Thoughts on Lou this season

[AussieHusky]

I don't agree with how you look at the college game nor do I agree with how you look at the pro game. For starters Collier is more of a 4 in college-- not a 3. Same with Walker but maybe she could live as a 3 (she's a 3/4) if she was good skills as a penetrator and can pass well off of it. I haven't seen her enough.

Collier and Walker don't shoot well enough from outside 15 feet and just as important set up other players for passing for a championship team offensively. Potentially they could win defensively 51-50 but that's not the UCONN WAY. There's a reason why Geno gets the #1 recruits often- the number1 recruits know he'll look to optimize their skill set WHILE WINNING. In the college game guard/perimeter play extremely important. Passing and shooting from the perimeter is extremely important.

If you run into a team like Dayton from the past NCAA and their offense is clicking and you have Collier or Walker as one of the prime weapons from the wing, you're going to lose unless you have an elite defensive team. KLS is a favorite for a reason. IMO not what you imply but her presence is such a threat as wing- to play her at any other position more than an occasional game is wrong She shoots better than players like Collier and walker and passes better. KLS is a natural wing.

As far as Gabby- she's in the WNBA BECUASE Geno had her play 4. She can't shoot well enough. Just because you play her as a guard in college doesn't mean she'd automatically be good enough to be one. And how many games need to be sacrificed for one player? The idea is to win. Geno and Gabby showed the WNBA teams that her style can be successful. Playing her at guard may very well have cost the team wins and Gabby a WNBA career. That's not the UCONN way.

"For starters Collier is more of a 4 in college-- not a 3. Same with Walker but maybe she could live as a 3 (she's a 3/4) if she was good skills as a penetrator and can pass well off of it. I haven't seen her enough."
Walker is a 4 just as Maya is a 4, right? Please! Megan Walker is 6'1", while athletic, she is definitely undersized for a 4 (does not have the girth or bulk to offset the lack of height). And, Walker has a mid-range game, she shoots the 3-ball at a respectable percentage (in big game situations I may add....see UCLA 2018, and others). She has the ability to beat players off the dribble also. She has shown those abilities when given the opportunity. I don't know what you see when you see Megan play, but obviously we are not looking at the same things. Not a big deal, we can disagree. I get it you "don't agree with how..." I see the game, but you will be hard press to convince many others that Megan Walker is a College 4, and by inference, a WNBA 4.

"As far as Gabby- she's in the WNBA BECUASE Geno had her play 4. She can't shoot well enough."
Of all your statements, this is the one that really pains me.....I will just say that we see things differently. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall Gabby ever being asked to play guard at UCONN, in a game situation that is. Maybe in practice, but you and I don't know that. So in other words, she was a guard in HS (b/4 injury), she was recruited based on her exploits as a guard, and then she was sent to the post to bang against players who were bigger and stronger than her, in the interest of the team. And she performed admirably because of her smarts and hard work. She was unselfish, and would do anything for the team (just as Megan is being asked to do now...). And probably being asked to play out of position contributed to her not working on those attributes that are associated with her natural position. And now you blame her? Let me just be clear, Gabby Williams is not in the "WNBA BECUASE Geno had her play 4", but in spite of it, imo. Her smarts, determination and hard work got her there. And I will add that Geno making her play 4 in college may very well have played a big part in her struggles in the WNBA last year.

There is one area that you and I agree.... that Geno's job is to win games, and that he will put a team and, obviously players, in positions that he feels will win games for UCONN. That is fair. Like all coaches, that's what he's paid to do, and I have no qualms about that. And I will add that in the process he strives to put a product that is aesthetically pleasing unlike the majority of his peers. But let's be honest, sometimes his decisions may not be in the best interest of the player's post-UCONN career.

"Geno and Gabby showed the WNBA teams that her style can be successful. Playing her at guard may very well have cost the team wins and Gabby a WNBA career. That's not the UCONN way"
Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here...
Are you implying that Geno playing Gabby as an undersized 4 (and sometimes 5) in college enabled her to successfully play the same position in the WNBA? There's no evidence of that. In fact she was beaten up by bigger, stronger and athletic players at that position in the WNBA last season.

The bottom line is this. imo .... Geno puts players in positions that will help UCONN win games, plain and simple. For some, that position reinforces their strengths (KLS). For others, that position may require learning new things and unlearning what they've known all along (Gabby, Megan). If the player succeeds, their post-UCONN basketball career probably thrives as a result. If not, they leave with a wonderful education and important life lessons. That is all one can ask for. But let's not kid ourselves that everything Geno does prepares the player for a successful professional career, and that failing to be successful professionally (in basketball) is all the player's fault.

 

[AussieHusky]

I just wanted to write that I am glad Lou backed up and proved much of what I was writing about today. Her overall game was great and her improvement is impressive. I hope she and the rest of the players continue to improve and they have as good a chance as anybody to win in March.

Well, I haven't watched the game replay yet (not sure if I will be able to though), but here's hoping that Lou continued to diversify her game and contribute in other ways. Diversity is a good thing, as is seeing and acknowledging the contributions of other players, especially the worker-bees.

 

[HopJim]

reading some of the other posts I just want to add Collier is a great 4 better than KLS. KLS is a better 3. I don't get the little shots at KLS. She's been a 1st team a/a deservedly so. This is not KLS vs Collier. They compliment each other extremely well. These two have yet to lose a reg season game and lost two final fours on last second shots it OT. They both deserve huge accolades and it has been a joy watching both.

You make strong points. In my view they are equal in their importance to UConn this year. I could make a case for either as the team MVP but not necessary. Neither would have the same results without the other.

