Question about our seniors

[SVCBeercats]

I am not trying to bash the seniors. I just want to understand.

Perhaps they are not as good as we hoped they would be. The top high school players are not always the top college players. Remember their high school rankings are simply the result of opinion, not unlike our opinions of the players.

 

[MD#12Fan]

Perhaps they are not as good as we hoped they would be. The top high school players are not always the top college players. Remember their high school rankings are simply the result of opinion, not unlike our opinions of the players.

What about actual recruiting, with one's eyes? How many times do you think Geno and the staff see in person a top recruit? This post is about top recruits, as in the best players in the USA (or world for that matter). They're not reading about CW on some recruiting website.
This is serious stuff! Like Bob Baffert getting a top thoroughbred to train for the Derby. Something's amiss.

 

[BRS24]

IMHO, the rankings are unfairly weighted by exposure of recruits. There are probably 100s of recruits that don't have access to AAU teams, national coverage, etc, etc, and imagine if those players were exposed to UConn WBB coaching? Would they be better than the ones that are ranked? Maybe. However with the 10,000s of players in the US, it's like a needle & haystack conundrum for coaches.

@HuskyNan may be able to opine on this thought - if I remember correctly, quite a few years ago, the underclassmen were playing well (TASSK time?), and Hansmeyer and Sauer (and others?) were relegated to the bench. And yet, they won the Nat'l Championship.

(and before I post this, I will delete or edit if I am incorrect)

 

[Florida Fan]

I originally thought you were talking about those over 65 on this board when I saw your head line.

I qualify and am DEFINTELY not playing as well as when I was younger. The chances of improvement are slim to none.

 

[BobbyJ]

IMHO, the rankings are unfairly weighted by exposure of recruits. There are probably 100s of recruits that don't have access to AAU teams, national coverage, etc, etc, and imagine if those players were exposed to UConn WBB coaching? Would they be better than the ones that are ranked? Maybe. However with the 10,000s of players in the US, it's like a needle & haystack conundrum for coaches.

@HuskyNan may be able to opine on this thought - if I remember correctly, quite a few years ago, the underclassmen were playing well (TASSK time?), and Hansmeyer and Sauer (and others?) were relegated to the bench. And yet, they won the Nat'l Championship.

(and before I post this, I will delete or edit if I am incorrect)

On the bolded part, I don't think you're necessarily wrong. But there's a couple of things to consider. 1) Probably 90% of those rankings are done by "evaluators" at those summer camps and AAU tournaments. They don't see kids that aren't playing in them. Also, compared to the boys, there are many fewer girls that are talented enough to play D1 college BB. There just is. And those girls somehow tend to find a way to get to those competitions to show their ability. Again, there's very few highly skilled girls who just appear out of the woodwork. Piath Gabriel would be an example of an under the radar kid who has gotten a shot, and a lot of that is because of her size. The college coaches do their own scouting and have trusted friends and HS coaches they use to find kids. They don't rely on these "evaluators' nearly as much as some people think. Lower D1, D2, and D3 schools tend to use them more because of smaller recruiting budgets that restrict their ability to travel as much.

 

[CocoHusky]

IMHO, the rankings are unfairly weighted by exposure of recruits. There are probably 100s of recruits that don't have access to AAU teams, national coverage, etc, etc, and imagine if those players were exposed to UConn WBB coaching? Would they be better than the ones that are ranked? Maybe. However with the 10,000s of players in the US, it's like a needle & haystack conundrum for coaches.

History and my personal experience would cause me to disagree. WCBB is a very top heavy sport and UCONN is at the tip of the top in terms of attracting recruits. When you consider the roster is limited to 15 and there are 4 classes at any given team at most there are only no more than 10 kids in each class that even have the ability to make a contribution at UCONN.

The HS rankings are a data point and the problem is that some treat these rankings as absolute poof of .....( Insert your own argument here) ......player X is a bust, or player Y proved that rater to be wrong, player Z was underrated.

Another point that bears repeating from the @meyers7 post in this thread is that not all classes are created equal. Just because a player is ranked #1 does not guarantee success because the class as a whole might be considered weak. The two best players in WCBB last year were both freshman.

 

[cwaduke]

Hysterical. I can almost see Geno’s pre-game instructions….

“Ok, we have Oregon coming up soon so I don’t want to see anyone looking good out there today. We can’t let them know what to practice for. Evina, your job is to not shoot and turn the ball over from time to time. CW, throw up your usual bricks. Dorka, try not to do much of anything in the second half. ONO, just sort of wander out to the top of the key from time to time and maybe get in some foul trouble. Oregon is a big game for us. Let’s not mess it up by looking good today.”

