| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/20/16 6:41 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| But that is the standard that Geno Auriemma and the UConn women's basketball program have set. When "difficult" means an "Elite Eight" finish instead of a national championship or making the Final Four, it demonstrates an incredible standard of excellence that is simply awesome to behold. |
Yep.
|
|
Homyonkel
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/20/16 7:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Sadly, he probably has UConn too low |
I look to UConn's 2016-2017 team with the expected transition to Samuelson and Collier as akin to 2004-2005/2005-2006, when Strother (a wing, like KLS) and Turner (an undersized post with a developing perimter game).
The 2004-2005/2005-2006 teams struggled, in some respects. The 2004-2005 team had difficulty finding a point guard. Highly touted/ranked guard Ketia Swaner started the season at the point, but would only end up starting five games all season, as UConn employed a "point guard by committee approach," with Ann Strother having to balance scoring and with some playmaking as a wing.
And that 04-05 team lacked players who really could consistently create their own shots, with the exception of Charde Houston, who, as a freshman, had her blindingly quick spin move to free her up for a short jumper or to drive to the basket and her pull up jumper from ten feet that she would take on the run with her leaping ability. UConn finished 25-8.
For 2005-2006, UConn had highly touted/regarded/ranked PG Renee Montgomery as a freshman to add speed and stability to the PG position in the starting lineup. Strother provided assists from the wing, with Mel Thomas as the starting shooting guard.
But there really was no "go to" player, as Strother, Turner, and Thomas all averaged between 11 and 13 points (with a solid 9 ppg each from Houston and Montgomery) and took turns being the first option/leading scorer. There was no "alpha dog," if you will pardon the impression.
Now Crystal Dangerfield is coming in that the PG position and is ranked much higher than either Swanier or Montgomery was in their respective classes (IIRC, Montgomery was a solid top 20, with some having her higher, while Swanier had a mix between top 20/30; Dangerfield comes in as a consensus top five player). And UConn still has Kia Nurse and Gabby Williams; Nurse was a solid scorer with over 100 assists and a good A/TO ratio, while Williams is an athletic marvel who contributed 9 points and 5.6 rebounds as an undersized forward and part-time starter.\
That being said, UConn has to adjust to having players who were 4th, 5th, and 6th options who were able to contribute (score, rebound, garner assists, etc.) and be effective playing next to three all-time greats and legends (at both UConn and in WCBB) to becoming the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd options. Arguably, this may be a tougher adjustment than 2004-2005, as the only major loss (and it was a MAJOR loss) was Taurasi (with no disrespect intended to Maria Conlon or Morgan Valley, but they were not of the same caliber as Jefferson and Tuck). Not to mention, 2004-2005 was also an odd year because so many programs had lost great players to graduation besides UConn (e.g., Duke, Stanford, Minnesota, Kansas State, Purdue, Texas, Penn State, etc.).
I think UConn will have a "difficult" time in 2016-2017, but "difficult" is a relative term. In other words, I would not be surprised if UConn lost 4-5 games (or maybe six games) and "only" made the Elite Eight, instead of the Final Four. Remember, even the 2013 national championship team lost 4 games.
But that is the standard that Geno Auriemma and the UConn women's basketball program have set. When "difficult" means an "Elite Eight" finish instead of a national championship or making the Final Four, it demonstrates an incredible standard of excellence that is simply awesome to behold. |
Your knowledge of UCONN's years 2004 to 2006 is remarkable and well described. Especially for a poster whose handle suggests a Duke fan.
Your apologies to Maria and Morgan , however, were not really necessary. At best they were extremely ordinary players whose names wouldn't be remembered today if Diana wasn't on the team.
|
|
blackrain
Joined: 06 Apr 2016
Posts: 18
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/20/16 7:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| South Carolina should be the preseason number one hands down and it's not even close. Wilson will be unstoppable along with Coates. Kaela Davis and Gray will be serious upgrades for wings and guards for South Carolina. That team is an absolute powerhouse. Uconn is too high. They will struggle big time without Stewart, Tuck, and Jefferson next year. They should be around 10 IMO. Nothing they return on their team excites me. South Carolina, Baylor, Notre Dame are my top three. The rest is up for grabs.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
|
Fighting Artichoke
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/21/16 12:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| blackrain wrote: |
| South Carolina should be the preseason number one hands down and it's not even close. Wilson will be unstoppable along with Coates. Kaela Davis and Gray will be serious upgrades for wings and guards for South Carolina. That team is an absolute powerhouse. Uconn is too high. They will struggle big time without Stewart, Tuck, and Jefferson next year. They should be around 10 IMO. Nothing they return on their team excites me. South Carolina, Baylor, Notre Dame are my top three. The rest is up for grabs. |
Well, guess that ends that discussion.
Next we'll hear that Cuevas is the hands down winner of the Lieberman award and it's not even close.
Guess I should sit back, kick off my shoes and wait until November.  |
Don't forget your snifter of brandy and a pipe, Art.
There is no way that UConn should be expected to be 10th, blackrain. Their coaching and talent are far too high to allow such a fall from grace. You are like Creme expecting ND to be 6th-8th each year because the are graduating talent. You have to remember that UConn is good because of their system and they still have a fair amount of (somewhat inexperienced) talent to plug into it. I will be stunned if UConn isn't top 5 next season. The graduation of their big 3 brings them back to the pack, but they are still a contender, just like the Irish hung around most years despite the loss of a lot of talent. UConn lost more than the Irish ever did, but they were so far above the cut before this year, they'll be just fine.
|
|
uconnfan1
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 64
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/21/16 7:25 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Don't understand Charlie's love of UConn having them at #4. UConn has a talented but not great lineup. They don't have a POY candidate on the team for next year. For 2017/18, possibly Samuelson will be under consideration.
With their OOC Schedule they could end up the year with four or five losses and they'll be teams in better conferences with fewer losses. UConn at best is a #2 seed.
Now this could all change if Natalie Butler becomes the player that many UConn fans thought she would be based on her freshmen year in the Big East Conference. She's got to start for UConn and maybe at the end of the season UConn will be one of the favorites to make the Final Four.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63781
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/21/16 10:32 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm trying to think of when UConn won a championship (in recent years) without a superstar level player. Somebody help me here.
In 2012, they didn't have Maya or Stewie, and that was Baylor's year. How did UConn finish that year?
Nvm, I found it. UConn finished 4th in the final poll.
http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/rankings/_/year/2012
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/21/16 11:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| But what do I know? |
A fair amount, based upon past contributions.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/21/16 1:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
I'm trying to think of when UConn won a championship (in recent years) without a superstar level player. Somebody help me here.
In 2012, they didn't have Maya or Stewie, and that was Baylor's year. How did UConn finish that year?
Nvm, I found it. UConn finished 4th in the final poll.
http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/rankings/_/year/2012 |
I'm not sure how you define "superstar" but I'll say 2000. And as a matter of fact the only other year since 1995 was TAMU. Every other championship was won by a team with a dominant national star who played in the front court.
So who are the transcendent players for next year? Wilson? Turner? While certainly talented neither has reached what I would call transcendence level. Will Cox give us a Stewart redux as a freshman?
|
|
NoDakSt
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 4929
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/21/16 3:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| It's funky seeing Indiana in there. I hope that's a star that continues to rise.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/16 12:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Sadly, he probably has UConn too low |
That being said, UConn has to adjust to having players who were 4th, 5th, and 6th options who were able to contribute (score, rebound, garner assists, etc.) and be effective playing next to three all-time greats and legends (at both UConn and in WCBB) to becoming the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd options. Arguably, this may be a tougher adjustment than 2004-2005, as the only major loss (and it was a MAJOR loss) was Taurasi (with no disrespect intended to Maria Conlon or Morgan Valley, but they were not of the same caliber as Jefferson and Tuck). Not to mention, 2004-2005 was also an odd year because so many programs had lost great players to graduation besides UConn (e.g., Duke, Stanford, Minnesota, Kansas State, Purdue, Texas, Penn State, etc.).
I think UConn will have a "difficult" time in 2016-2017, but "difficult" is a relative term. In other words, I would not be surprised if UConn lost 4-5 games (or maybe six games) and "only" made the Elite Eight, instead of the Final Four. Remember, even the 2013 national championship team lost 4 games.
