[cardfan1996]

The team played better without Lepolo and Agnes against Utah and Colorado. Every time Agnes came into those games, the lead diminished.

Things are not always what they appear to be:

Tara’s and this board’s imagination: Lepolo is a great passer 

Reality: Lepolo is an awful passer in the half court. She regularly gets her passes deflected and she misses passing windows all the time. Too numerous examples of this in both UCLA/USC games. Nivar, who didn’t play that well offensively herself, was +21 vs Utah. 


Imagination: Agnes is a great shooter, and defender

Reality: she is left wide open for a reason, and how many 3-balls were shot in her face on switches vs Oregon State. I don’t know her +/- vs Utah and Colorado but I can’t imagine it was good but to the naked eye, she looked okay. 


Imagination: Hannah is so great, Tara wants a whole team of them. If Hannah is face guarded, there is nothing she can do.

Reality: Lots of good shooters are face guarded but they have the skill with the ball (Clark) or without the ball (Azzi) to still get their shots. As the WNBA rep in that Mercury article concluded: “you have to be able to do more than shoot.”

Imagination: Tara will figure it out. The staff knows what it is doing 

Reality: her postgames are either top tier denial or gaslighting. I vote the former. Plus she is just recycling past bad decisions. Haley at point. One shooter on the floor. Agnes in the starting lineup.

Conclusion: They will probably lose 2-3 more games before change is made (starting Sunday) but at this point the change may be just as bad. I can see her starting Fran and congesting the floor even more. Spacing = offense. You can’t run offense without spacing.

[cardfan1996]

The team played better without Lepolo and Agnes against Utah and Colorado. Every time Agnes came into those games, the lead diminished.

Things are not always what they appear to be:

Tara’s and this board’s imagination: Lepolo is a great passer 

Reality: Lepolo is an awful passer in the half court. She regularly gets her passes deflected and she misses passing windows all the time. Too numerous examples of this in both UCLA/USC games. Nivar, who didn’t play that well offensively herself, was +21 vs Utah. 


Imagination: Agnes is a great shooter, and defender

Reality: she is left wide open for a reason, and how many 3-balls were shot in her face on switches vs Oregon State. I don’t know her +/- vs Utah and Colorado but I can’t imagine it was good but to the naked eye, she looked okay. 


Imagination: Hannah is so great, Tara wants a whole team of them. If Hannah is face guarded, there is nothing she can do.

Reality: Lots of good shooters are face guarded but they have the skill with the ball (Clark) or without the ball (Azzi) to still get their shots. As the WNBA rep in that Mercury article concluded: “you have to be able to do more than shoot.”

Imagination: Tara will figure it out. The staff knows what it is doing 

Reality: her postgames are either top tier denial or gaslighting. I vote the former. Plus she is just recycling past bad decisions. Haley at point. One shooter on the floor. Agnes in the starting lineup.

Conclusion: They will probably lose 2-3 more games before change is made (starting Sunday) but at this point the change may be just as bad. I can see her starting Fran and congesting the floor even more. Spacing = offense. You can’t run offense without spacing.

[Softball Fan]

I disagree with basically everything you posted (except I agree 2 or 3 road games could possibly result in a loss).  However I like the inclusive and tolerant climate this season on WBB threads.   Last season there were a handful of self-appointed monitors on WBB threads who would be combative and insulting at any sign of questioning Tara or straying from their "group-think" attitude.

[Softball Fan]

I disagree with basically everything you posted (except I agree 2 or 3 road games could possibly result in a loss).  However I like the inclusive and tolerant climate this season on WBB threads.   Last season there were a handful of self-appointed monitors on WBB threads who would be combative and insulting at any sign of questioning Tara or straying from their "group-think" attitude.

[treetop11]

Brink does seem to excel at the 5.  I think her best games are on the low block.  And Tara has made a decision to keep her there--and basically make the first offensive option always Brink.

This has a pretty negative corollary for Iriafen, Belibi, and Betts, who can only play at the five.  But Brink playing at the four makes her not as good, and it bumps Jones to the 3 where she is also not as good offensively.

