ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 4567
May 21, 2012 8:25 AM
birthersarefools wrote:Big Eddy Springs wrote: birthersarefools wrote: swenson wrote: UWOle wrote: jjfanec wrote: Not sure if this is the best place to put this but Scout put our their top 100 today and Bronson isnt even ranked! Matt Thomas was 87 and Semi was 30The rankings obviously don't mean sh!t, but leaving Bronson out is ridiculous. I will assume the Scout guys have seen the Swing, given that they have Luke Fischer in the top 100, so I'd be really curious to hear why he was left out. I saw Bronson head to head against Connor Frankamp (#66) and Matt Thomas (#87) in April, and there was zero question who the best guard on the floor was. Nothing against Frankamp or Thomas, as they are both nice prospects. but I would take Bronson over either.Honestly I have been watching high school kids in both high school and aau for at least 15 years. Off the top of my head I can not think of a more obvious ommisssion of a state kid froma top 100 lists in that time. It is not as if Koenig is a sleeper or late bloomer. It only takes a few minute of game time to know Bronson is a no brainer as a top 100 kids. Now if someon wants to leave him out of their top 50 fine. But I question if someone has the experiencr to work for a pay service and not see Koenig is a no questions asked top 100 player.and Wilson at 63? well, we had GW Bush for president for 8 years so I guess I can beleive just about anything.OK now I can hate you like everyone else.Leave your effed up politics off this board.It's passe and cliche to vilify W- that's not politics at all....HATE is an awfully strong word...are you feeling ok?
Big Eddy Springs wrote: birthersarefools wrote: swenson wrote: UWOle wrote: jjfanec wrote: Not sure if this is the best place to put this but Scout put our their top 100 today and Bronson isnt even ranked! Matt Thomas was 87 and Semi was 30The rankings obviously don't mean sh!t, but leaving Bronson out is ridiculous. I will assume the Scout guys have seen the Swing, given that they have Luke Fischer in the top 100, so I'd be really curious to hear why he was left out. I saw Bronson head to head against Connor Frankamp (#66) and Matt Thomas (#87) in April, and there was zero question who the best guard on the floor was. Nothing against Frankamp or Thomas, as they are both nice prospects. but I would take Bronson over either.Honestly I have been watching high school kids in both high school and aau for at least 15 years. Off the top of my head I can not think of a more obvious ommisssion of a state kid froma top 100 lists in that time. It is not as if Koenig is a sleeper or late bloomer. It only takes a few minute of game time to know Bronson is a no brainer as a top 100 kids. Now if someon wants to leave him out of their top 50 fine. But I question if someone has the experiencr to work for a pay service and not see Koenig is a no questions asked top 100 player.and Wilson at 63? well, we had GW Bush for president for 8 years so I guess I can beleive just about anything.OK now I can hate you like everyone else.Leave your effed up politics off this board.
birthersarefools wrote: swenson wrote: UWOle wrote: jjfanec wrote: Not sure if this is the best place to put this but Scout put our their top 100 today and Bronson isnt even ranked! Matt Thomas was 87 and Semi was 30The rankings obviously don't mean sh!t, but leaving Bronson out is ridiculous. I will assume the Scout guys have seen the Swing, given that they have Luke Fischer in the top 100, so I'd be really curious to hear why he was left out. I saw Bronson head to head against Connor Frankamp (#66) and Matt Thomas (#87) in April, and there was zero question who the best guard on the floor was. Nothing against Frankamp or Thomas, as they are both nice prospects. but I would take Bronson over either.Honestly I have been watching high school kids in both high school and aau for at least 15 years. Off the top of my head I can not think of a more obvious ommisssion of a state kid froma top 100 lists in that time. It is not as if Koenig is a sleeper or late bloomer. It only takes a few minute of game time to know Bronson is a no brainer as a top 100 kids. Now if someon wants to leave him out of their top 50 fine. But I question if someone has the experiencr to work for a pay service and not see Koenig is a no questions asked top 100 player.and Wilson at 63? well, we had GW Bush for president for 8 years so I guess I can beleive just about anything.
