Discussion in 'UConn Women's Basketball' started by OldAlum, May 14, 2018.
You don't know me.
Pretty talented roster last two years. Just sayin'.
of course he absolutely had his reasons but that doesn't mean I have to 100% agree with his methods ...if you go back to my posts during the season I was pleading for a middle ground....don't reward her but don't bury her on the bench for three plus quarters either because you may need her at crunch time in one of these important games....and the fact that she didn't get minutes in the majority of important games means that they both failed.....
Why should I know you?
You are correct sir. I posted this just before I shut it down for the evening, I was half asleep. One eye was closed, the other was fading fast, thanks.
I guess the biggest issue I have with your assessment is that you seem to feel compelled to assign blame and describe the fact that a talented freshman that didn’t develop quickly enough to suit everyone must be the result of either her failure and/or her coach.
This is simply the case of a freshman that wasn’t ready yet, something we’ve seen over and over again, and not just at UConn. There was only one freshman that made any type of meaningful contribution in the FF, Louisville’s Dana Evans. The rest of the teams with freshmen playing meaningful minutes didn’t make it to the FF.
Last season as freshmen, #1 Cox and #2 Crystal had similar up and down seasons. This year they both made tremendous sophomore leaps to become key contributors. Last season as a freshman, Jackie Young struggled at times. This season she went off for 32 in the National Semifinal.
Patience is a virtue, particularly when it comes to freshmen. Nobody’s at fault and nobody’s to blame. I suggest that you chill and join the rest of us in looking forward to an outstanding sophomore season for MW. I am absolutely expecting to hear reports coming out of early season workouts about how much better MW has gotten, just like the reports we heard about Crystal last year. Trust the process.
As per my post (above) of yesterday...
I am advocating for the argument (essentially: how can you disagree with Geno's record?) to be sidelined.
Why? because it is a discussion stopper and is likely fallacious from a logic point of view. Why either bother having a discussion board when this argument is used to shut down discussion.
Even the most successful investment funds always state: past performance is no guarantee of future...
I also am very much in Charlieball's camp...
With this variation: Megan's playing time(or lack thereof) was because of willfully not following the staff's instructions or not being smart enough to comprehend what was being emphasized...both I find difficult to believe.
I always go back to Moriah: there was an attempt (in some unknown manner) to
remake her game...and it was only when she was permitted to (regress) to her natural tendencies did she become the recognizable star that we recall so fondly.
When your head coach says you're not trying hard enough, not being aggressive enough and your not making the right decisions then of course somebody or something is to blame....blame it on being a freshman if you like but there is a reason or multiple reasons for that happening...you may remember I was one of Walker's biggest defenders last season amidst a sea of "over rated" critiques coming from some on this forum and I felt strongly that she could and should have played a bigger role in helping the team win......now I see some of those same folks who viewed her as a disappointment speaking of her future in such glowing terms.....it's just human nature I suppose.....I'm sure everybody is bored with this ongoing topic so let's move on to bigger and better things....
Yes, I read your original post, and I must confess that I find your logic somewhat tortured. To suggest that Geno and his coaching staff’s past success have no bearing in this discussion is intellectually dishonest imho.
Specifically, when Mo came to Storrs she was a mercurial player without a jump shot, who turned the ball over too often. At UConn, she learned to harness her speed while playing under control. With lots of work, Mo developed as a very effective shooter around her Jr year.
MW has all the talent in the world. She was a freshman who was not quite ready to contribute as much as everyone hoped she would. Under UConn’s staff, she too will develop into an outstanding player.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last point.
I went back to look at the HS tapes on youtube.
The jump shot is very much in evidence; see for yourself.
In her freshman year she had 49 turnovers, similar to the other guards Doty and Bria with 52 steals; right up there with the leaders of the team...
Interesting that that was the season Kiah Stokes was in the doghouse and played little; even with a short roster.
I'm always a little suspicious of HS "highlight" tapes that never show a player missing a shot. Show me full game tapes against top competition. I would also point out that in just about every HS game top HS players like MO are significantly better than everyone they play against. Lots of wide open shots with plenty of time to square up and shoot the ball. Much different against top teams in College. The 3-pt line is one foot further back and defenders are longer and quicker. During her freshman year MO shot 42% from the floor & 26% from the arc.
As for TO's, Mo only played 17 mpg as a freshman, similar to Doty, but far less than Hartley & Ferris who played most of the minutes at guard with Stewie, KML and Steph up front. Also worth noting that Doty, Hartley & Ferris all had better A/TO ratios than Mo during her freshman season.
Hence a 72-2 record and 2 FF appearances.
It is not used to shutdown "discussion". It is used to remind some posters, they are not half as smart as they think they are.
Well there is one of your problems.
Eh you are not looking at it right.
Yea, that's not at all what happened. She didn't regress. She actually worked her ass off that summer into the Soph season to improve on some things. When she/they finally got her at the correct speed, that's when everything clicked.
Speaking of logical fallacies, this is a false dichotomy. Neither of these things has to be true to explain the amount of playing time she received. There is a big difference between being "smart enough" to comprehend the coaches' instructions and being able to employ those instructions in a live game consistently enough to merit playing time when your competition for playing time includess 6 All-American caliber players.