With those two in and the rest of our stable of bigs sitting, it puts a lot of emphasis on our younger guards.  They are not our strength offensively, given all the offensive guards we have missed in recruiting the last few years.  But they seem to be there primarily for their defense, except Jump.  Makes it easier for the opponents to pack the paint.

My question is why not more Prechtel, perhaps at the 3 on offense and switching to the 5 or 4 on defense?  She is the one big who has good range with her shot and she should be able to complement Brink and Jones well, in a way that Betts, Belibi, and Iriafen cannot (yet).  If we play her at the three, the other team will have to bring a big out to the perimeter to guard her, and that will open more space for Brink and Jones to maneuver inside--so long as Prectel can take and make some threes.   Has her three point shooting gone so cold in practice that Tara is afraid to use her more?  Or is there something I am missing?  Perhaps there are not that many teams who have the kind of player she can defend well--although she did a very creditable job on Aliyah Boston, and it seems to me she could have taken Beers on.

Offense:
5 Brink
4 Jones
3 Prechtel
2 Jump
1 Lepolo

Defense:
5 Prechtel
4 Brink
3 Jones
2 Jump
1 Lepolo

I'm in total agreement with you 81alum. I've been contending for a while that Haley is best at 4 due to her rebounding skills, lack of outside shot, and her versatility allows her to go where she wants as opposed to being a traditional power forward. Agree fully on Ashten and if she gets major minutes her threes will be more consistent and your point about her opening up space for Cam is spot on. It will also give Jump and Lepolo more space. I've always liked having our post combos of a thinner, more athletic post with a bulkier, more physical post i.e. Cam and Ashten, Kiki and Fran/Lauren. And defensively, Cam and Ashten are dynamite. 

Off the bench, Demetre or Bosgana for Prechtel, Kiki and Fran/Betts for Cam and Haley, Nnopu for Jump, Nivar/Harriel for Lepolo. Obviously, don't want "line change" like this. I'm referring to one or two coming into the game as part of the rotation. The subs would be designed to balance ballhandling, shooting, and D.

Anyway, I like your base ore starting lineup that I believe is the best going into March and possible tightening of the rotation.

[treetop11]

Brink does seem to excel at the 5.  I think her best games are on the low block.  And Tara has made a decision to keep her there--and basically make the first offensive option always Brink.

This has a pretty negative corollary for Iriafen, Belibi, and Betts, who can only play at the five.  But Brink playing at the four makes her not as good, and it bumps Jones to the 3 where she is also not as good offensively.

With those two in and the rest of our stable of bigs sitting, it puts a lot of emphasis on our younger guards.  They are not our strength offensively, given all the offensive guards we have missed in recruiting the last few years.  But they seem to be there primarily for their defense, except Jump.  Makes it easier for the opponents to pack the paint.

My question is why not more Prechtel, perhaps at the 3 on offense and switching to the 5 or 4 on defense?  She is the one big who has good range with her shot and she should be able to complement Brink and Jones well, in a way that Betts, Belibi, and Iriafen cannot (yet).  If we play her at the three, the other team will have to bring a big out to the perimeter to guard her, and that will open more space for Brink and Jones to maneuver inside--so long as Prectel can take and make some threes.   Has her three point shooting gone so cold in practice that Tara is afraid to use her more?  Or is there something I am missing?  Perhaps there are not that many teams who have the kind of player she can defend well--although she did a very creditable job on Aliyah Boston, and it seems to me she could have taken Beers on.

Offense:
5 Brink
4 Jones
3 Prechtel
2 Jump
1 Lepolo

Defense:
5 Prechtel
4 Brink
3 Jones
2 Jump
1 Lepolo

I'm in total agreement with you 81alum. I've been contending for a while that Haley is best at 4 due to her rebounding skills, lack of outside shot, and her versatility allows her to go where she wants as opposed to being a traditional power forward. Agree fully on Ashten and if she gets major minutes her threes will be more consistent and your point about her opening up space for Cam is spot on. It will also give Jump and Lepolo more space. I've always liked having our post combos of a thinner, more athletic post with a bulkier, more physical post i.e. Cam and Ashten, Kiki and Fran/Lauren. And defensively, Cam and Ashten are dynamite. 

