|
Post by jdogge on Apr 6, 2022 16:01:41 GMT -8
Thank you "The Glove" and "Judge Smalls" for your valuable observations. Do you believe that Coach Rueck is following the right course of action by not having any comment or explanation when these transfers occur? My guess is that at some point the coach will comment on the roster turnover during the next press conference, but I don't expect much insight or individual details from him. Just some coach speak about the players that are actually committed to OSU..."we're really happy with where we are"..." the team has been working harder than ever this off-season"..."we're continually trying to improve"...etc. What's the benefit to him, the team, and the university that comes from making public comments/explanations on these departures? Airing dirty laundry? Making the departees look bad? Nope. It might satisfy some fan curiosity, but more likely to do harm than good. I assume that the coaching staff and team members are having both group and individual discussions, and at the end of the season they're doing "exit" interview type meetings with all the players. How'd it go? What do we need to change? What do I need to work on? How can we get better? There are privacy issues that control here. The athletes can share everything they want. The coaching and athletic department staff are faculty and they may not disclose anything the student may not want released.
|
|
|
Post by skyrider on Apr 6, 2022 16:15:58 GMT -8
beaveragain wrote: Having staff move on is a complement to Rueck. No one is going to hire anyone from a failing program.
And past players moving on I can completely understand from the point of sickness of various sorts, graduate needs etc.
The thing I don't understand is 3 of the returning starters deciding to leave.
For the people who are talking about how all of these people are entering the portal so it's no big whoop. Those are almost all bench warmers hoping for greater chance at starting somewhere else. Three starters leaving is NOT good as to the state of the program. And this is NOT the norm for teams across the country. Any other team and I'd say it was a sign of a program falling apart. Can we say it isn't for OSU?
The above is an extremely astute observation. How many other power conference teams that have a long term successful coach, a reasonably successful season, and a history of not losing many players to transfer find themselves in the position of losing 2 full time starters, and the highest rated recruit that they have had for the past few years. It would appear that his conclusion (I'd say it was a sign of a program falling apart) has some merit. How about a rebuttal from those of you who would support his final sentence "Can we say it isn't(a sign of a program falling apart for OSU).
|
|
|
Post by blodgettbeaver on Apr 6, 2022 16:23:09 GMT -8
I would be much more concerned if any of them could shoot from outside.
|
|
|
Post by skyrider on Apr 6, 2022 16:57:35 GMT -8
I would be much more concerned if any of them could shoot from outside. And my response to you would be-If you are unable to inside post up players who can score and force the defense to often double team them, how are your outside shooters going to have sufficient space to connect on a good percentage of 3 point shots. Coach Rueck has often stated that the inside scoring is the key to how effective the Beavers have been at 3 point shooting.
|
|
|
Post by finleybandbeav on Apr 6, 2022 17:34:27 GMT -8
I would be much more concerned if any of them could shoot from outside. That's what guards are for.
|
|
|
Post by blodgettbeaver on Apr 6, 2022 17:44:56 GMT -8
We had a 2 that couldn't shoot outside, a 4 that wanted to be a 3 that couldn't shoot outside and a 5 that was solid around the rim but had no midrange game. Like I said I would be much more concerned if the 3 players that chose to leave could shoot outside.
|
|
|
Post by skyrider on Apr 6, 2022 17:53:23 GMT -8
We had a 2 that couldn't shoot outside, a 4 that wanted to be a 3 that couldn't shoot outside and a 5 that was solid around the rim but had no midrange game. Like I said I would be much more concerned if the 3 players that chose to leave could shoot outside. Okay but what about my point that it is not at all a good sign when 2 full time starters and a highly rated recruit choose to leave your program?
|
|
|
Post by believeinthebeavs on Apr 6, 2022 17:57:11 GMT -8
We had a 2 that couldn't shoot outside, a 4 that wanted to be a 3 that couldn't shoot outside and a 5 that was solid around the rim but had no midrange game. Like I said I would be much more concerned if the 3 players that chose to leave could shoot outside. That is one way to put it. True and succinct.
