A Question on Plum and Washington

[HuskyNan]

I'll let you figure that one out

 

[j66kicker]

I believe Taurasi saw 3. 4 IS higher than 3 though, but she didn't have a player as good as Osahor on her team. Well, that's what transcendental players do.

Soph Taurasi saw her 4 starter teammates go to the W:

Bird (#1)
Cash (#2)
Williams (#4)
Jones (#6)

 

[Plebe]

She's a great player, but she went totally cold at the end of the game that really counted - more than any other game so far this year. Not exactly "clutch."

With all the shade and out-and-out criticism heaped on Plum on this board lately, I can only arrive at the conclusion that some of my fellow UConn fans are jealous of the media attention she's garnered for her amazing season, for breaking the scoring record, and for being the presumptive National Player of the Year.

There is a great saying in Spanish: Lo cortés no quita lo valiente. In other words, you can be gracious to others and still stick up for what's yours.

 

[DefenseBB]

So as I've said from the start, one dimensional, mediocre teams rarely win championships. The rarity is having a transcendental player leading your team. I don't really see where anything you've argued against my point holds any water. Except the point of course in circling the wagons for your team.

JordyG I have great respect for most of your posts, however it is my opinion here you have become stubborn on this thread with the word "mediocre" which Washington is not mediocre nor one dimensional. The team made the final 4 last year, came in tied for second in the strongest RPI conference on the league this year. So here is the argument for you to ponder:
1. Either the team is mediocre AND Plum is such a great player who has lifted this team to a top 12 ranking that other teams have not been able to limit (which no one has)
Or
2. Plum is a key player on a good team whose skills demand she handle and take the majority of the shots.

Why do I pose the question like that? Because of your imperfect view of DT. She is great but you are also dismissing the other players on those last two years -Strother, Moore, Battle and Conlon. Which, according to you "other teams should shut down the leading scorer" however this 2002-03 and 2003-04 teams were able to win championships.

Even Jackie Stiles who was more one dimensional than Plum brought her non-descript team to a Final Four.

Bottom line is- it's ok to rethink your views when presented with contrary evidence.

Don't be the old guy yelling at kids to get off your lawn, you're better than that.

 

[Plebe]

Which of those trancendental players you mentioned saw the other four members of the previous year's starting line up disappear into the WNBA?

What would that have to do with anything being discussed here? That's only a testament to how incredible the 2002 team was.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

What would that have to do with anything being discussed here? That's only a testament to how incredible the 2002 team was.

What would that have to do with anything being discussed here? That's only a testament to how incredible the 2002 team was.

It has to do with how little Taurasi was surrounded with her junior year because of who graduated from the prior team. Griner had Sims her championship season. I'm not interested enough at this point to go back and find the horses in Parker's posse but they were there.

 

[Plebe]

It has to do with how little Taurasi was surrounded with her junior year because of who graduated from the prior team. Griner had Sims her championship season. I'm not interested enough at this point to go back and find the horses in Parker's posse but they were there.

Okay, but again, that has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make or the point I was responding to.

 

[JordyG]

I'm a slopping reader? See the irony?

You say: "Your quote that 'Because if she didn't control the ball and score a lot, they're done. A .500 team.' is the most accurate and balanced thing you've said about your team."

Then further down you say that Washington: "actually has the talent to be a better team without Plum needing to be a one man band."

These statements are completely contradictory. You do see that, don't you?

You also say this: "I too felt shame that Neighbors' team needs the same player to score at least 25 every night to have a chance at winning." Shame? On Neighbors? Really? It's shameful to not have a bunch of really good players? Wow.

Their mediocrity without Plum is evident to me. Let's take just a few examples:

Wash vs Colo - 79-75 (Plum 28, 11-24) (Collier 11. 3-6 - Romeo 6. 2-5, McDonald 14, 5-8)

Wash vs UCLA - 82-70 (Plum39, 13-26) (Collier 8, 3-7 - Romeo 6. 2-7. Corral 5, 2-7)

Wash vs Stan - 68-72 (Plum 44, 17-27) (Collier 0-5 - Romeo 0-4, McDonald 3, 1-7)

Wash vs Utah - 84-77 (Plum 57, 19-28) (Collier 2, 1-5 - Romeo 0-7 - McDonald 5. 2-4)

Wash vs Oregon - 69-70 (Plum 34, 15-33 (Osahor 12, 5-12 (27 Reb's) - Collier 5, 2-3 - Romeo 6, 2-8)

Stanford, Utah and Oregon were intentional picks. I picked random league play and I swear these came up. It's my contention that this could be more than a good team if others were more involved instead of having Plum get the lion's share. In fact those two losses should have been wins if others were allowed some sort of rhythm in their shot making. Now perhaps I should have said the potential to rise above mediocrity without Plum shooting so much is there. But, to hackney a phrase, you need more than Plum's to make an award winning fruit salad.

Yeah I feel shame and sad. Sad that the pressure to score is always on Plum. Sad that these other players never get a chance to prove this is a team. Unlike you I think Romeo and Collier are good players, not bad ones, that are getting shafted by Neighbors skewed system. Honestly I think this was a better TEAM last year with actually slightly more talent this year.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Random picks? Looks more like cherry picking to me. Look a little harder and you'll see games where Romeo scored 32 and 25 (10 and 7 made 3's respectively), McDonald scored 18-20 several times, Corral scored 18 at least once, Collier was in the 15-18 range several times.