Off the bench, Demetre or Bosgana for Prechtel, Kiki and Fran/Betts for Cam and Haley, Nnopu for Jump, Nivar/Harriel for Lepolo. Obviously, don't want "line change" like this. I'm referring to one or two coming into the game as part of the rotation. The subs would be designed to balance ballhandling, shooting, and D.

Anyway, I like your base ore starting lineup that I believe is the best going into March and possible tightening of the rotation.

[cardfan1996]

I disagree with basically everything you posted (except I agree 2 or 3 road games could possibly result in a loss).  However I like the inclusive and tolerant climate this season on WBB threads.   Last season there were a handful of self-appointed monitors on WBB threads who would be combative and insulting at any sign of questioning Tara or straying from their "group-think" attitude.

I look forward to this tolerant approach you are noticing because well before the second Cal game (maybe a month before), I said their current starting lineup was not going to cut it (Kiki, Haley, Cam, Hannah and Lepolo) and the scout on Stanford with 1 shooter anyone respects was to face guard Hannah and drop everyone else in the lane. I received great pushback (some of which was tolerant but most of which was not). Most disagreed with me then too which is fine. We will see how it plays out I guess and hope for the best. 

But we only got about a month before the real season starts and if anyone thinks the current starting lineup looks like it can win it all, I don’t know what to say to you about that. LSU beat Oregon State by 30 on a neutral floor. A not very good UConn team without its two best players is still putting up 85-100 pts a game against good teams and could beat us with their eyes closed. We had 10x better players on the perimeter in the Hull twins and still had trouble scoring against UConn’s very disciplined defensive system. The only starting front court that is competitive against S.Carolina is Haley, Cam and Ashten. Ashten is the only Stanford big that can guard Boston without being overpowered and getting into foul trouble but she plays very rarely and she will need more reps to establish better chemistry with Brink and Haley on offense and defense. If Tara is not playing a starting lineup that can beat S.Carolina, UConn, etc., what is her goal? Answer: To barely win the next game in her schedule which seems like a waste of everyone’s time

[cardfan1996]

I disagree with basically everything you posted (except I agree 2 or 3 road games could possibly result in a loss).  However I like the inclusive and tolerant climate this season on WBB threads.   Last season there were a handful of self-appointed monitors on WBB threads who would be combative and insulting at any sign of questioning Tara or straying from their "group-think" attitude.

I look forward to this tolerant approach you are noticing because well before the second Cal game (maybe a month before), I said their current starting lineup was not going to cut it (Kiki, Haley, Cam, Hannah and Lepolo) and the scout on Stanford with 1 shooter anyone respects was to face guard Hannah and drop everyone else in the lane. I received great pushback (some of which was tolerant but most of which was not). Most disagreed with me then too which is fine. We will see how it plays out I guess and hope for the best. 

But we only got about a month before the real season starts and if anyone thinks the current starting lineup looks like it can win it all, I don’t know what to say to you about that. LSU beat Oregon State by 30 on a neutral floor. A not very good UConn team without its two best players is still putting up 85-100 pts a game against good teams and could beat us with their eyes closed. We had 10x better players on the perimeter in the Hull twins and still had trouble scoring against UConn’s very disciplined defensive system. The only starting front court that is competitive against S.Carolina is Haley, Cam and Ashten. Ashten is the only Stanford big that can guard Boston without being overpowered and getting into foul trouble but she plays very rarely and she will need more reps to establish better chemistry with Brink and Haley on offense and defense. If Tara is not playing a starting lineup that can beat S.Carolina, UConn, etc., what is her goal? Answer: To barely win the next game in her schedule which seems like a waste of everyone’s time

[treetop11]

I disagree with basically everything you posted (except I agree 2 or 3 road games could possibly result in a loss).  However I like the inclusive and tolerant climate this season on WBB threads.   Last season there were a handful of self-appointed monitors on WBB threads who would be combative and insulting at any sign of questioning Tara or straying from their "group-think" attitude.

