Spread those minutes out Geno

[eebmg]

Molly 2.0?

Geno talks about Nika with alot of respect regarding defense and aggressiveness. She will show her stuff in time.

 

[cohenzone]

Yeah I gotta agree, Coach should spread some minutes around. I know we had two players coming back from injuries so naturally they will be limited but long term, coach gotta use that bench more. Just helps to reduce wear and tear on the others and also helps develop the bench and their confidence.

Maybe one of these years he’ll figure out this coaching thing. ?

 

[baggerbob]

Usually when I question Geno's decisions it is to understand his reasoning since he always is working a team plan or player development issue. Interesting when he opens up. While its too early in the year to spend much time on player minutes, I am concerned about Paige's playing time. Few would question that the team performance is at its best when she is in the game, but she is taking a beating when driving to the basket. I remember the impact on past lost championships when Nurse or Crystal were a step slow due to injuries. In Geno we trust but I am starting to hold my breath every time Paige gets hit hard. Hoping Geno trusts the subs more, particularly at end of games.

Stewie got hurt in the 1st half of the 2015 championship game, and played the 2nd half on 1 leg. She couldn't move well , but rebounded and played defense to help win the championship. Injuries happen.

 

[MD#12Fan]

A few things for you.

1 - you didn't explain very well at the beginning what you meant by shooting 70%. Or you've purposely moved the goal posts. So the "outrageous" response was appropriate at the time.

2 - you still haven't defined what an "open" shot, in your opinion, is. No one within X feet of the shooter? Shooter being closed down/not closed down? Is it a place where the shooter normally shoots? Is the player set/not set? Is the player being rushed/ not rushed? Is the offense being rushed / not rushed?

3 - yes the UCONN players need to, and should be shooting better. No argument there.

Good comments.
I'm done explaining what 70% means and what a good shot is. What do they say, "if it's a duck..."
I'll say one more thing: Geno has constructed his offense in order to get certain shots. Consider that your answer to what open shots are. Re-watch the DePaul game and decide for yourself.
IMO this team moves fairly well. Like he says, sometimes are better than others. But if you run an offense perfectly and get a "great " shot and the result is clank, time after time, what do you do? I literally think we're real close to that point. 6 games is a pretty significant sample size.
Reminder: Geno can break out the notepad and run something different. I always vote for using more athleticism, which he has sitting over there, with attacking the rim and major defensive pressure.
There have been championship calibre teams on the men's side that shot so bad that it almost looked like they missed on purpose. They crashed the glass like assassins and played defense over the whole court. Phi Slamma Jamma, 40 minutes of Hell. That's not UConn Women, but the point is we can do different things.

 

[HuskylnSC]

Bit harsh Coco.

a bit truthfull

 

[HuskylnSC]

May I point out that this team has not had the usual preparation of a UConn team. Covid delays and a 14 day suspension of practice and the elimination of scrimmages and practice games has put this team way behind any other team in terms of in game cohesion. This team has played 5 games none of which was a 'secret' scrimmage or the two practice games. We have not played a quality opponent as we were scheduled to do. Therefore I think the coach, being privy to facts and details none of us are, is doing the perfect job to win the 2021 Division 1 Women's National Championship. Next year will take care of next year. Unless of course the Iranians do develop a nuclear bomb and allow the North Koreans to deliver one to the west coast of the United States. But don't worry about that it's just my next novel.

BTW seeing as how this is about playing time - here are the averages to date.
Williams, Christyn 36
Bueckers, Paige 35
Westbrook, Evina 30.3
Makurat, Anna 30.2
Nelson-Ododa, Olivia 23.2
Edwards, Aaliyah 16.6
Griffin, Aubrey 15.5
Mühl, Nika 11.3
McLean, Mir 6.3
Gabriel, Piath 2.7
Chassion, Autumn 1.6

 

[hoophuskee]

Good comments.

IMO this team moves fairly well. Like he says, sometimes are better than others. But if you run an offense perfectly and get a "great " shot and the result is clank, time after time, what do you do? I literally think we're real close to that point. 6 games is a pretty significant sample size.
Reminder: Geno can break out the notepad and run something different. I always vote for using more athleticism, which he has sitting over there, with attacking the rim and major defensive pressure.
There have been championship calibre teams on the men's side that shot so bad that it almost looked like they missed on purpose. They crashed the glass like assassins and played defense over the whole court. Phi Slamma Jamma, 40 minutes of Hell. That's not UConn Women, but the point is we can do different things.

