Summer Q&A with Lon Kruger

[OUHoops]

Lots of stuff here:

http://www.soonersports.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/081512aac.html

 

[SoonerTraveler]

Q: You came to OU with a reputation of playing an up-tempo style offensively and in your face defensively. Is the makeup of this year's team one that will allow you to better play the style you like?

A: "This group will be quite a bit more athletic, certainly deeper than a year ago. We'll be more physical as a result of guys understanding what we have to do to be effective. So yeah, we'll be more aggressive in pushing the ball and be more aggressive in getting up into it defensively."

:clap

 

[Capel's Mustache]

Thanks for posting

Sounds like M'Baye is going to start at the 3. Wait, did we know that already? I feel like it has been discussed ad nauseam, but I never saw a consensus.

 

[DenverSooner]

Interesting that when asked where M'Baye will play he side stepped the question. later when asked about the low post he mentioned Fitz and Osby and then said M'Baye could swing down and play there to ultimately only say OU has more depth this year.

 

[garyeb2]

Interesting that when asked where M'Baye will play he side stepped the question. later when asked about the low post he mentioned Fitz and Osby and then said M'Baye could swing down and play there to ultimately only say OU has more depth this year.

Well, I think the inference was that M'Baye would start on the wing and rotate inside some to provide addition quality depth. But, that is neither here nor there.

I don't blame the Coach for being candid. But, he is. He gives the same interview over and over with the same stock answers. It is the media at every level. They are lackies of the highest degree. For them it is never a probing question. And certainly never a follow up to deflect a stock answer.

 

[AdaSooner]

Well, I think the inference was that M'Baye would start on the wing and rotate inside some to provide addition quality depth. But, that is neither here nor there.

I don't blame the Coach for being candid. But, he is. He gives the same interview over and over with the same stock answers. It is the media at every level. They are lackies of the highest degree. For them it is never a probing question. And certainly never a follow up to deflect a stock answer.

This interview was conducted by Soonersports.com, so I'm betting that Kruger pretty much knew in advance what questions the reporter would ask. You're right, though, it would be nice if the interviewers dug a little deeper with follow up questions that gave us more insight into what the coach is thinking.

On the topic of where M'Baye will play, I believe you nailed it. Truth is, you have said since last year that he would spend a lot of time on the wing. He's a unique talent with the size and skills to play inside or out. Kruger would be a fool not to take advantage of the mismatches he'll bring to the floor.

 

[garyeb2]

This interview was conducted by Soonersports.com, so I'm betting that Kruger pretty much knew in advance what questions the reporter would ask. You're right, though, it would be nice if the interviewers dug a little deeper with follow up questions that gave us more insight into what the coach is thinking.

On the topic of where M'Baye will play, I believe you nailed it. Truth is, you have said since last year that he would spend a lot of time on the wing. He's a unique talent with the size and skills to play inside or out. Kruger would be a fool not to take advantage of the mismatches he'll bring to the floor[

I'm not for sure that the M'Baye question is resolved quite yet. My stated preference is that he play inside with Osby with 3 athletic guards around them. But, yes, on the outside he is a pure mismatch machine.

 

[DenverSooner]

What if he is the second coming of Jackie Jones? You younger guys probably won't remember Jackie Jones but that guy had some seroius skill.

 

[Soonercuda]

Well, I think the inference was that M'Baye would start on the wing and rotate inside some to provide addition quality depth. But, that is neither here nor there.

I don't blame the Coach for being candid. But, he is. He gives the same interview over and over with the same stock answers. It is the media at every level. They are lackies of the highest degree. For them it is never a probing question. And certainly never a follow up to deflect a stock answer.

Isn't this the opposite of being candid?

 

[Mr.B!!!]

What if he is the second coming of Jackie Jones? You younger guys probably won't remember Jackie Jones but that guy had some seroius skill.

Serious skills.

