|
|
Post by beavershoopsfan on Feb 13, 2022 10:57:41 GMT -8
Fans who tend to go overboard on their teams ignore/downplay the progress of opponents. And, in doing so find negativity everywhere except their own backyard In rereading past posts it seemed a common belief that: - SR was the only/best at incorporating the "family" cohesiveness and atmosphere; - OSU was better at "developing" players; - the "bar" being raised (if it truly was) would not affect OSU and its upper tier standing; - every other top tier coach under achieved, was an arsehat, or some combo of negativity; The truth is really none and all of the above for all programs. OSU/SR isn't "special" except it's who we root for. Many many programs have terrific coaches and characteristics. All have ups and downs, hits and misses. SR certainly turned OSU around and got the program to elite status. But, as anyone who has been involved in athletics, business, life, it's far more difficult to sustain excellence than reach it. There are many intertwined reasons for the current season and state of the program. All are repairable. Some more difficult than others, but all fall on SR to first correctly recognize, and address. And, it starts at the top. It's not fault, it's growth. And, if SR stops growing the program will be passed by. As a fan base it's fine to question and critique. I personally find it beneath an intelligent fan base to consistently disparage opponents that are clearly doing something right. To complain about Pac12 officials, the conspiracy of bad calls, certain officials correlating to CW losses, etc. seems childish. The Pac12 has improved dramatically since OSU's F4 team. As far as a scheme and on court performances OSU has not. Folks like to hang their hat on recruiting classes as a fix. Talent placed in a system that doesn't necessary fit and is well known throughout the league isn't the solution. What SR wants from his players is predictable and sometimes appears constraining. What was frustrating for opponents is now easier to defend. The program will be fine IF the HC has the ability to evaluate himself first. To step back, adjust and grow. This season isn't a head scratcher, it's a wake up call and a chance to grow without falling off a cliff. Sorry for the length and "preachy" tone. But, as much as fans care it's all on SR's shoulders. It'll be telling how he handles the remainder of this season and the off season. Amen. Very well articulated. Thank you for a balanced and thoughtful post. |
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye2000 on Feb 13, 2022 11:05:05 GMT -8
rgeorge,
I second that. great post. couldn't have said it better myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Feb 13, 2022 11:09:56 GMT -8
I third that take. So now is the question I wonder what Scott thinks?
|
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Feb 13, 2022 11:16:25 GMT -8
What am I missing here? Coach Rueck keeps talking about this team like they are playing better and better, progressing well, and on and on.
I look at them and see their record and their play sinking them to the bottom of the PAC 12.
Just as the Emperor in the old child's fable could not or would not see accurately what was in front of eyes, Rueck seems to be missing some rather clear
realities:
*His post players are either not talented enough or developing enough or both to allow him to run the type of offense he keeps running
*His wing and point guard players are not talented enough, quick enough, or athletic enough to compete with an ever increasing number of PAC 12 teams.
*The weaknesses of the program (lots of turnovers, failure to win hardly any games that they do win by more than a few points) continue and the strengths that they did have (excellent 3 point shooting, stellar defense) are diminishing.
I hope I am dead wrong about this but with new assistant coaches unlikely to challenge the Coach about anything, I am sure those coaches are saying the things Coach Rueck wants to hear rather than the reality of what they are seeing!
Many (probably most) of you have more knowledge and better perspective of the situation than I do, so I look forward to hearing things that will assist me in feeling better about seemingly losing something I have very much enjoyed over the past several years-excellent OSU women's basketball!
So in your opinion the coach should be negative about the team to the public? Not sure what skyrider thinks but I have been told from coaches that had the opportunity of coaching both men and womens teams in the past you approach negativity of play differently. How you approach women players verses a mens team on being negative has a different effect. I think coaching a mens team and pointing out the negatives is more of a motivator while I have been told womens teams you need to be more careful. Anyone that can back up this theory? |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Feb 13, 2022 11:24:39 GMT -8
I just hope somehow, our most ardent WBB fans can find the fortitude to persevere through a down year.