 

[Los24]

Well, I haven't watched the game replay yet (not sure if I will be able to though), but here's hoping that Lou continued to diversify her game and contribute in other ways. Diversity is a good thing, as is seeing and acknowledging the contributions of other players, especially the worker-bees.

I thought everyone played well. Pheesa outplayed another AA and with help almost completely shut her down. The biggest gripe of some was 3pt defense but Geno explained that it was part of stopping Anigwe and force a team that typically does not shoot well from three to beat them. There is room there for improvement to get on top of the screens and rotate a bit faster but 66 points allowed to a good to 15 team is not bad. I thought Megan and CW continued to show that they can be counted on. Overall balanced scoring and good game to watch.

 

[Los24]

reading some of the other posts I just want to add Collier is a great 4 better than KLS. KLS is a better 3. I don't get the little shots at KLS. She's been a 1st team a/a deservedly so. This is not KLS vs Collier. They compliment each other extremely well. These two have yet to lose a reg season game and lost two final fours on last second shots it OT. They both deserve huge accolades and it has been a joy watching both.

I agree 100%. This thread was about Lou and the way she is developing this year as a senior and now healthy. I was going to write a similar one for Pheesa but now it may come off as disingenuous. You said it perfectly, they are different players with different skillsets. Both are great players and from all accounts great young women.

 

[phil sampieri]

Since you asked for thoughts, here are mine.... and I will try to tread carefully here.
I am usually uncomfortable when fans try to anoint a leader, or most important player, or whatever they fancy about their favourite player. This always, though probably not intended, undervalues the contributions of other players. Lou is not the most important player on this UCONN team. I am sorry, but she is not. Are UCONN offensive plays predominantly run for Lou, yes! She is more often than not, the beneficiary of screens set by other players (very rarely do you see Lou setting screens for others). Now, as it seem that's how Geno wants it, I am not complaining. But just because Geno runs plays for her does not make her the best player. Lou's game (and her ability to score) depends immensely on her team mates setting her up. This year she has definitely diversify her game, but off course this is year 4 so she has to in order to succeed at the next level. Is she an important component, yes! But so is Pheesa, CD, CW, and yes, Megan also. The team is a team for a reason. Each member brings a special skill set. When each does what they are good at very well, the team succeeds. When someone does not, the team becomes unbalance. Now, regarding what each brings, Lou has been fortunate in that she has always play her natural wing position at UCONN. Pheesa is not a natural 4 or 5 but she had been enlisted to play those positions in the interest of the team. Don't tell me Megan is a 4, yet she is playing that this year, banging with players who are bigger and taller than her. That has an effect on one's offense, don't you think? Same thing happened with Gabby. She was made to play a position that, in my opinion, is negatively impacting her professional career, at least in her first WNBA year. I know it may be sacrilege to some, but in my opinion, Lou was given a starting position in her Freshman year. There was no evidence that she earned it in practice. Geno, at that time wanted to balance the team with an outside shooter, so he put Gabby on the bench and inserted Lou into the starting five with Stewie, Tuck, Kia and Moriah. If playing time or starting was all due to how you perform in practice, Gabby would have started (see the Ohio State game from 2015-2016 with Moriah, Kia and Gabby in the back court, and Tuck and Stewie up front).
The bottom line is this.... Lou has improved her game a lot, and it will probably benefit her at the next level. But at heart, she is still a finesse player, dependent on her team mates for the most part to get open looks. Yet, with those open looks she still misses quite a bit, especially in the big games when the opponent has athletic, rugged players on her (they types she will see in the WNBA). She needs to continue to diversify her game, improve her rebounding (she is the tallest player among the starting five so it should be expected), and improve her defense, especially her lateral movement (opposing players do not respect her defense or shot blocking in spite of her height, so they almost always drive at her - see OU, ND, St John's...).
Any way, this is how I see it.
Cheers!

 

[phil sampieri]

Since you asked for thoughts, here are mine.... and I will try to tread carefully here.
I am usually uncomfortable when fans try to anoint a leader, or most important player, or whatever they fancy about their favourite player. This always, though probably not intended, undervalues the contributions of other players. Lou is not the most important player on this UCONN team. I am sorry, but she is not. Are UCONN offensive plays predominantly run for Lou, yes! She is more often than not, the beneficiary of screens set by other players (very rarely do you see Lou setting screens for others). Now, as it seem that's how Geno wants it, I am not complaining. But just because Geno runs plays for her does not make her the best player. Lou's game (and her ability to score) depends immensely on her team mates setting her up. This year she has definitely diversify her game, but off course this is year 4 so she has to in order to succeed at the next level. Is she an important component, yes! But so is Pheesa, CD, CW, and yes, Megan also. The team is a team for a reason. Each member brings a special skill set. When each does what they are good at very well, the team succeeds. When someone does not, the team becomes unbalance. Now, regarding what each brings, Lou has been fortunate in that she has always play her natural wing position at UCONN. Pheesa is not a natural 4 or 5 but she had been enlisted to play those positions in the interest of the team. Don't tell me Megan is a 4, yet she is playing that this year, banging with players who are bigger and taller than her. That has an effect on one's offense, don't you think? Same thing happened with Gabby. She was made to play a position that, in my opinion, is negatively impacting her professional career, at least in her first WNBA year. I know it may be sacrilege to some, but in my opinion, Lou was given a starting position in her Freshman year. There was no evidence that she earned it in practice. Geno, at that time wanted to balance the team with an outside shooter, so he put Gabby on the bench and inserted Lou into the starting five with Stewie, Tuck, Kia and Moriah. If playing time or starting was all due to how you perform in practice, Gabby would have started (see the Ohio State game from 2015-2016 with Moriah, Kia and Gabby in the back court, and Tuck and Stewie up front).
The bottom line is this.... Lou has improved her game a lot, and it will probably benefit her at the next level. But at heart, she is still a finesse player, dependent on her team mates for the most part to get open looks. Yet, with those open looks she still misses quite a bit, especially in the big games when the opponent has athletic, rugged players on her (they types she will see in the WNBA). She needs to continue to diversify her game, improve her rebounding (she is the tallest player among the starting five so it should be expected), and improve her defense, especially her lateral movement (opposing players do not respect her defense or shot blocking in spite of her height, so they almost always drive at her - see OU, ND, St John's...).
Any way, this is how I see it.
Cheers![/QUOTE
They set more screens for her than anyone else, wow so wouldn't you as a coach, do that for your best ( outside shooter ?) think about it for a sec.
)

