"The Ludicrous, Unprecedented Greatness of Paige Bueckers"
- Thread starter rbny1
- Start date
bballnut90
LV Adherent. Topic Crafter
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2011
- Messages
- 7,391
- Reaction Score
- 33,027
I was responding to your statement of playing superior opponents.
The only very strong team UCONN faced in the tournament that year was vs. Notre Dame. Stewart had a phenomenal performance but aside from that game, UCONN had a relatively breezy path to the title, playing in front of overmatched teams in front of home crowds and against a Cinderella Louisville team for the title. All of the non-ND games were won by 26+ points. Outside of Baylor, ND, and UCONN, there just weren't a lot of strong teams that year.
In the regular season they faced a tougher schedule than this year's squad, but Stewart never carried the team in the regular season like how Paige has. She had much more consistent and reliable teammates than Paige has had. She wasn't a go to player and facilitator like Paige has been. She wasn't nearly as consistent as Paige has been.
You mentioned Baylor and ND in another post as a way to bolster Stewart's caliber of opponent. If you bring them up, then I have to point out that Stewart didn't have particularly good showings in the first 2 ND games and barely played against Baylor. She had a good showing in the BE title game but it wasn't a standout performance (16 points, 2 rebounds, 1 block). That year those 3 teams (ND/Baylor/UCONN) were head and shoulders above everyone else in the country. I agree that Baylor/ND would have likely beaten 2021's version of SC/Arkansas/Tennessee, but in 4 of the 5 games vs those top caliber teams, Stewart didn't perform at a particularly high level.
The rest of the schedule had a lot of top 10-20 teams on it, but I think SC/Arkansas/Tennessee would hold up well against the rest of UCONN's 2013 schedule. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to argue, but if it's that Stewart proved more as a freshman than Bueckers I disagree with that for the reasons above.
Last edited:
bballnut90
LV Adherent. Topic Crafter
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2011
- Messages
- 7,391
- Reaction Score
- 33,027
I apologize if it's a difficult concept. There's a stark difference between saying who you think actually will win the title vs. who you believe has a shot at winning. There are usually very few title favorites but several title threats (most #1 seeds, sometimes some #2 seeds as well). Almost no one thought SC was going to win the championship headed into the NCAA tournaments from 2015-2018.
This year is unique in that it's so wide open (usually there are only 1-2 teams that I'd characterize as title favorites) so I don't think there is a true favorite this year, but if I had to peg one I'd say it's UCONN or A&M.
Waquoit
Mr. Positive
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 33,556
- Reaction Score
- 88,246
Paige has been playing so well that it's almost a letdown when she doesn't make the perfect decision. I don't mean make a turnover, I mean she zigged when perhaps she should have zagged. And only perhaps. It took me awhile to process the consistent greatness we are seeing but I'm still way ahead of the curve.
My point: Uconn has played their weakest schedule I can remember, by far. Does not matter what the reasons are. Therefore, it makes her performance hard to compare with players from other years who faced tougher competition. This does not take anything away from her performance. I just find some of the comments here a bit too over the top. Nothing more than that.
Sluconn Husky
#1 Source of Info
- Joined
- May 22, 2014
- Messages
- 18,039
- Reaction Score
- 79,743
That may be true but, as bballnut90 referenced, freshman Stewie wasn't all that great against top competition either until the Final Four, and even that Louisville team wasn't all that good, certainly not defensively.
BBallnut: difficult concepts and stark differences. Really now! Are you one of 'those people' who always thinks they're right, gets in the last word, thinks they are the smartest guy in the room? Well, I don't know and I don't care because you wouldn't be the 1st I've run into or the last. I find it best to ignore such people. So that is what I will do.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,870
- Reaction Score
- 15,222
If he were not the greatest coach, he may not have landed all those players. Chicken or egg?
Last comments on this subject: South Carolina is a 'nice' team this year. No better than the 'weak' Louisville team in 2013. They looked like a unorganized YMCA team for half the game. Ark and Tenn typical teams ranked 10-20. Nothing special. So the question is: how much 'great' competition has Paige played against? Very little, at best.
