|
|
Post by beavertd on Mar 7, 2021 14:14:07 GMT -8
Post help is coming in the form of Raegan Beers. From ESPN: "Power post with skilled back-to-basket game; reads the defense and finishes plays through contact; defensive presence in the paint with blue-collar persona; provides inside and outside offensive arsenal; mobile in uptempo game." From the scouting reports I've read she is very polished and more college ready than most comparable posts in her class. So you will have a post depth chart of Taylor, Jelena and Raegan all giving you different looks on the court. Raegan is not coming next year, but the year after. True but the OP was making the case for the next three years. That's why I included Beers to the discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Mar 7, 2021 15:47:46 GMT -8
Thank you! I would hope that our rotation could go even deeper than 8. I think that both Ellie and Samantha could be integral parts. I've never been a fan of going deeper than 8 under normal circumstances, maybe 9 at most, with the 9 playing really limited minutes. I don't think we're gonna have the luxury of great depth anyway, but you want to play your best as many minutes as you can. If you average 30 apiece with them, that leaves 17 minutes each for 3 more - 32 with the starters gives you 13 each for the other 3. Somewhere in there seems about right to me. |
|
|
|
Post by believeinthebeavs on Mar 7, 2021 16:13:17 GMT -8
Personally I think that you might have an 8 or 9 player rotation for tight games but under the right circumstances, either way up or way down, players on the end of the bench should be played. At the amateur level if those players don't get rewarded their output in practice could suffer and that's if they don't move on.
Another consideration is the totally screwed up refs that the pac 12 hires. Players can easily get into foul trouble so bench depth might be necessary. We had a game recently where both Taylor and Jelena got into foul trouble and had to use Ellie at the 5.
|
|
bmoc
Freshman
Posts: 597
Member is Online
|
Post by bmoc on Mar 7, 2021 16:45:47 GMT -8
Agreed. Having a deep "bench" can allow for the huge rotations that ASU pulls off; sometimes all five at once. If you recruit wisely (character/intellect/ability), you're less apt to have grumblings about playing time from your 5 stars.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyrider on Mar 7, 2021 16:50:59 GMT -8
Jones is an all Pac-12 post as a Sophomore. Not sure how good a post you want her to be before you think she's good enough for the Beav's? The beginning of the year was a real head scratcher and I have no real understanding of why it took so long for the Beav's to mesh. But currently their major problem is that they don't have a seasons worth of game ready legs. Why people think that Stanford has such athletic players that OSU can't keep up with them. Then UCLA and UO are clumsy losers because we beat them. My guess is that the obvious point that the team isn't physically got the stamina to keep playing games is going to make the team physical fitness tyro's over the summer to make sure that doesn't happen next season, and that will take care of their major weakness. For the Beav's to be a truly dominant team they need a rebounding 4 to help Jones on the boards. Can Taya return to her form as a Soph. when she was almost averaging 8 rebounds a game vs this year's almost 4 a game? Of will Kennedy come back fully ready to play? They need one of them to bring OSU to the dominant rebounding team that makes their defense really kick butt. Sorry if I gave the impression that I was downgrading Ms. Jones ability or determination. I did not intend to do so. She is likely to be one of the all time greats at OSU. That being said there is probably no way she could have the impact of a 6'9" player who was able to play like a Brittney Griner or someone like that. That would be the kind of circumstance that could give us a real shot against the U Conns and Standfords . |
|
|
|
Post by believeinthebeavs on Mar 7, 2021 17:56:28 GMT -8
My biggest concern, relating to what our ceiling is (how far we can advance towards a national championship), was demonstrated in our loss to Stanford: our susceptibility to high-pressure defense from very athletic defenders resulting in turnovers and transition points. What it takes to address this is equivalent athleticism and I don't think any of the potential improvements on the near-term horizon will get us there. Of course, the impact Stanford had with their defense was amplified by our fatigue from previous back-to-back games, so the fairest assessment of our ability to handle this is in a game where both have plenty of prep time and fresh legs... so maybe next season's game at Stanford will provide a clearer assessment, if not another duel with a highly ranked team in this year's NCAA tournament. Thank you for your excellent response! I believe one possibility to overcome very athletic defenders is to have a very tall, very talented post player. Obviously much easier said than done. Still I have hopes that some day it will happen. Ms. Gulich was our best so far and we went quite a long way with her. Andrea A. may have been the answer, but we will likely never know.
Marie was a great player that became a low post at OSU out of necessity. She was a much better 4, her midrange game was her strength. It was only her senior year that she played almost exclusively at low post. Her first two years she played in relief Hunter as much as Ruth. Her junior year Bre played a lot of the 5 and Kolby played in relief of both. So in recent years I'd say Ruth was the best low post so far (Taylor is light years ahead of Ruth at this stage). However, Carol Menken-Schaudt is by far the best low post (center) to don the black and orange. She was really fun to watch. As for another Britney Grinder, there is probably only 200+ schools that would love to have one. However, she is a one of a kind. |
|
|
|
Post by rmancarl on Mar 7, 2021 19:44:44 GMT -8
Oregon State WBB has a bright future. It is bright enough that you will find me putting on my Tac Sunglasses and SPF 100 Sunblock, and I'm still going to stand in the shade. Now, back to the discussion.
|
|
