Evina Finishes Rehab Thread morphed into another Who Starts Next Year Thread

[CocoHusky]

There has also been a lesson you need better guard play. The stats of Danger and Nurse lack or production in Final Fours show that. --- - yes two years ago and last year UCONN was too small but their guard play did not produce either. It is both.

Definitely both. The lack of production of the UCONN guards in the last FF speaks to the issue of lack of depth. Crystal & Kia then Crystal & Christyn went and entire season without a reliable bench guard to give them a break. Even 5 meaningful minutes of relief would have been helpful and perhaps more so by tournament time came around.

 

[diggerfoot]

You know she is not even close. You can argue that she played like it in the NCAA in 2005 however. Because a team won a NC 15 years ago that was undersized does not prove that the current formula to win doesn't include power and size.

/

I weary of the deflections. I will attempt to clearly state my position one last time, then make the choice for you.

A team should have 1. Good (great) players; 2. Good (great) teamwork; 3. Good (great) athletic size. If you have all three your need of a fourth advantage, luck, becomes minimal. If you only have two out of three then the importance of luck (seedings, officiating, flukes) becomes more important. If you only have one out of three then it becomes difficult for even luck to save the day. If I could pick two of three I would pick the first two.

The past few years both our size and our teamwork have not been what it was in the past. The BY was full of "conspiracy" posts that this player or that was being ignored in the offense. I do not believe in the "conspiracy," just that we are used to seeing the open/obvious player being found more often than has happened for the past few years.

When we lost to Mississippi State, that game might have been won by a prototypical center like Schumacher; it also could have been won by a prototypical facilitator like Montgomery (or R. Williams). Certainly that last play of the game would not have occurred and we likely win the championship against a team who we owned. These are "what ifs." You can hold fast to your "what if" that only replacing Collier with Schumacher would have mattered; I'll hold that replacing Chong with Montgomery (or a few other guards) would have made an equal or greater impact. On the other hand, replacing Collier with Dolson would have brought in both greater size and a better facilitator of offense, so that example would obfuscate the comparison.

For that matter, and here is a little bit of a compromise position, adding 4 inches to our point guard over the past few years would have benefited the team as much as adding 4 inches to our center.

"What ifs." You can stick to your "what if" that only enhancing the size would have made a difference; I will stick to my "what if" that either enhancing the size or the better facilitation of teamwork the past few years would have made a difference. You will not change my belief by restating your position; I will not change yours; we do not have the means of testing and you restating your position for the tenth time does not substitute for actual tests.

Nor, obviously, will I pin you down. From witnessing your discourse with hoophuskee I should have known better than to try and I apologize to the BY community in general for prolonging this. So I will pin down what you really conceded, and I am done. Of course, I do not think Young is in the league of Taurasi, et al, of course I know you don't. What that means is you can win a championship with neither a GOAT or with good size. Fifteen years ago matters not; we could have done it over the past few years, certainly the Mississippi State year, with a similarly sized line up if we had a better facilitator and/or that last offensive play was not made. Baylor won in 2005 with great players, great teamwork and perhaps a bit of luck. They did not win with either a GOAT or good size. Those are the plain, simple truths. I do not care how much you try to deflect from that I am completely done at this point except ....

Next year we have great players, we have great size and we have a potential GOAT. One element of a potential GOAT generally means the other important ingredient, we will have great teamwork. You, myself and other fans should have everything we desire. Now with that I am done.

 

[BBallF]

Taurasi, Moore, & Stewie are generational players who can disguise many flaws of a team including lack of size, & bulk in the post. Although Gabby, Napheesa, and Megan were terrific AA type post players they ultimately could not.

Exactly!

 

[BBallF]

/

I weary of the deflections. I will attempt to clearly state my position one last time, then make the choice for you.

