| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bballfan2005
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 25315
Location: Somewhere here and there
Back to top |
 Posted: 01/30/08 3:36 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| eyevolley4 wrote: |
| Please elaborate on a better team without Bulger. More than just a time frame of success please. |
Here we go yet again, eyevolley. 
Bulger is, at best, a one-dimensional player. She can't go off the dribble (couldn't do it even before her injuries) and she can't defend a parked car. West Virginia, record-wise and execution-wise, was horrible with her as the "best" player. Part of that had to do with breaking in a new point guard, but the bulk of it had to do with force feeding a player who demands too many touches. Being the "best" player on a bad team is like being the smartest kid in a special education class--it means absolutely NOTHING. When Bulger was the focal point of the WV offense, the other Mountaineers stand around and watch her take shots. Ball movement was non-existent. You might see an on-ball screen to free up Bulger, but that's it in terms of halfcourt execution. Not surprisingly, they lost to several teams they had no business losing to WITH BULGER. Without her, they end up beating teams they had no business defeating.
Without Bulger, you see players like LaQuinta Owens and Chakhia Cole (and of course Sanni) come alive. All of a sudden, you have players penetrating to the hoop, looking for each other in transition, and working the inside-outside game. When Bulger went down, you saw the emergence of Sanni as the go-to player. You saw Owens step up and take (and make) shots. You saw Cole make plays around the basket and even get a couple of touches on the offensive end. The offense is more spread out with Bulger out, and that's something you just can't ignore. So yes, West Virginia is a better team without Bulger because the players don't get sucked into believing she's the only one capable of leading the attack.
Yinka Sanni is the best player on the team, and it isn't close. Funny how the team experiences success with Sanni as the main offensive threat yet fails to register a blip on the national map when led by Bulger. This year's squad isn't ranked #12 in the country because of Meg Bulger. It's because they nearly knocked off LSU last year during the NCAA Tournament--WITHOUT Bulger. I'm sure West Virginia would rather have her because she's one of many weapons, not because she's the only (or best) player they have. The team has evolved to the point that they can play without Bulger and still expect to win 95% of the time.
| eyevolley4 wrote: |
| I mean, she was selected in the WNBA draft last season without being elligible or even having played in the previous year and a half. |
And? Someone might draft Mel Thomas in the third round of this year's draft. Someone drafted Megan Mahoney in 2005 despite her Achilles injury. Doesn't make these players All-World. It just means that someone is looking for a pure shooter and would be willing to take a chance to find one.
| eyevolley4 wrote: |
| Is there nothing behind that? Is it just complete idiocy? |
See above.
_________________
Avatar: The King has his ring!
Mathies to LA 2013
|
|
eyevolley4
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Posts: 4636
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/30/08 7:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| bballfan2005 wrote: |
| eyevolley4 wrote: |
| Please elaborate on a better team without Bulger. More than just a time frame of success please. |
Here we go yet again, eyevolley.
Bulger is, at best, a one-dimensional player. She can't go off the dribble (couldn't do it even before her injuries) and she can't defend a parked car. West Virginia, record-wise and execution-wise, was horrible with her as the "best" player. Part of that had to do with breaking in a new point guard, but the bulk of it had to do with force feeding a player who demands too many touches. Being the "best" player on a bad team is like being the smartest kid in a special education class--it means absolutely NOTHING. When Bulger was the focal point of the WV offense, the other Mountaineers stand around and watch her take shots. Ball movement was non-existent. You might see an on-ball screen to free up Bulger, but that's it in terms of halfcourt execution. Not surprisingly, they lost to several teams they had no business losing to WITH BULGER. Without her, they end up beating teams they had no business defeating.
Without Bulger, you see players like LaQuinta Owens and Chakhia Cole (and of course Sanni) come alive. All of a sudden, you have players penetrating to the hoop, looking for each other in transition, and working the inside-outside game. When Bulger went down, you saw the emergence of Sanni as the go-to player. You saw Owens step up and take (and make) shots. You saw Cole make plays around the basket and even get a couple of touches on the offensive end. The offense is more spread out with Bulger out, and that's something you just can't ignore. So yes, West Virginia is a better team without Bulger because the players don't get sucked into believing she's the only one capable of leading the attack.
Yinka Sanni is the best player on the team, and it isn't close. Funny how the team experiences success with Sanni as the main offensive threat yet fails to register a blip on the national map when led by Bulger. This year's squad isn't ranked #12 in the country because of Meg Bulger. It's because they nearly knocked off LSU last year during the NCAA Tournament--WITHOUT Bulger. I'm sure West Virginia would rather have her because she's one of many weapons, not because she's the only (or best) player they have. The team has evolved to the point that they can play without Bulger and still expect to win 95% of the time.
| eyevolley4 wrote: |
| I mean, she was selected in the WNBA draft last season without being elligible or even having played in the previous year and a half. |
And? Someone might draft Mel Thomas in the third round of this year's draft. Someone drafted Megan Mahoney in 2005 despite her Achilles injury. Doesn't make these players All-World. It just means that someone is looking for a pure shooter and would be willing to take a chance to find one.
| eyevolley4 wrote: |
| Is there nothing behind that? Is it just complete idiocy? |
See above. |
Now was that so hard? All I asked was for more than just what I call your opinion trying to be passed on as fact. I appreciate your response, but could really do without the initial hostility.
