|
|
Post by beaverwbb fan on Sept 2, 2019 9:58:04 GMT -8
It's weird that most are making so many specific projections from four games vs far inferior talent. Those teams lose to AAU and upper level US high school teams. It remains to be seen if the "knowns" will exceed or equal past production, and how Kat returns. But, this season is much like last and every other... the need for a multi dimensional team. Even without Kat and superior post play this team went further than some expected. I believe the top of the Pac12 is deeper and stronger than last year, hence equal (better if Kat returns to form) production from the outside and better post play is a must. The frosh combined will have to give at OSU more than last season's post play. At this point the soph posts are a "bust" in terms of expecting quality contributions. Anything PM gives will be a huge plus. But having 3 bigs, 15 fouls, different skill sets will help the interior game. MW has never been a threat outside if 8ft, I don't care where she played in HS. Thropay is not a Pac12 post. Both will have limited successes in short spurts, but neither are the key to a top 3 Pac12 finish. It's the same story, different cast... can OSU find an interior game to compliment their exterior presence? Italy was an "excuse" for team building, and better than scrimmaging vs themselves. But no answers will be had until mid December. So its a crime to call a coach a bust a game into year 2, but you can call a player a bust zero games into year 2? nice. |
|
|
|
Post by jegerklog on Sept 2, 2019 10:24:39 GMT -8
I agree with baseball1111 general assessment and that any projections thus far are very questionable. That includes baseball1111's "bust" comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by 411500 on Sept 2, 2019 10:29:59 GMT -8
baseba1111: I think you make some interesting points about this team, but you sure have a weird way of delivering them. It seems to me that you made several different points.
Your first point that the opponents in Italy were of lesser talent. Yeh, this is pretty much agreed upon by everyone on this board, at least as near as I can tell.
Your second point seems to be that it is not established that the returning players, the "knowns", will exceed or equal their past performance.
Well yeh. Of course it remains to be seen if what is to be seen takes place in the future!! Really, it seems that point is not so much an insight as a given.
Your third point is that the Frosh post players will have to provide as much or more production than we had last year for the team to show improvement. OK, I can go with that. Although it does not rank as a great insight to point out that the new players need to be as productive as the players they are replacing.
Your fourth point is that MW & JT are likely not going to be key to a top 3 Pac12 finish. OK, I can go with that. They probably will both see fairly limited minutes once January gets here. Though MW has a lot going for her. She was a starter last year on a Sweet 16 team so that carries some weight.
Your fifth point: No answers will be had until mid-December. OK, I can go with that..Although I suppose you could equally say no answers will be had until after March Madness! Of course the answers are not here yet. That's why we speculate and predict.
At any rate, to me it seems that your ideas about the team are pretty solid. But it also seems to me that your ability to express them in a coherent fashion sure could use some work.
GO BEAVS !!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2019 11:15:27 GMT -8
Your fifth point: No answers will be had until mid-December. OK, I can go with that..Although I suppose you could equally say no answers will be had until after March Madness! Of course the answers are not here yet. That's why we speculate and predict. I have to disagree. Yes, the competition in Italy was not great, but the performance of Taylor Jones was already sufficient to assure us of an upgrade at center. Assuming she stays healthy, we have a guaranteed huge upgrade at that position: She anticipates on defense, she is highly mobile, she can catch a pass while charging the basket and hit the layup, she has moves around the basket, her length is highly disruptive on defense as she gets her hands on lots of balls. Nobody in their right mind can say she is not an immediate upgrade at center. That's a given. And look at Mitrovic: If she can get back to the level of physicality that she played with in her videos, it will take ZERO "time to learn the offense" for her to be a vast improvement at that position, too. She's got great hands, is a great passer, and has basketball smarts and moves, and last year our guards were AFRAID of attempting a pass to a wide-open Grymek because of the high probability of her fumbling it away. IF we get both Taylor and Jelena as options in the post, then this team is vastly improved over last season. Get Brown and Tudor contributing, and it's a no-brainer. So we have SOME "answers". We don't need to wait until December. We WILL need to wait for a while to see if this team is of NC caliber, but there's no question at all about whether they will be much better than last year. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Sept 2, 2019 11:27:30 GMT -8