I look forward to this tolerant approach you are noticing because well before the second Cal game (maybe a month before), I said their current starting lineup was not going to cut it (Kiki, Cam, Hannah and Lepolo) and the scout on Stanford with 1 shooter anyone respects was to face guard Hannah and drop everyone else in the lane. I received great pushback (some of which was tolerant but most of which was not). Most disagreed with me then too which is fine. We will see how it plays out I guess and hope for the best. 

But we only got about of month before the real season starts and if anyone thinks the current starting lineup looks like it can win it all, I don’t know what to say to you about that. LSU beat Oregon State by 30 on a neutral floor. A not very good UConn team without its two best players is still putting up 85-100 pts a game against good teams and could beat us with their eyes closed. The only starting front court that is competitive against S.Carolina is Haley, Cam and Ashten. Ashten is the only Stanford big that can guard Boston without being overpowered and getting into foul trouble but she plays very rarely and she will need more reps to establish better chemistry with Brink and Haley on offense and defense. If Tara is not playing a starting lineup that can beat S.Carolina, UConn, etc., what is her goal? Answer: To barely win the next game in her schedule which seems like a waste of everyone’s time

Although I get our critiques and certainly on board with getting Ashten much more PT, you need to keep in mind that we are fans watcing our team with a magnifying glass and picking at whatever scabs exist because we have been ranked #2 most of the season and only #3 recently and may move back up - so we think in terms of FF and NC wanting close to perfection. The rest of the P12 teams and all but a handful of teams in the country would be thrilled with our record and performance. If we applied the same fan scrutiny to other teams, I suspect we would see the warts too. For example, you mention Uconn which I have seen as a major threat all season even though they lost Bueckers and I'm amazed that they have continued winning dominantly without Fudd and a couple of others missing. But if you neutralize Edwards in a game and either with strong perimeter D or they have an off night shooting, would UConn prevail agst a another top team? More importantly, Geno's approach of little use of his bench especially with players out, how tired and worn down are those players going to be as March rolls around? I'm not saying that Uconn doesn't overcome those concerns, but if I was their fan, I would be picking at those scabs (and perhaps others). My point is simply that we forget or neglect to consider that every team has some weaknesses or concerns over who is playing and how much. Not suggesting that we ignore ours, just that we keep in mind, there are issues with every team we will face too.

[treetop11]

I disagree with basically everything you posted (except I agree 2 or 3 road games could possibly result in a loss).  However I like the inclusive and tolerant climate this season on WBB threads.   Last season there were a handful of self-appointed monitors on WBB threads who would be combative and insulting at any sign of questioning Tara or straying from their "group-think" attitude.

I look forward to this tolerant approach you are noticing because well before the second Cal game (maybe a month before), I said their current starting lineup was not going to cut it (Kiki, Cam, Hannah and Lepolo) and the scout on Stanford with 1 shooter anyone respects was to face guard Hannah and drop everyone else in the lane. I received great pushback (some of which was tolerant but most of which was not). Most disagreed with me then too which is fine. We will see how it plays out I guess and hope for the best. 

But we only got about of month before the real season starts and if anyone thinks the current starting lineup looks like it can win it all, I don’t know what to say to you about that. LSU beat Oregon State by 30 on a neutral floor. A not very good UConn team without its two best players is still putting up 85-100 pts a game against good teams and could beat us with their eyes closed. The only starting front court that is competitive against S.Carolina is Haley, Cam and Ashten. Ashten is the only Stanford big that can guard Boston without being overpowered and getting into foul trouble but she plays very rarely and she will need more reps to establish better chemistry with Brink and Haley on offense and defense. If Tara is not playing a starting lineup that can beat S.Carolina, UConn, etc., what is her goal? Answer: To barely win the next game in her schedule which seems like a waste of everyone’s time

