[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!