 

[Plebe]

Their mediocrity without Plum is evident to me. Let's take just a few examples:

Wash vs Colo - 79-75 (Plum 28, 11-24) (Collier 11. 3-6 - Romeo 6. 2-5, McDonald 14, 5-8)

Wash vs UCLA - 82-70 (Plum39, 13-26) (Collier 8, 3-7 - Romeo 6. 2-7. Corral 5, 2-7)

Wash vs Stan - 68-72 (Plum 44, 17-27) (Collier 0-5 - Romeo 0-4, McDonald 3, 1-7)

Wash vs Utah - 84-77 (Plum 57, 19-28) (Collier 2, 1-5 - Romeo 0-7 - McDonald 5. 2-4)

Wash vs Oregon - 69-70 (Plum 34, 15-33 (Osahor 12, 5-12 (27 Reb's) - Collier 5, 2-3 - Romeo 6, 2-8)

Stanford, Utah and Oregon were intentional picks. I picked random league play and I swear these came up. It's my contention that this could be more than a good team if others were more involved instead of having Plum get the lion's share. In fact those two losses should have been wins if others were allowed some sort of rhythm in their shot making. Now perhaps I should have said the potential to rise above mediocrity without Plum shooting so much is there. But, to hackney a phrase, you need more than Plum's to make an award winning fruit salad.

Yeah I feel shame and sad. Sad that the pressure to score is always on Plum. Sad that these other players never get a chance to prove this is a team. Unlike you I think Romeo and Collier are good players, not bad ones, that are getting shafted by Neighbors skewed system. Honestly I think this was a better TEAM last year with actually slightly more talent this year.

So the problem in the combined 1-for-16 by those three players against Stanford was that they didn't take enough shots?

Having actually watched the UW-Stanford game, I can say that Plum tried hard to get everyone involved. She loves passing to an open teammate, as evidenced by her assist numbers. But in that game they were just missing and they seemed to lose confidence in the 2nd half.

No one—not even Neighbors or Plum herself—would argue that they aren't a better team when more players get involved in the scoring. But sometimes it just doesn't work out.

 

[nwhoopfan]

McDonald and Romeo are both averaging 9 or more per game. Collier was around 8 but a recent slump has seen her scoring plummet to 6.5. Plum and Osahor are averaging over 47 combined, so there isn't gonna be a ton of scoring from the rest of the team.

 

[JordyG]

"The hard truth is Washington is a mediocre team propped up by a hugely talented Plum." - is a pretty harsh assessment of a program that has been impactful in its conference the last few years. Some would argue the teams Taurasi anchored in the post TASS years were not dis-similar. Would you have called those teams mediocre? And I have followed your posts on this board, sir. Most are critical and insightful, but you have also stated that what the PAC 12 did last year, getting 2 teams in the FF, was an "anomaly"; that the PAC12 teams usually perform below their seeds, except for Stanford. That sounds a little like a bias to me. I don't have "west coast blinders", I just happen to love competitive conference races that aren't dominated by one program year after year, as was once the case with the PAC12 and Stanford. I appreciate the balance in the better teams in that conference now and hope its a trend that stays. Happy to see Texas re-emerge in the Big 12, Miss St in the SEC, Duke and Fla St in the ACC. Its a lot more fun to follow WBB when there is such competitive balance. BTW - not a 'new poster', just an infrequent one.

Yeah, last year was an anomaly. How many times has the Pac-12 had two teams in the FF? Let me answer that for you. That would be once. The very definition of an anomaly, and yes, they usually perform below their seeds.

 

[JordyG]

So the problem in the combined 1-for-16 by those three players against Stanford was that they didn't take enough shots?

Having actually watched the UW-Stanford game, I can say that Plum tried hard to get everyone involved. She loves passing to an open teammate, as evidenced by her assist numbers. But in that game they were just missing and they seemed to lose confidence in the 2nd half.

No one—not even Neighbors or Plum herself—would argue that they aren't a better team when more players get involved in the scoring. But sometimes it just doesn't work out.

And the problem with suddenly trying to get others involved when all season they haven't been is that they are unprepared for the pass, unprepared for the moment and not in rhythm to make the shot.

 

[Plebe]

And the problem with suddenly trying to get others involved when all season they haven't been is that they are unprepared for the pass, unprepared for the moment and not in rhythm to make the shot.

Suddenly? Where are you getting the "suddenly" part from?

 

[nwhoopfan]

This thread, just so you know, is on the verge of getting shut down.

It's degenerated into personal sniping between a couple of people, with any further information or insight in short supply.

Please do. It's gotten beyond pointless.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Suddenly? Where are you getting the "suddenly" part from?

Just making stuff up, like all of his posts in this thread.

 

[Plebe]

Just making stuff up, like all of his posts in this thread.

As a friend of mine used to say, it's amazing how many people got their doctorate from MSU — Making Stuff Up. (Except he didn't use the word "stuff.")

 

[1-of-the-6]

This is what happens when you try to have a discussion with people who have predetermined what they want the conclusion to be.

Of course they have not seen the games, but based on a few boxscores they believe themselves to be experts on the Washington's women's team. They're certain that anyone not named Plum or Osahor should be more involved in the offense and taking more shots. Not only that, they believe that it's Mike Neighbors fault that this is not happening. You know what that is, when you come to such a conclusion without having nearly enough data? It's deplorable.