|
|
Post by beavheart on Apr 3, 2022 9:48:52 GMT -8
Can you blame them? Spent their childhoods planted in front of a video screen, and are being coddled to the Nth degree at every turn. |
|
|
|
Post by grad1973 on Apr 3, 2022 9:51:19 GMT -8
Thinking about this some more, I had wondered why Brown was coming off the bench for all the NIT, after being largely a starter. It didn’t seem to affect her total minutes, and she had some of her best offensive games on the NIT. But she was getting those minutes largely at the 5, and scoring in the post with passes over the top of smaller defenders, so she ended up generally getting the ball facing the basket anyway - that didn’t happen much in conference play. So she’s looking at Jelena starting at the 5, Taya being pretty much immovable for minutes generally at the 4 (and often not doing much scoring either), and the 3 spot going to a variety of players that often struggled except for when Mack got going. With Gardiner and Beers coming in and Taylor back, she’s looking at an even more uphill battle to get time at the 3 or 4 spots that she thinks she should be at. So while the team really needs her at the 5, she’s not even starting at that position to close the season, and doesn’t even want to, assuming she still aspires to play facing the basket. It’s very possible she believes she should have gotten more of Taya’s minutes, and clearly Rueck didn’t agree. Obviously I’m speculating here, but these moves to transfer have reasons, and her coming off the bench the entire NIT now seems telling. I looked at her total minutes (which generally were good) and didn’t think much of it before, but getting benched for the post season will leave a mark, regardless of the total minute actually played. That is, the minutes don’t suggest she was in the doghouse, but not starting likely was a message. Interesting but the question is WHO was this message to. Maybe to us who are worried and wondering where the direction of this program is heading?  |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Apr 3, 2022 10:06:07 GMT -8
Soft fans who can't handle a little adversity or adapt to changing times  I'll stand up for Kennedy in that she successfully rehabbed from a torn ACL. Played with toughness and grit every game before and after. Nobody can say she didn't give 100% each time out. It's the adults who created the transfer portal rules, not the players of your so-called "soft generation". (PS. Thanks for the concise post. I appreciate your economy of expression). |
|
|
|
Post by grad1973 on Apr 3, 2022 10:18:03 GMT -8
Soft fans who can't handle a little adversity or adapt to changing times I'll stand up for Kennedy in that she successfully rehabbed from a torn ACL. Played with toughness and grit every game before and after. Nobody can say she didn't give 100% each time out. It's the adults who created the transfer portal rules, not the players of your so-called "soft generation". (PS. Thanks for the concise post. I appreciate your economy of expression). Totally spot on anybody watching Kennedy could see during the pre season she wasn’t sure of her new changes body wise. She had a lot to mentally figure out. I think she was finally getting more comfortable with that during the loss of Taylor thru NIT. She had her best scoring games during that stretch. She was figuring out how to move inside. But she just had lapses also. I think the only thing Kennedy was disgruntled about is herself. She wasn’t sure about how well the injury would serve her. One man’s opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by scottybooks on Apr 3, 2022 13:56:42 GMT -8
Would a "twin towers" lineup, Mitro + Brown--tried for how many minutes all season? 20?--have assuaged her discomfort at the 5? Kept her for 60 more games as a potential Beavs legend?
She might have thrived, rediscovered her midrange shot, and excelled as an elbow area defender, passer, screener, crashing rebounder. A bit less physical pounding, too.
From my armchair, as always, reclinedly.
Go Beavs, every year more interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by believeinthebeavs on Apr 3, 2022 14:14:42 GMT -8
Would a "twin towers" lineup, Mitro + Brown--tried for how many minutes all season? 20?--have assuaged her discomfort at the 5? Kept her for 60 more games as a potential Beavs legend?
She might have thrived, rediscovered her midrange shot, and excelled as an elbow area defender, passer, screener, crashing rebounder. A bit less physical pounding, too.
From my armchair, as always, reclinedly.
Go Beavs, every year more interesting.
