Topic: David Early

[herdorbust2]

If the coaching staff was convinced that Early was a better option than Cooner or Fricks off of the bench, he would've got more minutes. Contrary to what some people on here say, the coaching staff spends a lot of time (really the team does too) in tape analysis. That includes practice.

We just don't have an option at this point for "quality" depth. I thought by this point Conner and Fricks would really be coming on. I still some potential in Conner and hope at some point it clicks. But Fricks just isn't improving at all. Honestly at this point Goran may be the better option over Fricks. But he still is very shaky at times but does give you a stronger body and better offense around the rim if he can hold onto it. We really need another solid guard on this team imo.

[thunderingon]

BS? the kid produced when he had the chance to play. DD stuck him in the doghouse and never let him out. Maybe he would have followed the rules more closely if he wasn?t getting weenieed out of playing time.

I wanted Early to succeed.  But are you really willing to let your dislike for DD lead you to this conclusion?  Where's the personal accountability?  You most likely have no idea what he did and furthermore, you have very little idea of what led to him playing or not playing.  Maybe this wasn't the first strike, maybe he didn't bring it at practice every day.  There are a lot of things we don't know.  Absolutely ridiculous post. 

[herdfan129]

I wanted Early to succeed.  But are you really willing to let your dislike for DD lead you to this conclusion?  Where's the personal accountability?  You most likely have no idea what he did and furthermore, you have very little idea of what led to him playing or not playing.  Maybe this wasn't the first strike, maybe he didn't bring it at practice every day.  There are a lot of things we don't know.  Absolutely ridiculous post.

Oh piss off. I don?t care about practice. Early produced in the games but sat the last few years while DD tried to force Marko in to playing time.

[MidlandKnight]

Early should have got more playing time and there were times we could of really used him. I was always a proponent of David Early while he was on the team, that was while he was on team. He is no longer on the team, because "HE", not DD chose to break the rules. I don't give a damn if it was being late for practice, "HE" knew the rules. I don't give a Damn if he broke the rules because he was pouting about playing time, "HE" knew the rules. I am 100% behind DD on this.

[Herdalum83]

BS? the kid produced when he had the chance to play. DD stuck him in the doghouse and never let him out. Maybe he would have followed the rules more closely if he wasn?t getting weenieed out of playing time.

Maybe, or maybe there were other issues before the one that got him kicked off that team that gave DD pause about playing time.

I agree when Early got to play he seemed to play hard and was mostly productive. However, you nor I are in the locker room, practice, film sessions, etc to see everything going on behind the scenes.

One thing no one can dispute about DD is he has by and large recruited good kids, who stay out of trouble, make decent grades, are well-spoken, and generally positive representatives of Marshall University. He doesn't put basketball over being a good citizen and teammate. I'm just saying depending on exactly what Early did, it's totally feasible that perhaps HE was to blame for his lack of playing time and not DD.

[Stripeshrt]

IMO David Early was a MEC player or even a lower Div FB player. This was one of DD "304"saves just like the kid from Mingo Cty was. When you tell a kid hes "D-1 material and he just isnt, again IMO, your doing a disservice to the kid. He coulda went to WVA St, Tech, any of those places,  got an education and played in 25 games a year. UPike, Georgetown, Shawnee have all won Natty titles with kids who thought they were D-1!

[goherd24]

IMO David Early was a MEC player or even a lower Div FB player. This was one of DD "304"saves just like the kid from Mingo Cty was. When you tell a kid hes "D-1 material and he just isnt, again IMO, your doing a disservice to the kid. He coulda went to WVA St, Tech, any of those places,  got an education and played in 25 games a year. UPike, Georgetown, Shawnee have all won Natty titles with kids who thought they were D-1!

He was a 3 star basketball recruit, which is a nice ranking for a basketball recruit. He had Duquesne, Ohio, Robert Morris interested and offered i believe, and at one time even WVU but they backed off for "character reasons" i was told.

He definitely could have helped us and I don't care what anyone says about Dan loving David, and his family, he was in the doghouse for some reason, whatever it was, and I wish Early luck wherever he goes.

[thunderingon]

I don?t care about practice.

