Short bench/Walk-ons

[Icebear]

Shonni has suffered the UCONN defense before. No Faris this year but MoJet and Bria have been more than up to the challenge.

 

[meyers7]

how often do walk-ons help win a National Championship ?

Exactly, they don't. If we "need" the walk-ons to win a big game.....we have been totally screwed. We have 8 scholarship players. If we get down to "needing" a walk-on in a close big game (Louisville, FF or NC game and even then, not likely) we will have to have had 4 players either injured, or fouled out to get to Lawlor or Pulido. 4. Even sick, they'll still be playing. When was the last time we had a player foul out, let alone 2-3-4??

Yea the odds of UCONN being in that much trouble is pretty small. Like in the .000something %. I doubt the staff is spending a lot of time on that contingency.

This ain't a Disney movie folks, walk-ons don't come in with the game on the line and sink a 3 to win a NC.

 

[VAMike23]

Shonni has suffered the UCONN defense before. No Faris this year but MoJet and Bria have been more than up to the challenge.

To me this will be the game within the game against UL. UCONN Defense v. Shonni Schimmel. Case# 25-2014

It's nearly impossible to stop her from jacking up off-balance 25-ft 3-pointers if she so chooses.. ....and being Shonni, she might even drain one or two of them. But in general, I like the combo of Mo playing her tight, the occasional trap on the attempted ball screen, and our back line protecting against most penetration.

Should be a very interesting game to watch.

 

[Icebear]

To me this will be the game within the game against UL. UCONN Defense v. Shonni Schimmel. Case# 25-2014

It's nearly impossible to stop her for jacking up off-balance 25-ft 3-pointers if she so chooses.. ....and being Shonni, she might even drain one or two of them. But in general, I like the combo of Mo playing her tight, the occasional trap on the attempted ball screen, and our back line protecting against most penetration.

Should be a very interesting game to watch.

The key is denying Shonni the ball so that she doesn't to try any WAS.

 

[Striper69]

Seems to me,that TLaw must be showing something good in practice,since she got 7 minutes.Sure,it was a blowout,but there have been blowouts before,and she only got a minute or two those games. Coach has a game plan,I am sure about fouls.I wouldn't be surprised if more and more we see some zone,and even if Dolson has a problem with Hammond,as talented as Hammond is,I cannot see her getting much of anything against the blockbuster,Stokes.Besides,if she is part of their game plan to aggravate the big people,the guards may sneak in and strip the ball way often. The key again to the game with Louisville,will be to disrupt any rhythm that Shoni wants to get into.If the guards do a job on Shoni,as they did on Sims,then whatever happens in the paint will be minor.Let us not forget,as talented as Louisville is,UConn is talented too,especially the fact that UConn has a number of go to players,all of which are capable of scoring 20-30 points a night,if needed.Louisville will have a hard time and expend plenty of energy on the defensive end.

Louisville doesn't rely on Shoni like Baylor relies mostly on Sims. Any of the other starters and players off the bench can take up the slack.

 

[doggydaddy]

Louisville doesn't rely on Shoni like Baylor relies mostly on Sims. Any of the other starters and players off the bench can take up the slack.

While it's not as extreme as Baylor and Sims, Schimmel has taken 150 more shots than anyone else on the team, 140 more 3's and also leads the team assists.

Shutting down Schimmel is the way to go.

 

[DobbsRover2]

In the tourney, UConn usually uses either 7 or 8 players for almost all of the minutes, which would make the current situation just about perfect. But from seeing Geno's reaction when asked about Banks after the game on Tuesday, I'm beginning to think it may be 7. His answer was eerily like the one he gave about Tuck a few days before the announcement about her year-ending surgery. But hope for Banks it's different, but something is really nagging there.

 

[huskeynut]

Louisville knows what is coming their way. A stingy defense and two or three post players to deal with at one time.

Louisville will most likely bang our posts as much as they can get away with. They want a street brawl and they believe they can win it. But as last year's championship game showed, they have no one to defend Stewie. They are a decent defensive team but they are not quick enough to stay with us when we are passing the ball crisply and finding the open man.

Shonnie will have her hands full with either Bria or MoJef guarding her. Limiting her touches limits her effectiveness. Louisville has a couple of real scoring threats but we have five on the court all the time. Louisville can't defend five scorers because of their defensive philosophy of double teaming down low.

