WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - 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 63 -- Oregon State 60 (/thread-23991.html)
+- 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 63 -- Oregon State 60 (/thread-23991.html)
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - chimera - 01-28-2023
(01-28-2023, 07:18 PM)81alum Wrote: With regard to the drop-off in offense--I think there is another possible explanation other than a change in the players. Tara installed a new offense this year. It took opponents a while to figure it out. Then they did. Now every defense is ready for it.
The flow offense was chosen because it was simple enough for our younger players (the backcourt) to master and play this year. The Princeton is so complex that it takes a year or two to get good at it--it basically puts all your freshmen on the bench for the year, and given our personnel issues we could not afford that.
It could be that while this defense is simpler for our players to use, it is also simpler for opposing defenses to defend, and they are getting better and better at doing so.
So this is Tara's first time coaching this particular offensive system, and she may be dicovering its limitations. It is as close to a "standard" offense as there is in college WBB, so everyone else is very prepared for it.
I'm thinking that we may need to bring back elements of the Triangle and/or the Princeton to the extent our youngsters can handle it mid season. Or maybe there are varients on the Flow that we haven't yet used, and they need to be pulled out of the hat. The flow offense seems too easy to defend--at least with our personnel and given the quality of the defensive personnel in the Pac 12. Whether this is because our team is not executing it well enough or because opponents know how to defend it so well--I dont know. But as others have said, there is not much flow in the flow. If we are going to feature Brink primarily, then why not the Triangle?
This is a great observation. I had something like it swirling around my brain but you said it much better than my swirling brain could manage. One of the announcers in a recent game said Tara was incorporating some elements from last season's offense into this season.
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - TheFarm07 - 01-28-2023
(01-28-2023, 07:01 PM)martyup Wrote: Wow CardFan1996, you've taught me a great lesson. Don't read game thread posts that are more than 12 hours old.
According to your logic, we should all just stop watching our 20-2 team play.
Nah. I'm with Johnny. I'm going to cherish watching our team until the last game of the season, win or lose. I can't even imagine being in a mindset where I thought I knew more than Tara in how to guide this team.
You must have been reading a different post. Because the one I read from CardFan1996, they never said we should stop watching the team. They were just pointing out that BosCard's assertion that this is essentially the same team that won the national title two years ago and made the Final Four is incorrect.
The graduations of Kiana Williams, Lexie & Lacie Hull and Anna Wilson have not been compensated by the additions of the incoming class, because the underclassmen either are playing different positions and/or do not have the same level or type of skill set of the departing players.
I come down in support of CardFan1996's points. While our underclassmen are talented and more importantly, they will contribute to Stanford and the community in many different and much more important ways than their role on the women's team, Tara and the coaching staff has not adapted as well this year to our strengths and weaknesses, IMO.
A side note and related to CardFan1996's point regarding our relative lack of success in recruiting top flight guards as compared to forwards and posts, I wonder whether our allusions to whether players have been instructed not to take midrange jumpers and Tara's general aversion to them, plays a role in turning off those elite guards whose midrange game is an important part of their arsenal from wanting to join our program. If you're an elite scoring guard used to scoring at all three levels, if you've heard that a coach actively dislikes a certain type of shot that you're used to, you might not be as enthuastic as joining the program (with all other things being equal).
Tara is a HoF coach and she has had unparalleled success in the game, but she is not infallible. She has strengths and weaknesses as every other coach. As fans, we can grumble and criticize in a fair and fact-based manner. Believe me, the criticism on this board is restrained and objective, compared to the kneejerk, emotional responses I've read elsewhere in response to coaching decisions: "Coach X is an idiot...Coach Y is a coward."
Stubbornness can be a good and a bad thing. From her statements in the postgame pressers and from what we've seen on the court, the changes we believe she should make will likely not be implemented. It is what it is. I, nor any of us can change her mind.
I still think we have the talent this year to challenge for the national title. What has changed for me is that I believe the variability has widened based on our recent results. I thought our floor was an Elite Eight or even Final Four with an unbeaten conference season, but given our offensive struggles, I won't be surprised if we dropped three or four more regular season games and be susceptible to a Sweet 16 upset loss (based on the matchup).
That change in expectation will help manage my emotions and frustration, but that doesn't make me less of a fan or make me believe we should stop watching the team.
To 81alum's post on changing offensive schemes, I don't follow other programs closely enough, but is this a common theme with other coaches, to change the strategy - Princeton, triangle, flow, etc. multiple times within a few years? Obviously, coaching staffs should tweak things based on the strengths and weaknesses of their current roster, but it seems like changing the general strategy so greatly is causing more consternation than it should?
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - CompSci87 - 01-28-2023
Interesting to hear this offense was put in for simplicity. That makes sense. I remember I think at one of the chalk talks, Katy Steading said we would still see some of the Princeton back cuts. I think it was CTT that said Stanford had added some "chin series" from the Princeton recently
Here's a video on that I haven't watched yet.
https://youtu.be/3w5Lt6vPG0E
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - cardfan1996 - 01-28-2023
(01-28-2023, 09:27 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote:(01-28-2023, 07:01 PM)martyup Wrote: Wow CardFan1996, you've taught me a great lesson. Don't read game thread posts that are more than 12 hours old.
