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

[hoophuskee]

With Walker vs the elite teams she couldn't get going in part because her guards really couldn't get easy baskets for her and others.

You're either implying/ suggesting that Walker didn't play well because of other team's size. Absolutely that is a part of it. But she also didn't play well because of her teammates - and most important the guard play had to dominate --and didn't. In regards to your point on Danger I said "part of the blame" was on the guards. Not "All the blame." The quotes I have below the line. So I haven't put all the blame at Dangers feet. And you're talking about “points scored." What about assists and defense?

****Secondly, Danger guarded Cooper and she got 27. Then vs SCarolina Harris had 19 with 11 assists and no turnovers. In addition I had clearly said "guards." Not just pg. SO CWill too. ****Also I'd like to ask-- if you are great rebounding team up-front and you have to win by great rebounding up-front and you lose in the E8 while having poor rebounding- who is "mostly to blame?" Is it the up-front players or the guards? It's the up-front players. In this past season UCONN's strength was their perimeter. In order to win they need to be terrific. If they aren't then it's on all the perimeter including Walker.
--------------------------
My previous comments below I made -- I said in part. This was intended to mean Walker is at fault too. That's why I said in part.

"With Walker vs the elite teams she couldn't get going in part because her guards really couldn't get easy baskets for her and others."

You're either implying/ suggesting that Walker didn't play well because of other team's size. Absolutely that is a part of it. But she also didn't play well because of her teammates - and most important the guard play had to dominate --and didn't.
-------------------------------------------------

The objective to a certain extent should be "to win as much as you can with the talent you have." Not to try to "plug and play positions" at the expense of not playing your best players. If Edwards and Griff are not good offensively then unless they are super-terrific defending the post and overall super defense then UCONN isn't going to win a title playing that way.

 

[diggerfoot]

While we both agree that the ideal roster has athletic size at every position, and it sounds like we agree that there is at least one factor that is more important than that, it just seems like you are trying hard to still make size and power paramount. Let me ask you three questions.

1. Did you realize that a taller Tennessee team outrebounded that "dominant" 2002 frontcourt in the semifinal, even though we won the game handily?

2. Did you realize that we held a Stanford squad with the 6'5" Appel, 6'4" Pedersen, and 6'2" N. Ogwumike to just 20 points in the first half and 27 points in the second? Though the 6'4" Charles had much to do with that, in the end it was team defense that included our 6'0" PF. With just a "good" defensive effort, say only allowing a Stanford team of future pros with superior size and power 60 points, we still lose despite what Moore does on offense. It took superlative team defense, granted with one superstar in Charles, to hold a bunch of future pros with much superior size and power to only 47 points.

3. If it takes something like a GOAT when size and power is lacking, does that mean Sophie Young is on a par with DT, etc. when Baylor won in 2005 with no one over 6'2"?

 

[BBallF]

While we both agree that the ideal roster has athletic size at every position, and it sounds like we agree that there is at least one factor that is more important than that, it just seems like you are trying hard to still make size and power paramount. Let me ask you three questions.

1. Did you realize that a taller Tennessee team outrebounded that "dominant" 2002 frontcourt in the semifinal, even though we won the game handily?

2. Did you realize that we held a Stanford squad with the 6'5" Appel, 6'4" Pedersen, and 6'2" N. Ogwumike to just 20 points in the first half and 27 points in the second? Though the 6'4" Charles had much to do with that, in the end it was team defense that included our 6'0" PF. With just a "good" defensive effort, say only allowing a Stanford team of future pros with superior size and power 60 points, we still lose despite what Moore does on offense. It took superlative team defense, granted with one superstar in Charles, to hold a bunch of future pros with much superior size and power to only 47 points.

3. If it takes something like a GOAT when size and power is lacking, does that mean Sophie Young is on a par with DT, etc. when Baylor won in 2005 with no one over 6'2"?

I don't think size and power are paramount. I think they become paramount when you don't have it as a team, unless you have a DT, a Maya or a Stewie. As to 1.- So what? The total number in a blow out means very little. In the game itself, the quartet of UCONN forwards killed them with put backs, defense, lay ups, speed. As to 2.- It was a horribly played game in which we were ice cold too. Maya took the game over and won it. My theory is not that size always wins, it's that the absence of size against the premier elite bigger teams has been trouble with a capital T in the last 3 and against the top 3 last year. As to 3.- No. There is only one GOAT by definition and she ain't even close. Go back and watch the 3 games this year they lost and the last 3 Semifinals games like I did and if you honestly think the lack of size wasn't an issue then we just disagree and Geno was wasting his time recently with recruiting bigs and athletic power players.

 

[BBallF]

With Walker vs the elite teams she couldn't get going in part because her guards really couldn't get easy baskets for her and others.

You're either implying/ suggesting that Walker didn't play well because of other team's size. Absolutely that is a part of it. But she also didn't play well because of her teammates - and most important the guard play had to dominate --and didn't. In regards to your point on Danger I said "part of the blame" was on the guards. Not "All the blame." The quotes I have below the line. So I haven't put all the blame at Dangers feet. And you're talking about “points scored." What about assists and defense?

****Secondly, Danger guarded Cooper and she got 27. Then vs SCarolina Harris had 19 with 11 assists and no turnovers. In addition I had clearly said "guards." Not just pg. SO CWill too. ****Also I'd like to ask-- if you are great rebounding team up-front and you have to win by great rebounding up-front and you lose in the E8 while having poor rebounding- who is "mostly to blame?" Is it the up-front players or the guards? It's the up-front players. In this past season UCONN's strength was their perimeter. In order to win they need to be terrific. If they aren't then it's on all the perimeter including Walker.
--------------------------
My previous comments below I made -- I said in part. This was intended to mean Walker is at fault too. That's why I said in part.

"With Walker vs the elite teams she couldn't get going in part because her guards really couldn't get easy baskets for her and others."

You're either implying/ suggesting that Walker didn't play well because of other team's size. Absolutely that is a part of it. But she also didn't play well because of her teammates - and most important the guard play had to dominate --and didn't.
-------------------------------------------------

The objective to a certain extent should be "to win as much as you can with the talent you have." Not to try to "plug and play positions" at the expense of not playing your best players. If Edwards and Griff are not good offensively then unless they are super-terrific defending the post and overall super defense then UCONN isn't going to win a title playing that way.

I think you are now saying what I said all along. You play your best players and he did that this year and the last 3 years as well. I am not saying he was wrong or had the wrong players out there( Kyla basically was waiting for Anna when she started). I am saying he had no choice but that it was still deficient and the deficiency was size and power and he knew it and to a certain extent toughness too because I don't think Meg really was. They were difficult to watch for us until he uptempoed the defense. As for Meg in the BIG games, she was the top player on the team, became first team AA and a big disappointment in them. Imagine Maya or DT as a junior playing like that against Tennessee? No way. In the Elite 8 or FF this year, it may have been the same result as the last three years. Not because of the guards but because when your game is all perimeter and not inside, when you don't shoot well against players as good as you, you lose because the other team is going to score more than you underneath, have more possessions through rebounds, limit you on put backs etc. You don't plug in players to new positions unless you have to and we had to last year. This year, there are choices.

 

[eebmg]

Is the BY minimum word count increased?

 

[hoophuskee]

I think you are now saying what I said all along. You play your best players and he did that this year and the last 3 years as well. I am not saying he was wrong or had the wrong players out there( Kyla basically was waiting for Anna when she started). I am saying he had no choice but that it was still deficient and the deficiency was size and power and he knew it and to a certain extent toughness too because I don't think Meg really was. They were difficult to watch for us until he uptempoed the defense. As for Meg in the BIG games, she was the top player on the team, became first team AA and a big disappointment in them. Imagine Maya or DT as a junior playing like that against Tennessee? No way. In the Elite 8 or FF this year, it may have been the same result as the last three years. Not because of the guards but because when your game is all perimeter and not inside, when you don't shoot well against players as good as you, you lose because the other team is going to score more than you underneath, have more possessions through rebounds, limit you on put backs etc. You don't plug in players to new positions unless you have to and we had to last year. This year, there are choices.

Huh? When we 1st started posting you asked me why I would put a player like Evina "out of position." If you agreed with Geno by putting Walker out of position then why did you ask me why I would put Evina out of position? Its the same reason. I've stated several times how I've questioned how good Griff and Edwards could be. -- Because i don't know. Same as Evina as I've said I don't know what she is.

And I never suggested ever that Walker was Maya or near it. I don't understand what you think I've supposedly changed in terms of my opinion. I posted to you 4 potential options early on and the 4th option was

"4th Option: Edwards or Griff are legit-- doesn't matter who SF is-- Paige being a superior PG to anyone on the team-- she starts."

And yes we can disagree about why we lost. We lost not only because of size but because of guard play-- and Walker plays like a guard - her too. You quoted Walker's shooting stats in the 3 losses (as a negative)-- and Danger's points in the losses (as a positive). Why not also look at Danger and Nurse's points and assists in their Final Four losses?

Anyhow, UCONN had to play small last year -- and I put up as possibility that this team might have to play small too.

 

[diggerfoot]

You missed the points I was trying to make with the three questions, but perhaps they were too obtuse. Let me outline it this way. The way you've made your points a great player like DT is the best thing to have, with size and power in second place. My priority would go as follows.

1. Good players, but not necessarily a GOAT, which is why Baylor could win with a small roster and Young their best player.
2. Team basketball, or finesse over power, which is why the 2002 team could beat taller teams even when outrebounded (or, once again, why Baylor could win in 2005). Or why we could beat Stanford, as much as you would like to make it only about Moore.
3. Size and power.

As for last year's UConn team, they were missing both #2 and #3. The evidence of #2 lacking is their worst A/T ratio in years. In my view if they had better size and power, but still did not play with the teamwork of many UConn teams in the past, they still lose. Maybe they also lose if they played much better as a team and lacked size and power, we'll never know. But I believe the teamwork counts for more than size and power, whereas you have yet to mention that as a factor.

Any fan would want to have all three: good players; good teamwork/finesse/beautiful basketball, good size. If you can only have two I will choose the first two.

 

[BBallF]

Huh? When we 1st started posting you asked me why I would put a player like Evina "out of position." If you agreed with Geno by putting Walker out of position then why did you ask me why I would put Evina out of position? Its the same reason. I've stated several times how I've questioned how good Griff and Edwards could be. -- Because i don't know. Same as Evina as I've said I don't know what she is.

And I never suggested ever that Walker was Maya or near it. I don't understand what you think I've supposedly changed in terms of my opinion. I posted to you 4 potential options early on and the 4th option was

"4th Option: Edwards or Griff are legit-- doesn't matter who SF is-- Paige being a superior PG to anyone on the team-- she starts."

And yes we can disagree about why we lost. We lost not only because of size but because of guard play-- and Walker plays like a guard - her too. You quoted Walker's shooting stats in the 3 losses (as a negative)-- and Danger's points in the losses (as a positive). Why not also look at Danger and Nurse's points and assists in their Final Four losses?

Anyhow, UCONN had to play small last year -- and I put up as possibility that this team might have to play small too.

He put Walker out of position because he had to and Walker could rebound. She averaged close to a double-double last year. Evina is a natural guard, not PF. That was the point. He has been putting players out of position for 4 years because he had to. Next year and the years after he won't have to. Taking a guard like Evina and making her a power forward is a large leap and has a large downside, giving up size and power underneath which Meg did last year which hurt us in the BIG games and would have been something we had to overcome in the NCAA. I don't see why any of this is controversial. He has a gap at PF for next year and he has had that gap for 4 years. I think it will be Griff to fill it with Edwards coming in because I think she will be a different player by next season. I don't think he is going to put Evina there.

 

[BBallF]

You missed the points I was trying to make with the three questions, but perhaps they were too obtuse. Let me outline it this way. The way you've made your points a great player like DT is the best thing to have, with size and power in second place. My priority would go as follows.

1. Good players, but not necessarily a GOAT, which is why Baylor could win with a small roster and Young their best player.
2. Team basketball, or finesse over power, which is why the 2002 team could beat taller teams even when outrebounded (or, once again, why Baylor could win in 2005). Or why we could beat Stanford, as much as you would like to make it only about Moore.
3. Size and power.

As for last year's UConn team, they were missing both #2 and #3. The evidence of #2 lacking is their worst A/T ratio in years. In my view if they had better size and power, but still did not play with the teamwork of many UConn teams in the past, they still lose. Maybe they also lose if they played much better as a team and lacked size and power, we'll never know. But I believe the teamwork counts for more than size and power, whereas you have yet to mention that as a factor.

Any fan would want to have all three: good players; good teamwork/finesse/beautiful basketball, good size. If you can only have two I will choose the first two.

I understood all of your points. Good players are not winning NCs, great ones are and Sophia Young had 2000 points 1000 boards 300 assists and 300 steals in her career and was AA. Take all 11 of the UCONN NCs. We had DT for 3 of them, Maya for 2 of them and Stewie for 4 of them. In 1995 we had the nation's best player in Lobo. In 2000 we had a team that seemingly supports your first point with Ralph, Svetlana, Cash, etc. That was the one year there wasn't a greatest of all time contender. However, it was a big, tough team with Schumacher at 6'5", Jones at 6'3", and Cash and Williams and a 2 guard who was 6'2' in Svetlana. So there was no GOAT contender( Bird was a sophomore) but it was a great team and great teams can win the NC but not anymore without a strong inside game if the other team has one and you don't. That is the lesson of the last 4 years; size, power and depth. No one has downplayed team basketball, that is the hallmark of UCONN's success but go ahead and play team basketball with your smaller finesse team and give up 4-5 inches and 20 - 30 pounds underneath at the Center and PF positions and I will take the bigger team, as long as the talent is reasonably similar, every time. I make that qualification because when you have a transcendent player, like DT, anything can happen and she can take the game over. Size and power are acute when you don't have it just like speed , three point shooting and defense are if you don't have them. My point was and is that UCONN did not have size and power for 4 years and when you get to the FF, your weaknesses become magnified and that is what happened. That is also why I don't think Evina or Anna plays the 4, unless it is against a smaller team. The women's game has changed. The players are bigger and better. This year Geno doesn't have to play anyone out of position and my prediction is that he won't unless he is purposely bringing someone along like he did with Anna by starting Kylie.

 

[hoophuskee]

He put Walker out of position because he had to and Walker could rebound. She averaged close to a double-double last year. Evina is a natural guard, not PF. That was the point. He has been putting players out of position for 4 years because he had to. Next year and the years after he won't have to. Taking a guard like Evina and making her a power forward is a large leap and has a large downside, giving up size and power underneath which Meg did last year which hurt us in the BIG games and would have been something we had to overcome in the NCAA. I don't see why any of this is controversial. He has a gap at PF for next year and he has had that gap for 4 years. I think it will be Griff to fill it with Edwards coming in because I think she will be a different player by next season. I don't think he is going to put Evina there.

No worries. I enjoyed teh discussions back-and-forth.

But it still doesn't answer the question "Why did you ask me if I would use Evina as a PF." You knew that I was questioning how good Griff and Edwards are, right? In my 1st reply to you I made comments 1,2 and 3. My 2nd reply are for below numbers 4, 5 and 6. I said from the start if Aubrey or Edwards are good enough offensively then I'm fine with it. I said I haven't seen much of Evina as well. The underlined highlights some of my points.

-------------------------------------------------

1--- "To further that- imo we don't know what Evina is. For example you see her as a 1/2, I see her as a 3 hopeful she can be a 4, ---and as a backup 1 and a 2."

2--- "4th Option: Edwards or Griff are legit-- doesn't matter who SF is-- Paige being a superior PG to anyone on the team-- she starts."

3--- "There is only 1 player that can prevent Paige from not starting and that's Evina. The poster UConnCat sent me a post on this thread with quotes from Geno that even he had no idea what Evina is."

4-- "There are more players that can rebound other that PF's. Danger gave UCONN really no rebounding help. Potentially you have 4 better rebounders. As I've said in the past Anna or Evina don't have to be as good of rebounder as Walker. Just be close -- whatever "close is.""

5--- "And again I don't entirely agree when you say you play Meg because "you play your best players" then disregard potentially Evina at pf and Paige at PG. Your defense of that statement is that "Edwards and Griff" are good enough. Well if Aubrey can't shoot then imo she isn't good enough. Show me Aubrey can shoot then ofc I'm more inclined to have her start. If you have a player that can't score, can't pass very well then unless you have a superstar like a DT or Maya etc - that one player will drag down your offense. And as far as Edwards-- I don't know what she is yet. If you are confident in them-- great. I hope you are right. I'm just open to questioning how good they are."

6-- As far as Evina-- I don't think she was a very good pg. She looks extremely awkward playing it. IMO she was playing out of position at PG for Tennessee or similar to UCONN with Walker they were forced to play Evina (or promised her) there. But again I only saw a little bit of her. I need to see more of Evina before I declare her a good pg which you think she is. If she is-- great. Until i see it-- I think she is more of a SF. SO if Edwards or Aubrey is legit PF on both sides offense and defense- then after I'm looking for Paige to be the PG whether it be week 1 or 3 or 5- and then have Anna or Evina off the bench. As UconnCat pointed out on this thread - direct quote from Geno-- he doesn't know what Aubrey is either. The limited time I saw her- I don't see a natural pg.
---------------------------------------------------------

So from my comments I don't see what you think has changed from my initial position nor do understand why you asked me the question why would I play Evina at PF? Even Geno is questioning what she is. You read the quotes UconnCat provided by Geno regarding Evina on this thread, right? So I've offered Evina as a "hopeful possibility/alternative" because I'm questioning how good Griff and Edwards are. ***No offense to you and please don't take it this way*** but if Geno doesn't know what she is and while I'm acknowledging I haven't seen much of Evina but don't love her pg play - wouldn't it stand to reason I'm questioning anyone that wants her to start at pg? I want to make it a point I am "questioning" not saying anyone is "wrong." I've acknowledged I haven't seen Evina enough. I even acknowledged that Evina could be the pg right from the start per number 3 above (though I prefer Paige whether it be week 1 or 3 or 5 etc and then move Evina to another spot. I anticipate Paige will be that good unless UCONN is dominant. Then it won't matter who starts.). So I'm open/ have been open to a lot.


**********In regards to our back-and-forths - I'm done. *************** Though it doesn't mean later on we might not go back-and-forth again. Thanks for the civil discussion.

 

[hoophuskee]

That is the lesson of the last 4 years; size, power and depth.

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.

Okay now I'm done.

 

[BBallF]

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.

Okay now I'm done.

Okay. Let's leave it where it is and resume the conversation if something on point happens over the summer or next season if we have one.

 

[diggerfoot]

I understood all of your points.

Here are the two possibilities.

A. Young is in the same league as Taurasi, Stewart, Moore, ie, what we have been calling GOATs. Being in the same league as them, that explains why Baylor could win with an undersized squad. This bolsters your contention that without size and power you need a GOAT.

B. Young is not in the same league as Taurasi, et al. She is a great player (the fact that I used the word "good" is just semantics), but not a GOAT. If she is not, that refutes your contention that without a GOAT you must have size and power.

A or B. By simple logic it can't be both. Which one do you choose? You can spare another long description of UConn teams, as an ardent fan I am quite aware of their make-ups. Just choose A or B. Is Young in the same league as Taurasi or not?

 

[BBallF]

Here are the two possibilities.

A. Young is in the same league as Taurasi, Stewart, Moore, ie, what we have been calling GOATs. Being in the same league as them, that explains why Baylor could win with an undersized squad. This bolsters your contention that without size and power you need a GOAT.

B. Young is not in the same league as Taurasi, et al. She is a great player (the fact that I used the word "good" is just semantics), but not a GOAT. If she is not, that refutes your contention that without a GOAT you must have size and power.

A or B. By simple logic it can't be both. Which one do you choose? You can spare another long description of UConn teams, as an ardent fan I am quite aware of their make-ups. Just choose A or B. Is Young in the same league as Taurasi or not?

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. C'mon, you have to rebound and defend the paint and box out and when you have a 5'10" player defending an equally talented player that is 3 inches taller and 20 pounds heavier it can change a game. We went all through this analyzing the last 7 NC teams starting with Baylor in 2019 and going backwards. We could go back further. Like 6'5" and 6'7" underneath in 1995? The point is that if you have a deficiency when compared to another team, you try to neutralize that deficiency. Sometimes you can't. Sometimes with the great player you can. Are you saying that DT and Maya didn't win those NCs for us? Just think of those teams without them. We have been undersized for 4 years. If you don't think that is a salient fact for this team then why did Geno go out and recruit the players he did for the next class and the one after that? Why not just get 5 guards? When you have a perimeter team, if your outside shooting goes cold, or the defense shuts you down, you don't have anything to fall back on. We saw that this year and I promise you that Geno is not going to have a recruiting gap like that again. So this year he has 6'5" and 6'2"( Edwards actually plays bigger than that) coming in and the year after he has 6'4" "Ice" coming in. Power and size to go along with the Paige show.

 

[CocoHusky]

Out of the three championships with Taurasi, one featured a 6'2" center and a 6'2" PF, the other two featured a 6'3" center and 5'11" PF, with a 6'2" post coming off the bench. The two championships with Moore featured a 6'4" center and 6'0" PF, with a large 6'2" and a small 6'0" post coming off the bench. They beat teams (Tennessee, Stanford) with greater size and power.

The ideal line-up has athletic size at every position, but our five "middle" championships reveal there is at least one factor more "crucial" than size.

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.

 

[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.