Although I get our critiques and certainly on board with getting Ashten much more PT, you need to keep in mind that we are fans watcing our team with a magnifying glass and picking at whatever scabs exist because we have been ranked #2 most of the season and only #3 recently and may move back up - so we think in terms of FF and NC wanting close to perfection. The rest of the P12 teams and all but a handful of teams in the country would be thrilled with our record and performance. If we applied the same fan scrutiny to other teams, I suspect we would see the warts too. For example, you mention Uconn which I have seen as a major threat all season even though they lost Bueckers and I'm amazed that they have continued winning dominantly without Fudd and a couple of others missing. But if you neutralize Edwards in a game and either with strong perimeter D or they have an off night shooting, would UConn prevail agst a another top team? More importantly, Geno's approach of little use of his bench especially with players out, how tired and worn down are those players going to be as March rolls around? I'm not saying that Uconn doesn't overcome those concerns, but if I was their fan, I would be picking at those scabs (and perhaps others). My point is simply that we forget or neglect to consider that every team has some weaknesses or concerns over who is playing and how much. Not suggesting that we ignore ours, just that we keep in mind, there are issues with every team we will face too.

[Card10Fan]

It sure seems like the coaches are poorly communicating to the players what's expected especially offensively and as a result - you get very mediocre stagnant play in long stretches. Tara talks in pregame and last weekend about wanting to play faster with more pace and better ball movement. In the game itself, we don't play fast, we don't move the ball (5 assists), and we barely hold on for the victory. Postgame she talks about being happy with the win and doesn't say a word about any of those issues that were top priorities pregame. It's very conflicting. Are we playing the style of play , moving the ball the way we want, and running our best offense. If no, then it's more than just eeking out victories but instead finding ways to really get better in those areas. That is not happening or at least it's not clearly evident. This has not been one of Tara's better coaching jobs to date.  We've had way less talented teams  in the past that played so much more cohesive, and moved the ball and were a joy to watch. There is still time but we need to figure things out.

[Card10Fan]

It sure seems like the coaches are poorly communicating to the players what's expected especially offensively and as a result - you get very mediocre stagnant play in long stretches. Tara talks in pregame and last weekend about wanting to play faster with more pace and better ball movement. In the game itself, we don't play fast, we don't move the ball (5 assists), and we barely hold on for the victory. Postgame she talks about being happy with the win and doesn't say a word about any of those issues that were top priorities pregame. It's very conflicting. Are we playing the style of play , moving the ball the way we want, and running our best offense. If no, then it's more than just eeking out victories but instead finding ways to really get better in those areas. That is not happening or at least it's not clearly evident. This has not been one of Tara's better coaching jobs to date.  We've had way less talented teams  in the past that played so much more cohesive, and moved the ball and were a joy to watch. There is still time but we need to figure things out.

[cardfan1996]

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.

[cardfan1996]

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.

[Hieronymus]

Brink does seem to excel at the 5.  I think her best games are on the low block.  And Tara has made a decision to keep her there--and basically make the first offensive option always Brink.

This has a pretty negative corollary for Iriafen, Belibi, and Betts, who can only play at the five.  But Brink playing at the four makes her not as good, and it bumps Jones to the 3 where she is also not as good offensively.

With those two in and the rest of our stable of bigs sitting, it puts a lot of emphasis on our younger guards.  They are not our strength offensively, given all the offensive guards we have missed in recruiting the last few years.  But they seem to be there primarily for their defense, except Jump.  Makes it easier for the opponents to pack the paint.

My question is why not more Prechtel, perhaps at the 3 on offense and switching to the 5 or 4 on defense?  She is the one big who has good range with her shot and she should be able to complement Brink and Jones well, in a way that Betts, Belibi, and Iriafen cannot (yet).  If we play her at the three, the other team will have to bring a big out to the perimeter to guard her, and that will open more space for Brink and Jones to maneuver inside--so long as Prectel can take and make some threes.   Has her three point shooting gone so cold in practice that Tara is afraid to use her more?  Or is there something I am missing?  Perhaps there are not that many teams who have the kind of player she can defend well--although she did a very creditable job on Aliyah Boston, and it seems to me she could have taken Beers on.

