Thank you Pitt

[DT_PITT]

I believe you and I have had disagreements that ended amicably. I believe DT and I have had disagreements that have ended amicably.

This is an old argument that I have had with DT (and others have had as well). It sometimes seems to me (and obviously some others), that DT often has to slightly diminish or qualify anything positive and sometimes seems to slightly accentuate anything negative. I am sure he does most often not even realize it.

Maybe I am looking too hard(that is quite possible), but seemingly other posters see some of it as well.

I absolutely do this: "It sometimes seems to me (and obviously some others), that DT often has to slightly diminish or qualify anything positive and sometimes seems to slightly accentuate anything negative."

I do this without a doubt ... I intentionally do this.

I've done this in writing post game dribbles since I've been doing it in the late 1990's.

I did this under Willard, Howland, DIxon and now Stallings.

(Hell, just go back and read some of the post game comments from Dixon's NIT season!)

I've always tried to point out the positive and negative. I've always subscribed to the notion that things are never quite as positive, nor quite as negative as fans tend to make them.

But there does seem to be a movement by several on here that even saying anything negative at all means you don't support the team, players or coaches ... or that you want Dixon back or something.

Don't you think it would be pretty darn disingenuous to NOT say at least a few negative things about the team right now?.

 

[DT_PITT]

I believe you and I have had disagreements that ended amicably. I believe DT and I have had disagreements that have ended amicably.

This is an old argument that I have had with DT (and others have had as well). It sometimes seems to me (and obviously some others), that DT often has to slightly diminish or qualify anything positive and sometimes seems to slightly accentuate anything negative. I am sure he does most often not even realize it.

Maybe I am looking too hard(that is quite possible), but seemingly other posters see some of it as well.

Here's an example of "always" doing this.

In 2009, we went to G-town and blew out the #11 team by 16 points.

The post I made after the game had a fun theme of "The Pitt Basketball clinic" and all of the different classes that were offered based on what we did in the game.

For example ... "Making offensive rebounding look easy" was taught by DeJuan Blair.

In that same game, we shot 3-19 from three.

I commented" "the clinic is still looking for an instructor of 'shooting the three at a championship level."

 

[gary2]

I absolutely do this: "It sometimes seems to me (and obviously some others), that DT often has to slightly diminish or qualify anything positive and sometimes seems to slightly accentuate anything negative."

I do this without a doubt ... I intentionally do this.

I've done this in writing post game dribbles since I've been doing it in the late 1990's.

I did this under Willard, Howland, DIxon and now Stallings.

(Hell, just go back and read some of the post game comments from Dixon's NIT season!)

I've always tried to point out the positive and negative. I've always subscribed to the notion that things are never quite as positive, nor quite as negative as fans tend to make them.

But there does seem to be a movement by several on here that even saying anything negative at all means you don't support the team, players or coaches ... or that you want Dixon back or something.

Don't you think it would be pretty darn disingenuous to NOT say at least a few negative things about the team right now?.

There is and will be a lot of negative things about the team fore a while - That is a given

I don't doubt that what you just posted describes your writing style.

I do think that while you might have always slightly diminished the positive, what you just wrote indicates you think you diminished the negative as well. I am not sure that is still what you are doing.

that things are never quite as positive, nor quite as negative as fans tend to make them.

I think you are making some things more negative than they need to be. His back and forth with officials or where was he when Lyke was looking for him, stir the pot in a manner that I feel is more targeted than actually legitimate criticism.

The biggest indication of some bias to me is your unwillingness to accept the fact that this teams freshmen are just better than anyone we have had in the previous 3 seasons.

Stevenson played 38 minutes last night. Carr played 31. Davis played 32. Many of those minutes were played together and we held our own. Stewart played 18 and was a plus player. Even Brown, in limited time, does not look like a player without potential.

I have a question for you. Do you think Johnson, Luther, Wilson, Kithcart and Manigault could have performed as well (Freshmen years against WVU, playing that amount of minutes with similarly inexperienced team mates)?

I am not asking has recruiting improved enough, I am asking: has recruiting improved?

I would like answers to those two questions.

 

[gary2]

I absolutely do this: "It sometimes seems to me (and obviously some others), that DT often has to slightly diminish or qualify anything positive and sometimes seems to slightly accentuate anything negative."

I do this without a doubt ... I intentionally do this.

I've done this in writing post game dribbles since I've been doing it in the late 1990's.

I did this under Willard, Howland, DIxon and now Stallings.

(Hell, just go back and read some of the post game comments from Dixon's NIT season!)

I've always tried to point out the positive and negative. I've always subscribed to the notion that things are never quite as positive, nor quite as negative as fans tend to make them.