 

[hoophuskee]

[QUOTE="AussieHusky, post: 2969192, member: 6731



from Aussie ---------The bottom line is this. imo .... Geno puts players in positions that will help UCONN win games, plain and simple. For some, that position reinforces their strengths (KLS). For others, that position may require learning new things and unlearning what they've known all along (Gabby, Megan). If the player succeeds, their post-UCONN basketball career probably thrives as a result. If not, they leave with a wonderful education and important life lessons. That is all one can ask for. But let's not kid ourselves that everything Geno does prepares the player for a successful professional career, and that failing to be successful professionally (in basketball) is all the player's fault.[/QUOTE]

from me----------- yeah we disagree on everything. First off I don't get your Maya comment. Mayas was a super 4 in college. Before Maya came to UCONN I was on the old ESPN board and argued with those that thought Maya would kill kalana's minutes because I felt UCONN could play Maya at 4. I believe if certain players can "play up" - positions then you should do it. In the college game "playing up" enhances ball movement and pace of play. Thus this style of play allows you to consistently land the number 1 recruits.

As far as Walker yes this year her shooting has been good but last YEAR it wasn't. And in high school I recall her shooting %'s were not that good. Okay but not that great. So I'm supposed to discount an entire year plus her high school "shooting" numbers for a few games this year? And as far as girth who says you need girth to win at the power forward? why can't 4's be small and drill 3's and play an exciting brand of winning fast-paced basketball? As far as hard pressed I think as mentioned above with Maya - I think you're making a mistake of equating what position you play in college must be the same position you must play in the WNBA. The college game is different. A kid like walker just needs to play. That's more important than stuffing her at 3 and live with her shot which imo will be decent this year but not elite. And while you bring up her dribbling beating her defender off the dribble I point to her passing of 19 assist to 13 turnovers. That's not bad but it's the worst ratio on the team. When you are trying to be an elite team and if everyone else in the starting 5 is a better passer and shooter, why would you want Walker to be your 3? In zones she would be one of the top handlers/decision makers or she would be nothing more that 3pt statue. At the 4 she can use her very good quickness to beat other 4's off the dribble and also if she is the shooter you suspect then she can get off perimeter shots any time.

As far as Gabby - I don't agree with how you can come up with that I "blame" her. I get it we have different views. How you've interpreted my comments as "blame" just highlights our differences. If I recall Gabby's highest ranking in high school was 7 and hoopgulrz had her 14. The writeup was that she was a super athlete - why do you think she couldn't be higher? Because of her shot. And in the years she's played at UCONN in which she was a 4-- how would you compare her 3's vs players such as Maya and Collier? She showed you for 4 years she isn't much of a perimeter player yet got drafted above her high school ratings, outplayed nearly every big she went against and became 1st team all-American and somehow you suggest I'm "blaming" her? I'm thrilled for what she turned into based on her skill set. Because she was used as a 4 she got into the WNBA as a very high pick.

I'm in the camp that likes to have college players "play up" in order to play fast paced winning basketball. I don't believe as you do playing someone like Gabby at 4 hurt her. I don't believe she would have ever had the shooting skill to be a WNBA pro guard unless for defense only. Her 4 years of lack of a 3pt shot showed me that. Two plyers you highlighted were both Collier and Walker at 3's. Both have shown you 3pt ability even as 4's. Gabby logged many minutes at the 4- which season did she show you 3pt ability other than maybe you might think of her high school? IMO this is a clear indication her shot was/is suspect.

And as far as your comments on Geno again we look at things differently. You say Geno recruited Gabby as a guard, yet I say Geno recruited Gabby as a basketball player. You seem to want to hard define positions from high school to college to WNBA. Thus I'll always disagree with your outlook. I agree with the Geno strategy of giving his best players minutes and be fexible in positions they play. IMO I don't think Collier, Walker or gabby was hurt one iota in their positions with UConn. Further, IMO there is a huge reason why Geno lands #1 recruits. It's because he is not stuck on position and he gets them because they show well in the WNBA regardless where geno played them in college. Because minutes for these kids is a lot more important than position. **** thus Walker will not be a 4 in the wnba but in college she might be.

 

[phil sampieri]

Seeing how she is third, how can that be considered the best. The best should be whoever has the highest percentage, it seems to me.

I'd bet she would be 1st always as the one most closely guarded. think about it for a minute. stats can be skewed as these are.
\

 

[PAHuskeyFan]

Way too much discussion on this... the poster was trying to talk about how Lou has expanded her game this year and the thread has gone on multiple tangents, including who is the best player on the team (not the point of the original post), who belongs on Mt Rushmore (not the point of the orig post), Lou's 3pt percentage compared to team mates this season (not the point of the orig post --- an let's NOT forget she was #1 in all of D1 WBB last year in 3pt %). Her rebounding is WAY up... she averages 20pt/game, her field goal percentage is coming up each game, her free throw percentage is up (she has only missed 5 all season this season), her Assist to Turnover ratio is excellent... bottom line, she is contributing all over the stat sheet.

