Some Thoughts on Rosters and Recruiting

[diggerfoot]

There have been championships won with large and small rosters, including by UConn in both cases. There have been championships won by multiple bigs over 6,2" and no bigs over 6'2", including by UConn. A large roster insures against injury or other unfortunate mishaps; a small roster provides more repetition in practice and games. Given a coach who adapts well to whatever he has, what will work in the end amounts to a combination of chemistry and luck, two attributes that cannot be quantified or predicted. That provides fuel for speculation, a good thing for a fan forum, but also some anticipatory angst when the "ideal" roster size and make up is not realized.

Our recent large recruiting classes have provided some angst. We lost all of Walker class of four. We lost most of the Dolson class of five, though things turned out pretty well with what remained. I believe the incoming class of five will provide more optimism than angst.

The Walker class had very similar parts. Granted, Coombs might have been more a PG than the rest, Walker more of a wing, yet they all were similar when considering the incoming class. It's one thing if you are a SG type competing with three other SG types from different classes; the chemistry is more likely to take a hit when they all are of the same class. So one thing I like about this incoming class is how well they fit the preferred UConn profile of a legitimate PG, a legitimate center and three "wings" that could play anywhere.

Another thing I like is how many of them are being touted for defense. Muhl, Edwards and even Bueckers have been given props for their defense, McLean for her aggressiveness, energy and rebounding. Edwards even won a DPOY award; must be a Canadian thing. Any recruit will learn team defense the UConn way, but a big part of defense has as much to do with the heart as the head. So another thing I like about this incoming class is they are defense ready, which is to say they likely are "heart" ready.

These are the two factors that go along with some of the obvious: a playmaker who is a natural leader and cheerleader; length and athleticism at all spots, even with the "smalls."

Chemistry and luck are still the unquantifiable, unpredictable variables, but Auriemma has been known to do very well with less.

 

[BobbyJ]

I still can't understand what Auriemma could have been thinking to bring in that Walker class with such similar size and skill sets.

 

[SVCBeercats]

There have been championships won with large and small rosters, including by UConn in both cases. There have been championships won by multiple bigs over 6,2" and no bigs over 6'2", including by UConn.

UCONN has never won a national championship when it didn't have a player over 6'1".

 

[pvdoggy]

UCONN has never won a national championship when it didn't have a player over 6'1".
View attachment 53563

My guess is not just Uconn, but no team has ever won an NC without someone higher than 6'1".

 

[uconnfan68]

I still can't understand what Auriemma could have been thinking to bring in that Walker class with such similar size and skill sets.

That’s what people said about Cash, Jones, and Williams before they played. No one said anything afterward.

 

[Zanzman]

UCONN has never won a national championship when it didn't have a player over 6'1".
View attachment 53563

Moore wasn’t on the 2001-02 team but your point is made

 

[BobbyJ]

That’s what people said about Cash, Jones, and Williams before they played. No one said anything afterward.

That’s because they were a much higher level of talent. And intensity.

 

[diggerfoot]

UCONN has never won a national championship when it didn't have a player over 6'1".
View attachment 53563

This is the first time I've seen Jones listed at 6'3". On the official UConn site her listed height on the 2001-2002 roster was 6'2". My assertion that UConn has won without players over 6'2" is valid. It happened only once, but it happened. Plus having no big over 6'3" with a couple other championships at least proves that Auriemma can win without what most people covet as a big.

 

[CocoHusky]

I still can't understand what Auriemma could have been thinking to bring in that Walker class with such similar size and skill sets.

1) Weren't many bigs available in Walker's class and practically none have panned out. (Dodson had interest in UCONN, Jade Williams got very early looks from the UCONN staff, Danielle Patterson may have had some interest in UCONN early, LaDazhia Williams got in home visit from UCONN. there were many BY posters pining for Kasiyahna Kushkituah when she was the #1 post in the class which only lasted until her sophomore year of HS. In the end not taking a big in this class was the right decision.
2) Megan Walker's Freshman year was when both Batouly Camara and Azura Stevens first became eligible to play.
3) Megan Walker's freshman year was supposed to be Natalie Butler's last year at UCONN.
4) When Megan's class arrived on campus ( August 2017) Charli Collier was still committed to UCONN.
So Geno was probably thinking he has enough up front and more coming and if he can surround what was up front with some talented wing players that would have been a successful formula.

 

[diggerfoot]

I still can't understand what Auriemma could have been thinking to bring in that Walker class with such similar size and skill sets.