A team should have 1. Good (great) players; 2. Good (great) teamwork; 3. Good (great) athletic size. If you have all three your need of a fourth advantage, luck, becomes minimal. If you only have two out of three then the importance of luck (seedings, officiating, flukes) becomes more important. If you only have one out of three then it becomes difficult for even luck to save the day. If I could pick two of three I would pick the first two.

The past few years both our size and our teamwork have not been what it was in the past. The BY was full of "conspiracy" posts that this player or that was being ignored in the offense. I do not believe in the "conspiracy," just that we are used to seeing the open/obvious player being found more often than has happened for the past few years.

When we lost to Mississippi State, that game might have been won by a prototypical center like Schumacher; it also could have been won by a prototypical facilitator like Montgomery (or R. Williams). Certainly that last play of the game would not have occurred and we likely win the championship against a team who we owned. These are "what ifs." You can hold fast to your "what if" that only replacing Collier with Schumacher would have mattered; I'll hold that replacing Chong with Montgomery (or a few other guards) would have made an equal or greater impact. On the other hand, replacing Collier with Dolson would have brought in both greater size and a better facilitator of offense, so that example would obfuscate the comparison.

For that matter, and here is a little bit of a compromise position, adding 4 inches to our point guard over the past few years would have benefited the team as much as adding 4 inches to our center.

"What ifs." You can stick to your "what if" that only enhancing the size would have made a difference; I will stick to my "what if" that either enhancing the size or the better facilitation of teamwork the past few years would have made a difference. You will not change my belief by restating your position; I will not change yours; we do not have the means of testing and you restating your position for the tenth time does not substitute for actual tests.

Nor, obviously, will I pin you down. From witnessing your discourse with hoophuskee I should have known better than to try and I apologize to the BY community in general for prolonging this. So I will pin down what you really conceded, and I am done. Of course, I do not think Young is in the league of Taurasi, et al, of course I know you don't. What that means is you can win a championship with neither a GOAT or with good size. Fifteen years ago matters not; we could have done it over the past few years, certainly the Mississippi State year, with a similarly sized line up if we had a better facilitator and/or that last offensive play was not made. Baylor won in 2005 with great players, great teamwork and perhaps a bit of luck. They did not win with either a GOAT or good size. Those are the plain, simple truths. I do not care how much you try to deflect from that I am completely done at this point except ....

Next year we have great players, we have great size and we have a potential GOAT. One element of a potential GOAT generally means the other important ingredient, we will have great teamwork. You, myself and other fans should have everything we desire. Now with that I am done.

Ok. I don't think this dialogue has to be apologized for. It really is an analysis of women's basketball and our team both historically and for the last 4 years. I agree with much of what you say. The last Chong play in 2017 was not THE play in the huddle, which Geno admitted to much later on and I don't disagree that a taller guard maybe makes that play or gets fouled or if the correct play is run, presumably to Lou or Nurse, we win our 5th in a row. But again, Chong was what we had on the team as a PG. That team was a good example of overcoming a deficiency in size with other things. I would never "trade" Schumacher for Pheesa. She was also out of position at different times in her career but she was a great player and we are seeing how great now as she continues her career as a pro. I would "add" Schumacher's size and move Gabby to the 4, Pheesa to the 3, Lou to the 2 and Kia as PG to be consistent with my theory. Here is the bottom line though. You imply that the 2005 undersized Baylor team can happen again with some regularity or even probability. I think it was an aberration then and that the game has changed because, among other reasons, the inside players are better, stronger, more plentiful, and that it would be only a remote possibility now. On that point, we don't agree and won't. Finally, the player who has the great NCAA doesn't have to be a GOAT, just play GOAT- like in the tourney, ala Arike( I feel disloyal even mentioning her name) in 2018 or Kemba Walker or Sophia Young. I think we agree more than we disagree and we should continue the discussion during the season, especially after we play the better "big" teams. I also completely agree that the true GOAT brings teamwork along with the designation and elevates the other teammates.