But there does seem to be a movement by several on here that even saying anything negative at all means you don't support the team, players or coaches ... or that you want Dixon back or something.

Don't you think it would be pretty darn disingenuous to NOT say at least a few negative things about the team right now?.

In the constant back and forth between posters on this board and the heated nature of responses, do you see how this style of writing, if not accepted as a known constant, could be viewed by some as a very grudging willingness to allocate praise and a predisposition to point out blame?

 

[DT_PITT]

For what it's worth, I don't think it was me who got into the stuff about where Stallings was when Lyke was looking for him. However, maybe you will find a post showing otherwise. But my memory of how I felt about this was that maybe it didn't look good but it wasn't something that Stallings should have be criticized for.

Accordingly, I really haven't commented much on Stallings back and forth with officials. I know I commented on his ejection at the L-ville game, and I stand by what I said last night as well. But I can't see how his demeanor with officials should be "off limits."

I just don't know how to answer the recruiting has improved question, because so many things between now and before are not apples to apples.

The second question (different groups performing as well) is an apples to apples question. But I honestly hate answering questions about hypothetical scenarios which can never be proven, because they are not actual evidence for anything.

So the simplest answer I can give is that recruiting in Stallings' first class did improve without a doubt. This is obvious in that was easily our best recruiting class since the Young-Artis-Newkirk group.

But knowing that we had so many scholarships to give as we did for instant playing time in the ACC, it SHOULD have improved ... and actually it did not improve as much as I think it should have for that situation.

The recruiting for next season so far does not appear to be an improvement over Dixon's last three years.

 

[DT_PITT]

In the constant back and forth between posters on this board and the heated nature of responses, do you see how this style of writing, if not accepted as a known constant, could be viewed by some as a very grudging willingness to allocate praise and a predisposition to point out blame?

Yes I do. But I can't control that.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

This is an old argument that I have had with DT (and others have had as well). It sometimes seems to me (and obviously some others), that DT often has to slightly diminish or qualify anything positive and sometimes seems to slightly accentuate anything negative. I am sure he does most often not even realize it.

With all the people here who are so polarized and who post in such absolutes pretty much all the time your complaint is that sometimes he slightly diminishes some things and sometimes he slightly accentuates other things?

OK

 

[gary2]

With all the people here who are so polarized and who post in such absolutes pretty much all the time your complaint is that sometimes he slightly diminishes some things and sometimes he slightly accentuates other things?

OK

The point was made in the manner it was made in an effort to not be confrontational. Ski said if you have to have that many disclaimers how good can the point be? (or words near that effect).

The disclaimers were included in an effort to be nice.

It was like pulling teeth to get this answer: So the simplest answer I can give is that recruiting in Stallings' first class did improve without a doubt. This is obvious in that was easily our best recruiting class since the Young-Artis-Newkirk group.

 

[gary2]

For what it's worth, I don't think it was me who got into the stuff about where Stallings was when Lyke was looking for him. However, maybe you will find a post showing otherwise. But my memory of how I felt about this was that maybe it didn't look good but it wasn't something that Stallings should have be criticized for.

Accordingly, I really haven't commented much on Stallings back and forth with officials. I know I commented on his ejection at the L-ville game, and I stand by what I said last night as well. But I can't see how his demeanor with officials should be "off limits."

I just don't know how to answer the recruiting has improved question, because so many things between now and before are not apples to apples.

The second question (different groups performing as well) is an apples to apples question. But I honestly hate answering questions about hypothetical scenarios which can never be proven, because they are not actual evidence for anything.

So the simplest answer I can give is that recruiting in Stallings' first class did improve without a doubt. This is obvious in that was easily our best recruiting class since the Young-Artis-Newkirk group.

But knowing that we had so many scholarships to give as we did for instant playing time in the ACC, it SHOULD have improved ... and actually it did not improve as much as I think it should have for that situation.

The recruiting for next season so far does not appear to be an improvement over Dixon's last three years.

Thank you for your answer

 

[levance2]

What a wild thread. Goofballs.

 

[Ski11585]

The point was made in the manner it was made in an effort to not be confrontational. Ski said if you have to have that many disclaimers how good can the point be? (or words near that effect).

The disclaimers were included in an effort to be nice.

It was like pulling teeth to get this answer: So the simplest answer I can give is that recruiting in Stallings' first class did improve without a doubt. This is obvious in that was easily our best recruiting class since the Young-Artis-Newkirk group.

See, I think those qualifiers were included because you try and be clever. But you aren’t. And your positions are quite transparent despite your halfhearted efforts to appear neutral.

Just say it, dude. Call DT out on what you perceive to be unfair and biased analysis. Come out and say you think recruiting under KS is crushing recruiting under JD. Don’t adopt this guise of objectivity when it’s clear you’re trying to make a point.