Hang in there.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Feb 13, 2022 11:35:38 GMT -8
So in your opinion the coach should be negative about the team to the public? Not sure what skyrider thinks but I have been told from coaches that had the opportunity of coaching both men and womens teams in the past you approach negativity of play differently. How you approach women players verses a mens team on being negative has a different effect. I think coaching a mens team and pointing out the negatives is more of a motivator while I have been told womens teams you need to be more careful. Anyone that can back up this theory? Well, funny as in my experience both sexes seem to respond better to "negativity thru positivity". The "do this" vs "why did you do that" approach. In other words, some coaches are reactive and harp on what went wrong. While others, are proactive and spend their efforts on what the correct outcome should be and how to achieve it. Both can be done in a forceful manner, but one method connects with players and on improving them. While the other admonishes them, typically for things they have already realized! Plus the latter often turns off the player(s) to the second half of the coach speak... the "fix" or instruction. Coaching in game is tough. Coaches don't have a lot of time to make points. Hence, using that time for instructions vs admonishment is a better use of limited time. And, as we have heard many times. The better you "coach" at practice the less is required during games. |
|
|
|
Post by blindset on Feb 13, 2022 11:51:43 GMT -8
To my way of thinking a healthy Taylor Jones would have us in a very respectful position in the PAC 12. Add in a true point guard and we would be right near the top. Next year we have two top post recruits coming in plus (hopefully) Taylor full strength. If we can bring in a competent PG for next year we have a good chance to be elite. Go Beavs!
|
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Feb 13, 2022 12:40:29 GMT -8
What am I missing here? Coach Rueck keeps talking about this team like they are playing better and better, progressing well, and on and on.
I look at them and see their record and their play sinking them to the bottom of the PAC 12.
Just as the Emperor in the old child's fable could not or would not see accurately what was in front of eyes, Rueck seems to be missing some rather clear
realities:
*His post players are either not talented enough or developing enough or both to allow him to run the type of offense he keeps running
*His wing and point guard players are not talented enough, quick enough, or athletic enough to compete with an ever increasing number of PAC 12 teams.
*The weaknesses of the program (lots of turnovers, failure to win hardly any games that they do win by more than a few points) continue and the strengths that they did have (excellent 3 point shooting, stellar defense) are diminishing.
I hope I am dead wrong about this but with new assistant coaches unlikely to challenge the Coach about anything, I am sure those coaches are saying the things Coach Rueck wants to hear rather than the reality of what they are seeing!
Many (probably most) of you have more knowledge and better perspective of the situation than I do, so I look forward to hearing things that will assist me in feeling better about seemingly losing something I have very much enjoyed over the past several years-excellent OSU women's basketball!
Oh here we go ... |
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Feb 13, 2022 12:49:45 GMT -8
Not sure what skyrider thinks but I have been told from coaches that had the opportunity of coaching both men and womens teams in the past you approach negativity of play differently. How you approach women players verses a mens team on being negative has a different effect. I think coaching a mens team and pointing out the negatives is more of a motivator while I have been told womens teams you need to be more careful. Anyone that can back up this theory? Well, funny as in my experience both sexes seem to respond better to "negativity thru positivity". The "do this" vs "why did you do that" approach. In other words, some coaches are reactive and harp on what went wrong. While others, are proactive and spend their efforts on what the correct outcome should be and how to achieve it. Both can be done in a forceful manner, but one method connects with players and on improving them. While the other admonishes them, typically for things they have already realized! Plus the latter often turns off the player(s) to the second half of the coach speak... the "fix" or instruction. Coaching in game is tough. Coaches don't have a lot of time to make points. Hence, using that time for instructions vs admonishment is a better use of limited time. And, as we have heard many times. The better you "coach" at practice the less is required during games. Oh good grief. How can the person who wrote this be the same person who loves writing the constant negative garbage about the Beav's. Um...yes, very well said. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Feb 13, 2022 12:50:59 GMT -8
Well, funny as in my experience both sexes seem to respond better to "negativity thru positivity". The "do this" vs "why did you do that" approach. In other words, some coaches are reactive and harp on what went wrong. While others, are proactive and spend their efforts on what the correct outcome should be and how to achieve it. Both can be done in a forceful manner, but one method connects with players and on improving them. While the other admonishes them, typically for things they have already realized! Plus the latter often turns off the player(s) to the second half of the coach speak... the "fix" or instruction. Coaching in game is tough. Coaches don't have a lot of time to make points. Hence, using that time for instructions vs admonishment is a better use of limited time. And, as we have heard many times. The better you "coach" at practice the less is required during games. Oh good grief. How can the person who wrote this be the same person who loves writing the constant negative garbage about the Beav's. Um...yes, very well said. Hmmmm... actually surprised you interpreted it as written! |
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Feb 13, 2022 12:59:01 GMT -8
On the constant disparagement of TVO. Rogers is an all Pac-12 quick PG. TVO out performed her in every aspect of the game except Rogers got one more Steal. TVO did this while being either double teamed or having a guard and a shadow throughout the game while Rogers just got single coverage. TVO so obviously outplayed Rogers and all you can say is how slow she is and basically "oh, if we only had Rogers playing the PG for us we'd be a good team". This is so messed up it's just baffling.