1--- I don't think the team has been shooting "poorly" from 3 other than Anna (exclude Griffin and Autumn. They won't be taking 3's in a close game) . Evina is shooting 36% from 3. CWill is shooting 33%. Even counting Anna's numbers and excluding Griff and Autumn they have an EFG% of 51.87% (37-107). It makes no difference how open they are. Whether you hit a 3 with someone all over you or you hit a 3 wide open - it still is 3 points either way. Thus them being "wide open" and missing also has a counter in that they are hitting a lot too. If your EFG% from 3 is 51.87 - that's not poor.

2-- I don't see the relevance of there being championship teams on the men's side with lousy shooting. Because there has also been teams that have improved their shooting and won titles too. So why should one take precedence over another? It's clear Geno prefers coaching to one style- a style that has him winning more titles than anyone else- so "where's the beef?"

On the men's side Rick Pitino's Louisville teams and John Thompson's Hoyas teams as predominant press teams also lost games as big favorites because they couldn't get what they wanted out of the press. And imo Jim Calhoun scrapped pressure because in NCAA's in Rip Hamilton's soph year in S16 Washington was hurting the press badly/ keeping them in the game. They almost lost because of it. While that year they won a last second shot, but lost next game vs Dean Smith's Tar Heels. That game imo was springboard to winning the title the very next year.

As for Phi Slamma Jamma, they got beat by a halfcourt, vastly inferior team. Their "40 minutes of hell" wound up putting Clyde The Glyde in foul trouble. With the way how refs are- they could do the same to a team trying to be Phi Slamma Jamma.

The point is-- we don't have to do different things.

 

[MD#12Fan]

May I point out that this team has not had the usual preparation of a UConn team. Covid delays and a 14 day suspension of practice and the elimination of scrimmages and practice games has put this team way behind any other team in terms of in game cohesion. This team has played 5 games none of which was a 'secret' scrimmage or the two practice games. We have not played a quality opponent as we were scheduled to do. Therefore I think the coach, being privy to facts and details none of us are, is doing the perfect job to win the 2021 Division 1 Women's National Championship. Next year will take care of next year. Unless of course the Iranians do develop a nuclear bomb and allow the North Koreans to deliver one to the west coast of the United States. But don't worry about that it's just my next novel.

BTW seeing as how this is about playing time - here are the averages to date.
Williams, Christyn 36
Bueckers, Paige 35
Westbrook, Evina 30.3
Makurat, Anna 30.2
Nelson-Ododa, Olivia 23.2
Edwards, Aaliyah 16.6
Griffin, Aubrey 15.5
Mühl, Nika 11.3
McLean, Mir 6.3
Gabriel, Piath 2.7
Chassion, Autumn 1

1--- I don't think the team has been shooting "poorly" from 3 other than Anna (exclude Griffin and Autumn. They won't be taking 3's in a close game) . Evina is shooting 36% from 3. CWill is shooting 33%. Even counting Anna's numbers and excluding Griff and Autumn they have an EFG% of 51.87% (37-107). It makes no difference how open they are. Whether you hit a 3 with someone all over you or you hit a 3 wide open - it still is 3 points either way. Thus them being "wide open" and missing also has a counter in that they are hitting a lot too. If your EFG% from 3 is 51.87 - that's not poor.

2-- I don't see the relevance of there being championship teams on the men's side with lousy shooting. Because there has also been teams that have improved their shooting and won titles too. So why should one take precedence over another? It's clear Geno prefers coaching to one style- a style that has him winning more titles than anyone else- so "where's the beef?"

On the men's side Rick Pitino's Louisville teams and John Thompson's Hoyas teams as predominant press teams also lost games as big favorites because they couldn't get what they wanted out of the press. And imo Jim Calhoun scrapped pressure because in NCAA's in Rip Hamilton's soph year in S16 Washington was hurting the press badly/ keeping them in the game. They almost lost because of it. While that year they won a last second shot, but lost next game vs Dean Smith's Tar Heels. That game imo was springboard to winning the title the very next year.

As for Phi Slamma Jamma, they got beat by a halfcourt, vastly inferior team. Their "40 minutes of hell" wound up putting Clyde The Glyde in foul trouble. With the way how refs are- they could do the same to a team trying to be Phi Slamma Jamma.

The point is-- we don't have to do different things.

We do, if what we're doing isn't working!
I have 2 eyes. The most psyched I've been this year was with Paige's performance in game 2. I watch always thinking about NC's. When you have the best talent in the country every year, that's what you think about. IMO talent is like Baskin-Robbins, 31 flavors, not just 3 or 4. We don't need replicants of past heroes. We've got unique talents every year.
The main point is that basketball has many many strategies and philosophies. That should not be controversial. Full court basketball is one strategy with a million nuances. I personally love it. I think the court is 94 feet for a reason. Otherwise, let's just check the ball at the top. Like any sport you strategize according to your talent. And you want to get the most out of the talent you have. Geno IMO is not doing that. We fear (a lot because of these recent Final Four defeats) these 2 or 3 teams that have a player or two that we don't match up well with. Graduated Lauren Cox IMO is the definition of a marginal WNBA player. We had 43 ways to neutralize her last year and she was coming off a pretty major injury. IMO if used properly, we have 7 or 8 players that are tough for these teams to match up with.