According to your logic, we should all just stop watching our 20-2 team play.
Nah. I'm with Johnny. I'm going to cherish watching our team until the last game of the season, win or lose. I can't even imagine being in a mindset where I thought I knew more than Tara in how to guide this team.
You must have been reading a different post. Because the one I read from CardFan1996, they never said we should stop watching the team. They were just pointing out that BosCard's assertion that this is essentially the same team that won the national title two years ago and made the Final Four is incorrect.
The graduations of Kiana Williams, Lexie & Lacie Hull and Anna Wilson have not been compensated by the additions of the incoming class, because the underclassmen either are playing different positions and/or do not have the same level or type of skill set of the departing players.
I come down in support of CardFan1996's points. While our underclassmen are talented and more importantly, they will contribute to Stanford and the community in many different and much more important ways than their role on the women's team, Tara and the coaching staff has not adapted as well this year to our strengths and weaknesses, IMO.
A side note and related to CardFan1996's point regarding our relative lack of success in recruiting top flight guards as compared to forwards and posts, I wonder whether our allusions to whether players have been instructed not to take midrange jumpers and Tara's general aversion to them, plays a role in turning off those elite guards whose midrange game is an important part of their arsenal from wanting to join our program. If you're an elite scoring guard used to scoring at all three levels, if you've heard that a coach actively dislikes a certain type of shot that you're used to, you might not be as enthuastic as joining the program (with all other things being equal).
Tara is a HoF coach and she has had unparalleled success in the game, but she is not infallible. She has strengths and weaknesses as every other coach. As fans, we can grumble and criticize in a fair and fact-based manner. Believe me, the criticism on this board is restrained and objective, compared to the kneejerk, emotional responses I've read elsewhere in response to coaching decisions: "Coach X is an idiot...Coach Y is a coward."
Stubbornness can be a good and a bad thing. From her statements in the postgame pressers and from what we've seen on the court, the changes we believe she should make will likely not be implemented. It is what it is. I, nor any of us can change her mind.
I still think we have the talent this year to challenge for the national title. What has changed for me is that I believe the variability has widened based on our recent results. I thought our floor was an Elite Eight or even Final Four with an unbeaten conference season, but given our offensive struggles, I won't be surprised if we dropped three or four more regular season games and be susceptible to a Sweet 16 upset loss (based on the matchup).
That change in expectation will help manage my emotions and frustration, but that doesn't make me less of a fan or make me believe we should stop watching the team.
To 81alum's post on changing offensive schemes, I don't follow other programs closely enough, but is this a common theme with other coaches, to change the strategy - Princeton, triangle, flow, etc. multiple times within a few years? Obviously, coaching staffs should tweak things based on the strengths and weaknesses of their current roster, but it seems like changing the general strategy so greatly is causing more consternation than it should?
Yep I was responding to that specific point re: the rosters being the same. They couldn’t be more different. Haley was MVP of the final four because she had the luxury of going 1 on 1, and no one being in her driving lanes digging at the ball. Cam could go 1 on 1 in the post. I don’t remember either seeing much in the way of double teams that championship run because you simply could not afford to leave either Kianna or Lexie open for 3. Add to that, Haley’s 3-ball mysteriously starts going in at a high rate in the tourney and Anna shooting close to 100% from 3 when they left her open, it’s a wonder Stanford didn’t beat that lightly talented Arizona team by double digits. With the right personnel, they still only won by one pt in the semi-final and final.
So yes, it is incredibly hard to win even with the right personnel but with a flawed roster it is even more so. BUT every team has a flawed roster. The difference is other teams are finding ways to maximize what they have. We are not. Again I ask even the acolytes, will that starting lineup get very far in the tourney? Lepolo, Agnes, Haley, Cam and Hannah. Even we all can say confidently it will not because it doesn’t pass the eye test, then the staff must know too, or have a boulder sized blind spot. I think the latter because Tara is recycling bad ideas like she didn’t try all of these lineups in November. Why is that? Who knows. Tara had it in her head in the summer that making Haley a point guard 90% was going to work even though literally ALL the evidence said Haley would get tired, turn over the ball a lot and with more responsibility, be a less efficient scorer. Same thing happened to Anna and Lacie last year. Playing out of position also made them less efficient at the things they were actually good at in the run in 2021. My frustration is simply making the same mistakes and expecting different results. I’d be happy if new mistakes were being made in an effort to actually put a credible starting lineup on the floor that can compete for a championship.
Teams have been negatively recruiting against Tara and Stanford at the guard spot since Jackie Gemelos. The game is the game but Stanford hasn’t really done much IMO to counter whatever may be out there.
