Should IQ start!
- Thread starter TortElvisII
- Start date
I like Quick off the bench. Some players just do better watching the game for a few minutes. The main thing is that he plays big minutes and finishes the game. I thought this was his worst start in a while with him starting. I like him as that 6th man. We haven't had problems starting well, it's mostly been finishing so him starting does nothing for us. As long as he plays 30+ minutes I'm good with him coming off the bench. Especially with how he looked early in the starting role.
He does. Not just for the game at hand but the whole season which means giving the young guys some run so they can help us down the stretch and doing it in a way where their mistakes and poor play can be covered up.
Why these guys getting a few minutes translates in some minds to anything to do with the NBA is paranoia and grasping for conspiracy theories to fit a nonsensical agenda.
These are the same people that would have never developed Richards and still insist that letting Booker get scorched even more would have whipped Wisconsin in 2015.
I do no not care if Quickley starts or not or anyone else for that matter unless their name is Nick Richards or Ashton Hagans and I can be convinced on the latter.
That and Sestina is a bench player and should seldom if ever start because he is a liability on D in the extreme and isn't as potent as many want to pretend on offense either.
Two of Montgomery, Brooks, Whitney, and Juzang need to be jeweled up for March and hopefully April to go along with Hagans, Maxey, Quickley, and Richards and preferably three including Juzang.
We needed 7 1/2 even with Davis, like it or lump it we probably need 8 without him.
Just for kicks. Looks like IQ starting worked.
What a shocker. The same basketball genuises who comprise the sunshine pumpers are the ones ITT saying they didnt think or care if IQ started. Theyve got it all figured out! [laughing]
This was a fantastic re-read.
“Whatever Cal decides is what should be happening. Nobody should ever question anything” - a lot of posters on RR
“Whatever Cal decides is what should be happening. Nobody should ever question anything” - a lot of posters on RR
Or maybe they would rather UK put the best team on the floor and win instead of doing stupid [poop] trying to get some dude to the league overnight.
I’m still holding out hope the light turns on for Whitney, personally.
I think he can still contribute this year. It is really him, Rekalin Sims or Oliver Simmons. We have to get something out of one of them.
Such a silly thing when someone brings back this kind of thing. No one could of known he would become this good . He was decent in non con play but it wasn't till SEC play that he became great. Now he is 3rd team AA IMO . But people always look stupid in 20/20 hindsight.
Hey he proved he’s the best option along with Nick, but he was great coming off the bench too. He’s just a really good player this year.
Actually, I thought it was pretty obvious that IQ was, at the very least, our 3rd best player. I liked what he did for us last year and with him being a steady veteran guard, it was a no brainer to me.
Cal was just trying to get other guys going, but for UK to win, IQ needs to be on the floor as much as possible.
Someday if you're correct about something you can bring something back up. Until then.
Yeah, you really got me. I said Quickly should play 30+ mins regardless of early in the season before he started playing his best BB. Good one.:flush: I wonder what I could find if I went back on all your posts. Huh? You're a loser. What a reach. Poor fellow.
With the Whitney failure it was essential that whoever started be an impact player for us and IQ did that well.
Have at it. I have been wrong before. But I try not to abuse the privilege as much as you.
Lol I think the power company shut his lights off for good.
Would it affect us dramatically different if at all if he came off the bench but still played 30+ minutes? We start games slow and still do, it's how we finish them. Do you really think this is a great deal if he comes in the first 5 minutes instead of starting as long as he gets his minutes? I said he should play 30+ minutes and that was before he even started playing that well. Wow, what a reach.
Abuse the privilege LFAO. Because early on I said he should play 30+ minutes but I was fine with him coming off the bench LOL. What else you got. Dig deep.:flush: Gotta be more than that though for that statement.
Are we in a competition? I really didn’t read that anyone didn’t want IQ not to succeed so why the pissing contest? Plus wasn’t this originally a poll for different opinions?
He's a loser. All I can think of is he has been stewing for a year when he was picking for UK to lose and was wrong again and again and I called him out for it. This is all he could find one me LMFAO I said quickly should play 30+ minutes a game and he thinks that's a wrong statement by me because I liked how he was playing and giving us energy off the bench early in the year. What a dipshit. Must be a slow night in his parent's basement.
I just put my vote in for THE DRAGON. That dude’s gonna be a lotto pick this year.
My only point was, I thought it was a real good thread not like those that bashed Richards his first two years here. I’ve always liked Q even when he was coming off the bench. But right now he’s the best that we have along with Nick.
Calling people names when all I did was show what you posted. Own it.
Watch the 2001 USC game above and get back to me on whether the first 5 minutes of the game means anything or not.
if I call you out for that are you going to call me a loser and say I live in a basement?
Because you'd be half right.
I get it man he's an idiot. I said Quickly should play 30+ minutes. 30+ minutes and he acts like I was wrong because I like the idea of a guy coming off the bench early to give us energy and a spark which I knew Quick would do. I have been a supporter of him all year long. I didn't vote for another player to start over him I just liked him coming in with that spark.
Sad. Anyone can pick one game to make a point and it's pointless. I said this early in the year and still said I wanted him to play 30+ minutes. You are really reaching and it's sad. Things change as the season goes and I supported him then and I do now. Do you think to say a guy should play 30+ minutes is a bad thing? LMFAO Do you still think SDSU could be an E8 team LOL?
You said I'm wrong a lot. I'm waiting. What else do you have besides me saying Quickly should play 30+ minutes and I liked him coming off the bench as a spark early on in the year. [smoke]
Why don't you get a life? We are playing great and I stuck with this team when others were yelling NIT and other BS. Love Quick and always have. You said I was wrong a lot. WHAT ELSE U GOT SON?
You really want me to look for things? Ok.
Yes, SDSU could be an EE team. That means it is possible. Never said it was likely. Did not guarantee it.
Look away! Now do what you probably do best and play with yourself. I'm bored with you.