 

[hoophuskee]

We do, if what we're doing isn't working!
I have 2 eyes. The most psyched I've been this year was with Paige's performance in game 2. I watch always thinking about NC's. When you have the best talent in the country every year, that's what you think about. IMO talent is like Baskin-Robbins, 31 flavors, not just 3 or 4. We don't need replicants of past heroes. We've got unique talents every year.
The main point is that basketball has many many strategies and philosophies. That should not be controversial. Full court basketball is one strategy with a million nuances. I personally love it. I think the court is 94 feet for a reason. Otherwise, let's just check the ball at the top. Like any sport you strategize according to your talent. And you want to get the most out of the talent you have. Geno IMO is not doing that. We fear (a lot because of these recent Final Four defeats) these 2 or 3 teams that have a player or two that we don't match up well with. Graduated Lauren Cox IMO is the definition of a marginal WNBA player. We had 43 ways to neutralize her last year and she was coming off a pretty major injury. IMO if used properly, we have 7 or 8 players that are tough for these teams to match up with.

Overall I don't agree with what you're seeing, and for me I have seen enough 94 foot pressing wind up as failing too, along with Geno Auriemma - the most successful wcbb ever has a philosophy of not going with a deep bench press press press like Phil Slamma Jama. Hard to criticize this.

And the same with imo with men - Coach K - the best college coach on the modern era - and prior to him Dean Smith - he won one of his titles with a short bench beat the great GTOWN team.- so overall I don't believe in it. So If some of the greatest coaches in the History of the sport didn't find much use for it-- my opinion - I go with trying to work on great halfcourt execution. Use your superstars. If you feel you only have 6 or 7 - then just use 6 or 7.

When you mention Phil Slamma Jamma- what a great team! But using it as an example- I use it too. But I use it opposite as you. Phil Slamma Jamma lost to the the type of team that had superior halfcourt execution. And they weren't that good. while Phi Slamma Jamma was super. The style of 94 feet can also be flawed.

 

[MD#12Fan]

Overall I don't agree with what you're seeing, and for me I have seen enough 94 foot pressing wind up as failing too, along with Geno Auriemma - the most successful wcbb ever has a philosophy of not going with a deep bench press press press like Phil Slamma Jama. Hard to criticize this.

And the same with imo with men - Coach K - the best college coach on the modern era - and prior to him Dean Smith - he won one of his titles with a short bench beat the great GTOWN team.- so overall I don't believe in it. So If some of the greatest coaches in the History of the sport didn't find much use for it-- my opinion - I go with trying to work on great halfcourt execution. Use your superstars. If you feel you only have 6 or 7 - then just use 6 or 7.

When you mention Phil Slamma Jamma- what a great team! But using it as an example- I use it too. But I use it opposite as you. Phil Slamma Jamma lost to the the type of team that had superior halfcourt execution. And they weren't that good. while Phi Slamma Jamma was super. The style of 94 feet can also be flawed.

I respect your opinions. You always back them up.
I mention Phi Slamma Jamma because I honestly believe they shot the ball just to put the ball over the rim so they could go after it. I'd argue without proof that Hakeem didn't develop his touch and footwork until the pros.
I think a fun exercise for us is to pick the best college teams of all time and compare their styles of play. To be devils advocate, I'll throw you UNLV 1990. One loss, beat Duke by 30 in the championship game. Full-court basketball at its finest. In my best Maddog Russo voice, "Now that's a basketball team". They even beat LMU minus Hank Gathers in the final 8. The 30 for 30, "Guru of Go" is my bible.
I truly believe the great all-time coaches get "formulaic". They build their programs out of granite and then become a little less adventuresome. Golf analogy alert, sorry: Like a veteran star player, less inclined to gamble or be aggressive when doing it could yield the best score.

 

[HuskylnSC]

We do, if what we're doing isn't working!
I have 2 eyes. The most psyched I've been this year was with Paige's performance in game 2. I watch always thinking about NC's. When you have the best talent in the country every year, that's what you think about. IMO talent is like Baskin-Robbins, 31 flavors, not just 3 or 4. We don't need replicants of past heroes. We've got unique talents every year.
The main point is that basketball has many many strategies and philosophies. That should not be controversial. Full court basketball is one strategy with a million nuances. I personally love it. I think the court is 94 feet for a reason. Otherwise, let's just check the ball at the top. Like any sport you strategize according to your talent. And you want to get the most out of the talent you have. Geno IMO is not doing that. We fear (a lot because of these recent Final Four defeats) these 2 or 3 teams that have a player or two that we don't match up well with. Graduated Lauren Cox IMO is the definition of a marginal WNBA player. We had 43 ways to neutralize her last year and she was coming off a pretty major injury. IMO if used properly, we have 7 or 8 players that are tough for these teams to match up with.