It's weird that most are making so many specific projections from four games vs far inferior talent. Those teams lose to AAU and upper level US high school teams. It remains to be seen if the "knowns" will exceed or equal past production, and how Kat returns. But, this season is much like last and every other... the need for a multi dimensional team. Even without Kat and superior post play this team went further than some expected. I believe the top of the Pac12 is deeper and stronger than last year, hence equal (better if Kat returns to form) production from the outside and better post play is a must. The frosh combined will have to give at OSU more than last season's post play. At this point the soph posts are a "bust" in terms of expecting quality contributions. Anything PM gives will be a huge plus. But having 3 bigs, 15 fouls, different skill sets will help the interior game. MW has never been a threat outside if 8ft, I don't care where she played in HS. Thropay is not a Pac12 post. Both will have limited successes in short spurts, but neither are the key to a top 3 Pac12 finish. It's the same story, different cast... can OSU find an interior game to compliment their exterior presence? Italy was an "excuse" for team building, and better than scrimmaging vs themselves. But no answers will be had until mid December. So its a crime to call a coach a bust a game into year 2, but you can call a player a bust zero games into year 2? nice. "Bust" in quotes... highly interpretative. Point being the frosh are FAR superior to PM, AA has never seen the floor... hence as of right now that class is very, very poor. Could one blossom, the other actually play? Sure. But, that's a huge assumption. And, the funny thing, fans seen to think only their players will make those jumps. Second, your analogy of player to coach in year two is complete hogwash. Coaches stee responsible for an entire program... staff, players, training of both, implementation, administrative duties. Players basically are responsible for themselves. So, just in case you haven't noticed, it's far easier for a player to significantly improve vs an entire program. Especially one 6,7,8 times the size of WBB, that requires multiple more gifted players on two different teams to improve. Disagree of you'd like, but at least make an astute analogy. |
|
|
|
Post by lotrader on Sept 2, 2019 11:34:12 GMT -8
Agree with Thickhead 100%, already a vast improvement in the middle with Taylor Jones--a no brainer. And very impressed with Kennedy Brown. Both are going to take minutes at the 4/5. Jas was the Italy tour surprise. If Jas plays with the same confidence when OSU gets into pre-season, Beavs improve from last year. And barring injuries, getting Kat Tudor healthy and productive makes OSU a formidable opponent to any NCAA WBB Team this upcoming season.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverwbb fan on Sept 2, 2019 11:59:53 GMT -8
So its a crime to call a coach a bust a game into year 2, but you can call a player a bust zero games into year 2? nice. "Bust" in quotes... highly interpretative. Point being the frosh are FAR superior to PM, AA has never seen the floor... hence as of right now that class is very, very poor. Could one blossom, the other actually play? Sure. But, that's a huge assumption. And, the funny thing, fans seen to think only their players will make those jumps. Second, your analogy of player to coach in year two is complete hogwash. Coaches stee responsible for an entire program... staff, players, training of both, implementation, administrative duties. Players basically are responsible for themselves. So, just in case you haven't noticed, it's far easier for a player to significantly improve vs an entire program. Especially one 6,7,8 times the size of WBB, that requires multiple more gifted players on two different teams to improve. Disagree of you'd like, but at least make an astute analogy. Everyone pretty much knew it would take multiple years for Trish to develop. She came in extremely raw, and didn't have a whole lot of highly competitive basketball experience. I would expect a center, who was at one point ranked #1 center in the country, to be better even if she is a year younger. My point is much like saying it is too early to call a coach who has had one awful year and another bad loss a bust, it is too early to consider a player who has played one year of college basketball a bust. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Sept 2, 2019 12:18:48 GMT -8