I believe Lou has continued to improve and expand her game in all facets since she came to UCONN and this year in particular (3 straight double doubles helps support this). She is a key to the success of the Team this year as is Pheesa, Danger, Meg, CW, Kyla, ONO, Molly, Mikala and Touly when she gets healthy. Lou and Pheesa are both playing at AA level, and some might give Danger a similar endorsement... Fact of the matter is, none of this extended back and forth and other discussion is ever going to be agreed upon by everyone on BY... but I think the UCONN Fans on this site agree on one thing... this TEAM relies on ALL of it's "cogs" to win another NC and we're all pulling for them to do just that!

 

[hoophuskee]

Way too much discussion on this... the poster was trying to talk about how Lou has expanded her game this year and the thread has gone on multiple tangents, including who is the best player on the team (not the point of the original post), who belongs on Mt Rushmore (not the point of the orig post), Lou's 3pt percentage compared to team mates this season (not the point of the orig post --- an let's NOT forget she was #1 in all of D1 WBB last year in 3pt %). Her rebounding is WAY up... she averages 20pt/game, her field goal percentage is coming up each game, her free throw percentage is up (she has only missed 5 all season this season), her Assist to Turnover ratio is excellent... bottom line, she is contributing all over the stat sheet.

I believe Lou has continued to improve and expand her game in all facets since she came to UCONN and this year in particular (3 straight double doubles helps support this). She is a key to the success of the Team this year as is Pheesa, Danger, Meg, CW, Kyla, ONO, Molly, Mikala and Touly when she gets healthy. Lou and Pheesa are both playing at AA level, and some might give Danger a similar endorsement... Fact of the matter is, none of this extended back and forth and other discussion is ever going to be agreed upon by everyone on BY... but I think the UCONN Fans on this site agree on one thing... this TEAM relies on ALL of it's "cogs" to win another NC and we're all pulling for them to do just that!

Mine and Aussie' do relate to the thread. The OP mentioned that there was past discussions that there were gripings of Lou's game vs OU. The OP asked for "thoughts" regarding Lou and her learning a new role because she is supposedly key in his or her opinion was worth a discussion. Aussie seemed to believe that Lou is not key and has had the benefit of being fortunate of geno allowing her to play the 3 at the expense of Collier and Walker.

I'm not defining who is key I don't know but I was sticking up for Los by suggesting Lou is the logical 3. Aussie seemed to imply that los was saying because lou should be the go to player it means she is the best. Imo being a go-to doesn't mean your the best. I think the discussions between aussiee and I were definitely aligned with the thread. He thinks she isn't necessarily the best candidate for a go to player and you could put others there - while I think because she is the logical best choice for wing - thus she's the best option from the outside to provide opportunities for each player more than Collier or Walker could be. I tend to think all are key but Lou must be the 3.

And Gabby and Maya relate to the OP's thread because you could argue in the past Maya as an undersized 4 was the key - a player such as Collier (imo is similar to maya) can be or you can move her Walker to 3 and then they could have more opportunities to become key. There is the disagreements.

Los invited a broad conversation. Sometimes in these broad conversations you need to bring up the past to make a point.

 

[AussieHusky]

[QUOTE="AussieHusky, post: 2969192, member: 6731



from Aussie ---------The bottom line is this. imo .... Geno puts players in positions that will help UCONN win games, plain and simple. For some, that position reinforces their strengths (KLS). For others, that position may require learning new things and unlearning what they've known all along (Gabby, Megan). If the player succeeds, their post-UCONN basketball career probably thrives as a result. If not, they leave with a wonderful education and important life lessons. That is all one can ask for. But let's not kid ourselves that everything Geno does prepares the player for a successful professional career, and that failing to be successful professionally (in basketball) is all the player's fault.

from me----------- yeah we disagree on everything. First off I don't get your Maya comment. Mayas was a super 4 in college. Before Maya came to UCONN I was on the old ESPN board and argued with those that thought Maya would kill kalana's minutes because I felt UCONN could play Maya at 4. I believe if certain players can "play up" - positions then you should do it. In the college game "playing up" enhances ball movement and pace of play. Thus this style of play allows you to consistently land the number 1 recruits.

As far as Walker yes this year her shooting has been good but last YEAR it wasn't. And in high school I recall her shooting %'s were not that good. Okay but not that great. So I'm supposed to discount an entire year plus her high school "shooting" numbers for a few games this year? And as far as girth who says you need girth to win at the power forward? why can't 4's be small and drill 3's and play an exciting brand of winning fast-paced basketball? As far as hard pressed I think as mentioned above with Maya - I think you're making a mistake of equating what position you play in college must be the same position you must play in the WNBA. The college game is different. A kid like walker just needs to play. That's more important than stuffing her at 3 and live with her shot which imo will be decent this year but not elite. And while you bring up her dribbling beating her defender off the dribble I point to her passing of 19 assist to 13 turnovers. That's not bad but it's the worst ratio on the team. When you are trying to be an elite team and if everyone else in the starting 5 is a better passer and shooter, why would you want Walker to be your 3? In zones she would be one of the top handlers/decision makers or she would be nothing more that 3pt statue. At the 4 she can use her very good quickness to beat other 4's off the dribble and also if she is the shooter you suspect then she can get off perimeter shots any time.

As far as Gabby - I don't agree with how you can come up with that I "blame" her. I get it we have different views. How you've interpreted my comments as "blame" just highlights our differences. If I recall Gabby's highest ranking in high school was 7 and hoopgulrz had her 14. The writeup was that she was a super athlete - why do you think she couldn't be higher? Because of her shot. And in the years she's played at UCONN in which she was a 4-- how would you compare her 3's vs players such as Maya and Collier? She showed you for 4 years she isn't much of a perimeter player yet got drafted above her high school ratings, outplayed nearly every big she went against and became 1st team all-American and somehow you suggest I'm "blaming" her? I'm thrilled for what she turned into based on her skill set. Because she was used as a 4 she got into the WNBA as a very high pick.