Sluconn Husky
#1 Source of Info
- Joined
- May 22, 2014
- Messages
- 18,039
- Reaction Score
- 79,743
South Carolina has issues on offense but they are terrific defensively which is why nobody outside of Paige could score that night. 2013 Louisville was a defensive sieve.
bballnut90
LV Adherent. Topic Crafter
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2011
- Messages
- 7,391
- Reaction Score
- 33,027
You're the one who first made several condescending statements by saying:
"Now things are getting silly."
"Maybe you misremembered?"
"You need to read my comment better"
I just responded in the same tone. Have a good one.
Players make the coach, not the other way around. Same in every sport. There is a ridiculous amount of talent in men's basketball, but the talent pool in WBB is shallow. One player with great drive, talent and ability is an enormous advantage. Tom Brady answered the question very well this year, I think.
Di, Stewie and Paige all wanted to come to Uconn from the time they were young. Geno's sarcastic, boot camp style of coaching attracted them I guess. Having had a child play a Div 1 sport in the ACC, I can tell you quite a number of coaches get away with treating their players like crap, to the point of abuse. Unlike professional sports, the coach/player relationship in College sports is extremely one sided.
Waquoit
Mr. Positive
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 33,556
- Reaction Score
- 88,246
No, it doesn't. Even in the strongest of SOS season only a handful of games came against the varsity. There is enough of a sample size to judge here.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction Score
- 19,138
This is always what I come back to - the toughest competition, the pressure the highest, she came through every time with nobody flying shotgun. That one miss was with 4:55 left against Arkansas too - if she had just shot a few seconds earlier, she’d be perfect (granted with one fortituous bounce)
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,870
- Reaction Score
- 15,222
The reason they came here is because he is the best coach and will help them become better players. They know and have actually said, that his coaching is why they came because they want to be the best they can be! They can just look at the WNBA and see all the evidence they need. He has sent more elite players there than any other coach. I’m not sure what you are implying but it is very evident that the overwhelming majority of his players love and respect him!
Could it be that you are discounting Paige's performance against SC because they played with a Nike ball? Maybe switch to decaf and remember to take your happy pills.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2018
- Messages
- 2,007
- Reaction Score
- 13,396
Wait, what? The UConn women's basketball dynasty is over? I don't know how you are defining dynasty, but I think it's way to early to make that call. Still think we are going to add to our 11 championships.
I tend to be a bit confused by the argument about whether to attribute a team's success to the coach or to the players. We all agree it's both, right?
First, the players. Geno himself has said (rightly and hilariously, in my view) that "there are two kinds of coaches: coaches who have great players, and ex-coaches." Obviously UConn has had incredible players, and I doubt many people here would disagree with the view that those great players were absolutely essential to the team's success. When Geno has (rarely!) had less talent, he's won less.
Second, the coach. To begin with, the coach brings in the players. UConn didn't get this kind of talent until Geno arrived. So the coach is essential as a recruiter. Beyond that, the coach plays a major role in developing the players. Geno has an amazing track record at this: It seems to me that a much higher percentage of top recruits become stars and superstars at UConn than elsewhere, although I haven't made a rigorous study of that. In any event, clearly Geno has done great at helping elite talents reach their potential. In addition, the coach crafts the team's offense and defense, teaching the players how to play as a unit on both ends. And the coach motivates the team and makes all sorts of important decisions about playing time, matchups, dealing with foul trouble, etc. There is no question in the world that all those things are a ton more likely to result in success when you're doing them with talented players than with average players. But there's also no question that even talented players are much more likely to have success as a team if their coach is great instead of average.
If there were a single game between (#1) a team with talented players and an average coach and (#2) a team with average players and a talented coach, I'd bet on the team with talented players. But college basketball isn't a single game. The coach brings in the talented players, helps them reach their potential, and teaches them to work together on offense and defense. The players deserve massive credit for buying in, sacrificing, and doing so much work, as well as for having the natural gifts to make it all pay off. And the coach deserves massive credit for attracting the players and turning their efforts into major team success.
