UConn stats... Are there enough minutes for everyone to play?

[cferraro04]

Sarah is a lot more capable than Ayanna and Ice though center wise She’s tougher and stronger under the basket and outrebounds everybody. When she and Joyce were on the same MCDAA team, she outrebounded Joyce by a lot, and Joyce was also known to be a good rebounder. Not afraid to get into position. Can also stretch the floor.

I get the other players have PG potential, but realistically Azzi should never be a PG. She cannot handle ball pressure at all. We saw it in the S16 against Ohio State: she shuts down when pressed.

About Azzi, I do not agree with your assessment. Ohio State's defense was oppressive and you can't make that kind of conclusion on one bad game. Great players can use bad games and work on correcting their faults. I think Azzi falls into that category a great player who learns from her mistakes.

 

[yhun89]

About Azzi, I do not agree with your assessment. Ohio State's defense was oppressive and you can't make that kind of conclusion on one bad game. Great players can use bad games and work on correcting their faults. I think Azzi falls into that category a great player who learns from her mistakes.

She herself has stated multiple times that pressure gets to her. She’s also said confidence is a big issue for herself. If she doesn’t believe in herself, she doesn’t do well. A PG needs confidence to run the floor. As stated in this article, a few had practices was all it took for her to lose confidence and not know what to do with the ball.

Also pressing is something every PG has to deal with. If Azzi can’t handle it, even if it is tough, she can’t be a PG. Every team is gonna go all out on UCONN. OSU won’t be the only ones with a nasty press.

How Azzi Fudd is preparing to fulfill her immense potential

After two injury-plagued seasons, Fudd is ready to take the next step in her game.

www.uconnwbbweekly.com

 

[Dugway]

Good thing here is the team is not short on Point Guards. I see absolutely no situation in which there would be a necessity for Azzi to play the point.

 

[cferraro04]

Good thing here is the team is not short on Point Guards. I see absolutely no situation in which there would be a necessity for Azzi to play the point.

You can never have too many point guards. I saw absolutely no reason for Paige to have to play in the post last season but.....

 

[yhun89]

You can never have too many point guards. I saw absolutely no reason for Paige to have to play in the post last season but.....

There is absolutely a limit to PGs. PGs are typically small, too many and you won’t have enough height. UCLA is a perfect example. We couldn’t get anything done in the post due to Betts. We were too small and didn’t have enough forwards to deal with her.

Did you even see the bench last year? Half of them were forwards. The tallest person that Geno could trust to play a post was PB. Ice was too young, and AE needed some help down there. That’s why she was playing post.

 

[cferraro04]

Fanofball...you need to chill. It is an expression often uttered by basketball coaches...when they draft or recruit a point guard. Of course, it is common sense that on a team of limited scholarship basketball players (15) it is possible to have too many point guards...but, in spite of that reality, coach's are always receptive to yet one more good point guard. Your point regarding PB makes my point...that even if you have a plethora of point guards you never know what the basketball gods will send your way and you may find yourself in a spot where like PB playing post you will have a shooting guard playing point.

Did you know that Sue Bird was a shooting guard and was converted to a point guard at UConn...why? Well with Tamika Williams (now Williams-Jeter), Asjha Jones, Swin Cash, and Keirsten Walters, and making up Sue's incoming class...and Kiersten Walters the expected point guard going down to injury...Sue moved over to point guard...you might say the basketball gods did UConn a favor because Sue became UConn's most honored point guard and went on to play point guard in the WNBA.

