Geno's role in the loss

[winlots]

Back to the Pats and to supper we go here. Will catch up with the rest later.

 

[RadyLady]

This thread has gone nowhere and back. Haven't you watched DT talk about how Geno coaches? It's not "how" he let them play the way they did. It's "why."
It seems he needed to let them play "their" way. Perhaps he needs them to be ready to listen to him now. Other than a learning experience this game meant NOTHING!

I think that folks are going to feel this way (see about) until they don't feel this way anymore. The negative 'Geno walks on water' comments is really indicative of how little people really understand how he works, and that they do not take into consideration that sometimes, given the roster and situation, things break down and we lose.

It's simply a matter of finding someone to blame, so their minds can be at rest. Someone let them down - so they need a scapegoat. "I know, let's blame the person who has established one of the most amazing dynasties in college basketball today"

If Geno made a mistake in the game last night, he would be the first to admit it. That's who he is. If people do not want to pay attention to the body of work and the words spoken directly from the mouths of people who have worked with him, there really isn't anything for the rest of us to do here, except wait for the noise to die down.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

I don't think most of the comments about Geno are about finding someone to blame. There have been very specific examples given of issues/problems that arose in the game. Some of these things were being pointed out while the game was still going on, so they weren't in response to a loss. I maintain that had these same things happened in a game with different teams and coaches the same points and questions would arise in response.

 

[chrissaran]

Geno is the best coach in WCBB. 4-0 against the legendary Pat Summit in championship games.

 

[winlots]

"Some of the above mentioned instances could be attributed to players. "

at least you said this. There are always 2 sides to every coin and even an edge.
It is always easier to coach from the stands, from the bar, from the armchair, and everyone is entitled to his/her opinion after all.

My dad always said, "don't criticize a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes."

As to the issue of the short bench from the OP, this was asked and answered in another thread entitled I believe "Gabby". Throwing unready players into the mix in a tough game is not wise. Even Nurse, as good as she is and as well as she did, was not able to adjust to how they called the game and fouled out. We really could have used her at the end. But the other three? I am guessing that it was better that they watched and learned. Depending upon how they progress, we may see a longer bench in other close games, but likely further down the road.

RADY: well stated and nicely stated, particularly when you got to the point about the short bench. And I would like to express my astonishment and, more happily, my appreciation for your earlier "like" which was probably on another thread.

 

[winlots]

On this subject, the thing that concerned me the most was the seemingly complete lack of defense against penetration, especially late in the game. Last year, the help defense was always there to prevent anyone from getting an open path to the basket, but in the last five minutes of last night's game, it felt like Stanford was doing it on every possession.

I really don't have a good hypothesis as to why that defense would have failed so completely. More than any other factor, that is what cost UConn the game.

JOE: great point. And in support of it, just take a look at the scoreboard. Who expected the "new" Stanford offense, dappled with young players, to put up any where NEAR that number of points. Similarly, when you think about it, as poorly as most of our team played and shot, we still put up a helluva lot of points ourselves, eh?

 

[winlots]

Can't say what Geno coaches/instructs his players re. the excellent points brought up in this thread during his legendary practice sessions but have a hunch he's covered everything mentioned in the Boneyard post-game analysis. Then comes crunch time and kids will be kids. That's why I love watching college basketball. The pursuit of perfection is Geno's mantra but impossible to achieve with youth and all the variables that come with it. Seems IMO coach figures it out around March each year. Wonder how he does that? Must read the Boneyard to figure out what to work on in practice!

ELLIE: precisely

 

[winlots]

I was really baffled by some of the key mental mistakes that KML made last night.
May be the fact that Brian Agler from the Seattle Storm was present to scout her as a possible first pick
put too much pressure on her.

PVD: I had that same feeling and that same thought. Clearly, then , you must be right on target

 

[winlots]

ElZ.....you are like nothing but fine wine.

 

[winlots]

I think that folks are going to feel this way (see about) until they don't feel this way anymore. The negative 'Geno walks on water' comments is really indicative of how little people really understand how he works, and that they do not take into consideration that sometimes, given the roster and situation, things break down and we lose.

It's simply a matter of finding someone to blame, so their minds can be at rest. Someone let them down - so they need a scapegoat. "I know, let's blame the person who has established one of the most amazing dynasties in college basketball today"

If Geno made a mistake in the game last night, he would be the first to admit it. That's who he is. If people do not want to pay attention to the body of work and the words spoken directly from the mouths of people who have worked with him, there really isn't anything for the rest of us to do here, except wait for the noise to die down.

RADY: pathetic

 

[uconnfan68]

Worse yet, after all the time the refs spent looking at that replay -- which was shown on the mid-court Jumbotron -- they made the wrong call. The ball was not kicked by anyone, Moriah lost it out of bounds. But, the reason she lost it was that a Stanford player on the floor rolled into her legs and caused her to nearly fall. The Stanford fans around me were astonished at the call, too.

They missed the foul.

