WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - 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 67 -- Washington 72 (/thread-24012.html)

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - cardfan1996 - 02-05-2023

S.Carolina has beat UConn 3 consecutive times with only 1 real shooter (Zia Cooke) on the perimeter. Obviously others (Beals, Boston today) make timely outside shots but for the most part Dawn does a great job at scheming and of course their defense and offensive rebounding is just next level.

Edited to add: They had Destanni last year who dominated on offense and defense so two shooters for 2 of the wins.

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - BostonCard - 02-05-2023

Weird that despite all that, Stanford still leads the conference in scoring defense at 56 ppg. Sucks that it wasn’t there today, but sometimes a player just goes off.

BC

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - cardfan1996 - 02-05-2023

(02-05-2023, 09:10 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Weird that despite all that, Stanford still leads the conference in scoring defense at 56 ppg. Sucks that it wasn’t there today, but sometimes a player just goes off.

BC

That is 100% Brink which is why she should not only be PAC-12 DPOY but National DPOY. That #1 rating ain’t because Agnes, Lepolo, Jump, Haley or anyone else defending the perimeter are “elite.” If the paint is closed for business, then teams only have contested 2s or 3s (except when Haley, Brook or Fran is guarding them then maybe, no it’s probably an uncontested shot).

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - M T - 02-05-2023

(02-05-2023, 03:54 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:  

(02-05-2023, 03:45 PM)jonnyss Wrote:  elle ladine is one that got away. from sunnyvale (not sure why the announcers kept saying san francisco). pinewood high school. last year's top bay area player (over talana lepolo) per sf chronicle and was in the news a lot as player of the week.  i was surprised we didn't offer her. then again i don't know her high school gpa. 

she has been improving as the season progresses. 10 points in 18 minutes, 2/2 from 3, against cal on friday.

If you look at her bio on the Washington website it says San Francisco.

Her bio at the UW website incorrectly says "Ladine attended Pinewood School in San Francisco, CA".

Nor is Pinewood in Sunnyvale.   It is in Los Altos.  I don't know where her residence was. I'd believe she lived in SF.

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - Card10Fan - 02-05-2023

South Carolina played Boston, Cardosa, and Amihere the vast majority of their game against Uconn. 
6'5, 6'7, 6'4 
They had two guards to compliment, neither good perimeter shooters. They scored 81 points, dominated the boards and won on the road. 
Wow, if only our staff could learn something. We have the talent and post depth to do something similiar and be a great rebounding team. Yet today, we lost the rebounding battle, and had 2 O boards. You know what you're gonna get with SC and Uconn. Their team identities are ingrained into their programs. I have no idea what our team's identity is in February.

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - M T - 02-05-2023

Dedicated to a few of our posters:

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - Jskass - 02-05-2023

Ladine is from SF and transferred from Lowell to Pinewood.

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - M T - 02-05-2023

(02-05-2023, 10:27 PM)Card10Fan Wrote:  South Carolina played Boston, Cardosa, and Amihere the vast majority of their game against Uconn.

If you meant to imply that each of them played the vast majority of that game, then you're wrong.
They played 39, 21, and 21 minutes.

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - 2006alum - 02-06-2023

Dreadful and horrible are pretty absurd adjectives to use to describe an All-American and future WNBA lottery pick.

That said, I'm just going to say what I've said several times this season: this team doesn't feel very hungry, game in and game out. Whatever their weaknesses were, the Hulls and Wilson went at 100% all the time. Brink and Jump are the only players I see with fire in their bellies, and Jump has a limited repertoire and what seems to be a now-well-known scouting defense profile. So we rise and fall with Brink. Today she was sick, and we sunk. 

I really love so much about Jones, but honestly, I think she's just too good natured and happy-go-lucky to push through to the next level. She barely tries to take threes anymore, and it feels like she plataued her sophomore year. That's still enough for some stellar games, press awards, and a lottery pick, but I just don't get the sense she'll do anything necessary to avoid losing. Her rush to hug Boston immediately after they won the final four says everything about her character and spirit but also her competitive fire to win at all costs. 

Ultimately, I fear Tara has a cornucopia of good pieces but not the ones to construct a dominant lineup. Sometimes them's the breaks. It is what it is, and I hope we can get hot when it counts and Jones does her thing when all the chips are down. In the mean time, I'm prepared for a few more weekends like this one, where we rise one day and fall the next.

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - Hieronymus - 02-06-2023

(02-06-2023, 12:43 AM)2006alum Wrote:  Dreadful and horrible are pretty absurd adjectives to use to describe an All-American and future WNBA lottery pick.

That said, I'm just going to say what I've said several times this season: this team doesn't feel very hungry, game in and game out. Whatever their weaknesses were, the Hulls and Wilson went at 100% all the time. Brink and Jump are the only players I see with fire in their bellies, and Jump has a limited repertoire and what seems to be a now-well-known scouting defense profile. So we rise and fall with Brink. Today she was sick, and we sunk. 

