Moriah Jefferson highlight video

[John Fryer]

I have always enjoyed reading the many threads submitted by BYs.

But, unfortunately, I have noticed a tendency on the part of some BYs to assign certain kinds of descriptions to some players and not to others.

I have often wondered how it is possible, for some posters, to arrive at those descriptions absent having actually watched a player play the game over a period of time.

More specifically, is there a real distinction between a talented player, a player with a hight basketball IQ, and a player with raw talent?

Could there be an evaluating basketball talent code that I am unaware of?

Breanna is usually described as being very talented, the real deal and ready to go from day one.

Whereas Moriah and Morgan have been described, by some posters, as having a lot of raw talent.

Raw talent that might have to be reigned in by coach A, in Moriah's case.

Raw talent that might need to be further refined in Morgan's case.

Please don't even suggest that Caroline or Kelly, or any other current roster player for that matter, were better prepared, than Moriah, to be our starting point guard when they began their careers at UConn.

And from what I saw of Aerial M. in the Duke game last night, Bria is a much better PG.

Peace,

John Fryer

 

[boontonbomber]

That is what I saw...I have no idea how a poster arrived at "Simmons" and, indeed, other vapid comments on assists...it’s a highlights clip BoneHeads!!!

If anyone can find a more spectacular video of a HS point guard in the making, let’s see it . Pony up

i think some people might be considering the opposition in the video, and are being a bit more conservative in their analysis. simmons is quite an athlete, one that probably would have looked similar in high school against comparable opposition. so i see how the poster arrived at simmons, perhaps because i thought of simmons myself. by the way, why do you think assists are not worthy of a highlight film? personally, i was wrong to have negatively commented on her lack of assists, as i didn't watch enough of the video. btw, an antonym of "vapid" is "stimulating". since you were moved to comment on poster comments, i guess vapid was not the best choice of words to describe their comments.

 

[Goodies07]

I for one was impressed by the highlight video. Moriah's combination of quickness, ball handling, shooting (mainly her form) and overall athleticism is rare for a PG in the women's game. I'm anxious to see how Geno and Co. use her. She's obviously talented and has all the tools to be a dominant guard at this level if she can adjust to the speed and physicality of the college game.

Isn't she the highest rated PG ever by Hoopgurlz? Or did I just make that up?

 

[Ozzie Nelson]

i think some people might be considering the opposition in the video, and are being a bit more conservative in their analysis. simmons is quite an athlete, one that probably would have looked similar in high school against comparable opposition. so i see how the poster arrived at simmons, perhaps because i thought of simmons myself. by the way, why do you think assists are not worthy of a highlight film? personally, i was wrong to have negatively commented on her lack of assists, as i didn't watch enough of the video. btw, an antonym of "vapid" is "stimulating". since you were moved to comment on poster comments, i guess vapid was not the best choice of words to describe their comments.

BB..You are of course correct…assists are more than worthy of note. The short video did not characterize or emphasize that part of her game, and I did not assume that she does not get her teammates involved. As for vapid, here are some synonyms …I have a particular fondness for the word “insipid”, in that it slides off the tongue/keyboard with ease. Just saying.

insipid - flat - tasteless - dull

 

[Icebear]

.

Isn't she the highest rated PG ever by Hoopgurlz? Or did I just make that up?

Yes.

 

[Olde Coach]

Considering it's a highlight video, the emphasis is going to be on the plays that she made to get to the hoop and score to help her team. Oftentimes when the PG is the star of the high school team, there's going to be more of an emphasis on scoring because that's what the team needs her to do. The behind the back pass on the fast break when she could have gone for the score herself was a good example of her ability to pass the ball, as was the bounce pass through the lane to her teammate under the basket.

I don't think she will have an issue adjusting to dishing the ball to others in Storrs, imho. However, if she does, I'm sure Geno will teach her the "reigns" of what he expects from a UConn PG.

What video are you guys watching? Mo has 4 or 5 great assists on the video.

IIRC -- Two in heavy traffic in the paint. One, a long pass to the corner for a three point shot. And one long bounce pass to a cutter for a lay-up. Plus the behind the back pass.