"Bust" in quotes... highly interpretative. Point being the frosh are FAR superior to PM, AA has never seen the floor... hence as of right now that class is very, very poor. Could one blossom, the other actually play? Sure. But, that's a huge assumption. And, the funny thing, fans seen to think only their players will make those jumps. Second, your analogy of player to coach in year two is complete hogwash. Coaches stee responsible for an entire program... staff, players, training of both, implementation, administrative duties. Players basically are responsible for themselves. So, just in case you haven't noticed, it's far easier for a player to significantly improve vs an entire program. Especially one 6,7,8 times the size of WBB, that requires multiple more gifted players on two different teams to improve. Disagree of you'd like, but at least make an astute analogy. Everyone pretty much knew it would take multiple years for Trish to develop. She came in extremely raw, and didn't have a whole lot of highly competitive basketball experience. I would expect a center, who was at one point ranked #1 center in the country, to be better even if she is a year younger. My point is much like saying it is too early to call a coach who has had one awful year and another bad loss a bust, it is too early to consider a player who has played one year of college basketball a bust. "Everyone"? Most had high expectations for PM and expected far more than she performed. She did not come in as a project. You might revisit your own posts on that class. And, you again ignore "interpretation"... if the incoming class has already far surpassed you even against inferior competition, PM has not shown the promise people/ most projected. You use "bust" however you want, but you continually ignore that the analogy is bogus between coach and player. And... that my interpretation of "bust" is not permanent... as previously mentioned. So... back to the point, the 2018 class to this point is indeed a "bust" when compared to the 2019 frosh. Be offended, or whatever you are, but we've had plenty of players fizzle in the SR era. It's part of recruiting, they don't all work out. |
|
|
|
Post by jegerklog on Sept 2, 2019 12:21:31 GMT -8
I agree completely with beaverwbb fan's short insightful analysis of Trish. My concern is that she badly needs experience and thus needs a lot of playing time, which she may not get. She is a favorite of mine but of course that will not help her get playing time. I hope she is not doomed.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Sept 2, 2019 12:30:09 GMT -8
I agree completely with your short insightful analysis of Trish. My concern is that she badly needs experience and thus needs a lot of playing time, which she may not get. She is a favorite of mine but of course that will not help her get playing time. I hope she is not doomed. But then I should not be putting too much stock in the Italy trip. Kids I tutor had her in several classes. Absolutely loved her... everything about her. Of course one was a 19 y/o Male, so 6'7", funny, smart, "gorgeous"... he was a bit bias! 😉 Despite WBB "anger" I like her, but she wasn't as advertised. I hoped for lots of preseason minutes during all the blow outs for some quick development. Alas the staff didn't see her in that light. If she wasn't getting more PT even in those games there was a reason. I still see her as a struggling frosh even after a year in the program. If she could RS it'd be a huge benefit to her. IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverwbb fan on Sept 2, 2019 13:13:56 GMT -8
Everyone pretty much knew it would take multiple years for Trish to develop. She came in extremely raw, and didn't have a whole lot of highly competitive basketball experience. I would expect a center, who was at one point ranked #1 center in the country, to be better even if she is a year younger. My point is much like saying it is too early to call a coach who has had one awful year and another bad loss a bust, it is too early to consider a player who has played one year of college basketball a bust. "Everyone"? Most had high expectations for PM and expected far more than she performed. She did not come in as a project. You might revisit your own posts on that class. And, you again ignore "interpretation"... if the incoming class has already far surpassed you even against inferior competition, PM has not shown the promise people/ most projected. You use "bust" however you want, but you continually ignore that the analogy is bogus between coach and player. And... that my interpretation of "bust" is not permanent... as previously mentioned. So... back to the point, the 2018 class to this point is indeed a "bust" when compared to the 2019 frosh. Be offended, or whatever you are, but we've had plenty of players fizzle in the SR era. It's part of recruiting, they don't all work out. I'll be the first to admit that I had high hopes that Trish was a 6-7 diamond in the rough who was developed and ready to contribute in the Pac-12. Did I deep down think it was likely? No, I did not. It generally takes time for post players to develop, which is why you see a lot