without question and that permits me to comment on those discussions. Are you claiming otheriwse?
You continue to conflate discussing the value of your post with the substance of your post. You respond to me and I reply. That does not make any of your posts more credible.
False. Try again.
Wait, when you post making fun of or bashing Pope, are you adhering to this maxim? Did you think about this when you posted as the OP or were you just trying to troll?
What kind of pretentious dope uses the words "maxim" and "conflate" in regular conversation? You're real impressed with yourself.
I apologize for having an actual vocabulary, Lars. Or should I say lexicon. Who knew “conflate” was a word you would need to look up?
Sorry, Insanity. When someone says having a PG was key and you point to a team that had one of the best to make your point without acknowledging that fact, it looks more like you just again using hyperbole and ignoring facts to be critical. It sucked, but it is understandable in a way that is not a coach failing to know how to break a trap. But, I do get your point that I should ignore the ridiculous emotional comments.
You did not mention PG. I mentioned PG play and then you responded by raising UT’s success against Iowa State as if some sort of proof that coaching acumen played a role. You picked a team with a great PG. at team Iowa State did not defend the same way it attacked UK and UK’s lack of ball handlers in the second half. So; yeah, we all saw UT prepare well and have the skill set to take down ISU.
Can hopefully sell him on that Brea shooter role and show him film of Zoom and Wilkins in terms of setting up for wing shooters to get him on board
Brea and Robinson. I could see us pushing the ball hard and hitting him on the run up the sideline and letting him pull the trigger from way outside the three point line.