 

[yhun89]

Fanofball...you need to chill. It is an expression often uttered by basketball coaches...when they draft or recruit a point guard. Of course it is common sense that on a team of limited scholarship basketball players (15) that it is possible to have too many point guards...but, in spite of that reality Coach's are always receptive to yet one more good point guard. Your point regarding PB makes my point...that even if you have a plethora of point guards you never know what the basketball gods will send your way and you may find yourself in a spot where like PB playing post you will have a shooting guard playing point. Did you know that Sue Bird was a shooting guard and was converted to a point guard at UConn...why? Well with Swin, Asj

I get that’s but you were trying to say that UCONN should have 6 PGs earlier, including a player who historically has ball confidence issues. That’s a little beyond the expression “you can never have too many…”

 

[cferraro04]

You may have misinterpreted the meaning of the list I posted in the original post. You may notice that I have multiple players listed in multiple positions. I posted it that way to indicate that Geno has a lot of flexibility to move players around. He has point guards that can play both the shooting guard and the point guard and vice-a-versa. He has shooting guards that can play both the shooting guard and small forward positions. He has small forwards that can slide over to the power forward position and he has power forwards that can slide to the center, which may be necessary if Jana gets injured. Additionally, he has Paige who can play the point guard, shooting guard small forward and some might argue the power forward positions.

"You can never have enough point guards" is still a common expression among coaches and it recently played out with Geno's recruitment of Kaitlin Chen despite the fact he already had a good number of competent point guards.

Oh and for the record...how about we revisit this question of Azzi Fudd's lack of confidence and inability to play the point guard position at mid-season? Here is what her high school coach had to say about her in her senior year, "She’s seen everything, heard everything, and done pretty much everything — to the point where she appears nearly unflappable" Here is another appraisal of Azzi Fudd: GEICO Nationals-April 2019: The impact prospect of the class of 2021 continues to dominant with efficient floor game; a shot maker, outstanding off the dribble; unselfish playmaker, distributes to teammates; makes shots under pressure; the best in the class of 2021. (Olson)

 

[hoophuskee]

PGs should be: Paige, Morgan, Kaitlyn, and KK.
Ash, Allie, and especially Azzi should not be handling the ball up court; they should be looking to get open on the perimeter. Azzi also hasn’t been able to deal with pressure on the ball very well.

Paige isn’t going to be a SF next year most likely. She was forced to play that position because of injury. I expect her to be fully a SG next season.

Jana is the only capable center. Ice is strong, but she doesn’t seem to like posting up, and neither does Ayanna. In fact, we’ve barely even seen Ayanna’s abilities though it looks like she’s a good rebounder. Doesn’t look built to be a center.

Paige will more than likely play quite a bit SF next year because UCONN's guards could be tremendous with more experience than the post players. Until/unless Aubrey comes back full up to speed.

IMO something very unusual would have to happen if Paige isn't playing quite a few minutes as the SF. However, just want to make clear she might be the "SF" in Defense only. Until Aubrey comes back, who can defend with her size at the SF better than her? Not gonna say Morgan. Not gonna say Q. OFC she can be the pg with KK and Azzi on Offense though. As an example. she brings up the ball, makes the 1st pass then proceeds to make her cuts etc. just like how any normal healthy UCONN roster would run.

 

[Bone Dog]

When Geno has them switching 1-5, positions are not quite as relevant. This sometimes leads to "mouse in the house" situations, or bigs guarding on the perimeter. But given the size of the guards he has now, and the quickness of his bigs, this looks to be a much more manageable defense to run than it has in the past. And even when he hasn't had a plethora of big guards, he's made it work just on sheer grit and discipline. Just consider the Jackson St game, where they had a height advantage at almost every position even after subbing as much as they did. And the USC game. And the Syracuse game. Sure, they keyed on Fair and Watkins in those games. But they also did a ton of switching.

I don't know how they'll be after all the rehab, but Jana and Ayanna were pretty quick before. And Aubrey Morgan Q and Sarah are very quick as bigs go. That mobility is almost more important than mere size.

And the overlap with the backcourt is clear and very promising. Paige Azzi Morgan Aubrey Allie and Q make for a sizable lineup.

You'll notice I've put Q and Aubrey and Morgan in both front and backcourt. They have the size and speed and handles to play either way. Clearly, we don't know what sort of defender Q will make of herself in the fall, but she has the physical skills to make a sophomore leap, if she can master the defense. Something analogous goes for Morgan. We don't know how quickly she'll pick up the defense. But once she does, I think she'll be formidable.

