Building Players the Good the Bad and the Ughly

[Stymie]

Maybe I've missed this in somebody else's posts. If so, I apologize.
Yes we have all kinds of talent. Yes, some new ones and some veterans have looked a bit confused and the team has looked out of synch.
BB is a team sport, even if there are people who stand out, score a lot of points and cruise through games from the opening tip off.
The TEAMS that are consistent, and put together seamless performances game in and game out, are the ones that find a way to combine the different talents and learn how to play off each other's strengths.
Geno and his staff have to put together all of these pieces of the puzzle and fit them into cohesive units that can defend on the perimeter, keep people away from the lane, control the glass, pressure the ball on defense. THEN, transition quickly get the ball down the court, make quick passes, knowing where all 5 pieces will be and get the best shot whether from beyond the arc or in the paint.
And , because there are so many talented, highly motivated pieces of the puzzle (who also happen to be human beings with all the complexities of their different personalities), in some ways it's harder than if there were just 6 or 7 women to consider.
This latest version of HUSKY WCBB has to jell and find the combinations both starting and rotating in off the bench, that will enable them to "put the pedal to the metal" in the fashion we seem to crave, and just plain outplay and outclass the competition.
I got disgusted a few times already because my expectations are so high.
Have a game on Friday and another one on Sunday.
Think I'll just sit back, chill out and see what happens.

I was buying in until I got to “control the glass”.
I may have cracked a rib from laughing so hard.

 

[hoophuskee]

This is not a new issue.......in my opinion UConn hasn't had an effective bench in a number of years and when the rubber hits the road during the big games Geno has not had dependable subs that can keep the game even while the starters take a breather......the question is whether this is due to the quality of the bench players or the fact that they have the ability but have not been given the opportunity to prove they can handle the responsibility........

Huh? Rubber hits the road? The road’s been torn up by Geno. And even last year, didn’t the rubber hit the road vs South Carolina and vs Baylor?

Secondly, as you are questioning about the bench; you can claim after nearly any close loss that you could at least point to 1 bench player (or 1 starter that was off) that didn’t pick up enough when that starter was out. We can use that excuse all day. So the question I would like to ask you is how do you know it’s the bench that is the problem and not the quality of the starter(s)? For example, some UCONN teams have won ttiles with 7/8 player benches. How many do you think would’ve scored 3 points in a quarter?

Further, if I were to look at the history of UCONN’s titles, excluding the two DT years of her junior and senior year, you could argue that the quality of the best 5 players on the title teams were either 4-1 or 5-0 superior than any of the past 3 teams, couldn’t you?

It’s there for us to see. So why assume it’s the bench that’s the problem and not the starters?

Third, you mention about needing a breather. Sure some players do. But in that close game that doesn’t mean there can’t be a starter or 2 that plays 40 or very near it, right? For all the talk of Stanford having a super bench Williams played 40 in back-to-back FF and Finals games. The prior year Baylor had 2 players play 40 in the title game. The prior year ND only played 6 players (talk about no bench), and they had 2 starters play 39 minutes in the title game.

So these are title teams that do paly starters near 40 minutes if not all, right?. We can’t just ignore that, right? Are we suggesting Paige Buckers isn’t good enough to play 40 while other title teams have proven that 40 minutes is okay for some of their players?

 

[hoophuskee]

Much of what you say is right, I could agree.
No one in their right mind, on this site, would "Call OUT" Geno! . So, Carnac--allow us 4 or 5 decade fans to seek answers to questions without answers.

But there has been some fans that have "called out" Geno, haven't there? In other words, some are saying what he is doing is wrong, isn't that right?

So yes if there are questions - sure. Try to seek them out. But don't you think some have already stated Geno is wrong? In some cases there haven't been "questions."

 

[TCC Kid]

Noted. Most of the rest of us crawled before we learned how to walk. It’s not a bad adage for the majority of human beings who fit into that category. There are always exceptions to the rule for a very small number who don't. Congratulations on never having to crawl. You’re an exception. My comment was directed to the majority of mankind which was/is appropriate. Adages aside, you get my drift.