It is hysterical coming from the coach who was looking for the perfect game from his players in 2015

 

[The CDR-Ret]

Certain coaches are proving that you can turn good players into great teams.

Keep in mind that Sunday's game was like the "first game of the season" for many reasons.

Butler (1-11) had its last four games postponed due to CoViD, and will be meeting UCONN for their first game since losing to Xavier in December. I am hoping Amari is ready to go on Wednesday vs. Butler, and Azzi is cleared to play on Saturday vs. Xavier, which gets Geno & CD to nine available players for Oregon on Monday (1/17) in Eugene.

Still plenty of basketball to be played, and mental toughness will cure most of what ails our good players. Hopefully, we will see lots of mental toughness by our women in the next three games.

 

[TCC Kid]

@STLCardinal posted some comments from Geno's presser in another thread that are very applicable hearzz;
************************************************
Geno from his press conference, in answer to a question about parity."
“…I also think a lot of the highly rated recruits around the country, ones a lot of people say are sure-fire, can’t miss, great players coming out of high school, and all the recruiting services tout how great these kids are, are quite frankly not that good, relative to a few years ago. They’re not that good. So what ends up happening is those next level kids, now they’re better than they’ve ever been, and they’re going to different schools and they’re knocking off these teams that have these big time recruits. You’re starting to see more of that and you’re gonna keep seeing more of that….On the women’s side, what would be our version of one and dones, they’re not as good as they used to be. So it’s given that next level team that was always on the periphery of top twenty, maybe twenty-five, thirty, (or) fifteen, could never crack the top ten, they’re not necessarily getting those big time recruits but they’re getting really, really good players who come, show up every night, bust their butt and beat these other guys. I think that’s gonna happen more and more and more.”
************************************************
There is no question that CW , ONO and EW have underachieved relative to even their own expectations as UCONN players. CW as a freshman stated that "People are going to start to feel UCONN"
ONO's sister in law Dearica Hamby compared her to Elena Delle Donne Candace Parker and predicted stardom for her under Geno's tutelage. A few silly BY touted EW as the best and most impactful transfer ever in the NCAA.

This senior class is a few shorts months from graduation and perhaps the most disappointing aspect is their collective inability to lead in times of adversity and to play consistently AKA like SENIORS. CW spent an entire year battling a crisis of confidence and is prone to disappear in big games and big moments Eg. CW played 40 in the Louisville game- perhaps one of the quietest 40 minutes games in recent UCONN WBB history. ONO continues not to realize her value to the team by simply avoiding silly fouls and staying on the floor Eg. ND game was perhaps her best game of her career and one in which she fouled out. I would also add Dorka to this senior group. Eg., 1st half of Creighton game Dorka looked like an AA-2 second half she looked pedestrian. I remarked in the Creighton game chat that Evina does not look well. I am not sure if that's injury or illness but she is not the same player from earlier in the season.

You nailed it. This overly touting incoming Freshman isn't new. Go back 10 or so years Uconn has had the greatest ever, the kid is sitting out her senior year to prepare for Uconn--etc, lots of media hype and some BY fans too. If you (as a poster not you Coco) dare to post the kid isn't the second coming, you find your head on display in Gampel.
What's wrong with the Seniors--NOTHING--These are the kids Uconn recruited and the kids we adored coming in, they will have a great game, a decent game and 3 poor games. That is who they are. If you expect more, you will be disappointed. You'll have real highs because for that one game here and there they will excel. Expectation are a terrible thing for you, for me, for he kids playing the game and often Geno gets hit hard with our expectations.

 

[HuskyNan]

IMHO, the rankings are unfairly weighted by exposure of recruits. There are probably 100s of recruits that don't have access to AAU teams, national coverage, etc, etc, and imagine if those players were exposed to UConn WBB coaching? Would they be better than the ones that are ranked? Maybe. However with the 10,000s of players in the US, it's like a needle & haystack conundrum for coaches.

I agree that players who get viewed by scouts are more likely to be ranked but how is that unfair? That’s why AAU exists. Are scouts supposed to go to every high school multiple times in order to form opinions on non-AAU kids? it’s more efficient and less costly to have viewings at AAU tourneys

@HuskyNan may be able to opine on this thought - if I remember correctly, quite a few years ago, the underclassmen were playing well (TASSK time?), and Hansmeyer and Sauer (and others?) were relegated to the bench. And yet, they won the Nat'l Championship.

