Early Season Lou Critics

[Kaizen]

The poster I am looking for to come on the board and again explain what a mistake Geno made in not offering Gillespie who was going to completely light up WCBB and challenge for player of the year, not just NFOY.
She has put together a nice freshman season for Maryland, but I think I am fine with Collier and Samuelson.

Agree, Geno should offer Gillespie not Boykin

 

[JordyG]

I agree with what you say but in this explanation you're speaking of the 2/3 position the wing. I was speaking of when you said "her game will evolve inside making life miserable for 4's."

The explanation you just replied to me with was that of KLS as a wing and the problems she can cause. Anyhow, not important.

I would like your opinion on the following--can you give it? Do you foresee at some point in KLS's career that she can defend the post? In particular power forwards and certain type of centers?

Well, I've had this discussion a bunch of times with guys here smarter than I. I think as she moves toward her 3rd and 4th year she's going to have a deft and educated offensive game down low. Geno has said she is as strong as Stewie, but I believe in different ways. For example in her first year Stewie often found herself defending on her butt. KLS doesn't hit the floor as much while defending. She has from what I've seen excellent lower body strength. She is not as agile or athletic as Stewie, but her body type supports good upper body strength with age and work. I think as time goes on this young lady is going to be one versatile and potent AA on both offense and defense. I just don't really see her defending at the 5 position. Frankly that position requires a wider posterior and a take no prisoners attitude. Good post players are born not made.

 

[hoophuskee]

Well, I've had this discussion a bunch of times with guys here smarter than I. I think as she moves toward her 3rd and 4th year she's going to have a deft and educated offensive game down low. Geno has said she is as strong as Stewie, but I believe in different ways. For example in her first year Stewie often found herself defending on her butt. KLS doesn't hit the floor as much while defending. She has from what I've seen excellent lower body strength. She is not as agile or athletic as Stewie, but her body type supports good upper body strength with age and work. I think as time goes on this young lady is going to be one versatile and potent AA on both offense and defense. I just don't really see her defending at the 5 position. Frankly that position requires a wider posterior and a take no prisoners attitude. Good post players are born not made.

As far as a power forward I don't think she'll ever be a low post offensive player for more than a couple of plays. Her strength is shooting the ball from 3 or as wing or sg - as you say hopefully she can post them at times.

In terms of defending, you don't think for example as she becomes a senior, she couldn't defend someone like Turner from ND? Maybe for 10-25 minutes? Or whoever Ohio State has for example as their center? OFC she couldn't defend Coates or Jones (form MD). At least not right now projecting forward.

Through her 4 year career - I think it is so interesting to see what Geno has in store for her. Like what sluconn said - I am extremely surprised Geno is recruiting another big time very small pg (I think she is from Ga) over-and-above Dangerfield. It makes me wonder if he envisions KLS defending at least power forwards (maybe also certain centers-not all.) at one end while the other end he would play "small ball" and force the opposing team's bigger player to have to guard her or for example Collier. We saw how Stokes became a bit irrelevant vs St Joes. I wonder if he envisions that KLS can defend "well enough" vs bigger players at one end defensively while putting them at a huge disadvantage at the other end if they have to guard a phenom shooter like KLS or a slasher like Collier/Gabby.

 

[JordyG]

As far as a power forward I don't think she'll ever be a low post offensive player for more than a couple of plays. Her strength is shooting the ball from 3 or as wing or sg - as you say hopefully she can post them at times.

In terms of defending, you don't think for example as she becomes a senior, she couldn't defend someone like Turner from ND? Maybe for 10-25 minutes? Or whoever Ohio State has for example as their center? OFC she couldn't defend Coates or Jones (form MD). At least not right now projecting forward.

Through her 4 year career - I think it is so interesting to see what Geno has in store for her. Like what sluconn said - I am extremely surprised Geno is recruiting another big time very small pg (I think she is from Ga) over-and-above Dangerfield. It makes me wonder if he envisions KLS defending at least power forwards (maybe also certain centers-not all.) at one end while the other end he would play "small ball" and force the opposing team's bigger player to have to guard her or for example Collier. We saw how Stokes became a bit irrelevant vs St Joes. I wonder if he envisions that KLS can defend "well enough" vs bigger players at one end defensively while putting them at a huge disadvantage at the other end if they have to guard a phenom shooter like KLS or a slasher like Collier/Gabby.

