Building Players the Good the Bad and the Ughly

[Charliebball]

UCONN (Geno) is VERY selective in the players he persues.
Tracks them years before they can commit.
I’ll assume that he utilizes certain criteria.
Is it an accurate observation that he cannot ‘accumulate’ more than 6-8 players that, for any given year, can ‘learn’ his system, or develop under his tutelage to the level that he requires/projected?
I am not understanding why, with all of the talent available, he is unable to develop, at one time, more than a small handful of players that can produce on the floor.
Granted, he doesn’t get every player he goes after.
But he does get many of the top rated prospects.
If only 8 players deserve/are capable of earning playing time, that means nearly half of the team are incapable or not as ‘advertised’.
Is it his recruiting criteria?
Is it his offensive scheme?
Is it his coaching technique?
To be redundant of my post elsewhere here:
Friday’s action:
SC: 21 point win, used 12 players, nonstarters got 79 minutes.
UCONN: 25 point win, used 9 players, nonstarters got 41 minutes.
I know, I know, players earn it in practice, yada..yada..yada..
Tell it to the Judge when crunch time comes in a Tourney game and there’s no one he “trust” to sub.
Please someone tell me how the highly regarded ( and touted) Ducharme earns only 5 minutes in a rollover?
This is player development?
I’m not a big Staley fan (at all), but she is developing a roster that will totally out (man) and grind up UCONN with waves of fresh players in THE big game(s).

There are many insightful fans here.
Please tell me.
I wanna know.

I think it's fair to say that some coaches at good programs are a bit more likely to give freshman a longer leash when they are on the court......for instance Ducharme looked awful in her first few minutes against Seton Hall and that was it for her until the last three minutes of the game......I think others might have left her out there for at least a few more minutes to see if she could right the ship......with Geno once a freshman has screwed, up they're pretty much done for the day and probably the next two weeks.......

 

[baggerbob]

Nothing wrong with playing your "All American" starters as long as they are playing like All Americans.........sometimes they don't play up to standards and even when they do, All Americans need a break too.......look at the fourth quarter in the recent South Carolina game. If the starters had been given more of a breather perhaps, they wouldn't have been run off the court.......

In big games the stars expect to play almost the whole game. Stewie, Tuck, Moriah, Nurse, Williams, KLS, Collier. Geno usually doesn't go beyond 7, and most coaches won't unless foul trouble.

 

[Cuango]

I agree with most of this post and this part in particular:

"
Tell it to the Judge when crunch time comes in a Tourney game and there’s no one he “trust” to sub.
Please someone tell me how the highly regarded ( and touted) Ducharme earns only 5 minutes in a rollover?
This is player development?"

He should tell Ducharme not to worry about being pulled because he believes in her and knows that she will be a major contributor over time. Just like they did with Dustrin Pedroia when he started out hitting around .100 for a month. They believed in him and he went on to rookie of the year and MVP.

Maybe (likely imo) he has already told her (Caroline) that! Just because he believes a player is going to be very good in the future does not mean he can’t bench her when she is clearly overwhelmed! I would bet he’s already had these kinds of conversations with all of his players. That’s what coaches do!

 

[baggerbob]

From which position of the Choir did you eject me? In essence I was agreeing with your belief --that game time is the, not necessarily prime time, is the time to HONE Practice skills. My personal belief, can you believe I coached for about 8 years and never won an NC in WCBB(?, very little is learned if players don't ever get into real, not cupcake, games.. The one part of the equation Uconn fans tend to forget 1. Geno has been coaching near 40 years and opposing coaches by now know his game really well. 2. WCBB has evolved since 2010, amazingly, bigger, more talented , faster, more skilled kids are playing the game 24/7/365. The top of the hill ain't what it once was.. One kid or 2 like Paige or Azzi isn't all it takes to win it all. Unlike DT, Swin, Shea, Svet, Maya, Stewie--(even Stewie had Dolson and Stokes, KML.

Stewie was a different type of player, and it's been proven in her short career as a professional. She wins no matter where she goes. She always makes the players around her better.

 

[hoophuskee]

This is 100% true. But not without risks. At some point when your gameplan isn’t working you ended up looking really desperate when you sub in someone who is overmatched/inexperienced etc because 40 point wins versus Tulsa. When it works it works great. Look at the record. It’s unmatched. When it doesn’t work it looks like you weren’t prepared. I can accept when my team loses just hate when they can’t make adjustments and or look ill prepared. Arizona last year versus Miss St and Notre Dame 2017 and ‘18.

But any game that is a big upset - you can always argue that they were "not prepared?" Because one can always argue if they really were prepared, they wouldn't have let an inferior team beat them. And generally UCONN is pretty decent favorite, so does this mean that the coach has been unprepared after all the losses he was favored by more than a couple of points as well as his team? If it's the whole team, then why single out the bench and not on some of the players that are more "responsible" because they are the ones you rewarded more minutes during the season because they were better than the bench players?

It's the same argument with bench vs not bench. When you lose a close game, unless the bench was super, you can always say the bench didn't give them enough. Just as you can make the argument the other way. But which is true? Haven't the starters in the past struggled and UCONN still won? I saw many grind games during the Rutgers years.

IMO its mostly always on certain starters. Because they are the better players usually that you have relied on all year. As a result the expectation is that they must produce. That's why they start and that's why you gave them the most minutes throughout the year.

A team can't go undefeated for 5 years etc - ie they can't win every game. But if the philosophy has been to play mostly 7-8 players and it has been an extreme success - why would the most successful coach in the history of the sport stop his philosophy that's been so great?