We needed both to play the 5 with the way fouls are called. |
|
dK
Freshman
Posts: 408
|
Post by dK on Apr 3, 2022 14:45:29 GMT -8
This is a nice summary. If I remember correctly, Gulich improved significantly in her junior year and exploded in her senior year? It seems like Kennedy improved significantly during the past year even if not meeting the expectations for some. In case anyone is forgetting, Gulich carried the team at times in her senior year. It was amazing to see your five racing down court and finishing on a fast break. She had good medium range shots and was tough as nails down low. Maria made huge strides in her time here and was a beast (in the nicest sense) by her senior year. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Apr 3, 2022 14:51:29 GMT -8
This is a nice summary. If I remember correctly, Gulich improved significantly in her junior year and exploded in her senior year? It seems like Kennedy improved significantly during the past year even if not meeting the expectations for some. In case anyone is forgetting, Gulich carried the team at times in her senior year. It was amazing to see your five racing down court and finishing on a fast break. She had good medium range shots and was tough as nails down low. Maria made huge strides in her time here and was a beast (in the nicest sense) by her senior year. Marie. |
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Apr 3, 2022 15:08:11 GMT -8
Can you blame them? Spent their childhoods planted in front of a video screen, and are being coddled to the Nth degree at every turn. There's no reason to 'blame' them, nor is there any reason to rationalize it for them by telling them it's not their fault. Ultimately, every individual is responsible for his or her own actions and behavior. I tell my children to instill in their own that hard work, perseverance, dependability, and loyalty will ultimately be rewarded as those are the traits that are looked for. Also, when they hear their entitled contemporaries whine, "It's not my fault," they should recognize that, way more times than not, it really is. I agree with easternbuck - soft generation. I would also tell my grandchildren that they should be very grateful for the tremendous opportunity this presents - significantly less competition for them on their way to the top. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Apr 3, 2022 15:21:35 GMT -8
Can you blame them? Spent their childhoods planted in front of a video screen, and are being coddled to the Nth degree at every turn. There's no reason to 'blame' them, nor is there any reason to rationalize it for them by telling them it's not their fault. Ultimately, every individual is responsible for his or her own actions and behavior. I tell my children to instill in their own that hard work, perseverance, dependability, and loyalty will ultimately be rewarded as those are the traits that are looked for. Also, when they hear their entitled contemporaries whine, "It's not my fault," they should recognize that, way more times than not, it really is. I agree with easternbuck - soft generation. I would also tell my grandchildren that they should be very grateful for the tremendous opportunity this presents - significantly less competition for them on their way to the top. If the transfer portal rules had existed in the 40's, 50's, 60's etc..would players have used it? Who's kidding who? YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT THEY WOULD HAVE. Before the NCAA created the rules for eligibility and transfer, it was not uncommon for free-lance players of the nineteen teens and twenties to play extended careers at multiple universities (sometimes under different names). I doubt the "soft" description would be applied to them. So (in my opinion at least) it's just silly "back-in-my-day" nostalgia to denigrate players in 2022 for using the opportunities which are available and perfectly within the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbob on Apr 3, 2022 16:13:59 GMT -8
Thinking about this some more, I had wondered why Brown was coming off the bench for all the NIT, after being largely a starter. It didn’t seem to affect her total minutes, and she had some of her best offensive games on the NIT. But she was getting those minutes largely at the 5, and scoring in the post with passes over the top of smaller defenders, so she ended up generally getting the ball facing the basket anyway - that didn’t happen much in conference play. So she’s looking at Jelena starting at the 5, Taya being pretty much immovable for minutes generally at the 4 (and often not doing much scoring either), and the 3 spot going to a variety of players that often struggled except for when Mack got going. With Gardiner and Beers coming in and Taylor back, she’s looking at an even more uphill battle to get time at the 3 or 4 spots that she thinks she should be at. So while the team really needs her at the 5, she’s not even starting at that position to close the season, and doesn’t even want to, assuming she still aspires to play facing the basket. It’s very possible she believes she should have gotten more of Taya’s minutes, and clearly Rueck didn’t agree. Obviously I’m speculating here, but these moves to transfer have reasons, and her coming off the bench the entire NIT now seems telling. I looked at her total minutes (which generally were good) and didn’t think much of it before, but getting benched for the post season will leave a mark, regardless of the total minute actually played. That is, the minutes don’t suggest she was in the doghouse, but not starting likely was a message. You bring up a very good point Stever.....it's very possible that KB after largely being a starter did not take it well being replaced in the starting lineup by JM----despite still getting her same minutes she probably felt slighted by this move as there always is a certain prestige attached to being in the starting 5. And if she was considering the portal at all this may have just been enough for her and her family support to say let's move on.....again as Stever said this is just pure fan speculation on our parts. |
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Apr 3, 2022 16:24:10 GMT -8
If you look at the 3 posts in the thread to which you responded, second coming of Terry Baker, you will note that there is no denigration of players using the rules to their own presumed benefit. Rather, I think what was being conveyed (certainly by me and I believe by easternbuck) is that the general, generational mindset that moves them in that direction is not to their benefit.
