[BillBradley]

@teejers

Not sure how you can be so certain that Lacie is the best answer at PG when we haven't really seen other options (most notably JVG).

I'm certain because 1) The coaches are certain, and they are at practice every single day. No knock on JVG, she's obviously a good player to be on this team and I think she can still be vital as a junior and senior. But she's obviously not showing the coaches she's the better choice. If she was, do you think the coaches are playing mind games or something? Of course not. They would put the best players out there.  2) JVG seems to me like she's a really good floor general, but she's not going to come in and give us a major offensive boost. If you agree with that, then it's about "the other stuff", which Lacie wins hands down. 3) Lacie has 2000 minutes of experience going into the season. Jana has 250. It's just a big advantage. 4) Lacie is longer, stronger, more athletic, and more versatile.  

Now IF Lacie had been a turnover machine, and we needed someone to get the ball up the court, then by all means the door is open. But so far, so good (enough). 

On Haley, I also entertained notion of "the yips" as possible explanation.  But you can "play through it" in 20s of minutes (not 30s).
Agree! Something is not right here...Seems like 20 minutes would have been better.

I'm with mbdude and CardFan10Fan on NOT being a fan of the quick triggers from Tara.  Especially since it's applied in inconsistent manner (it's that kind of stuff that breeds claims of favoritism)
I think Tara pulls all her players for things like fouls, turnovers, not rebounding, etc. But I've come to appreciate that the best players (e.g. Jones, Cam) get more rope in certain instances. It took me a long time in my basketball world to get there, but somewhere along the line I accepted that it's correct. As a coach, you don't have to treat everyone the same.

That said, I'm worried about chemistry too as you suggest. While I do think that Tara can keep them together, it doesn't always work out. Players can get upset about things like this and start taking it out against each other and then the whole thing can come unglued pretty quickly. 

The truth of the matter is this: you can put any 5 players on Stanford's roster (assuming normal distribution of guards and posts) for 4-7 minute stretches, and they would be fine. These are all highly regarded hoopsters.  They just need confidence to play well;

I'll give that to you against cupcake teams, but I don't believe that for one second against stiff competition. I've been around many basketball parents who, when their kids aren't playing, say things like "other than so and so, and so and so, the rest of the kids are mostly the same. You could put any of them out there and we'd be just as good." It's so wrong. You can't just put 5 bench players out there, even our talented Stanford players, or you'll see the scoreboard against Texas, South Florida, Gonzaga, etc. start to quickly go in the wrong direction. I agree, our underclassmen are very talented. But talent is only part of the equation. They also need the mental makeup (to pick up the complexity of the system) and emotional maturity to play. The mental and emotional side is a big part of development and it takes awhile for 18 year olds to get there, even though they've been high school stars. Experience is important.

---

Backatcha @81Alum. I appreciate all your preview posts and our other insights as well.

re: "I have hard Tara take the blame for some bad decisions--she truly has no ego problem with admitting mistakes--but the depth and reason behind her decisions is obvious on those somewhat rare occasions when she explains them.  So like any fan I question decisions, but I also remain humble, knowing that there almost always are good answers. "

Yes, yes, yes, couldn't agree more. We all get to question coaching decisions and for me that's a big part of the fun. But I don't think for a second Tara is making knee-jerk decisions that are non-sensical. There's a level of complexity, especially with such a brobdingnagian roster, that I can't even fathom. Her choices are all informed by a lot of information none of us have (e.g. what's really going on with Haley. She knows, we don't). I also find that oftentimes folks don't really give enough credit for what goes on at practice. That's where players earn PT and earn the trust of the coach. Her comment about Kiki's missed dunk really hit home. <paraphrasing> "We'll have a talk about that. I wasn't happy. What she doesn't get is that her job is to earn my trust. That play didn't do her any good. Make the layup."   It doesn't matter how many recruiting stars your profile had or what # in your recruiting class you were. Gaining the trust of the coach is everything when it comes to getting on the court.