I'm in the camp that likes to have college players "play up" in order to play fast paced winning basketball. I don't believe as you do playing someone like Gabby at 4 hurt her. I don't believe she would have ever had the shooting skill to be a WNBA pro guard unless for defense only. Her 4 years of lack of a 3pt shot showed me that. Two plyers you highlighted were both Collier and Walker at 3's. Both have shown you 3pt ability even as 4's. Gabby logged many minutes at the 4- which season did she show you 3pt ability other than maybe you might think of her high school? IMO this is a clear indication her shot was/is suspect.

And as far as your comments on Geno again we look at things differently. You say Geno recruited Gabby as a guard, yet I say Geno recruited Gabby as a basketball player. You seem to want to hard define positions from high school to college to WNBA. Thus I'll always disagree with your outlook. I agree with the Geno strategy of giving his best players minutes and be fexible in positions they play. IMO I don't think Collier, Walker or gabby was hurt one iota in their positions with UConn. Further, IMO there is a huge reason why Geno lands #1 recruits. It's because he is not stuck on position and he gets them because they show well in the WNBA regardless where geno played them in college. Because minutes for these kids is a lot more important than position. **** thus Walker will not be a 4 in the wnba but in college she might be.[/QUOTE]

"As far as Walker yes this year her shooting has been good but last YEAR it wasn't. And in high school I recall her shooting %'s were not that good. Okay but not that great. So I'm supposed to discount an entire year plus her high school "shooting" numbers for a few games this year?"
First of all, she was a freshman, learning a new system, and being lambasted openly for any mistakes she made. Also, she acquitted herself well in the big games that she played in. Just for the record, her shooting %: 44.4 & 37.1 /Lou- 49.3 & 39.4 (2P & 3P respectively). And Lou played with Stewie, Moriah, Tuck and Nurse. I think you are being very selective here.

"Mayas was a super 4 in college. Before Maya came to UCONN I was on the old ESPN board and argued with those that thought Maya would kill kalana's minutes because I felt UCONN could play Maya at 4. I believe if certain players can "play up" - positions then you should do it. In the college game "playing up" enhances ball movement and pace of play. "

The operative word is "in the college game". You may get away with playing undersized in college, but not in the pros, for the most part. And Maya ain't making her living off being a "super 4", that's for sure.
Maya is an intelligent, athletic and very gifted player, so being made to play the 4 by Geno (as you claimed) did not negatively impact her productivity as much after UCONN. But other players may not be as gifted or talented, so playing them out of position in college (when they should be honing and perfecting their skills at their realistic positions) has a detrimental effect on their post-UCONN productivity.

"You seem to want to hard define positions from high school to college to WNBA. Thus I'll always disagree with your outlook. I agree with the Geno strategy of giving his best players minutes and be fexible in positions they play."

I am not hard defining anything. I believe our differences are based on how we look at these things. I believe you are more tactical, whereas I am more strategic. You are more up on the "position-less player", the "play-up" concept, innovative, non-traditional, etc. All good constructs, but to a point! One can be flexible with players' positions within a limit (during their development in college).

Basketball has a fundamental component which defines how it is played for the most part, and that component is size. Basically, the big guys are closer to the basket and the smaller guys are further away. Big guys, for the most part, are slow, clumsy and can not dribble well, so they are not effective the further you go away from the basket. But around the basket, they can use their strength and height more effectively. Smaller players are fleet of foot, dribble well, etc. for the most part. They are more effective further out where they can maximize their strengths. These are the two extremes, and medium sized players fall somewhere within these two.
Occasionally, you may have an athlete who has the size of a big and the attributes of a smaller player (EDD, Candace Parker, Stewie, KLS). Other times you may have an athlete with the size of a smaller player, but some attributes of a big guy (Gabby, Megan, etc.). Those two types of athletes create mismatches under the right circumstances, and innovative coaches (Geno, etc.) will design plays to maximize the advantage.
But as the level of competition increases (i.e., more parity), these mismatches shrink. Your opponent may have similar type players, or players at those positions who can take away or reduce the advantage that your mismatch creates. For example, KLS feasts on less talented teams because their smaller players' strengths (dribbling, quickness, etc.) in their natural positions are matched by KLS, thus playing KLS outside against those players accentuates her "big guy" strengths (length, jumping ability, etc.), and thus her advantage. Against more talented teams, that advantage is minimized, so she has to take them inside where her "big guy" strengths give her the advantage. And while she was not doing that early in her career, she is now incorporating that aspect of her game. This will only make her a better player at the next level.

For Gabby, unfortunately she was put in the position whereby she only worked on the advantage she created on the inside against less athletic Bigs. Either due to her own negligence or the situation she was put in, she never developed attributes of her game that are more appropriate for her size. So when confronted with Bigs who were just as athletic but also bigger, her college mismatches disappeared.

At the end of the day in basketball, things revert to the mean..... big guys closer to the basket, smaller guys further from the basket. All other variations are mere tactical adjustments that are situational. So a player (and also the coaches) must develop those skills appropriate for the player's piece of real estate first and foremost, and then any other skills that can be used in other areas. Gabby, unfortunately did not developed the skills appropriate for her piece of basketball real estate as she found out in her rookie WNBA season.

We fundamentally disagree on how we see the game. I am more a strategic, big picture person. You are, imo, more tactical, day-to-day person. Nothing wrong with that. In particular game situations, I would agree with you on "play-up", innovation, creating mismatches, etc. But regarding the long term, preparing a player for the long run, I am for first ensuring the player is capable at their natural position. That means the college coach looking to develop the player for post-college career and just the advantage the player provides in a certain situation for the program.

