P
Prescott
Posts: 2,569
Jun 26, 2010 8:41am
You are right. They are opinions and not facts.Those aren't rumors.
Azubuike24
Posts: 15,933
Jun 28, 2010 6:57pm
Why do you both continually turn these threads into spats back and forth? Honestly, we know which side both of you are on, and can basically sum up the commentary of every thread before it even starts. I know it's the off-season, but seriously?
I can see why Rec might have something to say, but Prescott, you are ONLY HERE because you don't like Duke. There is absolutely no other reason to take up Taylor King's defense and the proof is in the pudding because there are many other things that could be defended on this board and you are nowhere to be found in those threads.
I can see why Rec might have something to say, but Prescott, you are ONLY HERE because you don't like Duke. There is absolutely no other reason to take up Taylor King's defense and the proof is in the pudding because there are many other things that could be defended on this board and you are nowhere to be found in those threads.
P
Prescott
Posts: 2,569
Jun 28, 2010 7:38pm
Why not?? The kid is being labeled without any in depth knowledge, just innuendo and rumor. BTW, this has nothing to do with duke. Last time I looked, King is associated with Villanova.There is absolutely no other reason to take up Taylor King's defense
I didn't see any reason to bring duke into the conversation. For some reason, rec thinks that duke needs to be defended.. They don't. Kids leave schools all of the time. That doesn't make school wrong or make the kid a quitter. Sometimes, things just don't work out. Big deal.
Azubuike24
Posts: 15,933
Jun 28, 2010 10:23pm
Would there be a two-page thread (soon to be 3) on this topic if Taylor King never went to Duke?
Rhetorical question...but we all know the answer.
There are about half-a-dozen more interesting topics going on in college basketball that aren't even being discussed on this forum.
Rhetorical question...but we all know the answer.
There are about half-a-dozen more interesting topics going on in college basketball that aren't even being discussed on this forum.
P
Prescott
Posts: 2,569
Jun 29, 2010 9:54am
Probably not. I just don't see a reason to defend duke at the expense of a young man whose life is just starting. King might be a quitter, but to put that label on him in order to defend something that needs no defense rubs me the wrong way.Would there be a two-page thread (soon to be 3) on this topic if Taylor King never went to Duke?
There are a million possible reasons to explain King's choices. Rec might know ONE of them and chooses to label King a quitter based on that.Why ??? To defend something that needs no defending. Pathetic.
G
georgemc80
Posts: 983
Jun 29, 2010 6:02pm
Prescott;399887 wrote:Maybe, King is just a kid who believed all of the accolades he got would lead to an NBA career. When he realized he was not an NBA type plaer, he lost his passion for the game.
.
I see what you are saying but I still see it as an inmature kid that refuses to do what is right. Terrible waste of an opportunity....A degree from Duke is a lot like a blank check.
reclegend22
Posts: 8,772
Jun 29, 2010 11:39pm
This became a Duke thread the moment a certain poster here began labeling Jay Wright a basketball Jesus for "turning King around" early in the season, something Duke's national championship staff "apparently could not do."
This was a common theme in December and January and then fizzled as Taylor chose to return to his rock-n-roll lifestyle off the court. I think the kid thinks he's Shifty Shellshock of Crazytown, and no one who thinks he's Shifty Shellshock is going to cut it in the ACC or Big East. Obviously, he has some issues to work out.
That's all I am saying. King was a talented kid, but, in all likelihood, he has wasted it for good at the college level. It's too bad, really.
This was a common theme in December and January and then fizzled as Taylor chose to return to his rock-n-roll lifestyle off the court. I think the kid thinks he's Shifty Shellshock of Crazytown, and no one who thinks he's Shifty Shellshock is going to cut it in the ACC or Big East. Obviously, he has some issues to work out.
That's all I am saying. King was a talented kid, but, in all likelihood, he has wasted it for good at the college level. It's too bad, really.
P
Prescott
Posts: 2,569
Jun 30, 2010 10:17am
Please!!!!! It became a duke thread when YOU started the thread. In fact, the only reason you started the thread was to absolve duke of any mistakes made in relation to the recruitment and transfer of Taylor King.This thread, in spite of it's title , had very little to do with Taylor King and that was your intent.This became a Duke thread the moment
I see what you are saying but I still see it as an inmature kid that refuses to do what is right. Terrible waste of an opportunity....A degree from Duke is a lot like a blank check.
What is right for you is different than what is right for others. If King stays in school and graduates from Villanova , then maybe he did the right thing for him.
G
georgemc80
Posts: 983
Jun 30, 2010 2:26pm
Personally, I believe having the self discipline to follow rules that are set for you by a superior is what is needed before you can attempt to make rules for others. But I am generally too loyal and too much of a conformist. If I don't deem a rule to be unjust...I follow it. But it works for me.Prescott wrote:What is right for you is different than what is right for others. If King stays in school and graduates from Villanova , then maybe he did the right thing for him.
I hope he does graduate and goes on to be very happy...however...its an incredible waste. That waste will always be considered wrong. He could graduate go on and solve all the world's problems...and I will still say that he wasted his basketball talent.
P
Prescott
Posts: 2,569
Jun 30, 2010 2:32pm
What does this philosophy have to do with King?? He isn't making rules for others. He is just doing what he thinks is right for him.Personally, I believe having the self discipline to follow rules that are set for you by a superior is what is needed before you can attempt to make rules for others.
Maybe. he doesn't like basketball. Should he play to please others or do what makes him happy?and I will still say that he wasted his basketball talent.
BTW, I think his talent is very marginal.
G
georgemc80
Posts: 983
Jun 30, 2010 6:05pm
Its a maturity thing. We all eventually are in a position to make rules for others...or should aspire to such.prescott wrote:What does this philosophy have to do with King??
P
Prescott
Posts: 2,569
Jun 30, 2010 6:34pm
That is great, but King isn't in that position yet. Give the kid a few years.Its a maturity thing. We all eventually are in a position to make rules for others...or should aspire to such.
Azubuike24
Posts: 15,933
Jun 30, 2010 7:40pm
Prescott;406491 wrote:What does this philosophy have to do with King?? He isn't making rules for others. He is just doing what he thinks is right for him.
Maybe. he doesn't like basketball. Should he play to please others or do what makes him happy?
BTW, I think his talent is very marginal.
I'm not even sure why I'm responding to this, but to say his talent is marginal at this point is simply idiotic. King got to a level that a fraction of a percent of basketball players get to and you say his talent is "marginal?" Marginal, maybe, if we are comparing him to the best in the sport, but otherwise, it was wasted, not marginal.
reclegend22
Posts: 8,772
Jun 30, 2010 8:22pm
King had arguably the best range in the country and one of the best overall strokes in the game. He was a threat from anywhere on the floor, and, when he put the effort forth, a rebounding machine. He had the tools to be very good at this level. King was far from "marginal." His talent was clearly evident.
P
Prescott
Posts: 2,569
Jun 30, 2010 10:39pm
For a D1 basketball player his talent is very marginal. He doesn't have the quickness or the lateral movement to defend the perimeter and he doesn't have the size or the strength to defend down low.There are reasons that be averaged almost 3 fouls per game in only 19,0 minutes.I'm not even sure why I'm responding to this, but to say his talent is marginal at this point is simply idiotic. King got to a level that a fraction of a percent of basketball players get to and you say his talent is "marginal?" Marginal, maybe, if we are comparing him to the best in the sport, but otherwise, it was wasted, not marginal.
He is an average shooter who shot 36% behind the arc and was often pulled by Wright because of his poor shot selection. His choice of shots showed in part why his basketball IQ is suspect. C'mon the guy had 18 assists in 32 games as opposed to 30 turnovers..
His talent is marginal and his athleticism is below his talent level. Players who earn a scholarship primarily because they can score the basketball average more than 5.0 ppg in league play. King couldn't even do that.
Azubuike24
Posts: 15,933
Jul 1, 2010 8:20am
For a D-1 basketball player, no way he is marginal.
For a high-level, national championship caliber, top-line starter, he might be, but not for a D-1 player.
King would've been a dominant player in some of the very small or even mid-level D-1 leagues.
For a high-level, national championship caliber, top-line starter, he might be, but not for a D-1 player.
King would've been a dominant player in some of the very small or even mid-level D-1 leagues.
P
Prescott
Posts: 2,569
Jul 1, 2010 9:12am
King would've been a dominant player in some of the very small or even mid-level D-1 leagues.
