[chimera]

I'll post this question in this thread vs. starting another...would the team have been better off with Jana at the helm this year? Older, more experienced, WAY better shooter so it would stretch the floor more, probably better at feeding the post, might have struggled bringing the ball up but not really sure. All in all, I think we would have been better and Lopolo/Nivar could have played backup minutes instead of being thrown into the fire. 

I've watched Baylor play a few times this year and she doesn't have much of a role. Really wish she would have stayed.

Jana's decision to leave was an interesting one given that she seemed to have playing time waiting for her at the 1 and the 2, at least as much as she has played for Baylor, which has been fairly little.  Her shooting might have helped, that's for sure.  Even if she lost out at the pg spot, she probably gets some time at the 2, which is where she mostly played her last year at Stanford.

[chimera]

I'll post this question in this thread vs. starting another...would the team have been better off with Jana at the helm this year? Older, more experienced, WAY better shooter so it would stretch the floor more, probably better at feeding the post, might have struggled bringing the ball up but not really sure. All in all, I think we would have been better and Lopolo/Nivar could have played backup minutes instead of being thrown into the fire. 

I've watched Baylor play a few times this year and she doesn't have much of a role. Really wish she would have stayed.

Jana's decision to leave was an interesting one given that she seemed to have playing time waiting for her at the 1 and the 2, at least as much as she has played for Baylor, which has been fairly little.  Her shooting might have helped, that's for sure.  Even if she lost out at the pg spot, she probably gets some time at the 2, which is where she mostly played her last year at Stanford.

[81alum]

Random thought: in our national title year two years ago, we were down quite a bit to Louisville (38-26 at the half), and Prechtel stepped up and sparked a comeback.  We then had one point wins against South Carolina and Arizona.  We could have come short in any of those games and lamented the disappointment.  Conversely, we could have been bailed out by a reach in foul against Ole Miss last night and held on for the improbable comeback.  At this level, many of the games hinge on a play here or a judgment call there, and the difference between a bitterly disappointing end of year and a triumphant championship is a knives edge.  This year, it wasn't meant to be.


BC

Well said.  Thinking about the natty year I have often considered how close we came to losing any of those last three games--the coin came up heads three times in a row.  On the other hand, Tara has gotten our team to the final four 15 times, and so we have had a lot of opportunities for the coin flips to go our way, and they finally did.  This year we hit a team and an officiating crew that happened to be tailor made to accentuate our greatest weakness, and they did.  Despite that we tied the game with 1:16 left, but we made too many mental and physical errors in the last minute.  It felt an awful lot like the Jan 15 USC game, but with no chance of redemption.

[81alum]

Random thought: in our national title year two years ago, we were down quite a bit to Louisville (38-26 at the half), and Prechtel stepped up and sparked a comeback.  We then had one point wins against South Carolina and Arizona.  We could have come short in any of those games and lamented the disappointment.  Conversely, we could have been bailed out by a reach in foul against Ole Miss last night and held on for the improbable comeback.  At this level, many of the games hinge on a play here or a judgment call there, and the difference between a bitterly disappointing end of year and a triumphant championship is a knives edge.  This year, it wasn't meant to be.


BC

Well said.  Thinking about the natty year I have often considered how close we came to losing any of those last three games--the coin came up heads three times in a row.  On the other hand, Tara has gotten our team to the final four 15 times, and so we have had a lot of opportunities for the coin flips to go our way, and they finally did.  This year we hit a team and an officiating crew that happened to be tailor made to accentuate our greatest weakness, and they did.  Despite that we tied the game with 1:16 left, but we made too many mental and physical errors in the last minute.  It felt an awful lot like the Jan 15 USC game, but with no chance of redemption.

[JohnR34231]

Random thought: in our national title year two years ago, we were down quite a bit to Louisville (38-26 at the half), and Prechtel stepped up and sparked a comeback.  We then had one point wins against South Carolina and Arizona.  We could have come short in any of those games and lamented the disappointment.  Conversely, we could have been bailed out by a reach in foul against Ole Miss last night and held on for the improbable comeback.  At this level, many of the games hinge on a play here or a judgment call there, and the difference between a bitterly disappointing end of year and a triumphant championship is a knives edge.  This year, it wasn't meant to be.


