Hypothetical: Z and Crystal Dangerfield Both Start - Who Doesn't?

[hoophuskee]

True, but could she do that playing the wing full time? She'd be in more of a nurse or kml type role on offense if she was playing outside more so gabby and z could play more of the the 4/5 roles offensively.

Although that also could just mean they all get more rest as well (which you have to think is likely).

I do think she's the most likely to be able to do that.

But frankly, does it matter who starts? It's gonna matter who's closing out games anyway. This just gives Geno the flexibility to play multiple ways as need be.

Though you did say that Collier needs to shot the 3 better. She doesn't. She shot at .431. And imo no way should she full-time on offense at the wing. Her and Stevens should be interchangeable in the high-low set. And keep Gabby in half-court sets on offense at the 4.

For these conversations I think it matters in that I think we are in some type of way predicting who will get the most minutes.

 

[mhshuskies]

I can certainly envision Z & Danger on the court together in many different situations, but absent injury to one of the four returning starters, I don't see it happening with both as members of the starting 5.

Agree, I think Crystal Dangerfield doesn't start until her junior year.

 

[Los24]

I am not going to bother to debate because Pheese's NCAA tournament had her end up with .2 over Lou like that takes away my points. Your defense comment is funny as you must not understand Geno's tactics for motivating. I guess Pheese doesn't play defense either ... so her at #2 and Lou #3 in steals (56 Lou to 36 Kia) along with Pheese' leading in blocks and defensive rebounds (Lou 120 vs Kia 57) has them at the bottom of the team for playing next year.

Also scoring is (20 vs 12.) So Lou struggled at the end of the season with 3's and Kia edged her, does not make her a better shooter. Actually Lou ended with higher overall FG% so there goes that argument. Plus she shots more which makes it more difficult to keep higher % and is still covered by better defenders while doing it period. Watching all season its easy to see who Geno wants on the floor all the time (minus blow outs.) I guess Lou would go from leading the team in avg mins to 6th player if Z and Crystal Dangerfield both started per this made up scenario.

 

[Bestiarius]

Hmmmm Maybe it's past time to lay off Collier. I'm not a regular reader of this board anymore but I've noticed a few of your posts recently and they seem to be taking shots at Collier, some more veiled than others. You accuse others of having an agenda yet you seem to have one yourself. What gives?

Yikes, and I thought he was only trying to be funny.

 

[SVCBeercats]

I guess Lou would go from leading the team in avg mins to 6th player if Z and Crystal Dangerfield both started per this made up scenario.

In this never to happen fantasyland scenario, yep, Lou rides the pine. You finally got it!

 

[the Q]

Though you did say that Collier needs to shot the 3 better. She doesn't. She shot at .431. And imo no way should she full-time on offense at the wing. Her and Stevens should be interchangeable in the high-low set. And keep Gabby in half-court sets on offense at the 4.

For these conversations I think it matters in that I think we are in some type of way predicting who will get the most minutes.

You're using a rather small sample size to justify having no concern. I need more reps to feel better about that aspect. Although her FT% (which tends to trend better towards 3pt shooting than 3pt shooting% itself) does trend in her favor.

 

[hoophuskee]

You're using a rather small sample size to justify having no concern. I need more reps to feel better about that aspect. Although her FT% (which tends to trend better towards 3pt shooting than 3pt shooting% itself) does trend in her favor.

I thought we were over and going our ways without much of an argument from our prior posts. And now I see your reply? Now it makes me skeptical of everything you say. It seems like you have come on here to pretend to teach the homers a lesson (you had to have the bravado recently to tell/post that specifically YOU aren't a homer, right? Thank you, so much. Below in bold is what you said. You had said nothing previously about "sample size" but specifically point out I'm using a small sample size yet don't point out your error from the statement below. Now, with the sample size comment it's as if you are throwing a different dart hoping it will stick. It's okay to do - but to tell me I'm using a small sample size when I specifically replied to your error that Collier needs to shoot 3's better is sort of illuminating. Is it not?

I'm not sure how well gabby pheesa and z will play together in the same lineup unless their 3 balls get better.

Anyhow, what you call a small sample size I call a whole season.

Because you made this error of Collier's shooting and imo also invented "a red flag" with Danger because she could not beat out a senior who had a fine year, plus I am always skeptical when I read posters that speak of their evaluation of effort as if they know. I guess anyone can to a degree. But overall when for example you question their effort/spirit- normally I would give the benefit of the doubt. But to be frank, I don't think you really know. I believe now that you are probably throwing another dart toward your negative narrative. It's tough for anyone to know but if others say it - okay - maybe the others do. But just like you made up the Collier not shooting from 3 well. Then you made up the red flag on Danger -- I see a red flag -- no offense to you my fellow husky fan-- but I see a red flag of you regarding your posts for negative narrative.

Your pace of posts seems to have increased after the loss, has it not? You would rather talk about UCONN losing and all the players that failed/didn't paly with heart? And you had to make it a point on here that "you aren't a homer." SO as I said no offense-- my red flag with you is that you are making things up to fit an agenda that you don't want to hear how everything is so amazing.

Just too many things I see your wrong with but more importantly it seems like you have this pride to be negative -- and for a team that was/is 36-1 and that had the toughest schedule. Chong did very well and you feel a need to do a backslap on Danger? Really?

 

[meyers7]

Meyers posted the same objection to me. Here is my response to him and now you. "Thank you, I thought so! Brilliant! Yes, of course. Who are you going to sit in this never to happen hypothetical question with no correct answer or opinion?" Meyers, to his credit understands it is only a hypothetical question. He understands this is just a marking time question.

Eh not quite. I think this is a stupid question. What you are really trying to ask is "if we ranked the 4 starters - Nurse, Williams, Collier and Samuelson, who comes in last?". (and your answer is Samuelson - which I disagree with)

So why didn't you just ask that? Instead of who wouldn't start, because all four of them are going to start. No reason to make up an asinine hypothetical question when you can just ask the question you want to ask.

In fact, you are probably not getting accurate results to your question because some people (the ones dumb enough to answer the stupid question/vote in the first place) are probably approaching it from a starting lineup perspective instead of who's a better player perspective. If you really want to know who people think is the worst player of the 4, just ask.

 

[j66kicker]

Eh not quite. I think this is a stupid question. What you are really trying to ask is "if we ranked the 4 starters - Nurse, Williams, Collier and Samuelson, who comes in last?". (and your answer is Samuelson - which I disagree with)

So why didn't you just ask that? Instead of who wouldn't start, because all four of them are going to start. No reason to make up an asinine hypothetical question when you can just ask the question you want to ask.

In fact, you are probably not getting accurate results to your question because some people (the ones dumb enough to answer the stupid question/vote in the first place) are probably approaching it from a starting lineup perspective instead of who's a better player perspective. If you really want to know who people think is the worst player of the 4, just ask.

I am the OP and my original poll question was definitely intended to be a "starting lineup" question, not "Who is the worst among these 4?"

To me the whole, "Who will be the 5th starter - Crystal Dangerfield or Z?" question is way overly simplistic. As if our smallest player - a 5'5" point guard, and our largest player - a 6'6" forward were totally interchangeable. I realize there is blurriness between various positions on the court, and we don't need to be too concerned with who's the 1-2-3-4-5, etc. But there are no 2 players on the roster who are less interchangeable than these two. So the lineup has an entirely different makeup to it if you start one vs. starting the other. I just don't think it's an either/or issue. To me each one is a totally separate issue and each one's presence would impact the primary lineup entirely differently.

Azura was already a star player, and was accepted as a transfer to fill a need - with the assumption/hope that she would be a starter. Crystal was recruited and is being developed as a true PG and is on track to replace Jefferson in that role. So my question is just, "What is the rest of the lineup if both of those things happen next season?"

 

[meyers7]

I am the OP

Whoops, my bad, got confused during the thread. (I sometimes don't even read the names of the poster, just the posts.) I gotta pay better attention. I owe Beercats an apology.

my original poll question was definitely intended to be a "starting lineup" question, not "Who is the worst among these 4?"

Well that makes it an even stupider question. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. We are all dumber for having participated in this thread.

 

[the Q]

I thought we were over and going our ways without much of an argument from our prior posts. And now I see your reply? Now it makes me skeptical of everything you say. It seems like you have come on here to pretend to teach the homers a lesson (you had to have the bravado recently to tell/post that specifically YOU aren't a homer, right? Thank you, so much. Below in bold is what you said. You had said nothing previously about "sample size" but specifically point out I'm using a small sample size yet don't point out your error from the statement below. Now, with the sample size comment it's as if you are throwing a different dart hoping it will stick. It's okay to do - but to tell me I'm using a small sample size when I specifically replied to your error that Collier needs to shoot 3's better is sort of illuminating. Is it not?

I'm not sure how well gabby pheesa and z will play together in the same lineup unless their 3 balls get better.

Anyhow, what you call a small sample size I call a whole season.

Because you made this error of Collier's shooting and imo also invented "a red flag" with Danger because she could not beat out a senior who had a fine year, plus I am always skeptical when I read posters that speak of their evaluation of effort as if they know. I guess anyone can to a degree. But overall when for example you question their effort/spirit- normally I would give the benefit of the doubt. But to be frank, I don't think you really know. I believe now that you are probably throwing another dart toward your negative narrative. It's tough for anyone to know but if others say it - okay - maybe the others do. But just like you made up the Collier not shooting from 3 well. Then you made up the red flag on Danger -- I see a red flag -- no offense to you my fellow husky fan-- but I see a red flag of you regarding your posts for negative narrative.

Your pace of posts seems to have increased after the loss, has it not? You would rather talk about UConn losing and all the players that failed/didn't paly with heart? And you had to make it a point on here that "you aren't a homer." SO as I said no offense-- my red flag with you is that you are making things up to fit an agenda that you don't want to hear how everything is so amazing.

Just too many things I see your wrong with but more importantly it seems like you have this pride to be negative -- and for a team that was/is 36-1 and that had the toughest schedule. Chong did very well and you feel a need to do a backslap on Danger? Really?

Idk what the heck you're even talking about with half of this rambling so let me get to the only coherent part.

You're talking about 50 shots summing up an ability. less than 1 per game. Just as an example KLS made more than twice as many as Collier attempted. Nurse also made more than she attempted. Not to mention Gabby's 3% needs worth and Z shot under 30% one of her 2 years at Duke. There's no a huge body of evidence saying they can space the floor that well.

That doesn't even get into the different type of game any of them would have to play if they're on the perimeter more often. Especially when Gabby and Pheesa were most dominant playing the high-low game at the 2 posts.

 

[j66kicker]

Well that makes it an even stupider question. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. We are all dumber for having participated in this thread.

Glad to help out any way I can....