Where things stand with Iowa, Alvaro Folgueiras

[eyesofhawk]

Nah, just a dipshit from the football board who didn't think you guys on the basketball board were educated enough, able to read well enough, unaware of the teams current record or that they haven't ran the ball enough. Those that don't understand what I mean, you soon will.

Also a gambling expert. He started a gloating thread about how smart he was during halftime of a college football game. Then the other team came back from a lot down and he lost. And we had like a 12 page thread of him arguing with people about how the fact he lost money didn't mean he really lost the bet. Seriously. It was an HROT classic that sadly never crossed over.

He's the love child of joes place and Kilroy.

I'll assume you're talking about me, since I remember the story you cite.

I had what I believe to have been a long-term "winning" bet. Meaning it had an edge over time. That doesn't necessarily mean it wins the specific iteration. Just like winning a hand a blackjack doesn't mean you made a long-term "winning" bet. In fact, you made a "losing" bet.

Beyond straightforward.

Try not to mischaracterize

 

[Max Rebo]

What this thread reminds me of:

 

[iahawkeyes17]

How many times are you going to contradict yourself here? And how much are you just blatantly making up?

You realize this is all on video, right?

Please tell me what is wrong and contradicting?

one thing is clear you know little to nothing about bball.

 

[iahawkeyes17]

We've been over this before.

Other posters not having positions strong enough to be supported by responses is not my fault.

It's really not that complicated

My point proven. Your narcissism and lack of impulse control, you can’t not have the last word. Continue on making a fool of yourself.

 

[iahawkeyes17]

They clearly didn't re-watch the play, dumbass.

I'm a basketball expert too and I had to re-watch the play, to be able to see it all with clarity.

Maybe you should try the same and you'll see exactly what has been broken down in this thread.

Additionally, and again:
1. Do you understand that it's common practice to force a less threatening inbounds pass? Yes or no. If not, seriously, google it.
2. You still haven't answered how Ben knew to have the perfect play ready for a defense that made no sense to play.

At least you're quoting experts this time. But learn how to look at the specifics of what actually has happened, rather than relying on what other people think.

You've overlooked a lot of truth in a recent football thread too. Only there, you don't credit the foremost expert of that situation; Kirk Ferentz. Any reason for the contradiction, other than you consistently don't know what you're talking about?

“I’m a basketball expert too”

holy hell what’s funny is you actually believe this. But seriously please list your “credentials” and resume that makes you an expert.

 

[ComradeKirk]

“I’m a basketball expert too”

holy hell what’s funny is you actually believe this. But seriously please list your “credentials” and resume that makes you an expert.

His credentials would just be a link to himself in another thread. We have a mountain of evidence to suggest he’s not an expert.

 

[eyesofhawk]

My point proven. Your narcissism and lack of impulse control, you can’t not have the last word. Continue on making a fool of yourself.

Read better

 

[eyesofhawk]

“I’m a basketball expert too”

holy hell what’s funny is you actually believe this. But seriously please list your “credentials” and resume that makes you an expert.

Coached high school ball for many years

 

[iahawkeyes17]

Coached high school ball for many years

Where and when. I’m calling BS. And even if you coached HS doesn’t make you “an expert” as you have proven with your low IQ post.

 

[iahawkeyes17]

Please tell me what is wrong and contradicting?

one thing is clear you know little to nothing about bball.

Still waiting

 

[eyesofhawk]

Where and when. I’m calling BS. And even if you coached HS doesn’t make you “an expert” as you have proven with your low IQ post.

None of your business.

My employer seemed to think I was "expert" enough. Again, I know very little about most areas of life. Basketball is what I know best.

You are the one who's been proving non-expertise

 

[iahawkeyes17]

None of your business.

My employer seemed to think I was "expert" enough. Again, I know very little about most areas of life. Basketball is what I know best.

You are the one who's been proving non-expertise

Haha. Because you weren’t and you’re not. No one believes you.

in your immortal words “prove it”. Show us the facts. You’re the one bragging calling yourself an expert.

 

[eyesofhawk]

Haha. Because you weren’t and you’re not. No one believes you.

How are you speaking for others?

I don't care what any of you believe. I don't question you about your personal life. If you can't take someone at face value, I feel sorry for you.

I went back and listened to the post-game comments people have been clinging to. Barkley and Kellog's comments were filled with inaccuracies, and as I've suggested, and were indicative of not having re-watched and slowed down the play.

Barkley questioned Florida "chasing" Iowa, which was never their strategy, but rather the position Iowa put them in.

Kellog questioned Florida "gambling" and "going for the steal". That is also a misrepresentation, as Fland's reach for the ball was irrelevant, as the screen from Iowa had already put him behind the action. His reach put him at no further disadvantage.

Looking deeper, I see where Golden has stated the intention was to deny Stirtz, and let someone else catch it. This is, perhaps, where Golden could be questioned, as the strategy wasn't the common practice of forcing a non-threatening catch, as I've suggested.