BC

Well said.  Thinking about the natty year I have often considered how close we came to losing any of those last three games--the coin came up heads three times in a row.  On the other hand, Tara has gotten our team to the final four 15 times, and so we have had a lot of opportunities for the coin flips to go our way, and they finally did.  This year we hit a team and an officiating crew that happened to be tailor made to accentuate our greatest weakness, and they did.  Despite that we tied the game tied with 1:16 left, but we made too many mental and physical errors in the last minute.

Yeah, I remember in that South Carolina game one of their players missed two close in last second shots either one of which would have won the game for them and which she would have made the vast majority of the time she took them. To say we were lucky to win that game would have been an understatement.

[JohnR34231]

Random thought: in our national title year two years ago, we were down quite a bit to Louisville (38-26 at the half), and Prechtel stepped up and sparked a comeback.  We then had one point wins against South Carolina and Arizona.  We could have come short in any of those games and lamented the disappointment.  Conversely, we could have been bailed out by a reach in foul against Ole Miss last night and held on for the improbable comeback.  At this level, many of the games hinge on a play here or a judgment call there, and the difference between a bitterly disappointing end of year and a triumphant championship is a knives edge.  This year, it wasn't meant to be.


BC

Well said.  Thinking about the natty year I have often considered how close we came to losing any of those last three games--the coin came up heads three times in a row.  On the other hand, Tara has gotten our team to the final four 15 times, and so we have had a lot of opportunities for the coin flips to go our way, and they finally did.  This year we hit a team and an officiating crew that happened to be tailor made to accentuate our greatest weakness, and they did.  Despite that we tied the game tied with 1:16 left, but we made too many mental and physical errors in the last minute.

Yeah, I remember in that South Carolina game one of their players missed two close in last second shots either one of which would have won the game for them and which she would have made the vast majority of the time she took them. To say we were lucky to win that game would have been an understatement.

[Mick]

I'll post this question in this thread vs. starting another...would the team have been better off with Jana at the helm this year? Older, more experienced, WAY better shooter so it would stretch the floor more, probably better at feeding the post, might have struggled bringing the ball up but not really sure. All in all, I think we would have been better and Lopolo/Nivar could have played backup minutes instead of being thrown into the fire. 

I've watched Baylor play a few times this year and she doesn't have much of a role. Really wish she would have stayed.

Jana's decision to leave was an interesting one given that she seemed to have playing time waiting for her at the 1 and the 2, at least as much as she has played for Baylor, which has been fairly little.  Her shooting might have helped, that's for sure.  Even if she lost out at the pg spot, she probably gets some time at the 2, which is where she mostly played her last year at Stanford.

Perhaps she had academic issues?

[Mick]

I'll post this question in this thread vs. starting another...would the team have been better off with Jana at the helm this year? Older, more experienced, WAY better shooter so it would stretch the floor more, probably better at feeding the post, might have struggled bringing the ball up but not really sure. All in all, I think we would have been better and Lopolo/Nivar could have played backup minutes instead of being thrown into the fire. 

I've watched Baylor play a few times this year and she doesn't have much of a role. Really wish she would have stayed.

Jana's decision to leave was an interesting one given that she seemed to have playing time waiting for her at the 1 and the 2, at least as much as she has played for Baylor, which has been fairly little.  Her shooting might have helped, that's for sure.  Even if she lost out at the pg spot, she probably gets some time at the 2, which is where she mostly played her last year at Stanford.

Perhaps she had academic issues?

[BobK]

Jana was Pac 12 all academic

[BobK]

Jana was Pac 12 all academic

[Card10Fan]

Did anyone get the sense there were team chemistry issues this season? In years past we’ve often heard that the team is so unselfish, everyone is rooting for each others success. Don’t want to lose because the team wants to keep playing together as a team for as long as possible.  I don’t remember hearing any of that at any point this year but maybe I missed it. 

Coach Paye drew up 3 plays in the three timeouts used in the last minute of the Ole Miss game. Every one resulted in a turnover. Jump in the corner, Jones on the drive, Jones on the pass. Is that players not executing or should blame be on coaches for poor end of game management, play calls, putting players in spots to be successful. Or both. Sigh…I really hope we can be majorly better offensively next year. Needs to be a top priority.