Yes, I was puzzled by that right from the start. Before then a common BY criticism of Tennessee was how they just went after the best talent without consideration for how the pieces of the puzzle fit, while we were so much better at that. I agree that we are typically better at recruiting based on fit rather than talent, but that one year sure seems to stand out as an abnomally.

 

[diggerfoot]

1) Weren't many bigs available in Walker's class and practically none have panned out. (Dodson had interest in UCONN, Jade Williams got very early looks from the UCONN staff, Danielle Patterson may have had some interest in UCONN early, LaDazhia Williams got in home visit from UCONN. there were many BY posters pining for Kasiyahna Kushkituah when she was the #1 post in the class which only lasted until her sophomore year of HS. In the end not taking a big in this class was the right decision.
2) Megan Walker's Freshman year was when both Batouly Camara and Azura Stevens first became eligible to play.
3) Megan Walker's freshman year was supposed to be Natalie Butler's last year at UCONN.
4) When Megan's class arrived on campus ( August 2017) Charli Collier was still committed to UCONN.
So Geno was probably thinking he has enough up front and more coming and if he can surround what was up front with some talented wing players that would have been a successful formula.

That does explain things. But even with extenuating circumstances such as that, I think you do risk chemistry when all of the same large class are so overlapping, even if perhaps unavoidable.

 

[CocoHusky]

That does explain things. But even with extenuating circumstances such as that, I think you do risk chemistry when all of the same large class are so overlapping, even if perhaps unavoidable.

I agree with you & that risk did not start with Walker's class. 2014 was a class with 4 guards. 2015 was a class with 3 SFs. The bottom line for me is that despite numerous swing on bigs since 2013, UCONN has yet to connect on a big that is an adequate foundation pieces of a championship team. I'm very optimistic about Brady.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I still can't understand what Auriemma could have been thinking to bring in that Walker class with such similar size and skill sets.

Perhaps Geno was uncertain of several of them and was hedging his bets.

 

[SVCBeercats]

This is the first time I've seen Jones listed at 6'3". On the official UConn site her listed height on the 2001-2002 roster was 6'2". My assertion that UConn has won without players over 6'2" is valid. It happened only once, but it happened. Plus having no big over 6'3" with a couple other championships at least proves that Auriemma can win without what most people covet as a big.

OK, so its aa typo. Still 6'2" or higher qualifies. I have no idea what you are talking about. Since your were proven wrong. Now you decide to change your story. You have no point. Bigs win championships particularly in this day and age of tall, agile, and strong women. Your best bet is to research all the winning teams who have won a national championship without anyone over 6'2" or now your weaseling 6'3". Start with 40s and 50s champs for your best bet.

 

[hoophuskee]

Am I missing something here? I thought what Geno picked up was terrific for the 17-18 class. Coco nailed it with all the expectations and near misses of the bigs.

Coombs was supposed to be a pg.
Andra was supposed to be a sg.
Alexis Gordon a SF.
Meg Walker was supposed to be the sg/sf that would be the primary scorer/ go-to player. -- So either Andra or Alexis would be the bench player.

What's wrong with this?

 

[SVCBeercats]

Moore wasn’t on the 2001-02 team but your point is made

Jessica Moore - are your sure? RS freshman? Although I should have not used her because she had minimal impact on the 2001-02 team. In other classes I skipped tall players who did not really contribute. I should have done the same with Moore.

 

[hoophuskee]

Jessica Moore - are your sure? RS freshman? Although I should have not used her because she had minimal impact on the 2001-02 team.

She played on the 01-02 team. So you were right.

But I think you are taking the context of what digger as trying to say way too literal imo. You did that with a post of mine as well. But whatever -- matchups / size / skill - great players -- they all matter.

I just think height is too hard to make broad statements - that's what I took digger's post for though nto as much as height but physical/inside players and as you say players of impact. I mean Katie Lou was 6'3 and whatever Ann Strother was 6'2 or whatever-- they were not the posts that a 6'2 Asjha Jones or 6'1 Morgan Tuck were etc. I think Tuck is 6'1 but again whatever you get the point.

 

[diggerfoot]

OK, so its aa typo. Still 6'2" or higher qualifies. I have no idea what you are talking about. Since your were proven wrong. Now you decide to change your story. You have no point. Bigs win championships particularly in this day and age of tall, agile, and strong women. Your best bet is to research all the winning teams who have won a national championship without anyone over 6'2" or now your weaseling 6'3". Start with 40s and 50s champs for your best bet.

