Your opinion is what it is, and you are entitled to it.

What about a 3 or 4-star recruit that is in rivals top 150 that has signed a LOI?

 

 

Huh???????????????????????????

Like him or not, Bobby Perry has put together 3 very good games. You cannot blame him that the other guy's aren't able to keep his pace.

 

 

Who blamed him?

Perry has started to heat up lately, but it obviously hasn't been enough to get any W's. I hope he has the same kind of tourney this year as he did last year.

Perry has started to heat up lately, but it obviously hasn't been enough to get any W's. I hope he has the same kind of tourney this year as he did last year.

 

 

:thumb:

Florida at Florida wasn't a game UK should have won. Not enough horses.

 

Well with UK's role players stepping up and playing good in Perry and Meeks off the bench, it definitely turned into a game we could have won if the guys who should be best on the team would have stepped up...

If you were to coach against KY who would be your defensive priorities? If you focus the D on Morris, Perry gets easier shots.

If you were to coach against KY who would be your defensive priorities? If you focus the D on Morris, Perry gets easier shots.

 

Yeah that is true! But you brought up the point that Perry did nothing in the second half, and that is probably because Morris couldn't keep himself out of foul trouble. Then Crawford still cant buy a three anytime we play a big time three. So if Crawford ever decides to know how to hit shots against actual good teams, and Morris stays out of foul trouble, then this should win MANY games if Perry plays the way he has been. Because they would still focus on Morris and Crawford over Perry, or if they didn't then Crawford or Morris should dominate. So that is my point that I am trying to make here, if the guys who are suppose to play good, actually decide to play good all the time, then we can beat teams like UF, etc...

Yeah that is true! But you brought up the point that Perry did nothing in the second half, and that is probably because Morris couldn't keep himself out of foul trouble. Then Crawford still cant buy a three anytime we play a big time three. So if Crawford ever decides to know how to hit shots against actual good teams, and Morris stays out of foul trouble, then this should win MANY games if Perry plays the way he has been. Because they would still focus on Morris and Crawford over Perry, or if they didn't then Crawford or Morris should dominate. So that is my point that I am trying to make here, if the guys who are suppose to play good, actually decide to play good all the time, then we can beat teams like UF, etc...

 

If we had 2 Crawfords and 2 Morris' we could beat, or at least compete with Florida. Perry is a role player, and counting on role players to be more than that gives you a huge disadvantage against good teams.

Who blamed him?

 

Again a good BP performance amounts to a loss.

 

You said that, if you don't remember correctly. So if he does bad, it's his fault... And if he does good, it's somehow his fault too?

 

I'm just trying to understand your thought process. Not Perry's fault UK has only won one of the last 3 games (all of which he has played really good in...)

 

By the way, Perry did have 20 points the other night and that WAS very good game, whether 90% of it was in one half or not... If he had 10 in one and 10 in the other, it still amounts to the same amount of points, so Bobby had a good game.

If we had 2 Crawfords and 2 Morris' we could beat, or at least compete with Florida. Perry is a role player, and counting on role players to be more than that gives you a huge disadvantage against good teams.

 

If we had 2 Crawfords this team would be even more lazy and have less heart than we do now. Crawford probably SHOULD be the best player on the team, but he doesn't play with any heart and he is the most selfish player on the team...

 

I really dont get what you are arguing here. Yeah if you have to ONLY count on role players against good teams than yeah it is a disadvantage, and that has been what has happen. You are completely missing the point here, so if we have role players step up and play like Perry has lately then we should be able to win alot of game, but the guys who are suppose to be the best players aka Crawford and Morris have not been there in these games. When you have role players stepping up like Perry has, then you should be able to win because the supposive stars on the team should be doing what they are capable of doing as well but they have not...

You said that, if you don't remember correctly. So if he does bad, it's his fault... And if he does good, it's somehow his fault too?

I'm just trying to understand your thought process. Not Perry's fault UK has only won one of the last 3 games (all of which he has played really good in...)

