35TangoTango
New member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,873
- Reaction score
- 0
The better of the two will get the most playing time. You can take that to the bank.
Random thoughts and prediction.
- Thread starter SoonerNorm
- Start date
Somehow, I just don't see the average year developing into a "typical" 1-2-3-4-5 type set. I think of the recent fours, and I don't see a definitive pattern: Rush, Ashley, Amanda, Carlee, Whitney, Jo. I'm not really seeing a "type" here, nor do I see any consistency in a type of set.
In fact, I don't see a lot of similarity in the types at any position. Brown, Jenna, DRob, Morgan, Jackson?
Was Chelsi a 3? Was Whitney also sometimes a three? Amanda had a year with Ashley and Courtney inside.
I see it that Sherri figures out what she has, what she can do with it this year, and that's what we are this year. When I look at what we have right now, I'm not sure what we have.
Griffin, Morgan, and Aaryn are all at least two and a half year starters. We kind of know what we have with them. Some people will spend the next year trying to replace Nicole, just as they have tried to do with every interior players that we have had since Courtney. We also tried to get rid of Jo, Abi, and Carlee. We just never have liked our bigs. But, we haven't gotten rid of Nicole yet.
If anyone has a clue about Portia, they know more than I do. I don't even know what to make of Kornet yet. Exactly what do we know about anyone? We have a lot of people coming back from injuries and insecurities.
I think we won't have a clue about how this team fits together until we see what we have. I can hope. But, we haven't seen if they are back yet. We are not even in as solid of a position as we were last year, and that came apart quickly.
In fact, I don't see a lot of similarity in the types at any position. Brown, Jenna, DRob, Morgan, Jackson?
Was Chelsi a 3? Was Whitney also sometimes a three? Amanda had a year with Ashley and Courtney inside.
I see it that Sherri figures out what she has, what she can do with it this year, and that's what we are this year. When I look at what we have right now, I'm not sure what we have.
Griffin, Morgan, and Aaryn are all at least two and a half year starters. We kind of know what we have with them. Some people will spend the next year trying to replace Nicole, just as they have tried to do with every interior players that we have had since Courtney. We also tried to get rid of Jo, Abi, and Carlee. We just never have liked our bigs. But, we haven't gotten rid of Nicole yet.
If anyone has a clue about Portia, they know more than I do. I don't even know what to make of Kornet yet. Exactly what do we know about anyone? We have a lot of people coming back from injuries and insecurities.
I think we won't have a clue about how this team fits together until we see what we have. I can hope. But, we haven't seen if they are back yet. We are not even in as solid of a position as we were last year, and that came apart quickly.
SoonerNorm
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 19,033
- Reaction score
- 1
I agree with most of your post. I do think Sherri will evaluate the players and determine where she believes they fit the best. But, it seems to me that Sherri is fairly predictable when it comes to returners. It's the newbies and returning injured that we are usually unsure about. I think Sherri believes, it it ain't broke, don't fix it. That is why I think we all know where Morgan, Aaryn, and Griffin will play. I just don't see her changing them around. But, we know that Maddie has shown a lot of ability and Sharane has proven herself over the last two years. I do think there will be some battles for the 3 and 4 and I hope to get to watch a few practices to see if there will be any clear cut standouts for those positions. Sherri has to be excited with this much depth.
35TangoTango
New member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,873
- Reaction score
- 0
First as to consistency in type of set, except for some variation in the Courtney/Ashley reign, we've always run the 4 out motion as our primary offense. And, with the possible exception of Ashley, all of the players you mentioned could move on the perimeter and had an outside shot as well as being able to play inside. And their inside game was primarily facing the basket, not posting up.
Great post! We've seen remarkable improvement with players after offseasons as well and that has to play into the equation. Until last year after Whitney was injured, Jo might have been considered as not living up to her potential on the court (except for a short period her junior year before she was slugged on the court and pretty much ended her year) and then the light came on. Nicole Griffin has made remarkable strides since her freshman year and I expect more improvement this year. We've seen the same with many players. After the injuries last year, I thought it was impossible to have a winning record, much less making the tourney. Yet, we make another Sweet 16 appearance! Barring injuries, I think this will be a very successful season and a good chance at a Top 10 finish. We have a lot of tools and a lot of options this year and I'm excited to get the season started!
Is that really true? I think there may have been some intent to have a four be a face-up player that can play the perimeter, but has that been true?
Amanda was only a 40.6% shooter (29.3% from three). That is really low for a forward. She really didn't shoot well from any distance or hit regularly facing the basket.
I don't think Carlee ever shot 49% from the field or 30% from three.
Leah may have been the best of the face up players prior to Jo, and she started as a post prior to Courtney. I don't know that our fours have ever been that good on the perimeter.
Stringmusic
New member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 864
- Reaction score
- 0
A real key is Maddie and whether she comes back strong. Maddie can, in time, take us to the Final 2.
