Award Predictions

[GoRamblers]

Don't forget Doyle. If he's as good as everyone says he is, he should be a candidate for All-MVC

If he was, he'd still be at KU.

Right, because all transfers are bad players. Makes sense.

[BEARZ77]

[/quote]
He's just looking for anything to attempt to troll us.He lost any right to be taken seriously when he refused to discuss stats after being the one that brought them up in the first place.[/quote]

As usual your delusions of grandeur far exceed your recognition of your own lack of status on this board.Again reading comprehension remains a challenge for you as well, as I was the one who introduced stats which highlighted exactly the point being made about Baker. You then tried to turn it into a negative against Marshall which had zero to do with the original point of "is Baker someone who has proven he can break people down off the dribble or not". There is nothing further to debate on the subject until he either proves he can or can't on a regular basis. At some time in the future you may learn the finer points of debate involve staying with the subject at hand and keeping emotion out of it, but history suggests not.

[Wufan]

As usual your delusions of grandeur far exceed your recognition of your own lack of status on this board.Again reading comprehension remains a challenge for you as well, as I was the one who introduced stats which highlighted exactly the point being made about Baker. You then tried to turn it into a negative against Marshall which had zero to do with the original point of "is Baker someone who has proven he can break people down off the dribble or not". There is nothing further to debate on the subject until he either proves he can or can't on a regular basis. At some time in the future you may learn the finer points of debate involve staying with the subject at hand and keeping emotion out of it, but history suggests not.

Let's not get too carried away with your knowledge of the 'finer points of debate, staying within the subject, and keeping emotion out of it.'

The original issue I had was that you called Marshall a "unique talent" along with Lemon. By definition, you already defeated your own argument, because, as you know, two things can't, by definition, be "unique." I then further used your qualification of Marshall's talents to show you that the same could be said about Baker. At this point you became unglued.

Just to recap; you proved yourself wrong, got angry with me for questioning it, and finally lectured rlh on what a great debater you are.

Thanks for playing.

[rlh04d]

Let's not get too carried away with your knowledge of the 'finer points of debate, staying within the subject, and keeping emotion out of it.'

The original issue I had was that you called Marshall a "unique talent" along with Lemon. By definition, you already defeated your own argument, because, as you know, two things can't, by definition, be "unique." I then further used your qualification of Marshall's talents to show you that the same could be said about Baker. At this point you became unglued.

Just to recap; you proved yourself wrong, got angry with me for questioning it, and finally lectured rlh on what a great debater you are.

Thanks for playing.

But at least he keeps emotion out of it ...

your delusions of grandeur
reading comprehension remains a challenge for you
surfacely smug fan base.
There must be a great need for remedial reading classes in Wichita
if you want to piss and moan about every comment
stay at home and lick your own balls
I suggest you reattach yourself to ya mama's teet cause you ain't ready for the real world son.

And man, that's all in the last two weeks. Impressive meltdowns.

This entire debate was about Marshall being a unique talent or not. Any discussion about Baker being able to break down an opponent was a subset of THAT initial discussion. For someone that seems to be as young as you are, you certainly don't have a very long memory.

It's time you take a few breaths there and stop worrying about lecturing about debating skills and more time worrying about how you can't get through a post without degenerating into an immature child ranting about balls and teets. I'd continue to "debate" you, but history shows that you'll just have another emotional collapse and start ranting insults instead of addressing the topic at hand, because you can't stand being proven wrong.

Cheers!

[BEARZ77]

As usual your delusions of grandeur far exceed your recognition of your own lack of status on this board.Again reading comprehension remains a challenge for you as well, as I was the one who introduced stats which highlighted exactly the point being made about Baker. You then tried to turn it into a negative against Marshall which had zero to do with the original point of "is Baker someone who has proven he can break people down off the dribble or not". There is nothing further to debate on the subject until he either proves he can or can't on a regular basis. At some time in the future you may learn the finer points of debate involve staying with the subject at hand and keeping emotion out of it, but history suggests not.

Let's not get too carried away with your knowledge of the 'finer points of debate, staying within the subject, and keeping emotion out of it.'

The original issue I had was that you called Marshall a "unique talent" along with Lemon. By definition, you already defeated your own argument, because, as you know, two things can't, by definition, be "unique." I then further used your qualification of Marshall's talents to show you that the same could be said about Baker. At this point you became unglued.

Just to recap; you proved yourself wrong, got angry with me for questioning it, and finally lectured rlh on what a great debater you are.

Thanks for playing.

Ah rigid one, there is usually more than one way of defining a word. You might note that the second and third definitions listed for unique are "NOTABLE" and " Very Unusual". But I love your need to rescue rlh cause he was clearly in over his head. Unglued might better describe someone who has about 20 responses for every 2-3 line counter post he recieves in a thread . That boy has serious issues.

[rlh04d]

Ah rigid one, there is usually more than one way of defining a word. You might note that the second and third definitions listed for unique are "NOTABLE" and " Very Unusual". But I love your need to rescue rlh cause he was clearly in over his head. Unglued might better describe someone who has about 20 responses for every 2-3 line counter post he recieves in a thread . That boy has serious issues.

You should start reading your own posts. These might be relevant:

At some time in the future you may learn the finer points of debate involve staying with the subject at hand and keeping emotion out of it, but history suggests not.

Typical response when the facts don't support you. Discount the poster and focus on trivial details. What a whimpy response. Wah,Wah, Wah

This emotional meltdown of yours is getting entertaining, though. Don't stop now.

[shoxrox]

Bearz77, you seem to enjoy gloating about you and your fanbase being much more civilized than those mean ol Shocker turds. But I've noticed a theme. You're now involved in all of the back-and-forth going on and you continue to come back for more.

Practice what you preach or get rid of the holier than thou attitude.

[Aargh]

We've had an entire season to watch Marshall, and evidently the consensus is that he's a very talented player.

We've only had a few NCAA games to really evaluate Baker. I'm making the assumption that evaluating a Fr on his first 6 or 7 D1 games isn't a reliable barometer.

In the NCAA's, Baker averaged around 10+ points and 3+ boards. He did that against the #1team in D1 (Gonzaga), A #2 seed (Ohio State), and a #1 seed who won the NC (Louisville). I don't think it's any stretch to say that those teams had some better defenders than Baker is going to see day-to-day in the MVC.

Baker certainly benefitted from the inability to scout him . He may have benefited from "the Carl Hall effect". Next year, Baker gets the benefit of the "Cleanthonty Early effect".

[Redbird Recon]

Don't forget Doyle. If he's as good as everyone says he is, he should be a candidate for All-MVC

If he was, he'd still be at KU.

Right, because all transfers are bad players. Makes sense.

I never said anything about him being a bad player. He'll be decent in the MVC. Feel free to check me on that. I was saying he is not nearly the player he was touted to be when he ended up at Kansas.

[GoRamblers]

I never said anything about him being a bad player. He'll be decent in the MVC. Feel free to check me on that. I was saying he is not nearly the player he was touted to be when he ended up at Kansas.

And you know that how? He didn't play at KU. He left for two reasons: 1. He was homesick. 2. He saw that he wouldn't get playing time for a few years.

No one knows what kind of player he is but your original post is full of implications and assumptions.