"We talking about Practice"

[AdaSooner]

A few years back, if everybody had come to this board and proclaimed the greatness that was Kelvin Sampson, I'd have stuck around.

Yes, and a few short years later some of us would have given nearly anything to have Kelvin back.

 

[25mob]

After reading so much about the practice reports I decided to watch a whole practice. I have watched bits and pieces of a couple practice but nothing more than about a half hour or so.

I have read the practice reports and to be honest Gary seems to be dead accurate. I'm not saying that this or that player will start but after hearing Coach Kruger say to another coach "you have to earn playing time with the Red team. They just can't think they are going to play with the Red just because they have always played there".

Something i noticed while watching yesterdays practice was that all three freshmen were better all around players than Pledger.Could that change today... sure it can. Pledger was clearly frustrated yesterday to the point he started arguing with coach Kruger after he was whistled for a foul while doing a full court drill. Coach Kruger promptly removed him from the Red team and told him "I'm not going to argue with you in front of all these people". A few moments later Pledger admitted he played the play wrong but he didn't foul and coach Kruger promptly said "that's the point... you didn't do it correctly... regardless if the ref calls a foul or not you didn't play it correctly".

The days of players just being able to start because they can do one thing or because they were starters last year may be over or maybe not. I don't care who starts because I feel coach Kruger will put the best team out there that he can.

 

[KBaden145]

Great coaching point. Good to see. I think one thing as far as who plays and who doesn't is who is giving the effort to do it right. I think Coach will forgive a guy who is just simply a step slow but gives great effort, if they provide this team something else it needs. This is my point on Pledger. I and it seems Coach needs to see better effort from him. That has always been my issue with him and Fitz. Fitz seems to have changed his ways. Pledger may not have turned that corner yet. All bets are off if Hield or one of the other FR are just truly better practice to practice and game to game. I'm not ready for any final judgements though and thus my issue with Gary's reports. I'm completely on board though if he is right after all.

 

[Cleavon Little]

Hey friends, back from the offseason:

I enjoy Gary's posts and agree with many of his insights. However, I often wish he weren't so informative (and therefore easier to ignore) by his actions once someone challenges an assertion he has made. He gets so angry and confrontational, almost stooping to name calling without actually doing it, that it would be trollish and worthy of ignoring if it were all the man brought to the discussion. I have noticed this about Gary since he first started posting (end of Capel's tenure as I recall). First, he knows basketball. He gives great amounts of helpful insight and observation on a regular basis. Then, suddenly, once someone disagrees with him, or fails to take what he says as gospel truth, he immediately begins the personal attacks. His reply to a disagreement is to call out their basketball intelligence and/or dedication to following the program, usually bitterly, with vitriol and without grammar. This usually comes to a head when discussing Pledger, since he has never found him to be worthy of the role he has been given (some would say earned) on the team. Naturally, others would disagree.

I'm no doctor, but the whole thing reeks of Little Man Syndrome to me. I think that it's established that everyone here appreciates his contributions to this board, especially with the practice reports. On the flipside, I think we could all do without the angry complaining and criticizing whenever someone comes to a different conclusion as he does.

tl;dr - guy is informative and knowledgeable, but not enough to overcome his butthurt confrontations when disagreed with

 

[jmizzy4ou]

Hey friends, back from the offseason:

I enjoy Gary's posts and agree with many of his insights. However, I often wish he weren't so informative (and therefore easier to ignore) by his actions once someone challenges an assertion he has made. He gets so angry and confrontational, almost stooping to name calling without actually doing it, that it would be trollish and worthy of ignoring if it were all the man brought to the discussion. I have noticed this about Gary since he first started posting (end of Capel's tenure as I recall). First, he knows basketball. He gives great amounts of helpful insight and observation on a regular basis. Then, suddenly, once someone disagrees with him, or fails to take what he says as gospel truth, he immediately begins the personal attacks. His reply to a disagreement is to call out their basketball intelligence and/or dedication to following the program, usually bitterly, with vitriol and without grammar. This usually comes to a head when discussing Pledger, since he has never found him to be worthy of the role he has been given (some would say earned) on the team. Naturally, others would disagree.