(and before I post this, I will delete or edit if I am incorrect)

Yes, Paige and Stacy went from starters to role players as upperclassmen when TASS, and then Diana, came in.

I remember Paige working the ref at Thompson Boling Arena for a T on Michelle Snow when she “spiked” the ball after a foul call. And she got it. Whoever the commentator for the game was said “Now that’s senior leadership “.

 

[TCC Kid]

Sometimes it is a crap shoot in figuring out who will be a star at this level. Players with a junk yard dawg persona and mentality are the players that won't come up small in BIG games. Rankings are nice, but don't tell the real makeup or fiber of a player. Who knew our three seniors would under achieve at this point when they were seniors in high school? Give me a junk yard dawg for a recruit. Someone as Geno says.........will be great when he needs them to be. We're seeing that national class rankings don't mean a whole lot.

Most of the top 10-15 teams don't have a lot or any top 50 players on their roster, yet they are competitive and they're winning. Their players show up and compete hard every game. Tennessee's (13-1) drought is over. They're ranked number 7 and are on the come. Look at their roster. How many top 50 players do they have? [Tenn roster]. Look at #6 Indiana's (11-2) roster. Same thing. How many top 50 players do they have on their roster? Look at #4 Arizona (10-0). How many of their players have you even heard of? These teams are getting it done without BIG NAME players. They compete, they don't fade in the 4th quarter, and they have bench players that can play. Arizona was 1 basket away from being the national champion last year.

Top ranked players are nice, but they can't help you if they can't compete at a high level consistently at this level. You'd better get it right the first time. You seldom find real "ballers", a player that can come in right now and help you win in the portal. If NaLyssa Smith (#14 Baylor 10-3) had chosen to leave when Kim Mulkey did, she would have had her choice of schools to transfer to. Most top 10 programs would have courted her hard. Get it right the first time.

Well done!
Over the 30 some odd years Geno has had some of the best High Schools/AAU's could produce. They could and did play the game, HARD. We were spoiled. Each kid recruited must be the next SVETA, SHEA, DT, MAYA, MAYA (I just like that lady), Anne, Marie (yep she was pretty good), Stewie, Tuck, --we were spoiled rottten with the expectations we had for the recruits coming in. All too often they were not DT, Shea, Maya, Anne or Maria. Geno lost a game or 3 some fans didn't come to fill the stadium, it was Geno's fault, Obviously!! Competition after 2015 started filling teams around WCBB courts.
You can recruit, you can set up plays, you can even for a few games hide your real self but you can rarely exceed the EXPECTATIONS of Uconn WCBB fans.

 

[UcMiami]

I think one thing people forget is college is a very different beast from high school
1. There are so many more HS teams than college teams so the weeding out of less talented players and less challenging opponents is significant at the college level and the ability to actually create a HS ranking for the 1000s of HS players is challenging.

2. There is a huge developmental growth rate for humans between ages 13 and 18, and a much smaller one between 18 and 22. In high school juniors and seniors are much more developed than freshmen and sophomores - the same is not true for those same divisions of college age kids.

3. HS kids are 'rated' by how well they play against a) HS teams/kids 90+% of whom are sub par, and b) travel teams which have lots of talent but questionable coaching/practice time.

4. HS classes are not created equal - the Griner, Stewart, etc. players do not show up in every class and sometimes there is really very little difference between a #1 ranking and a #10 ranking or there are different 'plateaus' of players. We see this coming out the back end as well in the quality of WNBA draft classes.

5. The number of McDonalds AAs is 24 each year and almost all are seniors. The number of 1st team college AAs is 10.

The above means:
1. The chance of a college freshman being a key cog in a quality college program is higher because most of the physical and mental development of the player has already happened. The chance of a upper class player's talent being superseded by a freshman or sophomore is not as surprising as it is in HS.

2. While WNBA draft is not perfect in identifying talent, seldom is the #1 ranked player in the HS class drafted #1 in the WNBA - in fact the draft seldom comes close to matching the corresponding HS ranking for the first or later rounds. There are always 'late bloomers' or overlooked HS talent, there are also stalled developments, injuries, etc. (This is true for all sports that have a HS/college/pro progression.)

3. HS rankings are based on a single year generally, so while Paige and Azzi were variously considered 'best' HS players prior to their HS senior year, they were never included in the majority of HS rankings until their senior year. There is no college player ranking beyond the AA teams and various POY votes and those are based on a four year collection of players. (WNBA draft is the only ranking based primarily on graduating class.)

