[81alum]

"The hole wasn't good, but we dug out of it," Stanford coach Tara VanDerveer said.
VanDerveer and Ogwumike said they have to learn from this game, which was similar to a Feb. 9 loss to Washington in which Stanford was down at halftime.
"We have to look at things, and make a decision to play harder right from the get-go," VanDerveer said. "Our team has to understand being the hunted. We have kind of the bulls-eye on our back."

MT, I think indeed you are right that at times we are sagging so far off of players that it looks like a zone.  From what Kate said at the last chalk-talk, this is not usually done with all five defenders, though.  Three or four may be playing more normally, but 1 or 2 may be sagging way off if their particular assignments are not regarded as a three point shooting threat.  This leaves one or two "sagging" players free to shift to double team if the ball comes into the paint. 

Now was Amber supposed to be sagging off her assignment last night?  Was her assignment supposed to be Crook?  I thought she was on Crook much of the time, but now I wonder if I was wrong.  I don't have a video to look at--maybe you can identify who her assigned player was.  Crook is U.SC's only consistent  three point threat and the one player who we would NOT want to sag off of.  Brianna Barrett went 2-4 from three point range last night, but is a 28% three point shooter.  I can see sagging off of her, maybe.  I do wonder to what degree the critique of Amber should be a critique of the scouting report, and how much of it was execution on the player's part.

What I am gradually realizing is that our "sag off" defense is dangerous because it helps opponents gain confidence shooting the three and can help them "heat up" for runs.  I get the sense that this happened at Washington and at U.SC.  Maybe I have not  properly understood our defensive strategy, but I am beginning to understand the need for closer man coverage even on poor shooting perimeter players.

[81alum]

"The hole wasn't good, but we dug out of it," Stanford coach Tara VanDerveer said.
VanDerveer and Ogwumike said they have to learn from this game, which was similar to a Feb. 9 loss to Washington in which Stanford was down at halftime.
"We have to look at things, and make a decision to play harder right from the get-go," VanDerveer said. "Our team has to understand being the hunted. We have kind of the bulls-eye on our back."

MT, I think indeed you are right that at times we are sagging so far off of players that it looks like a zone.  From what Kate said at the last chalk-talk, this is not usually done with all five defenders, though.  Three or four may be playing more normally, but 1 or 2 may be sagging way off if their particular assignments are not regarded as a three point shooting threat.  This leaves one or two "sagging" players free to shift to double team if the ball comes into the paint. 

Now was Amber supposed to be sagging off her assignment last night?  Was her assignment supposed to be Crook?  I thought she was on Crook much of the time, but now I wonder if I was wrong.  I don't have a video to look at--maybe you can identify who her assigned player was.  Crook is U.SC's only consistent  three point threat and the one player who we would NOT want to sag off of.  Brianna Barrett went 2-4 from three point range last night, but is a 28% three point shooter.  I can see sagging off of her, maybe.  I do wonder to what degree the critique of Amber should be a critique of the scouting report, and how much of it was execution on the player's part.

What I am gradually realizing is that our "sag off" defense is dangerous because it helps opponents gain confidence shooting the three and can help them "heat up" for runs.  I get the sense that this happened at Washington and at U.SC.  Maybe I have not  properly understood our defensive strategy, but I am beginning to understand the need for closer man coverage even on poor shooting perimeter players.