 

[CocoHusky]

Ok. I don't think this dialogue has to be apologized for. It really is an analysis of women's basketball and our team both historically and for the last 4 years. I agree with much of what you say. The last Chong play in 2017 was not THE play in the huddle, which Geno admitted to much later on and I don't disagree that a taller guard maybe makes that play or gets fouled or if the correct play is run, presumably to Lou or Nurse, we win our 5th in a row. But again, Chong was what we had on the team as a PG. That team was a good example of overcoming a deficiency in size with other things. I would never "trade" Schumacher for Pheesa. She was also out of position at different times in her career but she was a great player and we are seeing how great now as she continues her career as a pro. I would "add" Schumacher's size and move Gabby to the 4, Pheesa to the 3, Lou to the 2 and Kia as PG to be consistent with my theory. Here is the bottom line though. You imply that the 2005 undersized Baylor team can happen again with some regularity or even probability. I think it was an aberration then and that the game has changed because, among other reasons, the inside players are better, stronger, more plentiful, and that it would be only a remote possibility now. On that point, we don't agree and won't. Finally, the player who has the great NCAA doesn't have to be a GOAT, just play GOAT- like in the tourney, ala Arike( I feel disloyal even mentioning her name) in 2018 or Kemba Walker or Sophia Young. I think we agree more than we disagree and we should continue the discussion during the season, especially after we play the better "big" teams. I also completely agree that the true GOAT brings teamwork along with the designation and elevates the other teammates.

UCONN had a better player than Schumacher available to make the adjustment you are suggesting in Azura Stevens. At the beginning of that season Geno had a tough decision to make. That decision was to invest in the starting PG of the next 3 years (Crystal) by making her a starter as a sophomore or establish Azura as post player & starter. Azura was not going to displace AA Gabby or AA Napheesa from the starting lineup and ultimately Azura's game was not compatible with Napheesa's because both players like the ball in the same spots on the floor. Napheesa game suffered tremendously.
The trouble I have always had with that proposed lineup was then all 5 players would have been playing out of position. Kia a natural SG would have been playing PG. KLS a natural SF would have been playing SG, Napheesa and AA PF was going to have to become a wing. Gabby Williams an AA C would have to move to PF. Azura Stevens a stretch 4 and wing was going to move to center.
Ultimately it was @diggerfoot 4th element (luck) and bad timing that doomed that team more than anything else. The bad luck was Batouly Camara was never healthy and unable to contribute. The bad timing was Natalie Butler deciding to leave well after the recruiting season was over, leaving UCONN unable to secure a replacement. Image if we went with your proposed lineup of Kia, KLS, Napheesa, Gabby, and Azura as the starters and then you could bring Crystal, Megan, Natalie, a healthy Batouly off the bench. You could also throw in AEH off the bench since she had the most potential IMO from among Megan's year group.

 

[Go/huskies]

It’s seems like @hoophuskee really wants Paige to be a starter no matter what. I agree Paige should start if she’s ready, if and Geno goes with Anna then it’s possible we won’t see Paige as a starter until her jr year if Westbrook comes back. The reason I brought up Anna is because she was only a part time? Starter last year, kyla got a few starts. Westbrook who has now been identified as the team leader will probably finish out her full eligibility unless she has a NPOY type of season and is a top lock to go top 3 In wnba draft.
Paige
Westbrook
Williams
Griffin
Liv
my starting 20/21 starting line up.

 

[DEpup]

Exactly!

And even the great Maya Moore couldn't get a NC alone in her senior year once Tina graduated so I'll keep saying it, you need a full roster of top talent in addition to getting the #1 recruit on a routine basis. It's amazing how many we get but there can only be a max of 4 on any one team so you still need more quality recruits each year than just them. Not every #1 is DT or Stewie.