But that is the standard that Geno Auriemma and the UConn women's basketball program have set. When "difficult" means an "Elite Eight" finish instead of a national championship or making the Final Four, it demonstrates an incredible standard of excellence that is simply awesome to behold. |
Look at UConn in 2003. Sure, they had Taurasi, but the replacements for TASS were, at best, the 6th 7th 8th & 9th options, or freshmen. The 2017 UConn team has the personnel to win a NC. The question is if they have the team to do so. What Taurasi did in 2003 was to take the pressure off of her teammates to have to lead. We need to see if anyone is ready to assume that leadership role. In Taurasi's last 2 years she was the go-to player who had the ball in her hands a lot. The 2015-16 teams didn't really use Stewart that way. We never saw UConn "clear out" for Stewart like we did for Taurasi. She, Tuck and Jefferson shared the ball very well. For that reason it will be easier for next year's team to play without Stewart than it was for the 2005 team to play without Taurasi.
For this fan it will be a very interesting year. The pieces are there but there is a lot of work ahead.
|
|
Fighting Artichoke
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/16 12:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| uconnfan1 wrote: |
Don't understand Charlie's love of UConn having them at #4. UConn has a talented but not great lineup. They don't have a POY candidate on the team for next year. For 2017/18, possibly Samuelson will be under consideration.
With their OOC Schedule they could end up the year with four or five losses and they'll be teams in better conferences with fewer losses. UConn at best is a #2 seed.
Now this could all change if Natalie Butler becomes the player that many UConn fans thought she would be based on her freshmen year in the Big East Conference. She's got to start for UConn and maybe at the end of the season UConn will be one of the favorites to make the Final Four. |
If UConn has 4 losses before the NCAA tournament starts, they should be ranked above many teams with fewer losses because of the challenging schedule they play. One cannot rank teams by simply counting the losses when different teams adopt schedules with tremendous differences in degree of difficulty.
|
|
Homyonkel
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/16 1:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
"We never saw Uconn 'clear out' for Stewart like we did for Taurasi. She, Tuck and Jefferson shared the ball very well. For that reason it will be easier for next year's team to play without Stewart than it was for the 2005 team to play without Taurasi."
The problem is that it is not the loss of Stewart that the 2017 team has to overcome. It's the loss of Jefferson, Stewart and Tuck.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/16 3:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Homyonkel wrote: |
"We never saw Uconn 'clear out' for Stewart like we did for Taurasi. She, Tuck and Jefferson shared the ball very well. For that reason it will be easier for next year's team to play without Stewart than it was for the 2005 team to play without Taurasi."
The problem is that it is not the loss of Stewart that the 2017 team has to overcome. It's the loss of Jefferson, Stewart and Tuck. |
You are right about the loss of total talent being greater but I would say that the talent in 2017 is greater than that of 2005. And further, Taurasi's influence went past her talent. Her personality and leadership was greater than any of the three who graduated. She dominated the spirit of her teams in 2003 & 2004. She left a huge vacuum behind her. There was no room for any other leader but Diana those two years. What I remember from 2005 was watching UConn pass the ball around with no one willing to take a shot. They kept looking for Diana. I don't see Samuelson, Collier Williams and Nurse lacking aggressiveness or being reluctant to take an open shot. Sure, they won't be mistaken for the 2016 team but then which 2017 program will?
|
|
blackrain
Joined: 06 Apr 2016
Posts: 18
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/16 4:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The polls are a joke. Baylor played a very weak out of conference schedule and kept their excellent ranking until they started their conference games. I don't think teams should be rewarded for weak schedules in the polls either, but for some reason, some teams are. I think Uconn is a top team ten, but not top five. Not in the upcoming year. It's just a matter of opinion where they should be ranked. I don't see the product on their upcoming team to warrant a top five ranking. I think they will struggle this year.
South Carolina is the only team I can rank without question. In my opinion they should be preseason number one. Their probable five starters for the upcoming year makes me cringe.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8229
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/16 4:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| I'm trying to think of when UConn won a championship (in recent years) without a superstar level player. Somebody help me here. |
I'm not sure how you define "superstar" but I'll say 2000. |
Without checking, the UConn 2000 team had players who that year or later would be:
-- multiple NPOY winner (Bird)
-- the only three-time Lieberman Award winner (Bird)
-- Four first team AA's (Bird, Ralph, Abrosimova, Cash)
-- Four of the top 6 in the 2002 WNBA draft (Bird, Cash, Jones, Williams)
-- Three Olympians (Bird, Cash, Jones)
-- The still reigning NCAA career leader in FG% (Williams)
The talent that year was YUUUGE. |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/16 4:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| blackrain wrote: |
The polls are a joke. Baylor played a very weak out of conference schedule and kept their excellent ranking until they started their conference games. I don't think teams should be rewarded for weak schedules in the polls either, but for some reason, some teams are. I think Uconn is a top team ten, but not top five. Not in the upcoming year. It's just a matter of opinion where they should be ranked. I don't see the product on their upcoming team to warrant a top five ranking. I think they will struggle this year.
South Carolina is the only team I can rank without question. In my opinion they should be preseason number one. Their probable five starters for the upcoming year makes me cringe. |
I really don't understand all the questioning of Baylor. And I don't see what their schedule has to do with where they should be ranked (Where was that argument with UConn from January to March? Either you're the best team or you're not.) Match Baylor's lineup against just about anyone and Baylor looks a lot better. They're certainly in my top two.
And South Carolina's perennial mess at guard gets drastically worse next year. They lost basically all their guards (who were already their Achilles heal), they lost their floor leader and "go to in a crisis" player in Mitchell, and they lost their front line depth. They're stuck with Bianca Cuevas at PG, they add transfers at the 2 and 3 (and if anyone thinks Davis and Gray are saviors, they're dreaming) or they have to expect that a couple of good-but-not-elite freshmen guards are going to come in and play like All Americans. Otherwise, they're going to get to tournament time and once again flop over substandard guard play. Wilson is really good. Coates turned out to not be nearly as good or dominant as a starter as it looked like she might be as a part time freshman. Davis is a volume shooter. Allisha Gray is a very solid player. And Cuevas is undisciplined and sloppy. And their bench, such as it was, transferred out of town. They will surprise me if they are a final four team. There are easily four better squads.
I'll take the Baylor roster over S Carolina's every day of the week. They may have a hole at PG also, but at least they have a proven 2 guard in Jones, and a LOT more depth.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/16 6:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| linkster wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| I'm trying to think of when UConn won a championship (in recent years) without a superstar level player. Somebody help me here. |
I'm not sure how you define "superstar" but I'll say 2000. |
Without checking, the UConn 2000 team had players who that year or later would be:
-- multiple NPOY winner (Bird)
-- the only three-time Lieberman Award winner (Bird)
-- Four first team AA's (Bird, Ralph, Abrosimova, Cash)
-- Four of the top 6 in the 2002 WNBA draft (Bird, Cash, Jones, Williams)
-- Three Olympians (Bird, Cash, Jones)
-- The still reigning NCAA career leader in FG% (Williams)
The talent that year was YUUUGE. |
The comment I keep hearing is that UConn wins because they have a transcendent superstar and there is truth in that.
I agree that the 2000 team was full of talent but who on that team (and at that point of their careers) were at the level of Taurasi , Moore or Stewart?
|
|
#Occasionalwnbafan
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Posts: 1380
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/16 6:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| blackrain wrote: |
The polls are a joke. Baylor played a very weak out of conference schedule and kept their excellent ranking until they started their conference games. I don't think teams should be rewarded for weak schedules in the polls either, but for some reason, some teams are. I think Uconn is a top team ten, but not top five. Not in the upcoming year. It's just a matter of opinion where they should be ranked. I don't see the product on their upcoming team to warrant a top five ranking. I think they will struggle this year.
South Carolina is the only team I can rank without question. In my opinion they should be preseason number one. Their probable five starters for the upcoming year makes me cringe. |
I really don't understand all the questioning of Baylor. And I don't see what their schedule has to do with where they should be ranked (Where was that argument with UConn from January to March? Either you're the best team or you're not.) Match Baylor's lineup against just about anyone and Baylor looks a lot better. They're certainly in my top two.
And South Carolina's perennial mess at guard gets drastically worse next year. They lost basically all their guards (who were already their Achilles heal), they lost their floor leader and "go to in a crisis" player in Mitchell, and they lost their front line depth. They're stuck with Bianca Cuevas at PG, they add transfers at the 2 and 3 (and if anyone thinks Davis and Gray are saviors, they're dreaming) or they have to expect that a couple of good-but-not-elite freshmen guards are going to come in and play like All Americans. Otherwise, they're going to get to tournament time and once again flop over substandard guard play. Wilson is really good. Coates turned out to not be nearly as good or dominant as a starter as it looked like she might be as a part time freshman. Davis is a volume shooter. Allisha Gray is a very solid player. And Cuevas is undisciplined and sloppy. And their bench, such as it was, transferred out of town. They will surprise me if they are a final four team. There are easily four better squads.