 

[Cuango]

I see no path for Ducharme to play ahead of Shade. Not only is Shade valuable on offense but she is more than adequate on defense and could stay on the floor for 35+ minutes if needed plus she is now trusted by Auriemma to do that. Between slowness and foul trouble, Ducharme is a defensive liability and wouldn't be able to stay out there more than 10-15 minutes.

Funny, I don’t remember Caroline as a “defensive liability”! I also don’t know why, if she is fully recovered, she would be limited to 10-15 minutes?
clearly, she may not get back to where she was her freshman year, but if she does, she will be one of the top five or six players on this team!

 

[Cuango]

Sarah is a lot more capable than Ayanna and Ice though center wise She’s tougher and stronger under the basket and outrebounds everybody. When she and Joyce were on the same MCDAA team, she outrebounded Joyce by a lot, and Joyce was also known to be a good rebounder. Not afraid to get into position. Can also stretch the floor.

I get the other players have PG potential, but realistically Azzi should never be a PG. She cannot handle ball pressure at all. We saw it in the S16 against Ohio State: she shuts down when pressed.

Pretty harsh to judge her by that one game. As I recall, the whole team struggled in that game! while she’s clearly not a pg, I think she will be fine handling the ball as a shooting guard. She is also an improving passer. what she really needs is a long period of health! If she can get that, I think we will all be very happy with all aspects of Azzi’s game!

 

[diggerfoot]

In big games that are tight-- assuming health is okay -
Paige close to 40
Azzi -- close to 35
Sarah -- Over 30.

From there evrything will be determined

First off how much are we in "disagreement" of “core.” On Monday post # 62 I said

"If UCONN has just 3 of the 4 just mentioned as "terrific" then in big games, then there won’t be a 10 player bench in tight games." I specifically mention "10." If 8 (or a stretch to 9) – I beleive that is fine.

I don't believe though that there were no tight games other than maybe 1 season (though I don’t have time yet to look). And in those games that UCONN won comfortably at the end- there were probably games in which he played several of his starters/ core bench played a lot of minutes then he brought the bench in when the game was comfortably won so it wasn’t his use of bench but just that his starters/core bench eventually pulled away. I could be wrong- can’t check right now.

And I'm not interpreting this thread as you are in regard to intent which is why I responded with the 1st post off of this thread. In the paragraph above can we agree that it's logical that in games UCONN would win comfortably that Geno will use his bench? As you mentioned he has done it. So, what’s the purpose of the thread because in the past hasn't Geno been criticized for playing his starters too much in not only comfortable wins but also tight games so the players can gain experience leading up to the NCAA's, right? I just thought "ofc" he is going to play his bench in comfortable wins" but I believe there are many that want Geno to "evolve" into playing his bench more in tight games which I felt was also a point of the thread – because it's logic that he will always use his bench in comfortable wins, no? What else is there to discuss in regard to comfortable wins? He is going to do what he always has done when his team is winnigng comfortably. As you mentiion/ imply when cite the past - play his bench.

Am I wrong? If so, I apologize.

Apologizing on the BY? What kind of rebel are you?!

There have been seasons when Auriemma did not use a deep rotation because there was no bench. Last season for example. There also have been seasons when Auriemma had a deeper bench but did not use them, such as Bent and Irwin before their senior seasons. There have been seasons when an unheralded HS recruit such as Gardler was ninth player in a deep rotation that often used 10 players, who became crucial in some tight games such as Rutgers. There have been seasons when the unquestioned #1 player in the country led the team in minutes with an average slightly over 27 (Bird). There have been seasons when the players who came in at the end were effectively the third string. Big Rig for example. Deeper rotations helped stretch many leads in dominant seasons, starting early in the game, rather than come in for mop up time.

