|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Feb 22, 2016 7:19:19 GMT -8
Not at all surprised we got our scoring primarily from our big 3. When Gabby, Devin and Marie combine to go 1/16 from the field someone has to take up the slack.
Starters are at top fitness and able to play extended minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 22, 2016 8:00:07 GMT -8
I will just say A W is better than a L. This game was an anomaly in many ways. Impressive in that we won at home shooting 37% with 18 to's and 10 missed FT's against a top 10 type team. UCLA will give teams fits with their athleticism.
OSU will not get away with who scored and how they played again this season and certainly looking at a NCAA collapse as a hosting #2 if they do play this way. Although they "pulled" out a W it was an ugly game by both teams. Jamie basically willed this team to a lead in the first half or it could have been ugly. You take away her 6 of 9 the rest were 5-21 on basically wide open shots. UCLA has superior athletic ability, maybe the most athletic team I've seen overall. Not sure their coaching is up to snuff. They mostly go 1-on-1 and look the part of an NBA offense, albeit most NBA teams get three times the assists (although everything seems to be an assist in the NBA) UCLA had... 5 the last time I looked at the board. Not sure Fields and Canada will go 12-36 if we have to play them again... and they had some wide open looks.
But, the Beavers made this a close game... I've never seen a team get more wide open looks and miss, especially early. Rueck had them so well scouted and the women were so precise in every aspect except hitting the shot... threes, point blank, you name it. I've never seen such a highly ranked and talented of team as UCLA not take advantage of a what, 4-16 shooting in the 1st. I believe there were 14 to's the first quarter combined. The Beavs ended with 18 I think and shot FTs poorly.
It seemed the moment got to both teams... senior night and trying to beat #1 team at home on Senior night. Both teams are much better and will probably not play that poorly again.
Go Beavs
|
|
|
|
Post by OSUprof on Feb 22, 2016 8:07:28 GMT -8
UCLA could not take advantage of our poor shooting because of the defense. The shooting wasn't there last night except for three players but everyone played leave nothing out there defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 22, 2016 8:18:06 GMT -8
UCLA could not take advantage of our poor shooting because of the defense. The shooting wasn't there last night except for three players but everyone played leave nothing out there defense. Sitting there in person... the D was great overall, most notably in transition. Gabby's D on Canada was mostly outstanding, but she was not on her on many switches and she had several wide open looks short mid-range to three. Fields had her way on drives in the 2nd half. UCLA averages 76pts/game for a reason and it's transition easy hoops as they only shoot 41% overall. UCLA's athletic ability gave them many open looks... they, like us did not finish well. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Feb 22, 2016 8:37:39 GMT -8
I will just say A W is better than a L. This game was an anomaly in many ways. Impressive in that we won at home shooting 37% with 18 to's and 10 missed FT's against a top 10 type team. UCLA will give teams fits with their athleticism. OSU will not get away with who scored and how they played again this season and certainly looking at a NCAA collapse as a hosting #2 if they do play this way. Although they "pulled" out a W it was an ugly game by both teams. Jamie basically willed this team to a lead in the first half or it could have been ugly. You take away her 6 of 9 the rest were 5-21 on basically wide open shots. UCLA has superior athletic ability, maybe the most athletic team I've seen overall. Not sure their coaching is up to snuff. They mostly go 1-on-1 and look the part of an NBA offense, albeit most NBA teams get three times the assists (although everything seems to be an assist in the NBA) UCLA had... 5 the last time I looked at the board. Not sure Fields and Canada will go 12-36 if we have to play them again... and they had some wide open looks. But, the Beavers made this a close game... I've never seen a team get more wide open looks and miss, especially early. Rueck had them so well scouted and the women were so precise in every aspect except hitting the shot... threes, point blank, you name it. I've never seen such a highly ranked and talented of team as UCLA not take advantage of a what, 4-16 shooting in the 1st. I believe there were 14 to's the first quarter combined. The Beavs ended with 18 I think and shot FTs poorly. It seemed the moment got to both teams... senior night and trying to beat #1 team at home on Senior night. Both teams are much better and will probably not play that poorly again. Go Beavs gloom doom gloom doom gloom doom. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 22, 2016 8:42:07 GMT -8
I will just say A W is better than a L. This game was an anomaly in many ways. Impressive in that we won at home shooting 37% with 18 to's and 10 missed FT's against a top 10 type team. UCLA will give teams fits with their athleticism. OSU will not get away with who scored and how they played again this season and certainly looking at a NCAA collapse as a hosting #2 if they do play this way. Although they "pulled" out a W it was an ugly game by both teams. Jamie basically willed this team to a lead in the first half or it could have been ugly. You take away her 6 of 9 the rest were 5-21 on basically wide open shots. UCLA has superior athletic ability, maybe the most athletic team I've seen overall. Not sure their coaching is up to snuff. They mostly go 1-on-1 and look the part of an NBA offense, albeit most NBA teams get three times the assists (although everything seems to be an assist in the NBA) UCLA had... 5 the last time I looked at the board. Not sure Fields and Canada will go 12-36 if we have to play them again... and they had some wide open looks. But, the Beavers made this a close game... I've never seen a team get more wide open looks and miss, especially early. Rueck had them so well scouted and the women were so precise in every aspect except hitting the shot... threes, point blank, you name it. I've never seen such a highly ranked and talented of team as UCLA not take advantage of a what, 4-16 shooting in the 1st. I believe there were 14 to's the first quarter combined. The Beavs ended with 18 I think and shot FTs poorly. It seemed the moment got to both teams... senior night and trying to beat #1 team at home on Senior night. Both teams are much better and will probably not play that poorly again. Go Beavs gloom doom gloom doom gloom doom. Hmmmm... see nothing but fact laced opinion and not a word about gloom or doom. Pretty basic fact that vs elite teams that type of performance will typically not cut it. But, then again 'pie in the sky' guy knows better. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Feb 22, 2016 9:03:55 GMT -8
gloom doom gloom doom gloom doom. Hmmmm... see nothing but fact laced opinion and not a word about gloom or doom. Pretty basic fact that vs elite teams that type of performance will typically not cut it. But, then again 'pie in the sky' guy knows better. I don't think anyone has any illusions about this team winning a national championship. It is a very good team. A Pac-12 conference championship caliber team. But in my opinion, NOT an NCAA final four or NCAA championship caliber team. Unless, like the NCSU or Villanova men in 83 and 85, they got all the breaks to fall their way.