I've pretty much been thinking along the same lines. I think Geno likes her versatility between 2's and 4's and over the years depending on game situations he'll try to take advantage of her height/length or quickness. The thing is time has made some of my designation slightly old fashioned. 4's use to be power forwards, 3's small forwards, 2's big guards. 2's are still off guards for the most part, but the line between 3's and 4's are becoming blurred. Geno like versatile players, as one poster has said more than once. Because of this he has blurred those lines as well as anyone.

 

[ThisJustIn]

maybe people's definition of "bashing" is different... but I def. recall bashing-like comments in the vein of "she'll never..." Don't really care, actually, until folks are as demanding and judgmental about themselves as they are about 18 year olds.... ;-)

 

[UcMiami]

JordyG - on designations, I think it comes down to two things:
1. At all levels and both genders - the relatively immobile bulk players who have range only out to 5 feet are becoming extinct - there just aren't that many around who get to the highest level within any of the various strata (HS, College, Pros, men or women.) So there just aren't enough to go around to populate traditional '5' or traditional '4' designations - the modern '5' is closer to what a stretch '4' looked like ten years ago and they sort of blend together as a 5 designation now.

2. With the limited supply of big bodies and more attention to skill over muscle in rules and style of play, more coaches are putting 3 or 4 players on the court at a time that might all have been designated as guards ten years ago, and frequently the remaining one or two players are closer to traditional '3' or '4' designations. Look no further than the ND game earlier this year to see how effective that can be.

Geno long ago did away with distinctions between '1' and '2' players - his ideal being two guards equally adept at both passing and shooting (Sue and DT), and his ideal for the other three positions would probably be Dolson, Stewart, and Moore - players that threaten to score from the arc to the rim, and who are as deadly passing as they are shooting. Dolson still retains a 4-5 designation, but Moore and Stewart really range from 4-1 in their skill sets.

In the modern game, the defensive sets more closely retain their designations than do the five offensive threat offenses. On defense you still need someone to anchor inside, and a few players who can harry the opponent ball handles up top. I find it interesting that modern full court presses though are frequently using a stretch four type player at the center top of the press - Kiah got some run in that position even, and Stewart has as well.

 

[CocoHusky]

JordyG - on designations, I think it comes down to two things:
1. At all levels and both genders - the relatively immobile bulk players who have range only out to 5 feet are becoming extinct - there just aren't that many around who get to the highest level within any of the various strata (HS, College, Pros, men or women.) So there just aren't enough to go around to populate traditional '5' or traditional '4' designations - the modern '5' is closer to what a stretch '4' looked like ten years ago and they sort of blend together as a 5 designation now.

2. With the limited supply of big bodies and more attention to skill over muscle in rules and style of play, more coaches are putting 3 or 4 players on the court at a time that might all have been designated as guards ten years ago, and frequently the remaining one or two players are closer to traditional '3' or '4' designations. Look no further than the ND game earlier this year to see how effective that can be.

Geno long ago did away with distinctions between '1' and '2' players - his ideal being two guards equally adept at both passing and shooting (Sue and DT), and his ideal for the other three positions would probably be Dolson, Stewart, and Moore - players that threaten to score from the arc to the rim, and who are as deadly passing as they are shooting. Dolson still retains a 4-5 designation, but Moore and Stewart really range from 4-1 in their skill sets.

In the modern game, the defensive sets more closely retain their designations than do the five offensive threat offenses. On defense you still need someone to anchor inside, and a few players who can harry the opponent ball handles up top. I find it interesting that modern full court presses though are frequently using a stretch four type player at the center top of the press - Kiah got some run in that position even, and Stewart has as well.