of freshman posts even 5-stars (see Nelson-Ododa or Collier) having minimal impact for their team. Trish, at least in my mind, certainly came in as a project. Is there anything that made you think she didn't? Her sole evaluation from HoopGurlz (from a pro evaluator) used words like "emerging" and "potential", both of which are words that indicate she was certainly a project. Rueck took her because she has solid athleticism for 6-7, and he and his staff have a great track record of developing posts who have come in not ready. I don't think anyone here, with the exception of you, would say she didn't come in as a project. I personally would expect a 5* freshman to be better than a 3* sophomore who received barely any minutes, but I may be a minority there. So, as I would have expected, it appeared that Jones and Brown were ahead of Trish in Italy -- and to me, that doesn't make Trish a bust, it just means that she will continue to develop and work on her game. I will continue to use my analogy of saying that it doesn't make sense to call someone a bust who has played or coaches just one season. Bust is also not a word that is temporary, so it intrigues me that you added that component to it...but do you. When a top-20 class outperforms a non top-20 class, I'm personally not surprised, but it doesn't make me think of one as a bust. A bust typically comes with some form of high ranking or expectation, and doesn't live up to it. Trish didn't come with either, and she still has time to exceed her ranking. Now if AA or Kennedy was averaging 3 PPG and 3 RPG as a senior...thats when you use bust. |
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Sept 2, 2019 14:39:17 GMT -8
This year's team is going to be more athletic and more versatile at the post position than last year's team. This year's team is going to be bigger and deeper in the frontcourt than last year's team. But this year's team is going to be relying on freshmen to accomplish that, whereas last year's team didn't draw very much from its freshmen.
If our freshmen can hit the ground running, we're going to be a decidedly better team than last year's - and they weren't chopped liver.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Sept 2, 2019 17:27:12 GMT -8
"Everyone"? Most had high expectations for PM and expected far more than she performed. She did not come in as a project. You might revisit your own posts on that class. And, you again ignore "interpretation"... if the incoming class has already far surpassed you even against inferior competition, PM has not shown the promise people/ most projected. You use "bust" however you want, but you continually ignore that the analogy is bogus between coach and player. And... that my interpretation of "bust" is not permanent... as previously mentioned. So... back to the point, the 2018 class to this point is indeed a "bust" when compared to the 2019 frosh. Be offended, or whatever you are, but we've had plenty of players fizzle in the SR era. It's part of recruiting, they don't all work out. I'll be the first to admit that I had high hopes that Trish was a 6-7 diamond in the rough who was developed and ready to contribute in the Pac-12. Did I deep down think it was likely? No, I did not. It generally takes time for post players to develop, which is why you see a lot of freshman posts even 5-stars (see Nelson-Ododa or Collier) having minimal impact for their team. Trish, at least in my mind, certainly came in as a project. Is there anything that made you think she didn't? Her sole evaluation from HoopGurlz (from a pro evaluator) used words like "emerging" and "potential", both of which are words that indicate she was certainly a project. Rueck took her because she has solid athleticism for 6-7, and he and his staff have a great track record of developing posts who have come in not ready. I don't think anyone here, with the exception of you, would say she didn't come in as a project. I personally would expect a 5* freshman to be better than a 3* sophomore who received barely any minutes, but I may be a minority there. So, as I would have expected, it appeared that Jones and Brown were ahead of Trish in Italy -- and to me, that doesn't make Trish a bust, it just means that she will continue to develop and work on her game. I will continue to use my analogy of saying that it doesn't make sense to call someone a bust who has played or coaches just one season. Bust is also not a word that is temporary, so it intrigues me that you added that component to it...but do you. When a top-20 class outperforms a non top-20 class, I'm personally not surprised, but it doesn't make me think of one as a bust. A bust typically comes with some form of high ranking or expectation, and doesn't live up to it. Trish didn't come with either, and she still has time to exceed her ranking. Now if AA or Kennedy was averaging 3 PPG and 3 RPG as a senior...thats when you use bust. Ha... you have quite the habit of a couple of other posters in that