PM

so is there a "right" answer where you have compiled all rsci rankings and then also added years in program? please say yes

sys · January 23, 2009, 05:57:02 PM

no. sounds like a lot of work.

A-Lishious · January 23, 2009, 06:08:17 PM

If Nubbs have sub big12 avg. talent, how does one explain them having success (and getting better this year as it goes on) while also being able to play with teams with elite level talent (OU - game was tied throughout until final 3-4min).

Coaching is a variable. It is not just talent.

Real question you should ask sys, which variable means more?

I say talent. Coaching you can pick up as you go.

BostonPancake · January 23, 2009, 07:07:35 PM

Quote from: A-Lishious on January 23, 2009, 06:08:17 PM

If Nubbs have sub big12 avg. talent, how does one explain them having success (and getting better this year as it goes on) while also being able to play with teams with elite level talent (OU - game was tied throughout until final 3-4min).

Coaching is a variable. It is not just talent.

Real question you should ask sys, which variable means more?

I say talent. Coaching you can pick up as you go.

More than just coaching.....motivation is also a factor. We all know OU has way more talent than NU, but how "up" for the game was OU? They do have Baylor coming in next...perhaps a look-ahead situation.

Yeah, they were tied with 4 min to go, but in the end the more talented team won. If NU had average talent, perhaps they would have been able to knock off an unmotivated, yet more talented team.

steve dave · January 23, 2009, 07:58:16 PM

bravo sys, bravo

sys · January 23, 2009, 08:38:47 PM

very disappointing thread. you see a lot of retards saying "ksu has great talent", and then you create a thread saying "hey retards, post here about ksu's great talent", well you just naturally assume you'll get a better retard response.

hey alish (disclaimer, i love sadler, and loved him way before all the sadler newbie jumped on his bandwagon this year, so this isn't an antisadler statement), teams with less talent take teams with more talent to near even games then lose in the last 3-4 minutes all the time. that's what teams with less talent do. sadler started the big 12 0-4 last season with an all big 12 type talent @ the 5. he's 2-2 this year with home wins over ksu and mu. let's back off the sadler train a bit. he's the king, not the king of kings.

obviously talent is more important than coaching. my central thesis is that all big 6 type coaches are such good coaches that coaching essentially cancels itself out and the only thing that matters is talent. even to the extent that this thesis may be falsified by the occasional odd coach that squeaks through the winnowing process, talent is still vastly more important.

steve dave · January 23, 2009, 08:53:54 PM

This thread will be so god damned important next season when we aren't undefeated at any point in the year. Frank is bringing in the second best recruiting class in my paying attention lifetime. Even so, we will probably have somewhere between the 3rd and 7th most talent in the league. Retards are going to think we are in the top 10 in the country talent-wise next season. We will probably not be in the top 25. I am very LBBIQ so if I'm wrong someone tell me. I think we can make the NCAA next year. That would be HUGE.

A-Lishious · January 23, 2009, 09:15:54 PM

Quote from: sys on January 23, 2009, 08:38:47 PM

very disappointing thread. you see a lot of retards saying "ksu has great talent", and then you create a thread saying "hey retards, post here about ksu's great talent", well you just naturally assume you'll get a better retard response.

hey alish (disclaimer, i love sadler, and loved him way before all the sadler newbie jumped on his bandwagon this year, so this isn't an antisadler statement), teams with less talent take teams with more talent to near even games then lose in the last 3-4 minutes all the time. that's what teams with less talent do. sadler started the big 12 0-4 last season with an all big 12 type talent @ the 5. he's 2-2 this year with home wins over ksu and mu. let's back off the sadler train a bit. he's the king, not the king of kings.

obviously talent is more important than coaching. my central thesis is that all big 6 type coaches are such good coaches that coaching essentially cancels itself out and the only thing that matters is talent. even to the extent that this thesis may be falsified by the occasional odd coach that squeaks through the winnowing process, talent is still vastly more important.

Sys - people are afraid of being owned by you when they come in here. You have to be more subtle in your thread openings to attract the simple minded folk. If you ask it, they will come!

Regarding your second point, i agree that talent is the most important aspect. X's and O's are easily drawn and executed on a white board but the guy on the court with the better body, vision and talent will do it better then the dude without. Another thing tho; there are always the variables, the Jeff Teagues, Sean Singletarys (the two and three stars) that come out of no where and develop INTO great talents. Is this based on coaching (ala Darnell Jackson going from freshmen to senior under Manning) or simply a late bloomer in talent?

Heres a thought. Who was the last coach that had great talent and visibly wasted it?

steve dave · January 23, 2009, 09:27:03 PM

Quote from: A-Lishious on January 23, 2009, 09:15:54 PM

ala Darnell Jackson going from freshmen to senior under Manning

Darnell was a huge get as a recruit, #54 in the country. When Wally gets to Manhattan that will be the third or fourth player in my living memory that KSU has gotten that will have been higher ranked than Darnell (Mike and Bill being the other two and Cartier being right there). Amazing that ku fans have no idea what they have or when they have it. Darnell regressed horribly at ku. Danny Manning is a garbage "teacher" (most good players are). A-Lish, I defended you to fatty earlier when we had the "who are the good ku contributors" thread. You are making me look bad bro.

http://basketballrecruiting.rivals.com/viewprospect.asp?pr_key=13410&Sport=2

catdude33 · January 23, 2009, 11:33:26 PM

Throw coaching and talent out the window. The fact is, good attendance wins games.

fatty fat fat · January 24, 2009, 12:07:39 AM

Quote from: catdude33 on January 23, 2009, 11:33:26 PM

Throw coaching and talent out the window. The fact is, good attendance wins games.

stop it c-dude.

michigancat · January 24, 2009, 08:20:26 AM

Kat Kid · January 24, 2009, 10:28:21 AM

dudes here's the thing:

when you have 1 dude avg. > 10 ppg and 0 dudes avg. > 5.5 rpg then you pretty much suck.

Also if you can't get to the line, can't shoot free throws, turn the ball over, can't shoot the three and have no non-retarded post presence over 6'6" then you pretty much sucks.

cireksu · January 24, 2009, 12:25:02 PM

sutton is a 4 star he should score more or be a better shooter at least.

Purrrple · January 24, 2009, 12:38:49 PM

Would be nice to actually see something from a playbook being executed.

Watching the Lady Cats

. WAY better coached BB team then men's IMHO.

Author Topic: serious question for the retards (Read 1350 times)

cireksu