ADVERTISEMENT

Per Meyer on Jason Richards

Nice of him to take that right before the season….

Sure,

Because Richards had control over when this opportunity presented itself.

I suppose he should have passed. The offer was too close to the season starting, and Pitt fans would be butthurt.

Really selfish by Richards
 
As if that is going to affect the team at all.

I tend to agree with you.

Overall, around 7-8 years ago, some folks who might know these kinds of things had a high opinion of Jason. I don't know if they would have the same opinion now. But either way, I can't imagine there's any difference in the upcoming season with or without him.
 
I tend to agree with you.

Overall, around 7-8 years ago, some folks who might know these kinds of things had a high opinion of Jason. I don't know if they would have the same opinion now. But either way, I can't imagine there's any difference in the upcoming season with or without him.
Don’t think he was ever put into a position where he could have made a difference.
 
Sure ... but truly worthy assistants always seem to find a way to rise to the top, no?
Was he ever an assistant? It seemed to me that whatever position he was in had not clearly defined duties?

He was part of the program, but what were his responsibilities?

He didn’t coach? He didn’t recruit?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rockypanther
Taking a job in the private sector might mean 5x the salary, or less stress, less toxic situation for him. You never know. He may have had zero growth potential and the move was a family decision to have more flexibility or whatever he wanted.
 
I'm not sure where you are going with this. But in the scheme of things, this really seems way down the list to me.
No agenda here, merely responded to your post. Your post seemed trying to be more indicative of something than mine.

could care less that he is gone.

interested in seeing if the new hire from Vermont is more significant.

 
Last edited:
I'm not sure where you are going with this. But in the scheme of things, this really seems way down the list to me.
A lot of what I post is purely informational, not meant to start a “war”.

I do often respond to people’s posts in a non confrontational manner, merely commenting on what they had to say.

I even give people likes.

that is what is going on here.
 
Last edited:
A lot of what I post is purely informational, not meant to start a “war”.

I do often respond to people’s posts in a non confrontational manner, merely commenting on what they had to say.

I even give people likes.

that is what is going on here.
Fair enough - no worries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gary2
A lot of what I post is purely informational, not meant to start a “war”.


Except
It seemed to me that whatever position he was in had not clearly defined duties?
isn't "purely informational", it's an opinion. And an ill-informed opinion at that.

It really is as if you think that if YOU don't know something that there is no way that ANYONE could know about it.
 
Except

isn't "purely informational", it's an opinion. And an ill-informed opinion at that.

It really is as if you think that if YOU don't know something that there is no way that ANYONE could know about it.
Now see, this is what “confrontational” actually looks like?
 
Now see, this is what “confrontational” actually looks like?


I've said this to you before, but I'll say it again.

This is an internet message board. Somewhere along the line you seem to have gotten the idea that you should be able to post whatever you want and that there should never be any sort of disagreement with anything that you say ever. That isn't the way that these things work. People are here to talk about things. Just because I or someone else disagrees with you, that isn't "confrontational", that's attempting to have a discussion.

You don't want discussion, you want affirmation. And it seems to really bother you when you don't get it. This topic is a perfect example. You have literally NO IDEA what Richards' duties were, you have no idea if the coaches were happy with the job he was doing or not, and you have no information at all about the opportunity that he left for. But you have come to the conclusion that he didn't have any clearly defined duties. And it really bothers you that everyone isn't jumping in saying "yeah, hey, that's right, Richards clearly didn't have a well defined job description."

Most people can understand the concept that they don't know everything. As I said, you assume that because YOU don't know something that no one knows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski11585
I've said this to you before, but I'll say it again.

This is an internet message board. Somewhere along the line you seem to have gotten the idea that you should be able to post whatever you want and that there should never be any sort of disagreement with anything that you say ever. That isn't the way that these things work. People are here to talk about things. Just because I or someone else disagrees with you, that isn't "confrontational", that's attempting to have a discussion.

You don't want discussion, you want affirmation. And it seems to really bother you when you don't get it. This topic is a perfect example. You have literally NO IDEA what Richards' duties were, you have no idea if the coaches were happy with the job he was doing or not, and you have no information at all about the opportunity that he left for. But you have come to the conclusion that he didn't have any clearly defined duties. And it really bothers you that everyone isn't jumping in saying "yeah, hey, that's right, Richards clearly didn't have a well defined job description."

Most people can understand the concept that they don't know everything. As I said, you assume that because YOU don't know something that no one knows.
thanks For your input. I love you too.
 
Except

isn't "purely informational", it's an opinion. And an ill-informed opinion at that.

It really is as if you think that if YOU don't know something that there is no way that ANYONE could know about it.
Are you dense?

I posted an informational link. (I had seen a thread on the pay board and wanted to share with the free board).

I provided no editorial comment accompanying the link.

I did Not contribute anything to the thread until DT said something I thought interesting.

