|
|
Post by 411500 on Aug 18, 2018 11:58:34 GMT -8
I'm house bound from forest fire smoke. Damn.
So I'm using unexpected indoor time to hammer out a few basketball thoughts...
This is partly for the fun of it, and partly because I can't quite let go of the idea that coach MIGHT field a team this year with no post player.
Yes, I know it's not Rueck's style to play without a post - preferably a dominant one...But he faces unique problems this season not the least of which is he has 7 very good players who are not post players, and 3 post players who, as of now, don't appear to be nearly as skilled at their position as the other 7 are at theirs'.
So, what if after two months (say December) Coach concludes he doesn't have a strong post player?
What does he do?
Here we go !!
First: coach has what looks like 7 prime time players lacing up this year: Goodman, Corosdale, Slocum, Tudor, Pivec, McWilliams and Simmons. Assuming the truth of this, what's a coach to do?
How to maximize the productivity of 7 quality players none of whom have post credentials, or post size?
Option one: March out a starting 5 of McW, Pivec, Tudor, Corosdale and Slocum.
This allows Goodman and Simmons to come in off the bench...All 7 players see the floor and these 7 get the lion's share of floor time....8th player could be one of the expected Posts (AA, PM, or Jo).
Few coaches use a 9 player rotation; coach R has never done it to my memory, so he is probably OK with an 8 player rotation.
Option Two: Use the same starting 5 listed above - with Thropay being the 6th player. She would share time with the 3 rebounders in this lineup - Pivec, Corosdale & McW. Goodman and Simmons would be 7th & 8th players....No post players get floor time.
Advantages to Options One & Two: Gets 5 really good basketball players on the floor at the same time. Lots of team speed in this lineup; lots of scoring power from everywhere on the floor except the low post; an impressive balance of dangerous scorers; great perimeter skills on offence and defence; all players in this lineup have excellent passing skills; perfect lineup for pressure D, fast break, and motion offense.
Disadvantages to Option One & Two:
Where's the beef? Where's the height? Where's the shot blockers? Where's the player who can defend opponents with good, big post players?
All good questions. Answer: Don't have one. Maybe UCLA 1965 (unfair). Maybe Miller's Payton team with tallest player at 6'6. Point is it can be done. But your 5 non-post players have to be damn good.
Back to the beginning. It's conjecture and speculation.
On the other hand, it's speculation that is more sensible than first meets the eye...
Pivec, McWilliams and Corosdale would make an impressive trio of rebounders, they all play good D and they all have excellent foot speed in the post area.
I think points gained from increased team speed and increased team shooting can offset points lost from playing without a post player. Especially when she is not a STRONG post player.
Now, let's see. What did I leave out !!🏀😎
GO BEAVS !!
|
|
|
|
Post by believeinthebeavs on Aug 18, 2018 12:29:50 GMT -8
I've been thinking for a while now that it would be interesting to have TC and KtMac playing high post on either side of the key. I'm not sure how that would work out but it could prove problematic to opposing teams. Our maybe put Taya at the low post and KtMac at the high post.
I like the idea of using JT more this year. Especially against physical opponents. She has a solid base and is strong enough to give as much as she gets. Only downfall is a lack of height.
But I think that Jo will get the start. Rueck's system is built around a true post player and I'm not sure he is going to change that. I expect Jo to be much improved this year, much like happened to Kolby and Bre a couple years ago. There were major improvements to Ruth and Marie's game every year as well.
If by the first of the year he is starting AA or PM. As long as it is not due to injury it will be a good thing. It will indicate that at least one of the freshmen has improved dramatically.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2018 12:54:04 GMT -8
TC and KM averaged around just 4 rpg while Pivec averaged 7 rpg, so I personally wouldn't describe either TC or KM as strong rebounders. If that pattern holds up, then rebounding will be a major problem without some help. Grymek's height allowed her about 10 rpg if you extrapolate her minutes to TC's and KM's minutes. The conclusion is that even a relatively unskilled but tall post player can be a strong contributor in rebounding. So I would be very surprised if we don't have at least one of our bigs playing to shore up that one glaring weakness. If that post can bring along some shotblocking and offense then that just solidifies her spot.
|
|
|
|
Post by 411500 on Aug 18, 2018 15:10:41 GMT -8
thickhead - just a minor point here - one you're probably already aware of....
With regard to TC & KMac not being strong rebounders...
Assignments and alignments greatly influence rebounding numbers.
TC & Mac did not consistently crash the boards last season. They did, of course, when they were in the 8 foot radius - but otherwise not so much.
When defensive alignments turn them into designated rebounders their numbers will go up. Considerably.
The reason I believe they will be strong rebounders is because they have the length, the arms and the springs essential to good rebounding. Not much bulk, however. They're not Gulich nor Bre Brown, but they have what it takes to get the job done. They are basketball savvy and they are bb quick.
Their numbers from last year do not influence my assessment of what I believe they can do next season when their designated assignments are altered by Coach.
I agree that Jo would likely out rebound either of them per minute played - but to get those rebounds Coach would sacrifice quite a bit of team speed, quite a bit of passing proficiency, and a reduced number of defensive sets he can run because Jo doesn't roam very well. On most cost-reward schemes Jo doesn't score well.
Her limitations are further accentuated when she has 4 fast moving, good shooting teammates who require a crisp passing post player to maximize their game and their productivity.
GO BEAVS !!
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Aug 18, 2018 15:36:57 GMT -8
I'm house bound from forest fire smoke. Damn. So I'm using unexpected indoor time to hammer out a few basketball thoughts... This is partly for the fun of it, and partly because I can't quite let go of the idea that coach MIGHT field a team this year with no post player. Yes, I know it's not Rueck's style to play without a post - preferably a dominant one...But he faces unique problems this season not the least of which is he has 7 very good players who are not post players, and 3 post players who, as of now, don't appear to be nearly as skilled at their position as the other 7 are at theirs'. So, what if after two months (say December) Coach concludes he doesn't have a strong post player? What does he do? Here we go !! First: coach has what looks like 7 prime time players lacing up this year: Goodman, Corosdale, Slocum, Tudor, Pivec, McWilliams and Simmons. Assuming the truth of this, what's a coach to do? How to maximize the productivity of 7 quality players none of whom have post credentials, or post size? Option one: March out a starting 5 of McW, Pivec, Tudor, Corosdale and Slocum. This allows Goodman and Simmons to come in off the bench...All 7 players see the floor and these 7 get the lion's share of floor time....8th player could be one of the expected Posts (AA, PM, or Jo). Few coaches use a 9 player rotation; coach R has never done it to my memory, so he is probably OK with an 8 player rotation. Option Two: Use the same starting 5 listed above - with Thropay being the 6th player. She would share time with the 3 rebounders in this lineup - Pivec, Corosdale & McW. Goodman and Simmons would be 7th & 8th players....No post players get floor time. Advantages to Options One & Two: Gets 5 really good basketball players on the floor at the same time. Lots of team speed in this lineup; lots of scoring power from everywhere on the floor except the low post; an impressive balance of dangerous scorers; great perimeter skills on offence and defence; all players in this lineup have excellent passing skills; perfect lineup for pressure D, fast break, and motion offense. Disadvantages to Option One & Two: Where's the beef? Where's the height? Where's the shot blockers? Where's the player who can defend opponents with good, big post players? All good questions. Answer: Don't have one. Maybe UCLA 1965 (unfair). Maybe Miller's Payton team with tallest player at 6'6. Point is it can be done. But your 5 non-post players have to be damn good. Back to the beginning. It's conjecture and speculation. On the other hand, it's speculation that is more sensible than first meets the eye... Pivec, McWilliams and Corosdale would make an impressive trio of rebounders, they all play good D and they all have excellent foot speed in the post area. I think points gained from increased team speed and increased team shooting can offset points lost from playing without a post player. Especially when she is not a STRONG post player. Now, let's see. What did I leave out !!🏀😎 GO BEAVS !! Why Thropay over Washington? Madison appears to have been more productive with her minutes to date than Janessa has. |
|
|
|
Post by jegerklog on Aug 18, 2018 16:37:08 GMT -8
I wondered about shuffling back and forth between a taller lineup and a shorter faster lineup to keep the opponent off guard. Or would that be equally confusing for the Beavers especially for the newer players trying to learn a complicated defense?
|
|
|
|
Post by ricke71 on Aug 18, 2018 16:54:12 GMT -8
I'm house bound from forest fire smoke. Damn. So I'm using unexpected indoor time to hammer out a few basketball . What did I leave out !!🏀😎 GO BEAVS !! Why Thropay over Washington? Madison appears to have been more productive with her minutes to date than Janessa has. . Totally. Both Thorplay and Washington play a bit ‘stiff’, but I’d give Madison an edge. |
|
|
|
Post by believeinthebeavs on Aug 18, 2018 17:11:13 GMT -8
Why Thropay over Washington? Madison appears to have been more productive with her minutes to date than Janessa has. . Totally. Both Thorplay and Washington play a bit ‘stiff’, but I’d give Madison an edge. They don't play the same positions. JT is a short, but stout, 5. She can and will bang bodies down low. So far she had been completely unable to find her shot. I see her use as someone to be physical against a physical post. Let her trade fouls. MW is s small 4. Early last season she was able to feed The Germ the ball up high and away from the defenders. Once she lost the starting job she wasn't as successful on the fewer attempts she made. While she has made some shots, her consistency is very poor. She does bring a lot of energy that spreads to the others. While neither have found their potential, it took Kolby and Bre a few years to find theirs. I have no reason to think that Rueck and staff can't repeat that success. Rueck and his staff have a way of getting their players to rise the occasion presented to them. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Aug 18, 2018 18:45:48 GMT -8