Offense:
5 Brink
4 Jones
3 Prechtel
2 Jump
1 Lepolo

Defense:
5 Prechtel
4 Brink
3 Jones
2 Jump
1 Lepolo

I agree the lack of Prechtel is weird. Would seem like she could help a lot with the outside shooting issues and she isn’t glaringly deficient in other areas like defense. I get maybe the motion on offense doesn’t play to her strengths, but the other shooting options are pretty speculative at this point. Seems worth trying more then we are seeing.

[Hieronymus]

Brink does seem to excel at the 5.  I think her best games are on the low block.  And Tara has made a decision to keep her there--and basically make the first offensive option always Brink.

This has a pretty negative corollary for Iriafen, Belibi, and Betts, who can only play at the five.  But Brink playing at the four makes her not as good, and it bumps Jones to the 3 where she is also not as good offensively.

With those two in and the rest of our stable of bigs sitting, it puts a lot of emphasis on our younger guards.  They are not our strength offensively, given all the offensive guards we have missed in recruiting the last few years.  But they seem to be there primarily for their defense, except Jump.  Makes it easier for the opponents to pack the paint.

My question is why not more Prechtel, perhaps at the 3 on offense and switching to the 5 or 4 on defense?  She is the one big who has good range with her shot and she should be able to complement Brink and Jones well, in a way that Betts, Belibi, and Iriafen cannot (yet).  If we play her at the three, the other team will have to bring a big out to the perimeter to guard her, and that will open more space for Brink and Jones to maneuver inside--so long as Prectel can take and make some threes.   Has her three point shooting gone so cold in practice that Tara is afraid to use her more?  Or is there something I am missing?  Perhaps there are not that many teams who have the kind of player she can defend well--although she did a very creditable job on Aliyah Boston, and it seems to me she could have taken Beers on.

Offense:
5 Brink
4 Jones
3 Prechtel
2 Jump
1 Lepolo

Defense:
5 Prechtel
4 Brink
3 Jones
2 Jump
1 Lepolo

I agree the lack of Prechtel is weird. Would seem like she could help a lot with the outside shooting issues and she isn’t glaringly deficient in other areas like defense. I get maybe the motion on offense doesn’t play to her strengths, but the other shooting options are pretty speculative at this point. Seems worth trying more then we are seeing.

[CompSci87]

Probably referring to important play in fourth when ball went off Fran and Stanford awarded the ball.

I was pretty close to where the ball rolled out of bounds.  I haven't see a replay, but at the time I thought the ball had rolled over the line just before Belibi touched it.  However, I do not know who deflected it in the first place....was that also Belibi? 

Oh, that play, where Fran and an OSU player chased a ball lost by OSU into the backcourt? I couldn't see what happened when the ball was going out of bounds, but assumed the ref closest to the play could see Fran didn't touch it then. After the ball went out, one of the refs in the frontcourt was emphatically signaling that the ball had gone off an OSU player's thigh originally, making OSU the last to touch it.

Edit: I wrote the above post before I saw johnnyss's somewhat different explanation (ball touched Yeaney's hands), and I haven't seen the game recording yet, only what I saw from my seat. So my post was not to say johnnyss was wrong.

[CompSci87]

Probably referring to important play in fourth when ball went off Fran and Stanford awarded the ball.

I was pretty close to where the ball rolled out of bounds.  I haven't see a replay, but at the time I thought the ball had rolled over the line just before Belibi touched it.  However, I do not know who deflected it in the first place....was that also Belibi? 

Oh, that play, where Fran and an OSU player chased a ball lost by OSU into the backcourt? I couldn't see what happened when the ball was going out of bounds, but assumed the ref closest to the play could see Fran didn't touch it then. After the ball went out, one of the refs in the frontcourt was emphatically signaling that the ball had gone off an OSU player's thigh originally, making OSU the last to touch it.

