WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - Printable Version

WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 (/thread-21509.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - chimera - 02-05-2021

What the heck was that last quarter? I don't know that I have seen a worse quarter all season, considering how the rest of the game went and how limited CO was without Sherrod. We did everything wrong. Did not probe the zone well. Chucked up threes and missed. Kept fouling them over and over. tried to dribble through their press instead of passing over it. Silly turnovers by multiple players. This against a team we should have been wanting to destroy. After the drubbings dished out up in Washington I thought the team had found the way to stomp teams when they were down. Not so today. You just cannot let up like that against any decent team. We got passive and stayed that way while the game was slipping almost away. Yuck. Game went from great to ok, not bad, to hide my eyes.

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - jonnyss - 02-05-2021

(02-05-2021, 09:16 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Colorado's zone completely changed the game. Stanford was not able to get the ball inside the zone, so they kept settling for 3 pointers which they did not make. Stanford was only 5-24 in the 2nd half.

i agree. we could not score against the zone. also we could not pass out of the press.

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - martyup - 02-05-2021

(02-05-2021, 09:22 PM)paloalto Wrote: When the announcer made a big deal about Lexie being a 88% free throw shooter, I expected her to miss a free throw. She missed both free throws.

What a tough night for Lexie. She was 0 for the game and committed 4 fouls. Credit her for keeping Hollingshed in check for the first half. She ended up with 16 points and was the lead scorer for the Buffs, but 10 were from the charity stripe.

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - TheFarm07 - 02-05-2021

I know the press won't ask any difficult questions and the narrative will be how we were so resilient at the end of the game despite the Colorado comeback and made the free throws when we needed to and the notable individual performances and Tara will give credit to the Buffaloes publicly, but I hope she will be as angry, if not even more upset than she was after our loss to Colorado, privately with the team.

If we want to be the anti-UConn and demolish our opponents, this is taking it much too far in the opposite direction.

Spike - Spike - 02-05-2021

I get the feeling we’re back to being the nice girls from Stanford.

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - BosCard - 02-05-2021

(02-05-2021, 09:28 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote: I know the press won't ask any difficult questions and the narrative will be how we were so resilient at the end of the game despite the Colorado comeback and made the free throws when we needed to and the notable individual performances and Tara will give credit to the Buffaloes publicly, but I hope she will be as angry, if not even more upset than she was after our loss to Colorado, privately with the team.

If we want to be the anti-UConn and demolish our opponents, this is taking it much too far in the opposite direction.

A really ugly second half. BUT, we still won the game. Haley Jones had perhaps her worst game of the season. She missed 8 shots, scored only 5 points and turned the ball over 3 times. Lexie Hull had perhaps her worst game of the season. Zero points. And while Kiana Williams found ways to score, she still shot poorly from 3 going 2 for 9.

So, if you told me, worst game for Jones, worst game for Lexie, and Williams shoots 2 for 9 from 3. I think I would thank 3 quarters of good defense and take the win.

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - JohnR34231 - 02-06-2021

(02-05-2021, 09:24 PM)chimera Wrote: What the heck was that last quarter? I don't know that I have seen a worse quarter all season, considering how the rest of the game went and how limited CO was without Sherrod. We did everything wrong. Did not probe the zone well. Chucked up threes and missed. Kept fouling them over and over. tried to dribble through their press instead of passing over it. Silly turnovers by multiple players. This against a team we should have been wanting to destroy. After the drubbings dished out up in Washington I thought the team had found the way to stomp teams when they were down. Not so today. You just cannot let up like that against any decent team. We got passive and stayed that way while the game was slipping almost away. Yuck. Game went from great to ok, not bad, to hide my eyes.

As John Ralston would put it "never give a sucker an even break."
We did, but since it was against a team that beat us the last time we played, I'll take the win without complaint.

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - 81alum - 02-06-2021

Here are a few clues that have been rattling around my head about what happened:

1. In the interview with Hollingshed after the loss in Colorado, she said something like "we played extra physical to make them do things they don't like to do." JR Payne knows exactly how to get under our skin. I hate games against her since they are nearly always ugly affairs--win or lose. Remember the time we lost to her when she was coaching Santa Clara? Both teams shot around 30%, we had 26 turnovers, etc.

2. Am I not remembering correctly, or did Colorado not play much (or any?) zone when we lost to them in Colorado? Maybe it is a case of traumatic amnesia on my part, but somehow it seemed to me that they changed their defensive scheme for this game, and it may have caught us off guard. Then they started pressing in the 4th and we had another meltdown. If this happens to us when we have Wilson and Williams, I shudder to think what will happen without them next year.

3. In a couple of different interviews, when Tara was asked about Jones, she said something like "you have to remember that she is still basically a freshman." Well, last night it sure looked like it. In fact, I have been slightly concerned about her development even before tonight. There are games when she puts the team on her back, and games when she is not really a factor. I've been trying to figure out why there is so much inconsistency--is it that sometimes the opposing defense keys on her and sometimes it keys on others? Or is there more to it than that?

4. The complaints about not penetrating the zone are only halfway correct, in my opinion. We notice that we don't penetrate and instead jack up treys that kept missing. Well, the two are related. If those treys start going in, the zone defenders start coming out more vigorously to the perimeter and this opens up passing and driving lanes. This is exactly the strategy that so many teams have used against us over the years--pack the zone--force us to take threes--and if we are having an off-shooting night, it neutralizes our talent advantage. When facing Stanford, pick your poison, and the poison to pick is three point shooting since it can be erratic. Nothing new about that. The solution is to MAKE those threes not so we can become a long range bombing team but to open up the interior for a balanced offense. Williams was 2-9, Lexie 0-3, Prechtel 0-3, and Lacie was not enough to keep the defense honest.

5. I think we should take Tara's words seriously when she says we have not been able to practice normally for almost the entire season. That can explain a great deal about the state of the team right now.

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - Softball Fan - 02-06-2021

I agree about Jones. It seems some aspects of her game are regressing as the season progresses. There could be reasons for that or it could be my imagination due to too few data points for drawing conclusions.

She is still really good but in the beginning of the season she looked invincible on the court.

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - jonnyss - 02-06-2021

(02-06-2021, 07:30 AM)paloalto Wrote: I agree about Jones. It seems some aspects of her game are regressing as the season progresses. There could be reasons for that or it could be my imagination due to too few data points for drawing conclusions.

She is still really good but in the beginning of the season she looked invincible on the court.

she hurt her knee a few games ago. i wonder if she is ok.

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - chimera - 02-06-2021

I think Jones has been mostly very, very good. She has tended toward some overly ambitious drives and passes that can lead to turnovers. That has been her main negative. This game the shots did not fall, but I don't think she took many that she doesn't normally take. Maybe she did and I missed them while picking my jaw up off the floor as I watched how bad things got in the 4th. I do think how she goes affects the whole team in a magnified way. When she is on, like the first few minutes, she can take over a game for however long that lasts. If she then gets into a bad mode with forced shots, drives and passes, seems to me the whole team catches that bug along with her. Several games she has started out magnificently but gotten into a bad mode late in games. Some of that is teams adjust to her. She will learn to adjust to their adjustments. She can do so many things that push the envelope as far as shot creation and creative passing. She will learn how to reign in her higher risk impulses and deal better with defenses that key on certain of her attacks.

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - Hulk01 - 02-06-2021

My bias;
Jones reflects the challenge Tara faces in building a team:
she looks for wonderful teammates--great--
and resists killers--generally good, now and then not.
Haley is a sweetheart; Lexie and Lacie are prom dates;
Prechtel, Hannah.
Kiana seems to have some killer but she and Anna combined
could not team up and produce a shout.
Cam is a killer but a freshman.
(Paige Bueckers is a killer but too cocky to let being a freshman get in her way,
and she knows Geno is turning her loose and handing her the reins.)
(Again, just my opinion).
Demetre seems to have some fire but not here yet.

Killers also deals well with pressure--
thrive on it.
Yesterday, only one woman seemed to cope--
Cameron vividly.
Not proving my thesis,
but supporting it.

Best to you all---hulk

My model is Diana Taurasi,
another view at which several of you just recoiled.

Taurasi teams didn't let you off the mat.