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Apr 6, 2022 17:59:29 GMT -8
We had a 2 that couldn't shoot outside, a 4 that wanted to be a 3 that couldn't shoot outside and a 5 that was solid around the rim but had no midrange game. Like I said I would be much more concerned if the 3 players that chose to leave could shoot outside. Okay but what about my point that it is not at all a good sign when 2 full time starters and a highly rated recruit choose to leave your program? Yep, all things being equal I would prefer that they had chosen to stick around. But they had their own reasons that may or may not have anything to do with HCSR. And what's done is done.
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Apr 6, 2022 18:03:38 GMT -8
We had a 2 that couldn't shoot outside, a 4 that wanted to be a 3 that couldn't shoot outside and a 5 that was solid around the rim but had no midrange game. Like I said I would be much more concerned if the 3 players that chose to leave could shoot outside. Yes, I don't know that much about basketball but as I understand it, the ability to hit open shots is an essential skill and is highly valued.
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Apr 6, 2022 19:40:27 GMT -8
Having staff move on is a complement to Rueck. No one is going to hire anyone from a failing program. And past players moving on I can completely understand from the point of sickness of various sorts, graduate needs etc. The thing I don't understand is 3 of the returning starters deciding to leave. For the people who are talking about how all of these people are entering the portal so it's no big whoop. Those are almost all bench warmers hoping for greater chance at starting somewhere else. Three starters leaving is NOT good as to the state of the program. And this is NOT the norm for teams across the country. Any other team and I'd say it was a sign of a program falling apart. Can we say it isn't for OSU? 3 returning starters? Sure, all have started games, but none of them started a single game in the postseason. None of them were even likely starters next year IMO. Taylor isn’t starting next year either is she doesn’t get healthy. And even then she is going to be pushed by the incoming frosh. Kennedy you as even in a worse spot to start at the 4 than Jones. She’d have a good shot to start at the 5 again, but didn’t want to. Greta got buried in the bench in the postseason, as she simply wasn’t earning minutes, let alone being a starter. She was either going to get a lot better or more likely be on the bench again to frosh and transfers, as her spot has to have improved play next year. So far as I can recall no returning starter during the Rueck era has ever not started the next season. The only push against Jones is her health and Mit, not the frosh. They are needed elsewhere. And Mit hasn't passed Jones yet and doesn't have the stamina, yet, to put up big minutes either. KB is elite in defense and was learning offense fast toward the end of the season (she did have a bad UCLA game). The idea that she'd be pushed aside by either frosh isn't logical both from Ruecks past behavior and the idea that they will pass KB in skill their first year in college. And I'm convinced that Greta told Rueck that she was gone at the end of the regular season and so Rueck gave her time to others. And what frosh do you think could take her place? They both have bright futures but starting next season ahead of Greta? That seems unrealistic to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Apr 6, 2022 21:31:56 GMT -8
It is idle speculation to discuss whether Greta, Taylor, and Kennedy would be starters next year. Might as well add Paige Bueckers' name to the conversation as well; she ain't gonna be here and neither are the other 3.
I will be most happy when we sign a few new players and we can start speculating about possible starters from a group that will actually be enrolled at OSU this fall.