 

[sybarite]

Q: What did you think were the team's biggest deficiencies last year, and do you feel better about those areas heading into this season?
A: "We worked hard but we didn't really compete as hard as we needed to in order to get loose balls, to get stops, to get rebounds. It's not a result of lack of effort as much as just not competing for the result and doing whatever you have to in order to be successful. I think we've improved in that area, but we've got to be more physical. We've got to be tougher both mentally and physically on both ends of the floor."

This was the primary thing that I saw last year. There were times that we didn't seem to have our heads in the game. We might play well for a while and completely lose focus for a few seconds that negated all the good. It was a lack of mental toughness, maybe. Sometimes, it is uncertainty due to inexperience that causes someone to hesitate for a split second. Hopefully, we have overcome that lack of mental toughness, lack of certainty. That alone would probably change the result of four games.

 

[mattham4]

Well, I think the inference was that M'Baye would start on the wing and rotate inside some to provide addition quality depth.

Sorry, but I have to say something as this is a pet peeve of mine.

The word you should use is insinuation or implication rather than inference.

The insinuation or implication is made by the speaker while the inference is the deduction or conclusion reached by the receiver of the communication.

Kruger INSINUATED something and you INFERRED it.

Rant over.

 

[garyeb2]

Sorry, but I have to say something as this is a pet peeve of mine.

The word you should use is insinuation or implication rather than inference.

The insinuation or implication is made by the speaker while the inference is the deduction or conclusion reached by the receiver of the communication.

Kruger INSINUATED something and you INFERRED it.

Rant over.

I could care less about the grammar and spelling police. I do the best I can. Rant over.

 

[BanjoCharley]

I could care less about the grammar and spelling police. I do the best I can. Rant over.

Has nothing to do with grammar or spelling, it has to do with the meaning of words, literacy. If you could "care less about the meaning of words," then you are illiterate.

LK is a dipweed. I could care less about the meaning of words.

I'm with you kcoukid.

 

[garyeb2]

Has nothing to do with grammar or spelling, it has to do with the meaning of words, literacy. If you could "care less about the meaning of words," then you are illiterate.

LK is a dipweed. I could care less about the meaning of words.

I'm with you kcoukid.

I don't write for a living. I am not a student. I do not submit post for the purpose of receiving a grade. For those of you that want to grade papers, I'll repeat what I have mentioned before.

The Norman Public Schools are constantly seeking substitute teachers. The school year is starting soon. That job pays $50 a day. That is not much. But, the job does pay about what that skill it is worth.

It takes a real psuedo intellectual pinhead to want to public demean someone on these grounds. And besides, I have yet to see any of you be honest about it. If you were, then everyone's post would have been subject to all the srutiny. But, that isn't the case. Is it?

 

[playmakr]

Has nothing to do with grammar or spelling, it has to do with the meaning of words, literacy. If you could "care less about the meaning of words," then you are illiterate.

LK is a dipweed. I could care less about the meaning of words.

I'm with you kcoukid.

It's, couldn't care less.

 

[DenverSooner]

I don't write for a living. I am not a student. I do not submit post for the purpose of receiving a grade. For those of you that want to grade papers, I'll repeat what I have mentioned before.

The Norman Public Schools are constantly seeking substitute teachers. The school year is starting soon. That job pays $50 a day. That is not much. But, the job does pay about what that skill it is worth.

It takes a real psuedo intellectual pinhead to want to public demean someone on these grounds. And besides, I have yet to see any of you be honest about it. If you were, then everyone's post would have been subject to all the srutiny. But, that isn't the case. Is it?

I find your writing to be perfectly acceptable and I agree with the "pseudo intellectual pinhead" comment. I don't always agree with you but I have never read your comments and though this guy needs some help and I do write for a living.

I also misspell things and confuse inference with implication on message boards or write to for too. But I am pretty secure with my intelligence and don't feel a need to proof read this nonsense.

 

[skyvue]

Please note: The following is not directed at any one poster.


