|
|
Post by 411500 on Apr 5, 2018 9:40:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by beavershoopsfan on Apr 5, 2018 10:15:49 GMT -8
Thanks for the list. Very helpful. The list is certain to grow significantly as more players obtain their releases and put themselves officially out on the market during the next two weeks. As far as who is listed already on the list provided above by 411500, 6'3" Nike McClure from WSU hails from Tenino, Washington (south of Olympia) and is a capable shotblocker and rebounder who doesn't demand a lot of shots on the offensive end. McClure plays rugged defense in the paint and might prove to be a valuable complement to the very good perimeter shooting team that the Beavs will once again put on the court during the '18-'19 season. McClure has a connection to OSU assistant coach Brian Holsinger, who had to be a part of her recruiting process when he served as a WSU assistant coach. Those kind of connections often make the difference in the decision-making process as a player considers her options. McClure redshirted a season due to knee injury at WSU and hopefully would be immediately eligible to compete as a grad transfer, assuming that she is on pace to earn her degree within four years. She averaged 5.4 points, 5.6 boards, and 2.3 blocked shots per game while playing 22 minutes per game this past season. wsucougars.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=3961 |
|
|
|
Post by believeinthebeavs on Apr 5, 2018 15:11:39 GMT -8
If she is a grad transfer then we could use someone of her talents to help shore up the inside while the twin towers develop. But only if she could learn the offensive and defensive schemes that OSU uses.
|
|
|
|
Post by willtalk on Apr 6, 2018 6:17:20 GMT -8
What this team really needs is a post who can supply offense in the paint to replace some of Gulich's production. If all she can supply is defense and rebounding then I doubt she would add much to what the rookies are already bringing in. AA with her length will already be a defensive plus. She does appear to be a really good shot blocker. The thing is that her transfer might have something to do with her recent suspension, she did not play against either Oregon St or Oregon. She seems to be more of a track athlete than a basketball player. She can really jump and block shots and is a great offensive rebounder. She could be a defensive asset under certain conditions such as matching up with athletic players .
|
|
|
|
Post by lotrader on Apr 6, 2018 9:11:40 GMT -8
This kid would start for OSU Day 1:
Anriel Howard, 6-1 JR forward, Atlanta, GA (grad xfer; may return to A&M)
She is a rebounding machine, and, can score in the paint against anyone
|
|
|
|
Post by beavershoopsfan on Apr 6, 2018 9:27:06 GMT -8
Expect more word on a continuing exodus out of Eugene by as many as four more players in addition to Sierra Campisano. Oregon recruited seven players from the high school Class of 2016. Before the dust settles, the Ducks may only have Ionescu and Hebard who remain from that Top 5 incoming class that was so widely heralded in 2015/2016.
Ionescu and Hebard have lived up to all of their recruiting hype with their play during their first two collegiate seasons, but it appears to be at the expense of a number of their classmates/teammates having less-than-hoped for/expected college experiences. Maybe the perspective that head coach Kelly Graves plays his two favorite stars too many minutes (and especially when a game's outcome has already been clearly decided) is contributing to the collective unhappiness for a sizable minority of that Ducks team.
|
|
|
|
Post by 411500 on Apr 6, 2018 10:30:17 GMT -8
This development will be interesting to watch.
I have no idea what's going on at Oregon, but I do know that it takes a lot of coaching skill, and a lot of interpersonal skill, to balance the collective mind set of an entire basketball team.
Whether Coach Graves possesses these skills remains to be seen.
He is more fortunate than most coaches in that he and his staff (at least thus far) are able to recruit more talent than they lose.
Having a star system is great on the one hand because at least you have a star. (Which every coach wants). On the other hand, the coach must get the supporting cast to buy in, to channel their game to maximize the Star's performance.
For an excellent example of how this system works effectively when it's done right you have only to look at the 2016 - 2017 Beavers.
Sydney was the offensive star, and the offence was geared to her skills, to her temperament, to her taking critical shots, to her controlling the ball, and to her sticking with her star responsibilities even when she was having a tough nite.
To my knowledge, this Sydney-centric game plan never caused player dissension. It never reduced on-court performance. It did not create resentment.
In my opinion, this skill at player management was one of Coach Rueck's most impressive accomplishments in that impressive season.
It's my belief that basketball is a team game where 5 egos fight to get their hands on one ball. Only the very best coaches can get their kids to replace ego with team. Rueck is a master at it.