And, by the way, last time I looked, Mo was shooting 48 or 49% on treys. We can use that at UConn!

 

[dtbtbtb]

As someone who actually saw her in a game I can assure you that at least from what I saw in that game Mo got a great court vision and will be a perfect PG and there is nothing in her game that compares to Simmons. Mo does not force the action, does look for her teammates and is a truly great team player who happens to be very talented. As mentioned, the only concern I would have is her slight build not her game.

 

[VAMike23]

Oh, yeah.

 

[DaddyChoc]

I have always enjoyed reading the many threads submitted by BYs.

But, unfortunately, I have noticed a tendency on the part of some BYs to assign certain kinds of descriptions to some players and not to others.

I have often wondered how it is possible, for some posters, to arrive at those descriptions absent having actually watched a player play the game over a period of time.

More specifically, is there a real distinction between a talented player, a player with a hight basketball IQ, and a player with raw talent?

Could there be an evaluating basketball talent code that I am unaware of?

Breanna is usually described as being very talented, the real deal and ready to go from day one.

Whereas Moriah and Morgan have been described, by some posters, as having a lot of raw talent.

Raw talent that might have to be reigned in by coach A, in Moriah's case.

Raw talent that might need to be further refined in Morgan's case.

Please don't even suggest that Caroline or Kelly, or any other current roster player for that matter, were better prepared, than Moriah, to be our starting point guard when they began their careers at UConn.

And from what I saw of Aerial M. in the Duke game last night, Bria is a much better PG.

Peace,

John Fryer

interesting post... surprised there's no responses

 

[alexrgct]

interesting post... surprised there's no responses

I didn't think there was much to say that I haven't explicitly said in response to this particular poster in similar posts from him in the past, but since you sent me the Illinois game from 2000:

I have always enjoyed reading the many threads submitted by BYs.​

​

But, unfortunately, I have noticed a tendency on the part of some BYs to assign certain kinds of descriptions to some players and not to others.​

Very unclear what's unfortunate about people making distinctions between different recruits. Not all players are the same.​

​

I have often wondered how it is possible, for some posters, to arrive at those descriptions absent having actually watched a player play the game over a period of time.​

​

Ironic given the assertion below as to how ready to be a PG at the college level the poster believes Moriah to be​

​

More specifically, is there a real distinction between a talented player, a player with a hight basketball IQ, and a player with raw talent?​

In some cases yes, in some cases it's total BS, and I don't think those terms are mutually exclusive. For instance, Maya Moore was both a highly intelligent basketball player and someone with a prodigiously high level of raw athletic ability. Since no one prominently used any of these terms in this thread that I noticed, I'm not sure why this was brought up.​

​

Could there be an evaluating basketball talent code that I am unaware of?​

Yes, but unless you can prove you're a Mason, I can't give away the secret.​

​

Breanna is usually described as being very talented, the real deal and ready to go from day one.​

Which she is. She'll be much, much better by Day 1,000, but she'll be relied upon from Day 1. The distinction between her and the other recruits, however, has much more to do with her filling a specific void on the current UConn team than anything else...as I've said before.​

​

Whereas Moriah and Morgan have been described, by some posters, as having a lot of raw talent.​

Actually, as I've also said before, the two are separate and distinct. Morgan has more experience playing alongside and against top competition than has Moriah. I think she's more Day 1 ready than Moriah, actually, even if Moriah might be a better prospect in the long run. In any event, it's safe to say everyone's delighted to have all three of these young women.​

​

Raw talent that might have to be reigned in by coach A, in Moriah's case.​

I disagreed earlier in this thread, so I won't repeat myself here. ​

​

Raw talent that might need to be further refined in Morgan's case.​

All three kids have raw talent that need to be further refined. They're incoming freshmen playing for the most demanding and detail-oriented coach in WCBB.​

​

Please don't even suggest that Caroline or Kelly, or any other current roster player for that matter, were better prepared, than Moriah, to be our starting point guard when they began their careers at UConn.​