I also do not think Tara has any issue with midrange shots especially since those are the only outside shots that Haley can make. I’m sure she’d be delighted if Cam developed a reliable midrange shot. And as an aside, I am personally perplexed since Cam is basically family with the best shooter in the history of the NBA and his dad and brother are at least Top 20 and Top 100 shooters, respectively. And his dad (her godfather) got her interested in the sport.
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - 81alum - 01-28-2023
(01-28-2023, 09:27 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote: To 81alum's post on changing offensive schemes, I don't follow other programs closely enough, but is this a common theme with other coaches, to change the strategy - Princeton, triangle, flow, etc. multiple times within a few years? Obviously, coaching staffs should tweak things based on the strengths and weaknesses of their current roster, but it seems like changing the general strategy so greatly is causing more consternation than it should?I've heard commentators praise Tara for being so flexible and willing to change--to change with the times and to change based on her players.
When I first started watching seriously in the Appel / Nneka / Chiney days Tara used the Triangle offense. It was an old offense that had gone out of style, which meant not too many of our opponents had recently faced it. It was an offense very well suited to getting the ball to your post down low on the block, and we used it effectively to have Appel and then Nneka and then Chiney dominate inside.
After Chiney graduated, we did not have anyone who was going to be a dominant post like the prior three. Tara installed a motion offense designed to feature our two young guards, Amber Orrange and Lili Thompson. Our post players (Kaylee Johnson, for example) did lots of screening to help get Lili and Amber open. Bonnie Samuelson became a "stretch four" and canned trey after trey from the four position, which also helped to open up lanes for the guards.
I don't remember the exact year we switched away from the motion offense to the Princeton (which is actually a kind of motion offense,) but it was after Lili left. The Princeton requires that all 5 players be able to shuffle through various interchangeable positions--it is better suited to a team with 5 good players than a team with 2 stars, for example, and it can't really be implemented with a slow/immobile post. Tara went to learn the Princeton from friendly rival coaches up at Davis, I remember. The Princeton was the perfect offense for us...until it wasn't. During the years it was implemented our biggest problem was teams that switched to zone. As a motion offense, it relies on running the other team ragged and getting defenders hung up chasing their marks all over the place. Many teams responded by going zone and just letting us run. The key to making the Princeton work--and we had our worst season in 20 years I think during its first year--is getting all players to get that offense into muscle memory, so they never have to think about their cuts but just do them. But we also had to develop a "zone offense" mid year when so many opponents began to frustrate the Princeton with the zone. And of course Oregon played zone all the time, and made life difficult for us.
Now we have left most of the Princeton behind and implemented something called the "flow" offense, which can be run with either 4 out and 1 in or 3 out and 2 in. The players know what starting formation to get into when they get to the half court, and then the offense is supposed to flow from one play to another without stoppage until someone gets open. Unfortunately, I see a lot of stoppage with someone on the perimeter with the ball not knowing what comes next. Maybe the Flow needs muscle memory too, and they might not have it yet. As I piece it together from chalk talks, the Flow was implemented so we could use our freshmen this year--necessary in the wake of the loss of the 3 senior guards. It was simple enough that they could pick it up and be integrated into the offense much sooner than if they had to learn the Princeton.
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - cardfan1996 - 01-28-2023
Also it is not common to change your offense so drastically year to year. Offenses are incredibly complex and you can teach some for 10 years and not understand it completely yourself. Styles are constantly evolving. Geno’s offense has been the same and he has made tweaks depending on the personnel. Notre Dame’s offense has been the same. Mulkey’s offense at LSU is better than it was at Baylor but still post-oriented. But that has more to do with her hiring Bob Starkey this year (from the archives, I believe Bob and Vic Schaefer were the real stars of that Texas A&M team that beat us and won the title whatever year that was).
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - martyup - 01-28-2023
Hey, we may lose more Pac-12 games and we may not win a NC this season. But, I guaranty that it won't be because the GOAT NCAA women's basketball coach was not as smart as some people posting their opinions on internet boards.
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - old spanish trail - 01-28-2023
(01-28-2023, 10:40 PM)martyup Wrote: Hey, we may lose more Pac-12 games and we may not win a NC this season. But, I guaranty that it won't be because the GOAT NCAA women's basketball coach was not as smart as some people posting their opinions on internet boards.
Yep.
Also, a question. Why is it posited in several posts that Kiki must play the 5? I think she could well develop into an excellent rebounding 4. She has a very polished 8-10 ft jumper and will only get better and expand the distance. Meanwhile, she will continue the great offensive moves under the basket, and will rebound plenty enuf to feature this terrific skill.
For the remainder of the year, I agree with the conclusion Tara implemented the Flow because of its simplicity. My guess is that we will see one or two other ideas added every game from here on. Also, I think she has medium confidence that one or more subs will develop a useful 3 pt shot. But, she's not totally sure. I would like to see Demetre get more time as I think she's a legit 40% 3 pt shooter. Her defense needs to improve vs quick players but, with anticipation and concentration on quick feet, I think she can do it.