 

By the way, Perry did have 20 points the other night and that WAS very good game, whether 90% of it was in one half or not... If he had 10 in one and 10 in the other, it still amounts to the same amount of points, so Bobby had a good game.

 

 

Find where I said that and I'll buy you lunch. I also never said he didn't have a good game.

If we had 2 Crawfords this team would be even more lazy and have less heart than we do now. Crawford probably SHOULD be the best player on the team, but he doesn't play with any heart and he is the most selfish player on the team...

 

I really dont get what you are arguing here. Yeah if you have to ONLY count on role players against good teams than yeah it is a disadvantage, and that has been what has happen. You are completely missing the point here, so if we have role players step up and play like Perry has lately then we should be able to win alot of game, but the guys who are suppose to be the best players aka Crawford and Morris have not been there in these games. When you have role players stepping up like Perry has, then you should be able to win because the supposive stars on the team should be doing what they are capable of doing as well but they have not...

 

 

Morris played good early against good teams and we lost. Perry plays good against Florida and we lose..... What's the difference? Horford and Noah keying on you every time you are on the floor is tough to handle. Granted Morris can be lazy, lethargic, and flat bad..... but he's talented. Perry on his best day just isn't a super talented guy. He plays hard, plays good d most of the time, and shoots OK. He doesn't do anything great. We should rarely run the offense through him, and we should run it through Morris. Perry is a dime a dozen.... common. Common, as common as they come. If college players had basketball cards, his would be worth a nickel.

Find where I said that and I'll buy you lunch. I also never said he didn't have a good game.

 

Find where you said what? There's only so many ways you can take "Again, a good BP performance amounts to a loss."

Morris played good early against good teams and we lost. Perry plays good against Florida and we lose..... What's the difference? Horford and Noah keying on you every time you are on the floor is tough to handle. Granted Morris can be lazy, lethargic, and flat bad..... but he's talented. Perry on his best day just isn't a super talented guy. He plays hard, plays good d most of the time, and shoots OK. He doesn't do anything great. We should rarely run the offense through him, and we should run it through Morris. Perry is a dime a dozen.... common. Common, as common as they come. If college players had basketball cards, his would be worth a nickel.

 

Did I ever say we should run our offense through Perry. You act like if we say Perry had a good game or is actually doing good, it means that we forgot about all the bad games he has had through his career. But we all do remember those bad games, but right now you should give credit to where credit is due and right now Perry is doing what he can to help this team win. And your right early in the year Morris played good and we still lost, and that is the point I am trying to make and I really dont know why you dont get it. Yeah when Morris and Crawford were playing good earlier in the year, people would say the reason why we are still not winning is because we dont have no one else around them. But now in the last 3 games they have had Perry and Meeks during their things, and now Crawford and Morris dont show up really. So that is why I really dont get why you seem like wanting to keep putting Perry down, because in the last 3 games in games we needed to win, Perry has stepped up and did what a role player should do and even more. So when we got guys like Perry and Meeks stepping up, we should be winning games and not losing to Vandy and losing by double digits to UF, but now the guys who are suppose to be the best players on the team aren't showing up, and they should get the blame for those games. Yeah as you said Perry's best still wasn't good enough for us to win, and it was the same for Morris earlier in the year against UNC, his best wasn't good enough for us to win that game either, becaues he didn't have the other guys step up around him. Just like Perry didn't have anyone step up with him in the last few games. So the is my point I trying to get across here, you keep putting Perry down, but in the last 3 games it hasn't been him that has cost us. We need a complete team effort, and we need Perry to keep playing like this, and we need people like Crawford and Morris to actually show up for the big games now as well, and we will be in very good shape...

I like Perry. I liked him from the beginning i always thought he was gonna be a good player not as good as he should have been but good enough and it seems like he picks up his game around tourney time. Crawford is a selfish player and i think Meeks should start over him.