The foul wasn't reviewable. But they missed a lot of them... and made up for some that even astonished Doris Burke.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Worse yet, after all the time the refs spent looking at that replay -- which was shown on the mid-court Jumbotron -- they made the wrong call. The ball was not kicked by anyone, Moriah lost it out of bounds. But, the reason she lost it was that a Stanford player on the floor rolled into her legs and caused her to nearly fall. The Stanford fans around me were astonished at the call, too.

They missed the foul.

Just to clarify for those who don't know, when the refs are looking at the replay, they are not allowed to call a normal foul that they originally missed. All they can do is determine who last touched the ball. If they see the world's worst personal foul while they are reviewing to see whose ball it is, they still cannot call the foul at that point. It is non-reviewable.

 

[msf22b]

On this subject, the thing that concerned me the most was the seemingly complete lack of defense against penetration, especially late in the game. Last year, the help defense was always there to prevent anyone from getting an open path to the basket, but in the last five minutes of last night's game, it felt like Stanford was doing it on every possession.

I really don't have a good hypothesis as to why that defense would have failed so completely. More than any other factor, that is what cost UConn the game.

I can think of one McBride drive past the unresisting D in last April's game.
I have no answer as well for the steady stream of penetrations.

 

[willingtonfan]

Worse yet, after all the time the refs spent looking at that replay -- which was shown on the mid-court Jumbotron -- they made the wrong call. The ball was not kicked by anyone, Moriah lost it out of bounds. But, the reason she lost it was that a Stanford player on the floor rolled into her legs and caused her to nearly fall. The Stanford fans around me were astonished at the call, too.

They missed the foul.

Well, if I may defend the referees for a moment, they actually did properly utilize the replay to give UConn the ball and not call a foul. Reason: There is a very limited number of things for which the referees may have resort to the video. These include determining who last touched the ball before it went out of bounds in order to determine which team should have possession. These do not include noticing that a foul was committed and then using the replay to call a foul. So, even if the referees upon reviewing the replay realized that they missed a foul, they could not then use the replay as the basis for calling such foul; they could, however, (and did) use the replay to determine that the ball was last touched by Stanford so that it should be UConn's ball. The basic rule on video replay is that you can use it for non-judgment calls -- who last touched the ball, how much time should be on the clock, was a shot a two- or three-point goal, etc. It cannot be used for judgment calls (was a foul committed, by whom, etc.)

In particular, let me refer you to Rule 11, "Instant Replay," of the NCAA rules, Section 1, Article 3 of which reads: "The officials shall not use such available equipment for judgment calls such as (a) Determine whether a foul occurred." It goes on to note allowable uses: free throws (who should shoot, how many), scoring (two or three point basket), timing (determine whether a mistake or malfunction occurred in operation of the game/show clock and determine what the correct time should be), reviewing a foul to determine if it should be flagrant, to determine whether a shot clock violation occurred, and, most significantly, "which team caused the ball to go out of bounds when there is a deflection involving two or more players."

So, I think they actually got this one right.

 

[Icebear]

Geno is an expert in psychology. It is an area in which he excels in assessment and management. It is one of the areas of his work that has always fascinated me.

 

[msf22b]

This is the 2nd time after a full summer of non-UConn activity that the team has seemed somewhat less prepared than at other times.
Surely he had less chance to note the strengths and weaknesses of the freshman during summer workouts.
And he took at least some of the staff with him.

After the last Olympics, when I made this point, there was a big brouhaha.
And the idea was derided by some in the Geno can do anything, anytime camp.
Now the pattern seems clear.
He's older (not old) and this version of the team has had less of his attention.

It can't be a big surprise that it's not firing on all cylinders yet.

 

[Icebear]

Not sure if that has any part in it or as he noted during the summer there are so many new to the program that practice dynamics are different as the team gets up to speed. There is likely a lot of teaching going on and that changes practices.

 

[Striper69]

Been awhile since I've invoked waves of wrath on here with one of my "provocative" posts (thus described in a BY survey once many moons ago). One of the fun things about a sports board is that it gives folks a chance to say how they would have done things differently than they were done by the coach....and where he seemed to come up a little short:

1 Very, very disappointed with his personnel use. He had made the cogent point just prior to the game that the outcome of this game would not determine the national championship. Yet he seemed to martial his squad as if the NC was on the line. SEVEN players??? Here was a perfect chance to put some kids out there in a competitive non-conference game (e.g., no title at stake) and see how they would perform.
Stanford's young players learned a lot , gained a lot of confidence , and felt the trust and support of their coach.
Our guys, not so much. For the record, this point is not made because we lost.....would have been written in victory.

2. A few years ago or so, I listed on here some specific areas in which I thought Coach had some sharpening to do. A year or so ago, I revisited some of that list and took congratulatory note of the several significant improvements observed in the interim. Last night, one of the old weak spots seemed to re-appear out of nowhere....the inability to securely and reliably inbound the ball from the baseline. ( Now that I write that, it occurs to me that maybe this wasn't such a sudden re-appearance. Didn't we get a very significant bite in the butt there from ND a year or so ago which cost us a game? ) Team seemed very unsteady in that area last night.

Would certainly welcome and find interesting, observations from those seeing things differently.....or similarly....or additions and subtractions. Would not be impressed with: "The others didn't practice well" or the theme of "He's won 9 NCs and you haven't."