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - TheFarm07 - 02-06-2021

(02-06-2021, 10:04 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: My bias;
Jones reflects the challenge Tara faces in building a team:
she looks for wonderful teammates--great--
and resists killers--generally good, now and then not.
Haley is a sweetheart; Lexie and Lacie are prom dates;
Prechtel, Hannah.
Kiana seems to have some killer but she and Anna combined
could not team up and produce a shout.
Cam is a killer but a freshman.
(Paige Bueckers is a killer but too cocky to let being a freshman get in her way,
and she knows Geno is turning her loose and handing her the reins.)
(Again, just my opinion).
Demetre seems to have some fire but not here yet.

Killers also deals well with pressure--
thrive on it.
Yesterday, only one woman seemed to cope--
Cameron vividly.
Not proving my thesis,
but supporting it.

Best to you all---hulk

My model is Diana Taurasi,
another view at which several of you just recoiled.

Taurasi teams didn't let you off the mat.

I know we are in the minority here, but I agree that our teams, for some reason, lack the killer instinct to finish off their opponents. Maybe it's because I'm a very competitive person. Maybe it's because our last championship happened before Amazon was a company. Maybe it's because I've seen it happen many times over the last decade, so I know we can't just solely place it on COVID and the very unique circumstances of this season.

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - martyup - 02-06-2021

Maybe it's a male vs female thing regarding the killer instinct. I just cannot get out of my head the scene displayed by CO on their court when they beat our team. They were falling all over each other in jubilation, which they absolutely had the right to do. However, if I were playing, that memory alone would have driven me to keep the boot on their neck and totally humiliate them at Maples. That is my emotional response, but is it rational? Maybe it's just my male perspective, which is hard wired by instinct into my brain. Maybe our WBB players and Tara don't feel this need for payback. Maybe they guage their play by monitoring the margin of the lead and the probability of losing. I would rather they strive to play mistake free smart basketball. We didn't see that in the second half of this game. I guess the bottom line is that we got the win, but giving up 28 points in the 4th quarter to a depleted 4-8 conference team should be embarrassing to our team.

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - old spanish trail - 02-06-2021

[quote="Hulk01" pid='306838' dateline='1612631058']
My bias;
Jones reflects the challenge Tara faces in building a team:
she looks for wonderful teammates--great--
and resists killers--generally good, now and then not.
Haley is a sweetheart; Lexie and Lacie are prom dates;
Prechtel, Hannah.
Kiana seems to have some killer but she and Anna combined
could not team up and produce a shout.
Cam is a killer but a freshman.
(Paige Bueckers is a killer but too cocky to let being a freshman get in her way,
and she knows Geno is turning her loose and handing her the reins.)
(Again, just my opinion).
Demetre seems to have some fire but not here yet.

Killers also deals well with pressure--
thrive on it.
Yesterday, only one woman seemed to cope--
Cameron vividly.
Not proving my thesis,
but supporting it.

Best to you all---hulk

My model is Diana Taurasi,
another view at which several of you just recoiled.

Taurasi teams didn't let you off the mat.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

I agree Brink is a killer. I also think, if she can escape injury, she will be the face of USA wbb. She's not just a fantastic talent, she's electric and the camera loves her.

[quote="chimera" pid='306837' dateline='1612630657']

I think Jones has been mostly very, very good. She has tended toward some overly ambitious drives and passes that can lead to turnovers. That has been her main negative. This game the shots did not fall, but I don't think she took many that she doesn't normally take. Maybe she did and I missed them while picking my jaw up off the floor as I watched how bad things got in the 4th. I do think how she goes affects the whole team in a magnified way. When she is on, like the first few minutes, she can take over a game for however long that lasts. If she then gets into a bad mode with forced shots, drives and passes, seems to me the whole team catches that bug along with her. Several games she has started out magnificently but gotten into a bad mode late in games. Some of that is teams adjust to her. She will learn to adjust to their adjustments. She can do so many things that push the envelope as far as shot creation and creative passing. She will learn how to reign in her higher risk impulses and deal better with defenses that key on certain of her attacks.
__________________________________________________________________________________

I thought Jones looked tired out there. She stumbled around three times. Maybe up all night for a test, or couldn't sleep, or... Also, I hope she works on her 3 pointer. No reason she shouldn't be excellent from there though her silky touch in the paint is not a skill that helpful in the 3.