[Card10Fan]

Did anyone get the sense there were team chemistry issues this season? In years past we’ve often heard that the team is so unselfish, everyone is rooting for each others success. Don’t want to lose because the team wants to keep playing together as a team for as long as possible.  I don’t remember hearing any of that at any point this year but maybe I missed it. 

Coach Paye drew up 3 plays in the three timeouts used in the last minute of the Ole Miss game. Every one resulted in a turnover. Jump in the corner, Jones on the drive, Jones on the pass. Is that players not executing or should blame be on coaches for poor end of game management, play calls, putting players in spots to be successful. Or both. Sigh…I really hope we can be majorly better offensively next year. Needs to be a top priority.

[CompSci87]

We heard plenty of positive things about the team being close this year and the players really loving each other.

[CompSci87]

We heard plenty of positive things about the team being close this year and the players really loving each other.

[oldalum]

new article in The Athletic about the reasons for Stanford and Indiana's losses. 

The article says an anonymous Pac-12 coach said during conference play that our ceiling was not as high as in the past because our guard play simply wasn't good enough. 

On the season-ending loss:
"The Rebels crowded Brink and sent multiple defenders at Jones, showing little respect for Stanford’s other scorers, even stunting off Hannah Jump on multiple occasions. Despite oodles of space afforded beyond the arc, Stanford attempted only seven 3-pointers, a season low. At times, the Cardinal stubbornly tried to force the ball into the paint and at other times, were unwilling to take what Miami’s defense was giving."

[oldalum]

new article in The Athletic about the reasons for Stanford and Indiana's losses. 

The article says an anonymous Pac-12 coach said during conference play that our ceiling was not as high as in the past because our guard play simply wasn't good enough. 

On the season-ending loss:
"The Rebels crowded Brink and sent multiple defenders at Jones, showing little respect for Stanford’s other scorers, even stunting off Hannah Jump on multiple occasions. Despite oodles of space afforded beyond the arc, Stanford attempted only seven 3-pointers, a season low. At times, the Cardinal stubbornly tried to force the ball into the paint and at other times, were unwilling to take what Miami’s defense was giving."

[chimera]

new article in The Athletic about the reasons for Stanford and Indiana's losses. 

The article says an anonymous Pac-12 coach said during conference play that our ceiling was not as high as in the past because our guard play simply wasn't good enough. 

On the season-ending loss:
"The Rebels crowded Brink and sent multiple defenders at Jones, showing little respect for Stanford’s other scorers, even stunting off Hannah Jump on multiple occasions. Despite oodles of space afforded beyond the arc, Stanford attempted only seven 3-pointers, a season low. At times, the Cardinal stubbornly tried to force the ball into the paint and at other times, were unwilling to take what Miami’s defense was giving."

This is a key point and has been all year.  I know we did not have experienced three point shooters except Jump, but I never got why players who were shooting 33% and up into the 40% range, even if the number of shots taken was low, were a worse bet than forcing the ball inside over and over.  When the team is shooting 30ish percent as a whole, why are wide open threes by players who don't suck at shooting them such a bad thing?  So many times early in a possession one of our perimeter players had an open shot, but they almost never took it, I'm sure be design so they could run the offense.  But mostly a turnover or a late shot clock struggle resulted.  The offense needs to allow for quick shots when the defense is not fully set.  We seemed to be trying to run offense, when the goal is really to make shots, if that makes any sense.

[chimera]

new article in The Athletic about the reasons for Stanford and Indiana's losses. 

The article says an anonymous Pac-12 coach said during conference play that our ceiling was not as high as in the past because our guard play simply wasn't good enough. 

On the season-ending loss:
"The Rebels crowded Brink and sent multiple defenders at Jones, showing little respect for Stanford’s other scorers, even stunting off Hannah Jump on multiple occasions. Despite oodles of space afforded beyond the arc, Stanford attempted only seven 3-pointers, a season low. At times, the Cardinal stubbornly tried to force the ball into the paint and at other times, were unwilling to take what Miami’s defense was giving."

