goemaw.com

TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Basketball is hard => Topic started by: ZappaCat on April 23, 2013, 10:22:24 AM

Title: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: ZappaCat on April 23, 2013, 10:22:24 AM
Stan Weber to be on 810 soon talking about Angel, won't be able to listen, can anyone give a recap?
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: steve dave on April 23, 2013, 10:22:48 AM
I'll try to give one zappa. there may be a delay or I may not give one at all but if possible I will.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 23, 2013, 10:24:01 AM
I'll try to give one zappa. there may be a delay or I may not give one at all but if possible I will.

  :thumbs: sd 810 recaps are always great.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: scottwildcat on April 23, 2013, 10:25:12 AM
I'll try to give one zappa. there may be a delay or I may not give one at all but if possible I will.

  :thumbs: sd 810 recaps are always great.

i enjoy it quite a bit!
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: ZappaCat on April 23, 2013, 10:34:33 AM
I'll try to give one zappa. there may be a delay or I may not give one at all but if possible I will.

Thanks SD!
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: pissclams on April 23, 2013, 10:48:38 AM
picked up mid-stream-
was optimistic about next year, now you have to question it (thx stan).  thinks about next year the same way he thought about this year (thx stan).  mid to lower part of conference.

fortunately k-state really attacked PG position in recruiting (thx stan)

one of the new kids (maybe foster) will start at PG next season (thx stan), thomas not eligible until 12/15 (thx stan)

going from veteran leader to maybe a new kid starting PG although Doc Spradling could run the point during the non-con but hopefully moves back to 2 by conf games

loss of angel absorbed/impact lessened somewhat by oscar's motion offense

shane southwell needs to keep his focus and is capable of playing a lot of positions and could play the 2 to Doc's 1.
shane is the wildcard (<----new nickname?)

would oscar have gotten contract extension if angel left before?  stan:  yes absolutely (Big 12 coy) + it was written in his contract

angel never acted like was unhappy, no hint was given.  angel really wants to be closer to his family

soren's final four-
1) football teams record next year:  9-3
2) do you foul up 3 w/ less than 10 seconds:  yes
3) the basketball record next year:  22-13
4) who do the chiefs take #1:  luke jokel



Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: steve dave on April 23, 2013, 10:49:02 AM
- Stan completely caught off guard by this.  Spoke with him at awards banquet and he was in great spirits

- Where does this put KSU in the Big 12 next year?  Was very optimistic, possible threat a the top.  Now you don't have that rock at PG.  Views them like they were preseason this year...mid-pack.  Possible Foster starting at PG.  Veteran to needing a a Freshman to start PG.

-  Does Weber's offense ease the pain?  Yes.  A guy like Will can play PG because of motion offense; ball movement.  Shane's ability to play many positions is huge...possible off-guard.

- Would Weber have gotten the extension had this happened before?  Yes, absolutely.  Obligated by contract.

- No hint at Angel being unhappy..."Ever"

- Hearing same info behind the scenes on reason for leaving.

- Stan says 22-13 bball record next

- 9-3 football
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: pissclams on April 23, 2013, 10:54:16 AM
day late and a dollar short, :lol: 
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: steve dave on April 23, 2013, 10:57:05 AM
day late and a dollar short, :lol:

yep, I just couldn't type what I was personally listening to fast enough I guess
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: CNS on April 23, 2013, 10:59:26 AM
Guys, didn't Will play in the motion offense last year?  Weird that it didn't hide his inability last yr.

Huh.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on April 23, 2013, 11:00:20 AM
Would take 9-3 in football
Title: Re: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: michigancat on April 23, 2013, 11:00:58 AM
Would take 9-3 in football

qft
Title: Re: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: bones129 on April 23, 2013, 11:01:18 AM
Would take 9-3 in football

Definitely.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: kso_FAN on April 23, 2013, 11:02:56 AM
Guys, didn't Will play in the motion offense last year?  Weird that it didn't hide his inability last yr.

Huh.

Yeah, that's a dumb point. All you have to do is look at the UMKC and South Dakota games when Angel and Tay didn't play because of injuries to get a picture of how next year might look. But we still had Rodney to play.

The new guards better be able to play well right away. Stan's 22-13 seems pretty bold.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: ZappaCat on April 23, 2013, 11:06:11 AM
 :frown: It's official, welcome back K-State Basketball 1990-2006  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: catzacker on April 23, 2013, 11:07:32 AM
I bet oscar's motion offense is the cure for cancer.  Is there anything it can't do?
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: owl borland on April 23, 2013, 11:15:16 AM
Guys, didn't Will play in the motion offense last year?  Weird that it didn't hide his inability last yr.

Huh.

Yeah, that's a dumb point. All you have to do is look at the UMKC and South Dakota games when Angel and Tay didn't play because of injuries to get a picture of how next year might look. But we still had Rodney to play.

The new guards better be able to play well right away. Stan's 22-13 seems pretty bold.

we were 22-12 (9-7) in the 08-09 season. I think (with the b12 being so down next year) we should have a comparable record to that season, so i'll buy 22-13... livin life on the bubble all year.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: kougar24 on April 23, 2013, 11:29:14 AM
fortunately k-state really attacked PG position in recruiting

:lol: good one stan
Title: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: pissclams on April 23, 2013, 11:30:11 AM
day late and a dollar short, :lol:

yep, I just couldn't type what I was personally listening to fast enough I guess
I'm incred efficient at transcribing
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: kougar24 on April 23, 2013, 11:31:45 AM
day late and a dollar short, :lol:

yep, I just couldn't type what I was personally listening to fast enough I guess
I'm incred efficient at transcribing
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asap-buckler.com%2Fresources%2FSS_fastest_growing_jobs_stenographer.jpg&hash=31c5eb267b34bfb3c60e40bc9980f9c334042a2c)
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 23, 2013, 11:31:56 AM
Stan's 22-13 seems pretty bold.

not necessarily...

"There's an art to scheduling. Coach (Gene) Keady told me a long time ago -- and I thought he was crazy --scheduling might be more important than recruiting, and in some aspects it is"

Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: kougar24 on April 23, 2013, 11:35:04 AM
Stan's 22-13 seems pretty bold.

not necessarily...

"There's an art to scheduling. Coach (Gene) Keady told me a long time ago -- and I thought he was crazy --scheduling might be more important than recruiting, and in some aspects it is"



oh yeah :frown:
Title: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: pissclams on April 23, 2013, 11:35:07 AM
day late and a dollar short, :lol:

yep, I just couldn't type what I was personally listening to fast enough I guess
I'm incred efficient at transcribing
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: kso_FAN on April 23, 2013, 11:40:55 AM
Stan's 22-13 seems pretty bold.

not necessarily...

"There's an art to scheduling. Coach (Gene) Keady told me a long time ago -- and I thought he was crazy --scheduling might be more important than recruiting, and in some aspects it is"



Good point.

We know we have Gonzaga next year, a likely OOC loss, but its likely the rest of the OOC is pretty soft. Probably 11-2 at worse.
The Big 12 is down, so 9-9 might still be manageable. Maybe 8-10 or 7-11.
Then 1-1 in the Big 12 tournament.
And 0-1 in the NIT.

That would be around 20-14.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: kougar24 on April 23, 2013, 11:43:12 AM
Stan's 22-13 seems pretty bold.

not necessarily...

"There's an art to scheduling. Coach (Gene) Keady told me a long time ago -- and I thought he was crazy --scheduling might be more important than recruiting, and in some aspects it is"



Good point.

We know we have Gonzaga next year, a likely OOC loss, but its likely the rest of the OOC is pretty soft. Probably 11-2 at worse.
The Big 12 is down, so 9-9 might still be manageable. Maybe 8-10 or 7-11.
Then 1-1 in the Big 12 tournament.
And 0-1 in the NIT.

That would be 20-14.

fireable offense
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: kso_FAN on April 23, 2013, 11:43:59 AM
fireable offense

You can be as pissed as you want, but you know that isn't going to happen under that scenario.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: michigancat on April 23, 2013, 11:45:54 AM
Stan's 22-13 seems pretty bold.

not necessarily...