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - crackpot - 02-06-2021

In the past, Tara's teams have never been one to run up the score. But doesn't this new NET rating reward blowouts?

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - StanFanFam13 - 02-06-2021

I know we're all fans of this team—that's what brings us to this board. And I also understand that fandom does not preclude criticism; I enjoy and have learned much from the healthy exchange here about players' strengths and weaknesses, the strategy behind coaching decisions, etc. I think it's entirely appropriate to point out failings and probe the judgment of others, including the players and Tara.

I was also screaming at my screen in frustration last night as shots didn't fall, no one could get into the paint, and the lead dwindled, giving me terrible deja vu and bringing back memories of many an ugly contest between those two teams. I wish the team had played with more fire in the second half and particularly the final quarter, and I'm afraid I don't know the magic solution (although I appreciated many of the points that 81alum made).

However, as fans of a women's sport that has struggled mightily to establish credibility and popularity compared to men, I think we can all do better than reverting to gendered stereotyping when discussing this team. They don't have "killer instinct"? Fine. Perhaps it is a coaching decision, the individual or collective tendencies of players, or particular matchups that put them in a funk or contribute to what we saw last night.

I'm not attributing mal-intent, but posts suggesting that there's something inherently female about lacking a "killer instinct" or dismissing the toughness of some of our most impressive players by using words like "sweetheart" and "prom date" are, I think, unproductive. I recommend using specific language that focuses on traits relevant to basketball—how hard they work, how aggressive they are—which is both more helpful to the discussion and more respectful of the players. Thanks all.

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - BobK - 02-06-2021

Excellent post stanfanfam13

Of course that 4th quarter was terrible. But Utah next

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - BillBradley - 02-06-2021

I don't really think the "killer instinct" is a factor in games like this. FWIW, I do think some players are more competitive than others - Brink probably being toward the top of the list. But I disagree with any sentiment that our players, especially the Hulls or Anna, are "too nice". They compete hard every game IMO.

I think what is happening in the second half of some of the games is that other teams are making adjustments that are working. In the game against Colorado it happened when they got really aggressive in the zone and pressed us full court. We were lost. To me, that had nothing to do with not having a killer instinct. We just didn't know how to handle it. We weren't organized, started jacking 3's against the zone, etc. Colorado would have beaten us if they had 5 more minutes on the clock and didn't have to foul late. We had no idea how to handle what they were throwing at us. That was really disappointing. As others have mentioned, with limited practice time maybe we really haven't worked on those things much? Still, we shouldn't have crumbled that badly.

I also wanted to bring up...Tara seems focused on a couple things in situations where we have big leads. 1) Don't foul and put them on the line 2) Work the clock. That's an approach I'm personally fine with, because it's smart basketball and you will finish games with that strategy. However, that does result in weak defense with players being afraid to foul, and weak offense when players don't push their advantage early in the shot clock. Multiple times in the 4th quarter we saw the clock shot run dry as we were content to not attack the zone and just let the clock tick down. We also saw Kiana pull the ball back out after we broke the press and didn't force the advantage to get easy buckets. So some of this is by design - the players are going to follow Tara's orders. Geno and others likely have different strategies when they have big leads.

RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - Goose - 02-06-2021

The tendency to let up when we are well ahead exists in just about every Stanford team I have ever seen. It isn't just Women's Basketball. Look at some of the epic "can't possibly lose now" games Stanford Football has lost over the years, under many different coaching staffs. For certain there are coaching decisions that involve some form of "turtle", but it goes beyond that. Stanford athletes aren't stupid. They know when they are well ahead and don't really have to play great to win. They also know they need to give 100% best efforts at all times, but they don't. That is just who they are. It is the same psyche that allows the "biggest upset ever". Stanford football had for years a reputation of losing to teams they should beat and beating teams they shouldn't.
In recent years, the team leadership in football has been better and we haven't "couged it" real often. We have also won some "miracle" finishes. That said, we often play down to our competition. For those of you who want athletes with more "killer instinct", I would suggest that often is as bad, or worse. U$C generally has great killer instinct when they are winning against an over-matched opponent, but when they are losing they often step on people's hands and generally give up. What Stanford wants is players who are competitive and play hard all the time, even when it may not be necessary. To a lesser or greater extent, we get that these days. Just not every day.