Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Bell Tolls for Thee" data-source="post: 130834275" data-attributes="member: 1812660"><p>I'm confused.&nbsp; So is the intent of the WVU basketball team to win games or allow players to hone the weak part of their game on the court?&nbsp; If Sags working on the weaker part of his game was not conducive to the team winning, why would we want him back?&nbsp; Most players when honing the weak parts of their game do not completely abandon what made them effective in the first place.&nbsp; Pat White didn't completely abandon running when he was trying to improve his pocket passing as a senior.&nbsp; I would think Huggs expected Sags to use the facilities to work on his game independently and then in practice show if his expanded game could be effective.&nbsp; But primarily he would continue to mostly play the role that got him noticed the year before.&nbsp; Sags didn't do that and if he came in knowing he wasn't willing to primarily be a rim protector and low post player, he was coming in knowingly making the team weaker for his benefit.&nbsp; Much more parasitic than symbiotic.&nbsp; But remember this entire argument is based upon not so much trashing the kid, but rather my statement that it's best for both parties for Sags to go given last season proved that Sags priorities and the team's priorities had a hard time coexisting.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="The Bell Tolls for Thee, post: 130834275, member: 1812660"] I'm confused. So is the intent of the WVU basketball team to win games or allow players to hone the weak part of their game on the court? If Sags working on the weaker part of his game was not conducive to the team winning, why would we want him back? Most players when honing the weak parts of their game do not completely abandon what made them effective in the first place. Pat White didn't completely abandon running when he was trying to improve his pocket passing as a senior. I would think Huggs expected Sags to use the facilities to work on his game independently and then in practice show if his expanded game could be effective. But primarily he would continue to mostly play the role that got him noticed the year before. Sags didn't do that and if he came in knowing he wasn't willing to primarily be a rim protector and low post player, he was coming in knowingly making the team weaker for his benefit. Much more parasitic than symbiotic. But remember this entire argument is based upon not so much trashing the kid, but rather my statement that it's best for both parties for Sags to go given last season proved that Sags priorities and the team's priorities had a hard time coexisting. [/QUOTE]

Name