VAU - I agree that a system can mask flaws, but I think it is more the change in competition, similar to the jump from HS to college though that also has to do with simply physically maturing (and mentally maturing as well I guess.) The change from HS to college is that instead of being the most physically gifted player on the court every night in HS, when a player gets to college they are seldom the most physically gifted on their own team let alone on the floor - everyone is faster, more skilled, and generally more mature physically and mentally. The same happens between senior year in college and the following summer - the players drafted into the W were typically the best players on their team and on most nights the best player on the floor - the competition was a little more balanced than their senior year in HS but not a whole lot. They go from playing nightly against the best 3500 players in the US aged 19-22 to playing against the best 120 players in the world aged 22-35.
So what they do during those 4 college years is important and is a combination of the coaches and staff, their teammates, and their own desires and work ethic. First the player has to want to expand their skills and hone the ones they have. Second they have to have teammates that are competent enough to help them succeed, and third they have to have a coaching staff that can break down their game, identify weaknesses, and teach them to improve those weakness, and push them to do so. It has to be a partnership between coaching and player - they both have to want to put in the effort and if either doesn't, then the results are less than ideal. And success as a team and a player can be fools gold. If winning games and dominating statistically is seen as enough either coach or player may not dedicate enough time and effort to develop the skills necessary for the next level of competition. Some cases in point:
The Paris twins had all the skills necessary to dominate in HS and were prize recruits, they had all the skills to dominate in college and had great statistical four year careers. But Courtney either because she didn't have enough desire or because Sherri didn't push her hard enough, never expanded her game - she was basically the same player after four years that she was when she arrived - physically her speed and stamina didn't improve and skill wise she hadn't developed her range on offense. Her sister was not as skilled a player but did transform herself physically - she may not have had the skill necessary to play/star at the next level, but at least she left college a different player than she entered.
Griner - all the skills and the height to dominate in HS and college, and incredible success in college - but ... I still think she left college with basically the same skill set that she arrived with and it showed in her final college loss - no one had to guard her when she moved to the foul line. Make life uncomfortable down low and she didn't have an option two in her game, nor did her team.
Maya - all the skills to dominate in HS and college and she did. But she and Geno both had the desire to expand on what was already working - she could shoot jumpers all day and score at will, but ... Geno asked the question, what are you going to do when a team takes your jumper away - may only happen a couple of games a year in college, but it will happen frequently at the next level - how do you counter that? And together they worked on improving her post-up and shot fake to drive, and getting to the foul line and rebounding and passing.
DT - probably came to college with the most rounded offensive game of any player in Uconn history but maybe a liability on defense. And she didn't often get fouled. By the time she left college she was not a Kelly Faris, but she was a good defender and she had learned how to get to the foul line.
What Geno does for his stars he does for his walk-ons too. And it isn't just Geno, but I think it stands out because of the incredibly talented players he gets who could just skate through college, but who he doesn't allow to cheat their talent.
This is a much longer post that I meant - but I think it is why #1 recruits at Uconn consistently end up as 35 year old stars in the W and lesser HS recruits still have prolonged professional careers vs. the players from other programs.
Hardly a fair and balanced response as far as your player comparisons but well thought out and it obviously took some time. Had you thrown in a few UConn misses, I would not be able to praise this response enough; Especially since your player evaluations encompassed five players from successful programs, all of whom played in at least one Final Four.
Ashley probably does not belong in this conversation; a very good player, never an All American, never a player with whom an opposing team spent too much time scheming against defensively.
I disagree with your assessment of Griner. You seem to believe that all one has to do is spend enough time in the gym developing a shot or a different aspect of one's game and it will happen. For many players it can, for others it just is not possible for reasons indeterminable. However, I did see her shoot sweeping left hooks with respectable success. Was that always in the arsenal?
No doubt Maya's and Diana's games improved during their four years at UConn. But, IMO, more as a result of experience and the subtle adjustments to which you may have alluded. Maya and DT, IMO, were as good as freshman as they were as seniors. Their talents were heads and shoulders above everyone elses and it was immediately obvious.
Maya's the perfect example of how certain aspects of one's game just will not improve regardless of how much work is put into it. For all of Maya's skills, she was never a good ball handler and I do not recall her ever taking more than two dribbles going left. She was an awful on ball defender her freshman year, but she did improve markedly in that area. Her rebounding numbers over four years at UConn were 290, 348, 325, and 313; the first and last years were over 38 games, the middle two over 39, so I cannot buy the rebounding argument. And I always thought she was an adequate passer, but refuse to use assists as a barometer. Players passing to other good players are bound to have gaudy assist numbers. Kaili McLaren never posted gaudy assist numbers, but one would be hard pressed to find a better passer that ever played at UConn or anywhere else.
To be honest, I never paid much attention to Diana's defense so your word about it will be accepted, but I do not accept your argument about her learning to get to the free throw line. The numbers do not support it and her role changed drastically in her final two seasons. In her first two seasons, her role was to space the floor and keep the defenses honest. There was no need for her to take it inside very often. In her last two seasons, she constituted a greater percentage of the offense and had the ball in her hand more often; Especially in tight games.
As far as your quote about #1 recruits, lesser recruits and other programs, it will take a little time to develop an opinion pro or con because I really do not follow recruiting very religiously but know that UConn gets more than their share and have a fair amount of players in the WNBA. For arguments sake, I will opine that the program that has produced the most top players would have to be USC. Even Tennessee, right now, owns more MVP hardware than UConn and an equal share of Rookie of the Year Hardware. The next UConn player to be named Defensive Player of the Year will be the first. UConn players do well, but so do others.
.
.