I think I have said all that I will say regarding this. We can disagree, not a problem for me.
Merry Christmas!

 

[AussieHusky]

Mine and Aussie' do relate to the thread. The OP mentioned that there was past discussions that there were gripings of Lou's game vs OU. The OP asked for "thoughts" regarding Lou and her learning a new role because she is supposedly key in his or her opinion was worth a discussion. Aussie seemed to believe that Lou is not key and has had the benefit of being fortunate of geno allowing her to play the 3 at the expense of Collier and Walker.

I'm not defining who is key I don't know but I was sticking up for Los by suggesting Lou is the logical 3. Aussie seemed to imply that los was saying because lou should be the go to player it means she is the best. Imo being a go-to doesn't mean your the best. I think the discussions between aussiee and I were definitely aligned with the thread. He thinks she isn't necessarily the best candidate for a go to player and you could put others there - while I think because she is the logical best choice for wing - thus she's the best option from the outside to provide opportunities for each player more than Collier or Walker could be. I tend to think all are key but Lou must be the 3.

And Gabby and Maya relate to the OP's thread because you could argue in the past Maya as an undersized 4 was the key - a player such as Collier (imo is similar to maya) can be or you can move her Walker to 3 and then they could have more opportunities to become key. There is the disagreements.

Los invited a broad conversation. Sometimes in these broad conversations you need to bring up the past to make a point.

Thanks for putting it so succinctly! This is one of the reasons why I appreciate this board. Though sometimes posts may be a little jarring, it is not anyone's intention I believe. Sometimes it is a little difficult to convey the appropriate tone in this mode of communication.

 

[Grad1990]

To be honest, she looks tentative & slow to me. I think its the ankle. After surgery, the physical injury may be mostly healed, but the mental aspect is still there. Might not be until Spring until she "feels" confident & plays at 100%. Look at Gordon Hayward - he's nowhere near what he's capable of...but he's getting better.

What??????

 

[wallman]

from me----------- yeah we disagree on everything. First off I don't get your Maya comment. Mayas was a super 4 in college. Before Maya came to UCONN I was on the old ESPN board and argued with those that thought Maya would kill kalana's minutes because I felt UCONN could play Maya at 4. I believe if certain players can "play up" - positions then you should do it. In the college game "playing up" enhances ball movement and pace of play. Thus this style of play allows you to consistently land the number 1 recruits.

As far as Walker yes this year her shooting has been good but last YEAR it wasn't. And in high school I recall her shooting %'s were not that good. Okay but not that great. So I'm supposed to discount an entire year plus her high school "shooting" numbers for a few games this year? And as far as girth who says you need girth to win at the power forward? why can't 4's be small and drill 3's and play an exciting brand of winning fast-paced basketball? As far as hard pressed I think as mentioned above with Maya - I think you're making a mistake of equating what position you play in college must be the same position you must play in the WNBA. The college game is different. A kid like walker just needs to play. That's more important than stuffing her at 3 and live with her shot which imo will be decent this year but not elite. And while you bring up her dribbling beating her defender off the dribble I point to her passing of 19 assist to 13 turnovers. That's not bad but it's the worst ratio on the team. When you are trying to be an elite team and if everyone else in the starting 5 is a better passer and shooter, why would you want Walker to be your 3? In zones she would be one of the top handlers/decision makers or she would be nothing more that 3pt statue. At the 4 she can use her very good quickness to beat other 4's off the dribble and also if she is the shooter you suspect then she can get off perimeter shots any time.

As far as Gabby - I don't agree with how you can come up with that I "blame" her. I get it we have different views. How you've interpreted my comments as "blame" just highlights our differences. If I recall Gabby's highest ranking in high school was 7 and hoopgulrz had her 14. The writeup was that she was a super athlete - why do you think she couldn't be higher? Because of her shot. And in the years she's played at UCONN in which she was a 4-- how would you compare her 3's vs players such as Maya and Collier? She showed you for 4 years she isn't much of a perimeter player yet got drafted above her high school ratings, outplayed nearly every big she went against and became 1st team all-American and somehow you suggest I'm "blaming" her? I'm thrilled for what she turned into based on her skill set. Because she was used as a 4 she got into the WNBA as a very high pick.

I'm in the camp that likes to have college players "play up" in order to play fast paced winning basketball. I don't believe as you do playing someone like Gabby at 4 hurt her. I don't believe she would have ever had the shooting skill to be a WNBA pro guard unless for defense only. Her 4 years of lack of a 3pt shot showed me that. Two plyers you highlighted were both Collier and Walker at 3's. Both have shown you 3pt ability even as 4's. Gabby logged many minutes at the 4- which season did she show you 3pt ability other than maybe you might think of her high school? IMO this is a clear indication her shot was/is suspect.

And as far as your comments on Geno again we look at things differently. You say Geno recruited Gabby as a guard, yet I say Geno recruited Gabby as a basketball player. You seem to want to hard define positions from high school to college to WNBA. Thus I'll always disagree with your outlook. I agree with the Geno strategy of giving his best players minutes and be fexible in positions they play. IMO I don't think Collier, Walker or gabby was hurt one iota in their positions with UConn. Further, IMO there is a huge reason why Geno lands #1 recruits. It's because he is not stuck on position and he gets them because they show well in the WNBA regardless where geno played them in college. Because minutes for these kids is a lot more important than position. **** thus Walker will not be a 4 in the wnba but in college she might be.