 

[huskybill]

Exactly, they don't. If we "need" the walk-ons to win a big game.....we have been totally screwed. We have 8 scholarship players. If we get down to "needing" a walk-on in a close big game (Louisville, FF or NC game and even then, not likely) we will have to have had 4 players either injured, or fouled out to get to Lawlor or Pulido. 4. Even sick, they'll still be playing. When was the last time we had a player foul out, let alone 2-3-4??

Yea the odds of UCONN being in that much trouble is pretty small. Like in the .000something %. I doubt the staff is spending a lot of time on that contingency.

This ain't a Disney movie folks, walk-ons don't come in with the game on the line and sink a 3 to win a NC.

But we did have a game this year where we had only 6 rotation players. Tuck was out, Banks tweaked her ankle and Chong was ill. Geno did not put the walk-ons in the rotation. I'm not saying he should have. Only that the situation is not as quite as uncommon as you make it seem.

 

[huskybill]

In the tourney, UConn usually uses either 7 or 8 players for almost all of the minutes, which would make the current situation just about perfect. But from seeing Geno's reaction when asked about Banks after the game on Tuesday, I'm beginning to think it may be 7. His answer was eerily like the one he gave about Tuck a few days before the announcement about her year-ending surgery. But hope for Banks it's different, but something is really nagging there.

In big games, Geno does like a 7 or 8 plater rotation. He has been extremely successful so far. That seems to be the reason he gives out as few scholarships as he does. This might be one of the few years where his system catches up to him.

 

[pppggg]

how often do walk-ons help win a National Championship ? especially guards, I am surprised Geno didn't find a big girl from the volleyball team to give a little depth to the front court. 6-3 Erika Thomas might help more than a 5' 7" guard

You assume he didn't try to find one. Maybe no "big" tryout. No one could have forseen Tuck's injuries. And it was my understanding that they took the 2 best kids regardless of potiton that audictioned for the team.

 

[meyers7]

But we did have a game this year where we had only 6 rotation players. Tuck was out, Banks tweaked her ankle and Chong was ill. Geno did not put the walk-ons in the rotation. I'm not saying he should have. Only that the situation is not as quite as uncommon as you make it seem.

Yea, we had that and we still did were not close to using the walk-ons. It's probably even more uncommon.

 

[huskybill]

Yea, we had that and we still did were not close to using the walk-ons. It's probably even more uncommon.

Several years ago, both men and women bball could give 15 scholarships yearly. Then the men were cut to 13. Geno said that the women should also be cut to 13. Last year we had 11 scholarship players and this year we started with 9. I think next year we'll be back at 11. Is UConn women's basketball too poor to have 12 or 13 scholarships? Aren't there players out there ranked 51-100 who would be glad to go to UConn who meet UConn's character requirements although their talent may not be 5 star? They could fill in better than the walk-ons. Or has Geno banned those types of players?

 

[John Glass]

You assume he didn't try to find one. Maybe no "big" tryout. No one could have forseen Tuck's injuries. And it was my understanding that they took the 2 best kids regardless of potiton that audictioned for the team.

I am sure no talented "big" did tryout. However the situation has changed with Tuck being injured, they could add someone in the middle of the year if they can find a good big who is interested. I doubt a volleyball player would have been interested unless there was a chance to play.

Louisville added a volleyball player a year or two ago (mid-season) when they were hit by injuries. She played a few minutes for one season, then went back to volleyball.

 

[UcMiami]

All I can say is we have a schizoid board - one thread where people advocate getting more minutes for the walk-ons, another where the complaint is the bench players aren't getting enough minutes. Me personally - I am starting a campaign for fair treatment of the starters! Uconn's starters are languishing in their statistical battle with other teams starters - how can we expect them to be recognized nationally when they get so few minutes/game to put up big numbers. If Geno was being FAIR Stewart would at least be averaging above 20 pts/game. Moriah and Bria would be in the 6 asst/game range, and Stef would definitely be averaging a double double instead of getting a measly 9.5 rebounds per game!

On the other issue - KTLaw and Pulido are there to provide practice help and mop up minutes. The minute we actually need them in a competitive game is the moment that the dream of 40-0 dies.