Meanwhile, Cam is a beast, and Hayley a game changer, but others will need to continue to improve to make Final Four. Right now, I see Elite 8. I do have trust that Tara will ensure there is improvement. Enuf? Who knows?
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - TheWildJacko - 01-29-2023
Does no one here want to entertain the possibility that the other teams in the Pac-12, who as of late have been getting those highly coveted recruits that we wanted for our own team, might actually be quite formidable and that a lot of our struggles in the Pac-12 might be due to the solid efforts of our opponents?
I mean, heck, the last two bracketologies have had 8 Pac-12 teams in the tournament, tied for most in the country with the ACC and the Big 12. Maybe we’ve had trouble in conference play because our conference is actually kind of a nightmare gauntlet?
Yeah, we’ve had our troubles with shooting. Our assist numbers are not great. But I think a lot of the criticism here is really kind of unwarranted/premature, and not taking into the account the strong competition. I honestly think yesterday’s game was well-played on both ends, and the fact that we pulled out the victory, held OSU scoreless for the last 2 minutes or so, and didn’t lose our composure should be highly encouraging. We’re winning with defense, folks. That should be a good sign. Not to mention the fact that we’ve out-rebounded (as far as I can tell) literally every team we’ve faced, including in our two losses. Close wins are stressful, but they’re still wins. If two 1-point victories in 2021 taught us anything, it’s that a win is a win is a win.
I’m not saying everything is fine and dandy. But I don’t think it’s nearly as doom and gloom as some are implying.
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - BosCard - 01-29-2023
(01-28-2023, 06:09 PM)cardfan1996 Wrote: What’s amiss? S.Carolina was a long time ago and Stanford has been scouted. Plus Ashten played most of the relevant minutes. That Stanford starting lineup “being found out” actually started with Creighton but one or two games success will not change a scout. and the current team only has 3-players that “positively” impacted the games that won a national championship from Elite 8 (Louisville) to Semi-final (S.Carolina) to Final (Arizona). And those 3 players are Haley, Cam and Ashten. Your entire national championship backcourt is gone (Kianna, Lexie, Anna). Lepolo is never going to be Kianna even on Kianna’s worst day. Nobody ever left Kianna unguarded except by accident. Agnes will never be Lexie on offense OR defense even on Lexie’s worst day. No one left Lexie unguarded except by accident. Kianna and Lexie were first team PAC-12 and Kianna was an All-American. That made life easy for Cam and especially Haley to drive and go 1 on 1. Both Lexie and Kianna are, and in Kianna’s case, will have the opportunity to play professionally for a period of time and have people pay them to play basketball. Hannah’s shooting makes her viable professionally but not in the WNBA per the quote in the Mercury article on her by the WNBA executive (until she can prove she is more than a shooter). Hannah didn’t play much after the Sweet 16 in 2021. I don’t even remember her on the floor after Missouri State. There were reasons for that. Lepolo and Agnes are no doubt wonderful human beings who will be part of the 99% that make a great contribution to the world in something other than basketball. The difference in talent in the backcourt 2021 and now is night and day.
I think you are looking at the 2021 backcourt with rose colored glasses. Yes Lexie was a very good player and Lacie and Wilson were great defenders. But they were certainly not an all-world backcourt. They couldn’t even bring the ball past half court against a decent pressing team. Jones and Brink had to do that.
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - Baez87 - 01-29-2023
In 1960, I was student teaching at a high school in Three Forks, Montana. I was being welcomed into the teaching profession by the veteran teachers at the school. Part of my initiation was to go down to the local bar after the Friday night football game and join the male faculty members, including the coach, for a few rounds of beer and a rousing discussion of the game that has just been played.
Usually a big discussion ensued about how the coach should have coached the game. People at the bar — faculty members and other members of the community — got into heated discussions about how the coach botched the game. It didn’t matter whether the games were won or lost. The coach always had to run the gauntlet of public opinion, which grew even more passionate as the evening progressed.
The following Friday, the tradition continued. The players played their hearts out on the field. The coached still coached his team using his best judgement and the strategies he had implemented for the season. The downtown quarterbacks still met at the local tavern. Beer still flowed after the game. The fans still spouted their contrary opinions. Each character on the stage of that small town bar aired his opinion through the night. And the world continued to turn.
Enjoy the season! We are privileged to live in such a special era!