"There's an art to scheduling. Coach (Gene) Keady told me a long time ago -- and I thought he was crazy --scheduling might be more important than recruiting, and in some aspects it is"



Good point.

We know we have Gonzaga next year, a likely OOC loss, but its likely the rest of the OOC is pretty soft. Probably 11-2 at worse.
The Big 12 is down, so 9-9 might still be manageable. Maybe 8-10 or 7-11.
Then 1-1 in the Big 12 tournament.
And 0-1 in the NIT.

That would be around 20-14.

sounds like a fun season!
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: kougar24 on April 23, 2013, 11:47:22 AM
fireable offense

You can be as pissed as you want, but you know that isn't going to happen under that scenario.

oh i will be as pissed as i want.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: CNS on April 23, 2013, 11:53:19 AM
Guys, didn't Will play in the motion offense last year?  Weird that it didn't hide his inability last yr.

Huh.

Yeah, that's a dumb point. All you have to do is look at the UMKC and South Dakota games when Angel and Tay didn't play because of injuries to get a picture of how next year might look. But we still had Rodney to play.

The new guards better be able to play well right away. Stan's 22-13 seems pretty bold.

we were 22-12 (9-7) in the 08-09 season. I think (with the b12 being so down next year) we should have a comparable record to that season, so i'll buy 22-13... livin life on the bubble all year.

'08 had Jake, Denis, Curt, Jamar, and Dom. 

'13 Sprads, Shane, Gip, Whothefuckcares, whothefuckcares

 
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 23, 2013, 11:53:46 AM
Stan's 22-13 seems pretty bold.

not necessarily...

"There's an art to scheduling. Coach (Gene) Keady told me a long time ago -- and I thought he was crazy --scheduling might be more important than recruiting, and in some aspects it is"



Good point.

We know we have Gonzaga next year, a likely OOC loss, but its likely the rest of the OOC is pretty soft. Probably 11-2 at worse.
The Big 12 is down, so 9-9 might still be manageable. Maybe 8-10 or 7-11.
Then 1-1 in the Big 12 tournament.
And 0-1 in the NIT.

That would be around 20-14.


12-1 in crap ooc
8-10 con
1-1 big12 tournament
1-1 NIT

22-13.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: michigancat on April 23, 2013, 11:56:48 AM
Stan's 22-13 seems pretty bold.

not necessarily...

"There's an art to scheduling. Coach (Gene) Keady told me a long time ago -- and I thought he was crazy --scheduling might be more important than recruiting, and in some aspects it is"



Good point.

We know we have Gonzaga next year, a likely OOC loss, but its likely the rest of the OOC is pretty soft. Probably 11-2 at worse.
The Big 12 is down, so 9-9 might still be manageable. Maybe 8-10 or 7-11.
Then 1-1 in the Big 12 tournament.
And 0-1 in the NIT.

That would be around 20-14.


12-1 in crap ooc
8-10 con
1-1 big12 tournament
1-1 NIT

22-13.

frank always sucked in the big 12 tourney
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: EMAWesome on April 23, 2013, 12:01:05 PM
Guys, didn't Will play in the motion offense last year?  Weird that it didn't hide his inability last yr.

Huh.

Yeah, that's a dumb point. All you have to do is look at the UMKC and South Dakota games when Angel and Tay didn't play because of injuries to get a picture of how next year might look. But we still had Rodney to play.

The new guards better be able to play well right away. Stan's 22-13 seems pretty bold.

we were 22-12 (9-7) in the 08-09 season. I think (with the b12 being so down next year) we should have a comparable record to that season, so i'll buy 22-13... livin life on the bubble all year.

'08 had Jake, Denis, Curt, Jamar, and Dom. 

'13 Sprads, Shane, Gip, Whothefuckcares, whothefuckcares

 

Would take a jersey of the last guy you mentioned
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: lopakman on April 23, 2013, 12:02:49 PM
I bet oscar's motion offense is the cure for cancer.  Is there anything it can't do?

Call a timeout with less than 10 seconds left in a NCAA tourney game.   :curse: oscar!  Thanks for opening up old wounds.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: orangerocket on April 23, 2013, 12:03:35 PM
Get ready for some serious Bruceketball next year...pass pass pass stand around...pass pass pass...stand...pass....3.2.1....chuck a three...
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: owl borland on April 23, 2013, 12:03:42 PM
Guys, didn't Will play in the motion offense last year?  Weird that it didn't hide his inability last yr.

Huh.

Yeah, that's a dumb point. All you have to do is look at the UMKC and South Dakota games when Angel and Tay didn't play because of injuries to get a picture of how next year might look. But we still had Rodney to play.

The new guards better be able to play well right away. Stan's 22-13 seems pretty bold.

we were 22-12 (9-7) in the 08-09 season. I think (with the b12 being so down next year) we should have a comparable record to that season, so i'll buy 22-13... livin life on the bubble all year.

'08 had Jake, Denis, Curt, Jamar, and Dom. 

'13 Sprads, Shane, Gip, Whothefuckcares, whothefuckcares

 
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: CNS on April 23, 2013, 12:06:12 PM
Guys, didn't Will play in the motion offense last year?  Weird that it didn't hide his inability last yr.

Huh.

Yeah, that's a dumb point. All you have to do is look at the UMKC and South Dakota games when Angel and Tay didn't play because of injuries to get a picture of how next year might look. But we still had Rodney to play.

The new guards better be able to play well right away. Stan's 22-13 seems pretty bold.

we were 22-12 (9-7) in the 08-09 season. I think (with the b12 being so down next year) we should have a comparable record to that season, so i'll buy 22-13... livin life on the bubble all year.

'08 had Jake, Denis, Curt, Jamar, and Dom. 

'13 Sprads, Shane, Gip, Whothefuckcares, whothefuckcares

 
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Mr Bread on April 23, 2013, 12:14:07 PM
Get ready for some serious Bruceketball next year...pass pass pass stand around...pass pass pass...stand...pass....3.2.1....chuck a three...

oscar's motion has proven time and time again that it doesn't need some fancy pants ball-handler point guard to thrive.  It transcends the concept of point guards.  Crisp ball movement and spacing.  It's like you've never watched a second of oscar's motion.  Least important player on the floor at all times in oscar's motion?  Point guard.  It works better when you don't have some dork that likes to run around slapping the ball off the floor all the time. 
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: chum1 on April 23, 2013, 12:17:15 PM
NIT?  What's the projection with Angel?  He's not THAT valuable.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: pissclams on April 23, 2013, 12:18:06 PM
oscar makes a living during the summers teaching vivid entertainment what crisp ball movement is all about.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Mr Bread on April 23, 2013, 12:20:15 PM
oscar makes a living during the summers teaching vivid entertainment what crisp ball movement is all about.

buh-zing
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: kougar24 on April 23, 2013, 12:42:55 PM
NIT?  What's the projection with Angel?  He's not THAT valuable.

Oh, but he is.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: chum1 on April 23, 2013, 12:47:37 PM
NIT?  What's the projection with Angel?  He's not THAT valuable.

Oh, but he is.

There are very few players, if any, who have that big of an impact on a team's performace. 
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: michigancat on April 23, 2013, 12:50:07 PM
NIT?  What's the projection with Angel?  He's not THAT valuable.

Oh, but he is.

There are very few players, if any, who have that big of an impact on a team's performace. 

Angel, on this team, is one of them.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: chum1 on April 23, 2013, 12:56:14 PM
NIT?  What's the projection with Angel?  He's not THAT valuable.

Oh, but he is.

There are very few players, if any, who have that big of an impact on a team's performace. 

Angel, on this team, is one of them.

Sure thing NIT vs. sure thing NCAA?  That seems to be what's being implied here.  That's nuts.   
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: michigancat on April 23, 2013, 12:57:42 PM
NIT?  What's the projection with Angel?  He's not THAT valuable.

Oh, but he is.

There are very few players, if any, who have that big of an impact on a team's performace. 