For me, the greatest thing about UConn Basketball during both Geno's and Jim Calhoun's reigns is the focus on team. The object is not to maximize the talent, but to maximize the team. Just as Evina is doing now. She has sublimated her skill set to play the role the team needs her to play. At UT it was necessary for Evina to score. Here she works within the structure of the team. This will not be her greatest statistical year. Geno is not maximizing her talent. She is playing a role that is exactly what this team needs right now with 3 returning players (I leave Aubrey out) and 7 new players. She sets the tone and provides stability. As you said there are a number of ways to play the game and after 37 years Geno's is the best.

 

[Geew1992]

Right now Nika has not shown me why is back up to Evina.

You know Nika is working through a foot injury. Started the season with it. Sat out games with it. And pretty sure she’s now working her way back into game form

 

[Twolf]

You know Nika is working through a foot injury. Started the season with it. Sat out games with it. And pretty sure she’s now working her way back into game form

Sometimes it would be nice if people would take themselves back to age 19-20 and recall everything that was going on in their life at that age before being critical of players who are only a handful of games into their college career. If they did that & thought about traveling half way around the world from Croatia during a global pandemic, quarantining before the first game, and trying to play through an injury, just maybe understanding why everything hasn’t fallen exactly into place might make a little more sense.
IMO Nika has a tremendous amount of upside in becoming a very physical lockdown perimeter defender and a very good distributor of the basketball. At this stage of her career it doesn’t appear she will be a high volume scorer, but she won’t have to be with the current (and future) roster makeup. She will definitely fill a niche this team needs if she is able to do the above and will become a valuable asset to this group. I do know I want to wait until she’s fully healthy, and gains game experience before expressing any doubts about why the staff recruited her, is high on her, or why she is getting minutes in games.

 

[hoophuskee]

I respect your opinions. You always back them up.
I mention Phi Slamma Jamma because I honestly believe they shot the ball just to put the ball over the rim so they could go after it. I'd argue without proof that Hakeem didn't develop his touch and footwork until the pros.
I think a fun exercise for us is to pick the best college teams of all time and compare their styles of play. To be devils advocate, I'll throw you UNLV 1990. One loss, beat Duke by 30 in the championship game. Full-court basketball at its finest. In my best Maddog Russo voice, "Now that's a basketball team". They even beat LMU minus Hank Gathers in the final 8. The 30 for 30, "Guru of Go" is my bible.
I truly believe the great all-time coaches get "formulaic". They build their programs out of granite and then become a little less adventuresome. Golf analogy alert, sorry: Like a veteran star player, less inclined to gamble or be aggressive when doing it could yield the best score.

Same here- I respect your opinion. As I told the poster oldhuskie that when this topic comes up I find it very interesting.

I agree that Running Reb Team might be GOAT but my prior posts did include Rick Pitino at Louisville and John Thompson for Hoyas. They won titles too. And I said the style can be flawed. So yes you could win - but you could win other ways too. . As I've said - there are other options (which I prefer) is to do what Geno is currently doing.

In addition, the team UNLV beat by 30-- the very next year that inferior team Duke beat the Running Rebs. So I see it as the Rebs as a one-hit wonder sort-of. While UCONN is more like Duke than UNLV. They play a style and recruits to a style that sustains excellence. So bottomline is--UNLV had this super elite team and were only able to get one title out of it and being upset the following year. Their fullcourt press / man-to-man in your-face got negated by an inferior team. So which Running Reb team are we getting? Which UCONN team would we get? I'm concerned we get the UNLV team that lost the following year.

Beyond this season but for future in regards to those who always want a very deep bench-- for anyone that wants to read they can google a NY Times Article "The Recruiting of Kenny Anderson." In that article you can read how Kenny was regarded as supreme H/S player and he had the super teams recruiting him. Read the part about Georgetown.

One of his reasons for not going to GTOWN - he spoke of how he loved GTOWN and the exciting style they played when he was younger. But as he got older he thought better of it. Getting pulled -- going-in-and-out frequently playing that style; He didn't want to be pulled.

So the way I see it- 50-50 who wins- 94 feet might get you there- but long term imo we won't be able to sustain getting number 1 recruits. And UCONN could win just as easy halfcourt as fullcourt. So I am fine with Geno going with a short bench. I just think it's not really 50-50 anyway, and I think UCONN can get more easily exposed by an inferior team by going all out 94 feet with 9-10 players. Any mention from others that UCONN will wear down with 7 or maybe even 8 considering they play in the Big East imo is a myth or a fan just being "afraid of the dark."

 

[cohenzone]

I want to push back a little bit on this by framing it a little differently. I can't speak for the others who want to expand the roster and pick up the pace, but my reasons should not be viewed as some kind of a major rebuff on Geno's coaching.

His record speaks for itself, mostly using a more limited rotation, but occasionally expanding it a little more when he has the talent. Beyond the pros and cons of game strategies, which have been debated effectively on both sides, I also look at this very much from a recruiting and program strategy standpoint.

If your coaching strategy is to use the best 8 players only until mop up minutes, how does that coexist with recruiting a roster which next year could have top recruits on the third team, not just at number 9 and 10. Maybe the thought process is if you can't make the top 8, screw it, go ahead transfer, who cares. Could Geno win that way? Of course, but is that what's best for the program?

I don't think recruiting way beyond your intended use is good for the program. Do we want to be one of the programs that leads the nation is players leaving? If Geno sticks to 8 next year, that is probably what we will be.

Many coaches have a favored approach or strategy that they really would like to pursue, but have to mold their approach to the hand they were dealt, or the talent at hand. In this case Geno recruited these kids, and at least for these back to back classes got much of what he wanted.

Most of the people expressing their opinion here have strong feelings about whether the team would be better or worse expanding the rotation, I get that. What I am getting at, is it is not just an issue of which approach produces the largest margin of victory. If it was even close to a neutral, I would still be in favor of expanding the rotation, because if gives at least some meaningful minutes to more of the roster, and increases the chance we can retain more of them.

Geno could even expand the rotation for the vast majority of the games and stick with his comfort level in the handful of games that really matter. That might make the people on both sides of this issue happy. Play your favored 8 against say Baylor and South Carolina, and a rotation of 10 or 11 against everybody else.

Next year I don't think there is any lineup Geno could put on the floor that is likely to shrink the lead against most teams. This year it might somewhat, but against the teams where the outcome is not in doubt, does it matter if we win by 36 or 37 instead of 40 because we increased the minutes for players that don't get any prime time action?

We’ve had years with two or three key players getting hurt. Beyond that, while I enjoy watching all the players get a chance, it’s Geno’s call as to who and when. If you look at this year, and the kids who haven’t had that much time he has tried to mix in Muhl who has been hampered by an injury, Griffin will get a bunch of minutes. She was hurt last game. McClean will likely get a bit more time as the season goes on and as we demolish a bunch of teams. Gabriel is a project but will get time in blow outs. Chaisson is a walk on and will likely get little time like most of our walk on. Geno,coaches for the big games and likes to give the players who he knows need to operate well as a unit play a bunch of minutes together. The trick for him is that we are generally so dominant in so many games that it looks like overkill not to give some players more time. He wants his prime time players playing together a lot.

While we do have better depth this year, who should be getting less time? The biggest issue is Anna. And that centers mostly on shooting. She rebounds and passes wel. I think the offense runs better with her on the floor. The trade off if Griffin starts is more active D, maybe a few more rebounds and less precise ball movement. She would get some inside points but not much from the outside where Anna has shown she can be a threat.

Next year looks to be more crowded. Westbrook might not return. If Fudd is what she’s cracked up to be, Anna might be seeing a reduced role especially if Westbrook returns. The others who knows? How are Muhl and McClean impacted? Freshmen are freshmen. I just hope I live to see what happens. I ain’t so young.

 

[MooseJaw]

We’ve had years with two or three key players getting hurt. Beyond that, while I enjoy watching all the players get a chance, it’s Geno’s call as to who and when. If you look at this year, and the kids who haven’t had that much time he has tried to mix in Muhl who has been hampered by an injury, Griffin will get a bunch of minutes. She was hurt last game. McClean will likely get a bit more time as the season goes on and as we demolish a bunch of teams. Gabriel is a project but will get time in blow outs. Chaisson is a walk on and will likely get little time like most of our walk on. Geno,coaches for the big games and likes to give the players who he knows need to operate well as a unit play a bunch of minutes together. The trick for him is that we are generally so dominant in so many games that it looks like overkill not to give some players more time. He wants his prime time players playing together a lot.