It's just humorous to me that in the aftermath of a very important and decisive win against a very good oponent, some folks seem to view it in a negative light.
Some folks just can't enjoy prosperity. But that's no crime, there's no one way to be a fan.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 22, 2016 9:10:08 GMT -8
I actually attend games and enjoy them very much... doesn't mean I can't comment on the service after a great dinner!
|
|
|
|
Post by beavadelic on Feb 22, 2016 12:58:06 GMT -8
Baseball 1111 and I represent both ends of the spectrum when it comes to analyzing Beaver athletics. From what I have observed, it seems like maybe you are a coach 1111, and coaches often have a perfectionistic streak that is always looking at how to raise the level of play.
Although I've coached a fair amount at the junior level, you probably have done much more and at a higher level. I tend to fit my orange-colored glasses on pretty snugly and look for the silver lining. Baseball1111 would get labeled as a "Debbie downer" by some and a realist by others. I would be considered "myopic" by some and optimistic by others.
In the end, neither is "right". I'm glad that we don't have to take the same approach. I believe that we're both enormous and extremely loyal Beaver fans, and both want the same thing for our athletes. I see the same tendencies and flaws, but unless we totally tube it over time, I generally don't voice many criticisms. Drives my son nuts, because he's more like 1111!
|
|
|
|
Post by beavdowg on Feb 22, 2016 13:42:27 GMT -8
I actually attend games and enjoy them very much... doesn't mean I can't comment on the service after a great dinner! I have to say though, 1111, I never see anything but negativity coming from your posts. Really, I'm not sure I've seen even one. I don't discount your analysis but, even myself, as a bit of a pessimist and over-analyzer, only see negativity from you. Maybe you're just coming to this board as an analyzer but life is much happier and more blessings are brought to other's lives by some positivity once in a while. We won that game. Did we play our best?Nope. But, we beat a very good team. There's a reason opponents don't shoot well when they play us. It's not just that UCLA had a bad shooting day we play exceptional defense every game. By definition, a good defense will make it more difficult for an opponent to score. That's why they call it defense. Smile brother and enjoy this ride! Go Beavs! |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 22, 2016 15:21:06 GMT -8
And I come to the message board without reading in my own emotional slant to others' words. This is a message board NOT life. Mine is extremely happy... thank you.
Analyzing typically has more of a negative tilt. There is nothing close to perfection, so if you are analyzing without having to deal directly with the participants (in this case coaching) you do not have to play psychologist. The players and coaches themselves do the same self analyzing... all are extremely happy with the win, but know there is no room for 18 to's, poor free throw shooting, etc., if they plan on reaching their goals of a 2nd PAC12 championship, tourney title, and advancing in the dance.
So, you might follow you own 'negativity' advice and try not to to impugn a poster's life because of what you read into their post. I'm betting I smiled more than you writing my posts!? :>)
|
|
mrazz
Freshman
Posts: 104 
|
Post by mrazz on Feb 23, 2016 10:59:55 GMT -8
Half-empty or half-full? I was extremely happy after the final buzzer went off. It was a great game to watch, difficult at times, but great. I'm not going to take that win and ask, "how much wider the margin could have been with only half of the TOs?" That is like chanting "overrated" when you beat someone ranked higher than you. You are demeaning them, and thus yourself, while cheapening your own victory. UCLA is defensive machine! And so are we. They have three players they count on to shoot the lights out. So do we. Their shots fell in LA, they didn't here--I won't lay this at the feet of luck, more at the feet of Hanson, Hamblin and Hunter with big dose Weisner gone Wild. Our defense had a lot to do with their loss--just as their grabbing, tripping, pushing, punching excuse for a defense had a lot to do with our missed shots and turnovers. We had Wiese back for this game, didn't have her in LA. If you subtract 3 points for the home court advantage, I'd say she's worth 27 points!
We are still improving. The ladies seem to be having fun. Now let's go get Stanford!
|
|