I'll give an example at the risk of your LOL'ing (I know how you love a good LOL, and am happy to provide them when I can). There are 900 or so young women across the nation who have decided that the gratification they receive from their participation in their school's basketball program is not sufficient, not providing the gratification they deserve. So they will leave (presumably for parts unknown) all the good things they have built in their time at this university - the friendships, the being a part of something for life, the academic growth - in search of a few more minutes of playing time.
Contrast that with a Noelle Mannen type who parleys the traits I described above to a roster spot as a walk on, minutes in garbage time, then a scholarship, and lately some minutes when it counts. I'll bet she could even enter the portal, get picked up by some much lower level program, and get serious minutes next year. Instead, she's going to continue to enjoy being on our team, get her Masters from OSU, continue to cement the relationships she's been building, and be a proud Beaver for life.
In the long run, who's making the better decision? When basketball is done and it's time to find a job, Who you gonna want to hire?
|
|
|
|
Post by skyrider on Apr 3, 2022 17:08:14 GMT -8
I received no response to this query a few days ago, however here goes again! Would it perhaps be better for an OSU program to focus mainly on West Coast and overseas players with the premise being that they are more likely to stay with the program than bail out early? Would be interested in other opinions. Also how difficult is it to Coach if you know that if you choose to not play a highly touted recruit they will likely bail on you, even though you know the players needs to develop more skills, etc. to benefit both the player and the team.
Coach Rueck and the Beavers seem to be in a real funk right now, and with the way he limits his roster to less than the maximum things are not looking very good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Apr 3, 2022 17:09:49 GMT -8
If you look at the 3 posts in the thread to which you responded, second coming of Terry Baker, you will note that there is no denigration of players using the rules to their own presumed benefit. Rather, I think what was being conveyed (certainly by me and I believe by easternbuck) is that the general, generational mindset that moves them in that direction is not to their benefit. I'll give an example at the risk of your LOL'ing (I know how you love a good LOL, and am happy to provide them when I can). There are 900 or so young women across the nation who have decided that the gratification they receive from their participation in their school's basketball program is not sufficient, not providing the gratification they deserve. So they will leave (presumably for parts unknown) all the good things they have built in their time at this university - the friendships, the being a part of something for life, the academic growth - in search of a few more minutes of playing time. Contrast that with a Noelle Mannen type who parleys the traits I described above to a roster spot as a walk on, minutes in garbage time, then a scholarship, and lately some minutes when it counts. I'll bet she could even enter the portal, get picked up by some much lower level program, and get serious minutes next year. Instead, she's going to continue to enjoy being on our team, get her Masters from OSU, continue to cement the relationships she's been building, and be a proud Beaver for life. In the long run, who's making the better decision? When basketball is done and it's time to find a job, Who you gonna want to hire? So if you're in a position to hire a recent grad, would you consider whether they only went to one school versus maybe having gone to two a negative? I'd venture to guess there are a heck of a lot of successful posters on this board (from previous "generations") who, for any number of compelling reasons, started at a different college (at age 18) than the one they got their degree(s) from (at age 21+). Hey, if you want to disparage young people who chose to change their school as "soft", that's your call. It just doesn't ring true to me, for the reasons I stated. (BTW, that "Terry Baker Club" thing just appeared one day below my name. While it's flattering, I don't have any idea where it came from.) |
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Apr 3, 2022 17:21:15 GMT -8
I received no response to this query a few days ago, however here goes again! Would it perhaps be better for an OSU program to focus mainly on West Coast and overseas players with the premise being that they are more likely to stay with the program than bail out early? Would be interested in other opinions. Also how difficult is it to Coach if you know that if you choose to not play a highly touted recruit they will likely bail on you, even though you know the players needs to develop more skills, etc. to benefit both the player and the team. Coach Rueck and the Beavers seem to be in a real funk right now, and with the way he limits his roster to less than the maximum things are not looking very good. I don’t have much data to say if your premise is correct. But I looked at a few programs like St.Mary’s and U San Francisco that use a lot of int’l talent and they have lots of transfers happening as well. And elite west coast talent is not necessarily staying west, Westbrook is a good example, as is Slocum. So I can’t say this approach would have a better outcome on reducing transfers; combine that with it dramatically decreasing the talent pool to draw from, it doesn’t seem a great solution. One team that did not have any transfers in or out last season was Dawn Staley’s program. So I’d recommend doing what she’s doing  |
|
