[chimera]

Paye was given the job at a very rough time.  Talent level is down significantly.  The team was inexperienced.  The seniors were more role players thrust into bigger roles than the type of players who can carry a team.  New conference with tons of travel, which probably cut into practice time somewhat.  Hole in the middle without the posts the team has had.  Much had to be overcome.  Little was.  To me the jury is still out on Kate.  Signs are worrying but she, like players, can learn and improve.

To the good, we saw individual players improve - Clardy, Ogden despite her last game, Stevenson also despite her last game.  Agara emerged as a potential star (cut the turnovers and finish just a big better and she is there).  Unfortunately the team as a whole did not improve over the course of the season.  The whole was never even as good as the sum of its parts.  The defense was absolutely wretched by Stanford standards.  To me defense means good scouts and schemes, great hustle, great focus, and just overall effort.  The defense had limitations due to personnel but no way it should have been quite that bad.  That is coaching.  The offense was fine against lesser teams but collapses against better ones way too often.  Adjustments in game were not always made successfully.  We got waxed in third quarters in more than a few games.  The other teams adjusted better.  We still looked tentative and made way too many unforced turnovers late in the season.

We have seen coaches take teams with little talent and turn them into disciplined, competitive teams.  Rueck in his first years at OSU is an example.  Was Stanford a consistently disciplined, competitive team?  I would say no.  Too sloppy, too often.  Too little focus, too often.  Sometimes they did not look ready to play.  In the end I think the issues were both talent level and coaching.  This team did not have the talent to go far.  They did have plenty enough talent to beat Portland or not get crushed by Clemson or Virginia.  Young teams are often inconsistent but by the end of the year no way we should bow out so meekly in the ACC tournament to a middling Clemson team.  Losing is one thing.  Not even being competitive is another.  

Next year I expect if the coaching is up to par the team will be a lot better.  Better in this context to me means make the NCAAs, bring it on defense, improve as a team over the course of the season as the freshmen get acclimated, and end up in the top 25.  It means be competitive against "better" teams.  I hope to see changes in the offense and defense.  Kate needs to not be Tara 2.0.  That will not work.

[chimera]

Paye was given the job at a very rough time.  Talent level is down significantly.  The team was inexperienced.  The seniors were more role players thrust into bigger roles than the type of players who can carry a team.  New conference with tons of travel, which probably cut into practice time somewhat.  Hole in the middle without the posts the team has had.  Much had to be overcome.  Little was.  To me the jury is still out on Kate.  Signs are worrying but she, like players, can learn and improve.

To the good, we saw individual players improve - Clardy, Ogden despite her last game, Stevenson also despite her last game.  Agara emerged as a potential star (cut the turnovers and finish just a big better and she is there).  Unfortunately the team as a whole did not improve over the course of the season.  The whole was never even as good as the sum of its parts.  The defense was absolutely wretched by Stanford standards.  To me defense means good scouts and schemes, great hustle, great focus, and just overall effort.  The defense had limitations due to personnel but no way it should have been quite that bad.  That is coaching.  The offense was fine against lesser teams but collapses against better ones way too often.  Adjustments in game were not always made successfully.  We got waxed in third quarters in more than a few games.  The other teams adjusted better.  We still looked tentative and made way too many unforced turnovers late in the season.

We have seen coaches take teams with little talent and turn them into disciplined, competitive teams.  Rueck in his first years at OSU is an example.  Was Stanford a consistently disciplined, competitive team?  I would say no.  Too sloppy, too often.  Too little focus, too often.  Sometimes they did not look ready to play.  In the end I think the issues were both talent level and coaching.  This team did not have the talent to go far.  They did have plenty enough talent to beat Portland or not get crushed by Clemson or Virginia.  Young teams are often inconsistent but by the end of the year no way we should bow out so meekly in the ACC tournament to a middling Clemson team.  Losing is one thing.  Not even being competitive is another.  

Next year I expect if the coaching is up to par the team will be a lot better.  Better in this context to me means make the NCAAs, bring it on defense, improve as a team over the course of the season as the freshmen get acclimated, and end up in the top 25.  It means be competitive against "better" teams.  I hope to see changes in the offense and defense.  Kate needs to not be Tara 2.0.  That will not work.