I'm no doctor, but the whole thing reeks of Little Man Syndrome to me. I think that it's established that everyone here appreciates his contributions to this board, especially with the practice reports. On the flipside, I think we could all do without the angry complaining and criticizing whenever someone comes to a different conclusion as he does.

tl;dr - guy is informative and knowledgeable, but not enough to overcome his butthurt confrontations when disagreed with

:chestram2::chestram2:

Very well said.

...... And that is why I replied I always take his reports with a lil salt, because I believe sometimes his dislike for Pledger taints his judgement. Never did I say I wanted him gone, or I don't appreciate his efforts and dedication to the board/team. I just want to read something without feeling like a Sooner fan is always negative towards a Sooner. If Pledger didn't belong, I have no doubt he wouldn't be where he is. No one owes him anything........ I have no problem with calling out a guys effort, etc but I just came to the conclusion no matter what Pledger does, it won't impress Gary.

Now if he is dogging it in practice, and giving unwanted feedback to LK, I'm sure he will make the decision for LK about how much plays/starts/or anything else. That crap is a no go.

 

[garyeb2]

Are you guys done with this theme. Or, are there some more that need alittle time to get on board. I don't want to break your momentum.

I said on this board that that I was going to be at practice most of the time during the early going anyway. I also said that I wouldn't mind doing a little recap. And I also said that my bias's were well known and poster's were welcome to run them though any filter that they thought was needed. I think you folks forgot the last part.

What I didn't say was that I was willing to take one ounce of grief for doing alittle extra for a small handfull of people that might get alittle something out of them. How could any of you be confused on that point?

I think that I respond harshly to harsh critisism. I guess that I'm average height or a shade better. I have never had a pulse rate increase while posting here. However, I do enjoy putting people on tilt from time to time. I do try to limit that to the profane, the juvenile, or those trying to shove their own bias's up my butt. That could easily be considered a character flaw.

If memory serves, this last flare up started with the posting of my opinion of the red/white scrimmage. The blowback coming from that one is something that I am just not capable of comprehending. From my perspective, it was completely unwarrented and just plain bizzare. I didn't considered myself under any obligation to the standards of good taste to let it go quietly.

I thought about it for a couple of days and stiill don't get it. Sometimes I know what's coming and from who when I post an opinion. Not this time.

Try this. Put your own bias's aside for a minute and take a couple of steps back. The 20 minute scrimmage was essentially nothing more than a competition between the Capel leftovers and Kruger's recruits. Kruger's recruits are suppose to beat Capel's leftovers. All is starting to be right again in the world of Sooner Basketball when Kruger's recruits beat Capel's leftovers. I would have left the gym with a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach if Kruger"s recruits couldn't beat the old guys. That was what that result meant to me. I'm not trying to open up a point couterpoint. I'm locked in on this one. And I'm done with this topic.

 

[DenverSooner]

Pledger was clearly frustrated yesterday to the point he started arguing with coach Kruger after he was whistled for a foul while doing a full court drill. Coach Kruger promptly removed him from the Red team and told him "I'm not going to argue with you in front of all these people". A few moments later Pledger admitted he played the play wrong but he didn't foul and coach Kruger promptly said "that's the point... you didn't do it correctly... regardless if the ref calls a foul or not you didn't play it correctly".

I like the way Kruger handled that. Pledger is lucky he kept his cool. I might have told him I wasn't going to argue with him and he just convinced me he was not prepared to start in the first exhibition game. I might have followed that up with any more discussion on this point and you might convince you are not ready to play in that game. I am a big believer in the coach controlling the team even if it means your best player sits on the end of the bench by himself while the team loses a game. (I am not saying Pledger is the best player on the team but I do think he is one of the better players on the team but I have not seen the freshmen play.)

 

[skyvue]

Hey friends, back from the offseason:

I enjoy Gary's posts and agree with many of his insights. However, I often wish he weren't so informative (and therefore easier to ignore) by his actions once someone challenges an assertion he has made. He gets so angry and confrontational, almost stooping to name calling without actually doing it, that it would be trollish and worthy of ignoring if it were all the man brought to the discussion. I have noticed this about Gary since he first started posting (end of Capel's tenure as I recall). First, he knows basketball. He gives great amounts of helpful insight and observation on a regular basis. Then, suddenly, once someone disagrees with him, or fails to take what he says as gospel truth, he immediately begins the personal attacks. His reply to a disagreement is to call out their basketball intelligence and/or dedication to following the program, usually bitterly, with vitriol and without grammar. This usually comes to a head when discussing Pledger, since he has never found him to be worthy of the role he has been given (some would say earned) on the team. Naturally, others would disagree.

I'm no doctor, but the whole thing reeks of Little Man Syndrome to me. I think that it's established that everyone here appreciates his contributions to this board, especially with the practice reports. On the flipside, I think we could all do without the angry complaining and criticizing whenever someone comes to a different conclusion as he does.

tl;dr - guy is informative and knowledgeable, but not enough to overcome his butthurt confrontations when disagreed with

And it's been going on for more than a year. Virtually every thread he posts in eventually becomes all about him, as he lashes out at other posters who don't toe his line.

The link below points to a thread that is more than a year old. His approach was the same then as it is now; nothing's changed. And the post I made at the end of the thread stills applies.

http://ouhoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23294

It's amazing, really, how one poster, despite his contributions that are of value, can poison an online community.

 

[KBaden145]

Wow! Tiger...stripes...something or other about not changing them...

 

[garyeb2]

And it's been going on for more than a year. Virtually every thread he posts in eventually becomes all about him, as he lashes out at other posters who don't toe his line.

The link below points to a thread that is more than a year old. His approach was the same then as it is now; nothing's changed. And the post I made at the end of the thread stills applies.

http://ouhoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23294

It's amazing, really, how one poster, despite his contributions that are of value, can poison an online community.

This is good. Let me remind you what else has been going on since I started here.

This is a community of like minded people. Now, there is nothing at all wrong with that. Humans have been organising themselves into homogeneous groups for a 100,000 years. I probably don't fit in particularly well. And I would have probably moved along months ago because the standard story line being championed doesn't fit in my belief system.

Time after time, if some new poster pops in with something outside the standard bounds of beliefs, the same old group of heavy heads swarm in and try to batter and bash them into submission. You may not be the most frequent of that group. But, you are the worst of that group. You guys are pretty good at. New people either get driven off of or they back into the shadows and just log on to read a posted artice or to see if any new information is available. But, they will not post or participate. Everyday ordinary people just don't want to put up with the crap the self appointed big boys want to dish out.

Do you want some evidence of that? Those little recaps that I posted got hundreds and hundreds of veiws. I think a couple of them went over a 1000. Sure, some of them were reveiws and some of the threads got alittle long. The overwhelming majority apparenty decided to read them, take them for they worth to them, and move on. My point is that the group of vigilantes is a very very small percentage of the people that actually log on and use this board as at least a partial source of information. It is the attact dogs that poison the potential of this board.

There were probably two mistakes made here. The first was mine. I could have just as easily backed off like the vast majority do. The second was by the most vocal of the community because I have enough free time to remind them that bashing and badergering can sometimes be a two way street.

 

[McJacknife]

Gary, at first i was mildly annoyed with some of the conclusions you drew in some of your reports, and wished you'd just stick to what you saw.

But then I realized you can type whatever you damn well please.

And then I realized reading these threads is actually a lot of fun.

I might start arguing with you just for sh*ts

 

[Ham]

Kruger's recruits are suppose to beat Capel's leftovers.

Why does this have to be true?

 

[WTSooner]

This is a community of like minded people.

This comment just shows how crazy and out of touch you are. People on this board disagree ALL THE TIME. Countless arguments about Kelvin, about Capel, about Blake, about WW/TMG/Tiny. People have been disagreeing on this board since it was created. Disagreeing on a wide range of topics.

To say this board is made up of people that tend to "agree" on everything is simply not true.