4. Theoretically you could be the #1 player in your HS class and still be the #1 player in that class as a college senior and if the three classes following yours were significantly more talented at the top than your class you might not even be in the top 20 college players when you graduate.

5. Being a college AA is much tougher than being a McDonald's AA - there are about 40 McDonald's AA playing every year in college and only 10 college AA 1st teamers and 5 more second/third teamers. We'll see where our seniors end up this year as it is still 'all to play for.' But some of that is not even based on individual talent but team talent and this is a medical disaster of a year for the team, making continuity and flow and chemistry more challenging. Were the team to find their groove and end the year with a win, the players would all look like AAs!

 

[Carnac]

I think one thing people forget is college is a very different beast from high school
1. There are so many more HS teams than college teams so the weeding out of less talented players and less challenging opponents is significant at the college level and the ability to actually create a HS ranking for the 1000s of HS players is challenging.

2. There is a huge developmental growth rate for humans between ages 13 and 18, and a much smaller one between 18 and 22. In high school juniors and seniors are much more developed than freshmen and sophomores - the same is not true for those same divisions of college age kids.

3. HS kids are 'rated' by how well they play against a) HS teams/kids 90+% of whom are sub par, and b) travel teams which have lots of talent but questionable coaching/practice time.

4. HS classes are not created equal - the Griner, Stewart, etc. players do not show up in every class and sometimes there is really very little difference between a #1 ranking and a #10 ranking or there are different 'plateaus' of players. We see this coming out the back end as well in the quality of WNBA draft classes.

5. The number of McDonalds AAs is 24 each year and almost all are seniors. The number of 1st team college AAs is 10.

The above means:
1. The chance of a college freshman being a key cog in a quality college program is higher because most of the physical and mental development of the player has already happened. The chance of a upper class player's talent being superseded by a freshman or sophomore is not as surprising as it is in HS.

2. While WNBA draft is not perfect in identifying talent, seldom is the #1 ranked player in the HS class drafted #1 in the WNBA - in fact the draft seldom comes close to matching the corresponding HS ranking for the first or later rounds. There are always 'late bloomers' or overlooked HS talent, there are also stalled developments, injuries, etc. (This is true for all sports that have a HS/college/pro progression.)

3. HS rankings are based on a single year generally, so while Paige and Azzi were variously considered 'best' HS players prior to their HS senior year, they were never included in the majority of HS rankings until their senior year. There is no college player ranking beyond the AA teams and various POY votes and those are based on a four year collection of players. (WNBA draft is the only ranking based primarily on graduating class.)

4. Theoretically you could be the #1 player in your HS class and still be the #1 player in that class as a college senior and if the three classes following yours were significantly more talented at the top than your class you might not even be in the top 20 college players when you graduate.

5. Being a college AA is much tougher than being a McDonald's AA - there are about 40 McDonald's AA playing every year in college and only 10 college AA 1st teamers and 5 more second/third teamers. We'll see where our seniors end up this year as it is still 'all to play for.' But some of that is not even based on individual talent but team talent and this is a medical disaster of a year for the team, making continuity and flow and chemistry more challenging. Were the team to find their groove and end the year with a win, the players would all look like AAs!

Well Done UcMiami. You made some excellent observations. Every Boneyard visitor/poster should read this post.

 

[EricSD]

I'm already thinking ahead to the next level...They won't be the most highly recruited going forward...
And if they don't make an immediate impression may have difficulty retaining a roster spot...perhaps Olivia excepted (you can't teach hight) and the example of Mercedes Russel always comes to mind...
How useful she has become with different coaching and how much better Danger is as a pro...but she was dang good in college. So it could happen...Will it? I'd bet against.

I just wanted to address that question and answer it with "not better as a pro".

Crystal's senior season, she averaged 15 PPG, 1.8 steals/game, 4 assists/game, 3.7 RPG, and shot 41% from 3.

Crystal's rookie season she averaged 16 PPG, .9 steaks.game, 3.6 APG and 2.0 RPG, and shot 33% from 3.

Aside from her PPG, every other statistic was worse than her senior year. Flash forward to her 2nd year in the W, and she lost her starting spot to Clarendon and her stats were all about half of what they were her first year. Her career stats across the board are worse in the WNBA than they were in college.

Don't get me wrong - she was a tremendous rookie and deserved ROY, but she has been WORSE in the pros (stats wise) than in college, not "how much better as a pro"...