I figure anyone who points out a misspelling or mistaken usage to me is doing me a favor. Maybe I didn't know that I was using the wrong word, and by all means, I want to get it corrected going forward.

Why anyone would be satisfied to have their online communications riddled with mistakes, I can't fathom. I'm not saying it's something that should keep anyone up at night, but as long as you have occasion to communicate with others via the written word, it's worth working to improve your chops, whether that means eliminating typos, improving your grammar, or extending your vocabulary. That should be a life-long endeavor.

Why be satisfied with the status quo if there's room for improvement? It's a question of self-respect and having respect for those you're communicating with. If a poster regularly got his facts wrong about OU hoops -- if he incorrectly cited records and stats and players' names -- we'd soon write him off. What's the point of reading the guy's posts if he can't be bothered to get his facts straight?

Well, just a notch below that, in my eyes, is someone who can't be bothered to get his spelling, grammar and usage reasonably straight. I have trouble taking their posts very seriously, since it seems that they don't take them seriously.

 

[garyeb2]

Please note: The following is not directed at any one poster.


I figure anyone who points out a misspelling or mistaken usage to me is doing me a favor. Maybe I didn't know that I was using the wrong word, and by all means, I want to get it corrected going forward.

Why anyone would be satisfied to have their online communications riddled with mistakes, I can't fathom. I'm not saying it's something that should keep anyone up at night, but as long as you have occasion to communicate with others via the written word, it's worth working to improve your chops, whether that means eliminating typos, improving your grammar, or extending your vocabulary. That should be a life-long endeavor.

Why be satisfied with the status quo if there's room for improvement? It's a question of self-respect and having respect for those you're communicating with. If a poster regularly got his facts wrong about OU hoops -- if he incorrectly cited records and stats and players' names -- we'd soon write him off. What's the point of reading the guy's posts if he can't be bothered to get his facts straight?

Well, just a notch below that, in my eyes, is someone who can't be bothered to get his spelling, grammar and usage reasonably straight. I have trouble taking their posts very seriously, since it seems that they don't take them seriously.

Make no mistake about it. I'm directing this at you. You are the one that started this. You did't agree or like what I had to say about a basketball topic. Your stated objective at that point was to "put this guy in his place."

But, you had nothing on the topic at hand. You had no data, no in sight, no original thought. No nothing. You had zero, zilch, nada. But, you did have your default setting. You had grammar and puncuaton.

You set the standard on psuedo intellecual pin head. You exposed yourself to be nothing more than a mean spirited psuedo intellectual pinhead. The rest of these boys are pikers compared to you.

I don't know you. Don't care to. If I did, I would probably think that you are a dullard. There are alot of people on this message board that display the ability of original thought, in sight, second or third layer thinking, humor, or at the least, perseverance on the topic at hand. But, no, not you and your kind. It is an immediate reset to the default setting.

I know, people like to think that the things they do well are the most important things. And then, try to convince others that what they do well really are the most important things. Good luck with that.

 

[bassmaster]

Make no mistake about it. I'm directing this at you. You are the one that started this. You did't agree or like what I had to say about a basketball topic. Your stated objective at that point was to "put this guy in his place."

But, you had nothing on the topic at hand. You had no data, no in sight, no original thought. No nothing. You had zero, zilch, nada. But, you did have your default setting. You had grammar and puncuaton.

You set the standard on psuedo intellecual pin head. You exposed yourself to be nothing more than a mean spirited psuedo intellectual pinhead. The rest of these boys are pikers compared to you.

I don't know you. Don't care to. If I did, I would probably think that you are a dullard. There are alot of people on this message board that display the ability of original thought, in sight, second or third layer thinking, humor, or at the least, perseverance on the topic at hand. But, no, not you and your kind. It is an immediate reset to the default setting.

I know, people like to think that the things they do well are the most important things. And then, try to convince others that what they do well really are the most important things. Good luck with that.

Since we have wandered far from topic, I'll make an observation.
You seem to be a person who can't take constructive criticism.