WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - 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 72 Maryland 66 (/thread-23068.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 72 Maryland 66 (/thread-23068.html)
RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - teejers1 - 03-28-2022
(03-28-2022, 02:19 PM)treetop11 Wrote:(03-28-2022, 09:40 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(03-28-2022, 01:04 AM)treetop11 Wrote: Your comment in your first sentence was meant as a personal attack. You could have simply stated that though others disagreed, you still believed that the officiating was good, end of story - but you felt a need to slam me.
Of course, nothing is perfect, but the rules can be substantially better. Newell gave me several suggestions, one of which the NCAA did adopt - the arc in front of the basket. And frankly, I like the changes that the women's game adopted; quarters, 5 fouls to the bonus per qt., and advancing the ball after a timeout under two mins.
BTW, not meant as a shot at you, but rather as a compliment and support for our team, you several times expressed your concern about our team handling quick guards and that it would be our undoing. Against Texas, our team proved that wrong.
First, you can take shots at me - it's nbd. This is just a fan board to vent/comment/bitch/moan/learn stuff/etc.
Second, you and I have different definitions of "handling quick guards." 20 TOs and Haley being forced to bring the ball up is not ideal. But we won, and if that's your definition of "handling it," okay. And I hope we continue to "handle it" under your definition, but I'd also like to see better guard play against pressure D.
Third, two more games to play yet (hopefully).
I don't believe in taking shots at other posters unless they get nasty. I greatly prefer staying on topic with discussion of the teams, games, etc. It doesn't bother me when people are critical or argue against others' opinions. I just don't like it when there is an attempt to be personal because these fan boards never adequately portray full and accurate context of each poster. The personal attacks just distract.
When I mentioned handling quick guards, my context was that your concern that you expressed in a few posts was, as at least I interpreted it and perhaps you said explicitly, that our team would not be able to handle quick guards and our inability to do so = a loss. I wanted to point out that our team has faced all kinds of opposing styles and I think we agree that high pressure, physical play by quality opponents is our toughest to deal with. Yet, the coaches and players have figured out ways to beat that style and other styles. I was exceptionally happy obviously that we beat Texas, but also that we sent a message that we can handle - by which I meant win - even against perhaps our most significant vulnerability. It's sorta similar to having many weapons on offense where there isn't one or two people you can shut down. From my observations, there is no scheme that we can't defeat. If we lose, it's because we played really bad that game or the opponent was superior.
Also, I don't think that the Texas quick guards were the primary factor for our turnovers. We had a number of unforced turnovers that had little or nothing to do with the Texas defense. We had two long home run passes that were thrown away, several traveling calls of which a few were shuffling feet or sliding their feet, a couple of passes that were frankly just dump, and a few charges. They didn't have that many steals which is why they didn't have any fast break points like in the first game.
What I do think there quick guards and pressure did to us was affect our three point shooting and penetrating drives to the basket. Our players seldom had space on the perimeter both for outside shots and getting lanes to the basket. Even Haley who usually can find a way to get to the basket often had to stop her drive and dribbling or take shots that were even more difficult than her usual acrobatic ones. And on defense, Texas had one more three than the first game, yet still scored 11 points less. Since the Texas post players in both games were not factors on offense, we clearly figured a way to "handle" their quick guards so they didn't scorre as much mid range, drives, and in transition. From what I could tell, our coaches' strategy was to pack it in more and give them more from 3 point. Although Texas still made a number of pull up mid range shots, overall the strategy seemed to work.
I don't disagree with much of any of the above.
My position has long been that few here appreciated what Ki brought to the table, and that it was erroneous to automatically assume that this Stanford team - returning everyone plus adding some good frosh - would be better than last year's squad. And yes, my position has been (and remains) that teams with quick and harassing guards will cause this team problems. Pretty sure I never said that Stanford would lose in NCAAs due to no Kiana - there is way too much variability to be certain of that one way or the other. But it would not surprise me if that happened - heck, it almost happened last year with Kiana. More generally, it's not surprising to lose in NCAAs, even #1 seeds, particularly when you get to Sweet 16 and beyond.
I want Stanford to win it all, of course. Thus, I want our guards to play well and deal with opposing teams' guards well. Last night, I'd say Stanford dealt with it in the "final scoreboard" sense, but am not really willing to go much beyond that. Think about it: there's been a lot of celebration because Lacie only had 3 turnovers . . . and Haley (who is really a 3) brought the ball up much of the time.
It remains a concern. At least from this angle.
(Is it possible that Louisville is the biggest hurdle to a Stanford repeat, or is it a given that South Carolina is the problem? Am not sure which of the remaining teams would give Stanford the most trouble, but for some reason, I don't think it's UConn).
RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - WBB fan - 03-28-2022
Maybe UConn is rhe biggest threat. They are looking scary good against NC St right now, in 2nd qtr
RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - 2006alum - 03-28-2022
(03-28-2022, 10:06 AM)teejers1 Wrote: So, we've got "too political" police AND "not nice enough" police?
On a board where political discussion and poster interaction is incredibly mild.
Wow.
Just following the rules you agreed to abide by when you joined this site:
(10-15-2014, 10:43 AM)admin Wrote: The Cardboard is designed to be a fun, amicable place for discussion of all Stanford sports. Here are some guidelines to help keep it that way. . . .
2. Attack ideas, not people. It's rare, but those who are repeatedly confrontational have been banned. If the moderators cannot determine the instigator, both parties will be banned.
(03-28-2022, 04:44 PM)WBB fan Wrote: Maybe UConn is rhe biggest threat. They are looking scary good against NC St right now, in 2nd qtr
That's been my view since before the tournament started.
(03-01-2022, 01:23 PM)2006alum Wrote: I honestly think by late March they will be better than anyone but Stanford and SCAR, and honestly, even then it'd be pretty close. I totally understand how the committee prioritizes body of work and that it's hard to fully account for injuries to player, but the way Fudd, Ducharme, and Juhasz have developed, with Bueckers back, they have legitimately about the best starting five in the country. Whether they can all play as a unit when the chips are down is TBD, but I know I would like them as far away from Stanford's part of the bracket as possible.
RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - chimera - 03-28-2022
I don't know about anyone else but lately I find this board grouchy and a bit toxic. I hope the mods can find a way to get things to mellow out.
RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - BostonCard - 03-28-2022
(03-28-2022, 05:28 PM)chimera Wrote: I don't know about anyone else but lately I find this board grouchy and a bit toxic. I hope the mods can find a way to get things to mellow out.
For people who think this board is incredibly mild by comparison, which I agree with, part of the reason for that is that we make it that way. If people are complaining that the board is becoming less enjoyable, they will bow out, leaving only the people who are ok with it.
We all have a choice here. We can be kind to our fellow posters or we can be jerks. And unless all of us elect to be kind to one another, the board will only be left with jerks.
BC
leftcoast - Leftcoast - 03-29-2022
“We all have a choice here. We can be kind to our fellow posters or we can be jerks. And unless all of us elect to be kind to one another, the board will only be left with jerks.“
Yup, lots of my favorite longtime posters have already “voted” and curtailed or withdrawn from posting. Time to stop the leakage and keep the Cardboard fun.
TheCardboard tagline is high signal and low noise after all. Grudges and personal attacks continued over multiple threads is the worst kind of noise. Perhaps worse, it’s not fun!
Plus, I’ve really enjoyed and learned from all the combatants here in other friendlier threads! I bet if we ever found ourselves in a sports bar watching a game with no “handle” attached we’d eventually all be at the same table and buying rounds while shouting for Shaw to use his tight-ends.