A ting of sarcasm? I guess walking too early makes me dense, Drift? No congratulation is in order. My knees feel the too early work out, the dent in my head from pulling a chain onto my self trying to walk lives with me. I walked but not without encouragement and help.
I like 90 percent of what you write, just a statement not an insult. For every human trait, action or deed there is a positive and a negative. We always have the option to be positive. Adages are just old antiquated views, some good some not so good. We are better off living in the age we have and making up our own minds not using the words of some long dead human. Of course, in discussion we usually find people using others arguments to bolster our own view. At times I'm guilty of that.
Stats I believe the ONLY stat that is important is the WIN or Loss stat. All other stats; only the coach can adjust them.
Again, that never crawling statement is a fact, happened, not a myth.
I like you!

 

[Inthepaint]

I was buying in until I got to “control the glass”.
I may have cracked a rib from laughing so hard.

Perhaps I should have indicated the things they HAD to do, the things they AREN'T doing and the things they ARE doing.
Even trying to be an optimist I can't say they are getting the job done inside.
Not with a straight face anyway.

 

[Olimpia Mi]

Sì, rispetto a loro non è aggiornato. Dawn ha avuto 1 titolo e 3 finali a quattro negli ultimi 6 anni (7 se si conta il campionato annullato) , Tara ha avuto 2 finali 4 e un campionato (incluso nei FF #s). La squadra di Geno ha invece raggiunto 6 finali 4 e 2 campionati. Sicuramente sembra che abbia perso rilevanza rispetto a loro o a chiunque altro . Oppure limiti selettivamente il periodo di tempo di recente a forse 1 anno in modo da poter provare a creare un punto debole.

tra l'altro ho selezionato 6 perché se avessi scelto 5 sia Geno che Dawn avrebbero perso un FF, e Geno un campionato e se fossi andato un altro Tata e Geno avrebbero avuto entrambi un FF in più e Geno un altro campionato.

 

[Olimpia Mi]

I agree ... we wait to see what happens in March and then we discuss it

 

[Stymie]

Perhaps I should have indicated the things they HAD to do, the things they AREN'T doing and the things they ARE doing.
Even trying to be an optimist I can't say they are getting the job done inside.
Not with a straight face anyway.

No worries.
With all of the size on this roster, the fact that they are unable to box out and dominate on the D boards ( forget about O boards) will doom any thoughts of a Championship - other than a “Big East” crown. ( big yip on that).

 

[TeamFirst!]

The world of College women's basketball has changed. South Carolina has lots of big, strong, physical women. They basically beat us up. They literally said their plan was to "wear Paige down" and it worked. 3 games in rapid succession where Paige played a lot of minutes and she had big, strong players pounding on her in waves. South Carolina just recruits bigger, stronger, hungrier players. Geno recruits better mannered kids with lots of skill. He knows he needs to adjust and next year's recruits reflect that. Patterson and Brady are nice kids for sure but they are also big and strong. They are going to need to be. Look at the way Amihere plays. She basically tosses people out of her way.

 

[oldhusky]

When was the last time UConn team that had a truly dependable bench? I think this year's team has the talent to go 8-9 deep but the players need the minutes to prove it......

Largely agree. To me playing time should be a byproduct of how the player performs in practice and the games. Early in the season that should be weighted far more on practice. These players have had plenty of time to show what they can do in practice. It is a large body of work by the time the season begins.

Players who have proven over months that they are worthy of being in the rotation should not lose that status because they make one mistake in the first two minutes of a game, and then are not given an opportunity to redeem themselves, or show the positive contributions they could make.

If after 5-10 games of getting regular minutes that player is clearly under-performing in games compared to practice, then adjust accordingly. A few minutes of bad game performance should not offset a few months of practice in judging a player this early in the season.

 

[Stymie]

Largely agree. To me playing time should be a byproduct of how the player performs in practice and the games. Early in the season that should be weighted far more on practice. These players have had plenty of time to show what they can do in practice. It is a large body of work by the time the season begins.