While it’s true there are always calls for using a deeper rotation as the norm for a year, I seldom see it suggested as the key strategy for a tight game. At best I see a lament often made that some players had not been used more throughout the year so that they were prepared to step in if foul trouble or injury contributed to a tight game.

With so much variety in terms of bench length and talent over the years, and how they were used for a rotation, it’s fair to assume there are a variety of motives for hoping there is a deeper rotation this year. The tenor of the OP coming after last season, plus the oft expressed desire for a deeper rotation as the norm, led me to think that is the focus of the thread, but I could just as easily be the one who is wrong. If so, I apologize.

I have been on your side of the argument in regards to how a short rotation can win championships, with ND using only six rotational players as my often cited example. However, each of those players were elite and in the position and role for which they were best suited. In an injury plagued year for the Irish they at least lucked out in that regard, unlike a situation in which a team might be using a natural point guard as their power forward. Playing out of position additionally adds an extra tax on mental focus.

As an endurance athlete, I also have been on your side of the argument that an elite athlete can handle the physical demands of a 40 minute basketball game. But I also know that most endurance contests allow for the mind to zone out for stretches, such as with marathons, which is not an option for a basketball game. Mental fatigue, the inability to maintain focus for an extended time, is real and can be due to either genetic or environmental factors, or both. Having a deeper rotation as a norm that compensates for injury, fouls or mental fatigue in a tight game has been demonstrated not to be necessary to win championships, but has been demonstrated to make winning championships easier. In a 39 game season it would be great to have a deep rotation for at least 35 of those games in preparation for the other four.

 

[Bone Dog]

As an endurance athlete, I also have been on your side of the argument that an elite athlete can handle the physical demands of a 40 minute basketball game. But I also know that most endurance contests allow for the mind to zone out for stretches, such as with marathons, which is not an option for a basketball game. Mental fatigue, the inability to maintain focus for an extended time, is real and can be due to either genetic or environmental factors, or both. Having a deeper rotation as a norm that compensates for injury, fouls or mental fatigue in a tight game has been demonstrated not to be necessary to win championships, but has been demonstrated to make winning championships easier. In a 39 game season it would be great to have a deep rotation for at least 35 of those games in preparation for the other four.

Exactly.

 

[hoophuskee]

Apologizing on the BY? What kind of rebel are you?!

There have been seasons when Auriemma did not use a deep rotation because there was no bench. Last season for example. There also have been seasons when Auriemma had a deeper bench but did not use them, such as Bent and Irwin before their senior seasons. There have been seasons when an unheralded HS recruit such as Gardler was ninth player in a deep rotation that often used 10 players, who became crucial in some tight games such as Rutgers. There have been seasons when the unquestioned #1 player in the country led the team in minutes with an average slightly over 27 (Bird). There have been seasons when the players who came in at the end were effectively the third string. Big Rig for example. Deeper rotations helped stretch many leads in dominant seasons, starting early in the game, rather than come in for mop up time.

While it’s true there are always calls for using a deeper rotation as the norm for a year, I seldom see it suggested as the key strategy for a tight game. At best I see a lament often made that some players had not been used more throughout the year so that they were prepared to step in if foul trouble or injury contributed to a tight game.

With so much variety in terms of bench length and talent over the years, and how they were used for a rotation, it’s fair to assume there are a variety of motives for hoping there is a deeper rotation this year. The tenor of the OP coming after last season, plus the oft expressed desire for a deeper rotation as the norm, led me to think that is the focus of the thread, but I could just as easily be the one who is wrong. If so, I apologize.

I have been on your side of the argument in regards to how a short rotation can win championships, with ND using only six rotational players as my often cited example. However, each of those players were elite and in the position and role for which they were best suited. In an injury plagued year for the Irish they at least lucked out in that regard, unlike a situation in which a team might be using a natural point guard as their power forward. Playing out of position additionally adds an extra tax on mental focus.

