|
|
Post by newduke2 on Sept 4, 2019 15:36:34 GMT -8
ESPN's Way-Too-Early Preseason Top 25 just revised. www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/27530932/uconn-louisville-nc-state-way-too-early-preseason-top-25Two upgrades for the Pac-12: Oregon still No. 1, Stanford down 1 spot from 3rd to 4th, Oregon State remains No. 6, UCLA up 4 spots from 16th to 12th, and Arizona State up 2 from 19th to 17th. Oregon State getting a lot respect at No. 6, IMO. Pac-12 with 3 of the top 6 teams in the country! Beavers will play No. 22 Miami and may play No. 18 DePaul in the non-conference schedule. Some big movers like UCONN up 4 from 7th to 3rd, Louisville up 6 from 14th to 8th, Texas A&M down 5 from 5th to 10th, NC State up 10 from 25th to 15th, Michigan State down 12 from 13th to 25th, Syracuse from 10th to unranked. Big oversight: Not ranking Arizona which won the post-season NIT tournament. |
|
|
|
Post by nwhoopfan on Sept 4, 2019 16:14:17 GMT -8
Agree about Arizona.
I can't figure out why there is so much movement. Other than a key player getting injured or a transfer becoming immediately eligible, it makes no sense to have teams rising or dropping so much when NOBODY HAS PLAYED A GAME SINCE THE LAST too early poll. Is this an admission they think they totally screwed up their previous rankings?
|
|
|
|
Post by wbosh15 on Sept 4, 2019 16:29:46 GMT -8
Agree about Arizona. I can't figure out why there is so much movement. Other than a key player getting injured or a transfer becoming immediately eligible, it makes no sense to have teams rising or dropping so much when NOBODY HAS PLAYED A GAME SINCE THE LAST too early poll. Is this an admission they think they totally screwed up their previous rankings? Transfers, transfers, transfers.... |
|
|
|
Post by beaverwbb fan on Sept 4, 2019 17:41:56 GMT -8
Syracuse’s reason for moving from 10 to NR was star-PG Tiana Mangakahia was diagnosed with breast cancer.
I’m guessing UConn’s jump dealt with their grad-transfer and perhaps the assumption that Westbrook will be eligible.
Texas A&M’s drop makes zero sense to me.
South Carolina’s jump was due to Herbert-Harrigan pulling her name from the portal.
Notre Dame had two likely starters transfer out.
Louisville’s jump is likely because Elizabeth Balogun and Liz Dixon are likely to be eligible.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmancarl on Sept 4, 2019 19:07:26 GMT -8
I'll take a closer look over the next couple weeks, but if I'm a betting man, I'd pick Arizona to finish ahead of Arizona State this year. IMO, Oregon State deserves their ranking. The Beavs may not have the inside shooting from the post they had last season, but in just about every other area, they should be better than last year. I would expect Taya to make her biggest jump yet, they will be more athletic in the post, they should be better at shooting 3's, and most of the team will have a year or more of playing together. I expect Destiny to play much better in the system, and this team is probably deeper. I'm not sure we can expect more efficient numbers from Mik, because that is almost impossible, but this team boast two players (Mik and Destiny) that are on some of the boards to both be fist round draft picks next spring.
The bad news about this entire season, is that the ducks will probably be number one for much of the year.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Sept 4, 2019 19:31:46 GMT -8
"The bad news about this entire season, is that the ducks will probably be number one for much of the year" Bad news? Can you imagine how sweet it will be when the Beav's beat them the first time this season??
|
|
beavsteve
Freshman
Posts: 985 
Member is Online
|
Post by beavsteve on Sept 4, 2019 20:04:30 GMT -8
I'll take a closer look over the next couple weeks, but if I'm a betting man, I'd pick Arizona to finish ahead of Arizona State this year. IMO, Oregon State deserves their ranking. The Beavs may not have the inside shooting from the post they had last season, but in just about every other area, they should be better than last year. I would expect Taya to make her biggest jump yet, they will be more athletic in the post, they should be better at shooting 3's, and most of the team will have a year or more of playing together. I expect Destiny to play much better in the system, and this team is probably deeper. I'm not sure we can expect more efficient numbers from Mik, because that is almost impossible, but this team boast two players (Mik and Destiny) that are on some of the boards to both be fist round draft picks next spring. The bad news about this entire season, is that the ducks will probably be number one for much of the year. “The Beavs may not have the inside shooting from the post they had last season”... what “inside shooting” do you think was so good last year? I see no problem having better production inside than last year with the influx of new talent. |
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Sept 4, 2019 21:32:58 GMT -8
" what “inside shooting” do you think was so good last year?" 13th best shooting % in the country wasn't good enough for you? Only except number 1? Marie was only 7th best, would that be all right then? You need our post to be 7th best in the country before you are willing to give a nod of approval?