Players who have proven over months that they are worthy of being in the rotation should not lose that status because they make one mistake in the first two minutes of a game, and then are not given an opportunity to redeem themselves, or show the positive contributions they could make.

If after 5-10 games of getting regular minutes that player is clearly under-performing in games compared to practice, then adjust accordingly. A few minutes of bad game performance should not offset a few months of practice in judging a player this early in the season.

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.

 

[SCyankee]

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 do not know the answer, but this is what I think. Fans are frustrated with a 4-1 team that won its last game by 25 points. One reason is we are spoiled by past success, which is not a guarantee of future success. Second, we expected last year's starters to improve but only Paige has. Third the incoming group included two highly skilled freshman and a transfer that were expected to have an almost immediate impact. They have not.
I believe we should start Dorka and Liv, we need the offense and she is our most skilled big player. Also she is actually tall and lean , not big like Aliyah. As long as Azzi is out Caroline must be our first guard off the bench. She has already impressed in practice she has to play without whiplash from Genos hook. As PB backup Nika will get very little game time until she sinks some shots and completes a drive to the basket.
I do not intend to be critical of the individual players, Just noting what I think I see.

 

[Martin]

Why wouldn't Geno have a shorter bench?

I wouldn't be surprised if he has had many more 1st team All-Americans than the both of them combined.

So there is nothing wrong with playing your 1st team All-Americans more and winning more championships, and getting to more final fours while doing so, is there?

So while it's nice that they have integrated their benches more, but it's much nicer that UCONN has won many more championships even though Geno plays a shorter bench, right?

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.

 

[sun]

There's politics involved with coaching too.
Geno tends to deflect when he cryptically criticizes team performance by calling them stubborn without being specific about who or what actions that he's talking about.
We don't know who is stubborn or what anyone did that was stubborn, what he told them or her to do that they didn't do that was stubborn.
A fan can only laugh it off that he's putting an exclamation point on a vague statement that "they lost big time" even though UConn has all the same starters from last year.
He's predictable in that he's basically committed to playing the seniors & the upper classmen, and he's not going to take chances on putting in experimental sub packages in a game that's getting out of hand.
Whether he should have an emergency backup plan in the event that the team falls behind because of an offensive meltdown with 6 minutes left in game is almost radical.
We can only speculate why he doesn't have a plan to insert some package that would force the other team to only shoot from the outside, which they were making all of their shots anyway.
Can Olivia and Pliath be inserted with Dorka or Edwards at the same time to control the boards for 3-4minutes to change the flow of the game?
That's radical speculation but UConn wasn't fouling them either.
Can those bigs handle making passes to our outside shooters?
Can they draw or make a few fouls on the inside that we can afford to give in order to get possession without us falling further behind?
There's experimentation that can happen in a BE blow out game that would give Geno some new sub packages that might work against a good team, where we need to have a radical response team, or a SWAT package to come in to remedy a game that's starting to get out of hand.
If such a configuration were possible to implement, Geno may be called crazy, and he's not a big risk taker at this early juncture of the season.
But there's eventualities that I'm sure Geno can envision where he could justify trying anything to alter the course of a game.
I'm not pretending that I know what I'm talking about.
But I do have a sincere belief that any player who is sitting on the UConn bench can be a potential savior of a game by making a key play or contribution.
Do I think that Geno thinks the same way about all of his bench players?
No I do not.
I don't like cryptic messages and I don't believe that SC is necessarily a better team.
If people think it's about controlling the boards then the UConn bench could provide an answer to that.
Can UConn make enough 3's to overcome their bigs?
Sure, if that's the package of subs that we need to have in the game.
Can Olivia sink some hook shots?
Sure she could, but does she or another big ever try?
Geno just needs to be willing to experiment, but we all know that he won't because it's not conventional.
And it doesn't make for good politics because if it didn't work the blame would be on him.
But if he doesn't do it then the team gets the blame for losing because they're the stubborn ones.

 

[TeamFirst!]

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 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.

 

[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?