swenson wrote: UWOle wrote: jjfanec wrote: Not sure if this is the best place to put this but Scout put our their top 100 today and Bronson isnt even ranked! Matt Thomas was 87 and Semi was 30The rankings obviously don't mean sh!t, but leaving Bronson out is ridiculous. I will assume the Scout guys have seen the Swing, given that they have Luke Fischer in the top 100, so I'd be really curious to hear why he was left out. I saw Bronson head to head against Connor Frankamp (#66) and Matt Thomas (#87) in April, and there was zero question who the best guard on the floor was. Nothing against Frankamp or Thomas, as they are both nice prospects. but I would take Bronson over either.Honestly I have been watching high school kids in both high school and aau for at least 15 years. Off the top of my head I can not think of a more obvious ommisssion of a state kid froma top 100 lists in that time. It is not as if Koenig is a sleeper or late bloomer. It only takes a few minute of game time to know Bronson is a no brainer as a top 100 kids. Now if someon wants to leave him out of their top 50 fine. But I question if someone has the experiencr to work for a pay service and not see Koenig is a no questions asked top 100 player.
UWOle wrote: jjfanec wrote: Not sure if this is the best place to put this but Scout put our their top 100 today and Bronson isnt even ranked! Matt Thomas was 87 and Semi was 30The rankings obviously don't mean sh!t, but leaving Bronson out is ridiculous. I will assume the Scout guys have seen the Swing, given that they have Luke Fischer in the top 100, so I'd be really curious to hear why he was left out. I saw Bronson head to head against Connor Frankamp (#66) and Matt Thomas (#87) in April, and there was zero question who the best guard on the floor was. Nothing against Frankamp or Thomas, as they are both nice prospects. but I would take Bronson over either.
jjfanec wrote: Not sure if this is the best place to put this but Scout put our their top 100 today and Bronson isnt even ranked! Matt Thomas was 87 and Semi was 30
Interact
Posts: 12812
May 21, 2012 8:36 AM
Posts: 440
May 21, 2012 9:04 AM
UWOle wrote:Cdiddy34 wrote: on a side note does anybody know what AAU team Keita Bates-Diop plays for? i saw espn has him listed as a badgers offer.. my previous employer played them in the state tournament last year and lost a really good game to his teamHe plays with the Illinois Wolves. Without an offer from Illinois, Bates-Diop sounds like a Michigan lean at this point.
Cdiddy34 wrote: on a side note does anybody know what AAU team Keita Bates-Diop plays for? i saw espn has him listed as a badgers offer.. my previous employer played them in the state tournament last year and lost a really good game to his team
Posts: 88
May 21, 2012 9:23 AM
Posts: 422
May 21, 2012 10:38 AM
Slimm21 wrote: oh please slimm dimm of course I am biased. But so are so many other objective people who know it's a crock he's not in it(top 100)..You are not with it if you don't think Bronson should'nt be in top 100. It's that simple. Oh course he should be in the top 100. You couldn't make your point without taking a shot at Wilson though. Ironically, because Wilson should be in the top 100 as well.
Posts: 5998
May 21, 2012 11:26 AM
birthersarefools wrote:I am NOT making a shot at Wilson. He is a good player too.
Posts: 4420
May 21, 2012 11:28 AM
just starting to think about having a doner.
ramajoti wrote:UWOle wrote:Cdiddy34 wrote: on a side note does anybody know what AAU team Keita Bates-Diop plays for? i saw espn has him listed as a badgers offer.. my previous employer played them in the state tournament last year and lost a really good game to his teamHe plays with the Illinois Wolves. Without an offer from Illinois, Bates-Diop sounds like a Michigan lean at this point. He said that he would like to visit UW. UM hasn't offered yet and if UW did they could jump ahead of them. I like the idea of UW recruiting big guards. To many puny guards to run the swing properly when it is a guard posting up offense. Thomas, Jok, Norman and KBD all fit the bill at 6'-4 or bigger.