I really love so much about Jones, but honestly, I think she's just too good natured and happy-go-lucky to push through to the next level. She barely tries to take threes anymore, and it feels like she plataued her sophomore year. That's still enough for some stellar games, press awards, and a lottery pick, but I just don't get the sense she'll do anything necessary to avoid losing. Her rush to hug Boston immediately after they won the final four says everything about her character and spirit but also her competitive fire to win at all costs. 

Ultimately, I fear Tara has a cornucopia of good pieces but not the ones to construct a dominant lineup. Sometimes them's the breaks. It is what it is, and I hope we can get hot when it counts and Jones does her thing when all the chips are down. In the mean time, I'm prepared for a few more weekends like this one, where we rise one day and fall the next.

Yes it may be that the pieces just don't fit this year. As the team is currently lining up 2 of the following need to happen:
1. Brink gets consistent on the elbow jump shot
2. Any of Lepolo, Emma-Nnopu or Nivar starts hitting 3's
3. Another of Lepolo, Emma-Nnopu or Nivar starts hitting 3's
4. Demetre can be acceptable on defense and defensive rebounding so she is more than a situational player

Cam hitting the elbow shot seems most likely - she is just a tad off right now. On the other hand, nobody out of the 3 guards has shown any real signs of stepping up. And I am not thinking Demetre can fix her athletic limitations this year. 

Otherwise, you are talking more radical ideas, and it is getting awfully late for that. The problem though is some of the better outside shooters are bigs - Prechtel and Demetre. I could imagine something extreme like a Iriafen, Brink, Demetre/Prechtel, Jump/Bosgana, Jones line up to just pulverize teams and still have outside shooting, but that line up would probably get pressed to death.

No easy answers right now.

Courtyard Denver Gol den/Red Rocks

14700 West 6th Avenue Frontage Road, Golden, Colorado, USA, 80401

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - 81alum - 02-06-2023

I haven't seen the presser posted yet, but the AP story has a quote from Tara, stating the obvious.

Quote:"Our first quarter was pretty good, and then our second quarter was just abysmal. Our defense, we really didn't do a whole lot right," Stanford coach Tara VanDerveer said. "We didn't play well offensively, we didn't play well defensively, and we didn't rebound. So that's pretty hard to win games when you're really not getting it done in any of those three things."

---

In January 2019 we unexpectedly lost at Utah on the second game of a difficult road trip.  Why?  A little known player, who happened to be from northern California, "went off" for Utah and scored 23 points.  Her name was Erika Bean. 

Erika, meet Elle Ladine.

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - JohnR34231 - 02-06-2023

(02-06-2023, 06:12 AM)81alum Wrote:  I haven't seen the presser posted yet, but the AP story has a quote from Tara, stating the obvious.

Quote:"Our first quarter was pretty good, and then our second quarter was just abysmal. Our defense, we really didn't do a whole lot right," Stanford coach Tara VanDerveer said. "We didn't play well offensively, we didn't play well defensively, and we didn't rebound. So that's pretty hard to win games when you're really not getting it done in any of those three things."

---

In January 2019 we unexpectedly lost at Utah on the second game of a difficult road trip.  Why?  A little known player, who happened to be from northern California, "went off" for Utah and scored 23 points.  Her name was Erika Bean. 

Erika, meet Elle Ladine.

Reminds me of the old football days in the '70's and 80's when we would take a very average opposing offensive skill player and make him look like a H-man candidate.

Unfortunately this game shows that the U$C one was not a fluke. We are capable of playing very poorly and when we do that against a decent team we are likely to lose.

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - Card10Fan - 02-06-2023

(02-06-2023, 12:43 AM)2006alum Wrote:  Dreadful and horrible are pretty absurd adjectives to use to describe an All-American and future WNBA lottery pick.

That said, I'm just going to say what I've said several times this season: this team doesn't feel very hungry, game in and game out. Whatever their weaknesses were, the Hulls and Wilson went at 100% all the time. Brink and Jump are the only players I see with fire in their bellies 

THIS 100%. Cam has that fire. On other top teams it's evident:  Bueckers, Boston, Caitlin Clark, Diamond Miller, Angel Reese all have that moxy and will do whatever to lead their team. And if they/when lose a game, you can tell how frustrated and personal they take losing. They put winning on their shoulders and deliver. Aside from Cam and Jump, we don't have anyone that has that same fire to win at any cost necessary. I don't think that bodes well for Haley Jones at the next level because everyone she will be competing against for a roster spot will be pretty gritty/determined/hungry. 

It's pretty hard to just turn the "hungry" factor on overnight and win a Pac12 championship or Natty.

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - mbdude - 02-06-2023

Coaches, and fans, tend to say we have to have the right matchups.  Why dont coaches just stick what they think is best team on the floor and worry about the other team matching up.