Well stated UC. On the offensive side of the ball having a post player with the ability to play at or beyond the arc is the difference between running a 5 Out motion offense vs. a 4 out 1 in offense. Huge difference in that the 5 out is significantly harder to defend. On last years team it was literally the difference between Morgan and Kiah. With Kia in the game the offense stalled when she was outside the arc because she was no threat there and the defense knew it. With Morgan in the game you have to respect 3 point shot and because you have to respect every position on the floor you will get 1 on 1 coverage in the post. Post Isolation=Checkmate for South Carolina in 2015. I think Butler will put the same limitations on the UCONN offense next year which is why I believe Kyla to be a better option.

 

[UcMiami]

Well stated UC. On the offensive side of the ball having a post player with the ability to play at or beyond the arc is the difference between running a 5 Out motion offense vs. a 4 out 1 in offense. Huge difference in that the 5 out is significantly harder to defend. On last years team it was literally the difference between Morgan and Kiah. With Kia in the game the offense stalled when she was outside the arc because she was no threat there and the defense knew it. With Morgan in the game you have to respect 3 point shot and because you have to respect every position on the floor you will get 1 on 1 coverage in the post. Post Isolation=Checkmate for South Carolina in 2015. I think Butler will put the same limitations on the UCONN offense next year which is why I believe Kyla to be a better option.

Coco - I actually really like Butler's shot and her confidence in it out to the key - that is the one positive surprise I have seen from her. In that regard she is probably as effective as sophomore and junior Stef. Defensively she isn't as strong, but neither one did you want anywhere near the arc on defense unless another big was up there setting a screen.

 

[Icebear]

maybe people's definition of "bashing" is different... but I def. recall bashing-like comments in the vein of "she'll never..." Don't really care, actually, until folks are as demanding and judgmental about themselves as they are about 18 year olds.... ;-)

I agree there was significant amounts of bashing, denigrating, or harsh criticism of Katie Lou. That some don't remember it is a matter of convenience.

 

[hoophuskee]

maybe people's definition of "bashing" is different... but I def. recall bashing-like comments in the vein of "she'll never..." Don't really care, actually, until folks are as demanding and judgmental about themselves as they are about 18 year olds.... ;-)

You're right. I depends on what each person's definition of "bashing" means. I don't see "She never . . ." as necessarily a "bashing" post. It "could be" depending on what happens. I only brought it up to bags27 because I was curious if there was something specific and was wondering for someone like me who calls KLS soft (Because of her rebounding) though I have psoted often even when she as missing that she needs to be on firing away- am I basher? Heck even the coaches were sarcastically implying they don't have the rebounding Samuelson.

Not every post needs to be an "I love you post" however many, many, many,many,many, many, many should be. After all the team has lost one game in three years and 99% of the wins are by double digits. But if a player has a flaw - if you point it out, is that bashing?

 

[RockyMTblue2]

As the guy who started this thread I'd just like to say: I no longer recognize it!

 

[JordyG]

JordyG - on designations, I think it comes down to two things:
1. At all levels and both genders - the relatively immobile bulk players who have range only out to 5 feet are becoming extinct - there just aren't that many around who get to the highest level within any of the various strata (HS, College, Pros, men or women.) So there just aren't enough to go around to populate traditional '5' or traditional '4' designations - the modern '5' is closer to what a stretch '4' looked like ten years ago and they sort of blend together as a 5 designation now.

2. With the limited supply of big bodies and more attention to skill over muscle in rules and style of play, more coaches are putting 3 or 4 players on the court at a time that might all have been designated as guards ten years ago, and frequently the remaining one or two players are closer to traditional '3' or '4' designations. Look no further than the ND game earlier this year to see how effective that can be.

Geno long ago did away with distinctions between '1' and '2' players - his ideal being two guards equally adept at both passing and shooting (Sue and DT), and his ideal for the other three positions would probably be Dolson, Stewart, and Moore - players that threaten to score from the arc to the rim, and who are as deadly passing as they are shooting. Dolson still retains a 4-5 designation, but Moore and Stewart really range from 4-1 in their skill sets.

