RebKell's Junkie Boards

[GlennMacGrady]

Dawn Staley lost the Final Four semifinal game against Notre Dame by one point.

Dawn Staley does not start her second and third best scorers nor her top two rebounders: Wilson and Coates.

Dawn Staley lost the first five minutes of the first half of the Notre game game by 12 points and, though she started Coates in the second half, she also lost the first five minutes that half by four points. Those initial 10 minutes of the two halves put Cocky Dawn in a 16 point hole.

The Gamecocks also didn't score well in the initial 5+5 minutes against North Carolina and FSU.

I have never understood the philosophy of not starting the best scoring lineup, other than the pure arrogance of a dominant team. Getting ahead in the first five minutes is a big advantage for game flow dynamics, momentum, and psychological advantage.

Dawn Staley paid the price for her lineup choices. And also for her lack of free throw accuracy.

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/MagicBusBasketball

[ewecon]

While Staley's handling of Wilson and Coates has puzzled me all season, this game was lost at the line. SC is ranked 198th in the country in free throw percentage at 67.9%..... that will come back to bite you in close games, and it did.

[beknighted]

Perhaps it was a mistake, but coaches have varying reasons for not starting top players. CVS used to keep Matee Ajavon on the bench at the beginning of games so Ajavon could see how the other team was playing before coming in, as a way of forcing Ajavon to observe and prepare. (She stopped doing that when Ajavon got more mature.)

[summertime blues]

[ClayK]

[ArtBest23]

[ArtBest23]

Speaking of lineup decisions, anyone surprised that after Ibiam went out 4 minutes into the game when she picked up her 2nd foul she never played again?

[ArtBest23]

Duplicate

[kool-aide]

[Davis4632]

Roy Williams had some years in which he didn't play the five best players until he was "forced" to replace the player who shouldn't have been a starter because of an injury or a losing streak. This player was supposedly either the team's best defensive player or he was a good practice. My theory for Roy and Dawn starting these players is that they were loyal to some upperclassmen to a fault. I think Dawn would've been called out for notstarting Coates and Wilson if SC would've lost more games than they did.

[myrtle]

Arrogance is a pretty strong word, and hard to objectively quantify. I would hesitate to call anyone arrogant without pretty strong evidence.

But Staley's starting lineups have been puzzling considering they have consistently dug themselves into a hole to start games. To me, bringing Wilson off the bench is not a problem - she's a Freshman and not always consistent and maybe it helps her settle to start on the bench... but starting Ibiam over Coates seems like pure madness. And while I wouldn't start Cuevas, I'd sure as heck get her off the bench in a hurry when the offense looked as stagnant as it did in those first few minutes of the halves. She's a pistol and you don't know which way she will go off but I think you have to live with the mistakes when you don't have anyone else willing to make the engine run.

_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman

[GlennMacGrady]

[ArtBest23]

[22]

[GlennMacGrady]

[bballgrl]

[pwhite66]

[readyAIMfire53]

[GlennMacGrady]

[GlennMacGrady]

[RP]

The starting lineup was a concern of mine in December, and my only objection to Staley's coaching is that she likes to reward upperclassmen with starts.

In 2012, Staley started senior Courtney Newton (who averaged 0.7 points) over freshman Aleighsa Welch and sophomore Ashley Bruner, two far superior players. There is not any one player that stands out so obviously now, but it's difficult to justify sticking with a unit that struggled against other top teams a season ago and had not shown any notable improvement.

[pwhite66]

I'm not debating you on Staley's rotation because frankly, I don't know enough about the thinking behind it - hers, not anyone else's. I will say I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to a coach that just led her team to a 34-3 record and lost by a point in the national semifinals.

But that's just me. If you want to assign significant import for last night's result on who did and didn't start, have at it.

But you should choose your words more carefully.

[ClayK]

There's always some debate about this, and I don't know if there's a right answer.

So Ibiam is going to play four minutes, say -- does it really make a difference when she plays them?

One answer is "yes, it's crucial," especially if she starts and the team falls behind. Some believe the first few minutes of the game are especially important. Others believe that all minutes are pretty much created equal. (I tend to believe the most "important" minutes are the start of the second half and the last two or three, but I'll gladly take a 10-0 run midway through the first half.)

The other answer is that the group dynamics of a team and program are more important in the long run, and continued success depends on more than just statistical analysis. I've always said that I can't expect players to be loyal to the program if the program isn't loyal to them, so there's that piece too.

Certainly Staley, and every coach, can be criticized for lineup choices, and substitution patterns, but I firmly believe that no one can understand those decisions unless they are at practice every day and are fully in tune with the group dynamics of the team. That doesn't mean Staley can't be wrong, but it does mean, I think, there are factors in play that outsiders really can't take into account.

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[readyAIMfire53]

Wrong opinion and wrongly stated. 0 for 2.

It seems that posting negative opinions with "catchy" headlines or opening sentences is relieving your own personal boredom, but not really advancing anything except your own poor choice of words. Even when told by more than one person, you deny, deny, deny.

Just. Stop.

Here's a rule of thumb:

The word "rape" is NEVER EVER funny. Don't use it unless it is a serious story involving a sexual assault.

If it seems "funny and sexually provocative" it will likely be offensive to a significant chunk of folks. Seriously when there's no sex and no provocation in the story, then don't just fling it into a headline just to ease your own boredom. If you do fling it in, be prepared for that significant chunk of people to respond negatively to the headline rather than whatever weak substance is in the opinion piece.

[jammerbirdi]