There is a natural progression that all freshmen go through. The coaches felt that she wasn't far enough in that progression to merit playing time. There does not have to be someone to blame here. It does not have to be the case that either Walker isn't smart or won't listen or that coaches failed her in some way.
Why is it so hard to believe that Megan did her best and the coaches did their best for Megan and that the team just came up a little short?
There shouldn't be any doubt in anyone mind about Megan's happiness and we don't have to assume anything! Megan has told us!
"I think coming off the bench kind of helped, because I could sit back and see everything and know what’s going on and know what we need to do in the game. When I came in the game, I was kind of locked in and focused on the task at hand.”
UConn Freshman Megan Walker Earning Trust, Playing Time
Is she (Megan) happy? It's important to start there, because outsiders wonder.
“Yeah,” she said after UConn defeated South Florida for its latest AAC Tournament title Tuesday at Mohegan Sun Arena. “Of course, yeah.”
UConn's Megan Walker On Her Freshman Season: 'A Fair Process'
"of course, yeah"....no doubt about it......I'm sure she was absolutely thrilled beyond belief sitting on that bench, especially during the national semi-final..after all, who'd want to play in that game?....do you really think a college freshman is going to tell a reporter that she's pissed off about not playing?....listen, I get it.. there's nothing I'm going to say that you're going to buy into so let's just leave well enough alone
Actually it is. Quite often.
About as often as it's used the way you're talking about -- to remind posters that they aren't as smart as they think they are etc.
There's a lot of both on this board, and it's been that way for as long as I've been on here (since 2008 or so).
So when some armchair QB on the BY starts making an argument that Geno doesn’t know what in the hell he’s doing, is it appropriate to gently point out that as a result of 33 years of unparalleled success coaching WBB, it just might be possible that Geno knows slightly more than any of us about the game of basketball, and how to motivate and develop players?
No, not "discussion". Idiotic, absurd posts are not "discussion".
Coco I fully support your right to disagree with anything that I say..... as a matter of fact I'd be nervous if that wasn't the case...however since my thoughts cause you so much mental anguish I'm curious as to why you just don't block me....just think every day will be a day without Charlieball and his wrongheaded ideas.....I would think that would bring you great relief.......please give my friendly invitation some consideration
Truer words were never spoken.......the keepers of the faith will be your friends as long as you walk in lock step with their ideas.....cross the line with original thoughts that don't please them and the Geno card will be played.....but hey it's their world and we're just interlopers, here to just nod our heads in complete agreement ...
I don't block you because you have thick skin as well as a great propensity to miseducate. Such a talent should not go unchecked- mental anguish aside!
...This is the straw man that is employed, in one form or another, when using Geno's record as a bludgeon
[Where I say 'you' below, i don't actually mean you in particular, oldude, it's just rhetorical]
In every other major team sport (men's), this straw man still appears but a lot less often. In Chicago when I lived there, if someone asked fans what they thought of Phil Jackson and his multiple rings, they would all say he's great, awesome, genius, an all-time great, future HOFer, etc. But there was still a lot of the usual fan-talk and fan-argument over all kinds things having to do with the team, and what Phil might have said, done, in games, in interviews, etc., constantly, in multiple forums both public and private. People worshipped Mike Ditka at the time, but it was a sport in itself to argue play calling, draft picks, player substitution, player utilization, game strategy, whatever, and ask "what was he thinking." Same was true (even more so) when I was at Iowa State where Johnny Orr was the men's bball coach. The list goes on in other sports and cities everywhere. In sports, general admiration/respect/adulation and constant armchair quarterbacking of all kinds exist side by side. Disagreeing with a coach on something doesn't mean you don't still give him an A+ overall. If this weren't true, no fan of Iowa State basketball would have ever uttered a single peep against anything Johnny did, because he was so loved. But they (we) did, and he walked on water to us.
Actual discussions arguments are made on the merits, not by playing the "coach has rings so you must be wrong" card in whatever sport. If one fan thinks the other is loony, the card they should play is the "you're full of s&#%, and here's why" card. Or just the "you're full of s&%$" card by itself if you feel like it. Which is totally fine and how it should be. It's sports, after all. Playing the "coach has rings" card means (A) you don't have a real argument; (B) you already used your real argument and nobody bought it; or (C) you already used your real argument, which was a good one, but instead of standing pat you decide to pile on with a straw man because the other guy just won't shut up. This doesn't magically make your argument better. It just gives you another chance at having the last word, if you equate that with 'winning.'
The reason (C) is weak is because it's just restating the obvious. It's obvious the coach has rings; he's the world famous one making zillions of $$. It's obvious none of us have rings or will be hired as coach any time soon--we're too busy drinking beer and yelling at the TV's around the bar, or the one across the living room. It's obvious which side of the argument coach would be on--it's because of something he said or did that everybody's talking in the first place! It's also obvious that fans' arguments about all this is worth precisely $0.00 in the grand scheme. Any and all discussions about sports and sports figures take place against that backdrop. And yet millions of discussions/arguments about sports take place every day, a fair number of which will have something to do with a coach who has rings. Lather, rinse, repeat. If all that mattered was the coach's record or what he/she's thought, none of this would exist.
Separate names with a comma.