|
|
|
Post by beaverwbb fan on Apr 7, 2022 6:14:34 GMT -8
3 returning starters? Sure, all have started games, but none of them started a single game in the postseason. None of them were even likely starters next year IMO. Taylor isn’t starting next year either is she doesn’t get healthy. And even then she is going to be pushed by the incoming frosh. Kennedy you as even in a worse spot to start at the 4 than Jones. She’d have a good shot to start at the 5 again, but didn’t want to. Greta got buried in the bench in the postseason, as she simply wasn’t earning minutes, let alone being a starter. She was either going to get a lot better or more likely be on the bench again to frosh and transfers, as her spot has to have improved play next year. So far as I can recall no returning starter during the Rueck era has ever not started the next season. The only push against Jones is her health and Mit, not the frosh. They are needed elsewhere. And Mit hasn't passed Jones yet and doesn't have the stamina, yet, to put up big minutes either. KB is elite in defense and was learning offense fast toward the end of the season (she did have a bad UCLA game). The idea that she'd be pushed aside by either frosh isn't logical both from Ruecks past behavior and the idea that they will pass KB in skill their first year in college. And I'm convinced that Greta told Rueck that she was gone at the end of the regular season and so Rueck gave her time to others. And what frosh do you think could take her place? They both have bright futures but starting next season ahead of Greta? That seems unrealistic to say the least. Do you recall either Kat Tudor or Maddie Washington? Both were upperclassman whose starting spots were taken by more talented underclassmen. Jones obviously would have started had she been healthy. Jelena has made some nice strides and I'm hopeful for a huge off-season, but I don't think she could have caught Jones and even if she did I'm not sure Rueck would start her. I posted during the season that if either Raegan or Timea were near advertised, Kennedy would have a hard time finding minutes. Great passer and defender, but smart teams (Stanford, Washington, etc.) let her shoot from beyond the foul line all day, which was what she wanted to do. At guard, Talia was locked in to start, we hoped a transfer point guard was locked in to start, which left Greta or AJ at the three. After it becoming clear that Talia was a two and not a one, it became pretty likely that either Greta or AJ would leave at some point.
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Apr 7, 2022 7:29:29 GMT -8
I’ll add to bbfan’s point that I’m confident that AJ or the incoming frosh/ transfer can top Greta’s 4/1 conference stat line and 26% 3 point shooting and 50% FT shooting. They will have to be able to defend as well of course. Greta may well have dramatically improved as well, but her season certainly didn’t have that trend. Bottom line is that we need a lot more out of that starting spot.
As far as the theory that KB was on an offensive trend upward based on NIT play, the UCLA game told me that it was likely fools gold. She was scoring against much smaller teams with lobs over the top where she was shooting at point blank over way undersized rotating defenders. That just doesn’t happen in conference play.
Agree that Taylor starts if healthy, I just don’t think she will be. And I do believe she could lose her starting role even when if healthy - she is a defensive liability in many conference matchups and has struggled on offense against defenders that can push her off her spots. Should Beers show more physicality and versatility in those situations, she could have gotten get her Pac-12 mins. I believe she has that potential.
To be clear, I’m sad these players are gone. I just no longer saw them leading us back to deep tourney runs, something I thought they’d do upon them arriving.
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Apr 9, 2022 22:03:25 GMT -8
So far as I can recall no returning starter during the Rueck era has ever not started the next season. The only push against Jones is her health and Mit, not the frosh. They are needed elsewhere. And Mit hasn't passed Jones yet and doesn't have the stamina, yet, to put up big minutes either. KB is elite in defense and was learning offense fast toward the end of the season (she did have a bad UCLA game). The idea that she'd be pushed aside by either frosh isn't logical both from Ruecks past behavior and the idea that they will pass KB in skill their first year in college. And I'm convinced that Greta told Rueck that she was gone at the end of the regular season and so Rueck gave her time to others. And what frosh do you think could take her place? They both have bright futures but starting next season ahead of Greta? That seems unrealistic to say the least. Do you recall either Kat Tudor or Maddie Washington? Both were upperclassman whose starting spots were taken by more talented underclassmen. Jones obviously would have started had she been healthy. Jelena has made some nice strides and I'm hopeful for a huge off-season, but I don't think she could have caught Jones and even if she did I'm not sure Rueck would start her. I posted during the season that if either Raegan or Timea were near advertised, Kennedy would have a hard time finding minutes. Great passer and defender, but smart teams (Stanford, Washington, etc.) let her shoot from beyond the foul line all day, which was what she wanted to do. At guard, Talia was locked in to start, we hoped a transfer point guard was locked in to start, which left Greta or AJ at the three. After it becoming clear that Talia was a two and not a one, it became pretty likely that either Greta or AJ would leave at some point. Kat Tudor got hurt and never really got back to 100% until her time was up. And Maddie took over for whoever was hurt, but was never a starter except temporarily.
|
|