Angel, on this team, is one of them.

Sure thing NIT vs. sure thing NCAA?  That seems to be what's being implied here.  That's nuts.   

I think it's sure thing NCAA vs. bubble NCAA. It's a very reasonable objective observation.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: kougar24 on April 23, 2013, 12:59:15 PM
NIT?  What's the projection with Angel?  He's not THAT valuable.

Oh, but he is.

There are very few players, if any, who have that big of an impact on a team's performace. 

Angel, on this team, is one of them.

Sure thing NIT vs. sure thing NCAA?  That seems to be what's being implied here.  That's nuts.   

Mid-to-lower NCAA seed vs. NIT shoo-in isn't "nuts" when talking about the presence vs. absence of your veteran all-conference PG.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 23, 2013, 01:00:09 PM
NIT?  What's the projection with Angel?  He's not THAT valuable.

Oh, but he is.

There are very few players, if any, who have that big of an impact on a team's performace. 

Angel, on this team, is one of them.

Sure thing NIT vs. sure thing NCAA?  That seems to be what's being implied here.  That's nuts.

he was second team all league and first team defense at the most important position on the court and one that we were rail thin at to begin with. i'd say he was pretty important.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: chum1 on April 23, 2013, 01:01:31 PM
NIT?  What's the projection with Angel?  He's not THAT valuable.

Oh, but he is.

There are very few players, if any, who have that big of an impact on a team's performace. 

Angel, on this team, is one of them.

Sure thing NIT vs. sure thing NCAA?  That seems to be what's being implied here.  That's nuts.   

I think it's sure thing NCAA vs. bubble NCAA. It's a very reasonable objective observation.

I was reponding to people who were explicitly stating NIT (which I take to exclude bubble).

Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: chum1 on April 23, 2013, 01:06:55 PM
NIT?  What's the projection with Angel?  He's not THAT valuable.

Oh, but he is.

There are very few players, if any, who have that big of an impact on a team's performace. 

Angel, on this team, is one of them.

Sure thing NIT vs. sure thing NCAA?  That seems to be what's being implied here.  That's nuts.

he was second team all league and first team defense at the most important position on the court and one that we were rail thin at to begin with. i'd say he was pretty important.

No doubt, but this seems more like the usual, "OMG WE'LL BE mumped WITHOUT OUR STAR PLAYER WHO IS GRADUATING" type of overreaction.  There's always some unexpected new player that comes along.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: michigancat on April 23, 2013, 01:09:45 PM
This reminds me a lot of when Dez left and Fred Peete stepped up.

Or when Nick Williams left and Jarret Hart and Timmy Ellis eased our pain. always someone unexpected.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: kougar24 on April 23, 2013, 01:11:30 PM
This reminds me a lot of when Dez left and Fred Peete stepped up.

Or when Nick Williams left and Jarret Hart and Timmy Ellis eased our pain. always someone unexpected.

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkalafiornia.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F02%2F5vt5s0.gif&hash=9087ccfcdd2fde22d45e064451b7018687ad41cd)
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: pissclams on April 23, 2013, 01:12:31 PM
This reminds me a lot of when Dez left and Fred Peete stepped up.

Or when Nick Williams left and Jarret Hart and Timmy Ellis eased our pain. always someone unexpected.

shane southwell for jamar!
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: michigancat on April 23, 2013, 01:15:32 PM
And who can forget Mario Taybron filling the void left by Peete. He beat KU!
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: chum1 on April 23, 2013, 01:17:37 PM
You're saying those teams suffered a dramatic drop off from one year to the next?
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: michigancat on April 23, 2013, 01:18:15 PM
You're saying those teams suffered a dramatic drop off from one year to the next?

I'm agreeing w/ you. :dunno:
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: kso_FAN on April 23, 2013, 01:19:53 PM
And who can forget Mario Taybron filling the void left by Peete. He beat KU!

Its just so cyclical; Nick Williams stepped in to fill the chasm caused by Richie Terry's sudden departure.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: pissclams on April 23, 2013, 01:19:56 PM
imagine if santa monica's own, keith amerson, wasn't there to step into steve fritz's shoes  :eek:
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: chum1 on April 23, 2013, 01:20:46 PM
You're saying those teams suffered a dramatic drop off from one year to the next?

I'm agreeing w/ you. :dunno:

I initially thought so, but couldn't escape the conditioning that you were somehow being a smart ass.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: CHONGS on April 23, 2013, 01:22:30 PM
You're saying those teams suffered a dramatic drop off from one year to the next?

I'm agreeing w/ you. :dunno:

I initially thought so, but couldn't escape the conditioning that you were somehow being a smart ass.
I :lol:ed
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: michigancat on April 23, 2013, 01:24:10 PM
You're saying those teams suffered a dramatic drop off from one year to the next?

I'm agreeing w/ you. :dunno:

I initially thought so, but couldn't escape the conditioning that you were somehow being a smart ass.

Yeha, the only season that was noticeably worse was going from Nick Williams to Jarret Hart/Frank Richards. Went from 6-10 to 4-12. Two conference games could definitely be the difference between NCAA lock and bubble for sure. Obviously there's lots of factors involved beyond replacing a single player. (fun fact I discovered in my research: Wooly was only sub-.500 in 3 of 6 seasons!)
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: catzacker on April 23, 2013, 01:46:28 PM
It's not only sprads (or some freshman) stepping in for angel but also shane stepping in for mcgruds.   I have a hard time seeing both happen.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: kougar24 on April 23, 2013, 02:30:30 PM
It's not only sprads (or some freshman) stepping in for angel but also shane stepping in for mcgruds.   I have a hard time seeing both either happen.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Pett on April 23, 2013, 02:45:53 PM
EMAPE needs to go off next season
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: kougar24 on April 23, 2013, 02:49:32 PM
EMAPE needs to go off...

...the team?
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Pett on April 23, 2013, 03:15:51 PM
EMAPE needs to go off...

...the team?
No, statistically.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: steve dave on April 23, 2013, 03:16:23 PM
EMAPE needs to go off...

...the team?
No, statistically.

well, I mean...he won't
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: kougar24 on April 23, 2013, 04:39:27 PM
EMAPE needs to go off...

...the team?
No, statistically.

well, I mean...he won't

Yeah, let's step back and acknowledge the fact that we're discussing Omari Lawrence needing to "go off" for us next year.

:frown:
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: deputy dawg on April 23, 2013, 04:44:17 PM
Quote
it doesn't need some fancy pants ball-handler point guard


Can't believe everyone missed this, which is why we won't miss Angel.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Mr Bread on April 23, 2013, 05:12:38 PM
Quote
it doesn't need some fancy pants ball-handler point guard


Can't believe everyone missed this, which is why we won't miss Angel.

Quote from: me
It works better when you don't have some dork that likes to run around slapping the ball off the floor all the time.

This was the funnier part.  Obviously. 
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 23, 2013, 07:41:14 PM
Quote
it doesn't need some fancy pants ball-handler point guard


Can't believe everyone missed this, which is why we won't miss Angel.

Quote from: me
It works better when you don't have some dork that likes to run around slapping the ball off the floor all the time.

This was the funnier part.  Obviously.

they were both good.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Mr Bread on April 23, 2013, 08:00:38 PM
 :D
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: ELL3 on April 23, 2013, 08:12:09 PM
will we beat South Carolina in the NIT?
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Powercat Posse on April 23, 2013, 09:27:07 PM
NIT?  What's the projection with Angel?  He's not THAT valuable.

My thoughts 2-3 weeks ago were 24-25 wins and being a 6 seed entering NCAA Tourney.   Now, I think a 11-12 seed is a realistic goal for an optimist.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Lucas Scoopsalot on April 23, 2013, 11:39:18 PM
NIT?  What's the projection with Angel?  He's not THAT valuable.

My thoughts 2-3 weeks ago were 24-25 wins and being a 6 seed entering NCAA Tourney.   Now, I think a 11-12 seed is a realistic goal for an optimist.
I always thought of myself as an optimist, but I guess I'm not.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: MakeItRain on April 23, 2013, 11:40:29 PM
will we beat South Carolina in the NIT?

