Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="hoophuskee, post: 4322985, member: 3535"] She should be defending sg's and small forwards. When you speak of "[B] physicality" - [/B]I hope that doesn't mean they have used her at Power Forward other than a minute or 2 to set up a 3 pt shot in a specific offensive set. So are you saying she isn't physical enough and quick enough to guard shooting guards (some are spot-up primarily aren't they?) and small forwards? I can understand the "elite" players but other teams have players that struggle to shoot too as an example. I am not arguing but if she is defending a spot up shooter, then how is it that she can't be physical enough to defend other spot up shooting guards or even spot-up wings? She was an athletic, physical player for her size at UCONN. That's all gone? I understand your point about looking at her career when it comes to shooting. But for players that are known as shooters, if they struggle early on, then over time their stats have accumulated to such a degree that you'd never justify playing the younger player ever again even if said player has now turned their shot around. And on the defensive side the basketball-reference site has her defense graded as 98 this year. That’s pretty good. Yes her other two years were poor but how would you ever justify playing a young player if all you do is look back at the years they struggled and not the current year they are performing? It just seems to me that if the player's strengths are coming to fruition - then her passing and assist which weren't strong suits from her past either -- then these are reasons why you have a coach. It shouldn't be the player doesn’t belong -- "yet." Maybe she doesn't- btu she is too young and potentially her shot too explosive. It should be to see if the coach can get the young player to start improving her passing as her shot is starting to become more of a weapon. Her shooting 46.7% from 3 is a weapon. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach