Parker off Olympic team? | Page 7 | The Boneyard

Parker off Olympic team?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What where these folks watching not to pick one of the best to ever play?
 
Is the roster actually being announced tomorrow ? This has been stated by many but do we know for certain ? If so, and if it's televised, I'm taking the day off and making popcorn. The Q&A gonna be a first rate affair...featuring committee folks who ain't used to being treated like they're in a witness box.
 
If there was a write in campaign for Candace's inclusion and only Uconn fans were allowed to vote, i guarantee she would be on the team.It would be like the Kohler faucet ad where a faucet is shown and someone says "build a house around it." I view Candace as one of the players that the team should be built around and if she isn't on the team i will find her omission very disappointing.
 
Blueconn said:
Is the roster actually being announced tomorrow ? This has been stated by many but do we know for certain ? If so, and if it's televised, I'm taking the day off and making popcorn. The Q&A gonna be a first rate affair...featuring committee folks who ain't used to being treated like they're in a witness box.
Expand ...
They just put out a press release - not likely any Q&A at all.
 
.-.
HuskyNan said:
Do you see anyone in this thread that claims Parker isn't a good player? We get it, already.
Expand ...
I know that. It just makes no sense to leave her off that's all.
 
UcMiami said:
I just checked the 2015 WNBA all star roster - 9 of the speculative team were all stars with the other three being Fowles (didn't play the first half of the season), Taurasi (didn't play at all) and Stewart (college player.) Parker was also not an all star for the same reason as Sylvia and Diana. Of the centers on the all star team I don't think anyone would argue for either Dolson or Bone over Fowles and I think Lavender would also be a second choice.

A choice of Parker over Fowles is ignoring positional strengths and international players like Liz Cambage who is 6'8" 218 pounds - Sylvia is 6'6" 200, Griner is 6'9" 208, Charles is 6'4" 198, and Parker is 6'4" 175 - if for some reason USA needs low post defense (fouls or injury) Parker is not the answer so the issue was never about that comparison.

The players that most clearly fall into that tweener area are Catchings, EDD, Augustus, and Stewart. All of them shoot more than Parker and for higher percentages from the arc (which is very important in international competition as the men found out a few times), and Catchings is the only one to shoot a significantly lower overall percentage. And if you ranked them on defense, I suspect Parker would be at the bottom. Stewart obviously has the least experience but probably the highest upside.

Again - I am pretty shocked, . To me it really comes down to Catch/EDD/CP and someone was going to scream about any one of those being left out. I think fans would probably scream least about Catchings being dropped, but I suspect the players might be most shocked by her being left out.
Expand ...

I disagree with most of the post other than being shocked.

Not ignoring positional strengths just believe with Griner and Tina that we don't need to worry about the strength as much as you suggest. Have seen many times "heavier/bigger players" get run out of the gym or even outplayed? Saw it 1st hand with BS. How many times did we have to year over the past year or two "pound the ball inside vs Stewart and UCONN?" or "Shouldn't we want Stewart as a wing because she won't get so banged up?" Give me Griner and Charles any day every day over Liz. When we run them out of the gym they can keep trying to play halfcourt basketball and work the clock to get it inside all they want.

But as you say it's not about "position" of Parker vs Fowles- it imo should be about if you have Parker as the 2nd team playmaker like she was back in the Olympics, with players like Angel and Whelan on defense and scorers such as Maya, or Augustus or EDD playing alongside her, she MAKES THEM BETTER with her skillset. Parker at the 4 and Griner at he 5 and you surround them with shooters would be awesome.

And there is no way no how EDD is a better defender than Parker. Nor do I believe Augustus is. OFC I don't think Stewie is but Stewie isn't the issue. Further when we talk about "efficiencies" - sure Parker isn't a shooter. But what Parker is - she is much more of a facilitator imo than any of the aforementioned. If she isn't that good defensively and isn't that good of a shooter than how can anyone say she is among the world's best? The reason is she has a phenom handle and can get anywhere to facilitate. For her size that is a huge advantage.

Again I'm shocked too - I agree there. It's just thatimo Fowles or Angel can be replaced by other palyer's on the team. The team that has amazing versatitlity.
 
Did someone really ask why Bird will be on the team instead of Sims and Diggins or Sloot?...the point guard for the Olympic team will always be a pass first and pass second and pass again player...Sloot is the only one that fits that bill...but does not seem to show the passion need to lead ateam of stars...for Diggins and Sims to be at their best they have to have the ball all the time...with Maya and DT and EDD the perimeter shooting is covered...as far Angel i am not a fan at all But when she plays for Geno that selfishness is not seen...and she always contributes...back to the original question Bird is still a better point guard than the other three, as is Whalen and both have won a lot more on the big stage than those competing with them, i personally believe that Sims is the best of PG's in waiting
 
Alydar said:
Isn't characterizing this as a "snub", without knowing the thinking behind it another example of "Harmful speculation" All we have right now are her comments, her coach's tweet and an article written by a team reporter. Shouldn't we wait to hear USAB's side of the decision before declaring this a "snub"?
Expand ...

How harmful is it to call it a snub until you hear more? Surely USAB would have expected it wouldn't they? Yet no response yet- maybe they shouldn't until they announce all the team. Hopefully they address it. But until then what is the harm of FANS -- I repeat the word "FANS" -- to call it a snub as of right now if they feel that it is? Does it really matter to you that much that another fan call it a snub? This IS news. Don't prevent some of the FANS being FANS by using the word "Snub."
 
hoophuskee said:
How harmful is it to call it a snub until you hear more? Surely USAB would have expected it wouldn't they? Yet no response yet- maybe they shouldn't until they announce all the team. Hopefully they address it. But until then what is the harm of FANS -- I repeat the word "FANS" -- to call it a snub as of right now if they feel that it is? Does it really matter to you that much that another fan call it a snub? This IS news. Don't prevent some of the FANS being FANS by using the word "Snub."
Expand ...
I changed the phrasing of my post just to remove one more thing that people can argue about.

It never ceases to amaze me that, in a thread where 99% of the people are in agreement there could be so many posts from folks looking for an argument.
 
pacific 44 said:
If there was a write in campaign for Candace's inclusion and only Uconn fans were allowed to vote, i guarantee she would be on the team.It would be like the Kohler faucet ad where a faucet is shown and someone says "build a house around it." I view Candace as one of the players that the team should be built around and if she isn't on the team i will find her omission very disappointing.
Expand ...

Many people are, like Candace, surprised and disappointed. But we would do well to remind ourselves that it's for good reason that national team selections are not conducted in the same manner as NBA or WNBA all-star team voting.

Lin Dunn made the valuable point that USA Basketball has, by virtue of winning 5 consecutive gold medals, earned the right to be trusted to make difficult personnel decisions. The selection committee has a wealth of insight, and the rest of us are not privy to the discussions that are informed by that insight.

But I'm still so deeply saddened by the pall that this controversy is casting over the public perception of the national team roster announcement, an occasion that should be a celebration of the sport we love and the players we admire.
 
.-.
hoophuskee said:
How harmful is it to call it a snub until you hear more? Surely USAB would have expected it wouldn't they? Yet no response yet- maybe they shouldn't until they announce all the team. Hopefully they address it. But until then what is the harm of FANS -- I repeat the word "FANS" -- to call it a snub as of right now if they feel that it is? Does it really matter to you that much that another fan call it a snub? This IS news. Don't prevent some of the FANS being FANS by using the word "Snub."
Expand ...

My comment was in the apparent double standard. On the one hand the poster was telling everyone to refrain from harmful speculation and negative phrases after using one herself. "Snub" has all sorts of connotations and suggests all sorts of inferences. How can anyone characterise this decision until both sides have their say?

Personally I'm perfectly comfortable with a free-for-all thread with no-holds barred. But I don't make the rules, the Admin does.
 
Alydar said:
My comment was in the apparent double standard. On the one hand the poster was telling everyone to refrain from harmful speculation and negative phrases after using one herself. "Snub" has all sorts of connotations and suggests all sorts of inferences. How can anyone characterise this decision until both sides have their say?
Expand ...
I changed the word "snub" to "left off the roster".

I'm not sure what you mean by both sides. Both sides of what? People that want to call Candace Parker names or cast aspersions on her character and people that don't?
 
hoophuskee said:
I disagree with most of the post other than being shocked.

Not ignoring positional strengths just believe with Griner and Tina that we don't need to worry about the strength as much as you suggest. Have seen many times "heavier/bigger players" get run out of the gym or even outplayed? Saw it 1st hand with BS. How many times did we have to year over the past year or two "pound the ball inside vs Stewart and UCONN?" or "Shouldn't we want Stewart as a wing because she won't get so banged up?" Give me Griner and Charles any day every day over Liz. When we run them out of the gym they can keep trying to play halfcourt basketball and work the clock to get it inside all they want.

But as you say it's not about "position" of Parker vs Fowles- it imo should be about if you have Parker as the 2nd team playmaker like she was back in the Olympics, with players like Angel and Whelan on defense and scorers such as Maya, or Augustus or EDD playing alongside her, she MAKES THEM BETTER with her skillset. Parker at the 4 and Griner at he 5 and you surround them with shooters would be awesome.

And there is no way no how EDD is a better defender than Parker. Nor do I believe Augustus is. OFC I don't think Stewie is but Stewie isn't the issue. Further when we talk about "efficiencies" - sure Parker isn't a shooter. But what Parker is - she is much more of a facilitator imo than any of the aforementioned. If she isn't that good defensively and isn't that good of a shooter than how can anyone say she is among the world's best? The reason is she has a phenom handle and can get anywhere to facilitate. For her size that is a huge advantage.

Again I'm shocked too - I agree there. It's just thatimo Fowles or Angel can be replaced by other palyer's on the team. The team that has amazing versatitlity.
Expand ...
We can agree to disagree on this - but the history of USA basketball for the last 7 years under Geno is they want three post defenders and Parker, EDD, Stewart do not qualify as post defenders on the international stage. This isn't about most of the teams in the Olympics it is about matching up with a few specific teams including Australia, France, and Spain.
 
I haven't been online since Friday, so I had no idea what was going on... But for the majority of the weekend, while waiting for Game of Thrones to come on... I have been watching the 2012 Olympics and the 2014 FIBA Women's World Championship in Turkey...

Parker was a great teammate and contributor in the Olympics...
 
msf22b said:
Tina Thompson was an outstanding player, a pioneer in the W who played consistently and capably into the modern era.
She has earned and deserves our respect for her views.
I'm looking forward to seeing her continue to assist the Texas team in the seasons to come.
Expand ...

She was a consistently good player and had a long career in the WNBA, but in my opinion was never outstanding. In fact, was probably only the 3rd best player on her own Comets team (Swoopes and Cooper). Not her fault, but her career stats and accomplishments were boosted by her extremely long career (a compiler of stats). I'm not saying her opinion doesn't matter, but she's hastily placing this decision solely at Geno's feet and I think that's unfair.
 
HuskyNan said:
I changed the word "snub" to "left off the roster".

I'm not sure what you mean by both sides. Both sides of what? People that want to call Candace Parker names or cast aspersions on her character and people that don't?
Expand ...

I thought I was clear. Up to this point I have seen an article written by a Sparks beat writer, a tweet by her coach and her own comments. The "other side" I was referring to is USA basketball. I'll refrain from characterising their decision until they announce their team and have a chance to explain their thinking.
 
.-.
HuskyNan said:
I changed the phrasing of my post just to remove one more thing that people can argue about.

It never ceases to amaze me that, in a post where 99% of the people are in agreement there could be so many posts from folks looking for an argument.
Expand ...

Put on your hip waders and take a trip to the dark (orange) side. No arguments there. Gino did it because he hates UTenn.
 
FWIW, I think we need to wait to see what the mouthpiece of US Basketball says. It's clear Parker was as surprised as anyone and she's certainly been very classy about it, while obviously being very disappointed. It's pretty clear she's not concerned about the Zika virus - at least from her tweets, as she made no mention of it. So now it falls on USA basketball to address the controversy. Will they? I have no idea and hope they are asked a lot of questions about it.

Like Nan, I find it sort of amusing that a topic where 99% of the posts are all in agreement that leaving Parker off is mystifying at the very least, that there can be so much snark. It seems to me that the 2 players most often mentioned as "should have" for being left off the team in favor of Parker are Angel and Sylvia. The other 2 players not mentioned as much are Catch and Siemone.

I can't speculate at all to the reasons. Parker was on the 2012 Olympic team and while not a starter, played quite well. She seemed to play within the team concept, so I can't speak to that, especially since i was not at practices, and did not see the games live. I certainly understand the Tenn fans frustration. I can also understand where it seems like a bias in favor of UCONN, which I think is also unfair.

I think the USA Basketball Committee needs to address this, regardless if their policy is to "not discuss players who did or did not make the team". This is a unique situation and while I don't know what the fallout will be, the emotions and opinions will certainly not go away by ignoring the situation....
 
I agree (finally) with Nan and UCMiami on their most recent posting. We fans of USA olympic's and as a Uconn fan that enjoyed watching Parker (except when she led Tn to Victory over UC) can understand some of the : What the HE__ is happening???
Geno is not perfect (Oh, yes I've said this often here) but I have to believe there is so much more to this story that We Shall Never Know! And rightly so--some interpersonal/professional/ability issues belong left where they lie!!
 
Here are the names of the people who voted for the team.

Carol Callan (USA Basketball)
Reneé Brown (WNBA)
Dan Hughes (WNBA)
Chris Sienko (WNBA)
Katie Smith (Athlete Representative)

While I have no doubt that Geno gave them his opinion, I'm confident that they have their own ideas. from what I have read elsewhere and can't confirm, three of the above did not vote for Parker.
 
.-.
hoophuskee said:
I may have agreed with you if I didn't see the 2014 championships. The Olympic team did select Simms whom they must have thought superior to Diggins. I can remember a few years back to that time-- uconnkat and I went at it before the selection - I thought Diggins was superior. I was wrong Kat was right; they took Simms. Have you gotten over that? Though I'm not a ND fan - so I easily did.

But from what I saw back then -- as I was preaching for some "youth" and Diggins - Simms I thought a worthy player's. But once I saw Simmsr play International ball vs hwo I saw her paly in reg season - and then I saw how Bird played -- imo it wasn't close. Bird was far superior imo. I could have had my UCONN glasses on but to me - Simms didn't look like she was near ready. If Simms wasn't ready- then in no way do I see how an injured Skylar can even be close to ready. Per Nan's notes regarding Skylar - Skylar is still concerned over her body. SO I don't get why you felt a need a mention Skylar here which is why I asked if you had gotten over that she wasn't picked back in 2014? Bacially Skylar is telling us she isn't ready but you still want Skylar?

And the same reason I just gave for Bird which is why I also support Catchings.
Expand ...

Those quotes Nan posted were from a section of an article that discussed her high minutes load (35 per game) in 2014 and her ability to sustain that. They weren't about her ability to play overall. Also note that she said "But I’m confident with where I’m at right now, and better ever day." I would be very surprised if she isn't starting on opening day for Dallas and I'll bet she plays well, too.

Rationally, I can come up with a justification for every choice USAB makes. UcMiami's posts do a really good job of laying out that rational case. Just as a fan and a fan of ND, specifically, my gut reaction is that some players, notably UConn players, get a benefit of the doubt that others don't.

USAB says they are looking for the next generation of guards to emerge. Sloot has a career best season and leads the WNBA in assists. McBride has a big overseas campaign and is a key to Orenburg nearly pulling a huge upset over Ekaterinburg in the Euroleague final. Diggins makes all-WNBA 1st team. Yet none of them are seen as having done enough. The same old crew of guards - Whalen, Taurasi, Augustus, Bird -- are picked.