|
|
beavsteve
Freshman
Posts: 985
Member is Online
|
Post by beavsteve on Sept 4, 2019 21:57:23 GMT -8
" what “inside shooting” do you think was so good last year?" 13th best shooting % in the country wasn't good enough for you? Only except number 1? Marie was only 7th best, would that be all right then? You need our post to be 7th best in the country before you are willing to give a nod of approval? Our shooting percentage inside was nothing special when you consider that most of what we got were 1-2 foot shots under the basket. Grymek shot mid-60% numbers, but when you consider the kind of shots she got, that is not really unusual. It is not, as rmancarl suggested, difficult to replace. In fact, Trish, though on far fewer shots, shot a slightly better percentage. What matters is what kind of point production we can get inside the paint. With the new talent, we should be able to get the ball inside more often and shoot just as good, if not better, percentage. |
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Sept 4, 2019 23:16:13 GMT -8
Nothing special? There are 350 teams, with 10 players each, 3500 other women trying the same thing and Jo came in 13th. But it was nothing special??
|
|
|
|
Post by lotrader on Sept 5, 2019 3:51:32 GMT -8
Nothing special? There are 350 teams, with 10 players each, 3500 other women trying the same thing and Jo came in 13th. But it was nothing special?? We need more than scoring from the 5. We need rebounding, and, shot blocking, shot changing ability. We also need an athletic post who can receive a pass from the perimeter, and, when double teamed, pass the ball back to an open perimeter player for a clean look at the basket. We also need a post player who is more mobile, and when 1 or 2 feet away from the basket, can turn and not miss a simple lay-in. |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Sept 5, 2019 6:49:51 GMT -8
I had no idea that Joanna Grymek was holding us back so much, Lotrader. You are dumping on what is most praiseworthy about Jo - rebounding (third on team), shot blocking (sixth in Pac, third in blocks-per-minute), and shot changing ability. You are asking Joanna Grymek to be Britney Griner, and most of the time Britney Griner isn't Britney Griner. If you put the same expectations on Andrea, Trish, Taylor or Kennedy, you're going to be just as disappointed.
Jo was a fine player and I don't think we host in the NCAAs without her last year. I don't think we make the Sweet 16, either. It's just too bad that she followed Marie Gulich and Ruth Hamblin. If she had been preceded by Thais Pinto, she'd be remembered very differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Sept 5, 2019 8:03:03 GMT -8
I don't think the issue was Jo's shooting percentage, but rather the quantity of shots she was able to put up. She improved quite a lot during her time here, but she struggled to get in the proper position, both in terms of receiving the ball and getting to where a rebound was going to be available. Some people can do that very well (think Pivec), and others seem unable to anticipate where they need to be on the court. Jo fell into the latter category.
But she did some good things for OSU, gave a lot of effort, and we finished in the top ten every year she was here. Now we move on, and I think that position is going to be stronger and more productive. If you like, we take what was good and make it even better. That's a good thing, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by lotrader on Sept 5, 2019 10:40:54 GMT -8
I had no idea that Joanna Grymek was holding us back so much, Lotrader. You are dumping on what is most praiseworthy about Jo - rebounding (third on team), shot blocking (sixth in Pac, third in blocks-per-minute), and shot changing ability. You are asking Joanna Grymek to be Britney Griner, and most of the time Britney Griner isn't Britney Griner. If you put the same expectations on Andrea, Trish, Taylor or Kennedy, you're going to be just as disappointed. Jo was a fine player and I don't think we host in the NCAAs without her last year. I don't think we make the Sweet 16, either. It's just too bad that she followed Marie Gulich and Ruth Hamblin. If she had been preceded by Thais Pinto, she'd be remembered very differently. There will be upgrade in our post play this season at the 5 irregardless whether Rueck plugs in Taylor Jones, Kennedy Brown, Trish. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverwbb fan on Sept 5, 2019 12:01:41 GMT -8
I think Taylor and Kennedy (and hopefully Trish) will actually be able to create their own shot. Marie was far-and-away the best big we've had at being able to create her own shot. Ruth was very, very good at posting up and getting extremely deep, but she didn't create as well as Marie -- but she was so big and strong that she was able to rely on her posting up. Jo did not have much of a back-to-the-basket game at all, the majority of her shots came as offensive put backs or dump offs.
|
|