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - Hieronymus - 01-29-2023
(01-29-2023, 12:14 AM)BosCard Wrote:(01-28-2023, 06:09 PM)cardfan1996 Wrote: What’s amiss? S.Carolina was a long time ago and Stanford has been scouted. Plus Ashten played most of the relevant minutes. That Stanford starting lineup “being found out” actually started with Creighton but one or two games success will not change a scout. and the current team only has 3-players that “positively” impacted the games that won a national championship from Elite 8 (Louisville) to Semi-final (S.Carolina) to Final (Arizona). And those 3 players are Haley, Cam and Ashten. Your entire national championship backcourt is gone (Kianna, Lexie, Anna). Lepolo is never going to be Kianna even on Kianna’s worst day. Nobody ever left Kianna unguarded except by accident. Agnes will never be Lexie on offense OR defense even on Lexie’s worst day. No one left Lexie unguarded except by accident. Kianna and Lexie were first team PAC-12 and Kianna was an All-American. That made life easy for Cam and especially Haley to drive and go 1 on 1. Both Lexie and Kianna are, and in Kianna’s case, will have the opportunity to play professionally for a period of time and have people pay them to play basketball. Hannah’s shooting makes her viable professionally but not in the WNBA per the quote in the Mercury article on her by the WNBA executive (until she can prove she is more than a shooter). Hannah didn’t play much after the Sweet 16 in 2021. I don’t even remember her on the floor after Missouri State. There were reasons for that. Lepolo and Agnes are no doubt wonderful human beings who will be part of the 99% that make a great contribution to the world in something other than basketball. The difference in talent in the backcourt 2021 and now is night and day.
I think you are looking at the 2021 backcourt with rose colored glasses. Yes Lexie was a very good player and Lacie and Wilson were great defenders. But they were certainly not an all-world backcourt. They couldn’t even bring the ball past half court against a decent pressing team. Jones and Brink had to do that.
And Kianna couldn’t throw it into the ocean in the final 4.
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - treetop11 - 01-29-2023
(01-28-2023, 01:55 PM)cardfan1996 Wrote: UConn likely won’t beat S.Carolina (unless Edwards flops even more and the refs go for it). But they could beat us easily. Edwards surprisingly dominated Stanford on the offensive boards in the Final Four last year and Edward this year is so much better than she was last year. I put every team under a microscope but I also enjoy basketball and watch a lot of it.
Sure if Lopez-Senechal, Nika or Edwards get into foul trouble, we could keep the game close BUT when is the last time a UConn player fouled out? It rarely happens and Geno gambles a lot with his starters in foul trouble. Also he has always played 7-players deep a lot of minutes in competitive games and has won 11 national championships doing so. How do you neutralize Edwards who unlike last year, now has a reliable 15 footer? So does Dorka who was injured and didn’t play in our game. Dorka has legitimate range out to the 3-pt line. That means, you can’t drop back in the lane like we did last year and stop all their interior actions which are very dynamic. Also who in that starting lineup can guard Edwards on the block other than Brink? And Edwards flops a lot on defense but also on offense and is very good at it like she practices flopping as a skill outside of games so I’d be worried about Brink fouling out. So Edwards comes out to 15 ft and they post up Dorka. Who guards Dorka in the post at 6’4”? Sure you can possibly double off Nika or Aubrey but Aubrey and Nika are both capable of scoring enough to put the game out of reach. Aubrey went 100% vs Princeton. Nika has improved later in games hitting her open shots. Flip defensive assignments and now you pull Brink completely away from the basket on defense since Dorka is good from 3-pt line. Who does that benefit? Haley only plays good defense when she wants to which is a rare desire because if you are forced to play 40 minutes as Tara insist she does, when do you rest? Likely on defense.
Boston is better than Edwards and we contained Boston. Prechtel and Belibi is the answer to your question. I didn't say that the perimeter players had to foul out you made a big deal of it. I said well defended or have an off night. Watched the Tenn-Uconn game and the perimeter players had big games because though Tenn pressured a lot and got some TOs they did not play good overal fundamental D plus they were sloppy on O leading to many fast breaks by Uconn and points off TOs.
Yes, Geno has had short rotations in the past but never with the number of inuries before. But you mainly diverted from my point that fans of all teams that follow their teams closely or pretty closely envision and have concerns over what can derail their team. I just used Uconn as an example because you mentioned them - I could have picked any team and found issues. I wasn't trying to build a case agst Uconn per se that for some reason you felt a need to defend them. In fact, I mentioned at the start that I have feared Uconn from the start of the season.
But since you have some need to turn the thread into a Uconn vs Stanford thread; yes, I believe that we will beat Ucoon this year if we play them, particularly if Fudd can't play or she is not fully healthy. Teams like USC are more a problem for us this year. I am still concerned about Texas being in our bracket.