 

[garyeb2]

Wow! Tiger...stripes...something or other about not changing them...

I'm glad you popped in. I thought of something earlier that I wanted to pass along.

Colin Powell commissioned a study on human decision making. It seems that alot of people with just normally functioning brains can make high quality decisions with as little as 40% of the available information. There is nothing unusual at all about that. And that range for some people could move on out to 70% of the avilable information to reach a high quality decision.

So, when someone wants to get on here and tell me that they need 100% of the availavble information to make quality decisions. And that everyone else does too. And that information can only be gained by sitting around a practice gym for two months. Well, my response is that they should work on their rapid cognition skills.

So, going forward, it would be much appreciated if people would refrain from trying to imprint on me there own particular and unique abilities or lack thereof.

Well, it is late. You fine gentlemen have a nice night.

 

[garyeb2]

Why does this have to be true?

Well, from my perspective. Kruger was charged with the responsibilty of upgrading the talent, turning the program around, and getting paid $2,000,000 per to get it done. Spangler, M'Baye, and the 3 freshmen guards have more talent than what Capel left us with.

 

[garyeb2]

This comment just shows how crazy and out of touch you are. People on this board disagree ALL THE TIME. Countless arguments about Kelvin, about Capel, about Blake, about WW/TMG/Tiny. People have been disagreeing on this board since it was created. Disagreeing on a wide range of topics.

To say this board is made up of people that tend to "agree" on everything is simply not true.

I have asked you to do this before. But, I'll ask again. If you want to argue, please argue with me. Not someone you made up. I did not use the words agree or disagree or always or never. Is crazy a medical term?

 

[T_Neal's Twitter]

Well, from my perspective. Kruger was charged with the responsibilty of upgrading the talent, turning the program around, and getting paid $2,000,000 per to get it done. Spangler, M'Baye, and the 3 freshmen guards have more talent than what Capel left us with.

Those 5 could actually be a viable starting lineup next year (perhaps Cam in there) so we'll see if they are actually better than a Capel team! Yay! we will have scientific proof on whether or not Capel or Kruger had better players!

Honestly the whole "Kruger's players are supposed to be better than Capel's players" is utter nonsense. Steven Pledger, Romero Osby, Andrew Fitzgerald, and Cameron Clark are all damn fine ball players and would probably be even better players if they had been under Kruger's teaching for 4 years. It's about the coach developing the players, not what players the coach brings in.

 

[garyeb2]

Those 5 could actually be a viable starting lineup next year (perhaps Cam in there) so we'll see if they are actually better than a Capel team! Yay! we will have scientific proof on whether or not Capel or Kruger had better players!

Honestly the whole "Kruger's players are supposed to be better than Capel's players" is utter nonsense. Steven Pledger, Romero Osby, Andrew Fitzgerald, and Cameron Clark are all damn fine ball players and would probably be even better players if they had been under Kruger's teaching for 4 years. It's about the coach developing the players, not what players the coach brings in.

I am perfectly aware that your opinion of the talent level is the general consensus of the people that post on this board.

 

[McJacknife]

This must be why none of John Blake's recruits ever saw the field again when Stoops waltzed into town.

 

[StatGeek]

I'm glad you popped in. I thought of something earlier that I wanted to pass along.

Colin Powell commissioned a study on human decision making. It seems that alot of people with just normally functioning brains can make high quality decisions with as little as 40% of the available information. There is nothing unusual at all about that. And that range for some people could move on out to 70% of the avilable information to reach a high quality decision.

So, when someone wants to get on here and tell me that they need 100% of the availavble information to make quality decisions. And that everyone else does too. And that information can only be gained by sitting around a practice gym for two months. Well, my response is that they should work on their rapid cognition skills.

So, going forward, it would be much appreciated if people would refrain from trying to imprint on me there own particular and unique abilities or lack thereof.

Well, it is late. You fine gentlemen have a nice night.

The good news (I guess):

You have some knowledge of Colin Powell's leadership theory.

The bad news:

You are completely misinterpreting, misapplying, and misrepresenting his leadership theories.

Congrats.