Short bench/Walk-ons

[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.

 

[Striper69]

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.

She's also a great passer. I saw her make some awesome passes against Rutgers that caught everyone by surprise. If she can recognize that UCONN is concentrating on her and decoys them then watch out! I don't think Louisville will be in awe of UCONN. It's probably better for them that they play at Storrs the first game.

 

[Icebear]

She's also a great passer. I saw her make some awesome passes against Rutgers that caught everyone by surprise. If she can recognize that UCONN is concentrating on her and decoys them then watch out! I don't think Louisville will be in awe of UCONN. It's probably better for them that they play at Storrs the first game.

To do that L-ville has to get the ball into her hands to start with. That is what will be denied her, any opportunity to participate in the offense at all.

 

[Striper69]

To do that L-ville has to get the ball into her hands to start with. That is what will be denied her, any opportunity to participate in the offense at all.

I don't see that happening.

 

[Icebear]

I don't see that happening.

It is exactly what we did to her last year.

 

[I'maUConnFan]

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.

I think you misunderstood me. I hardly expect Lawlor or Pulido to come in and sink a three for a win. I also didn't say "in the event that four of our players foul out." The question popped into my head when Banks had to sit out the last game with her ankle. Megan and (Eric?) were commenting about the short bench and said that only Kiah was available to play. (Later on she acknowledged that she'd overlooked Saniya, who was available.) The other day Saniya couldn't play because she was ill, which left them with two bench players. It's certainly possible that a similar situation could occur during the championship games, and at THAT point, they may be playing teams that could get them into foul trouble. There HAVE been times this year when two or three of our starters have had two or three fouls by half-time. THAT is the situation I am wondering about. It doesn't seem totally out of the realm of possibility to me. All I'm wondering is if the short bench situation might mean that there are times when they practice/play with the idea that there may a time when one of the walk-ons might be needed for more than a couple of minutes of mop-up time. It's not as though we haven't had a situation before where two key players went down with injuries within a month of each other that clearly changed the trajectory of the season. (I shudder just typing that, praying that I am not tempting fate!)

 

[I'maUConnFan]

All I can say is we have a schizoid board - one thread where people advocate getting more minutes for the walk-ons...

I'm not advocating for this at all. I repeat, I am simply wondering if it's advisable to prepare for the eventuality that they may be needed, or is Geno just that confident that his starters are savvy enough by now not to get into foul trouble (even if that's the opposing team's strategy) and that they will be able to surmount any illness/injuries, minor or major, that may occur over the next two and a half months? At what point does if become when, if ever? And when I say I'm wondering, I'm saying *I don't know*, not (as I already said) second-guessing him.

And how did this become a thread about the Louisville game?

 

[hoophuskee]

I think you misunderstood me. I hardly expect Lawlor or Pulido to come in and sink a three for a win. I also didn't say "in the event that four of our players foul out." The question popped into my head when Banks had to sit out the last game with her ankle. Megan and (Eric?) were commenting about the short bench and said that only Kiah was available to play. (Later on she acknowledged that she'd overlooked Saniya, who was available.) The other day Saniya couldn't play because she was ill, which left them with two bench players. It's certainly possible that a similar situation could occur during the championship games, and at THAT point, they may be playing teams that could get them into foul trouble. There HAVE been times this year when two or three of our starters have had two or three fouls by half-time. THAT is the situation I am wondering about. It doesn't seem totally out of the realm of possibility to me. All I'm wondering is if the short bench situation might mean that there are times when they practice/play with the idea that there may a time when one of the walk-ons might be needed for more than a couple of minutes of mop-up time. It's not as though we haven't had a situation before where two key players went down with injuries within a month of each other that clearly changed the trajectory of the season. (I shudder just typing that, praying that I am not tempting fate!)

No you don't delierately take away minutes from such amazing players for walk-ons because you fear someday some could get sick or might re-injure themselves. It's paranoia. The games players have gotten into foul trouble we still won. And usually won extremely comfortably and most games they don't get into foul trouble and you teach them not to foul. So as Chris Daily once said to parpahrase "we don't alter our game for them, they alter it for us." What you are suggesting by putting in walk-ons to the greatest team ever, it alters our game. I would og as far to say it could be used as a negative recruiting tool to illusatre to a kid of a paranoid coach.

The walkons only can play gaurd. The chance our injuries and sickness continues at guard is slim. And we can survive by putting KML at the pf to boot vs many, many teams.

 

[Icebear]

I am not sure that injuries at the guard spot are fewer than among the post players. In fact I would challenge that assertion on the basis of the last few seasons.

 

[meyers7]

I think you misunderstood me.

Nope I completely understood you.

I also didn't say "in the event that four of our players foul out."

That is the only time they are going to get in a tight game. That's what you don't understand.

It's certainly possible that a similar situation could occur during the championship games, and at THAT point, they may be playing teams that could get them into foul trouble. There HAVE been times this year when two or three of our starters have had two or three fouls by half-time. THAT is the situation I am wondering about.

Yea, I got that. But they won't be sitting until they foul out. Geno will play them with 3-4 fouls before he plays the walk-ons in a tight FF, NC game. That's the part you're not getting.

THAT is the situation I am wondering about. It doesn't seem totally out of the realm of possibility to me.

It is.

 

[hoophuskee]

I am not sure that injuries at the guard spot are fewer than among the post players. In fact I would challenge that assertion on the basis of the last few seasons.

60% of the season is done. How many get the dreaded "out for season" injury at our guard spots this late? Mel Thomas comes to mind in recent memory (5+ years) for a guard that got hurt this late. That's it that I can remember this late. Beyond 5 plus years I think it's a stretch to look an draw conclusions though you can say Shea of 13+ years etc. The later we go into the season- imo the less likely the injury. How many players get hurt in their 39th game, 38th game, 37th game etc? We're coming to the finish line. IMO good chance no "out for season" injury as of today.