. Totally. Both Thorplay and Washington play a bit ‘stiff’, but I’d give Madison an edge. They don't play the same positions. JT is a short, but stout, 5. She can and will bang bodies down low. So far she had been completely unable to find her shot. I see her use as someone to be physical against a physical post. Let her trade fouls. MW is s small 4. Early last season she was able to feed The Germ the ball up high and away from the defenders. Once she lost the starting job she wasn't as successful on the fewer attempts she made. While she has made some shots, her consistency is very poor. She does bring a lot of energy that spreads to the others. While neither have found their potential, it took Kolby and Bre a few years to find theirs. I have no reason to think that Rueck and staff can't repeat that success. Rueck and his staff have a way of getting their players to rise the occasion presented to them. Thropay is a 5? I doubt she’ll see any time at center this season. BTW Janessa is 6’-2” and Madison is 6’-1” and to my eyes Madison looks like the stronger and faster of the two. |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Aug 18, 2018 19:08:24 GMT -8
Yes, J-Thro is a 5. She rarely played anything else. And I think bitb has it exactly right - she'll get her minutes by bodying up inside. And she will get minutes - I won't be surprised if she gets a few starts - because sometimes Jo or PM aren't going to give us the right matchup.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Aug 18, 2018 21:32:25 GMT -8
Yes, J-Thro is a 5. She rarely played anything else. And I think bitb has it exactly right - she'll get her minutes by bodying up inside. And she will get minutes - I won't be surprised if she gets a few starts - because sometimes Jo or PM aren't going to give us the right matchup. Don't think either will see many minutes the next two years. Unless something changes in their demeanor they just do not have the tenacity of Bre, Orum, Deven, or even Siegner on D or the boards. And really the offense is like 4 on 5 when either is on the court. If the young posts develop at all their size alone provides more upside... |
|
|
|
Post by beaverwbb fan on Aug 19, 2018 5:46:40 GMT -8
It will definitely be exciting to see what starting lineup(s) Rueck employs this year. There will be games where we possibly can use the lineup of DS, KT, MP, KM, and TC, but what about if we see a team like Baylor (which wouldn’t be until tournament time) or Notre Dame. I think a true post will emerge at some point throughout the season. I think it might not necessarily come down to what post can score for us, but rebounding and post defense will be what we really need from them.
|
|
|
|
Post by newduke2 on Aug 19, 2018 6:08:43 GMT -8
One thing I think is fairly certain, without much separation between JG, AA, and PM, the beaver post players can/could play some rugged defense with a lot of fouls to give.
|
|
|
|
Post by lotrader on Aug 19, 2018 6:41:38 GMT -8
Maddie Washington can play defense, and, rebound. Where MW needs to improve is her 15 feet and in shooting. This past season, on numerous occasions, MW was left wide open and either hesitated to shoot, or, flat out missed wide open jumpers. MW also needs to learn how to go to her left. Her favorite (only) move was a ball fake and dribble to her right. MW can be a HUGE contributor next year if she can improve her offensive game. MW is a decent defender and rebounder. MW will get minutes if she has improved her offensive skills over the off season.
|
|
2ndGenBeaver
Sophomore
Posts: 1,837 
Grad Year: 1991 (MS/CS) 1999 (PhD/CS)
|
Post by 2ndGenBeaver on Aug 19, 2018 20:26:12 GMT -8
I think SR teams since Ruth came on board have been built around a tall-ish post player, if not for scoring than for rebounding, shot blocking/altering and to patrol the paint. He has always had some 6'5"+ posts down low (Ruth, Marie, Bre) along with some 6'2"+ forwards (Deven, Kolbie, Sam, JT, Taya, etc) that both make the opposing teams shots in the paint difficult, provide rebounding, and clean up close in. Then he adds very capable guards that can hit 3s at a 40%-ish clip, and you have a volume of inside-out or outside-in plays. Bonus for rebounding guards (Jamie, Mik), and "tweeners". Now he adds a slasher and a dynamic point to the mix.....
I don't think he changes dramatically. I believe AA was the #6 ranked player and #2 post for a reason, and just because Ribet couldn't figure out what to do with her that SR won't. If Jazz can be a rebounder of the sort the Jamie was and Mik is, and a fierce defender, she will find a few minutes. PM is more of a question mark, but both her athleticism and smarts should see her get a bit of time. I keep expecting JT to break out (has athleticism, played VB, has good size) but would not surprised if it takes another season. MW might find her way back to how she started the season. I think with his three bigs of the Ruth/Marie size, we will be uptempo with plenty of subbing in the paint, where Jo will get the 20 min/game unless one of the newbies displace her......I also think SR will have to invest in the new posts finding their way early on, so they will get the minutes, because Jo is a senior. Back court is going to be different, and I think we will see lots of experimentation early, but there is just too much talent and only so many minutes. I think Kalmer did the math and did not see her minutes increasing.......
I think it is easier for SR to keep a similar playbook but go deeper in terms of rotation and bench than it is to remake the team for small ball. But if Janessa and/or Maddie make the "Kolbie leap" and improve dramatically, small ball could look real attractive. I am just thinking the quality of our recruits is improving dramatically, and look how prominent in the rotation Mik and Taya figured, so why should we expect less from AA and JS (similarly highly ranked)?
We will find out soon.....
Go Beavers!
|
|