you disregard context of posts and ignore other tidbits that don't fit your narrative. I don't need to defend my opinion and the current facts are pretty clear. That's what I base my judgment, not random tinted hopes. I also made no secret that PM could indeed show huge improvement... again as mentioned at least twice above. And... AGAIN... the main point of the initial post... the praise (or any poor game) of the play in Italy leading to the extrapolations on how ANY player will perform this season against much better competition is a complete fool's errand. The frosh played better teams in AAU ball. PS- bust is a very subjective term. For a similar BS type analogy... I just saw a movie that was 91% on Rotten Tomatoes, it was a "bust" to me. It doesn't and never will mean a career. Which of course you know as your analogy used a 1 year/1 game timeline. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2019 18:33:31 GMT -8
And... AGAIN... the main point of the initial post... the praise (or any poor game) of the play in Italy leading to the extrapolations on how ANY player will perform this season against much better competition is a complete fool's errand. The frosh played better teams in AAU ball. You are so right. No individual, no matter how discerning, is capable of extrapolating from a player's high school days to how they will play in college if in HS they consistently play against inferior competition. For instance, Taylor Jones consistently played against inferior opponents, so scouts have essentially no basis for judging her worth as a college player. They might just a well throw darts at a list of players' names. Yes, "extapolations ... are a fool's errand". I don't think we should ever have scouted Taylor because there was nothing to be learned from watching her games. We should only scout players who play against good competition, since their games are the only ones from which extrapolations might reasonably be drawn with any degree of sureness. You have nailed it, sir. |
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Sept 2, 2019 18:56:59 GMT -8
I'll be the first to admit that I had high hopes that Trish was a 6-7 diamond in the rough who was developed and ready to contribute in the Pac-12. Did I deep down think it was likely? No, I did not. It generally takes time for post players to develop, which is why you see a lot of freshman posts even 5-stars (see Nelson-Ododa or Collier) having minimal impact for their team. Trish, at least in my mind, certainly came in as a project. Is there anything that made you think she didn't? Her sole evaluation from HoopGurlz (from a pro evaluator) used words like "emerging" and "potential", both of which are words that indicate she was certainly a project. Rueck took her because she has solid athleticism for 6-7, and he and his staff have a great track record of developing posts who have come in not ready. I don't think anyone here, with the exception of you, would say she didn't come in as a project. I personally would expect a 5* freshman to be better than a 3* sophomore who received barely any minutes, but I may be a minority there. So, as I would have expected, it appeared that Jones and Brown were ahead of Trish in Italy -- and to me, that doesn't make Trish a bust, it just means that she will continue to develop and work on her game. I will continue to use my analogy of saying that it doesn't make sense to call someone a bust who has played or coaches just one season. Bust is also not a word that is temporary, so it intrigues me that you added that component to it...but do you. When a top-20 class outperforms a non top-20 class, I'm personally not surprised, but it doesn't make me think of one as a bust. A bust typically comes with some form of high ranking or expectation, and doesn't live up to it. Trish didn't come with either, and she still has time to exceed her ranking. Now if AA or Kennedy was averaging 3 PPG and 3 RPG as a senior...thats when you use bust. Ha... you have quite the habit of a couple of other posters in that you disregard context of posts and ignore other tidbits that don't fit your narrative. I don't need to defend my opinion and the current facts are pretty clear. That's what I base my judgment, not random tinted hopes. I also made no secret that PM could indeed show huge improvement... again as mentioned at least twice above. And... AGAIN... the main point of the initial post... the praise (or any poor game) of the play in Italy leading to the extrapolations on how ANY player will perform this season against much better competition is a complete fool's errand. The frosh played better teams in AAU ball. PS- bust is a very subjective term. For a similar BS type analogy... I just saw a movie that was 91% on Rotten Tomatoes, it was a "bust" to me. It doesn't and never will mean a career. Which of course you know as your analogy used a 1 year/1 game timeline. Now that we know what "bust" means do you think he was just being a "boob"? |
|