 

[BBallF]

UCONN had a better player than Schumacher available to make the adjustment you are suggesting in Azura Stevens. At the beginning of that season Geno had a tough decision to make. That decision was to invest in the starting PG of the next 3 years (Crystal) by making her a starter as a sophomore or establish Azura as post player & starter. Azura was not going to displace AA Gabby or AA Napheesa from the starting lineup and ultimately Azura's game was not compatible with Napheesa's because both players like the ball in the same spots on the floor. Napheesa game suffered tremendously.
The trouble I have always had with that proposed lineup was then all 5 players would have been playing out of position. Kia a natural SG would have been playing PG. KLS a natural SF would have been playing SG, Napheesa and AA PF was going to have to become a wing. Gabby Williams an AA C would have to move to PF. Azura Stevens a stretch 4 and wing was going to move to center.
Ultimately it was @diggerfoot 4th element (luck) and bad timing that doomed that team more than anything else. The bad luck was Batouly Camara was never healthy and unable to contribute. The bad timing was Natalie Butler deciding to leave well after the recruiting season was over, leaving UCONN unable to secure a replacement. Image if we went with your proposed lineup of Kia, KLS, Napheesa, Gabby, and Azura as the starters and then you could bring Crystal, Megan, Natalie, a healthy Batouly off the bench. You could also throw in AEH off the bench since she had the most potential IMO from among Megan's year group.

That team would have had significant depth which, even with Husky conditioning, is very important and would have been NCs because they would not have been worn down by a season of extended minutes. This year we have depth with a potential 9 player rotation if needed. Every position in theory has a back up or substitute and it is my firm belief that is by design. That is the reason for my contention regarding avoiding playing people out of position unless you have to in the bigger scheme of things and that it won't be necessary this year. I think we are as deep as we have been in a long time this year and with the 2021 recruits even more so. You agree?

 

[CocoHusky]

That team would have had significant depth which, even with Husky conditioning, is very important and would have been NCs because they would not have been worn down by a season of extended minutes. This year we have depth with a potential 9 player rotation if needed. Every position in theory has a back up or substitute and it is my firm belief that is by design. That is the reason for my contention regarding avoiding playing people out of position unless you have to in the bigger scheme of things and that it won't be necessary this year. I think we are as deep as we have been in a long time this year and with the 2021 recruits even more so. You agree?

At the guard and wing positions I would tend to agree. I'm still very concerned about the post play and will likely remain so until Brady suits up. Leadership is a secondary concern.

 

[DEpup]

I too have a lingering concern for the pure front court. I mean 4-5 or PF-C depending on how you look at it.

So right now we are at Liv, Piath, and Edwards with Deberry and Brady on the way. Great! I'd feel a lot better if some combination: 2 of Hollingshead, Iriafen, Betts, or a top international big were to commit for the next 2 classes. There are probably a couple more options escaping my brain right now.

We end up talking a lot about forcing the wings (3, G/F, SF) up front which we are stacked at including Makurat, Griffin, McClean, Westbrook (my opinion on her natural position) with Ducharme and Saylor on the way. Since they are in the middle, they by definition have the versatility to slide between the G and F positions on either side but I don't think it means they can spend a 100% of a season on either side of their natural role and the team maximize its production. I'm still on the fence about whether Griffin and Saylor could do the PF position full time because I think 3/SF is their sweet spot at the moment.

For me, that is the heart of the Gabby and Megan issue over the last couple years and how people talk about playing out of position in the front court. Could they do it? Sure for periods of time but when they got forced into it 100% of the time it had huge impacts on the team in the pivotal moments (not every moment hence ). Totally not their fought. They are amazing players. It was routed in the recruiting failures. I would add that Pheesa also got put in an awkward spot being in essence the C/5 a lot. She has flourished having Sylvia at the true C/5 position allowing her to move around with all her shot options and be rookie of the year.

 

[Go/huskies]

Even though Mir and Griffin are small, I think both will provide inside depth. Saylor is another player who can play inside and should give the team post depth.

