The CardBoard
Stanford 72, UConn 59 - 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: Stanford 72, UConn 59 (/thread-8682.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: ps - 2 for 2028 - 01-17-2015

(01-17-2015, 09:40 PM)garvin link Wrote:The ESPN guys said Reid Travis is due for "reevaluation" early next week, and that he's suffering no pain. They seemed pretty optimistic that he's about to return. We shall see.

Good news, but sadly Verhoeven might be done for the season.

Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - socalstanfan1 - 01-17-2015

Happy to see the Men's BB team doing well, and looking forward, hopefully, to Reid Travis coming back.  But I do have a concern about the development of the bench players.  We will need some more depth to make it to the tournament and to go deep, but more importantly for next year.  Roscoe Allen and Reid Travis is a nice start, but we need Marcus Allen, Christian Sanders, Robert Cartwright and Michael Humphreys to make some strides over the remainder of this season.  It looks like we will have a very nice class coming in next year, but we need that foundation to build on.

I know, I know, I should enjoy this season before worrying about the next.  But I would love for us to get used to a high level of success with mens basketball, as we have with football and women's basketball.  And that means developing the bench.

Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - scorecard - 01-18-2015

I think socalstanfan1 makes some very good points about the bench.  We rely so much on the three 5th-year seniors, and it seems to me that the other players are too shy about pulling the trigger.  In the UCLA game, that really cost us, as no one had anything going except Randle, and it almost looked like the other players were too nervous to even try to make a play.  Everyone waited for Randle to do something, and it made our offense terribly predictable and stagnant (not to mention completely wore Randle down in double OT). 

Confidence is a brobdingnagian factor, particularly for a shooter, and we have numerous examples of players blossoming only after they became seniors (Grunfeld, Lottich, Fields come to mind).  We are seeing some signs from Rosco Allen with being more assertive, both with 3 pointers and rebounding, and we need that.  Frankly, we need it from all the players.  It's great to have 3 strong options, but the other 2 guys can't be dead weight.  This is part of why I like Cartwright on the floor, he seems to at least have the moxie to shoot the open 3 when it is there. 

It will be interesting to see the dynamic next year, as the 3 seniors will be Rosco Allen, Sanders, and Verhoeven -- none of whom seem like alpha dogs at this point.  I wonder if this will accelerate the development of this year's frosh.  I also wonder if we will continue to run the triangle if we don't have a true low post threat like Nastic.  Does Reid Travis become a low post force?  Does he have that kind of game? 

For next year:
Seniors: Rosco Allen, Sanders, and Verhoeven
Juniors: Marcus Allen, Malcolm Allen
Sophomores: Reid Travis, Humphreys, Pickens, Cartwright
Freshmen: Cameron Walker, Marcus Sheffield, Josh Sharma

Other thoughts:
- UConn did not look good.  But hey, they reported a 2nd consecutive perfect APR!
- As much as I want Reid Travis to play against Arizona, I'd prefer that he gets healthy for the home stretch and the tournament, rather than rush back in and get injured again. 
- I am disappointed for Verhoeven.  This was his chance to really play some minutes and shore up the inside.  I am not as down on him as some others are on this board -- he made what should have been the game-saving block in the 1st OT of the UCLA game (which looked to me on the replay to change direction off of Kevon Looney's hand, but was still given to UCLA, leading to Bryce Alford's 3 pointer, followed by Randle's 1 of 2 FTs).
- We saw some odd flagrant fouls called for some weak incidental elbows last year.  Why was there no flagrant given for the elbow contact that split open Nastic's forehead?  Has the rule been changed?



Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - 2 for 2028 - 01-18-2015

(01-18-2015, 02:27 AM)scorecard link Wrote:- We saw some odd flagrant fouls called for some weak incidental elbows last year.  Why was there no flagrant given for the elbow contact that split open Nastic's forehead?  Has the rule been changed?

I think Nastic could have actually been called for the foul there. 

Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - BobK - 01-18-2015

We might have no Srs next year.    Sanders and Rosco redshirted so they have 2 years after this season.  At the chalk talk it was announced, I'm told, that Verhoeven would redshirt this season.  I'm not sure that's possible given he might have played in the 2 Nd Half of the season.  However the new rule counts all games played including post season. 

Of course if Verhoeven redshirts we have only one 2016 scholie ( Rimmer)


Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - burger - 01-18-2015

Back to the game, if I may: it looks like Dawkins made some adjustments that helped the team.  Before last night, in the games without Travis, we were getting gashed on the inside and not rebounding well.  Last night, we dominated the boards and defended pretty well inside. UConn shot just 13-35 on 2-pointers, and we challenged their penetration attempts.  What seemed different last night is that the defense really collapsed into the lane on penetrations. That did result in a slew of wide-open corner threes by UConn.  Still, I'd rather see us give up open three point attempts than easy layups.  And we outrebounded them 30-4 under our basket.

So...good job, Dawkins?

Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - washingtonismoney - 01-18-2015

(01-18-2015, 08:46 AM)BobK link Wrote:We might have no Srs next year.    Sanders and Rosco redshirted so they have 2 years after this season.  At the chalk talk it was announced, I'm told, that Verhoeven would redshirt this season.  I'm not sure that's possible given he might have played in the 2 Nd Half of the season.  However the new rule counts all games played including post season. 

Of course if Verhoeven redshirts we have only one 2016 scholie ( Rimmer)

Nothing against Verhoeven, but I think Dawkins can recruit a better player next year.

Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - BobK - 01-18-2015

Agree WIM a solid thought

Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - StanFan88 - 01-18-2015

Last night was a solid win, but I don't think we should consider it a quality win other than Stanford did not play down to UConn's level.  Unlike WBB, the UConn MBB team is not much more than a brand name this year.  I know the RPI is not a great metric, but they are #76 and way on the outside looking in as far as the tournament goes.  UCLA is ranked higher.  UW is ranked higher.

As for next year, it's going to be up to the most recent two recruiting classes to deliver the goods.  Among the six more experienced players, Rosco Allen is the only one who could start for a decent team.

vs. RPI Top 50: 1-1
vs. RPI Top 100: 3-3

Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - washingtonismoney - 01-18-2015

I wouldn't anoint Rosco Allen yet either. He has very strange stats. His 3pt% is pretty good at 37.5, and makes him a big threat when he plays at the four. The odd thing is his FT%, which is 63.9. We've seen this sort of thing before, with Lawrence Hill, who had a fantastic sophomore season, fueled by his excellent 3pt% of 41.

The problem was that performance was an outlier; his FT% that year of 69.9% was a truer indicator of his so-so shooting ability. I've seen some analysis that suggests that Hill's experience is a common one when you have a really good three point shooting performance and a mediocre free throw shooting performance: it's easier to outperform in a small sample, and typically you have fewer 3 point shots than free throws.

That suggests Allen's current hot streak may be a temporary thing, rather than a genuine jump in his level of play.

Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - StanfordMatt - 01-18-2015

Bruce Bowen averaged 40% from 3 and 57% on free throws over a 14-year NBA career. Some guys just feel more comfortable shooting in the flow of the game. Maybe Allen is one of them.

Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - 97fan - 01-18-2015

(01-18-2015, 01:49 PM)StanFan88 link Wrote:Among the six more experienced players, Rosco Allen is the only one who could start for a decent team.

Are you counting Reid Travis among the six? Surely he could start, as a freshman, for plenty of decent teams.

(01-18-2015, 02:00 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I wouldn't anoint Rosco Allen yet either. He has very strange stats. His 3pt% is pretty good at 37.5, and makes him a big threat when he plays at the four. The odd thing is his FT%, which is 63.9.

Wasn't three-point shooting a big part of Allen's game even in high school? As I remember it, his ability to shoot it from deep as a 6'9" guy was a major reason that he was an elite recruit.

Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - StanFan88 - 01-18-2015

(01-18-2015, 03:23 PM)97fan link Wrote:Are you counting Reid Travis among the six? Surely he could start, as a freshman, for plenty of decent teams.

Nope, but I realized it's only 5 not 6.  As posted earlier, next year's roster:

Seniors: Rosco Allen, Sanders, and Verhoeven
Juniors: Marcus Allen, Malcolm Allen

Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - BobK - 01-18-2015

😃 well Marcus will be a jr.  One right.  :D

Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - StanFan88 - 01-18-2015

(01-18-2015, 07:13 PM)BobK link Wrote:😃 well Marcus will be a jr.  One right.  :D

Yes Bob that's looking ahead to next year.  Point is that the team will be relying almost exclusively on the current first year and redshirt players because the upperclassmen are really weak.

Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - scorecard - 01-18-2015

(01-18-2015, 06:55 AM)2 for 2028 link Wrote:[quote author=scorecard link=topic=11566.msg111060#msg111060 date=1421573272]

- We saw some odd flagrant fouls called for some weak incidental elbows last year.  Why was there no flagrant given for the elbow contact that split open Nastic's forehead?  Has the rule been changed?

I think Nastic could have actually been called for the foul there.
[/quote]

https://twitter.com/GoStanford/status/556856105864007680


It appears the rule has indeed been changed.  Officials are no longer required to give flagrants for elbow contact above the head.  Here is an excerpt from a NCAA press release 11/5/2013:

Quote:Elbow rules

The committee tweaked the rules regarding elbow contact above the shoulders.

A minimum of a flagrant 1 foul is no longer required when an official is responding to illegal elbow contact above the shoulders of an opponent. Now, officials also can call a common foul on any illegal elbow contact, which may result in no free throws and simply a throw-in to the offended team.

This rule change is a stark contrast to the former minimum flagrant 1 foul rule that has been in effect for three years, which awarded the offended player two free throws and the ball. Coaches felt that, sometimes, elbow contact did not merit such a harsh penalty. However, officials who deem elbow contact to be excessive, unnecessary, severe or extreme are encouraged to call a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 foul.

In a flagrant 1 situation, the player who was struck is awarded two free throws and his team gets possession of the ball. In a flagrant 2 foul situation, the penalty is the same, but the player who threw the elbow is ejected from the game.

Committee members felt the mandatory flagrant 1 penalty of the elbow rule was too harsh for all elbow situations. While the intent of the elbow rule has always been to protect players, they said, some legitimate basketball moves result in contact that is not excessive and do not deserve the harsher penalty.


Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - socalstanfan1 - 01-19-2015

(01-18-2015, 07:20 PM)StanFan88 link Wrote:[quote author=BobK link=topic=11566.msg111116#msg111116 date=1421633612]
😃 well Marcus will be a jr.  One right.  :D

Yes Bob that's looking ahead to next year.  Point is that the team will be relying almost exclusively on the current first year and redshirt players because the upperclassmen are really weak.
[/quote]

If we had looked at Nastic during his sophomore year I think we would all have said he was pretty weak.

All these kids are works-in-progress (Except Reid Travis; I would say he has already progressed a long way), so it is a bit hard to predict where they will be in a year or two. Hopefully at least a couple of them will surprise us in a positive way.

Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - StanFan88 - 01-19-2015

(01-19-2015, 12:46 AM)socalstanfan1 link Wrote:If we had looked at Nastic during his sophomore year I think we would all have said he was pretty weak.

Agreed on Nastic - I thought he would be a career backup.  So maybe Marcus Allen could improve.  But Verhoeven and Sanders are now in their third year in the program and their second/third years on the court.

Could be wrong and maybe one or both will surprise, but I think at this point given what we've seen it's hard to argue that either is good enough to start for a good D1 program.

Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - BobK - 01-19-2015

We are tied for first in the Pac 12 and still not a good program?  Sweet 16 and still not a good program?  Am I being too nit picky since both Sanders and Verhoeven have started for us. 

Re: Stanford 72, UConn 59 - BobK - 01-19-2015

We are ranked 25 today