Edit: I wrote the above post before I saw johnnyss's somewhat different explanation (ball touched Yeaney's hands), and I haven't seen the game recording yet, only what I saw from my seat. So my post was not to say johnnyss was wrong.

[BosCard]

I am frustrated with our offense as well because I feel like we have the talent to be better.  But the doom and gloom is unjustified.  This is basically the same team with the same offensive output and defense that won a national championship two years ago and made the final four last year.  Yes if Jump has a really bad shooting night we could lose in the Elite Eight or Final Four but if she or one of our other shooters has a good shooting night we could also win the whole thing.

[BosCard]

I am frustrated with our offense as well because I feel like we have the talent to be better.  But the doom and gloom is unjustified.  This is basically the same team with the same offensive output and defense that won a national championship two years ago and made the final four last year.  Yes if Jump has a really bad shooting night we could lose in the Elite Eight or Final Four but if she or one of our other shooters has a good shooting night we could also win the whole thing.

[crackpot]

I am frustrated with our offense as well because I feel like we have the talent to be better.  But the doom and gloom is unjustified.  This is basically the same team with the same offensive output and defense that won a national championship two years ago and made the final four last year.  Yes if Jump has a really bad shooting night we could lose in the Elite Eight or Final Four but if she or one of our other shooters has a good shooting night we could also win the whole thing.

And nearly (should have) beaten S. Carolina. Something feels amiss.

[crackpot]

I am frustrated with our offense as well because I feel like we have the talent to be better.  But the doom and gloom is unjustified.  This is basically the same team with the same offensive output and defense that won a national championship two years ago and made the final four last year.  Yes if Jump has a really bad shooting night we could lose in the Elite Eight or Final Four but if she or one of our other shooters has a good shooting night we could also win the whole thing.

And nearly (should have) beaten S. Carolina. Something feels amiss.

[chimera]

I am frustrated with our offense as well because I feel like we have the talent to be better.  But the doom and gloom is unjustified.  This is basically the same team with the same offensive output and defense that won a national championship two years ago and made the final four last year.  Yes if Jump has a really bad shooting night we could lose in the Elite Eight or Final Four but if she or one of our other shooters has a good shooting night we could also win the whole thing.

I hope you are right.  Something just feel off to me.  I posted about stats comparing this season to last season, and in conference play the offense is much worse than both non-conference this season and conference play last season.  Is the conference that much tougher this season?

[chimera]

I am frustrated with our offense as well because I feel like we have the talent to be better.  But the doom and gloom is unjustified.  This is basically the same team with the same offensive output and defense that won a national championship two years ago and made the final four last year.  Yes if Jump has a really bad shooting night we could lose in the Elite Eight or Final Four but if she or one of our other shooters has a good shooting night we could also win the whole thing.

I hope you are right.  Something just feel off to me.  I posted about stats comparing this season to last season, and in conference play the offense is much worse than both non-conference this season and conference play last season.  Is the conference that much tougher this season?

[CompSci87]

One thing I'm not seeing in this "flow" offense is the flow. I understand trying to get the ball inside is the first option, and if that's not there, the offense is supposed to flow into something else involving a screen. But what I've seen a lot lately is when the first option doesn't yield anything, we kick the ball back out and take a few seconds to reset into something new, not a continuing flow.

[CompSci87]

One thing I'm not seeing in this "flow" offense is the flow. I understand trying to get the ball inside is the first option, and if that's not there, the offense is supposed to flow into something else involving a screen. But what I've seen a lot lately is when the first option doesn't yield anything, we kick the ball back out and take a few seconds to reset into something new, not a continuing flow.

[MV72018]

I disagree with basically everything you posted (except I agree 2 or 3 road games could possibly result in a loss).  However I like the inclusive and tolerant climate this season on WBB threads.   Last season there were a handful of self-appointed monitors on WBB threads who would be combative and insulting at any sign of questioning Tara or straying from their "group-think" attitude.

"I disagree with basically everything you posted...." Mildly interesting to know that you disagree, but more illuminating to know WHY and on the basis of what EVIDENCE you disagree.