If we played South Carolina in the NIT it will absolutely be the first time, and hopefully the last, since I became a wildcat that I will actively root against K-State.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: scottwildcat on April 23, 2013, 11:44:11 PM
will we beat South Carolina in the NIT?

If we played South Carolina in the NIT it will absolutely be the first time, and hopefully the last, since I became a wildcat that I will actively root against K-State.

 :blindfold:
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: MakeItRain on April 23, 2013, 11:49:16 PM
There are people of influence around the program that would see success in the NIT as actual success/progress and I want no part of that. An NIT final four is good for a program like USC and I want Frank to do well there, I wouldn't consider that at the expense of K-State, the opposite actually.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Stevesie60 on April 24, 2013, 12:35:20 AM
will we beat South Carolina in the NIT?

If we played South Carolina in the NIT it will absolutely be the first time, and hopefully the last, since I became a wildcat that I will actively root against K-State.

What if we played Angel's new team?
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: MakeItRain on April 24, 2013, 12:41:36 AM
will we beat South Carolina in the NIT?

If we played South Carolina in the NIT it will absolutely be the first time, and hopefully the last, since I became a wildcat that I will actively root against K-State.

What if we played Angel's new team?

He'd have to go somewhere awful to be in the NIT, so yeah I guess Angel too.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: kougar24 on April 24, 2013, 11:10:22 AM
I too would actively root for us to lose an NIT game.

Winning the NIT would be the worst.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 24, 2013, 11:11:35 AM
MIR could you document who these "people of influence" are, you know, the one's that would consider the NIT progress.

Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: steve dave on April 24, 2013, 11:12:58 AM
Winning the NIT would be the worst.

I aggresively mocked Baylor's twitter when they tweeted they ended the season with the third longest active winning streak behind Louisville and some super pud team that played no post season. What an unbelievably stupid thing to brag about.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: CNS on April 24, 2013, 11:13:23 AM
I too would actively root for us to lose an NIT game.

Winning the NIT would be the worst.

Would rather not make the NIT if we don't make the NCAA's.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: kougar24 on April 24, 2013, 11:15:36 AM
Winning the NIT would be the worst.

I aggresively mocked Baylor's twitter when they tweeted they ended the season with the third longest active winning streak behind Louisville and some super pud team that played no post season. What an unbelievably stupid thing to brag about.

No joke. I'm familiar with #humblebrag...is there a #stupidbrag?
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Cartierfor3 on April 24, 2013, 11:22:42 AM
Winning the NIT would be the worst.

I aggresively mocked Baylor's twitter when they tweeted they ended the season with the third longest active winning streak behind Louisville and some super pud team that played no post season. What an unbelievably stupid thing to brag about.

CBI champs are on a badass winning streak too i bet
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: steve dave on April 24, 2013, 11:40:59 AM
Winning the NIT would be the worst.

I aggresively mocked Baylor's twitter when they tweeted they ended the season with the third longest active winning streak behind Louisville and some super pud team that played no post season. What an unbelievably stupid thing to brag about.

CBI champs are on a badass winning streak too i bet

that could have been the pud team that finished in second actually. I didn't really research their schedule.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Stevesie60 on April 24, 2013, 11:52:15 AM
I too would actively root for us to lose an NIT game.

Winning the NIT would be the worst.

Would rather not make the NIT if we don't make the NCAA's.

You, me and Jake. (And probably a few other people)
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Skipper44 on April 24, 2013, 11:55:29 AM
I too would actively root for us to lose an NIT game.

Winning the NIT would be the worst.

Would rather not make the NIT if we don't make the NCAA's.

You, me and Jake. (And probably a few other people)
NIT is acceptable for a guy building a program but I cringed at the sound of the townie crowds full of little kids for Hugs and Franks NIT home games.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: CNS on April 24, 2013, 11:58:33 AM
I too would actively root for us to lose an NIT game.

Winning the NIT would be the worst.

Would rather not make the NIT if we don't make the NCAA's.

You, me and Jake. (And probably a few other people)
NIT is acceptable for a guy building a program but I cringed at the sound of the townie crowds full of little kids for Hugs and Franks NIT home games.

I was at our last NIT home game.  It wasn't a quiet townie event. 
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Skipper44 on April 24, 2013, 12:42:10 PM
I too would actively root for us to lose an NIT game.

Winning the NIT would be the worst.

Would rather not make the NIT if we don't make the NCAA's.

You, me and Jake. (And probably a few other people)
NIT is acceptable for a guy building a program but I cringed at the sound of the townie crowds full of little kids for Hugs and Franks NIT home games.

I was at our last NIT home game.  It wasn't a quiet townie event.
I did not mean to imply it was quiet, it was the higher pitched scream of the crowd that seemed much different to me.  More like a boy band concert of something.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Cire on April 24, 2013, 12:58:05 PM
did anyone say hoskins for massey?
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: MakeItRain on April 24, 2013, 11:42:46 PM
MIR could you document who these "people of influence" are, you know, the one's that would consider the NIT progress.

Seriously? Like everyone. Instead of people of influence I should have said 95% of anyone associated with Kansas State. It's not unique to us either. SD posted about Baylor beating their chest after winning the NIT after a huge letdown of a season. Gregg Marshall was giving interviews the week of the Final Four in front of a huge NIT Champions poster. There have been schools that have put their NIT trophy on the cover of their media guide the next season. I'm not aware of any coach being on the hot seat after winning the NIT. People adopt a lemonade out of lemons philosophy. I bet if Kentucky won the NIT those bourbon swilling hillbillies would be online talking trash about how they would have made the Sweet 16 even without Nerlens Noel.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 25, 2013, 08:16:26 AM
MIR could you document who these "people of influence" are, you know, the one's that would consider the NIT progress.

Seriously? Like everyone. Instead of people of influence I should have said 95% of anyone associated with Kansas State. It's not unique to us either. SD posted about Baylor beating their chest after winning the NIT after a huge letdown of a season. Gregg Marshall was giving interviews the week of the Final Four in front of a huge NIT Champions poster. There have been schools that have put their NIT trophy on the cover of their media guide the next season. I'm not aware of any coach being on the hot seat after winning the NIT. People adopt a lemonade out of lemons philosophy. I bet if Kentucky won the NIT those bourbon swilling hillbillies would be online talking trash about how they would have made the Sweet 16 even without Nerlens Noel.

Exactly what I thought, no one.

Laughable.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: catzacker on April 25, 2013, 08:21:06 AM
 Do we have different people of influence (ie boosters) than we did during asbury and wooly?  Cause they seemed pleased as punch with crap basketball.  Hell, ksu boosters almost let hartman wreck the program and certainly would have let snyder 1.0 do it. 
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 25, 2013, 08:30:26 AM
Do we have different people of influence (ie boosters) than we did during asbury and wooly?  Cause they seemed pleased as punch with crap basketball.  Hell, ksu boosters almost let hartman wreck the program and certainly would have let snyder 1.0 do it.

Apparently you seem to forget the role of Dr. Jon Wefald in keeping Wooldridge around when Weiser wanted to fire him.   Jack Hartman was only allowed a couple of really bad seasons before he was forced to retire, and that after, by any measure, was a pretty nice run at K-State, with multiple conference titles and deep NCAA tourney runs (with several epic NCAA tourney games in there).    But those were completely different times.  Neither Wooldridge or Asbury were being paid compensation packages of $2 million dollars a year.   There wasn't the mandatory seat donations in Bramlage on the level there is today, there wasn't the revenue expectations of basketball like there is today.   The booster base has expanded significantly.   Back then K-State athletics was limited by the administration as to who they could approach for major donations, and that group consisted of about a half a page in Ernie Barrett's little black book.   Not the case anymore.

Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 25, 2013, 08:34:02 AM
Back then K-State athletics was limited by the administration as to who they could approach for major donations, and that group consisted of about a half a page in Ernie Barrett's little black book.   Not the case anymore.

some pretty good athletic dept vs foundation money battles currently going on now from what i hear. turf war LA in the late 80's blood/crip type stuff. pretty great.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: catzacker on April 25, 2013, 08:44:13 AM
Do we have different people of influence (ie boosters) than we did during asbury and wooly?  Cause they seemed pleased as punch with crap basketball.  Hell, ksu boosters almost let hartman wreck the program and certainly would have let snyder 1.0 do it.

Apparently you seem to forget the role of Dr. Jon Wefald in keeping Wooldridge around when Weiser wanted to fire him.   Jack Hartman was only allowed a couple of really bad seasons before he was forced to retire, and that after, by any measure, was a pretty nice run at K-State, with multiple conference titles and deep NCAA tourney runs (with several epic NCAA tourney games in there).    But those were completely different times.  Neither Wooldridge or Asbury were being paid compensation packages of $2 million dollars a year.   There wasn't the mandatory seat donations in Bramlage on the level there is today, there wasn't the revenue expectations of basketball like there is today.   The booster base has expanded significantly.   Back then K-State athletics was limited by the administration as to who they could approach for major donations, and that group consisted of about a half a page in Ernie Barrett's little black book.   Not the case anymore.



Hartman had one season in his last 4 where he was above .500 (his last @16-14) and in that time didn't finish higher than 5th in the big 8.  I understand the weefer's propensity to control everything.  And adjust asbury's and wooly's compensation to current value.  Which is even irrelevant to me because even if their compensation is low it only highlights the fact that our boosters didn't care.  So my question still remains, what boosters of influence do we have now that are different than 10 years ago?  Hell, vanier had to sign off on bill coming back.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: pissclams on April 25, 2013, 08:46:10 AM
Back then K-State athletics was limited by the administration as to who they could approach for major donations, and that group consisted of about a half a page in Ernie Barrett's little black book.   Not the case anymore.

some pretty good athletic dept vs foundation money battles currently going on now from what i hear. turf war LA in the late 80's blood/crip type stuff. pretty great.

serious about the AD versus the Foundation?
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 25, 2013, 08:50:12 AM
Back then K-State athletics was limited by the administration as to who they could approach for major donations, and that group consisted of about a half a page in Ernie Barrett's little black book.   Not the case anymore.

some pretty good athletic dept vs foundation money battles currently going on now from what i hear. turf war LA in the late 80's blood/crip type stuff. pretty great.

serious about the AD versus the Foundation?

yeah
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: WillieWabash on April 27, 2013, 09:17:27 PM
 :doom: I heard Angel was actually considering going to KU , that can't be true , can it ?
Title: Re: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: bones129 on April 27, 2013, 10:13:29 PM
:doom: I heard Angel was actually considering going to KU , that can't be true , can it ?

No. Lawrence is farther from his home, and closer to Shannon Spradling.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: raquetcat on April 27, 2013, 10:27:37 PM
Back then K-State athletics was limited by the administration as to who they could approach for major donations, and that group consisted of about a half a page in Ernie Barrett's little black book.   Not the case anymore.

some pretty good athletic dept vs foundation money battles currently going on now from what i hear. turf war LA in the late 80's blood/crip type stuff. pretty great.

serious about the AD versus the Foundation?

yeah

can you give any deets or is it just that the AD and foundation are both hitting up the same people for money and those people are trying to decide who should get it
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 27, 2013, 10:59:33 PM
Back then K-State athletics was limited by the administration as to who they could approach for major donations, and that group consisted of about a half a page in Ernie Barrett's little black book.   Not the case anymore.

some pretty good athletic dept vs foundation money battles currently going on now from what i hear. turf war LA in the late 80's blood/crip type stuff. pretty great.

serious about the AD versus the Foundation?

yeah

can you give any deets or is it just that the AD and foundation are both hitting up the same people for money and those people are trying to decide who should get it

nothing too interesting. more/less what you said.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: stobblebobby on January 09, 2014, 08:37:53 AM
Sorry if Luke'd. Glad he's happy, but  :bawl:

Quote
"I'm just so happy as a person right now," Rodriguez said. "There's so many times that we just talk to each other and say, 'Wow, we're really happy about what we're doing. We're getting after it.'"

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20140108/george-washington-colonials/?eref=sihp
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: scottwildcat on January 09, 2014, 08:39:40 AM
Sorry if Luke'd. Glad he's happy, but  :bawl:

Quote
"I'm just so happy as a person right now," Rodriguez said. "There's so many times that we just talk to each other and say, 'Wow, we're really happy about what we're doing. We're getting after it.'"

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20140108/george-washington-colonials/?eref=sihp

I'm happy he is happy.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: mocat on January 09, 2014, 08:43:16 AM
how have i never realized that Miami and we traded Denis for Angel straight up. everybody gets 4 years. i suppose we kind of won the trade because Angel's first 2 years were more productive than Denis' first 2 years. Denis had 2 fabulous years here too; we'll see how Angel does (probably amazing)
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on January 09, 2014, 08:50:07 AM
We won the trade cause of Jevon and Denis. Kick rocks, Angel. I guess they'd be sand pebbles in Miami, but kick those too.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Mixed-Nutz on January 09, 2014, 08:55:33 AM
how have i never realized that Miami and we traded Denis for Angel straight up. everybody gets 4 years. i suppose we kind of won the trade because Angel's first 2 years were more productive than Denis' first 2 years. Denis had 2 fabulous years here too; we'll see how Angel does (probably amazing)
Also have to factor in Angel's knees in to the equation they are in terrible shape.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: slobber on January 09, 2014, 09:04:43 AM
We won the trade cause of Jevon and Denis. Kick rocks, Angel. I guess they'd be sand pebbles in Miami, but kick those too.
That sounds mean and spiteful. I want him to build some sand castles and enjoy life!
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: 'taterblast on January 09, 2014, 09:11:38 AM
we won the trade
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Sandstone Outcropping on January 09, 2014, 09:36:05 AM
we won the trade
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: 8manpick on January 09, 2014, 09:40:22 AM
I swear to god if you guys are talking bad about Angel I'm going to come kick all of you in the balls and/or vag :don'tcare:
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: slobber on January 09, 2014, 09:43:11 AM
I swear to god if you guys are talking bad about Angel I'm going to come kick all of you in the balls and/or vag :don'tcare:
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: yoga-like_abana on January 09, 2014, 09:43:22 AM
I'd take Denis ALL DAY over Angel ALLL DAAAAYY
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: mocat on January 09, 2014, 09:58:08 AM
angel + jake

vs

denis + jake

 :dunno:
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: 'taterblast on January 09, 2014, 09:58:49 AM
denis + jake
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on January 09, 2014, 09:59:34 AM
I'd take Denis ALL DAY over Angel ALLL DAAAAYY
And it's not even close!
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: CNS on January 09, 2014, 10:04:13 AM
Denis is one of the top 5 cats ever.  That said, who knows what Angel could have been.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: 8manpick on January 09, 2014, 10:07:58 AM
Denis is one of the top 5 cats ever.  That said, who knows what Angel could have been.

#2 behind Jake if you discount Beas for only staying one year
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: yoga-like_abana on January 09, 2014, 10:08:24 AM
That said, who knows what Angel could have been.
he's elian gonzalez.. thats all he will ever be
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: CNS on January 09, 2014, 10:14:01 AM
Denis is one of the top 5 cats ever.  That said, who knows what Angel could have been.