That is your opinion and you might be right, but you might be wrong.
What we know is that King could not produce at an acceptable at level, a level that matched his ranking coming out of high school, while playing in a major conference. That makes him marginal in the arena in which he he chose to compete.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Jul 10, 2010 7:30pm
Prescott;398156 wrote:If the athletes featured in this link can do what they do while having a smoking habit, I think an 18 or 19 year old could play basketball in any BCS conference.
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he.0804.smoking-pg,0,6941219.photogallery
Do you work at Tommy's mini -mart?? Did King buy his smokes by the pack or the carton? How exactly did you track his cigarette use??
This is my vote for worst link of the year.
Those people aren't "athletes", they are people in the area that are smokers and just happen to engage in athletic activities. None of those people are even close to participating in ACC basketball, they are just gym rats and runners, sure they might smoke but there is nothing at evidence to show they would not be BETTER gym rats and runners if they didn't smoke.
P
Prescott
Posts: 2,569
Jul 10, 2010 10:16pm
but there is nothing at evidence to show they would not be BETTER gym rats and runners if they didn't smoke.I don't think anyone claimed they would be better if they didn't smoke or worse if they smoked more.[quote/]
If you don't think those people are athletes who are in good enough condition to compete in ACC basketball, how about Vlade Divac. He was known to smoke for many years, while playing in the NBA.
After four seasons playing in his native Yugoslavia, Vlade declares himself eligible for the 1989 NBA Draft as a 21-year-old. He’s picked by the Lakers with the 26th pick; his slide in the draft is attributed by some to the fact that he was seen smoking cigarettes in the green room.
http://www.complex.com/blogs/2008/10/17/vlade-divacs-most-ridiculous-moments/
P
Prescott
Posts: 2,569
Jul 10, 2010 11:46pm
I don't think anyone claimed they would be better if they didn't smoke or worse if they smoked more.but there is nothing at evidence to show they would not be BETTER gym rats and runners if they didn't smoke.
If you don't think those people are athletes who are in good enough condition to compete in ACC basketball, how about Vlade Divac. He was known to smoke for many years, while playing in the NBA.
After four seasons playing in his native Yugoslavia, Vlade declares himself eligible for the 1989 NBA Draft as a 21-year-old. He’s picked by the Lakers with the 26th pick; his slide in the draft is attributed by some to the fact that he was seen smoking cigarettes in the green room.
http://www.complex.com/blogs/2008/10/17/vlade-divacs-most-ridiculous-moments/
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Jul 11, 2010 6:30pm
"I don't think anyone claimed they would be better if they didn't smoke or worse if they smoked more"
If they don't think their performance wouldn't improve if they stopped smoking (as if one of those interviewed would even be considered a smoker, how little did she smoke again) - they are deceiving themsleves. More to the point, these are "recreational athletes" at best, who cares if they smoke? The only person who would be hurt is them if their time running or swimming is effected. The link is completely irrelevant.
If they don't think their performance wouldn't improve if they stopped smoking (as if one of those interviewed would even be considered a smoker, how little did she smoke again) - they are deceiving themsleves. More to the point, these are "recreational athletes" at best, who cares if they smoke? The only person who would be hurt is them if their time running or swimming is effected. The link is completely irrelevant.
P
Prescott
Posts: 2,569
Jul 12, 2010 11:18am
The link is far from irrelevant. It shows that people are capable of competing in an activity which requires great endurance and still be smokers.I have never run a marathon. but I have enough sense to understand that it takes endurance and conditioning to complete one.It should also be noted that the youngest of those referenced in the link is 29 years-old and all of the referenced athletes have a history of smoking.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Jul 13, 2010 1:56pm
Capable doesn't mean optimum or exceptional. Many folks can complete a marathon, it doesn't mean they have a competitive time. I can swig a beer every kilometer in a 10-K race and still beat many runners. But my time would suffer.
P
Prescott
Posts: 2,569
Jul 13, 2010 3:47pm
The bottom line is that Taylor King competed in the ACC and the Big East while, according to reports, being a smoker.Could he be a better player if he didn't smoke? Maybe or maybe not.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Jul 14, 2010 11:39am
Yeah I think he'd be a better player if he didn't, unless he has a serious anxiety problem. That event just leads to more issues.