OSU had three freshmen playing against two Sophomores and a Junior. And surprise surprise it didn't go well. If Sasha and Savannah hadn't transferred to be closer to home this all becomes moot and you folks would be wondering what was wrong with the Ducks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Feb 13, 2022 13:12:55 GMT -8
On the constant disparagement of TVO. Rogers is an all Pac-12 quick PG. TVO out performed her in every aspect of the game except Rogers got one more Steal. TVO did this while being either double teamed or having a guard and a shadow throughout the game while Rogers just got single coverage. TVO so obviously outplayed Rogers and all you can say is how slow she is and basically "oh, if we only had Rogers playing the PG for us we'd be a good team". This is so messed up it's just baffling. OSU had three freshmen playing against two Sophomores and a Junior. And surprise surprise it didn't go well. If Sasha and Savannah hadn't transferred to be closer to home this all becomes moot and you folks would be wondering what was wrong with the Ducks. You can call Talia a Freshman all you want. She played last year. She’s a technicality Freshman only. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Feb 13, 2022 13:44:25 GMT -8
On the constant disparagement of TVO. Rogers is an all Pac-12 quick PG. TVO out performed her in every aspect of the game except Rogers got one more Steal. TVO did this while being either double teamed or having a guard and a shadow throughout the game while Rogers just got single coverage. TVO so obviously outplayed Rogers and all you can say is how slow she is and basically "oh, if we only had Rogers playing the PG for us we'd be a good team". This is so messed up it's just baffling. OSU had three freshmen playing against two Sophomores and a Junior. And surprise surprise it didn't go well. If Sasha and Savannah hadn't transferred to be closer to home this all becomes moot and you folks would be wondering what was wrong with the Ducks. You can call Talia a Freshman all you want. She played last year. She’s a technicality Freshman only. Plus, "constant disparagement" seems a bit overblown. Ok, a lot! Gets far more kudos than criticism. |
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Feb 13, 2022 13:48:32 GMT -8
On the constant disparagement of TVO. Rogers is an all Pac-12 quick PG. TVO out performed her in every aspect of the game except Rogers got one more Steal. TVO did this while being either double teamed or having a guard and a shadow throughout the game while Rogers just got single coverage. TVO so obviously outplayed Rogers and all you can say is how slow she is and basically "oh, if we only had Rogers playing the PG for us we'd be a good team". This is so messed up it's just baffling. OSU had three freshmen playing against two Sophomores and a Junior. And surprise surprise it didn't go well. If Sasha and Savannah hadn't transferred to be closer to home this all becomes moot and you folks would be wondering what was wrong with the Ducks. You can call Talia a Freshman all you want. She played last year. She’s a technicality Freshman only. And you can call her a giraffe is you want, but she's only had one preseason to learn how to do it the Beav's way. She's a Frosh on the record and by any reasonable measure. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Feb 13, 2022 14:18:18 GMT -8
You can call Talia a Freshman all you want. She played last year. She’s a technicality Freshman only. And you can call her a giraffe is you want, but she's only had one preseason to learn how to do it the Beav's way. She's a Frosh on the record and by any reasonable measure. She played the whole season last year. She’s a COVID frosh, but she’s really a sophomore. |
|