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - cardfan1996 - 01-29-2023
(01-29-2023, 07:58 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote:(01-29-2023, 12:14 AM)BosCard Wrote:(01-28-2023, 06:09 PM)cardfan1996 Wrote: What’s amiss? S.Carolina was a long time ago and Stanford has been scouted. Plus Ashten played most of the relevant minutes. That Stanford starting lineup “being found out” actually started with Creighton but one or two games success will not change a scout. and the current team only has 3-players that “positively” impacted the games that won a national championship from Elite 8 (Louisville) to Semi-final (S.Carolina) to Final (Arizona). And those 3 players are Haley, Cam and Ashten. Your entire national championship backcourt is gone (Kianna, Lexie, Anna). Lepolo is never going to be Kianna even on Kianna’s worst day. Nobody ever left Kianna unguarded except by accident. Agnes will never be Lexie on offense OR defense even on Lexie’s worst day. No one left Lexie unguarded except by accident. Kianna and Lexie were first team PAC-12 and Kianna was an All-American. That made life easy for Cam and especially Haley to drive and go 1 on 1. Both Lexie and Kianna are, and in Kianna’s case, will have the opportunity to play professionally for a period of time and have people pay them to play basketball. Hannah’s shooting makes her viable professionally but not in the WNBA per the quote in the Mercury article on her by the WNBA executive (until she can prove she is more than a shooter). Hannah didn’t play much after the Sweet 16 in 2021. I don’t even remember her on the floor after Missouri State. There were reasons for that. Lepolo and Agnes are no doubt wonderful human beings who will be part of the 99% that make a great contribution to the world in something other than basketball. The difference in talent in the backcourt 2021 and now is night and day.
I think you are looking at the 2021 backcourt with rose colored glasses. Yes Lexie was a very good player and Lacie and Wilson were great defenders. But they were certainly not an all-world backcourt. They couldn’t even bring the ball past half court against a decent pressing team. Jones and Brink had to do that.
2021 backcourt’s point guard was Kianna and we didn’t have a problem bringing up the ball with Kianna. Last year we did but not 2021.
Kianna struggled in the Final Four but she was guarded. No one was leaving her open. Part of the reason she struggled was that she was #1 on the scouting report of the other team and always got the BEST perimeter defender from that team. Louisville (Dana Evans and the other chick who couldn’t shoot), S. Carolina (Destanni Henderson was on her like glue), Arizona (they had two very good defenders that are on current WNBA rosters and Kianna drew Sam Thomas). A same same comparison to this year would be if Kianna was never guarded, her defender was in the paint, AND she struggled. That never happened.
We are happy if Lepolo and Agnes can make 39% of uncontested shots. Uncontested means literally no defender within 18 feet of them. Neither are drawing the other team’s best anything. Neither are at the top of any scouting report (if they show up at all on the report).
That one play vs UCLA encapsulates the issue of lack of spacing because of those two where Kiki Rice was playing completely off Agnes and when Cam’s defender fell down, Kiki just completely abandoned Agnes altogether to front Cam. That type of decision (to trade 3s for 2s) would have been irrational for a defense in the 2021 championship run.
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - 81alum - 01-29-2023
(01-28-2023, 11:36 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Also, a question. Why is it posited in several posts that Kiki must play the 5? I think she could well develop into an excellent rebounding 4. She has a very polished 8-10 ft jumper and will only get better and expand the distance. Meanwhile, she will continue the great offensive moves under the basket, and will rebound plenty enuf to feature this terrific skill.This is what I thought after watching our first open practice and exhibition, since Iriafen was hitting so many mid range jumpers. And Brink was shooting the ball very well from three at the beginning of the year--so it initially looked like those two could start and they each could play the 4 or the 5 interchangeably.
Our offense seemed to struggle a bit when both were in the game. They played Iriafen at the 5 and Brink at the high post (4) for a while and Brink was also not at her best. Then, at a chalk talk, one of the assistant coaches (I no longer remember which one) said they were experimenting with different offensive combinations of players and specifically noted that Brink and Iriafen did best at the 5, so they might not play together as much in the future. I remember thinking this was an uncommonly specific and interesting comment.
I think the Belibi/Prechtel combination may also have been mentioned as a combo that worked, given that Belibi was the better inside presence and Prechtel the better outside shooter. But these comments were in the context of a time somewhat earlier in the year when the coaches were trying to figure out combinations, and pointing out to us fans that these decisions were never about the merits of a single player but more about how that player's strengths complemented the strengths of other players.
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - cardfan1996 - 01-29-2023
(01-29-2023, 01:34 AM)treetop11 Wrote:(01-28-2023, 01:55 PM)cardfan1996 Wrote: UConn likely won’t beat S.Carolina (unless Edwards flops even more and the refs go for it). But they could beat us easily. Edwards surprisingly dominated Stanford on the offensive boards in the Final Four last year and Edward this year is so much better than she was last year. I put every team under a microscope but I also enjoy basketball and watch a lot of it.
Sure if Lopez-Senechal, Nika or Edwards get into foul trouble, we could keep the game close BUT when is the last time a UConn player fouled out? It rarely happens and Geno gambles a lot with his starters in foul trouble. Also he has always played 7-players deep a lot of minutes in competitive games and has won 11 national championships doing so. How do you neutralize Edwards who unlike last year, now has a reliable 15 footer? So does Dorka who was injured and didn’t play in our game. Dorka has legitimate range out to the 3-pt line. That means, you can’t drop back in the lane like we did last year and stop all their interior actions which are very dynamic. Also who in that starting lineup can guard Edwards on the block other than Brink? And Edwards flops a lot on defense but also on offense and is very good at it like she practices flopping as a skill outside of games so I’d be worried about Brink fouling out. So Edwards comes out to 15 ft and they post up Dorka. Who guards Dorka in the post at 6’4”? Sure you can possibly double off Nika or Aubrey but Aubrey and Nika are both capable of scoring enough to put the game out of reach. Aubrey went 100% vs Princeton. Nika has improved later in games hitting her open shots. Flip defensive assignments and now you pull Brink completely away from the basket on defense since Dorka is good from 3-pt line. Who does that benefit? Haley only plays good defense when she wants to which is a rare desire because if you are forced to play 40 minutes as Tara insist she does, when do you rest? Likely on defense.