 

[TRest]

I just wanted to address that question and answer it with "not better as a pro".

Crystal's senior season, she averaged 15 PPG, 1.8 steals/game, 4 assists/game, 3.7 RPG, and shot 41% from 3.

Crystal's rookie season she averaged 16 PPG, .9 steaks.game, 3.6 APG and 2.0 RPG, and shot 33% from 3.

Aside from her PPG, every other statistic was worse than her senior year. Flash forward to her 2nd year in the W, and she lost her starting spot to Clarendon and her stats were all about half of what they were her first year. Her career stats across the board are worse in the WNBA than they were in college.

Don't get me wrong - she was a tremendous rookie and deserved ROY, but she has been WORSE in the pros (stats wise) than in college, not "how much better as a pro"...

Could be the stiffer composition, she can improve as a player without her stats going up.

 

[BobbyJ]

I just wanted to address that question and answer it with "not better as a pro".

Crystal's senior season, she averaged 15 PPG, 1.8 steals/game, 4 assists/game, 3.7 RPG, and shot 41% from 3.

Crystal's rookie season she averaged 16 PPG, .9 steaks.game, 3.6 APG and 2.0 RPG, and shot 33% from 3.

Aside from her PPG, every other statistic was worse than her senior year. Flash forward to her 2nd year in the W, and she lost her starting spot to Clarendon and her stats were all about half of what they were her first year. Her career stats across the board are worse in the WNBA than they were in college.

Don't get me wrong - she was a tremendous rookie and deserved ROY, but she has been WORSE in the pros (stats wise) than in college, not "how much better as a pro"...

I don't think stats compiled against college teams of which only about 6 or so that UConn played had legitimate talent should be compared to those earned against the best pros in the world. Do you? I'd say the term "better" should be applied to the quality of her skill and game NOW. There's a slight difference in the quality of competition and makes a big difference. After all, CWilliams averaged almost 27 pts and over 10 rebounds in HS as a senior. Where's she at now?

 

[STLCardinal]

@STLCardinal posted some comments from Geno's presser in another thread that are very applicable hearzz;
************************************************
Geno from his press conference, in answer to a question about parity."
“…I also think a lot of the highly rated recruits around the country, ones a lot of people say are sure-fire, can’t miss, great players coming out of high school, and all the recruiting services tout how great these kids are, are quite frankly not that good, relative to a few years ago. They’re not that good. So what ends up happening is those next level kids, now they’re better than they’ve ever been, and they’re going to different schools and they’re knocking off these teams that have these big time recruits. You’re starting to see more of that and you’re gonna keep seeing more of that….On the women’s side, what would be our version of one and dones, they’re not as good as they used to be. So it’s given that next level team that was always on the periphery of top twenty, maybe twenty-five, thirty, (or) fifteen, could never crack the top ten, they’re not necessarily getting those big time recruits but they’re getting really, really good players who come, show up every night, bust their butt and beat these other guys. I think that’s gonna happen more and more and more.”
************************************************
There is no question that CW , ONO and EW have underachieved relative to even their own expectations as UCONN players. CW as a freshman stated that "People are going to start to feel UCONN"
ONO's sister in law Dearica Hamby compared her to Elena Delle Donne Candace Parker and predicted stardom for her under Geno's tutelage. A few silly BY touted EW as the best and most impactful transfer ever in the NCAA.

This senior class is a few shorts months from graduation and perhaps the most disappointing aspect is their collective inability to lead in times of adversity and to play consistently AKA like SENIORS. CW spent an entire year battling a crisis of confidence and is prone to disappear in big games and big moments Eg. CW played 40 in the Louisville game- perhaps one of the quietest 40 minutes games in recent UCONN WBB history. ONO continues not to realize her value to the team by simply avoiding silly fouls and staying on the floor Eg. ND game was perhaps her best game of her career and one in which she fouled out. I would also add Dorka to this senior group. Eg., 1st half of Creighton game Dorka looked like an AA-2 second half she looked pedestrian. I remarked in the Creighton game chat that Evina does not look well. I am not sure if that's injury or illness but she is not the same player from earlier in the season.

Just to be clear, I did not put the words into bold print when I posted Geno's comments. I just wanted to write what he said, as a whole, because I agree with all of it. However, I do think putting those particular words in bold face does stress a fair point because those recruiting service ratings seem to carry a lot of weight. Not as much with coaches as with media types and people who want to bludgeon each other on sites like these. And as I said in my original post, his comments should be kept in mind in order to keep things in the proper perspective.