​

Not sure what the point of this statement was. Neither Caroline nor Kelly were asked to be Day 1 starters at the PG position. Bria was asked to be the starting PG as a freshman...sort of. A) no one would have called that an ideal situation, and B) that was on a team where five different players had over 100 assists (so the load of running the offense was largely shared).​

​

I think most of the recruiting services agree that Moriah is the most compelling PG prospect in years. We neither need nor particularly want a freshman starting PG next season, however, no matter how compelling she may be. We desperately need size at the four, which is why I expect Breanna to see more PT early. Both players will be starters on UConn's 2014 NC-winning team, so we have that to look forward to.​

​

​

And from what I saw of Aerial M. in the Duke game last night, Bria is a much better PG.​

Bria is terrific.​

​

Peace,​

​

John Fryer​

 

[Icebear]

Well said, Alex. Most of the stuff has been responded to many times before in various places.

 

[DaddyChoc]

I didn't think there was much to say that I haven't explicitly said in response to this particular poster in similar posts from him in the past, but since you sent me the Illinois game from 2000:

I have always enjoyed reading the many threads submitted by BYs.​

​

But, unfortunately, I have noticed a tendency on the part of some BYs to assign certain kinds of descriptions to some players and not to others.​

Very unclear what's unfortunate about people making distinctions between different recruits. Not all players are the same.​

​

I have often wondered how it is possible, for some posters, to arrive at those descriptions absent having actually watched a player play the game over a period of time.​

​

Ironic given the assertion below as to how ready to be a PG at the college level the poster believes Moriah to be​

​

More specifically, is there a real distinction between a talented player, a player with a hight basketball IQ, and a player with raw talent?​

In some cases yes, in some cases it's total BS, and I don't think those terms are mutually exclusive. For instance, Maya Moore was both a highly intelligent basketball player and someone with a prodigiously high level of raw athletic ability. Since no one prominently used any of these terms in this thread that I noticed, I'm not sure why this was brought up.​

​

Could there be an evaluating basketball talent code that I am unaware of?​

Yes, but unless you can prove you're a Mason, I can't give away the secret.​

​

Breanna is usually described as being very talented, the real deal and ready to go from day one.​

Which she is. She'll be much, much better by Day 1,000, but she'll be relied upon from Day 1. The distinction between her and the other recruits, however, has much more to do with her filling a specific void on the current UConn team than anything else...as I've said before.​

​

Whereas Moriah and Morgan have been described, by some posters, as having a lot of raw talent.​

Actually, as I've also said before, the two are separate and distinct. Morgan has more experience playing alongside and against top competition than has Moriah. I think she's more Day 1 ready than Moriah, actually, even if Moriah might be a better prospect in the long run. In any event, it's safe to say everyone's delighted to have all three of these young women.​

​

Raw talent that might have to be reigned in by coach A, in Moriah's case.​

I disagreed earlier in this thread, so I won't repeat myself here. ​

​

Raw talent that might need to be further refined in Morgan's case.​

All three kids have raw talent that need to be further refined. They're incoming freshmen playing for the most demanding and detail-oriented coach in WCBB.​

​

Please don't even suggest that Caroline or Kelly, or any other current roster player for that matter, were better prepared, than Moriah, to be our starting point guard when they began their careers at UConn.​

​

Not sure what the point of this statement was. Neither Caroline nor Kelly were asked to be Day 1 starters at the PG position. Bria was asked to be the starting PG as a freshman...sort of. A) no one would have called that an ideal situation, and B) that was on a team where five different players had over 100 assists (so the load of running the offense was largely shared).​

​

I think most of the recruiting services agree that Moriah is the most compelling PG prospect in years. We neither need nor particularly want a freshman starting PG next season, however, no matter how compelling she may be. We desperately need size at the four, which is why I expect Breanna to see more PT early. Both players will be starters on UConn's 2014 NC-winning team, so we have that to look forward to.​

​

​

And from what I saw of Aerial M. in the Duke game last night, Bria is a much better PG.​

Bria is terrific.​

​

Peace,​

​

John Fryer​

THANKS