This is a key point and has been all year.  I know we did not have experienced three point shooters except Jump, but I never got why players who were shooting 33% and up into the 40% range, even if the number of shots taken was low, were a worse bet than forcing the ball inside over and over.  When the team is shooting 30ish percent as a whole, why are wide open threes by players who don't suck at shooting them such a bad thing?  So many times early in a possession one of our perimeter players had an open shot, but they almost never took it, I'm sure be design so they could run the offense.  But mostly a turnover or a late shot clock struggle resulted.  The offense needs to allow for quick shots when the defense is not fully set.  We seemed to be trying to run offense, when the goal is really to make shots, if that makes any sense.

[81alum]

This is a key point and has been all year.  I know we did not have experienced three point shooters except Jump, but I never got why players who were shooting 33% and up into the 40% range, even if the number of shots taken was low, were a worse bet than forcing the ball inside over and over.  When the team is shooting 30ish percent as a whole, why are wide open threes by players who don't suck at shooting them such a bad thing?  So many times early in a possession one of our perimeter players had an open shot, but they almost never took it, I'm sure be design so they could run the offense.  But mostly a turnover or a late shot clock struggle resulted.  The offense needs to allow for quick shots when the defense is not fully set.  We seemed to be trying to run offense, when the goal is really to make shots, if that makes any sense.

Agreed, although from where I was sitting I don't think Mississippi was giving us many open threes.  Their perimeter players were quick enough to cover Jump or Nivar or Lepolo and sag to the middle as soon as the ball was passed in.  I think what was needed was for Betts, Brink, and Iriafen to send crisp passes back out of the paint to Jump, but once the ball came in it stayed in, and Brink forced it up through a thicket of arms.  We seemed to be obsessed with the outside/in passing but had no inside/out passing.  On the occasions when this Did happen, if the pass was to Lepolo or Nivar they would usually pass up the shot and pass again or dribble a little to look for a better angle.  Way too much hesitation. 

Lepolo's three point shot may not be pretty, but it has been effective and she needs to use it more.  Nivar shot 23% from three on the year and absolutely must fix that if she is going to play many minutes next year.

[81alum]

This is a key point and has been all year.  I know we did not have experienced three point shooters except Jump, but I never got why players who were shooting 33% and up into the 40% range, even if the number of shots taken was low, were a worse bet than forcing the ball inside over and over.  When the team is shooting 30ish percent as a whole, why are wide open threes by players who don't suck at shooting them such a bad thing?  So many times early in a possession one of our perimeter players had an open shot, but they almost never took it, I'm sure be design so they could run the offense.  But mostly a turnover or a late shot clock struggle resulted.  The offense needs to allow for quick shots when the defense is not fully set.  We seemed to be trying to run offense, when the goal is really to make shots, if that makes any sense.

Agreed, although from where I was sitting I don't think Mississippi was giving us many open threes.  Their perimeter players were quick enough to cover Jump or Nivar or Lepolo and sag to the middle as soon as the ball was passed in.  I think what was needed was for Betts, Brink, and Iriafen to send crisp passes back out of the paint to Jump, but once the ball came in it stayed in, and Brink forced it up through a thicket of arms.  We seemed to be obsessed with the outside/in passing but had no inside/out passing.  On the occasions when this Did happen, if the pass was to Lepolo or Nivar they would usually pass up the shot and pass again or dribble a little to look for a better angle.  Way too much hesitation. 

Lepolo's three point shot may not be pretty, but it has been effective and she needs to use it more.  Nivar shot 23% from three on the year and absolutely must fix that if she is going to play many minutes next year.

[Hieronymus]

This is a key point and has been all year.  I know we did not have experienced three point shooters except Jump, but I never got why players who were shooting 33% and up into the 40% range, even if the number of shots taken was low, were a worse bet than forcing the ball inside over and over.  When the team is shooting 30ish percent as a whole, why are wide open threes by players who don't suck at shooting them such a bad thing?  So many times early in a possession one of our perimeter players had an open shot, but they almost never took it, I'm sure be design so they could run the offense.  But mostly a turnover or a late shot clock struggle resulted.  The offense needs to allow for quick shots when the defense is not fully set.  We seemed to be trying to run offense, when the goal is really to make shots, if that makes any sense.

Agreed, although from where I was sitting I don't think Mississippi was giving us many open threes.  Their perimeter players were quick enough to cover Jump or Nivar or Lepolo and sag to the middle as soon as the ball was passed in.  I think what was needed was for Betts, Brink, and Iriafen to send crisp passes back out of the paint to Jump, but once the ball came in it stayed in, and Brink forced it up through a thicket of arms.  We seemed to be obsessed with the outside/in passing but had no inside/out passing.  On the occasions when this Did happen, if the pass was to Lepolo or Nivar they would usually pass up the shot and pass again or dribble a little to look for a better angle.  Way too much hesitation. 

Lepolo's three point shot may not be pretty, but it has been effective and she needs to use it more.  Nivar shot 23% from three on the year and absolutely must fix that if she is going to play many minutes next year.

Lepolo isn't a terrible outside shooter, but she needs a ton of space to get it off. It's not a very quick shot, she isn't very tall and she often jumps forward when she shoots. The last thing is a total killer in tough games. A good defender can sag and still cause her troubles on the shot.

And yes right now Nivar is just bad from the outside.

[Hieronymus]

This is a key point and has been all year.  I know we did not have experienced three point shooters except Jump, but I never got why players who were shooting 33% and up into the 40% range, even if the number of shots taken was low, were a worse bet than forcing the ball inside over and over.  When the team is shooting 30ish percent as a whole, why are wide open threes by players who don't suck at shooting them such a bad thing?  So many times early in a possession one of our perimeter players had an open shot, but they almost never took it, I'm sure be design so they could run the offense.  But mostly a turnover or a late shot clock struggle resulted.  The offense needs to allow for quick shots when the defense is not fully set.  We seemed to be trying to run offense, when the goal is really to make shots, if that makes any sense.

Agreed, although from where I was sitting I don't think Mississippi was giving us many open threes.  Their perimeter players were quick enough to cover Jump or Nivar or Lepolo and sag to the middle as soon as the ball was passed in.  I think what was needed was for Betts, Brink, and Iriafen to send crisp passes back out of the paint to Jump, but once the ball came in it stayed in, and Brink forced it up through a thicket of arms.  We seemed to be obsessed with the outside/in passing but had no inside/out passing.  On the occasions when this Did happen, if the pass was to Lepolo or Nivar they would usually pass up the shot and pass again or dribble a little to look for a better angle.  Way too much hesitation. 

Lepolo's three point shot may not be pretty, but it has been effective and she needs to use it more.  Nivar shot 23% from three on the year and absolutely must fix that if she is going to play many minutes next year.

Lepolo isn't a terrible outside shooter, but she needs a ton of space to get it off. It's not a very quick shot, she isn't very tall and she often jumps forward when she shoots. The last thing is a total killer in tough games. A good defender can sag and still cause her troubles on the shot.

And yes right now Nivar is just bad from the outside.

[81alum]

Lepolo isn't a terrible outside shooter, but she needs a ton of space to get it off. It's not a very quick shot, she isn't very tall and she often jumps forward when she shoots. The last thing is a total killer in tough games. A good defender can sag and still cause her troubles on the shot.

And yes right now Nivar is just bad from the outside.

I think there is a chance that 6'1" Courtney Ogden, who is an excellent three level scorer and shoots the three, might become a starter for us, early, especially since Jones is graduating.  A lot will depend on her defense, but at No. 10 I think she was underrated--mainly because she broke her ankle her junior year.  She reminds me of Maya Moore.

[81alum]

Lepolo isn't a terrible outside shooter, but she needs a ton of space to get it off. It's not a very quick shot, she isn't very tall and she often jumps forward when she shoots. The last thing is a total killer in tough games. A good defender can sag and still cause her troubles on the shot.

And yes right now Nivar is just bad from the outside.

I think there is a chance that 6'1" Courtney Ogden, who is an excellent three level scorer and shoots the three, might become a starter for us, early, especially since Jones is graduating.  A lot will depend on her defense, but at No. 10 I think she was underrated--mainly because she broke her ankle her junior year.  She reminds me of Maya Moore.

[treetop11]

new article in The Athletic about the reasons for Stanford and Indiana's losses. 

The article says an anonymous Pac-12 coach said during conference play that our ceiling was not as high as in the past because our guard play simply wasn't good enough. 