Posts: 6285
May 21, 2012 11:38 AM
Cdiddy34 wrote: ramajoti wrote: UWOle wrote: Cdiddy34 wrote: on a side note does anybody know what AAU team Keita Bates-Diop plays for? i saw espn has him listed as a badgers offer.. my previous employer played them in the state tournament last year and lost a really good game to his teamHe plays with the Illinois Wolves. Without an offer from Illinois, Bates-Diop sounds like a Michigan lean at this point. He said that he would like to visit UW. UM hasn't offered yet and if UW did they could jump ahead of them. I like the idea of UW recruiting big guards. To many puny guards to run the swing properly when it is a guard posting up offense. Thomas, Jok, Norman and KBD all fit the bill at 6'-4 or bigger. the old coach i used to work for that coached against him said, "size and talent wise, easily a big 10 level recruit. not aggressive enough yet"
ramajoti wrote: UWOle wrote: Cdiddy34 wrote: on a side note does anybody know what AAU team Keita Bates-Diop plays for? i saw espn has him listed as a badgers offer.. my previous employer played them in the state tournament last year and lost a really good game to his teamHe plays with the Illinois Wolves. Without an offer from Illinois, Bates-Diop sounds like a Michigan lean at this point. He said that he would like to visit UW. UM hasn't offered yet and if UW did they could jump ahead of them. I like the idea of UW recruiting big guards. To many puny guards to run the swing properly when it is a guard posting up offense. Thomas, Jok, Norman and KBD all fit the bill at 6'-4 or bigger.
UWOle wrote: Cdiddy34 wrote: on a side note does anybody know what AAU team Keita Bates-Diop plays for? i saw espn has him listed as a badgers offer.. my previous employer played them in the state tournament last year and lost a really good game to his teamHe plays with the Illinois Wolves. Without an offer from Illinois, Bates-Diop sounds like a Michigan lean at this point.
May 21, 2012 12:37 PM
scoobs69 wrote: birthersarefools wrote: I am NOT making a shot at Wilson. He is a good player too. Really?!? Read your comment again...and Wilson at 63? well, we had GW Bush for president for 8 years so I guess I can beleive just about anything.
birthersarefools wrote: I am NOT making a shot at Wilson. He is a good player too.
May 21, 2012 3:20 PM
birthersarefools wrote:scoobs69 wrote: birthersarefools wrote: I am NOT making a shot at Wilson. He is a good player too. Really?!? Read your comment again...and Wilson at 63? well, we had GW Bush for president for 8 years so I guess I can beleive just about anything.My point is that if you put Wilson at 63 and take Koenig out of the top 100 then it's as silly as W for 8 years..that's not a shot at Wilson its a shot at the fools who made the decision to do that not unlike W and all the decisions he made. it's pretty simple you read into shit too much.
Posts: 17027
May 21, 2012 3:46 PM
Big Eddy Springs wrote:birthersarefools wrote:scoobs69 wrote: birthersarefools wrote: I am NOT making a shot at Wilson. He is a good player too. Really?!? Read your comment again...and Wilson at 63? well, we had GW Bush for president for 8 years so I guess I can beleive just about anything.My point is that if you put Wilson at 63 and take Koenig out of the top 100 then it's as silly as W for 8 years..that's not a shot at Wilson its a shot at the fools who made the decision to do that not unlike W and all the decisions he made. it's pretty simple you read into shit too much. I vote for this thread to go directly to the bickering board, or the banning of this Birther fool. The alternative is to talk about politics here!