As an endurance athlete, I also have been on your side of the argument that an elite athlete can handle the physical demands of a 40 minute basketball game. But I also know that most endurance contests allow for the mind to zone out for stretches, such as with marathons, which is not an option for a basketball game. Mental fatigue, the inability to maintain focus for an extended time, is real and can be due to either genetic or environmental factors, or both. Having a deeper rotation as a norm that compensates for injury, fouls or mental fatigue in a tight game has been demonstrated not to be necessary to win championships, but has been demonstrated to make winning championships easier. In a 39 game season it would be great to have a deep rotation for at least 35 of those games in preparation for the other four.

As stated I can see 9 max – so when you bring up Gardler as 9 – okay --but that is maximum stretch as I 1st replied to you. And you mention Bird—what year?-- 2001-2002? I assume you meant that season – I can’t see total minutes or avg anywhere so I had to go on Huskygames site (figure things out too – they have some game score typos ). So I’ll go into their closer games. Dec 2021 vs ODU 14 point win Bird played 40 minutes. Dec 2021 14 pt win vs Oklahoma Bird played 39 minutes. Jan 2022 VS Tennessee 16 pt win Bird played 39. Jan 2022 9 point win vs Va Tech Bird played 36. April 2022 vs Oklahoma 12 point win Bird played 36.

Unless you are talking about the 99-00 season? I can’t find any box scores. Maybe the NCAA has a history of this? When you refer to players like Big Rig I found a site Huskyhoops in which it shows Rig played in just 24 or 25 games and averaged one season a little above 4 minutes and another a little over 6 in her 2 seasons. What lead was she extending with so few minutes? And in some she would have been playing in blowouts. So what was her impact?

Or were you referring to 00-01 with Bird?

So, the above highlights what I believe the thread was also about more than just normal average minutes because Geno does play his stars an enormous amount in big games or tight games. He is not using his bench to wear down an opponent when he is loaded with all-American talent. He is going to use his All-Americans to wear down the other team. If in 01-02 was your point with Bird it highlights as I suggest. In order for her to have averaged only 27 and yet in those closest games of that season he played her between 36-40; this shows he uses his bench in comfortable wins and blowouts. But in close/big games he is looking for his stars to wear down or just prevail vs the opponent.

You can never have a perfect team without any weaknesses. As result other teams have weaknesses too. The best way Geno exploits the other teams is use his stars as much as he can. Not have them sit on the bench. I believe Geno has showed that over-and-over again.

To further this, the way Geno has recruited these many years – unless a rare game here or there- I don’t believe his team was driven or highlighted by extending leads because of his bench. Any season we can get stats and overall team performance I believe would show this which is why I separated normal (ie comfortable wins and blowouts) vs big games/ tight games.

So, two players you brought up (Bird and Big Rig) sort of highlight what I said, right?

 

[diggerfoot]

As stated I can see 9 max – so when you bring up Gardler as 9 – okay --but that is maximum stretch as I 1st replied to you. And you mention Bird—what year?-- 2001-2002? I assume you meant that season – I can’t see total minutes or avg anywhere so I had to go on Huskygames site (figure things out too – they have some game score typos ). So I’ll go into their closer games. Dec 2021 vs ODU 14 point win Bird played 40 minutes. Dec 2021 14 pt win vs Oklahoma Bird played 39 minutes. Jan 2022 VS Tennessee 16 pt win Bird played 39. Jan 2022 9 point win vs Va Tech Bird played 36. April 2022 vs Oklahoma 12 point win Bird played 36.

Unless you are talking about the 99-00 season? I can’t find any box scores. Maybe the NCAA has a history of this? When you refer to players like Big Rig I found a site Huskyhoops in which it shows Rig played in just 24 or 25 games and averaged one season a little above 4 minutes and another a little over 6 in her 2 seasons. What lead was she extending with so few minutes? And in some she would have been playing in blowouts. So what was her impact?

Or were you referring to 00-01 with Bird?