In the modern game, the defensive sets more closely retain their designations than do the five offensive threat offenses. On defense you still need someone to anchor inside, and a few players who can harry the opponent ball handles up top. I find it interesting that modern full court presses though are frequently using a stretch four type player at the center top of the press - Kiah got some run in that position even, and Stewart has as well.

Well stated UC. On the offensive side of the ball having a post player with the ability to play at or beyond the arc is the difference between running a 5 Out motion offense vs. a 4 out 1 in offense. Huge difference in that the 5 out is significantly harder to defend. On last years team it was literally the difference between Morgan and Kiah. With Kia in the game the offense stalled when she was outside the arc because she was no threat there and the defense knew it. With Morgan in the game you have to respect 3 point shot and because you have to respect every position on the floor you will get 1 on 1 coverage in the post. Post Isolation=Checkmate for South Carolina in 2015. I think Butler will put the same limitations on the UCONN offense next year which is why I believe Kyla to be a better option.

You both are correct on all counts.

 

[Blue Huskie]

I agree there was significant amounts of bashing, denigrating, or harsh criticism of Katie Lou. That some don't remember it is a matter of convenience.

I found these gems from the USF thread in January (1-10-16)

“Wish KLS could shoot like Laska”

“Laska has 14 points to KLS's 2. I'm not sure your take is all that realistic, with due respect."

BTW it's "Laksa" and she's LEADING the American in 3pt % , so I guess we wish EVERYBODY could shoot like Laksa. And that being said I'd like to see the numbers from just this game forward. I'll bet Lou is right up there with the markmanship now. And besides as was said before she does so much more than shoot threes for us.

 

[Farney]

I found these gems from the USF thread in January (1-10-16)

“Wish KLS could shoot like Laska”

“Laska has 14 points to KLS's 2. I'm not sure your take is all that realistic, with due respect."

Is that the same thread I offered to buy up the stock of anyone selling on KLS? I bought at rock bottom that day and now the value has gone through the roof.

 

[JoePgh]

I will plead guilty to having posted during the exhibition season that based on what I saw of Lou's defense in those games, I did not think she could defend Mabrey, Gillespie, A'ja Wilson, or Diamond Deshields, and was unlikely to acquire that level of skill this season.

I will acknowledge being extremely pleasantly surprised at how quickly her defense has improved. I'm still not sure I want to see her guarding A'ja Wilson in the Final Four if that should happen, but hopefully it won't be necessary. Next year is another story.

I also recall predicting in numerous posts that her shooting would come around, and that she should just keep jacking them up until that happened, while also doing all the other things that Geno and Boneyarders would like to see. She has done that, and the forecast about her shooting (her own as well as Geno's and most observers) has been realized.

 

[hoophuskee]

I found these gems from the USF thread in January (1-10-16)

“Wish KLS could shoot like Laska”

“Laska has 14 points to KLS's 2. I'm not sure your take is all that realistic, with due respect."

BTW it's "Laksa" and she's LEADING the American in 3pt % , so I guess we wish EVERYBODY could shoot like Laksa. And that being said I'd like to see the numbers from just this game forward. I'll bet Lou is right up there with the markmanship now. And besides as was said before she does so much more than shoot threes for us.

I recall this too. I remember this was said between two other posters and I think the subject was one poster specifically speaking of a comparison of the shooting between Laska and KLS while the other poster said specifically as you say - KLS does "more." I didn't consider this "bashing."

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I will plead guilty to having posted during the exhibition season that based on what I saw of Lou's defense in those games, I did not think she could defend Mabrey, Gillespie, A'ja Wilson, or Diamond Deshields, and was unlikely to acquire that level of skill this season.

I will acknowledge being extremely pleasantly surprised at how quickly her defense has improved. I'm still not sure I want to see her guarding A'ja Wilson in the Final Four if that should happen, but hopefully it won't be necessary. Next year is another story.

I also recall predicting in numerous posts that her shooting would come around, and that she should just keep jacking them up until that happened, while also doing all the other things that Geno and Boneyarders would like to see. She has done that, and the forecast about her shooting (her own as well as Geno's and most observers) has been realized.