 

[BBallF]

I too have a lingering concern for the pure front court. I mean 4-5 or PF-C depending on how you look at it.

So right now we are at Liv, Piath, and Edwards with Deberry and Brady on the way. Great! I'd feel a lot better if some combination: 2 of Hollingshead, Iriafen, Betts, or a top international big were to commit for the next 2 classes. There are probably a couple more options escaping my brain right now.

We end up talking a lot about forcing the wings (3, G/F, SF) up front which we are stacked at including Makurat, Griffin, McClean, Westbrook (my opinion on her natural position) with Ducharme and Saylor on the way. Since they are in the middle, they by definition have the versatility to slide between the G and F positions on either side but I don't think it means they can spend a 100% of a season on either side of their natural role and the team maximize its production. I'm still on the fence about whether Griffin and Saylor could do the PF position full time because I think 3/SF is their sweet spot at the moment.

For me, that is the heart of the Gabby and Megan issue over the last couple years and how people talk about playing out of position in the front court. Could they do it? Sure for periods of time but when they got forced into it 100% of the time it had huge impacts on the team in the pivotal moments (not every moment hence ). Totally not their fought. They are amazing players. It was routed in the recruiting failures. I would add that Pheesa also got put in an awkward spot being in essence the C/5 a lot. She has flourished having Sylvia at the true C/5 position allowing her to move around with all her shot options and be rookie of the year.

Your concerns and Coco's are completely warranted and you are exactly right. Having to play small was not without its own consequences. One other factor in general that can counteract a deficiency like size is depth. Even if there is that weakness at the 4/5, the fact that there are players who can spell each other and rotate one position over can be enough to prevent fatigue and fouls on the starter. Also, the offense changes if the defense does. I expect to see constant pressure defense with rotating substitutions next year and if it is effective enough, the deficiency at 4/5 may be minimized. I still am expecting Griff to play a lot of 4 and to come back stronger and much improved offensively for the season. If Geno decides to continue last season's late defensive emphasis and change, Griff is the logical choice.

 

[Golden Husky]

"Reigns?"

 

[hoophuskee]

It’s seems like @hoophuskee really wants Paige to be a starter no matter what. I agree Paige should start if she’s ready, if and Geno goes with Anna then it’s possible we won’t see Paige as a starter until her jr year if Westbrook comes back. The reason I brought up Anna is because she was only a part time? Starter last year, kyla got a few starts. Westbrook who has now been identified as the team leader will probably finish out her full eligibility unless she has a NPOY type of season and is a top lock to go top 3 In wnba draft.

Paige
Westbrook
Williams
Griffin
Liv
my starting 20/21 starting line up.

I wouldn't say "No matter what" - I just think whether it be "week 1 or 3 of 5" she is going to be one helluva player. I'd like to think she is good enough to start even if she doesn't. But who knows? There are many who think Evina is a fine pg. If they're right- then there's a strong chance that Paige doesn't start - at least early. So many possibilities to guess about.

By the way-- just for fun-- I noticed in your starting 5 Evina listed 2nd and CWill listed 3rd. Can I ask a couple of questions? Question 1: Does this mean you are calling Evina the sg and CWill the sf? Second question: If the opposing team has their sg as their top scorer on the perimeter and she is quick and fast with and without the ball, who would you have guard her in the above starting lineup of Evina, CWill or even Griffin?

 

[Go/huskies]

I wouldn't say "No matter what" - I just think whether it be "week 1 or 3 of 5" she is going to be one helluva player. I'd like to think she is good enough to start even if she doesn't. But who knows? There are many who think Evina is a fine pg. If they're right- then there's a strong chance that Paige doesn't start - at least early. So many possibilities to guess about.

By the way-- just for fun-- I noticed in your starting 5 Evina listed 2nd and CWill listed 3rd. Can I ask a couple of questions? Question 1: Does this mean you are calling Evina the sg and CWill the sf? Second question: If the opposing team has their sg as their top scorer on the perimeter and she is quick and fast with and without the ball, who would you have guard her in the above starting lineup of Evina, CWill or even Griffin?