But the deny Stirtz strategy became immediately irrelevant in the play, as again, Fland immediately bit hard on Stirtz fake cutting to Iowa's basket. Again, it could have been by rule to error on not getting beat deep, thus trumping the deny. Either way, Fland was no longer in a deny position that can be criticized.

The play was not made as a result of the strategy to deny. Once Stirtz broke back toward the inbounder, Fland hustled behind, as no-doubt, at that point his responsibility was to force as non-threatening a catch to Stirtz as possible. At that point, that would have been completely standard strategy, as I have explained.

You're welcome

 

[eyesofhawk]

Haha. Because you weren’t and you’re not. No one believes you.

in your immortal words “prove it”. Show us the facts. You’re the one bragging calling yourself an expert.

It's nothing to brag about. Certainly wasn't financially lucrative.

It was suggested many times in the thread that I don't know what I'm talking about, and am not an expert.

Thus my response

 

[Max Rebo]

@eyesofhawk be like:

 

[ComradeKirk]

The play was not made as a result of the strategy to deny.

It absolutely was. Stirtz isn’t catching the ball running down the court if they aren’t trying to pressure and deny him the ball. It was high risk high reward and Iowa made them pay.

 

[eyesofhawk]

It absolutely was. Stirtz isn’t catching the ball running down the court if they aren’t trying to pressure and deny him the ball. It was high risk high reward and Iowa made them pay.

Read better. Or perhaps, re-watch the play.

As I've stated many times, Fland was never in denial position during Stirtz' break toward the ball

 

[vamchawk]

Read better. Or perhaps, re-watch the play.

As I've stated many times, Fland was never in denial position during Stirtz' break toward the ball

why do you have to ruin every thread?

 

[Cidhawkeye]

How are you speaking for others?

I don't care what any of you believe. I don't question you about your personal life. If you can't take someone at face value, I feel sorry for you.

I went back and listened to the post-game comments people have been clinging to. Barkley and Kellog's comments were filled with inaccuracies, and as I've suggested, and were indicative of not having re-watched and slowed down the play.

Barkley questioned Florida "chasing" Iowa, which was never their strategy, but rather the position Iowa put them in.

Kellog questioned Florida "gambling" and "going for the steal". That is also a misrepresentation, as Fland's reach for the ball was irrelevant, as the screen from Iowa had already put him behind the action. His reach put him at no further disadvantage.

Looking deeper, I see where Golden has stated the intention was to deny Stirtz, and let someone else catch it. This is, perhaps, where Golden could be questioned, as the strategy wasn't the common practice of forcing a non-threatening catch, as I've suggested.

But the deny Stirtz strategy became immediately irrelevant in the play, as again, Fland immediately bit hard on Stirtz fake cutting to Iowa's basket. Again, it could have been by rule to error on not getting beat deep, thus trumping the deny. Either way, Fland was no longer in a deny position that can be criticized.

The play was not made as a result of the strategy to deny. Once Stirtz broke back toward the inbounder, Fland hustled behind, as no-doubt, at that point his responsibility was to force as non-threatening a catch to Stirtz as possible. At that point, that would have been completely standard strategy, as I have explained.

You're welcome

And on the same broadcast which surprisingly was on a different network…….. Pearl and Mashburn were obviously wrong as well……… because, well someone who hasn’t really shown a solid IQ on the subject types it repeatedly and then attempts to reference their post as being accurate.
As far as being a HS ‘coach’ making you an expert…… go watch some HS hoops, some of those coaches are far from experts.

I may need to just refer to you as Fredo…….

 

[eyesofhawk]

And on the same broadcast which surprisingly was on a different network…….. Pearl and Mashburn were obviously wrong as well……… because, well someone who hasn’t really shown a solid IQ on the subject types it repeatedly and then attempts to reference their post as being accurate.
As far as being a HS ‘coach’ making you an expert…… go watch some HS hoops, some of those coaches are far from experts.

I may need to just refer to you as Fredo…….

You say an awful lot for never having anything to say. Again, the video speaks for itself.

And you try awfully hard to remain in the dark. Again, the video speaks for itself. But it has also been broken down in good detail throughout this thread.

Do you think, perhaps, the reason I reference previous posts, is to not have to waste as much time repeating myself to fools like you?

 

[Cidhawkeye]

You say an awful lot for never having anything to say. Again, the video speaks for itself.

And you try awfully hard to remain in the dark. Again, the video speaks for itself. But it has also been broken down in good detail throughout this thread.

Do you think, perhaps, the reason I reference previous posts, is to not have to waste as much time repeating myself to fools like you?

Sorry Fredo, Pearl, Mashburn, Kellog and Barkley have been posted as sources. You have listed you as a source.

Basketball experts or your opinion. Tough choice…….. I will continue to go with the consensus of the experts. Please pick up your consolation prize on the way out.

 

[ComradeKirk]

Read better. Or perhaps, re-watch the play.

As I've stated many times, Fland was never in denial position during Stirtz' break toward the ball

We can all read well enough. The problem is you think you’re John Wooden reincarnate, but you lack the ball knowledge.

I did rewatch the play, not that I need much convincing, and what do you know, they set up to deny. In case you need to watch it again.