I have a solution for the truly repentant. I have developed a line of UConn Husky hair shirts and flagellant whips in various lengths and blood drawings embedded "little bits" and offer them on "Huskyrepentants.com".

 

[bags27]

maybe people's definition of "bashing" is different... but I def. recall bashing-like comments in the vein of "she'll never..." Don't really care, actually, until folks are as demanding and judgmental about themselves as they are about 18 year olds.... ;-)

As the guy who introduced that term to the discussion (and apologized to some who thought it was too strong for what they wrote), I really appreciate this. These are my thoughts precisely that moved me to the strong language: these are 18 year old kids, often away from home for the first time, trying to fit into both college life and academic challenges AND to a world class sports team with the most demanding coach in the country. Just a little pressure, no? As has often been said here, even if they don't read these blogs themselves, it's a good bet that friends or relatives do. Some of this must get back to them. The question of whether some of us "bashed" or just "criticized" shouldn't make us lose sight of the fact that we're true Blue fans of these kids. Let Geno give the tough love. He's pretty good at that!

 

[hoophuskee]

As the guy who introduced that term to the discussion (and apologized to some who thought it was too strong for what they wrote), I really appreciate this. These are my thoughts precisely that moved me to the strong language: these are 18 year old kids, often away from home for the first time, trying to fit into both college life and academic challenges AND to a world class sports team with the most demanding coach in the country. Just a little pressure, no? As has often been said here, even if they don't read these blogs themselves, it's a good bet that friends or relatives do. Some of this must get back to them. The question of whether some of us "bashed" or just "criticized" shouldn't make us lose sight of the fact that we're true Blue fans of these kids. Let Geno give the tough love. He's pretty good at that!

It is impossible though to not criticize. I'm not speaking of KLS but in general. For example, there can be debates of if UCONN should start with a bigger team or smaller team? With a more experienced lineup or play the most talented/youth? Should the ball should go inside more or don't have some of the player's get beat up as much and instead play smaller and the spread the floor? There was for example a lot of talk of concern that Stewart getting beat up playing 4/5 and instead some would post a preference to have her play the three/small forward.

For those that disagree on how they think UCONN should play- you can't just speak of strengths to make your point, especially if you back-and-forth on a debate. You have to also speak of our player's weaknesses. Because it is relevant in the debate. And I just wonder sometimes if someone speaks of a player's weaknesses - a definition by some would call that "bashing." Not you. But anyhow - you should be able to speak of a player's weaknesses. But it's a fine line sometimes because you don't see the person face-to-face -- which would change everything- you miss the tone of the point.

 

[bags27]

It is impossible though to not criticize. I'm not speaking of KLS but in general. For example, there can be debates of if UCONN should start with a bigger team or smaller team? With a more experienced lineup or play the most talented/youth? Should the ball should go inside more or don't have some of the player's get beat up as much and instead play smaller and the spread the floor? There was for example a lot of talk of concern that Stewart getting beat up playing 4/5 and instead some would post a preference to have her play the three/small forward....But anyhow - you should be able to speak of a player's weaknesses. But it's a fine line sometimes because you don't see the person face-to-face -- which would change everything- you miss the tone of the point.

Of course, we implicitly and even explicitly emphasize players strengths and weaknesses when we speculate about what's best for the team--that's part of the fun of blogging. There is no firm line between doing it constructively and doing it a manner which could be hurtful. Players know they have weaknesses and appreciate when they play badly-- more than we do, if Geno has anything to say about it. So, it's not as if they'll wilt from negative comments by us. But I guess a version of the Golden Rule could apply here: write about our Huskies what you might be able to read written about yourself without feeling trashed (rhymes with "bashed"!) and in a way that demonstrates that, however we might play, we'd feel valued. I don't really have a solid answer for you, hoophuskee, because, as you say, it's a pretty gray area. Just as a relative newbie (lurking before signing up) I was a bit taken back by some things I wouldn't want their friends and relatives to read about them.