I doubt anyone on either side of the "talent vs. coaching" debate would disagree with anything I said here. So is there really any need for a debate? We're probably all on the same page.
First, the players. Geno himself has said (rightly and hilariously, in my view) that "there are two kinds of coaches: coaches who have great players, and ex-coaches." Obviously UConn has had incredible players, and I doubt many people here would disagree with the view that those great players were absolutely essential to the team's success. When Geno has (rarely!) had less talent, he's won less.
Second, the coach. To begin with, the coach brings in the players. UConn didn't get this kind of talent until Geno arrived. So the coach is essential as a recruiter. Beyond that, the coach plays a major role in developing the players. Geno has an amazing track record at this: It seems to me that a much higher percentage of top recruits become stars and superstars at UConn than elsewhere, although I haven't made a rigorous study of that. In any event, clearly Geno has done great at helping elite talents reach their potential. In addition, the coach crafts the team's offense and defense, teaching the players how to play as a unit on both ends. And the coach motivates the team and makes all sorts of important decisions about playing time, matchups, dealing with foul trouble, etc. There is no question in the world that all those things are a ton more likely to result in success when you're doing them with talented players than with average players. But there's also no question that even talented players are much more likely to have success as a team if their coach is great instead of average.
If there were a single game between (#1) a team with talented players and an average coach and (#2) a team with average players and a talented coach, I'd bet on the team with talented players. But college basketball isn't a single game. The coach brings in the talented players, helps them reach their potential, and teaches them to work together on offense and defense. The players deserve massive credit for buying in, sacrificing, and doing so much work, as well as for having the natural gifts to make it all pay off. And the coach deserves massive credit for attracting the players and turning their efforts into major team success.
I doubt anyone on either side of the "talent vs. coaching" debate would disagree with anything I said here. So is there really any need for a debate? We're probably all on the same page.
The title was a little misleading. He was just saying that the run of four straight championships was going to end, which it did, and that the immediate future after Stewie wasn't going to feature the same dominance as the Stewie era. He later predicted a return to titles and dominance with Bueckers, Fudd, et al. I agree with you that more titles are coming, perhaps as soon as this year. Certainly next year UConn should be the clear favorite.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2019
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction Score
- 134
Well stated beyond doubt. Fully agree and appreciate your efforts.
Hey Skeets! That's pretty funny coming from you.
Thank you so much! ?
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2013
- Messages
- 7,000
- Reaction Score
- 17,790
SO for example if Lebron James was coming out of High School and teamed up with the number 3 recruit and number 10 recruit let's say and the prior year UCONN got the number 1 recruit with 2 other top players - and they had elite recruits also on the team in which there was sr leadership -- you don't think when you get the elite super supreme number 1 player in college and give them other number 1 elite recruits along with top recruits every other year etc that they wouldn't go on runs of winning titles considering LeBron would be staying 4 years?
You say it's the players that make the coach? SO what would you say the difference is between Jim Calhoun vs Dom Perno vs Kevin Ollie?
In this case with your comments about you don't know why DT, STewie and Paige came to UCONN - but from your comments above - it has nothing to do with basketball? So you can't fathom at all that it's a basketball decision such as style of play why they came to UCONN?
So guards (and posts) don't make a decision as to how they would seem to fit in the UCONN offense and the pace of play? And kids are coming to a non-P5 Storrs Ct - all because when they were younger and just loved his charisma and tough love rather than making a basketball decision as to type of offense and a certain knowledge that the coach is good enough to always be competing for a title?
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2013
- Messages
- 7,000
- Reaction Score
- 17,790
I guess then maybe that poster has turned the corner and now believes the coaching is the difference????
Hoophuskee: you might want to consider a writing class. Comment #48 above is a mess. Your reading comprehension also needs a bit of work. I stated my thoughts on the issue on coaching. Nothing more to say.