One thing that struck me as I watched the game again last night is that maybe he should've played Kiah and Saniya more last year to give them more seasoning. Most games they were blowing everybody out anyway.

 

[Icebear]

One thing that struck me as I watched the game again last night is that maybe he should've played Kiah and Saniya more last year to give them more seasoning. Most games they were blowing everybody out anyway.

They both played more than 17 minutes a game. That is a fair amount of seasoning.

 

[Striper69]

Worse yet, after all the time the refs spent looking at that replay -- which was shown on the mid-court Jumbotron -- they made the wrong call. The ball was not kicked by anyone, Moriah lost it out of bounds. But, the reason she lost it was that a Stanford player on the floor rolled into her legs and caused her to nearly fall. The Stanford fans around me were astonished at the call, too.

They missed the foul.

I watched the game again. The ball went off the Stanford player's foot.

 

[meyers7]

Not sure if that has any part in it or as he noted during the summer there are so many new to the program that practice dynamics are different as the team gets up to speed. There is likely a lot of teaching going on and that changes practices.

Agree, he has said in the past when adding in a large (or larger) new class, it usually takes longer to get things up to speed. For instance last year they only had 1 (Chong) to integrate. This year they really have 5 (Nurse, Ekmark, Williams, Edwards AND Butler) to integrate into practice. I imagine they have to spend some time on "how practice is run" and learning the drills instead of the actual practice. Add that to the fact they started a little later because of his USA commitments, and it will probably take awhile to get to where he wants them. Particularly the Freshmen.

The "shorter bench" was probably because he did not feel they (Ekmark, Willams, Edwards) were ready to contribute at this level yet. It was as much to help them (not toss them into the deep end to flounder) as it was to help the team.

As for coaching decisions. If his decisions work, then they are good decisions, if they don't, then they are bad decisions. 20/20 decisions are always correct. (or think they are anyway)

Any of us might have made different decisions in the game situations. Doesn't mean we wouldn't have lost too.

The 2 biggest things out of this for me are
1) we do need a leader out on the floor
2) I'm not gonna like the confidence shift (ours going down, and our opponents going up, we are NOT unbeatable anymore). I think that could hurt us.

 

[Stinger92860]

On this subject, the thing that concerned me the most was the seemingly complete lack of defense against penetration, especially late in the game. Last year, the help defense was always there to prevent anyone from getting an open path to the basket, but in the last five minutes of last night's game, it felt like Stanford was doing it on every possession.

I really don't have a good hypothesis as to why that defense would have failed so completely. More than any other factor, that is what cost UConn the game.

I agree, good defensive intensity, which you be able to bring to every game, was missing. Just one or 2 stops result in a win. Soniya and KML have to step up on D, otherwise it will be difficult to have both on the floor at the same time. Cold shooting happens frequently, defensives lapses occasionally but our defense was not up to par with previous teams.

 

[RadyLady]

Agree, he has said in the past when adding in a large (or larger) new class, it usually takes longer to get things up to speed. For instance last year they only had 1 (Chong) to integrate. This year they really have 5 (Nurse, Ekmark, Williams, Edwards AND Butler) to integrate into practice. I imagine they have to spend some time on "how practice is run" and learning the drills instead of the actual practice. Add that to the fact they started a little later because of his USA commitments, and it will probably take awhile to get to where he wants them. Particularly the Freshmen.

The "shorter bench" was probably because he did not feel they (Ekmark, Willams, Edwards) were ready to contribute at this level yet. It was as much to help them (not toss them into the deep end to flounder) as it was to help the team.

As for coaching decisions. If his decisions work, then they are good decisions, if they don't, then they are bad decisions. 20/20 decisions are always correct. (or think they are anyway)

Any of us might have made different decisions in the game situations. Doesn't mean we wouldn't have lost too.

The 2 biggest things out of this for me are
1) we do need a leader out on the floor
2) I'm not gonna like the confidence shift (ours going down, and our opponents going up, we are NOT unbeatable anymore). I think that could hurt us.

Great post and I have to note but we have been not unbeatable in the past and done pretty well at the end of the year

 

[FairView]

A lot of us suck at dealing with a loss.
It is impossible to win every game.
I understand that everyone is disappointed that UConn lost.
Personally, I pouted, cursed just a bit, scooped a huge bowl of ice cream which I realized I really didn't feel like eating, yet forced myself to eat anyway, and fell asleep on the couch. (But I'm sure it's just an aging metabolism that's making me fat.)
At what point do we move on?
This isn't a "let's stop beetching" post. It's a serious question about how long will it take us to get this out of our collective system?

 

[j66kicker]

A lot of us suck at dealing with a loss.
It is impossible to win every game.
I understand that everyone is disappointed that UConn lost.
Personally, I pouted, cursed just a bit, scooped a huge bowl of ice cream which I realized I really didn't feel like eating, yet forced myself to eat anyway, and fell asleep on the couch. (But I'm sure it's just an aging metabolism that's making me fat.)
At what point do we move on?
This isn't a "let's stop beetching" post. It's a serious question about how long will it take us to get this out of our collective system?

Until April 8