So, the above highlights what I believe the thread was also about more than just normal average minutes because Geno does play his stars an enormous amount in big games or tight games. He is not using his bench to wear down an opponent when he is loaded with all-American talent. He is going to use his All-Americans to wear down the other team. If in 01-02 was your point with Bird it highlights as I suggest. In order for her to have averaged only 27 and yet in those closest games of that season he played her between 36-40; this shows he uses his bench in comfortable wins and blowouts. But in close/big games he is looking for his stars to wear down or just prevail vs the opponent.

You can never have a perfect team without any weaknesses. As result other teams have weaknesses too. The best way Geno exploits the other teams is use his stars as much as he can. Not have them sit on the bench. I believe Geno has showed that over-and-over again.

To further this, the way Geno has recruited these many years – unless a rare game here or there- I don’t believe his team was driven or highlighted by extending leads because of his bench. Any season we can get stats and overall team performance I believe would show this which is why I separated normal (ie comfortable wins and blowouts) vs big games/ tight games.

So, two players you brought up (Bird and Big Rig) sort of highlight what I said, right?

The Bird season was ‘00, my error that I referred to her as unquestionable #1 in the country that year. Big Rig was effectively third team that year, as I said. That means ten players were used before her, all extending leads by their minutes played way before the end of the game. Indeed, a game against Georgia, a top team at the time, was behind 30 points before the end of the first half thanks to at least ten players all extending leads playing beautiful basketball.

Gardler was part of a 10-11 player rotation in a later year. She was sometimes the 7 - 9 player in but I singled her out because she was unheralded, lower down in the rotation, yet came to the rescue against Rutgers when the team had injury and foul issues. But I digress with her.

You have moved the goalpost. In much of your posts I see reference to a seven player rotation. Now 8 or 9 falls within your bounds of a shorter rotation? I understand the logic of a shorter rotation providing greater reps for building chemistry within that rotation. I’ve argued that myself. Yet in a program like UConn you occasionally can get players like Bird, KJ, Cash, Williams, Jones, Schumacher, Sauer, Ralph, Hansmeyer and Abrosimova all healthy and all on the same team at the same time. Aside from the insurances provided by a deeper rotation, if it can still extend leads playing Auriemma’s brand of beautiful basketball, what about the consequence to chemistry from not playing someone like the senior and former starters (and highly ranked recruits) Sauer and Hansmeyer until mop up time? Which three of those players do you sit and not think you’ve affected the chemistry, and thus the performance, of the team as a whole?

The men’s team had close first halves during tournament time, but no close games overall except for St. John’s (and even that was not in doubt). They clearly wore teams down even though using the freshmen Stewart or Ball during the year meant extending the rotation with freshmen that were not quite as good as the first seven. You can win with seven, you can win with six. You can hurt yourself with a rotation of 8 or beyond, but you can also help yourself and the make up of some rosters virtually require it.

 

[HuskyNan]

I see no path for Ducharme to play ahead of Shade. Not only is Shade valuable on offense but she is more than adequate on defense and could stay on the floor for 35+ minutes if needed plus she is now trusted by Auriemma to do that. Between slowness and foul trouble, Ducharme is a defensive liability and wouldn't be able to stay out there more than 10-15 minutes.

And Geno now has a similar sized Morgan Cheli

 

[hoophuskee]

The Bird season was ‘00, my error that I referred to her as unquestionable #1 in the country that year. Big Rig was effectively third team that year, as I said. That means ten players were used before her, all extending leads by their minutes played way before the end of the game. Indeed, a game against Georgia, a top team at the time, was behind 30 points before the end of the first half thanks to at least ten players all extending leads playing beautiful basketball.

Gardler was part of a 10-11 player rotation in a later year. She was sometimes the 7 - 9 player in but I singled her out because she was unheralded, lower down in the rotation, yet came to the rescue against Rutgers when the team had injury and foul issues. But I digress with her.