While we do have better depth this year, who should be getting less time? The biggest issue is Anna. And that centers mostly on shooting. She rebounds and passes wel. I think the offense runs better with her on the floor. The trade off if Griffin starts is more active D, maybe a few more rebounds and less precise ball movement. She would get some inside points but not much from the outside where Anna has shown she can be a threat. This team i

Next year looks to be more crowded. Westbrook might not return. If Fudd is what she’s cracked up to be, Anna might be seeing a reduced role especially if Westbrook returns. The others who knows? How are Muhl and McClean impacted? Freshmen are freshmen. I just hope I live to see what happens. I ain’t so young.

I'm with you, time for us old timers is the real enemy along with too many missed 3 pointers. As every season starts it is a work in progress and continues as such until the last game. As is the case with the players, the more they work the more they progress, what is true today may be far from the truth in 2-3 weeks. If Aubrey suddenly has the light go on in her head, runs the offense with precision along with her smothering defense, is there a member of the BY who really believes Geno won't find a place on the court for her, or any other player who deserves it. If so you have been watching another team for the last 20-30 years. While speculation is fun and a hobby for many of us it doesn't win games, Geno his staff and teams do. I'll stay an arm chair coach and as such keep my undefeated record intact.

 

[bluedevil]

After missing on some recruits Geno decided to use a wider net to get a few extra fish er players after carefully reading the Boneyard and so far so good. The BYard knows what to do at all times..Geno just has to execute it..

 

[hoophuskee]

It's just with the anticipated bench next year in particular, it is hard for me to imagine many match-ups where the margin between our starters and their starters (while very high) is greater than the difference between the benches, when ours may be one of the best ever.

I want to push back a little bit on this by framing it a little differently. I can't speak for the others who want to expand the roster and pick up the pace, but my reasons should not be viewed as some kind of a major rebuff on Geno's coaching.

His record speaks for itself, mostly using a more limited rotation, but occasionally expanding it a little more when he has the talent. Beyond the pros and cons of game strategies, which have been debated effectively on both sides, I also look at this very much from a recruiting and program strategy standpoint.

If your coaching strategy is to use the best 8 players only until mop up minutes, how does that coexist with recruiting a roster which next year could have top recruits on the third team, not just at number 9 and 10. Maybe the thought process is if you can't make the top 8, screw it, go ahead transfer, who cares. Could Geno win that way? Of course, but is that what's best for the program?

I don't think recruiting way beyond your intended use is good for the program. Do we want to be one of the programs that leads the nation is players leaving? If Geno sticks to 8 next year, that is probably what we will be.

Many coaches have a favored approach or strategy that they really would like to pursue, but have to mold their approach to the hand they were dealt, or the talent at hand. In this case Geno recruited these kids, and at least for these back to back classes got much of what he wanted.

Most of the people expressing their opinion here have strong feelings about whether the team would be better or worse expanding the rotation, I get that. What I am getting at, is it is not just an issue of which approach produces the largest margin of victory. If it was even close to a neutral, I would still be in favor of expanding the rotation, because if gives at least some meaningful minutes to more of the roster, and increases the chance we can retain more of them.

Geno could even expand the rotation for the vast majority of the games and stick with his comfort level in the handful of games that really matter. That might make the people on both sides of this issue happy. Play your favored 8 against say Baylor and South Carolina, and a rotation of 10 or 11 against everybody else.

Next year I don't think there is any lineup Geno could put on the floor that is likely to shrink the lead against most teams. This year it might somewhat, but against the teams where the outcome is not in doubt, does it matter if we win by 36 or 37 instead of 40 because we increased the minutes for players that don't get any prime time action?

With respect I don't agree with what you are saying here.

I replied on a prior post providing a story of Kenny Anderson. The great H/S player from New York. Anyone that wants to read the article from the NY Times they can google it. It's called "The Recruiting of Kenny Anderson."

And even recently during the Stewie/MoJeff era that Geno heard that someone was deliberately missing free throws so they wouldn't get pulled. He got pissed ofc-- but at any rate - the super player doesn't want to sit.

Thus the style of playing a deep bench -- over the long-haul UCONN will stop getting the super player. Yet UCONN has won many of their titles getting the number 1 recruit. SC won there is with the number 1 recruit. Baylor had a combo of 1/2 recruit in Cox.

So long-term the idea to sustain success is getting the super elite recruit. Getting that deep bench is secondary.

In regards to sustainability-- Geno Auriemma has done it. So if he has done it with getting the elite number 1 recruits along with not playing a deep bench, how can it be said that he needs to change in any manner or imply that his method isn't conducive to long-term success?

I guess we circle back to the issue of- is Geno making a mistake not going with a deeper bench? IMO he is spot on going with a smaller bench and playing his superstars. The super elite players make others better. Even if tired - they will outperform the 9th or 10th best player. Thus long-term success will continue.