Posts: 8843
May 21, 2012 3:53 PM
Posts: 5750
May 21, 2012 3:57 PM
May 21, 2012 3:59 PM
Slimm21 wrote:Has Southfew put you in charge of board moderating? Or is this some sort of joke from a different thread that I haven't caught on to? Because if you are in charge, I will watch my arguments with you more closely Don't want to piss off "tha man"
May 21, 2012 4:02 PM
May 21, 2012 7:09 PM
SaundersBucky wrote: Big Eddy Springs wrote: birthersarefools wrote: scoobs69 wrote: birthersarefools wrote: I am NOT making a shot at Wilson. He is a good player too. Really?!? Read your comment again...and Wilson at 63? well, we had GW Bush for president for 8 years so I guess I can beleive just about anything.My point is that if you put Wilson at 63 and take Koenig out of the top 100 then it's as silly as W for 8 years..that's not a shot at Wilson its a shot at the fools who made the decision to do that not unlike W and all the decisions he made. it's pretty simple you read into shit too much. I vote for this thread to go directly to the bickering board, or the banning of this Birther fool. The alternative is to talk about politics here!Birthers, the people of this board do not like the injection of politics in non-political forums. If you want to talk politics, please keep it on the Political Board, or I will start playing board cop. To be honest, I find your choice of board name a bit too political for my liking, but since the Board Owner is not bothered by it, I grit my teeth. However, I don't think it would be a bad idea if you created a new board name for yourself. Eddie: I'd been mostly ignoring this thread, because of its length. Rather than complain in thread, perhaps you should consider sending a private message in the future, or making a post in the admin board. Thank you!
Big Eddy Springs wrote: birthersarefools wrote: scoobs69 wrote: birthersarefools wrote: I am NOT making a shot at Wilson. He is a good player too. Really?!? Read your comment again...and Wilson at 63? well, we had GW Bush for president for 8 years so I guess I can beleive just about anything.My point is that if you put Wilson at 63 and take Koenig out of the top 100 then it's as silly as W for 8 years..that's not a shot at Wilson its a shot at the fools who made the decision to do that not unlike W and all the decisions he made. it's pretty simple you read into shit too much. I vote for this thread to go directly to the bickering board, or the banning of this Birther fool. The alternative is to talk about politics here!
birthersarefools wrote: scoobs69 wrote: birthersarefools wrote: I am NOT making a shot at Wilson. He is a good player too. Really?!? Read your comment again...and Wilson at 63? well, we had GW Bush for president for 8 years so I guess I can beleive just about anything.My point is that if you put Wilson at 63 and take Koenig out of the top 100 then it's as silly as W for 8 years..that's not a shot at Wilson its a shot at the fools who made the decision to do that not unlike W and all the decisions he made. it's pretty simple you read into shit too much.
Posts: 15800
May 21, 2012 7:27 PM
birthersarefools wrote:SaundersBucky wrote: Big Eddy Springs wrote: birthersarefools wrote: scoobs69 wrote: birthersarefools wrote: I am NOT making a shot at Wilson. He is a good player too. Really?!? Read your comment again...and Wilson at 63? well, we had GW Bush for president for 8 years so I guess I can beleive just about anything.My point is that if you put Wilson at 63 and take Koenig out of the top 100 then it's as silly as W for 8 years..that's not a shot at Wilson its a shot at the fools who made the decision to do that not unlike W and all the decisions he made. it's pretty simple you read into shit too much. I vote for this thread to go directly to the bickering board, or the banning of this Birther fool. The alternative is to talk about politics here!Birthers, the people of this board do not like the injection of politics in non-political forums. If you want to talk politics, please keep it on the Political Board, or I will start playing board cop. To be honest, I find your choice of board name a bit too political for my liking, but since the Board Owner is not bothered by it, I grit my teeth. However, I don't think it would be a bad idea if you created a new board name for yourself. Eddie: I'd been mostly ignoring this thread, because of its length. Rather than complain in thread, perhaps you should consider sending a private message in the future, or making a post in the admin board. Thank you! How can something as cliche and passe as W these days in useing him as a mtaphor to make a point be considered political? We have to be so careful and asceptically clean with our words that the 'powers' may take offense? Am I living in Germany circa 1932? Give me a break. What I said is not political because of the accepted footnote in history that is engendered to his reign. ITS AN ACCEPTED VIEW. And I guess if people want to call people names that is ok. I don't want want to get into this anymore but some people here really are a bit too much. I don't want to talk politics either and I guess I won't be using any thing that may be construed again.
Posts: 1379
May 21, 2012 9:03 PM
Posts: 5059
May 21, 2012 9:34 PM
Share This