Andy Katz Article

by **eepstein0** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:56 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/ind ... =katz_andy

Not a whole lot here but it's an article solely on BC Basketball.

by **AdamBC** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:05 pm

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:andy katz wants to take the bc program behind the middle school and get it pregnant...

You forgot "There, I said it.".

by **auggiebc** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:08 pm

I love the Skinner quote to end the article......Al is all business...

in regard to the team's tough early schedule...

"I purposely challenged them with this schedule,'' Skinner said. "I'm not looking for a paper lion. We only got 10 guys. We've got eight guys who can legitimately play and two others that might have to figure it out. So let's go. You don't need more than eight anyway.''

by **Eagledom** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:09 pm

This quote was interesting:

"We've got eight guys who can legitimately play and two others that might have to figure it out. So let's go. You don't need more than eight anyway.''

I guess Skinner isn't too high on Ravenel and Elmore. They must love hearing their coach say that about them in the media.

by **auggiebc** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:14 pm

I put it in my signature. it's that good.

by **Eagledom** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:18 pm

auggiebc {l Wrote}:I put it in my signature. it's that good.

Except that you left out the part where he totally throws 2 of his players under the bus.

by **cvilleagle** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:24 pm

Eagledom {l Wrote}:This quote was interesting:

"We've got eight guys who can legitimately play and two others that might have to figure it out. So let's go. You don't need more than eight anyway.''

Wow. He is so the anti-spaz/TOB. I love it.

by **auggiebc** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:33 pm

Eagledom {l Wrote}:
auggiebc {l Wrote}:I put it in my signature. it's that good.

Except that you left out the part where he totally throws 2 of his players under the bus.

he's just talking straight. it's wonderful. Al's here to win this year, he's not here to patronize his players. If anything, it's good motivation for the kids.

by **commavegarage** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:34 pm

I don't think the part of schedule that he can control (OOC) is that difficult...

Just saying is all.

by **Eagledom** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:36 pm

cvilleagle {l Wrote}:
Eagledom {l Wrote}:This quote was interesting:

"We've got eight guys who can legitimately play and two others that might have to figure it out. So let's go. You don't need more than eight anyway.''

Wow. He is so the anti-spaz/TOB. I love it.

wow. its funny how people on this board will take a quote completely out of contect (or even make up quotes) in order to bash Spaz. But here's a quote that Skinner blatantly dismisses two of his players as crappy, but that aspect of the quote is completely ignored and it is touted as a "GREAT QUOTE"!!!

by **Eagledom** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:38 pm

auggiebc {l Wrote}:
Eagledom {l Wrote}:
auggiebc {l Wrote}:I put it in my signature. it's that good.

Except that you left out the part where he totally throws 2 of his players under the bus.

he's just talking straight. it's wonderful. Al's here to win this year, he's not here to patronize his players. If anything, it's good motivation for the kids.

Yeah - saying they are not legit options is really good motivation. If Spaz said this exact same think he would get murdered for throwing the players under the bus. This opposite spin in this case is just hilarious.

by **commavegarage** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:41 pm

Al is throwing players under the bus in a completely different context. He isn't using them as a reason for a loss or being a bad team, he is saying we can win without them. This is a completely different context. If you can't see that you're an idiot.

by **auggiebc** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:48 pm

Eagledom {l Wrote}:
auggiebc {l Wrote}:
Eagledom {l Wrote}:
auggiebc {l Wrote}:I put it in my signature. it's that good.

Except that you left out the part where he totally throws 2 of his players under the bus.

he's just talking straight. it's wonderful. Al's here to win this year, he's not here to patronize his players. If anything, it's good motivation for the kids.

Yeah - saying they are not legit options is really good motivation. If Spaz said this exact same think he would get murdered for throwing the players under the bus. This opposite spin in this case is just hilarious.