 

[CocoHusky]

I posted last week about not liking to think about next year's team when a season is in progress.
Sorry, got to refer to it here. With your well-enunciated point of view on subbing in mind, IMO it's not whether Geno will lose players to transfer but how many in the next couple of years. Have you written out next year's roster yet?
Maybe we need another million threads about Geno's recruiting. Did Sue Bird's recent comments shed any light on it. Geno told her to "follow her heart" and he hung up the phone. I read into that that Geno always thinks that if they come they come, that we'll still be successful either way. IMO Geno having built arguably a program comparable to Wooden's, is so confident in the strength of the program, that there's kind of a little arrogance about what's immediately at hand. Like a great General playing the long game and knowing there may be some casualties along the way.
So, a few years ago he shot blanks and got nobody. Mixed in there were a bunch of marginal recruits. He also had a couple strong recruits that developed and became stars like Pheesa, Kia, and Gabby. Then he struck gold again and landed 3 #1 high school players. And a cartful of quality role players coming in next year too.
As a mildly-educated outsider, it looks like a crap shoot. I guess that's the nature of recruiting, but.....

You have been severely misinformed about the bolded portions. Geno has always always credited the success of the program to having some really really good players. Of the recent program drought (most programs would gladly take it) Geno has again said: "The reason we are in the situation we are in is because we didn't get some of the players we though we were getting and some of the players we got weren't what we thought they would be."
UCONN has never had a recruiting class with "nobody" This program is not going to continue being successful without top tier recruits and it is naive to think otherwise.

 

[meyers7]

Good comments.
I'm done explaining what 70% means and what a good shot is. What do they say, "if it's a duck..."

Not talking about a "good shot" talking about an "open shot". Which you still have not explained what you consider it to be.

GI'll say one more thing: Geno has constructed his offense in order to get certain shots. Consider that your answer to what open shots are. Re-watch the DePaul game and decide for yourself.

But we're not just talking about UCONN and open shots, but all WCBB players and open shots.

IMO this team moves fairly well. Like he says, sometimes are better than others. But if you run an offense perfectly and get a "great " shot and the result is clank, time after time, what do you do? I literally think we're real close to that point. 6 games is a pretty significant sample size.
Reminder: Geno can break out the notepad and run something different. I always vote for using more athleticism, which he has sitting over there, with attacking the rim and major defensive pressure.
There have been championship calibre teams on the men's side that shot so bad that it almost looked like they missed on purpose. They crashed the glass like assassins and played defense over the whole court. Phi Slamma Jamma, 40 minutes of Hell. That's not UConn Women, but the point is we can do different things.

So you really think we should structure the "offense" like TN? Just throw/dibble the ball around then throw up a shot and go get the rebound? Yea, I'm hoping Geno doesn't take your advise.

 

[hoophuskee]

I posted last week about not liking to think about next year's team when a season is in progress.
Sorry, got to refer to it here. With your well-enunciated point of view on subbing in mind, IMO it's not whether Geno will lose players to transfer but how many in the next couple of years. Have you written out next year's roster yet?
Maybe we need another million threads about Geno's recruiting. Did Sue Bird's recent comments shed any light on it. Geno told her to "follow her heart" and he hung up the phone. I read into that that Geno always thinks that if they come they come, that we'll still be successful either way. IMO Geno having built arguably a program comparable to Wooden's, is so confident in the strength of the program, that there's kind of a little arrogance about what's immediately at hand. Like a great General playing the long game and knowing there may be some casualties along the way.
So, a few years ago he shot blanks and got nobody. Mixed in there were a bunch of marginal recruits. He also had a couple strong recruits that developed and became stars like Pheesa, Kia, and Gabby. Then he struck gold again and landed 3 #1 high school players. And a cartful of quality role players coming in next year too.
As a mildly-educated outsider, it looks like a crap shoot. I guess that's the nature of recruiting, but.....

I have an idea of the top 5 or 6.
With that said- if Evina stays we have a super 6. If she doesn't we have a super 5. Think of this-- Paige Bueckers is POY candidate next year and yet Azzi Fudd was considered "better" than her in H/S. And for anyone like me that has high expectations for this team this year because of players like Evina, CWill and Liv then next year they will just be greater. I believe super players make other super players much better. That's why I think of 6 right off the bat. So all the games UCONN plays in the Big East next year- how often will they be challenged?

Thus a super 5 or super 6 and add in one or 2 more players for big games so you have 7-8 core players. You haven't worn them down during the season because they rarely had to play over 30 minutes in the Big East. Add in at some point a player tweeks her ankle or knee, and add up a game in which Geno doesn't like "the body language" of one of his top players he'll bench one for a game or 2 (he did bench Stewie and Tuck for that), then you'd have a certain core of players ready for excellence.