You think I'm picking on you, but I merely look at it as trying to get more information. At some point, I'd like you to look at it that way as well. I believe I've explained myself more than enough.
_________________
Some days are meant to be remembered.
|
|
bballfan2005
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 25315
Location: Somewhere here and there
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/30/08 8:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| eyevolley4 wrote: |
| Now was that so hard? All I asked was for more than just what I call your opinion trying to be passed on as fact. I appreciate your response, but could really do without the initial hostility. |
Reread your response to my initial post and read the first line of your latest response. This is, at best, yet an attempt to talk down at me. How many other posters on this board do you treat this way, eyevolley4? I've tried to avoid not having any correspondence at all with you. I frequently skip over your posts because I don't want to engage in discussion with you (which ends up in argument anyway) and I know you have a penchant for taking what I say the wrong way. Yet you feel obligated to take the counter to every opinion I have and insist on my having to engage with you. Of course, no one else on here is privy to this treatment, which leads me to believe that you're trying to bait me into arguing with you as ammunition for having me banned from the site.
At what point will this cease, eyevolley? Seriously. The "games" must end. I graduated from high school many years ago and don't wish to get involved in a sophomoric battle with you. Sorry, but that's not what I'm here for.
I do enjoy reading opposing POVs though most of the time I don't agree. I don't mind being challenged if the challenge is genuine (and no, I don't think challenges from you are genuine. If you feel otherwise, then I apologize. My take is that you're baiting me into arguments every time you disagree with what I write). But when someone tries to take offense to every single stance that I take, that gets old.
| eyevolley4 wrote: |
| You think I'm picking on you, but I merely look at it as trying to get more information. At some point, I'd like you to look at it that way as well. I believe I've explained myself more than enough. |
That's obviously not going to happen. I believe we're past the point where we can be civil and discuss basketball matters. What a shame.
_________________
Avatar: The King has his ring!
Mathies to LA 2013
|
|
eyevolley4
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Posts: 4636
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/30/08 8:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Sparing the rest of the board community another one of these conversations between bballfan2005 and I which essentially doesn't resolve much and involves a lot of assuming of one's "tone" and all kinds of other goodies.
Flat out, I just haven't seen Bulger play and wanted a better explanation for why a well-regarded player would be seen as detrimental to her team.
_________________
Some days are meant to be remembered.
|
|
njjosh
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 1458
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/30/08 9:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| thesixthwoman wrote: |
can anyone tell me why RU goes to the "55" defense with like 1 minute left? why not - oh, i don't know -- just a smidge earlier?
|
Because while Vivian Stringer has won a lot of regular season games, she's a pretty lousy in-game tactician (one reason why she has yet to win a national title).
The only surprise was that it was a tactical blunder on defense, which is her strong point. Where she usually screws up is on offense.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/01/08 8:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| bballfan2005 wrote: |
| Not surprised West Virginia won. They were at home, they are good (#12 in the country? Probably not, but they're looking like they can be a good team), and they are a better team without Bulger (reference 2nd half of 2005-06 season and all of 2006-07). Rutgers isn't gong to win too many of these grind-it-out types of games on the road if they can't even break 60 points. It's too early to try and wear down opposing teams. That style works in March, not January. |
totally agree re: bulger, said as much on the espn board, and it was obvious last year. it's the addition by subtraction factor.
uconn suffered similarly re: mel thomas.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/01/08 10:08 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I was going to leave this thread alone, but I think it's worth pointing out a few things in response to other posts:
1. Sanni didn't give Vaughn any real trouble, as she had 4 fouls with about 16 minutes left in the game. She left right around the time that WVU started doing better, and played only 22 minutes overall to Vaughn's 35.
2. WVU made the run with what was essentially a 5-guard set. This was not their plan, but Sanni's foul trouble made a virtue of necessity, so to speak. Thanks to the injuries, RU didn't really have the ability to respond in kind. I'm surprised it worked, to be honest, but not having Ray or Rushdan on the bench really limited RU's ability to go small in return.
3. About RU's scoring this year: I will not repeat my detailed explanations of why RU scores tend to be lower than the scores of other teams, since nobody seems to care. I will, however, point out that RU had scored over 60 points or more (which seems to be a mystical threshold for some) in the 3 games preceding this one, and in 5 of the previous 6 games. This team can and does score better than previous ones.
Finally, you have to give WVU a lot of credit for the win. RU had built a 10-point lead, Sanni got in foul trouble and the team had to improvise, but they found a way to win against a tough opponent.
|
|
thesixthwoman
Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 6296
Location: NYC
Back to top |
|
Str8_Butta
Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 7646
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/02/08 2:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
That was a hard one for me, RU was up and then BAM...They were down and lost the game.
BTW TSW, I checked out your Rutgers Gallery. Very nice! I saw some pic's that I really liked..
_________________
WNBA fan since 1997
|
|
thesixthwoman
Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 6296
Location: NYC
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/02/08 2:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
um. deleted cause i'm spacey.
thanks for the complement, str8. glad you enjoyed.
|
|
|
|