Boston is better than Edwards and we contained Boston. Prechtel and Belibi is the answer to your question. I didn't say that the perimeter players had to foul out you made a big deal of it. I said well defended or have an off night. Watched the Tenn-Uconn game and the perimeter players had big games because though Tenn pressured a lot and got some TOs they did not play good overal fundamental D plus they were sloppy on O leading to many fast breaks by Uconn and points off TOs.
Yes, Geno has had short rotations in the past but never with the number of inuries before. But you mainly diverted from my point that fans of all teams that follow their teams closely or pretty closely envision and have concerns over what can derail their team. I just used Uconn as an example because you mentioned them - I could have picked any team and found issues. I wasn't trying to build a case agst Uconn per se that for some reason you felt a need to defend them. In fact, I mentioned at the start that I have feared Uconn from the start of the season.
But since you have some need to turn the thread into a Uconn vs Stanford thread; yes, I believe that we will beat Ucoon this year if we play them, particularly if Fudd can't play or she is not fully healthy. Teams like USC are more a problem for us this year. I am still concerned about Texas being in our bracket.
Ashten has averaged 1 minute a game the last 2 games. Belibi is not a good defender though she has shown improvement recently. She could barely guard Quay Miller in the post. Belibi use to be the primary mark for other teams. She was single-handedly responsible for nearly half of Colorado’s first half/quarter points in Maples last year because Tara put her on Hollingshed and Miller and Colorado promptly called ISO plays for them.
So you agree our starting lineup as currently constructed couldn’t beat UConn? Because that is the point some of us are making.
You’d be spotting UConn a lead before you hope Tara subs in the most logical defender - Ashten. But she hasn’t the last two games when it would seem Ashten is the most logical right? Ashten won 6th player of the year her freshman year right? She has had some really productive games vs Colorado in particular. I would go so far as to say she was the difference in at least 2 or 3 games vs Colorado. This year she got 1 minute. Tara is not infallible and this year is no exception.
Re: Goat status
And while Tara is a legendary coach, she is not Geno or Pat. She is not the Goat of WBB as someone said above that cannot be critiqued on some of her choices this year. She may be the Goat of West coast basketball. But the titles that Geno or Pat have won, no living Division 1 Coach will ever surpass. And Geno is on her heels on all-time winnings. But that doesn’t diminish Tara’s place in history. Being at least Top 3-5 in WBB is still a legendary career. Who wouldn’t want to retire Top 5 in their career? I would.
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - 81alum - 01-29-2023
(01-29-2023, 12:36 AM)Baez87 Wrote: The players played their hearts out on the field. The coached still coached his team using his best judgement and the strategies he had implemented for the season. The downtown quarterbacks still met at the local tavern. Beer still flowed after the game. The fans still spouted their contrary opinions. Each character on the stage of that small town bar aired his opinion through the night. And the world continued to turn.Well said! And I think some people have a few beers before posting on social media, and it shows!
Enjoy the season! We are privileged to live in such a special era!
(01-29-2023, 12:04 AM)TheWildJacko Wrote: Does no one here want to entertain the possibility that the other teams in the Pac-12, who as of late have been getting those highly coveted recruits that we wanted for our own team, might actually be quite formidable and that a lot of our struggles in the Pac-12 might be due to the solid efforts of our opponents?I agree that the Pac 12 has dramatically improved and that we are getting seriously tested every game. Even going to Washington is going to be difficult this year. And so keeping things in perspective is useful, as you rightly point out.
I mean, heck, the last two bracketologies have had 8 Pac-12 teams in the tournament, tied for most in the country with the ACC and the Big 12. Maybe we’ve had trouble in conference play because our conference is actually kind of a nightmare gauntlet?
Yeah, we’ve had our troubles with shooting. Our assist numbers are not great. But I think a lot of the criticism here is really kind of unwarranted/premature, and not taking into the account the strong competition. I honestly think yesterday’s game was well-played on both ends, and the fact that we pulled out the victory, held OSU scoreless for the last 2 minutes or so, and didn’t lose our composure should be highly encouraging. We’re winning with defense, folks. That should be a good sign. Not to mention the fact that we’ve out-rebounded (as far as I can tell) literally every team we’ve faced, including in our two losses. Close wins are stressful, but they’re still wins. If two 1-point victories in 2021 taught us anything, it’s that a win is a win is a win.
I’m not saying everything is fine and dandy. But I don’t think it’s nearly as doom and gloom as some are implying.