I agree! Still a little early, but from what I've seen of her she will be a difference maker for sure!
35TangoTango
New member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,873
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes. It's always been that way, clear back to Caton Hill. Other than Leah the year she had to play center, how much did you see any of those players playing with their back to the basket?
I see the point you are making. My point is that they differed dramatically in whether they could actually play facing the basket. If you shoot less than forty percent and can't hit a jumper, you aren't really playing that position effectively.
I forgot to add since 2006.
SoonerNorm
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 19,033
- Reaction score
- 1
Stacy Dales had a good WNBA career. Without her we would not have played in the NC game. It is possible she would have been a McDonalds AA if she would have played high school ball in the U.S.
SoonerShamrock
New member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,093
- Reaction score
- 0
Be that as it may be (and I really don't quarrel at all with your assertion), she didn't, she wasn't, and it has been our only NC game. Which leads me to trot out that "sum of the parts" thing Sherri likes to quote -- when the sum of our parts is greater than the whole, we can be very, very good.
In 2002 we had someone added into that sum who wasn't a McD AA, wasn't even eligible to be one. But we had 4 other players who fit together as if they'd been made to play together. I think it's possible to find that sort of fit again, and again even without a McD AA. I leave that to Sherri and her team and only ask that the injury demons leave us the heck alone this season. (And next, and next, and next...)
Agreed! I think she was only recruited by us and Syracuse, if I remember correctly, so since UConn/Tenn/Stanford/Duke/ etc weren't recruiting her she wouldn't have made the McD AA team.
SoonerNorm
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 19,033
- Reaction score
- 1
If Stacy would have gone to a U.S. high school and played the AAU circuit, her recruitment would have been much different as would have the honors she received, IMO.
This! You don't see many point forwards
I don't know that Stacy would have been recognized if she had been in the US. There is more to it than talent. It's a little like real estate. It seems that a lot of whether you are recognized as a McDonald's All-American is due to location, location, and location.
We are quite aware of the teams that have McDonald's All-Americans when they make it to the Final Four. We seem to forget those who have a lot who never make it. You would think that Rutgers would have been there almost every year for the past ten years.
Look at the Big Twelve area. How many McDonald's All-Americans are there from North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, Missouri, or Oklahoma. There are some from Texas, but the pick from another state is rare. Yet, Kansas State, Kansas, Iowa State, and OSU seem to develop pretty solid teams without All-Americans. Texas, who gets them, hasn't been a contender for years.
That also goes for a lot of the US. It seems that UConn and Notre Dame always do well and have some All-Americans. Louisville is now recruiting All-Americans, but they built without them. But, Syracuse, West Virginia, and Georgetown seem to have become pretty solid without any. Then, there is that story at Rutgers.
We all know that Duke has been good at recruiting. They are usually near the top of the ACC. But, they tied a couple of years with Miami who had none. Indeed, Miami and Florida State have built competitive programs without All-Americans.
OK. Stanford is a contender. But, why isn't USC? They had a couple of sensational recruiting years, and won nothing.
It would seem that there is an advantage of where you live and whether you are heavily involved in AAU ball. Do you attend those showcase tournaments? It helps to be from an area that has had McDonald's All-Americans.
If Stacy had lived in Columbus, OH, she may have been a McDonald's All-American, although she isn't as playground flashy as All-Americans tend to be. If she had been from Ames, everyone would have said, "who?"
We are quite aware of the teams that have McDonald's All-Americans when they make it to the Final Four. We seem to forget those who have a lot who never make it. You would think that Rutgers would have been there almost every year for the past ten years.
Look at the Big Twelve area. How many McDonald's All-Americans are there from North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, Missouri, or Oklahoma. There are some from Texas, but the pick from another state is rare. Yet, Kansas State, Kansas, Iowa State, and OSU seem to develop pretty solid teams without All-Americans. Texas, who gets them, hasn't been a contender for years.
That also goes for a lot of the US. It seems that UConn and Notre Dame always do well and have some All-Americans. Louisville is now recruiting All-Americans, but they built without them. But, Syracuse, West Virginia, and Georgetown seem to have become pretty solid without any. Then, there is that story at Rutgers.
We all know that Duke has been good at recruiting. They are usually near the top of the ACC. But, they tied a couple of years with Miami who had none. Indeed, Miami and Florida State have built competitive programs without All-Americans.
OK. Stanford is a contender. But, why isn't USC? They had a couple of sensational recruiting years, and won nothing.
It would seem that there is an advantage of where you live and whether you are heavily involved in AAU ball. Do you attend those showcase tournaments? It helps to be from an area that has had McDonald's All-Americans.
If Stacy had lived in Columbus, OH, she may have been a McDonald's All-American, although she isn't as playground flashy as All-Americans tend to be. If she had been from Ames, everyone would have said, "who?"
SoonerNorm
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 19,033
- Reaction score
- 1
Amanda Thompson as a McDonalds AA and she wasn't as good or flashy as Dales.
Similar threads