Really?  Have you ever coached anything?   I stand by what I said.  You and I have no idea know very little of what goes on behind the scenes.  There is more to being a teammate and D1 player than just showing up for the games.  Was it practice performance, was it academics, was it being a poor citizen or representative of the team and the University?  I don't know and I don't think you do either, but still completely willing to blame everything on the coach?   

[MicDrass1]

Braun is better

[herdfan129]

Early should have got more playing time and there were times we could of really used him. I was always a proponent of David Early while he was on the team, that was while he was on team. He is no longer on the team, because "HE", not DD chose to break the rules. I don't give a damn if it was being late for practice, "HE" knew the rules. I don't give a Damn if he broke the rules because he was pouting about playing time, "HE" knew the rules. I am 100% behind DD on this.

I can agree with this 100%.

[herdorbust2]

I just heard why Early left. It's bound to come out and it's really bad as some have said. And as some said if it's totally true.

[herd1990]

I just heard why Early left. It's bound to come out and it's really bad as some have said. And as some said if it's totally true.

This board is full of rumors and speculation.  Not sure why someone can't share what they've heard.  If it's proven untrue later, great.  If not, so be it.

[herdfan129]

Once again, if you aren?t going to say what it COULD be then don?t comment on the situation.

[gochneaur645]

This board is full of rumors and speculation.  Not sure why someone can't share what they've heard.  If it's proven untrue later, great.  If not, so be it.

What I've heard is bad enough to where posting it could possibly be subject to a libel lawsuit if it turned out to be just a rumor gone wild.

[herd1990]

What I've heard is bad enough to where posting it could possibly be subject to a libel lawsuit if it turned out to be just a rumor gone wild.

Not if you start your post with, "Allegedly......"

[wasbarryb]

At least a broad generalization of what is going on would be fair for us distant fans without Huntington connections.

Something as broad as Sex or Drugs or Rock and roll?

[Herdalum83]

What I've heard is bad enough to where posting it could possibly be subject to a libel lawsuit if it turned out to be just a rumor gone wild.

For it to be libel it has to be written/published as a statement of fact. If it was published as something that is being alleged to have occurred and not something known for a fact to have occurred. Then it can't be libel.

[herd2win]

There is really no such thing as libel any longer.  It used to be that a reporter would not write an article without verifying sources.  Now it is the wild Wild West where anything can be said without consequence.

Our government lies 3/4 of the time.

[gochneaur645]

For it to be libel it has to be written/published as a statement of fact. If it was published as something that is being alleged to have occurred and not something known for a fact to have occurred. Then it can't be libel.

That's not true in all cases. When newspapers use the word "allegedly," it's almost always after someone has been formally charged with a crime. But you can't just tack that word onto some wild rumor you or someone else made up and be 100% free of any legal consequences.

Even aside from the (admittedly small) chance of those consequences, I imagine those in this thread choosing not to comment would just feel wrong publicly associating the action in question to his name if it's not true.

But did it happen? Based on all the different sources in this thread, I'd say yeah probably.

[coalherd]

Maybe, or maybe there were other issues before the one that got him kicked off that team that gave DD pause about playing time.

I agree when Early got to play he seemed to play hard and was mostly productive. However, you nor I are in the locker room, practice, film sessions, etc to see everything going on behind the scenes.

One thing no one can dispute about DD is he has by and large recruited good kids, who stay out of trouble, make decent grades, are well-spoken, and generally positive representatives of Marshall University. He doesn't put basketball over being a good citizen and teammate. I'm just saying depending on exactly what Early did, it's totally feasible that perhaps HE was to blame for his lack of playing time and not DD.

All well and good, 83, don't dispute your "character" assessment of DD's recruited players.  But his job also requires that he recruits them for the "talent" and ability to play the game of basketball at a level of proficiency at the D1 level to produce the kind of MU team that is desired.  What good does it to do for that aspect of your program to have 5 or 6 "choir boys" sitting on your bench who, when put on the floor in game action, can't walk and breathe at the same time, much less play basketball.  We have a depth issue at spots because too many players that have been recruited to the program just aren't capable of contributing sufficiently when call upon to do so.  That applies to some players who have been in the program for 3 or 4 years and, unfortunately, seems applicable to some of our recent recruits/newcomers as well!!