I was surprised to see how lackluster Westbrook’s rebounding numbers were at Tennessee, it could be because she played the point position, but Williams really hits the boards at times, so I would play her at the 3. Westbrook played decent defense in the Tennessee vs Alabama game and I think she could be a defensive stopper with the right coaching, so I would use her to guard the others team best offensive perimeter player. I would also play Evina at the 2 since I think she can help take some pressure off our freshman point guard Paige.

 

[hoophuskee]

I was surprised to see how lackluster Westbrook’s rebounding numbers were at Tennessee, it could be because she played the point position, but Williams really hits the boards at times, so I would play her at the 3. Westbrook played decent defense in the Tennessee vs Alabama game and I think she could be a defensive stopper with the right coaching, so I would use her to guard the others team best offensive perimeter player. I would also play Evina at the 2 since I think she can help take some pressure off our freshman point guard Paige.

wow -- okay! Hope she is all of that on defense. I just haven't seen her enough. Would be awesome if she could defend in that manner.

As far as offense-- I think a sg, sf and a pf can all be "a 2nd passer" on a team - even a "non-princeton offense. For example, a PF can be "in name only" on offense and actually be "a 2nd pg." While on defense- defend the 2nd big. Thus it' wouldn't matter what position on the floor took pressure off the pg as long as you had 4 perimeter players.

 

[Go/huskies]

wow -- okay! Hope she is all of that on defense. I just haven't seen her enough. Would be awesome if she could defend in that manner.

As far as offense-- I think a sg, sf and a pf can all be "a 2nd passer" on a team - even a "non-princeton offense. For example, a PF can be "in name only" on offense and actually be "a 2nd pg." While on defense- defend the 2nd big. Thus it' wouldn't matter what position on the floor took pressure off the pg as long as you had 4 perimeter players.

If Anna starts along with Paige, I see Anna playing power forward, she has a stronger body then both Williams and Westbrook, so I think she could have a little more success banging inside with the few true power forwards UConn will face this year, namely Smith of Baylor and Saxton of South Car.

 

[Geew1992]

And even the great Maya Moore couldn't get a NC alone in her senior year once Tina graduated so I'll keep saying it, you need a full roster of top talent in addition to getting the #1 recruit on a routine basis. It's amazing how many we get but there can only be a max of 4 on any one team so you still need more quality recruits each year than just them. Not every #1 is DT or Stewie.

Stewie had AAs surrounding her for 4 years, so you really can't say for sure if she could carry a team without any like DT did or Maya didn't.

 

[Tonyc]

Hey guys.. Diana is the GOAT and there aint anybody close. She beat Tenn a Great Tenn team. There may never be anyone like her. She could will her team and herself to do the impossible and do the unforseeable at a moments notice. She stands alone at the top.

 

[hoophuskee]

Stewie had AAs surrounding her for 4 years, so you really can't say for sure if she could carry a team without any like DT did or Maya didn't.

The problem with Maya's senior year team is that she ran into Notre Dame 4 times. It's extremely hard to pick-off a terrific team 4 times in 1 season. Same happened to Baylor that year losing to Texas A&M after beating them 3 times that season. Look at the NBA. Many tremendous teams in early round struggle to sweep 4 straight vs another team even though the are vastly superior. Now when you go against other terrific teams -- it's a brutal task to accomplish.

So ofc can't prove it-- but I absolutely believe Maya an Stewie could carry their teams. Frankly I think Stewart did as a frosh. There was no answer for her and that opened up the game for everyone else. She had other talented teammates but the team she was beating was quite a bit superior than the teams DT went through in her junior and senior years too. ALso what I think what Maya did in her jr year was absolutely "A carry" vs Stanford.

IMO Stewie 1, DT 2, Maya 3. And when you get players of this caliber and then provide them for example with MoJeff and MTuck-- (if healthy) none of these players are going to want to sit much. So if you are a terrific 4/5 for example after your frosh year there is no way in hell you only want to play 20 minutes max-- and frankly if at least Stewart doesn't get 35 when she should have and UCONN loses -- say goodbye forever for getting the DT/Maya/Stewie caliber in a consistent manner as UCONN has. It's no accident that these players won 9 titles between them. They are much more important than having a bench. The team has been to how many consecutive Final Fours? Other than the spoiled rotten radical UCONN fan, who else from another team wouldn't be thrilled with this?

As posters oldude and alydar and others have pointed out-- other teams have won without much of bench other than 6 players too.

 

[BBallF]

If Anna starts along with Paige, I see Anna playing power forward, she has a stronger body then both Williams and Westbrook, so I think she could have a little more success banging inside with the few true power forwards UConn will face this year, namely Smith of Baylor and Saxton of South Car.

I just don't see Anna at the 4 under any circumstances and one reason is because you lose Anna's playmaking ability in transition which was the best on the team last year, If she is underneath, she can't lead the break. Geno said that when she wasn't in there and Kyla was, they lost that. Secondly, Anna is also not especially athletic, does not have great jumping ability, and you are giving up a lot on offense just to fill a spot. I see the new Griff at the 4.

 

[hoophuskee]

I just don't see Anna at the 4 under any circumstances and one reason is because you lose Anna's playmaking ability in transition which was the best on the team last year, If she is underneath, she can't lead the break. Geno said that when she wasn't in there and Kyla was, they lost that. Secondly, Anna is also not especially athletic, does not have great jumping ability, and you are giving up a lot on offense just to fill a spot. I see the new Griff at the 4.

I can buy the italics above. I do believe she would struggle more as a PF because of her athleticism.

But the bold above I don't buy one bit from especially anyone that claims Evina should start as a PG. Think about it-- if Evina is a real good PG and by moving Anna to the PF it would mean that you have Paige probably starting as well and as a natural pg and probably plays the 2 if Evina is PG (or vice-versa). So, what's the relevance of last year with Anna being the best playmaker when this new team just added two natural playmakers? Is she going to be a better playmaker in transition than both Evina and Paige if they are both playing the 1/2? So what are you "losing" if you were to have two playmaking pg's along with CWill vs not having Anna on the wing? Is the "loss" of Anna that significant? She was some super elite playmaker?

So if Anna starts at the PF - now we have two good pg's leading the fastbreak with CWill on the wing. Isn't that a tremendous transition team? To further than, in regard to "leading the break," even if Anna is a SF and overall Paige and Evina are getting 30+ minutes in big games, how often is Anna going to "lead the break?"

*************By the way, why do you think Anna was a better playmaker than Danger in these transition circumstances?

 

[BBallF]

I can buy the italics above. I do believe she would struggle more as a PF because of her athleticism.

But the bold above I don't buy one bit from especially anyone that claims Evina should start as a PG. Think about it-- if Evina is a real good PG and by moving Anna to the PF it would mean that you have Paige probably starting as well and as a natural pg and probably plays the 2 if Evina is PG (or vice-versa). So, what's the relevance of last year with Anna being the best playmaker when this new team just added two natural playmakers? Is she going to be a better playmaker in transition than both Evina and Paige if they are both playing the 1/2? So what are you "losing" if you were to have two playmaking pg's along with CWill vs not having Anna on the wing? Is the "loss" of Anna that significant? She was some super elite playmaker?

So if Anna starts at the PF - now we have two good pg's leading the fastbreak with CWill on the wing. Isn't that a tremendous transition team? To further than, in regard to "leading the break," even if Anna is a SF and overall Paige and Evina are getting 30+ minutes in big games, how often is Anna going to "lead the break?"

*************By the way, why do you think Anna was a better playmaker than Danger in these transition circumstances?

For one, she is taller, has played a professional type European transition passing game for years, and has a great sense of the play developing. She is a natural passer with the ball. I am not saying Crystal wasn't but this year the emphasis was placed on CD to score because we needed it and she did her job as instructed. Do you think anyone on this team could have, would have, made the highlight reel jump behind the back pass to CW except for Anna? Secondly, if she plays the 4, what inside moves did you see her make this year on offense that would be forthcoming next year? How about none. She rarely finished, frequently turned sideways on the court away from the basket when she had a clear path to the basket, didn't finish strong and does not have a pull up or quick first step. She also is nowhere near the defender that Griff is. You are arguing for a 4 perimeter player offense because Anna cannot, I repeat cannot, be a typical 4 on the low block. Clearly, you are giving up rebounding as well .So let's go back again. My team was EW,AM, CW,AG, and Liv with Paige starting for Anna( unless EW was not physically ready) if Paige was ready and Anna being the first off the bench replacing the 1, 2, or 3 position, not the 4. Edwards would replace Griff at the 4 with Piath obviously replacing Liv and Nika filling in at the 1 or 2 and the team pressing in the same manner as the end of last season. Obviously I think very highly of EW and Griff( I was at the Seton Hall game this year and the talent was unmistakeable) as players but I fail to see the logic in giving up a position closer to the basket on both offense and defense. How often did Anna guard under the basket this year? Rare if ever. She would have to learn technique as well. She can shoot from the perimeter and make plays and would be wasted at the 4. Meg was not a 4 but was athletic enough to play the position and guard it but even she had her deficiencies there which we discussed in length before and she was there because there was no other choice.

 

[BBallF]

For one, she is taller, has played a professional type European transition passing game for years, and has a great sense of the play developing. She is a natural passer with the ball. I am not saying Crystal wasn't but this year the emphasis was placed on CD to score because we needed it and she did her job as instructed. Do you think anyone on this team could have, would have, made the highlight reel jump behind the back pass to CW except for Anna? Secondly, if she plays the 4, what inside moves did you see her make this year on offense that would be forthcoming next year? How about none. She rarely finished, frequently turned sideways on the court away from the basket when she had a clear path to the basket, didn't finish strong and does not have a pull up or quick first step. She also is nowhere near the defender that Griff is. You are arguing for a 4 perimeter player offense because Anna cannot, I repeat cannot, be a typical 4 on the low block. Clearly, you are giving up rebounding as well .So let's go back again. My team was EW,AM, CW,AG, and Liv with Paige starting for Anna( unless EW was not physically ready) if Paige was ready and Anna being the first off the bench replacing the 1, 2, or 3 position, not the 4. Edwards would replace Griff at the 4 with Piath obviously replacing Liv and Nika filling in at the 1 or 2 and the team pressing in the same manner as the end of last season. Obviously I think very highly of EW and Griff( I was at the Seton Hall game this year and the talent was unmistakeable) as players but I fail to see the logic in giving up a position closer to the basket on both offense and defense. How often did Anna guard under the basket this year? Rare if ever. She would have to learn technique as well. She can shoot from the perimeter and make plays and would be wasted at the 4. Meg was not a 4 but was athletic enough to play the position and guard it but even she had her deficiencies there which we discussed in length before and she was there because there was no other choice.

I would also add Mir in the 2/3 context of substitutes especially on a pressing team

 

[Carnac]

I just don't see Anna at the 4 under any circumstances and one reason is because you lose Anna's playmaking ability in transition which was the best on the team last year, If she is underneath, she can't lead the break. Geno said that when she wasn't in there and Kyla was, they lost that. Secondly, Anna is also not especially athletic, does not have great jumping ability, and you are giving up a lot on offense just to fill a spot. I see the new Griff at the 4.

I like that thought “The new Griff.”