"As far as Walker yes this year her shooting has been good but last YEAR it wasn't. And in high school I recall her shooting %'s were not that good. Okay but not that great. So I'm supposed to discount an entire year plus her high school "shooting" numbers for a few games this year?"
First of all, she was a freshman, learning a new system, and being lambasted openly for any mistakes she made. Also, she acquitted herself well in the big games that she played in. Just for the record, her shooting %: 44.4 & 37.1 /Lou- 49.3 & 39.4 (2P & 3P respectively). And Lou played with Stewie, Moriah, Tuck and Nurse. I think you are being very selective here.

"Mayas was a super 4 in college. Before Maya came to UCONN I was on the old ESPN board and argued with those that thought Maya would kill kalana's minutes because I felt UCONN could play Maya at 4. I believe if certain players can "play up" - positions then you should do it. In the college game "playing up" enhances ball movement and pace of play. "

The operative word is "in the college game". You may get away with playing undersized in college, but not in the pros, for the most part. And Maya ain't making her living off being a "super 4", that's for sure.
Maya is an intelligent, athletic and very gifted player, so being made to play the 4 by Geno (as you claimed) did not negatively impact her productivity as much after UCONN. But other players may not be as gifted or talented, so playing them out of position in college (when they should be honing and perfecting their skills at their realistic positions) has a detrimental effect on their post-UCONN productivity.

"You seem to want to hard define positions from high school to college to WNBA. Thus I'll always disagree with your outlook. I agree with the Geno strategy of giving his best players minutes and be fexible in positions they play."

I am not hard defining anything. I believe our differences are based on how we look at these things. I believe you are more tactical, whereas I am more strategic. You are more up on the "position-less player", the "play-up" concept, innovative, non-traditional, etc. All good constructs, but to a point! One can be flexible with players' positions within a limit (during their development in college).

Basketball has a fundamental component which defines how it is played for the most part, and that component is size. Basically, the big guys are closer to the basket and the smaller guys are further away. Big guys, for the most part, are slow, clumsy and can not dribble well, so they are not effective the further you go away from the basket. But around the basket, they can use their strength and height more effectively. Smaller players are fleet of foot, dribble well, etc. for the most part. They are more effective further out where they can maximize their strengths. These are the two extremes, and medium sized players fall somewhere within these two.
Occasionally, you may have an athlete who has the size of a big and the attributes of a smaller player (EDD, Candace Parker, Stewie, KLS). Other times you may have an athlete with the size of a smaller player, but some attributes of a big guy (Gabby, Megan, etc.). Those two types of athletes create mismatches under the right circumstances, and innovative coaches (Geno, etc.) will design plays to maximize the advantage.
But as the level of competition increases (i.e., more parity), these mismatches shrink. Your opponent may have similar type players, or players at those positions who can take away or reduce the advantage that your mismatch creates. For example, KLS feasts on less talented teams because their smaller players' strengths (dribbling, quickness, etc.) in their natural positions are matched by KLS, thus playing KLS outside against those players accentuates her "big guy" strengths (length, jumping ability, etc.), and thus her advantage. Against more talented teams, that advantage is minimized, so she has to take them inside where her "big guy" strengths give her the advantage. And while she was not doing that early in her career, she is now incorporating that aspect of her game. This will only make her a better player at the next level.

For Gabby, unfortunately she was put in the position whereby she only worked on the advantage she created on the inside against less athletic Bigs. Either due to her own negligence or the situation she was put in, she never developed attributes of her game that are more appropriate for her size. So when confronted with Bigs who were just as athletic but also bigger, her college mismatches disappeared.

At the end of the day in basketball, things revert to the mean..... big guys closer to the basket, smaller guys further from the basket. All other variations are mere tactical adjustments that are situational. So a player (and also the coaches) must develop those skills appropriate for the player's piece of real estate first and foremost, and then any other skills that can be used in other areas. Gabby, unfortunately did not developed the skills appropriate for her piece of basketball real estate as she found out in her rookie WNBA season.

We fundamentally disagree on how we see the game. I am more a strategic, big picture person. You are, imo, more tactical, day-to-day person. Nothing wrong with that. In particular game situations, I would agree with you on "play-up", innovation, creating mismatches, etc. But regarding the long term, preparing a player for the long run, I am for first ensuring the player is capable at their natural position. That means the college coach looking to develop the player for post-college career and just the advantage the player provides in a certain situation for the program.

I think I have said all that I will say regarding this. We can disagree, not a problem for me.
Merry Christmas![/QUOTE]

This is such a bogus argument. First, if Geno thought those players could play in the backcourt, they would be playing in the backcourt but none of them have shown they have that ability. KLS plays where she is as Geno trusts her to make the correct decisions. Just as Geno trusts her to inbound the ball, where you get a lot of easy baskets through her ability to read the defense and know what all the options are. Gabby was unique in her ability to make reads from the high post, that is lacking this year except when he moves KLS to that position. He has the luxury with KLS to move her around the court where he thinks he can use her to score or get easy buckets for the other players on your team, last year he used Gabby and KLS to do that. You try to put down KLS for scoring like it is easy, she actually makes it look easy as she is able to read defenders no matter what they throw at her, plus she can score form multiple levels and positions.

 

[AussieHusky]

"As far as Walker yes this year her shooting has been good but last YEAR it wasn't. And in high school I recall her shooting %'s were not that good. Okay but not that great. So I'm supposed to discount an entire year plus her high school "shooting" numbers for a few games this year?"
First of all, she was a freshman, learning a new system, and being lambasted openly for any mistakes she made. Also, she acquitted herself well in the big games that she played in. Just for the record, her shooting %: 44.4 & 37.1 /Lou- 49.3 & 39.4 (2P & 3P respectively). And Lou played with Stewie, Moriah, Tuck and Nurse. I think you are being very selective here.