But as Baez points out, it is fun to pretend to be coaches and to figure out how to improve, even if it is down at the bar after the game. And my feeling is that the offense of this team has not really come together as well, and shown as much improvement over the year, as is the hallmark of most of Tara's teams. That does somewhat lower my hopes and expectations compared with where I was at early in the year. But I am more humble of my own prognostications and more respectful of Tara's acumen than one or two others here, and that gives me a lot of hope for more improvement and a deeper run than my nervous nelly instincts might otherwise suggest.
In short, being pessimistic is what some fans do to protect themselves from disappointment, and it is not necessarily any more rational than being excessively optimistic.
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - DaBears17 - 01-29-2023
I picked this team as an elite 8 team with at best a 50/50 chance for the Final Four, at the beginning of the season.
Ashten lost minutes to Brink her sophomore and junior year, but I've wondered why the pac-12 6th man of the year as a freshman isn't playing more minutes. Her defense and rebounding may have been somewhat suspect the last two years, but they are much improved this year-- and we need 3-point shooters.
Not sure what is up with the reluctance for mid-range jumpers. Demetre and Brink have hit them in past years.
Tara and her tight leashes on guards confounds me at times. Cissy Pierce didn't play a lot for Tara, but didn't she play as a pro for least 10 years? She isn't perfect, but she has the most victories in women's basketball. That is with her not getting credit for the team's 29 wins in 1995-1996 and Geno getting credit for 14 games he didn't coach.
Tara might be the 3rd best coach (depends on how long Dawn coaches), but I wonder how Tara taking a year off to coach the Olympic team affected Stanford's performance in the 1996 and 1997 final fours. I didn't start attending games until the 96-97 season, but how did Naomi Multitauaopele's injuries affect Stanford's performance in 1997 and 1998? Stanford got a championship in 2021 by two one-point victories, but if they score one more basket in the 1997 and 2011 national semifinals does Tara have two more championships? If JJ Hones plays her senior year does Stanford win in 2011? If Appel doesn't have a broken foot, Tara wins a championship in 2010. If Jamie Carey gets cleared by Stanford's doctors does she take Stanford to at least one more final four, instead of leading Texas to a final four in 2003?
Geno hasn't won a championship since 2016. What has kept his season this year from falling apart is he has two 5th year transfers who were player of the year in their previous conferences. Together they scored 39 of UConn's 84 points against Tennessee. One of them is Uconn's 2nd leading scorer, despite being the main focus of the defense.
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - martyup - 01-29-2023
(01-29-2023, 08:21 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote: And while Tara is a legendary coach, she is not Geno or Pat. She is not the Goat of WBB as someone said above that cannot be critiqued on some of her choices this year. She may be the Goat of West coast basketball.
Okay, I see where you're coming from now. I'm surprised it took you 41 posts on the Cardboard to make this clear.
![[Image: american-rapper-t-i-i-see-you-s0i67qyguxukavto.gif]](https://gifdb.com/images/thumbnail/american-rapper-t-i-i-see-you-s0i67qyguxukavto.gif)
RE: WBB: Stanford 63 -- Oregon State 60 - 81alum - 01-29-2023
(01-29-2023, 08:21 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote: Re: Goat statusThese debates can never be resolved. Not that they are not fun, but defining the "Greatest" of anything means agreeing on criteria that people probably won't agree on.
And while Tara is a legendary coach, she is not Geno or Pat. She is not the Goat of WBB as someone said above that cannot be critiqued on some of her choices this year. She may be the Goat of West coast basketball. But the titles that Geno or Pat have won, no living Division 1 Coach will ever surpass. And Geno is on her heels on all-time winnings. But that doesn’t diminish Tara’s place in history. Being at least Top 3-5 in WBB is still a legendary career. Who wouldn’t want to retire Top 5 in their career? I would.
For example, not mentioned in this discussion are Tara's severe recruiting limitations compared with Pat or Geno, who could recruit absolutely anyone without regard to academics. There was a Stanford team, about 10 years ago, where people on this board looked up the publicly stated high school GPAs of each of the women on the team: every single scholarship player had a 4.0 or better in high school. That may or may not always be the case, but it gives us a flavor of the kind of recruiting Tara has to do and that Geno and Pat did not have to do.
So, is "greatest" defined by national championships? By wins? By getting more out of the talent you have than the other coaches? (I remember Geno stating after we beat UConn in the 2008 semifinals: "Tara has always been a great coach, she just hasn't always had great players.") Quite simply, Tara is the GOAT by certain measures and not by others. My guess is that if we put Tara at UConn she would do better than if we put Geno at Stanford. She has shown through Ohio State and the Olympics that she can coach just fine with no recruiting limits. Geno hasn't shown he could be successful with severe academic limitations on recruiting. Does that matter? It does to me, but it might not to you. She is the Greatest of MY All Time but not the Greatest of YOUR All Time, and that is perfectly fine. We should have a couple of beers and gently rib each other down at the bar with Baez.