You have moved the goalpost. In much of your posts I see reference to a seven player rotation. Now 8 or 9 falls within your bounds of a shorter rotation? I understand the logic of a shorter rotation providing greater reps for building chemistry within that rotation. I’ve argued that myself. Yet in a program like UConn you occasionally can get players like Bird, KJ, Cash, Williams, Jones, Schumacher, Sauer, Ralph, Hansmeyer and Abrosimova all healthy and all on the same team at the same time. Aside from the insurances provided by a deeper rotation, if it can still extend leads playing Auriemma’s brand of beautiful basketball, what about the consequence to chemistry from not playing someone like the senior and former starters (and highly ranked recruits) Sauer and Hansmeyer until mop up time? Which three of those players do you sit and not think you’ve affected the chemistry, and thus the performance, of the team as a whole?

The men’s team had close first halves during tournament time, but no close games overall except for St. John’s (and even that was not in doubt). They clearly wore teams down even though using the freshmen Stewart or Ball during the year meant extending the rotation with freshmen that were not quite as good as the first seven. You can win with seven, you can win with six. You can hurt yourself with a rotation of 8 or beyond, but you can also help yourself and the make up of some rosters virtually require it.

I thoroughly enjoy these discussions. I had prepared a different type of response of which I disagree but one thing kept gnawing at me - now I feel more important- I get confused why you brought up Big Rig again. Why are you? I'm missing your point with her. What difference does it make that she was 3rd team vs our discussion? I think this could baseline my further arguments with you or anyone else. This is why in part why I made the 1st replied post on this thread separating/implying differnces of "normal" vs "tight." (i.e. Paige will will play 35-40 minutes in big games.).

I feel Amari was always 3rd team. I feel after the 10th player you are naturally players of the 3rd team. So, when you refer to rotations up to 11 players, are you suggesting that the 11th player was playing in tight games during crucial time more than 2 minutes or does 2 minutes count as "rotation?" If not, then what is your point about Big Rig vs our team this year vs Amari?

For this team -- do you feel in tight games Geno will play Paige 35+ minutes?
For this team-- if Azzi is playing like she did in her 1st bunch of games in her soph year do you feel Geno won’t play her near 35 minutes in tight games?
For this team-- if Sarah is proving to be somewhat of an equivalent to Juju/Hidalgo/Booker from last year do you feel Geno will play her over 30 minutes in tight games?

As for your comment of me moving the goal posts - if you are interested we can go direct in private with this? I love these type of discussions a lot but if I go down that "goalpost comment path," then it maybe keeps diverting from the thread and thenif anyone else chimes in specifically of me "moving the goalposts" then the mods will probably shut this down. Or if we were to create a new thread on here specific to this I'm fine with that too. Or go pirivate whatever you wish if you want.

Depending on what you say about Big Rig - I am probably disagreeing with how you view the definition of a normal rotation vs my point of a rotation in tight games. This is why I made the 1st comment on the thread as I did because Geno is going to more than likely going to give his stars big minutes as he near always does. To further this, our view of that Georgia game couldn't be more opposite. Which is why I'm suggesting for this year Paige is going to get the minutes mentioned above in big, tight games as will Azzi and Sarah if the above holds true to what I mentioned for both. Thus, if that holds -- --> That does not lead to a deep rotation bench. Andit's not one bit of a stretch that at least two if not 3 will be along the lines I mentioned if healthy.

 

[Bone Dog]

Here’s a prediction: Paige won’t play more than 30 mins in any regular season games. In the tournament all bets are off. But until then, there’s no need to wear her out like that. Same goes for Azzi and probably Jana.

 

[hoophuskee]

Here’s a prediction: Paige won’t play more than 30 mins in any regular season games. In the tournament all bets are off. But until then, there’s no need to wear her out like that. Same goes for Azzi and probably Jana.

Please take this in the fun it is meant to be -- no more.
There is no way Paige is not playing at least 35 minutes in big games that are tight the entire game unless injury concerns, foul trouble or consecutive days games are being played (such as Big East Finals 3 games in 3 days as an example.). If Digger or anyone else wants to say I'm moving the goal posts - ha-ha fine I've offered to private message anyone for that.