I responded. That is what message boards are for.

I admit at some point I offered an opinion. again, what message boards are for.
 
Last edited:
I've said this to you before, but I'll say it again.

This is an internet message board. Somewhere along the line you seem to have gotten the idea that you should be able to post whatever you want and that there should never be any sort of disagreement with anything that you say ever. That isn't the way that these things work. People are here to talk about things. Just because I or someone else disagrees with you, that isn't "confrontational", that's attempting to have a discussion.

You don't want discussion, you want affirmation. And it seems to really bother you when you don't get it. This topic is a perfect example. You have literally NO IDEA what Richards' duties were, you have no idea if the coaches were happy with the job he was doing or not, and you have no information at all about the opportunity that he left for. But you have come to the conclusion that he didn't have any clearly defined duties. And it really bothers you that everyone isn't jumping in saying "yeah, hey, that's right, Richards clearly didn't have a well defined job description."

Most people can understand the concept that they don't know everything. As I said, you assume that because YOU don't know something that no one knows.
Read this a few times and look in the mirror:

Somewhere along the line you seem to have gotten the idea that you should be able to post whatever you want and that there should never be any sort of disagreement with anything that you say ever.
 
Interesting and illustrative thread (very,very similar to what you are doing here) that included this:


Gary ... don't let Joe get you down. It's just another example of why he has no friends. ;)

He's rarely wrong.

But has no friends. It's a tradeoff.
 
Last edited:
Interesting and illustrative thread (very,very similar to what you are doing here) that included this:
For what it's worth ... Like Joe, I thought you did have some sort of agenda with why you posted this. But you said you didn't and that's good enough for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski11585 and gary2
For what it's worth ... Like Joe, I thought you did have some sort of agenda with why you posted this. But you said you didn't and that's good enough for me.
Thanks. appreciate that.

I think the sequencing is a pretty strong indication of that.

I said nothing until you indicated some may have changed their opinion of Richards over the years. That peaked my interest. I had no thoughts about his departure until then.
 
Thanks. appreciate that.

I think the sequencing is a pretty strong indication of that.

I said nothing until you indicated some may have changed their opinion of Richards over the years. That peaked my interest. I had no thoughts about his departure until then.

I think my biggest point is the a guy who doesn't really recruit or do much to coach doesn't have all that much impact on what happens on the court. When he was under Dixon, he was video coordinator which meant he spent plenty of time going through game film. I'm sure he helped a little bit during practices and would make a connection or two for recruiting.

I met and talked to him a couple of times, mostly when the summer league was in Green Tree and a little a Montour. Seemed like a good guy and a smart guy, but there's not much more I can say about him.
 
I think my biggest point is the a guy who doesn't really recruit or do much to coach doesn't have all that much impact on what happens on the court. When he was under Dixon, he was video coordinator which meant he spent plenty of time going through game film. I'm sure he helped a little bit during practices and would make a connection or two for recruiting.

I met and talked to him a couple of times, mostly when the summer league was in Green Tree and a little a Montour. Seemed like a good guy and a smart guy, but there's not much more I can say about him.
Pretty much my thinking as well
 
Are you dense?

I posted an informational link. (I had seen a thread on the pay board and wanted to share with the free board).

I provided no editorial comment accompanying the link.

I did Not contribute anything to the thread until DT said something I thought interesting.

I responded. That is what message boards are for.

I admit at some point I offered an opinion. again, what message boards are for.


I didn't respond to your informational link. Had I responded to that with what I said then you absolutely would have had a point. But I didn't. I responded to your post with your opinion in it. I pointed out the fact, and it is a fact, that your opinion was based on you having no knowledge what so ever of the actual facts. And for the record, neither do I. And neither does probably anyone else here. But you have to be dense to think that just because YOU don't know what Richards' duties were that therefore his duties must have been ill-defined.
 
Interesting and illustrative thread (very,very similar to what you are doing here) that included this:


If the point that you are trying to make here is that sometimes jokes go way over your head, then well done, mission accomplished.
 
I didn't respond to your informational link. Had I responded to that with what I said then you absolutely would have had a point. But I didn't. I responded to your post with your opinion in it. I pointed out the fact, and it is a fact, that your opinion was based on you having no knowledge what so ever of the actual facts. And for the record, neither do I. And neither does probably anyone else here. But you have to be dense to think that just because YOU don't know what Richards' duties were that therefore his duties must have been ill-defined.
How many question marks are in this post? What was the thrust of the post that I was responding to?

Does the word “seem” appear any where in this post? Talk about nit picking, making a mountain of a molehill, etc.

Like the sound of your own voice very much?

It “seems” to me that you are a bully. Worse, you encourage others to bully. Miss SOUF much?


Was he ever an assistant? It seemed to me that whatever position he was in had not clearly defined duties?

He was part of the program, but what were his responsibilities?

He didn’t coach? He didn’t recruit?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT