Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="JoePgh, post: 2054306, member: 1131"] Definitely the Temple game will be a "tell" to see whether Tulane was a one-time glitch or a recurring problem. Temple is really a good test, since they have been playing very well, and their style will expose any lingering weaknesses. Pending evidence from the Temple game, however, I think the hand-wringing on this board is overwrought. Let's not lose sight of the fact that UConn started the Tulane game 10-0, and had a similar run at the beginning of the second quarter. In the third quarter, the lead was as high as 16. And let's not also forget that Tulane made some circus shots -- a bank-in 3 and another 3 at the end of the third quarter that bounced several times before dropping in. Despite that, Tulane only scored 60 points, shot only 36%, and was outrebounded 34-24, so I don't think you can say that the defense or the rebounding effort was poor -- or that Coach Stockton found some stroke of genius to attack the UConn D. The UConn offense was poor in its results: 38% shooting (19-for-50 and 6-for-20 from 3). That and Napheesa's foul trouble were the reasons why the game was close. The question is whether that poor shooting was a reflection of the offense's inability to generate good looks, or the fact that those good looks didn't result in shots that dropped. My "eye test" tells me that it was the former and not the latter. If so (assuming that the team as a whole has not lost the ability to make open shots), then the law of averages should take hold in the next few games and restore sanity. It is true that Kia's 40%+ 3-point shooting average, and her passing ability, might have added 5-8 points to UConn's scoring and gotten the team shooting percentage above 40%, but I doubt if the impact would have been greater than that. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,557

Messages: 4,401,200

Members: 10,213

Latest member: illini2013