[Herdmeister]

Oh piss off. I don?t care about practice. Early produced in the games but sat the last few years while DD tried to force Marko in to playing time.

He produced on the offensive end but gave it back on the defensive end. Look at the tape.

[herd2win]

He produced on the offensive end but gave it back on the defensive end. Look at the tape.

No one plays defense on our team.

[Herdalum83]

There is really no such thing as libel any longer.  It used to be that a reporter would not write an article without verifying sources.  Now it is the wild Wild West where anything can be said without consequence.

Our government lies 3/4 of the time.

No libel is very much a thing still. Libel lawsuits occur all the time and people win them a lot. However, proving libel against public figures is almost impossible (intentionally so) because thanks to the Supreme Court Case of New York Times vs. Sulivan public figures have to prove an extra layer of fault called "Actual Malice" which basically comes down to not only do you have to prove that what was published about you was false, but you have to prove that those who wrote it/published it knew it was false when they did and did it with the intent to do harm. Which is extremely hard to prove in a court of law beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The 24-hour news cycle is the absolute worst thing that ever happened to journalism for lots of reasons and I could write an entire research paper on the subject in this thread (It's actually what I did do my Journalism Capstone paper on when I graduated MU) but for here I'll keep it short. It has ruined journalism and ushered in a second age of Yellow Journalism this one mostly on TV news networks because

1. Before the 24-hour news cycle reporters only had the morning news and the evening news on television which gave them plenty of time to gather facts before going to air. Now the news is constant and the networks want constant information coming in even though that's not how information works, it often takes time for even officials or authorities to piece together the details of important events or crimes and this leads to speculation to fill air time.

2. Because there isn't actually 24-hours worth of news, these 24-hour news stations have to find a way to fill all that airtime, so the main way they do it is through Pundits. People who aren't reporters and almost always have some type of built-in bias, that are hired not to report the news but to give their opinion on news topics. If you turn on CNN or Fox News or any of the 24-hour "news" networks who you see on your TV screen is almost never an actual journalist and what your watching is almost never the news despite what the station's name indicates. It's almost always a pundit giving their opinion on some topic and not giving the audience the facts.

There is a lot more to why the 24-hour cycle has killed traditional journalism but those are two of the bigger ones. And I teach a media program to HS-aged kids, they are a little better at recognizing opinions from fact-based reporting and pundits from reporters than say, their grandparents are because they have grown up with news in this cycle their whole lives. But, they still aren't very good at it, and that's on purpose the networks do a good job of intentionally blurring the line between opinion and fact and pushing their biases into their programming. It's all about the ratings though and as long as these networks do well enough there, they have no reason to change. Journalism is on life support.

[Herdalum83]

That's not true in all cases. When newspapers use the word "allegedly," it's almost always after someone has been formally charged with a crime. But you can't just tack that word onto some wild rumor you or someone else made up and be 100% free of any legal consequences.

Even aside from the (admittedly small) chance of those consequences, I imagine those in this thread choosing not to comment would just feel wrong publicly associating the action in question to his name if it's not true.

But did it happen? Based on all the different sources in this thread, I'd say yeah probably.

I'm not saying you can just tack allegedly onto anything and automatically be Scott-free. But, whatever you say still has to be said as a statement of fact. If it is not presented that way it can not be libel. It is sometimes more tactful than just simply saying "allegedly" but, if something is presented as just a rumor and you do not have any idea on the factual nature of it, then you are pretty clear of libel.

With that said, just because you'd win a libel suit, doesn't mean you can't be sued for it. And no one wants to go to court if they can prevent it, even if they'd win. Plus, if whatever Early did is as bad as what people on here are insinuating, it's only a matter of time before it comes out to the public. So if everyone is patient, we will find out soon enough.

[girthyherdon]

He produced on the offensive end but gave it back on the defensive end. Look at the tape.

Such BS. Micah gets abused in the paint and gets plenty of minutes. Curfman, Fricks and Conner get heavy playing time but can't keep their man in front of them. There is tape of that also.