"Mayas was a super 4 in college. Before Maya came to UCONN I was on the old ESPN board and argued with those that thought Maya would kill kalana's minutes because I felt UCONN could play Maya at 4. I believe if certain players can "play up" - positions then you should do it. In the college game "playing up" enhances ball movement and pace of play. "

The operative word is "in the college game". You may get away with playing undersized in college, but not in the pros, for the most part. And Maya ain't making her living off being a "super 4", that's for sure.
Maya is an intelligent, athletic and very gifted player, so being made to play the 4 by Geno (as you claimed) did not negatively impact her productivity as much after UCONN. But other players may not be as gifted or talented, so playing them out of position in college (when they should be honing and perfecting their skills at their realistic positions) has a detrimental effect on their post-UCONN productivity.

"You seem to want to hard define positions from high school to college to WNBA. Thus I'll always disagree with your outlook. I agree with the Geno strategy of giving his best players minutes and be fexible in positions they play."

I am not hard defining anything. I believe our differences are based on how we look at these things. I believe you are more tactical, whereas I am more strategic. You are more up on the "position-less player", the "play-up" concept, innovative, non-traditional, etc. All good constructs, but to a point! One can be flexible with players' positions within a limit (during their development in college).

Basketball has a fundamental component which defines how it is played for the most part, and that component is size. Basically, the big guys are closer to the basket and the smaller guys are further away. Big guys, for the most part, are slow, clumsy and can not dribble well, so they are not effective the further you go away from the basket. But around the basket, they can use their strength and height more effectively. Smaller players are fleet of foot, dribble well, etc. for the most part. They are more effective further out where they can maximize their strengths. These are the two extremes, and medium sized players fall somewhere within these two.
Occasionally, you may have an athlete who has the size of a big and the attributes of a smaller player (EDD, Candace Parker, Stewie, KLS). Other times you may have an athlete with the size of a smaller player, but some attributes of a big guy (Gabby, Megan, etc.). Those two types of athletes create mismatches under the right circumstances, and innovative coaches (Geno, etc.) will design plays to maximize the advantage.
But as the level of competition increases (i.e., more parity), these mismatches shrink. Your opponent may have similar type players, or players at those positions who can take away or reduce the advantage that your mismatch creates. For example, KLS feasts on less talented teams because their smaller players' strengths (dribbling, quickness, etc.) in their natural positions are matched by KLS, thus playing KLS outside against those players accentuates her "big guy" strengths (length, jumping ability, etc.), and thus her advantage. Against more talented teams, that advantage is minimized, so she has to take them inside where her "big guy" strengths give her the advantage. And while she was not doing that early in her career, she is now incorporating that aspect of her game. This will only make her a better player at the next level.

For Gabby, unfortunately she was put in the position whereby she only worked on the advantage she created on the inside against less athletic Bigs. Either due to her own negligence or the situation she was put in, she never developed attributes of her game that are more appropriate for her size. So when confronted with Bigs who were just as athletic but also bigger, her college mismatches disappeared.

At the end of the day in basketball, things revert to the mean..... big guys closer to the basket, smaller guys further from the basket. All other variations are mere tactical adjustments that are situational. So a player (and also the coaches) must develop those skills appropriate for the player's piece of real estate first and foremost, and then any other skills that can be used in other areas. Gabby, unfortunately did not developed the skills appropriate for her piece of basketball real estate as she found out in her rookie WNBA season.

We fundamentally disagree on how we see the game. I am more a strategic, big picture person. You are, imo, more tactical, day-to-day person. Nothing wrong with that. In particular game situations, I would agree with you on "play-up", innovation, creating mismatches, etc. But regarding the long term, preparing a player for the long run, I am for first ensuring the player is capable at their natural position. That means the college coach looking to develop the player for post-college career and just the advantage the player provides in a certain situation for the program.

I think I have said all that I will say regarding this. We can disagree, not a problem for me.
Merry Christmas!

This is such a bogus argument. First, if Geno thought those players could play in the backcourt, they would be playing in the backcourt but none of them have shown they have that ability. KLS plays where she is as Geno trusts her to make the correct decisions. Just as Geno trusts her to inbound the ball, where you get a lot of easy baskets through her ability to read the defense and know what all the options are. Gabby was unique in her ability to make reads from the high post, that is lacking this year except when he moves KLS to that position. He has the luxury with KLS to move her around the court where he thinks he can use her to score or get easy buckets for the other players on your team, last year he used Gabby and KLS to do that. You try to put down KLS for scoring like it is easy, she actually makes it look easy as she is able to read defenders no matter what they throw at her, plus she can score form multiple levels and positions.[/QUOTE]

Bogus argument? I think the only thing bogus is your rather pedestrian attempt at advancing a coherent point. The premise of your input..."...if Geno thought...." , ...Geno trusts....., ...Geno trusts her to inbound.....", etc., etc. The discussion is about your thoughts, your observations, your input after your own critical analysis of what you see, not, Geno...said..., therefore.... That is such a crap out. Unfortunately this mindset is now in vogue in your neck of the woods, this inability for people to think and analyze for themselves. So sad!
One last point and I will be very clear....., I did not "put KLS down", I responded to a specific argument advanced by the OP. Others have responded and we have had a healthy, coherent back and forth. If you have anything to add that is your own thoughts, please do. But don't give me the old....it is so be cause Geno...yada yada yada.

 

[billnaples]

Sometimes I wish people would take a deep breath and use the backspace key and start over with comments. Collier and KLS have been on a team that (I know they had lots of help) that has lost exactly TWO games in 3 1/3 years. I think it's a record of 121 - 2 and both of the losses were in the semi finals of the NCAA tourney and in OT. Gee, sounds like they are playing pretty good hoops.