 

[Icebear]

TLaw.

 

[Suebird10fan]

But we did have a game this year where we had only 6 rotation players. Tuck was out, Banks tweaked her ankle and Chong was ill. Geno did not put the walk-ons in the rotation. I'm not saying he should have. Only that the situation is not as quite as uncommon as you make it seem.

I think the point is that we would literally have to be down to 4 before Geno puts the walkons in w game on the line. The talent gap is that great. Playing guys way out of position or letting them play with 4 fouls for any amount of time would be better options.

And we have never gotten close to having only four scholly players available.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I'm not really sure that fretting about potential foul trouble for the Huskies down the road is the best use of time. As the nation's leader in fewest PFs, UConn has only once had more than 15 fouls called against it, and that was way back in November when they picked up 19 against Stanford, but Ogwumike fouled out while trying to induce some fouls, which is always a dilemma for whoever wants to play that way. Kiah picked up 4 fouls in the Stanford game, and she did that again recently against Temple, but I can't recall the last time a starter picked up 4 fouls. The only other time UConn had as many as 15 PFs was against Baylor, but that's also not a huge number.

To put things in perspective, Baylor averages 19.5 fouls a game, which is more than UConn has reached in any game. Sure they have more bodies to give fouls, but at tourney time your play tends to suffer if you start throwing a lot of subs in to give or attempt to take fouls.

 

[hoophuskee]

I'm thinking that the strategy in the tournament will almost certainly be, at least in part, to try to get the starters in foul trouble. The better teams may have (actually, have already had) some success in that. With the bench situation being what it is, I've been wondering about giving the walk-ons more time in the games. (I suppose I'm really referring to Lawlor, since she seems to be the more productive of the two, which is not meant as a knock on Pulido at all.) I'm not second-guessing Geno when I ask this, and I'm not playing Chicken Little. I'm honestly just wondering if it's possible that we could get into a situation where we just don't have the bodies to put in (foul trouble, illness, injury, personal issue, whatever), and one of the walk-ons becomes the only option at that point, and we need someone who can play five-ten minutes rather than two or three. Does not having prepared for that possibility become a risk factor? Do you plan for that contingency, or do you instead simply continue to stress to your scholarship players the importance of not fouling and then pray they listen and that the opposing teams are have no success with the strategy?

Again, I'm not fretting. This is a strategy/preparation question, not a "the sky is falling" question. I know that the team as it is today is still head and shoulders above most of the other teams in the country, and heads above the rest. They've proven they can excel even with only seven active players. But we all know how easily the situation can change with one misplaced foot or one unexpected illness, so I'm interested in hearing how/when coaches decide if it's time to begin to prepare for that.

I think giving them extra mintues just because you (not you personally) think at some point you may have a rare possibility you need them is a terrible idea. We already have:

1-- 3 pgs (Mo Jeff, Bria and Saniya)

2-- 4 sg's if we want: (Bria, Soniya, Banks and-- KML can play sg too.

3--- 3 sf's: (KML, Stewie and Banks)

So we have 6 players that can play various postions within the 1/2/3 and these 6 we are at least 3 deep at this position that TLaw (and Pulido) play.

We're fine at the 1/2/3 positions.

 

[Icebear]

We, also, have 3 players at the 5 in Stef, Kiah, and Stewie.

 

[pinotbear]

Several years ago, both men and women bball could give 15 scholarships yearly. Then the men were cut to 13. Geno said that the women should also be cut to 13. Last year we had 11 scholarship players and this year we started with 9. I think next year we'll be back at 11. Is UConn women's basketball too poor to have 12 or 13 scholarships? Aren't there players out there ranked 51-100 who would be glad to go to UConn who meet UConn's character requirements although their talent may not be 5 star? They could fill in better than the walk-ons. Or has Geno banned those types of players?