You don't get it. Al is just being realistic. Name 5 programs in the entire country who play more than 8 guys? he's not throwing anyone under the bus. you think this quote is suprising to those two kids? you think Al hasn't been talking with them constantly about their role on this team? he's challenging his players, and he's obviously confident in his team.

Now, you'd have a point if Al said that he doesn't think his team can compete with UNC and Duke, and how he's really hoping they don't get blown out when they play. But he didn't say that.

by **Eagledom** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:53 pm

commavegarage {l Wrote}:Al is throwing players under the bus in a completely different context. He isn't using them as a reason for a loss or being a bad team, he is saying we can win without them. This is a completely different context. If you can't see that you're an idiot.

A. I have never seen Spaz throw the players under the bus in referencing the reason for a loss. So nice try.
B. Your first sentence is priceless. "Its ok to throw the players under the bus in the correct context..."
C. This was ridiculously stupid thing to see no matter how you cut it. Its not like these are walk-ons that don't ever expect to play.

by **eepstein0** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:09 pm

A. Spaz threw our entire team under the bus before we even took the field at VT and Clemson for that matter.

Paris
Sanders
Raji
Trapani
Southern

Jackson
Roche
Dunn
Ravenel

Elmore and the rest of the crew won't play. Al never plays more than 8 players anyway so assuming Tyler Roche never plays PF those 8/9 players look fine to me.

Eagledom {l Wrote}:
commavegarage {l Wrote}:Al is throwing players under the bus in a completely different context. He isn't using them as a reason for a loss or being a bad team, he is saying we can win without them. This is a completely different context. If you can't see that you're an idiot.

A. I have never seen Spaz throw the players under the bus in referencing the reason for a loss. So nice try.
B. Your first sentence is priceless. "Its ok to throw the players under the bus in the correct context..."
C. This was ridiculously stupid thing to see no matter how you cut it. Its not like these are walk-ons that don't ever expect to play.

by **Eagledom** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:14 pm

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:A. Spaz threw our entire team under the bus before we even took the field at VT and Clemson for that matter.

Paris
Sanders
Raji
Trapani
Southern

Jackson
Roche
Dunn
Ravenel

Elmore and the rest of the crew won't play. Al never plays more than 8 players anyway so assuming Tyler Roche never plays PF those 8/9 players look fine to me.

Eagledom {l Wrote}:
commavegarage {l Wrote}:Al is throwing players under the bus in a completely different context. He isn't using them as a reason for a loss or being a bad team, he is saying we can win without them. This is a completely different context. If you can't see that you're an idiot.

A. I have never seen Spaz throw the players under the bus in referencing the reason for a loss. So nice try.
B. Your first sentence is priceless. "Its ok to throw the players under the bus in the correct context..."
C. This was ridiculously stupid thing to see no matter how you cut it. Its not like these are walk-ons that don't ever expect to play.

There's that spin I was talking about....I would love for you to show me the quote where Spaz actually names specific players as the reason for a loss. Until you do that, you are just spinning things like I said. Regarding the Skinner quote on the other hand, there is ZERO spin need - I have never ever seen a coach come out and say two players aren't "legitimate" players who weren't walk-ons. Ravenel and Elmore must be psyched that their coach sees so much promise in them that he says, "we don't need them anyway."

by **commavegarage** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:51 pm

Eagledom {l Wrote}:
commavegarage {l Wrote}:Al is throwing players under the bus in a completely different context. He isn't using them as a reason for a loss or being a bad team, he is saying we can win without them. This is a completely different context. If you can't see that you're an idiot.

A. I have never seen Spaz throw the players under the bus in referencing the reason for a loss. So nice try.
B. Your first sentence is priceless. "Its ok to throw the players under the bus in the correct context..."
C. This was ridiculously stupid thing to see no matter how you cut it. Its not like these are walk-ons that don't ever expect to play.

1. Let me correct the first sentence. He isn't throwing players under the bus. Happy now?
2. I'm comparing Al to the Spaz/Toby idea. Spaz has not been in charge for a long time and we've already seen a lot of Tobyisms. Give it time.

Here is my revised statement:

Al isn't throwing players under the bus. He isn't using them as a reason for a loss or being a bad team, he is saying we can win without them. This is a completely different context. OJ, you are an idiot.

Happy?

by **Eagledom** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:00 pm

commavegarage {l Wrote}:
Eagledom {l Wrote}:
commavegarage {l Wrote}:Al is throwing players under the bus in a completely different context. He isn't using them as a reason for a loss or being a bad team, he is saying we can win without them. This is a completely different context. If you can't see that you're an idiot.

A. I have never seen Spaz throw the players under the bus in referencing the reason for a loss. So nice try.
B. Your first sentence is priceless. "Its ok to throw the players under the bus in the correct context..."
C. This was ridiculously stupid thing to see no matter how you cut it. Its not like these are walk-ons that don't ever expect to play.

1. Let me correct the first sentence. He isn't throwing players under the bus. Happy now?
2. I'm comparing Al to the Spaz/Toby idea. Spaz has not been in charge for a long time and we've already seen a lot of Tobyisms. Give it time.

Here is my revised statement:

Al isn't throwing players under the bus. He isn't using them as a reason for a loss or being a bad team, he is saying we can win without them. This is a completely different context. OJ, you are an idiot.

Happy?

So I call out Al on a horribly ridiculous quote and because of that I am OJ? You are really bright.

This quote is the DEFINITION of throwing players under the bus. He directly says that Elmore and Ravenel are not legitimate players. That is terrific coaching and motivation. If Spaz said this exact quote, I can't even imagine the posts that would follow. Your sig says all I need to know.

by **commavegarage** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:04 pm

First, you are OJ because you are OJ and you are racist. That's just the truth.

Second, do you really think that if Spaz said prior to the Tuggle/Haden transfer that we don't need them because we can and should win every game without them, people here would be complaining? No. They would be thrilled. You aren't understanding what's going on here 1969, Al pretty much says we are going to have a great season and if they want to come along for the ride and grow, fine, but if not, we can and will do fine without them.

by **Eagledom** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:10 pm

commavegarage {l Wrote}:First, you are OJ because you are OJ and you are racist. That's just the truth.

Second, do you really think that if Spaz said prior to the Tuggle/Haden transfer that we don't need them because we can and should win every game without them, people here would be complaining? No. They would be thrilled. You aren't understanding what's going on here 1969, Al pretty much says we are going to have a great season and if they want to come along for the ride and grow, fine, but if not, we can and will do fine without them.

Moron - you are comparing two guys that are transferring with two guys that are still part of the team. Wow, you are stupid.

Al is bashing two players, basically by name. Dick move any way you try to spin it. Very classy move by the coach.

by **Eagledom** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:11 pm

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:
Eagledom {l Wrote}:
commavegarage {l Wrote}:
Eagledom {l Wrote}:
commavegarage {l Wrote}:Al is throwing players under the bus in a completely different context. He isn't using them as a reason for a loss or being a bad team, he is saying we can win without them. This is a completely different context. If you can't see that you're an idiot.

A. I have never seen Spaz throw the players under the bus in referencing the reason for a loss. So nice try.
B. Your first sentence is priceless. "Its ok to throw the players under the bus in the correct context..."
C. This was ridiculously stupid thing to see no matter how you cut it. Its not like these are walk-ons that don't ever expect to play.

1. Let me correct the first sentence. He isn't throwing players under the bus. Happy now?
2. I'm comparing Al to the Spaz/Toby idea. Spaz has not been in charge for a long time and we've already seen a lot of Tobyisms. Give it time.

Here is my revised statement:

Al isn't throwing players under the bus. He isn't using them as a reason for a loss or being a bad team, he is saying we can win without them. This is a completely different context. OJ, you are an idiot.

Happy?

So I call out Al on a horribly ridiculous quote and because of that I am OJ? You are really bright.