?? Wow! You seem to be determined, and take inordinate glee, in trying to prove me wrong. I did not change my story. UConn won a championship in 2001-2002 with no serious contributor being over 6'2". The only change is qualifying that we are talking about players making contributions, a concession you made yourself. As for a team not named UConn, the 2005 Baylor team had one freshman player at 6'3" averaging 2 points and 2 rebounds, the rest were 6'2" or smaller, with the star player (Young) being 6'1".

As for me "weaseling" by pointing out 6'3", what a passive aggressive turn of phrase! Plus I'll hazard to guess that, whether it is right or wrong, you are the only person on the entire BY who thought I had no point. Did I accidentally kick your dog some time long ago? Let me reiterate, championships have been won with no serious contributors over 6'2" (the only change from the original post was adding serious contributor, a concession you made, a qualification that should not have to be made since anyone should be able to understand it's who contributes that counts). My "weaseling" of 6'3" did not negate my original story, let me reiterate that for you, championships have been won with no serious contributors over 6'2". I add that even more championships have been won with no one over 6'3" only because many people do not even consider that as a legitimate big. But, still, championships have been won with no serious contributors over 6'2".

 

[SVCBeercats]

?? Wow!

Prove your point with facts. Your opinion is meaningless.

 

[diggerfoot]

Prove your point with facts. Your opinion is meaningless.

?? I just did. Baylor 2005. UConn 2002. No serious contributors over 6'2".

Your posts are bizarre. You do not have to concern yourself with me responding to you again.

 

[CocoHusky]

OK, so its aa typo. Still 6'2" or higher qualifies. I have no idea what you are talking about. Since your were proven wrong. Now you decide to change your story. You have no point. Bigs win championships particularly in this day and age of tall, agile, and strong women. Your best bet is to research all the winning teams who have won a national championship without anyone over 6'2" or now your weaseling 6'3". Start with 40s and 50s champs for your best bet.

The best bet are not from the 40's and 50's and I don't have to research anything. The 2005 Baylor Bears won a championship without significant contributions from a player over 6'2". The 2011 Texas A&M team did the same thing. Both of those championships were won at a time when Britney Griner and Sylvia Fowles was playing so it can be done.

 

[Lawrence]

UCONN has never won a national championship when it didn't have a player over 6'1".
View attachment 53563

I think you forgot Christine Rigby (BIG RIG).

 

[HopJim]

?? Wow! You seem to be determined, and take inordinate glee, in trying to prove me wrong. I did not change my story. UConn won a championship in 2001-2002 with no serious contributor being over 6'2". The only change is qualifying that we are talking about players making contributions, a concession you made yourself. As for a team not named UConn, the 2006 Baylor team had one freshman player at 6'3" averaging 2 points and 2 rebounds, the rest were 6'2" or smaller, with the star player (Young) being 6'1".

As for me "weaseling" by pointing out 6'3", what a passive aggressive turn of phrase! Plus I'll hazard to guess that, whether it is right or wrong, you are the only person on the entire BY who thought I had no point. Did I accidentally kick your dog some time long ago? Let me reiterate, championships have been won with no serious contributors over 6'2" (the only change from the original post was adding serious contributor, a concession you made, a qualification that should not have to be made since anyone should be able to understand it's who contributes that counts). My "weaseling" of 6'3" did not negate my original story, let me reiterate that for you, championships have been won with no serious contributors over 6'2". I add that even more championships have been won with no one over 6'3" only because many people do not even consider that as a legitimate big. But, still, championships have been won with no serious contributors over 6'2".

Not sure what your point is regarding bigs. Since UConn only has won once without serious contributors over 6'2", does this indicate winning without significant height is an exception and we need more tall bigs in future? Does the exception prove winning can be accomplished without significant height and it doesn't matter?

 

[hoophuskee]

?? I just did. Baylor 2006. UConn 2002. No serious contributors over 6'2".

Your posts are bizarre. You do not have to concern yourself with me responding to you again.

This guy has a lot hard bark on him. He went off on me too a while ago.

 

[CocoHusky]

Not sure what your point is regarding bigs. Since UConn only has won once without serious contributors over 6'2", does this indicate winning without significant height is an exception and we need more tall bigs in future? Does the exception prove winning can be accomplished without significant height and it doesn't matter?

Ultimately does it matter though? No matter what the championship numbers say, and especially since this is basketball I'd rather have taller players if the skill level is equal at EVERY position not just the post.