#2 behind Jake if you discount Beas for only staying one year

Discounting Beas is something that would disqualify ppl from parricipating in a reasonable discussion about it, imo.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: 8manpick on January 09, 2014, 10:14:44 AM
Okay, #3 then
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: mocat on January 09, 2014, 10:38:59 AM
denis + jake

listen there's no wrong answer here. i would take denis as well because although he was a pretty streaky shooter, when he was hot, he was 44 points at Texas hot. not to mention the constant circle jerking we received based on his fastest player in college basketball status. plus the scoreboard shot and the immense emotion. who knows what could have been with angel tho?
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: kso_FAN on January 09, 2014, 10:42:48 AM
angel + jake

vs

denis + jake

 :dunno:

Looking forward to future jevon + marcus :love:
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 09, 2014, 10:48:08 AM
I would take Angel + Jake. I would rather have Denis if we don't have another good guard who is capable of scoring a lot of points, though.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: ltrain on January 09, 2014, 12:05:39 PM
 :don'tcare:

Stop talking mean about Angel you guys.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: slobber on January 09, 2014, 12:46:44 PM
:don'tcare:

Stop talking mean about Angel you guys.
8mp and I are gonna kick all of their asses. You in?
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: stunted on January 09, 2014, 02:02:48 PM
very overrated
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: ksupamplemousse on January 09, 2014, 02:05:19 PM
:don'tcare:

Stop talking mean about Angel you guys.
8mp and I are gonna kick all of their asses. You in?

8mp ate a whole Red Baron pizza by himself the other day, I think he might be kind of fat and out of shape now. You may want to consider finding someone else to join you in the asskicking.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: sunny_cat on January 09, 2014, 02:07:21 PM
:don'tcare:

Stop talking mean about Angel you guys.
8mp and I are gonna kick all of their asses. You in?

It's time to move on.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: nicname on January 09, 2014, 03:02:15 PM
Back then K-State athletics was limited by the administration as to who they could approach for major donations, and that group consisted of about a half a page in Ernie Barrett's little black book.   Not the case anymore.

some pretty good athletic dept vs foundation money battles currently going on now from what i hear. turf war LA in the late 80's blood/crip type stuff. pretty great.

serious about the AD versus the Foundation?

yeah

can you give any deets or is it just that the AD and foundation are both hitting up the same people for money and those people are trying to decide who should get it

nothing too interesting. more/less what you said.

This insidery stuff is so great. Even if it's just tidbits.  Would really like to be a fly on a wall in some of these booster convos, or even when they were just watching games.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: nicname on January 09, 2014, 03:06:54 PM
I make a thread mocking KU throwing people under the bus and now I see people throwing stones at Angel. You should be ashamed of yourselves for this.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: 8manpick on January 09, 2014, 03:09:31 PM
I make a thread mocking KU throwing people under the bus and now I see people throwing stones at Angel. You should be ashamed of yourselves for this.

truly disgusting
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: sunny_cat on January 09, 2014, 03:13:14 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.bleacherreport.net%2Fimages_root%2Farticle%2Fmedia_slots%2Fphotos%2F000%2F618%2F264%2Fstate_original.jpe%3F1353337563&hash=b0f4f101f9fe67ae159a8f010d3f5a19945185ec)

 :love:

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww3.pictures.zimbio.com%2Fgi%2FAngel%252BRodriguez%252BJamar%252BSamuels%252BKDhYuwoO2T5m.jpg&hash=75fa96daade7fedda1b9a0d559bb8e5c940b4ca8)

 :love:
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: bballfan on January 09, 2014, 03:21:01 PM
 :love: :love: :love:
It broke my heart when he left
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: sunny_cat on January 09, 2014, 03:23:20 PM
Angel + Jamar was adorableness overload. :love:
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: TheFormerKCCat on January 09, 2014, 03:39:28 PM
I'd welcome him back with open arms and unconditionally.

I wish him the best.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: mocat on January 09, 2014, 03:40:38 PM
yeah sunny you go girl. meanwhile back at the big boy ranch

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.pictures.zimbio.com%2Fgi%2FJamar%252BSamuels%252B12%252BBasketball%252BTournament%252BSemifinals%252BV3IMKM31OnZx.jpg&hash=5f029b65e1189846d0135b7fedf739710cf30750)
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: puniraptor on January 09, 2014, 03:41:42 PM
:love: :love: :love:
It broke my heart when he left

how's your clothing line doing, james franklin?

Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: sunny_cat on January 09, 2014, 03:42:48 PM
yeah sunny you go girl. meanwhile back at the big boy ranch

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.pictures.zimbio.com%2Fgi%2FJamar%252BSamuels%252B12%252BBasketball%252BTournament%252BSemifinals%252BV3IMKM31OnZx.jpg&hash=5f029b65e1189846d0135b7fedf739710cf30750)

 :confused:
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: RONE on January 09, 2014, 03:45:49 PM

angel + jake

vs

denis + jake

 :dunno:

Looking forward to future jevon + marcus :love:

This. 100%
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: bballfan on January 09, 2014, 04:01:08 PM
:love: :love: :love:
It broke my heart when he left

how's your clothing line doing, james franklin?

http://goEMAW.com/forum/Smileys/goEMAW/Raised%20eyebrows.gif
Not good...  :cry:
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: puniraptor on January 09, 2014, 04:04:06 PM
:love: :love: :love:
It broke my heart when he left

how's your clothing line doing, james franklin?

http://goEMAW.com/forum/Smileys/goEMAW/Raised%20eyebrows.gif
Not good...  :cry:

the good news is that I am now totally convinced that you are actually james frankling (ksu bball edition)

I am looking forward to your anecdotes, and thank you for your service!
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: puniraptor on January 09, 2014, 04:11:47 PM
:love: :love: :love:
It broke my heart when he left

how's your clothing line doing, james franklin?

http://goEMAW.com/forum/Smileys/goEMAW/Raised%20eyebrows.gif
Not good...  :cry:

the good news is that I am now totally convinced that you are actually james frankling (ksu bball edition)

I am looking forward to your anecdotes, and thank you for your service!

pm the mods if you need them to delete all this to preserve your anonymity  :runaway:
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Ghost of Stan Parrish on January 09, 2014, 04:13:23 PM
Angel finished his KSU career #7 on the KSU all-time assists list.  Behind Steve Henson, Jacob Pullen, Clent Stewart and Tyrone Adams.  Also behind Rolando Blackman and Anthony Beane.  But he's ahead of Chris Griffin, so there's that!

I can see why you guys think he was an all-timer Wild Wildcat!

 :buh-bye:  <--- Angel
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: KITNfury on January 09, 2014, 04:27:23 PM
He's not a cat anymore so people can trash him all they want and I won't give a crap. I'm spiteful. Deal with it!
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: sunny_cat on January 09, 2014, 04:28:00 PM
He's not a cat anymore so people can trash him all they want and I won't give a crap. I'm spiteful. Deal with it!

Why? Let it all out here. We'll work through this.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: star seed 7 on January 09, 2014, 04:46:22 PM
people who trash angel are fuckfaces.  plain and simple.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: sys on January 09, 2014, 06:38:58 PM
people who trash angel are fuckfaces.  plain and simple.

it's as good of a test as any.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: sunny_cat on January 09, 2014, 06:41:24 PM
people who trash angel are fuckfaces.  plain and simple.

it's as good of a test as any.

I guess you could say I passed with flying colors amirite?
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Trim on January 09, 2014, 07:30:21 PM
Angel's K-State.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: KITNfury on January 09, 2014, 07:50:47 PM
He's not a cat anymore so people can trash him all they want and I won't give a crap. I'm spiteful. Deal with it!

Why? Let it all out here. We'll work through this.
Forgive and forget? I don't even know what that means.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Stevesie60 on January 09, 2014, 10:41:46 PM
people who trash angel are fuckfaces.  plain and simple.

it's as good of a test as any.

Yeah, it's how I decide who I can discuss K-State sports with.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: nicname on January 10, 2014, 04:06:16 AM
He's not a cat anymore so people can trash him all they want and I won't give a crap. I'm spiteful. Deal with it!

I'm a nice person, so I'll just sat they I don't like your stance here.

However, if I wasn't such a great guy and #1cat I would tell you that I hoped that multiple close friends/ relatives of yours die horrible deaths of infectious disease and that when they get to the afterlife and ask their omniscient creator "why?" he says, "remember KITNfury? Well, that bad person disparaged Angel Rodriguez on a Kansas State bbs and someone had to pay." Then they (the dead ones), in a fit of furious anger, not only because you caused their deaths, but because they were so incensed that you said such awful things about Angel Rodriguez pleaded with the supreme being that they would be allowed to return back to earth as wraiths in order to torment you for the rest of your days, to which the creator of the universe would obviously oblige and you would be freaked out like those paranormal activity movies all the time, jerk.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Willesgirl on January 10, 2014, 05:24:34 AM
#TeamSpiteful
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: KITNfury on January 10, 2014, 05:54:21 AM
He's not a cat anymore so people can trash him all they want and I won't give a crap. I'm spiteful. Deal with it!