I'll take the Baylor roster over S Carolina's every day of the week. They may have a hole at PG also, but at least they have a proven 2 guard in Jones, and a LOT more depth. |
Baylor lost 2 games last year in 1 game Johnson did't play and the other game she had 1 assist. They have a decent guard in Jones, but no real point guard, I'm picking Texas to win the Big 12. |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/16 7:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Well, I don't know if Baylor will start Kristy Wallace or someone else at pg, but I expect I'd take any of their possibilities over Brooke McCarty running the point. And Texas is largely left playing Lang most of the game at C (the one person who might make Ruth Hamblin look athletic by comparison) or I suppose they could play the freshman Joyner Holmes, but I'm not sure she's really a post...more of a stretch 4.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63781
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/16 7:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Newsflash: Jones is a PG. Just because she was used more off the ball this season doesn't mean she isn't a PG.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/16 7:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
| Newsflash: Jones is a PG. Just because she was used more off the ball this season doesn't mean she isn't a PG. |
They tried that experiment at Duke. I would term her less than effective at PG.
It was a double whammy. She wasn't particularly good at it, and it made her less effective as a scorer.
I suspect someone else plays pg for Baylor next year.
|
|
Homyonkel
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/16 8:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
| Homyonkel wrote: |
"We never saw Uconn 'clear out' for Stewart like we did for Taurasi. She, Tuck and Jefferson shared the ball very well. For that reason it will be easier for next year's team to play without Stewart than it was for the 2005 team to play without Taurasi."
The problem is that it is not the loss of Stewart that the 2017 team has to overcome. It's the loss of Jefferson, Stewart and Tuck. |
You are right about the loss of total talent being greater but I would say that the talent in 2017 is greater than that of 2005. And further, Taurasi's influence went past her talent. Her personality and leadership was greater than any of the three who graduated. She dominated the spirit of her teams in 2003 & 2004. She left a huge vacuum behind her. There was no room for any other leader but Diana those two years. What I remember from 2005 was watching UConn pass the ball around with no one willing to take a shot. They kept looking for Diana. I don't see Samuelson, Collier Williams and Nurse lacking aggressiveness or being reluctant to take an open shot. Sure, they won't be mistaken for the 2016 team but then which 2017 program will? |
And I agree with you that the 2017 talent is greater than 2006. And that Taurasi's importance went beyond her abilities. But - the loss of the big 3, offensively and DEFENSIVELY, imo, supersedes it.
I think predictions made now for next season are mostly desires. I'd like to see how (and who) the usual suspects play. At this point I don't see UCONN winning their 12th. Right now I'm hoping for the EE. 2018, however, is another story. A senior and junior laden team with a (hopefully) matured point guard could be nearly as unstoppable as today. That's mostly a prediction and partly wishful thinking.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15740
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/23/16 1:25 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| blackrain wrote: |
| The polls are a joke. Baylor played a very weak out of conference schedule and kept their excellent ranking until they started their conference games.. |
.....during which they MAINTAINED their excellent ranking.
A 'very weak' out of conference schedule is hardly accurate: in their pre-season, they played USF, MSU, and MIA, all ranked--DePaul and JMU, also. Their loss in the EE was a very close one that could have gone either way, and then? BOOM. Baylor would have been a FF contender.
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| Phil wrote: |
My problem is that my immediate reaction to several is "too low"
With the exception of UConn, none struck me immediately as "too high". |
I, myself, am not so sure about Louisville at #2, and I'm also not convinced about Oklahoma at #14, or NC State being ranked at all. I think those 3 teams may be too high. But what do I know? |
L'ville, I don't believe, can sustain a ranking like that. Oklahoma will surprise me if they don't end up 14 or higher before mid-season. They lost one good player at the 5. Period. They have 2 decent Juniors to take over, plus a 6'9" freshman. All guards are back. I think they'll be doing some rippin'.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
|
|
