A Question on Plum and Washington

[BroadwayVa]

The hard truth is Washington is a mediocre team propped up by a hugely talented Plum. Teams such as this rarely if ever advance to the finals in the Championship and most rarely win. In fact I can't remember when a team has won with one member having such a scoring load. As a team advances the better teams limit opposing players touches, have better perimeter or interior defenses, or develop more effective schemes against that player. Also teams such as Washington are just too dependent on the graces of Plum. One off night and their season is done. Plum's defense is suspect as well. Against the better teams what good is scoring 50 if your opponent scores 35-40?

Osahor (sp??) is a true talent, albeit I doubt she shall have success in the WNBA, Plum is a prolific scorer---. But remember folks last year she didn't do well for the first half, then Geno let up. And Uconn wollopped them, Their team is not a one person team--but they play that way. Geno has stated often in the past that a single scoring standout team is a delight to play--and stop that scorer--he has done that often.
My first reaction to the 57 points was--shame. I'm not sure I can ever be happy for Plum--as much as I think she;s a legit scorer.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Seriously dumb post. If you have a different opinion, feel free to share it and educate us, instead of behaving foolishly on our board.

I won't call anyone an idiot--mis informed maybe--but that poster was completely IGNORANT of the level of knowledge, including your's, of members like : Bags, Davidnaples, Philly coach, coach, Umiami, and 3 dozen more--maybe that person should search them and read what real knowledge of the complete WBB college game analysis is all about.

 

[DefenseBB]

Ok, ok, ok Uncle! Please no more puppies or kittens. I pray your car does not have stuffed animals along the back window...

 

[triaddukefan]

So who's the mama husky in this allegory?

I'll let you figure that one out

Ok, ok, ok Uncle! Please no more puppies or kittens. I pray your car does not have stuffed animals along the back window...

Oh gosh no

 

[1-of-the-6]

Osahor (sp??) is a true talent, albeit I doubt she shall have success in the WNBA, Plum is a prolific scorer---- But remember folks last year she didn't do well for the first half, then Geno let up. And Uconn wollopped them, Their team is not a one person team--but they play that way. Geno has stated often in the past that a single scoring standout team is a delight to play--and stop that scorer--he has done that often.
My first reaction to the 57 points was--shame. I'm not sure I can ever be happy for Plum--as much as I think she;s a legit scorer.

Did you watch the game in which she scored 57? No? Yet you have an opinion, that of shaming Plum? Unbelievable.

You sit on here, and deride a girl that plays her heart out, leads her team, and does what is necessary to keep them competitive. Because if she didn't control the ball and score a lot, they're done. A .500 team.

And this is what I love about these internet forums. You can trash her, and call her shameful. Yet you not only don't know her, you have very little knowledge of her team, and didn't see the game. But I'm not allowed to directly call you a jerk for doing so. Just doesn't seem right to me, though.

 

[JordyG]

You


Did you watch the game in which she scored 57? No? Yet you have an opinion, that of shaming Plum? Unbelievable.

You sit on here, and deride a girl that plays her heart out, leads her team, and does what is necessary to keep them competitive. Because if she didn't control the ball and score a lot, they're done. A .500 team.

And this is what I love about these internet forums. You can trash her, and call her shameful. Yet you not only don't know her, you have very little knowledge of her team, and didn't see the game. But I'm not allowed to directly call you a jerk for doing so. Just doesn't seem right to me, though.

You know, I frequently get on news reporters and critics for sloppy journalism. You my friend are a slopping reader. BroadwayVa didn't call Plum shameful. He called her scoring 57 points in a close win shameful. 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. I too felt shame that Neighbors' team needs the same player to score at least 25 every night to have a chance at winning. I like Va am not nor would we deride a player as good as Plum. We and apparently you are too well aware that .500 is mediocrity, and this team actually has the talent to be a better team without Plum needing to be a one man band. Therein lies the shame. She deserves better.

 

[j66kicker]

You


Did you watch the game in which she scored 57? No? Yet you have an opinion, that of shaming Plum? Unbelievable.

You sit on here, and deride a girl that plays her heart out, leads her team, and does what is necessary to keep them competitive. Because if she didn't control the ball and score a lot, they're done. A .500 team.

And this is what I love about these internet forums. You can trash her, and call her shameful. Yet you not only don't know her, you have very little knowledge of her team, and didn't see the game. But I'm not allowed to directly call you a jerk for doing so. Just doesn't seem right to me, though.

I said Plum was a great player. I like her. You, on the other hand...

It's not shameful to choke when it matters. It's not clutch either, though. Fortunately she gets another chance. She wins POY for sure, deservedly so. And if they win a few games in the tourney, maybe she gets a chance to prove it.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

The signs are right on the park benches. Please don't feed the pigeons. And still the bags of stale bread come out. I do like the pigeon sound though ...coo coo

 

[nwhoopfan]

Osahor (sp??) is a true talent, albeit I doubt she shall have success in the WNBA, Plum is a prolific scorer---- But remember folks last year she didn't do well for the first half, then Geno let up. And Uconn wollopped them, Their team is not a one person team--but they play that way. Geno has stated often in the past that a single scoring standout team is a delight to play--and stop that scorer--he has done that often.
My first reaction to the 57 points was--shame. I'm not sure I can ever be happy for Plum--as much as I think she;s a legit scorer.

UW and UConn didn't even play each other last year. You're just completely making stuff up. The 2 schools have rarely met, and the most recent was at least 6 or 7 years ago, before Plum was around and when UW was terrible.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

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.

How good would Baylor have been without Griner in 2012?
Or without Sophia Young in 2005?
How good would Tennessee have been without Parker in '07 and '08? Or without Holdsclaw in '96 and '97?
How good would Texas Tech have been without Swoopes when they won?

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

 

[nwhoopfan]

Hey the last game of her college career Maya Moore scored a bunch of points but she took a bunch of shots, and her team lost. And that was a much more important game than a conference tourney semi-final. Would anyone suggest she wasn't a clutch player? I mean if you want to get crazy and base opinions off of one game...

 

[1-of-the-6]

You know, I frequently get on news reporters and critics for sloppy journalism. You my friend are a slopping reader. BroadwayVa didn't call Plum shameful. He called her scoring 57 points in a close win shameful. 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. I too felt shame that Neighbors' team needs the same player to score at least 25 every night to have a chance at winning. I like Va am not nor would we deride a player as good as Plum. We and apparently you are too well aware that .500 is mediocrity, and this team actually has the talent to be a better team without Plum needing to be a one man band. Therein lies the shame. She deserves better.

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.

 

[JS]

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.

 

[triaddukefan]

So who's the mama husky in this allegory?

In light of the above post.. Guess I should have used a video with a papa husky instead

 

[JordyG]

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

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.

 

[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.