I'm a nice person, so I'll just sat they I don't like your stance here.

However, if I wasn't such a great guy and #1cat I would tell you that I hoped that multiple close friends/ relatives of yours die horrible deaths of infectious disease and that when they get to the afterlife and ask their omniscient creator "why?" he says, "remember KITNfury? Well, that bad person disparaged Angel Rodriguez on a Kansas State bbs and someone had to pay." Then they (the dead ones), in a fit of furious anger, not only because you caused their deaths, but because they were so incensed that you said such awful things about Angel Rodriguez pleaded with the supreme being that they would be allowed to return back to earth as wraiths in order to torment you for the rest of your days, to which the creator of the universe would obviously oblige and you would be freaked out like those paranormal activity movies all the time, jerk.
I never disparaged Angel. Just don't care if others do.

It's pretty simple really. I don't know Angel personally. But him leaving makes ksu hoops worse. KSU hoops being worse makes me sad. I don't like it when people make me sad. I put my happiness ahead of the happiness of people I don't know
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: BostonPancake on January 10, 2014, 06:49:17 AM
I want Angel to be happy.  I want Miami to lose every game.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: MakeItRain on January 10, 2014, 09:37:15 AM
Angel finished his KSU career #7 on the KSU all-time assists list.  Behind Steve Henson, Jacob Pullen, Clent Stewart and Tyrone Adams.  Also behind Rolando Blackman and Anthony Beane.  But he's ahead of Chris Griffin, so there's that!

I can see why you guys think he was an all-timer Wild Wildcat!

 :buh-bye:  <--- Angel

As a true freshman and sophomore you dumb bastard. I don't feel like I am being overly harsh because you know this but chose to ignore it to make a moronic point.

I could punch every one of you idiots trashing a true freshman point guard when comparing him to a junior and a 5th year senior,  morons.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: sunny_cat on January 10, 2014, 11:56:28 AM
Angel finished his KSU career #7 on the KSU all-time assists list.  Behind Steve Henson, Jacob Pullen, Clent Stewart and Tyrone Adams.  Also behind Rolando Blackman and Anthony Beane.  But he's ahead of Chris Griffin, so there's that!

I can see why you guys think he was an all-timer Wild Wildcat!

 :buh-bye:  <--- Angel

As a true freshman and sophomore you dumb bastard. I don't feel like I am being overly harsh because you know this but chose to ignore it to make a moronic point.

I could punch every one of you idiots trashing a true freshman point guard when comparing him to a junior and a 5th year senior,  morons.

Yeah, that may have been the dumbest argument I've ever seen. #teamAngel
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: stobblebobby on January 10, 2014, 01:13:36 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.bleacherreport.net%2Fimages_root%2Farticle%2Fmedia_slots%2Fphotos%2F000%2F618%2F264%2Fstate_original.jpe%3F1353337563&hash=b0f4f101f9fe67ae159a8f010d3f5a19945185ec)

 :love:

Imagine that, except it's Angel coming back to the bench and smiling at oscar over sinking a three. Does that picture happen even once this year? Probably not. Angel is too much Frank, too much JYC, too much of everything that was incredible for a few years. I don't get arguing over his place with the greats - for me it will always be about the great potential and style of ball that Angel's leaving signaled the end of.

Frank's teams had their own brand of potential, and I've come around to the awesome feeling of seeing these Freshmen play whatever brand of basketball this is. I still haven't come around on oscar, or Bruceketball, or Bruceketcruiting, but it is currently giving me a better season and more hope for the next 3 years than I ever thought I'd have.

I hate that talking about Angel becomes a de facto #BID vs #oscar argument. Angel is riding a rough ridin' cruiser bike on the beach in Miami talking about dominating a lesser conference at the new Transfer U, and I'm not over it. That's all.

Quote from: SI Article
They'll have two years of eligibility left, and both will be 23 year-olds poised to dominate the ACC as seniors. For now, they discuss their plight while riding bikes on South Beach.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: ksupamplemousse on January 10, 2014, 02:41:51 PM
Angel finished his KSU career #7 on the KSU all-time assists list.  Behind Steve Henson, Jacob Pullen, Clent Stewart and Tyrone Adams.  Also behind Rolando Blackman and Anthony Beane.  But he's ahead of Chris Griffin, so there's that!

I can see why you guys think he was an all-timer Wild Wildcat!

 :buh-bye:  <--- Angel

As a true freshman and sophomore you dumb bastard. I don't feel like I am being overly harsh because you know this but chose to ignore it to make a moronic point.

I could punch every one of you idiots trashing a true freshman point guard when comparing him to a junior and a 5th year senior,  morons.

Yeah, that may have been the dumbest argument I've ever seen. #teamAngel

Guys, he was only ON PACE to break the assists record, he didn't actually do it. Obviously he sucks.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: sunny_cat on January 10, 2014, 02:42:41 PM
Angel finished his KSU career #7 on the KSU all-time assists list.  Behind Steve Henson, Jacob Pullen, Clent Stewart and Tyrone Adams.  Also behind Rolando Blackman and Anthony Beane.  But he's ahead of Chris Griffin, so there's that!

I can see why you guys think he was an all-timer Wild Wildcat!

 :buh-bye:  <--- Angel

As a true freshman and sophomore you dumb bastard. I don't feel like I am being overly harsh because you know this but chose to ignore it to make a moronic point.

I could punch every one of you idiots trashing a true freshman point guard when comparing him to a junior and a 5th year senior,  morons.

Yeah, that may have been the dumbest argument I've ever seen. #teamAngel

Guys, he was only ON PACE to break the assists record, he didn't actually do it. Obviously he sucks.

Agreed, also Foster sucks obviously.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Skipper44 on January 10, 2014, 02:59:53 PM
Can you imagine the perimeter D we would have with Angel and Jevon this year and next?  I mean, a line up of Angel, Jevon, Marcus, Southwell and Gip?
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: sunny_cat on January 10, 2014, 03:00:40 PM
Can you imagine the perimeter D we would have with Angel and Jevon this year and next?  I mean, a line up of Angel, Jevon, Marcus, Southwell and Gip?

Seems stupid to play Angel and Jevon at the same time.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Skipper44 on January 10, 2014, 03:05:22 PM
Can you imagine the perimeter D we would have with Angel and Jevon this year and next?  I mean, a line up of Angel, Jevon, Marcus, Southwell and Gip?

Seems stupid to play Angel and Jevon at the same time.
only if keeping the other team from running any offense and getting steald is stupid.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: sunny_cat on January 10, 2014, 03:06:16 PM
Can you imagine the perimeter D we would have with Angel and Jevon this year and next?  I mean, a line up of Angel, Jevon, Marcus, Southwell and Gip?

Seems stupid to play Angel and Jevon at the same time.
only if keeping the other team from running any offense and getting steald is stupid.

 :dubious:
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: 8manpick on January 10, 2014, 03:31:50 PM
people who trash angel are fuckfaces.  plain and simple.

it's as good of a test as any.

I guess you could say I passed with flying colors amirite?

Question 2 on the test is: "Do you love Jacob Pullen with all your heart?"
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: sunny_cat on January 10, 2014, 03:32:40 PM
people who trash angel are fuckfaces.  plain and simple.

it's as good of a test as any.

I guess you could say I passed with flying colors amirite?

Question 2 on the test is: "Do you love Jacob Pullen with all your heart?"

Hmmmm what's Q3?
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: ksupamplemousse on January 10, 2014, 03:36:25 PM
3. Is the following statement true or false? Puerto Ricans have fiery tempers.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: sunny_cat on January 10, 2014, 03:37:23 PM
3. Is the following statement true of false? Puerto Ricans have fiery tempers.

