Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="hoophuskee, post: 3536292, member: 3535"] I'm not arguing specifically when you say a "deep bench" but what what do you consider the minimum number of a "deep bench?" And an unrelated question what do you think as a counter to a deep bench an argument that they haven't had a Lobo (which I happen to agree with) - super elite player the past 5 years? To be more specific- In the last 5 years we haven't seen a superstar like like Lobo, Bird, DT, Tina, Maya, and Stewart. Frankly I think MoJeff was a superstar but that's besides the point. What do you think for those that say if Stevens stayed or if Collier didn't de-commit (while getting Olivia) that or had gotten Boston that would've resulted in a certain dominance? Or are those 1 players the difference between a short bench and a deep bench? IMO not winning it all- which is the only real complaint to have (because the team has still been extremely successful) it's been a combo of different issues the last 5 years. UCONN being a bit too short up front (one year for sure they weren't), not have an elite superstar like mentioned above, and bad luck (buzzer beaters) in which you aren't accustomed to playing close games (which could be the fault of a crappy conference). In the last 5 years how often has our crappy conference helped prepare UCONN? Though maybe now in the Big East we'll get the 20-30 ranked player to stay. [/QUOTE]