 

[HAWKNESS]

We can all read well enough. The problem is you think you’re John Wooden reincarnate, but you lack the ball knowledge.

I did rewatch the play, not that I need much convincing, and what do you know, they set up to deny. In case you need to watch it again.

View attachment 1253123

Definitely playing all out deny. Every Florida defender is closer to the ball. Golden saying they were going to foul does make sense based off the defense.

 

[ComradeKirk]

why do you have to ruin every thread?

Can’t help himself. This is him in every thread defending indefensible positions.

 

[ComradeKirk]

Definitely playing all out deny. Every Florida defender is closer to the ball. Golden saying they were going to foul does make sense based off the defense.

Yep.

It’s been weeks, I can’t believe eyes is still going on about it.

 

[HAWKNESS]

Yep.

It’s been weeks, I can’t believe eyes is still going on about it.

The persistence is admirable

 

[eyesofhawk]

We can all read well enough. The problem is you think you’re John Wooden reincarnate, but you lack the ball knowledge.

I did rewatch the play, not that I need much convincing, and what do you know, they set up to deny. In case you need to watch it again.

View attachment 1253123

Definitely playing all out deny. Every Florida defender is closer to the ball. Golden saying they were going to foul does make sense based off the defense.

Read and watch better.

Florida sets up in deny position. No one has disputed that.

But Fland immediately gives up his denial position once Stirtz fakes toward his basket.

ARE YOU GUYS BLIND? Perhaps the problem is most of the links available pick up the action too late. Go back and watch it on the game broadcast and you will see what I'm speaking of, clear as day

 

[HAWKNESS]

Read and watch better.

Florida sets up in deny position. No one has disputed that.

But Fland immediately gives up his denial position once Stirtz fakes toward his basket.

ARE YOU GUYS BLIND? Perhaps the problem is most of the links available pick up the action too late. Go back and watch it on the game broadcast and you will see what I'm speaking of, clear as day

The world disagrees with you but whatever you say Eyes

 

[like-woahh]

Can you all stop quoting the village idiot, it really messes up my ignore list curation.

Guys, you need to understand you're arguing with someone who defends Brian Ferentz. You might as well be talking to a brick.

 

[Max Rebo]

 

[7thSummitCoach]

I was actually interested in reading this thread. And then as per usual. Goes off the rails. Certain poster just can't seem to help himself. Sad, that some people need to use this board to get validation that they can't get anywhere else in life.

 

[eyesofhawk]

The world disagrees with you but whatever you say Eyes

Anyone who disagrees with me, simply, has not re-watched the play.

There are no opinions here. Again, the play speaks for itself

 

[ComradeKirk]

But Fland immediately gives up his denial position once Stirtz fakes toward his basket.

Couldn’t be because he was trying to deny and fell for Bennetts move hook, line, and sinker?

You’re mistaking a lack of execution for giving up position. Fland didn’t give up sh*t. He simply got worked by a better player.

 

[eyesofhawk]

Can you all stop quoting the village idiot, it really messes up my ignore list curation.

Guys, you need to understand you're arguing with someone who defends Brian Ferentz. You might as well be talking to a brick.

Never have defended BF. Read better

 

[ComradeKirk]

Can you all stop quoting the village idiot, it really messes up my ignore list curation.

Guys, you need to understand you're arguing with someone who defends Brian Ferentz. You might as well be talking to a brick.

I know. It’s a lot, even for a sicko like me.

 

[eyesofhawk]

I was actually interested in reading this thread. And then as per usual. Goes off the rails. Certain poster just can't seem to help himself. Sad, that some people need to use this board to get validation that they can't get anywhere else in life.

And as usual, it's all the idiots who insist on being wrong that have turned the thread into what it is

 

[eyesofhawk]

Couldn’t be because he was trying to deny and fell for Bennetts move hook, line, and sinker?

You’re mistaking a lack of execution for giving up position. Fland didn’t give up sh*t. He simply got worked by a better player.

Could it be you haven't re-watched the play?

It's very obvious that you haven't because it's also obvious that you don't have a clue what I or you are talking about.

And again, no matter how Fland got in that position, it's irrelevant, as at no point during Stirtz' cut toward the ball was Fland in a denial position

 

[ComradeKirk]

at no point during Stirtz' cut toward the ball was Fland in a denial position

Did you eat paint chips as a kid? Of course he was no longer in position, because his jock was already on the floor. It’s called being out-executed.

 

[eyesofhawk]

Did you eat paint chips as a kid? Of course he was no longer in position, because his jock was already on the floor. It’s called being out-executed.

Read better.

Everyone's problem with the play, was Fland face-guarding Stirtz.

But upon watching the play, you will see that complaint to be completely not applicable, as Fland is, at no point during Stirtz' cut to the ball, in a denial position.

It's all been explained in more depth and I'm not going to repeat it again

 

[Cidhawkeye]

Fredo, there is a consensus of people with an actual basketball IQ.
You are on the other side of that opinion. It’s okay to be wrong like you are and admit it. Doubling down on being wrong is not a great look for you but you have demonstrated that being wrong doesn’t bother you.