Actually, Bill, I don't think there are too many players out there ranked 51-100 who would be glad to go to UConn, who meet UConn's character requirements, who would be willing to "fill in better than the walk-ons". That level of player, in the top 100 in the country, more or less, is being recruited by top 10 programs, as a featured recruit, with the high likelihood of ample playing time (if not flat-out promised said playing time). They're being lauded, flattered, etc. - they've always been the best in their school, town, perhaps even state. Not many of those "guys" are going to come to UConn if they're pretty sure their role is going to be the last scholly player or two in the rotation. When you look at the players who have transferred out of UConn over the past 15 years, there are a number of reasons "why?", but, playing time/role on the team has been one of those reasons "why?". That's not to say that UConn/Geno/CD & co. haven't found a few kids like that, but, I just don't think there are that many, and that you can simply pick up one or two when you want 'em.

For what it's worth, I think the same thing applies to walk-ons. There's been some mention of "why didn't we get a volleyball player or two" as walk-ons. When you think of the tremendous commitment needed to play at UConn - physical, mental, time-wise - I think it's more than a bit presumptuous that there are tall, talented players just willing to give up another sport to be a non-recruited player for basketball.

What both the "volleyball player" scenario and the "51-100 player" scenario have in common is, we assume that playing for UConn is so attractive that, sitting on the bench and getting limited playing time is so attractive that a young women, used to being very successful, is going to be willing to give that all up, and work her butt off, give up hundreds of hours of her time, give up all kinds of other potential uses of her time .. just to be at or near the end of the bench. I don't think it's as attractive as we think it is.

 

[meyers7]

I think the point is that we would literally have to be down to 4 before Geno puts the walkons in w game on the line. The talent gap is that great. Playing guys way out of position or letting them play with 4 fouls for any amount of time would be better options.

And we have never gotten close to having only four scholly players available.

Thank you.

 

[John Glass]

For what it's worth, I think the same thing applies to walk-ons. There's been some mention of "why didn't we get a volleyball player or two" as walk-ons. When you think of the tremendous commitment needed to play at UConn - physical, mental, time-wise - I think it's more than a bit presumptuous that there are tall, talented players just willing to give up another sport to be a non-recruited player for basketball.

What both the "volleyball player" scenario and the "51-100 player" scenario have in common is, we assume that playing for UConn is so attractive that, sitting on the bench and getting limited playing time is so attractive that a young women, used to being very successful, is going to be willing to give that all up, and work her butt off, give up hundreds of hours of her time, give up all kinds of other potential uses of her time .. just to be at or near the end of the bench. I don't think it's as attractive as we think it is.

A volleyball player would have been an emergency solution for a half or less of the season. I would think a former HS basketball player would be willing to make the sacrifice necessary for a chance at a National championship. It is moot now, lets just hope no one gets hurt, and everyone stays out of foul trouble.

 

[Icebear]

Maybe the title of the thread should have been, "Short Walk-ons/Bench."

 

[huskybill]

Actually, Bill, I don't think there are too many players out there ranked 51-100 who would be glad to go to UConn, who meet UConn's character requirements, who would be willing to "fill in better than the walk-ons". That level of player, in the top 100 in the country, more or less, is being recruited by top 10 programs, as a featured recruit, with the high likelihood of ample playing time (if not flat-out promised said playing time). They're being lauded, flattered, etc. - they've always been the best in their school, town, perhaps even state. Not many of those "guys" are going to come to UConn if they're pretty sure their role is going to be the last scholly player or two in the rotation. When you look at the players who have transferred out of UConn over the past 15 years, there are a number of reasons "why?", but, playing time/role on the team has been one of those reasons "why?". That's not to say that UConn/Geno/CD & co. haven't found a few kids like that, but, I just don't think there are that many, and that you can simply pick up one or two when you want 'em.

For what it's worth, I think the same thing applies to walk-ons. There's been some mention of "why didn't we get a volleyball player or two" as walk-ons. When you think of the tremendous commitment needed to play at UConn - physical, mental, time-wise - I think it's more than a bit presumptuous that there are tall, talented players just willing to give up another sport to be a non-recruited player for basketball.

What both the "volleyball player" scenario and the "51-100 player" scenario have in common is, we assume that playing for UConn is so attractive that, sitting on the bench and getting limited playing time is so attractive that a young women, used to being very successful, is going to be willing to give that all up, and work her butt off, give up hundreds of hours of her time, give up all kinds of other potential uses of her time .. just to be at or near the end of the bench. I don't think it's as attractive as we think it is.

I don't know that I agree with you, but certainly a reasonable response.