On the season-ending loss:
"The Rebels crowded Brink and sent multiple defenders at Jones, showing little respect for Stanford’s other scorers, even stunting off Hannah Jump on multiple occasions. Despite oodles of space afforded beyond the arc, Stanford attempted only seven 3-pointers, a season low. At times, the Cardinal stubbornly tried to force the ball into the paint and at other times, were unwilling to take what Miami’s defense was giving."

Thanks for posting this because as I mentioned in my original post to start this thread, inadequate guard play is what cost us. During the game, I kept wondering why we weren't taking more three point shots. We may not be the hottest 3 pt shooting team, but our percentages weren't bad. Plus, even with a miss, it could lead to O rebounds with putbacks or geting D out of position leading to easy basket.

[treetop11]

new article in The Athletic about the reasons for Stanford and Indiana's losses. 

The article says an anonymous Pac-12 coach said during conference play that our ceiling was not as high as in the past because our guard play simply wasn't good enough. 

On the season-ending loss:
"The Rebels crowded Brink and sent multiple defenders at Jones, showing little respect for Stanford’s other scorers, even stunting off Hannah Jump on multiple occasions. Despite oodles of space afforded beyond the arc, Stanford attempted only seven 3-pointers, a season low. At times, the Cardinal stubbornly tried to force the ball into the paint and at other times, were unwilling to take what Miami’s defense was giving."

Thanks for posting this because as I mentioned in my original post to start this thread, inadequate guard play is what cost us. During the game, I kept wondering why we weren't taking more three point shots. We may not be the hottest 3 pt shooting team, but our percentages weren't bad. Plus, even with a miss, it could lead to O rebounds with putbacks or geting D out of position leading to easy basket.

[chimera]

Yes to the post about needing to pass out more when our posts got the ball and got doubled.  We want Brink to shoot, and she can score against a double team, but a steady diet of that is not good for her (tiring to fight doubles all game) or the offense overall.  Someone has to be open if the posts get doubled and tripled.  Pass it out and the perimeter players need to shoot when that happens.  Usually inside out passes are great for shooters to be in rhythm and comfortable.

I also wonder if the offense did Jones no favors.  Didn't she in previous seasons receive passes when she was on the move more than happened this season?  This year she had to initiate her drives by herself because she ended up with the ball in her hands a lot, particularly late in possessions, and I'm not sure the paint was cleared out very well some of the time.

[chimera]

Yes to the post about needing to pass out more when our posts got the ball and got doubled.  We want Brink to shoot, and she can score against a double team, but a steady diet of that is not good for her (tiring to fight doubles all game) or the offense overall.  Someone has to be open if the posts get doubled and tripled.  Pass it out and the perimeter players need to shoot when that happens.  Usually inside out passes are great for shooters to be in rhythm and comfortable.

I also wonder if the offense did Jones no favors.  Didn't she in previous seasons receive passes when she was on the move more than happened this season?  This year she had to initiate her drives by herself because she ended up with the ball in her hands a lot, particularly late in possessions, and I'm not sure the paint was cleared out very well some of the time.

[fullmetal]

Did Tara cede most of the coaching responsibilities to Kate as part of some long-term transition/trial period?  This season felt very un-Tara like.

Cam was one of (if not the top) the team workhorses this season, but Ole Miss committed to taking her out of the game and dared someone else to beat them.  That's the obvious strategy for Ole Miss, imo, and the Stanford coaches should have prepared for that.  Stanford didn't have anyone else prepared to step up.

The refs let Ole Miss get away with a lot (a center doesn't accidentally rack up 10 FTAs), and maybe the coaching staff wasn't prepared for that either.  

It's frustrating because we feel like this year's team had the talent to go deeper than one weekend.  But you have to be able to take the shots and make the shots.

[fullmetal]

Did Tara cede most of the coaching responsibilities to Kate as part of some long-term transition/trial period?  This season felt very un-Tara like.

Cam was one of (if not the top) the team workhorses this season, but Ole Miss committed to taking her out of the game and dared someone else to beat them.  That's the obvious strategy for Ole Miss, imo, and the Stanford coaches should have prepared for that.  Stanford didn't have anyone else prepared to step up.

The refs let Ole Miss get away with a lot (a center doesn't accidentally rack up 10 FTAs), and maybe the coaching staff wasn't prepared for that either.  

It's frustrating because we feel like this year's team had the talent to go deeper than one weekend.  But you have to be able to take the shots and make the shots.