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - Card10Fan - 02-06-2023

(02-05-2023, 10:35 PM)M T Wrote:  Dedicated to a few of our posters:

For context on yesterday's game for you:
Stanford has 2 All-Americans on their roster: 8 McDonalds All-Americans
Washington has 0 All-Americans and 1 McDonalds All-American
Washington has the worst offensive statistics in the whole Pac12 conference yet scored over 70 points. They average 62. We have tremendous post depth and size yet were out rebounded by 10 and had less second chance points. We had chances at the end to close the game out and failed to do so despite our upperclassman experience in playing in close games and our talent advantage. 

So if you see no reason for concern, so be it. I've watched and followed this team for decades and we are underachieving for the talent we have on this roster. That can happen for a variety of reasons. But the goals for this team should be to compete for a Final 4 and we lost to a team that may make the WNIT. So yeah, it's disappointing.

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - 81alum - 02-06-2023

For what it is worth, Tara takes the loss very seriously.

"I guess we left our defense in Pullman" Vanderveer said.  "We need to take it personally."

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - MV72018 - 02-06-2023

(02-05-2023, 10:27 PM)Card10Fan Wrote:  South Carolina played Boston, Cardosa, and Amihere the vast majority of their game against Uconn. 
6'5, 6'7, 6'4 
They had two guards to compliment, neither good perimeter shooters. They scored 81 points, dominated the boards and won on the road. 
Wow, if only our staff could learn something. We have the talent and post depth to do something similiar and be a great rebounding team. Yet today, we lost the rebounding battle, and had 2 O boards. You know what you're gonna get with SC and Uconn. Their team identities are ingrained into their programs. I have no idea what our team's identity is in February.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - TheFarm07 - 02-06-2023

(02-06-2023, 09:01 AM)Card10Fan Wrote:  

(02-05-2023, 10:35 PM)M T Wrote:  Dedicated to a few of our posters:

For context on yesterday's game for you:
Stanford has 2 All-Americans on their roster: 8 McDonalds All-Americans
Washington has 0 All-Americans and 1 McDonalds All-American
Washington has the worst offensive statistics in the whole Pac12 conference yet scored over 70 points. They average 62. We have tremendous post depth and size yet were out rebounded by 10 and had less second chance points. We had chances at the end to close the game out and failed to do so despite our upperclassman experience in playing in close games and our talent advantage. 

So if you see no reason for concern, so be it. I've watched and followed this team for decades and we are underachieving for the talent we have on this roster. That can happen for a variety of reasons. But the goals for this team should be to compete for a Final 4 and we lost to a team that may make the WNIT. So yeah, it's disappointing.

+1 on Card10Fan's reply. No one is saying we are going to fall off a cliff and be terrible. Our raw talent will prevent that. But as Card10Fan points out, our aspirations should be the Final Four or more and though UW played a great game, we are still plagued by a lot of issues. And these problems will pop up again and again until they are fixed.

We can discuss all of these possible lineup changes and substitution recommendations ad nauseum and while I think it can be cathartic to do so, these decisions rests with Tara. Coaches can be stubborn, as we all well know, and unfortunately we haven't seen significant coaching changes these last few games, so there might be more heartburn and consternation coming up if she believes it's just a matter of execution. At this stage of the season and the lack of significant alterations, we might be headed down that road. I hope that she will take some bold steps and make some wholesale changes, but I am not confident that she will do so.

As fans, we are only privy to limited information. It would be awesome to be a fly on the wall during coaching meetings and listen in to see if they are discussing why Prechtel is barely getting any minutes or if there's any concern over the lack of offensive production from the guard positions.

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - Erika - 02-06-2023

Here is the UW Postgame Presser 


No gloating just not surprised with the win.

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - BostonCard - 02-06-2023

(02-05-2023, 09:24 PM)cardfan1996 Wrote:  

(02-05-2023, 09:10 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Weird that despite all that, Stanford still leads the conference in scoring defense at 56 ppg. Sucks that it wasn’t there today, but sometimes a player just goes off.

BC

That is 100% Brink which is why she should not only be PAC-12 DPOY but National DPOY. That #1 rating ain’t because Agnes, Lepolo, Jump, Haley or anyone else defending the perimeter are “elite.” If the paint is closed for business, then teams only have contested 2s or 3s (except when Haley, Brook or Fran is guarding them then maybe, no it’s probably an uncontested shot).

Weird, because Brink isn't really guarding the perimiter, and yet Stanford's 3 pt percentage defense is third in the conference behind only USC and Colorado.  For all those uncontested threes that Jones, Demetre, or Belibi supposedly give up, we must just be lucky that our opponents are not draining them.

There is, of course, room for improvement in our perimeter defense.  I think we might want to do better than the 30% threes that we are giving up in aggregate.  But to assert that one player is responsible for Stanford's league leading defense is hyperbole to the point of ridiculousness in an aspect of the game that is by its very nature team oriented and requires all five players to work together to be effective

BC

---