This quote is the DEFINITION of throwing players under the bus. He directly says that Elmore and Ravenel are not legitimate players. That is terrific coaching and motivation. If Spaz said this exact quote, I can't even imagine the posts that would follow. Your sig says all I need to know.

i don't have the exact quote, but didn't spaz comment during his halftime interview at the clemson game that we didn't have the personnel necessary at qb and "that it could get ugly"

no.

by **commavegarage** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:18 pm

Eagledom {l Wrote}:
commavegarage {l Wrote}:First, you are OJ because you are OJ and you are racist. That's just the truth.

Second, do you really think that if Spaz said prior to the Tuggle/Haden transfer that we don't need them because we can and should win every game without them, people here would be complaining? No. They would be thrilled. You aren't understanding what's going on here 1969, Al pretty much says we are going to have a great season and if they want to come along for the ride and grow, fine, but if not, we can and will do fine without them.

Moron - you are comparing two guys that are transferring with two guys that are still part of the team. Wow, you are stupid.

Al is bashing two players, basically by name. Dick move any way you try to spin it. Very classy move by the coach.

Okay, lets say he did it to Boek and McMichael. Players who contribute very little as is. If he said they have potential but we should and will win without them would you be pissed?

And SpazToby did say that at halftime of the Clemson game.

by **BC923** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:48 pm

one of the players he was talking about is clearly the goofy white kid on the bench (not roche). M something.

by **BCEagles25** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:17 pm

I'm a big Andy Katz fan. He gives a fuck.

by **eepstein0** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:22 pm

EagleDom, I didn't mean that Spaz publicly threw anyone under the bus. Instead he completed failed to prepare the team for the VT game which is essentially doing the exact same thing.

by **Eagledom** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:17 pm

BC923 {l Wrote}:one of the players he was talking about is clearly the goofy white kid on the bench (not roche). M something.

no its not.

Jackson
Paris
Southern
Raji
Sanders
Trapani
Roche
Dunn

that's 8.

that leaves Ravenel and Elmore, plus the walkon.

by **apbc12** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:19 pm

Leave it to basketball season and an Al Skinner discussion to remove even the slightest doubt that Eagledom is OJ.

by **Eagledom** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:20 pm

commavegarage {l Wrote}:
Eagledom {l Wrote}:
commavegarage {l Wrote}:First, you are OJ because you are OJ and you are racist. That's just the truth.

Second, do you really think that if Spaz said prior to the Tuggle/Haden transfer that we don't need them because we can and should win every game without them, people here would be complaining? No. They would be thrilled. You aren't understanding what's going on here 1969, Al pretty much says we are going to have a great season and if they want to come along for the ride and grow, fine, but if not, we can and will do fine without them.

Moron - you are comparing two guys that are transferring with two guys that are still part of the team. Wow, you are stupid.

Al is bashing two players, basically by name. Dick move any way you try to spin it. Very classy move by the coach.

Okay, lets say he did it to Boek and McMichael. Players who contribute very little as is. If he said they have potential but we should and will win without them would you be pissed?

And SpazToby did say that at halftime of the Clemson game.

If Spaz singled out Boek and McMichael as "not legit players", then hell no, it would not be ok - I would be pissed that he singled out two guys before the season started as not legit players. This is spin of a ridiculously unclassy post at its finest.

And no, Spaz did not single anyone out at halftime of the clemson game.

by **Eagledom** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:24 pm

apbc12 {l Wrote}:Leave it to basketball season and an Al Skinner discussion to remove even the slightest doubt that Eagledom is OJ.

I get it, you are "OJ" if you call out Skinner on a quote that completey bashes two of his players.

by **RyanBC** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:51 pm

He leaves the possibility open that the two guys can "figure it out". So, it's a great quote by a great coach.

Skinner rules, go BC !!!

Who are our recruits so far for next year???

Andy Katz Article

Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Re: Andy Katz Article

Who is online