[MV72018]

I disagree with basically everything you posted (except I agree 2 or 3 road games could possibly result in a loss).  However I like the inclusive and tolerant climate this season on WBB threads.   Last season there were a handful of self-appointed monitors on WBB threads who would be combative and insulting at any sign of questioning Tara or straying from their "group-think" attitude.

"I disagree with basically everything you posted...." Mildly interesting to know that you disagree, but more illuminating to know WHY and on the basis of what EVIDENCE you disagree.

[Jskass]

Could be that our two most consistent scorers (maybe 3 even - since Lexi was inconsistent) are same as last year so yes the opposing defenses learn…

[Jskass]

Could be that our two most consistent scorers (maybe 3 even - since Lexi was inconsistent) are same as last year so yes the opposing defenses learn…

[jonnyss]

i am enjoying this team. we are not likely to see 2 of the top 10 (maybe top 5) players in the country together again for quite a few years. last time was 20 or so years ago.

i'm not disappointed in tara. there simply is no one on the team to replace kiana or lexie.
kiana 14 points per game, 38% from 3 (stanford's all-time leader in 3's made), could create her own shot from 3, on drives, from midrange. wnba draft.
lexie. 10.5 points per game (with occasional 30-point games), 39% from 3, 1st round wnba draft, fantastic defense.

(and that's not counting replacing anna wilson. anna shot 45% from 3 in our championship year - and was our top defender)

play agnes more? play agnes less? play ashten more/less? play kiki more/less? 2 posts/1 post? imo won't matter.

tara can take any of the great ideas proposed here, and indya & talana still won't turn into kiana, and agnes won't turn into lexie any time soon.. so she relies on her big 3, and imo gives everyone a chance at some playing time

on a great day we can beat anyone (cf south carolina game). on a bad day we can lose to anyone (cf usc). 6 games in the tournament: we'll need 3 good days followed by 3 great days. possible but not high odds.

we have 2 players good enough to be national player of the week - and super fun to watch. haley is all smiles every day. i'm trying to learn from her, letting this (flawed) team be enough. any more will be a welcome surprise.

[jonnyss]

i am enjoying this team. we are not likely to see 2 of the top 10 (maybe top 5) players in the country together again for quite a few years. last time was 20 or so years ago.

i'm not disappointed in tara. there simply is no one on the team to replace kiana or lexie.
kiana 14 points per game, 38% from 3 (stanford's all-time leader in 3's made), could create her own shot from 3, on drives, from midrange. wnba draft.
lexie. 10.5 points per game (with occasional 30-point games), 39% from 3, 1st round wnba draft, fantastic defense.

(and that's not counting replacing anna wilson. anna shot 45% from 3 in our championship year - and was our top defender)

play agnes more? play agnes less? play ashten more/less? play kiki more/less? 2 posts/1 post? imo won't matter.

tara can take any of the great ideas proposed here, and indya & talana still won't turn into kiana, and agnes won't turn into lexie any time soon.. so she relies on her big 3, and imo gives everyone a chance at some playing time

on a great day we can beat anyone (cf south carolina game). on a bad day we can lose to anyone (cf usc). 6 games in the tournament: we'll need 3 good days followed by 3 great days. possible but not high odds.

we have 2 players good enough to be national player of the week - and super fun to watch. haley is all smiles every day. i'm trying to learn from her, letting this (flawed) team be enough. any more will be a welcome surprise.

[cardfan1996]

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.

[cardfan1996]

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.

[martyup]

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.

[martyup]

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.

[81alum]

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?

[81alum]

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?

[TonyLima]

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.  I'm thinking that we may need to bring back elements of the Triangle and/or the Princeton, or even the Amber/Lili motion offense, 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 instead of the Flow?

Outstanding.  Thank you.

[TonyLima]

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.  I'm thinking that we may need to bring back elements of the Triangle and/or the Princeton, or even the Amber/Lili motion offense, 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 instead of the Flow?

Outstanding.  Thank you.