 

[ccwarrior]

I had never seen that quote from Geno. He is right. Recruiting is a crap shoot. It’s impossible to predict which players will grow or plateau. Which will become a leader or a wallflower. Which will want the ball with 5 seconds left or want to let others handle the pressure.

One possible reason for the underperformance of our seniors this season is the addition of a super star last season. When you are the supporting cast, no one is expecting as much as they are now with the super star out of the lineup. now. The pressure is on them and they don’t seem to be the players that can rise to it.

Before yesterdays game, they showed a clip of Geno talking to the team. He told them that all the pressure is on him and not on the players. That’s a coach who could see that his seniors where feeling pressure. We know they are better than we have seen recently. Maybe confidence will be restored as we get deep into the BE schedule against teams that couldn’t beat good high school teams. Or maybe they are just good college basketball players needing a great one to lead them.

Don’t players come to UConn to have their skills honed in the crucible of pressure to prepare for greater things?

 

[msf22b]

I just wanted to address that question and answer it with "not better as a pro".

Good points Eric...I suspect I didn't pay a whole lot of attention last season,
was mostly oot country.
I was influenced by the Rookie of the year season.

 

[jdb50]

Our seniors stopped improving as they went through their college career. They plateaued. At a very decent level but it happens.

 

[Skeets]

I just wanted to address that question and answer it with "not better as a pro".

Crystal's senior season, she averaged 15 PPG, 1.8 steals/game, 4 assists/game, 3.7 RPG, and shot 41% from 3.

Crystal's rookie season she averaged 16 PPG, .9 steaks.game, 3.6 APG and 2.0 RPG, and shot 33% from 3.

Aside from her PPG, every other statistic was worse than her senior year. Flash forward to her 2nd year in the W, and she lost her starting spot to Clarendon and her stats were all about half of what they were her first year. Her career stats across the board are worse in the WNBA than they were in college.

Don't get me wrong - she was a tremendous rookie and deserved ROY, but she has been WORSE in the pros (stats wise) than in college, not "how much better as a pro"...

Eric, can't argue with the numbers, but please consider it's relative. Opponents in the WNBA might be just a little bit better than opponents in WCBB. Comparing a person's stats from 1 level to other level is a little like comparing a HS senior's stats to her D1 stats. Night and day...

 

[Skeets]

Eric, can't argue with the numbers, but please consider it's relative. Opponents in the WNBA might be just a little bit better than opponents in WCBB. Comparing a person's stats from 1 level to other level is a little like comparing a HS senior's stats to her D1 stats. Night and day...

Oops, I should have read the follow on posts prior to responding to Eric. Other have said what I was trying to say, only better

 

[hoophuskee]

The three players are complimentary players.

CWill needs shooters around her so she can more easily get in the lane. Without Paige and Azzi (and Nika not shooting the 37.3% like she did last year once she got her feet wet) the paint gets congested with big players. Missing these three players or that past performance is brutally tough for CWill’s game.

Evina and Liv would rather pass than shoot. But now the 1 senior in CWill has been negated because she is a guard that needs to slash. If you aren’t hitting outside shots then CWiill’s game gets seriously hindered.. SO who are they going to pass to that loves to score?

Carolyn Ducharme!!!! She has to feel like a kid in a candy store. This player is fearless. Fearless AND she has seniors that want to feed her the ball and have her do what she mostly wants to do; which is shoot!!!

The three seniors got to the FF last year. They’re complimentary players in search of some other teammates than can shoot well and score from the outside. Their strengths are not outside scoring.

Close games always come down to fundamentals. This team right now lacks consistent skill to shoot well not only from the perimeter but from the free throw line. Shooting is a basic fundamental. ***Geno has harped on shooting for 2 years and Waltz spoke how and why he deployed his team’s defense because of UCONN’s lack of it.

 

[AmeriConn]

E was the best player on the team just 2-3 games ago. We are over reacting. If anything, Ono is playing better than last year to me, overall. Efficiency is important and they all are certainly trying. Let's face it. The competition is good also.

I really thought E was going to turn it up big time after coming back one more year and talking about "unfinished business." Fizzled.

 

[UConn82]

I really thought E was going to turn it up big time after coming back one more year and talking about "unfinished business." Fizzled.

Hi,

I agree completely. I suspect something physical is not right with E.

 

[CL82]

I originally thought you were talking about those over 65 on this board when I saw your head line.

Come on man, 65 is the new 35.