As far as shooting blanks in terms of recruiting- - in the last 6 of 7 years as a highlight he had 2014- Gabby and Nurse, 2015-KLS (number 1 recruit) and Napheesa, 2016 Dangerfield ( number 3 recruit), 2017 Walker (number 1 recruit), 2018 CWill (number 1 recruit) and Liv, 2020 Paige, and 2021 Azzi. Very few blanks. In addition, imo UCONN had some bad luck with Boykin, Camara, in addition to Walker, Collier, and Stevens to a degree. Maybe minutes was an issue for Stevens but I have no idea of that.

 

[MD#12Fan]

Not talking about a "good shot" talking about an "open shot". Which you still have not explained what you consider it to be.



But we're not just talking about UCONN and open shots, but all WCBB players and open shots.


So you really think we should structure the "offense" like TN? Just throw/dibble the ball around then throw up a shot and go get the rebound? Yea, I'm hoping Geno doesn't take your advise.

Come on, man! Sometimes you guys pluck a sentence out of context. You're right, gotta shorten up my posts. How about 1 sentence and an emoji banging his head against a wall.
My point with that was that there are a million options to explore. If the conductor of the orchestra can't get the woodwinds to play correctly, then what do you do? Send them home or try something else. Maybe you end up with a keyboard, bass, trumpet, and alto sax. Damn, jazz is born! You get my point?

 

[CocoHusky]

Come on, man! Sometimes you guys pluck a sentence out of context. You're right, gotta shorten up my posts. How about 1 sentence and an emoji banging his head against a wall.
My point with that was that there are a million options to explore. If the conductor of the orchestra can't get the woodwinds to play correctly, then what do you do? Send them home or try something else. Maybe you end up with a keyboard, bass, trumpet, and alto sax. Damn, jazz is born! You get my point?

 

[MD#12Fan]

I have an idea of the top 5 or 6.
With that said- if Evina stays we have a super 6. If she doesn't we have a super 5. Think of this-- Paige Bueckers is POY candidate next year and yet Azzi Fudd was considered "better" than her in H/S. And for anyone like me that has high expectations for this team this year because of players like Evina, CWill and Liv then next year they will just be greater. I believe super players make other super players much better. That's why I think of 6 right off the bat. So all the games UCONN plays in the Big East next year- how often will they be challenged?

Thus a super 5 or super 6 and add in one or 2 more players for big games so you have 7-8 core players. You haven't worn them down during the season because they rarely had to play over 30 minutes in the Big East. Add in at some point a player tweeks her ankle or knee, and add up a game in which Geno doesn't like "the body language" of one of his top players he'll bench one for a game or 2 (he did bench Stewie and Tuck for that), then you'd have a certain core of players ready for excellence.

As far as shooting blanks in terms of recruiting- - in the last 6 of 7 years as a highlight he had 2014- Gabby and Nurse, 2015-KLS (number 1 recruit) and Napheesa, 2016 Dangerfield ( number 3 recruit), 2017 Walker (number 1 recruit), 2018 CWill (number 1 recruit) and Liv, 2020 Paige, and 2021 Azzi. Very few blanks. In addition, imo UCONN had some bad luck with Boykin, Camara, in addition to Walker, Collier, and Stevens to a degree. Maybe minutes was an issue for Stevens but I have no idea of that.

All due respect, you didn't answer my concerns. That roster next year is top to bottom. A couple "left out" could be juniors. You don't have to explain Azzi to me.
Do me a favor: write out next year's roster, highlight the 6 you'll play and then look at the 6-9 players on that roster left over and tell me they shouldn't be playing basketball at the Div 1, top tier college level. OK, Piath is a project. Ow, you got me there.
I mentioned all those #1 recruits. Forgot Crystal. Now, explain the brilliant recruiting class that yielded us zero seniors this year. That class has hurt Geno the last two years because the team has had such a short bench. (even by your standards) That class has hurt the program arguably for 4 years. Even this year a tad.
Come on, at least read my points.

 

[CocoHusky]

All due respect, you didn't answer my concerns. That roster next year is top to bottom. A couple "left out" could be juniors. You don't have to explain Azzi to me.
Do me a favor: write out next year's roster, highlight the 6 you'll play and then look at the 6-9 players on that roster left over and tell me they shouldn't be playing basketball at the Div 1, top tier college level. OK, Piath is a project. Ow, you got me there.
I mentioned all those #1 recruits. Forgot Crystal. Now, explain the brilliant recruiting class that yielded us zero seniors this year. That class has hurt Geno the last two years because the team has had such a short bench. (even by your standards) That class has hurt the program arguably for 4 years. Even this year a tad.
Come on, at least read my points.

Crystal was not #1 in her class.