But --you play to win -- you don’t sit your superstar(s) if she/they is/are healthy enough for you to win. All the minutes Paige played this past year and after coming back from injury – (and with the team UCONN will have that is loaded in which they will have many blowouts which will allow rest due to so many players)-- there is no way no way she isn't playing at least 35 minutes + in those tight big games. And there is zero shot for her to get worn out just playing her huge minutes in just the tight games. None.

As for “preserving players” when they are healthy as an overall point? This is UCONN. We are not gonna give in to nothin' when fully healthy. Did we give in when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? .

South Carolina? What would Senator Blutarski say?
Notre Dame? What would Senator Blutarski say?
South Cal? What would Senator Blutarski say?
Texas? What would Senator Blutarski say?
NC State What would Senator Blutarski say?

 

[CL82]

There is absolutely a limit to PGs. PGs are typically small, too many and you won’t have enough height. UCLA is a perfect example. We couldn’t get anything done in the post due to Betts. We were too small and didn’t have enough forwards to deal with her.

Did you even see the bench last year? Half of them were forwards. The tallest person that Geno could trust to play a post was PB. Ice was too young, and AE needed some help down there. That’s why she was playing post.

I'm a big believer in having two point guards on the floor, if possible. It makes a much less vulnerable to pressure. That's been a recipe on the men's side for a while now. Kamba/ Shabazz in 2011, Shabazz/Boatright in 2014, Newton/Castle this year. You can even make the argument that Newton/Jackson in 2023 was a point guard and a "point forward." Two facilitators is a good thing.

 

[yhun89]

I'm a big believer in having two point guards on the floor, if possible. It makes a much less vulnerable to pressure. That's been a recipe on the men's side for a while now. Kamba/ Shabazz in 2011, Shabazz/Boatright in 2014, Newton/Castle this year. You can even make the argument that Newton/Jackson in 2023 was a point guard and a "point forward." Two facilitators is a good thing.

Two on the floor, fine, we did that last season. But to have 6 PGs total, like the OG poster suggested?That’s way too many.

 

[CL82]

Two on the floor, fine, we did that last season. But to have 6 PGs total, like the OG poster suggested?That’s way too many.

I hear you, but just because a guard has ball handling skills doesn't mean that they are a point per se. on this iteration I would say that KK and Chen are our point guards. I'm inclined to agree with you that pages natural position and perhaps her best position is as point guard, But I see her as being a 3 for us next year. Azzi's not a 1.

 

[Bone Dog]

I hear you, but just because a guard has ball handling skills doesn't mean that they are a point per se. on this iteration I would say that KK and Chen are our point guards. I'm inclined to agree with you that pages natural position and perhaps her best position is as point guard, But I see her as being a 3 for us next year. Azzi's not a 1.

Yup, lots of balhandlers is good. If I recall correctly, the Gabby-KLS-Phee teams were like this -- 5 ballhandlers on the floor at once, only one or two of whom might be a PG, but any one of whom who could bring the ball up the floor, start the break or initiate the offense. I think we'll have units like that on the floor often this season. Picture a unit like Paige Azzi Ash Morgan and Sarah. They could do some serious damage. Maybe switch out Ash for Aubrey sometimes, or Allie for Azzi, or Q for Morgan.

 

[CL82]

Picture a unit like Paige Azzi Ash Morgan and Sarah.

I don't know that I can envision that ever happening, but, potentially that would be one heck of a lineup to guard. Certainly it could spread the floor pretty well. Though Sarah has size, I don't see her playing much center.

Personally, I think that line up would become more likely, if you swapped Cheli for KK. It does trade speed for height though.

That's the fun of the off-season, trying to figure out how all the pieces fit. I suspect that Ziebell and Cheli may end up having what is largely a developmental season this year, but if you asked me that last year I would've said the same thing about Shade and Arnold, so who knows?