[BillBradley]

@teejers

Not sure how you can be so certain that Lacie is the best answer at PG when we haven't really seen other options (most notably JVG).

I'm certain because 1) The coaches are certain, and they are at practice every single day. No knock on JVG, she's obviously a good player to be on this team and I think she can still be vital as a junior and senior. But she's obviously not showing the coaches she's the better choice. If she was, do you think the coaches are playing mind games or something? Of course not. They would put the best players out there.  2) JVG seems to me like she's a really good floor general, but she's not going to come in and give us a major offensive boost. If you agree with that, then it's about "the other stuff", which Lacie wins hands down. 3) Lacie has 2000 minutes of experience going into the season. Jana has 250. It's just a big advantage. 4) Lacie is longer, stronger, more athletic, and more versatile.  

Now IF Lacie had been a turnover machine, and we needed someone to get the ball up the court, then by all means the door is open. But so far, so good (enough). 

On Haley, I also entertained notion of "the yips" as possible explanation.  But you can "play through it" in 20s of minutes (not 30s).
Agree! Something is not right here...Seems like 20 minutes would have been better.

I'm with mbdude and CardFan10Fan on NOT being a fan of the quick triggers from Tara.  Especially since it's applied in inconsistent manner (it's that kind of stuff that breeds claims of favoritism)
I think Tara pulls all her players for things like fouls, turnovers, not rebounding, etc. But I've come to appreciate that the best players (e.g. Jones, Cam) get more rope in certain instances. It took me a long time in my basketball world to get there, but somewhere along the line I accepted that it's correct. As a coach, you don't have to treat everyone the same.

That said, I'm worried about chemistry too as you suggest. While I do think that Tara can keep them together, it doesn't always work out. Players can get upset about things like this and start taking it out against each other and then the whole thing can come unglued pretty quickly. 

The truth of the matter is this: you can put any 5 players on Stanford's roster (assuming normal distribution of guards and posts) for 4-7 minute stretches, and they would be fine. These are all highly regarded hoopsters.  They just need confidence to play well;

I'll give that to you against cupcake teams, but I don't believe that for one second against stiff competition. I've been around many basketball parents who, when their kids aren't playing, say things like "other than so and so, and so and so, the rest of the kids are mostly the same. You could put any of them out there and we'd be just as good." It's so wrong. You can't just put 5 bench players out there, even our talented Stanford players, or you'll see the scoreboard against Texas, South Florida, Gonzaga, etc. start to quickly go in the wrong direction. I agree, our underclassmen are very talented. But talent is only part of the equation. They also need the mental makeup (to pick up the complexity of the system) and emotional maturity to play. The mental and emotional side is a big part of development and it takes awhile for 18 year olds to get there, even though they've been high school stars. Experience is important.

---

Backatcha @81Alum. I appreciate all your preview posts and our other insights as well.

re: "I have hard Tara take the blame for some bad decisions--she truly has no ego problem with admitting mistakes--but the depth and reason behind her decisions is obvious on those somewhat rare occasions when she explains them.  So like any fan I question decisions, but I also remain humble, knowing that there almost always are good answers. "

Yes, yes, yes, couldn't agree more. We all get to question coaching decisions and for me that's a big part of the fun. But I don't think for a second Tara is making knee-jerk decisions that are non-sensical. There's a level of complexity, especially with such a brobdingnagian roster, that I can't even fathom. Her choices are all informed by a lot of information none of us have (e.g. what's really going on with Haley. She knows, we don't). I also find that oftentimes folks don't really give enough credit for what goes on at practice. That's where players earn PT and earn the trust of the coach. Her comment about Kiki's missed dunk really hit home. <paraphrasing> "We'll have a talk about that. I wasn't happy. What she doesn't get is that her job is to earn my trust. That play didn't do her any good. Make the layup."   It doesn't matter how many recruiting stars your profile had or what # in your recruiting class you were. Gaining the trust of the coach is everything when it comes to getting on the court.