 :D
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Boondock Poonhound on January 10, 2014, 07:27:39 PM
Angel's Freshman yr. Frank basically threw the @OU game by refusing to play Angel to "teach him a lesson" . Pissed me off. Still mad about it.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: MakeItRain on January 10, 2014, 08:24:24 PM
Can you imagine the perimeter D we would have with Angel and Jevon this year and next?  I mean, a line up of Angel, Jevon, Marcus, Southwell and Gip?

Seems stupid to play Angel and Jevon at the same time.

Why? Did you forget about Jake and Denis in the same backcourt? Either of those guys can guard a 2 on the off chance you'd run into a 6'5" 2 guard who can go into the post you just deal with it.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Ghost of Stan Parrish on January 16, 2014, 10:39:41 AM
Angel finished his KSU career #7 on the KSU all-time assists list.  Behind Steve Henson, Jacob Pullen, Clent Stewart and Tyrone Adams.  Also behind Rolando Blackman and Anthony Beane.  But he's ahead of Chris Griffin, so there's that!

I can see why you guys think he was an all-timer Wild Wildcat!

 :buh-bye:  <--- Angel

As a true freshman and sophomore you dumb bastard. I don't feel like I am being overly harsh because you know this but chose to ignore it to make a moronic point.

I could punch every one of you idiots trashing a true freshman point guard when comparing him to a junior and a 5th year senior,  morons.

Yeah, that may have been the dumbest argument I've ever seen. #teamAngel

What, is he coming back to KSU for his junior and senior year?  What did I miss?

His stats at KSU are set, as far as I know.  And I actually cherry-picked his best career stat at KSU.  He's not even in the top 50 in scoring.  What Angel gave to KSU was exactly slightly more than Chris Griffin.  I give zero craps what stats he puts up for Miami.  I only care about what he did while he was EMAW, not what stats he's able to put up elsewhere.

Maybe he's a better a point guard than Clent Stewart.  I don't care.  If he shows it, it will be while he playing for another team.  I'm curious why folks cheer for him after he walked away from our team...
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: sunny_cat on January 16, 2014, 10:42:07 AM
Angel finished his KSU career #7 on the KSU all-time assists list.  Behind Steve Henson, Jacob Pullen, Clent Stewart and Tyrone Adams.  Also behind Rolando Blackman and Anthony Beane.  But he's ahead of Chris Griffin, so there's that!

I can see why you guys think he was an all-timer Wild Wildcat!

 :buh-bye:  <--- Angel

As a true freshman and sophomore you dumb bastard. I don't feel like I am being overly harsh because you know this but chose to ignore it to make a moronic point.

I could punch every one of you idiots trashing a true freshman point guard when comparing him to a junior and a 5th year senior,  morons.

Yeah, that may have been the dumbest argument I've ever seen. #teamAngel

What, is he coming back to KSU for his junior and senior year?  What did I miss?

His stats at KSU are set, as far as I know.  And I actually cherry-picked his best career stat at KSU.  He's not even in the top 50 in scoring.  What Angel gave to KSU was exactly slightly more than Chris Griffin.  I give zero craps what stats he puts up for Miami.  I only care about what he did while he was EMAW, not what stats he's able to put up elsewhere.

Maybe he's a better a point guard than Clent Stewart.  I don't care.  If he shows it, it will be while he playing for another team.  I'm curious why folks cheer for him after he walked away from our team...

 :flush:
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: nicname on January 17, 2014, 02:26:44 AM
Angel finished his KSU career #7 on the KSU all-time assists list.  Behind Steve Henson, Jacob Pullen, Clent Stewart and Tyrone Adams.  Also behind Rolando Blackman and Anthony Beane.  But he's ahead of Chris Griffin, so there's that!

I can see why you guys think he was an all-timer Wild Wildcat!

 :buh-bye:  <--- Angel

As a true freshman and sophomore you dumb bastard. I don't feel like I am being overly harsh because you know this but chose to ignore it to make a moronic point.

I could punch every one of you idiots trashing a true freshman point guard when comparing him to a junior and a 5th year senior,  morons.

Yeah, that may have been the dumbest argument I've ever seen. #teamAngel

What, is he coming back to KSU for his junior and senior year?  What did I miss?

His stats at KSU are set, as far as I know.  And I actually cherry-picked his best career stat at KSU.  He's not even in the top 50 in scoring.  What Angel gave to KSU was exactly slightly more than Chris Griffin.  I give zero craps what stats he puts up for Miami.  I only care about what he did while he was EMAW, not what stats he's able to put up elsewhere.

Maybe he's a better a point guard than Clent Stewart.  I don't care.  If he shows it, it will be while he playing for another team.  I'm curious why folks cheer for him after he walked away from our team...

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pleated-jeans.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F07%2Fwhen-someone-thinks-youre-serious-when-youre-just-being-sarcastic.gif&hash=2e5019c8085fd7ff0aa3a3c17324c59e3db07095)
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: DQ12 on January 17, 2014, 02:45:01 AM
who cares about Angel?  he ditched us.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: pissclams on January 17, 2014, 08:12:30 AM
who cares about Angel?  he ditched us.

yup. 
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Ghost of Stan Parrish on January 17, 2014, 09:55:23 AM
I'm curious why folks cheer for him after he walked away from our team...

The .gif and emoticon didn't really answer this question for me.  I'm resigned to the fact that maybe I'll never get an answer.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Skipper44 on January 17, 2014, 10:28:41 AM
I'm curious why folks cheer for him after he walked away from our team...

The .gif and emoticon didn't really answer this question for me.  I'm resigned to the fact that maybe I'll never get an answer.
People like Angel, Frank and Bob did a lot of good for KSU and personally gave me great joy so I want good things for them.  It helps that we have continued to have success after each of them left. 

On Angel specifically, he stayed a year more than most guys in situation would and I really appreciate that.  Also, the sappy side of me says he played some pickup with Jevon, knew we had a capable replacement and factored that into his decision.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Mixed-Nutz on January 17, 2014, 10:32:41 AM
I'm curious why folks cheer for him after he walked away from our team...

The .gif and emoticon didn't really answer this question for me.  I'm resigned to the fact that maybe I'll never get an answer.
People like Angel, Frank and Bob did a lot of good for KSU and personally gave me great joy so I want good things for them.  It helps that we have continued to have success after each of them left. 

On Angel specifically, he stayed a year more than most guys in situation would and I really appreciate that.  Also, the sappy side of me says he played some pickup with Jevon, knew we had a capable replacement and factored that into his decision.
He did.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on January 17, 2014, 10:37:05 AM
My last memory of him is shitting the bed vs la salle.  :dunno:
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: mocat on January 17, 2014, 10:37:48 AM
My last memory of him is shitting the bed vs la salle.  :dunno:

shitting the bed is worse than pissing the floor
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Lucas Scoopsalot on January 17, 2014, 01:36:14 PM
I'd like him more if he would have acknowledged me in the derb when I said hi, but no, he just kept walking like a stuck up prick!
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on January 17, 2014, 01:50:05 PM
My last memory of him is shitting the bed vs la salle.  :dunno:

shitting the bed is worse than pissing the floor
Damn straight.
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: ChiComCat on January 17, 2014, 02:12:11 PM
I'm curious why folks cheer for him after he walked away from our team...

The .gif and emoticon didn't really answer this question for me.  I'm resigned to the fact that maybe I'll never get an answer.

I don't hold vendettas against many 20 year olds that I've never met :dunno:
Title: Re: Stan Talks about Angel
Post by: Ghost of Stan Parrish on January 17, 2014, 02:53:26 PM
I'm curious why folks cheer for him after he walked away from our team...

The .gif and emoticon didn't really answer this question for me.  I'm resigned to the fact that maybe I'll never get an answer.

I don't hold vendettas against many 20 year olds that I've never met :dunno:

I can't think of anyone, in any category, that I have a vendetta against.  I've got one ex that I don't think so highly of, but even there it's pretty chill.