Meanwhile, Stewart gets picked for Worlds while still in college and for the Olympics before playing a single game. What is the justification on that? - USAB needed to take a young player. Some players seem to have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they belong while others are handed a spot before they have done anything as pros.

Now, I don't have a problem with Stewart going, but it doesn't seem consistent. Parker is better than Stewart now, so if you value experience and making players earn a spot, Parker should go. If you are willing to displace some veterans so that younger players can get international experience, why no Sims, Diggins, McBride, or Loyd?
 
Here's some more grist, all 12 team members are signed with Nike. Parker is with Adidas.

It would be so shocking to discover that the Olympic logo has been replaced by $$$$$$$? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Alydar said:
Here's some more grist, all 12 team members are signed with Nike. Parker is with Adidas.

It would be so shocking to discover that the Olympic log has been replaced by $$$$$$$? :rolleyes:
Expand ...
Hmmm. Interesting!
 
so it WAS chemistry. Financial chemistry.
 
Wow. I don't understand how you can leave one of the WNBA's top 5 players off the roster. That is like leaving Kevin Durant off the roster on the men's side. Wow.
 
I had trouble logging in for a few days, so I'm late to the party. Ok, maybe it's not a party.

I'll preface this by saying what some of you know. I'm not a big fan of Candace. But I respect her game and am shocked and puzzled by this. I think she is one of the top players in the world, with Diana, Maya, and Elena (EDD having replaced Catch in the past 1-2 years). I thought Candace was arguably the best player in the WNBA last year, with her improved passing. Had she played as effectively for the full season, instead of sitting out the first half, she might well have been the MVP.

My first reaction was that the Zika virus might have been an issue. Some female athletes have dropped out of the games, and Candace is the only U.S. player with a child, I believe. I thought she may be pregnant or may want to be pregnant soon. The virus appears not to be a factor.

Some relatively minor negatives on Candace: She has yet to win a championship in the WNBA. She's won 2 MVP awards, but no championship. In London in 2012, Candace starred in the gold medal game against France. The style of play in that game fit her. However, in the semi-finals, where I sat behind the Aussie basket for the first half, she was unable to slow down Liz Cambage. I think even Sylvia had trouble. In the second half, Liz may have been gassed, but a confirmation of Asjha Jones and Tina Charles kept Liz away from the basket. If not for AJ, we might have been in the bronze medal game instead.

It's obvious that the team we believe was selected is both old and big. But the only player I would have left off was Angel. She was effective in 2012, but out of control in 2014. She must have convinced the committee that she would play under control. When she does, she is fabulous. Though some of the players are long in the tooth, I don't think anyone was quite ready to replace Sue, Lindsay, or Catch. Or if so, the replacements were not fully healthy.

In terms of Stewie, two things are needed on the team: 3-point shooting and versatility. I would argue that, while not the most experienced, Stewie is the most versatile player among the 12. She can play at least 3 positions. The Stewie of 2016 is not the Stewie of 2014. She is much stronger, smarter, and more experienced. I think she was a good choice in terms of focusing on both the present and the future.

As Cat noted, this is the 2014 team from Turkey with 3 changes: EDD, Fowles, and Catch in lieu of Sims, Dupree, and Nneka. Though Candace and Nneka played well, I think this is a net improvement. Nneka was NOT the best player in Turkey. Maya won the MOP, and both Griner and Tina were outstanding. That said, I'd still like to have Nneka on the team. For the Sylvia detractors, keep in mind that she was the WNBA Finals MOP. Sylvia still has game.

I'm looking forward to the explanation from USA Basketball. I'm reminded, though, of the goal of picking not the 12 best players, but the 12 players that compose the best team. Candace is clearly in the first group. I thought she was in the second as well, but USA Basketball appeared to disagree.

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think there's a conspiracy. Part of the reason I'm not a fan of Candace is that I think she's a "me first" type of player. The fact that she apparently leaked at least part of the list of selectees confirms my opinion.

I agree that there is and may continue to be a sh__storm, but let's try to remain calm and rational. I disagree with the decision on the surface, but I want to hear more.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,409
Messages
4,571,869
Members
10,477
Latest member
Goose91


Top Bottom