Whether Kelly Graves is remains to be seen.
GO BEAVS !!
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Apr 6, 2018 12:45:46 GMT -8
It's my belief that basketball is a team game where 5 egos fight to get their hands on one ball. Only the very best coaches can get their kids to replace ego with team. Rueck is a master at it. Is he? Or is he just a master at recruiting girls with the right mindset from the start? |
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Apr 6, 2018 13:32:38 GMT -8
It's my belief that basketball is a team game where 5 egos fight to get their hands on one ball. Only the very best coaches can get their kids to replace ego with team. Rueck is a master at it. Is he? Or is he just a master at recruiting girls with the right mindset from the start? My guess is a little of both. |
|
|
|
Post by willtalk on Apr 6, 2018 13:53:29 GMT -8
Having a star system is great on the one hand because at least you have a star. (Which every coach wants). On the other hand, the coach must get the supporting cast to buy in, to channel their game to maximize the Star's performance.
For an excellent example of how this system works effectively when it's done right you have only to look at the 2016 - 2017 Beavers. Sydney was the offensive star, and the offence was geared to her skills, to her temperament, to her taking critical shots, to her controlling the ball, and to her sticking with her star responsibilities even when she was having a tough nite. To my knowledge, this Sydney-centric game plan never caused player dissension. It never reduced on-court performance. It did not create resentment.I have never ever been a fan of any teams offense revolving around any one player. You do not win championships that way. The purpose of a team is to bring out the best of each individual player so that the whole becomes greater than the sum of it's parts. The purpose is not to maximize the stars performance. Unfortunately this is where basketball has gravitated to, due to the influence of the NBA's focus on individual stars to sell the league. The 2016-17 team was not an example of success but of the failure of such a system. That team underachieved in respect tot he talent that was on that team. A better example of a teams under utilization of it's available talent were the 2016-17 Washington Huskys. Everyone knows they rode Plum to their record. But in doing that was the team utilizingall their talent? No player can carry a team through the entire season. Every player has an off shooting day or hits a cold streak. When that happens the team is in dire trouble. The team with Plum had a player on it that got 7 min per game and averaged 2pts per game. That player was Amber Melgoza who averaged 19 points this last season and 20 in league play. Did she suddenly become really good over the summer? No she just did not have the opportunity to do what she does best. Teams who spread their offense among many players do better in the long run. They are not reliant on one player who might go cold at any given time. Washington- based on their available talent under achieved. The same was true with Oregon St, but to a lesser degree. Their offense was centered around Wiese and as long as she was playing well they succeeded. However she hit a cold streak starting with the teams conference play off game with Stanford, which they lost. That cold streak lasted through out the NCAA's and they bearly got by teams they should have easily beaten until it caught up to them against Florida St. where Wiese went 0-10 from 3pt range. They should have won that game but could not put together an offense at the close of the game. There was plenty of offensive talent on that team, but it was so conditioned to rely on Wiese that when she went cold the offense seemed to have no alternative. Most of the shooters who were on this team were on that one as well. They also had Gulich and Brown who played a heck of a game. That teams offense was too geared to Wiese. Her strength was also her weakness. She could get her shot off pretty much any time which made ball movement and attempting to move the ball to get good shots not as important. That attitude sort of carried over to this years team and it took most of the season to shed it. The question that needs asking is why would someone who is constantly missing three's with other scores as options still be shooting them? Because all the other players deferred to Wiese and so they lost to a team they should have beaten. 41500- I suppose you never heard of a player named Allen Iverson. He finally became the poster boy for a superior scorer who after years as a star finally was exposed as someone who hurt his team by by his total domination of the offense. The two teams that everyone felt he carried and would drop in wins when he left did better with him gone. A |
|
|
|
Post by 411500 on Apr 7, 2018 15:32:28 GMT -8
willtalk - A few general comments...Not comprehensive, but perhaps they will lend some clarity to my post above.
First of all, "the star system" is not a clearly defined term so there is no reason we must agree on its meaning. However, as I use it, the star system in basketball is not designed to win championships, it is designed to win games.
A team struggling to get out of the cellar can use the star system, as can a team fighting to make it to .500. The star system simply means that when you have an offensive player who is more effective at scoring than anyone else on the team, the coach structures the offence so that person gets far more than his (her) share of shots. It can be a very productive way to get things done if everyone buys in, and if other players accept important roles that don't involve shooting the ball. That's it.
Secondly, championship teams rarely utilize the "star system" because they have too much talent to overload just one player with heavy scoring responsibilities. Most championship teams (whether in the PAC-12 or in a local high school league) almost always have two (sometimes 3) all conference players on their roster. You might find some exceptions, but not many. For these elite teams the star system is counter productive. Too many good players. "Star system" doesn't work when you have too much talent.
Thirdly, the OSU team of 2016-2017 ("Sydney's team') did not have "plenty of offensive talent" by any stretch of the imagination. Bre, Kolby, Gabby, Mikayla were very solid players but none of them exhibited much scoring potential. Sydney was the only consistent scorer on the team. Period. They maximized their game impressively, and they contributed to the team's success, by deferring scoring to Syd and working their butts off on away-from-the-ball essentials.
Fourth and final. Yes, I have heard of Allen Iverson. I was not a fan of how his coach allowed him to play. As you know, on every well coached team a player can only play as he is allowed by his coach.
My objection to Iverson was not to his game, but to the coaches who failed to reign in his tremendous offensive talent. With Iverson less would have been more. 🏀😇
GO BEAVS !!
|
|
|
|
Post by beavershoopsfan on Apr 9, 2018 8:22:08 GMT -8
I definitely have to side with 411500's comments and perspective over what willtalk has stated above. Willtalk is one of the very few posters who have asserted that the '16-'17 Beavs squad "underachieved" and did not have a successful season. To post that the '16-'17 Beavs were an example of a "failure of such a system" is laughable. For the record, a little research will show that the '16-'17 Beavs accomplished the following: - Went 31-5 and advanced to the third round of the NCAA tournament
- Captured a third consecutive PAC-12 regular season title
- Advanced to the championship game of the PAC-12 tournament
- Captured the 2016 Play for Kay tournament in Las Vegas
- Captured the 2016 Maui Classic
The Beavs accomplished the above despite graduating five seniors and three starters from the '15-'16 team that advanced to the Final Four in 2016 for the first time in program history. 411500's above post seemed to me to point out how the play and leadership of Sydney Wiese in '16-'17 did not cause resentment with her teammates despite the fact that the ball was in her hands the great majority of the time. I would agree with that assessment wholeheartedly. Syd was consistently the team-first leader who would deflect praise after wins to point out the positive contributions made by her teammates. Willtalk points out the games in which Syd struggled from the field in '16-'17, but fails to acknowledge the multitude of games (the first two wins over Stanford that season, both wins over Oregon, the road win at ASU, and many more) in which Syd's ability to simply take over games at critical times during those games helped carry the Beavs to victory. I watched either in person or via the PAC-12 Network nearly every game the Beavs played that season. Wiese's play was consistently strong if you objectively evaluate her entire body of work that season. She had very few games like the third one against Stanford and the final game of the season against Florida State. All players, even star players, will have difficult games and produce less-than-expected results. There were critics that season who would point out that she had trouble with and turnovers against smaller and quicker guards. I can assure you that those smaller and quicker guards had significant problems with trying to cover Syd as well. As for Melgoza's role with the UW during her freshman season.... Melgoza had Plum, McDonald, and Romeo in the line-up ahead of her and she didn't play defense well enough to earn more minutes in Mike Neighbors' line-up that season. Neighbors would have played Melgoza more if she could have helped the Huskies that season. He wanted to win. He is paid to win. Neighbors saw Melgoza in practice every day. People who saw Melgoza play in high school and during AAU ball (Cal Stars-Team Taurasi) recognized that she was a gifted scorer who might struggle on the defensive end. Melgoza's offensive prowess during her sophomore year is in part attributable to the fact that her team didn't have many other viable offensive options and she had to take a lot of shots (she shot .429 from the field) for her 7-23 team to have a chance to win. I have seen a number of willtalk's posts on other women's basketball college message boards, including the Bearinsider.com (California) and the-boneyard.com (UConn's board). He is a relative latecomer to the OSU board and his analysis reflects that OSU is not his home or favorite team. He often posts negatively about OSU players in what appears to be attempts to stir up discontent and offer his expert analysis. Part of his problem seems to be that he simply doesn't watch enough of OSU's games to really have an solid insight as to what has transpired. His analysis is often biased against a player or players that he has witnessed have off nights. I don't like his tendency to single out players negatively for their play and opine that a specific OSU player or players have low basketball IQs as he has done repeatedly on at least two other message boards. He just doesn't know the game well enough and/or has watched enough OSU women's basketball to make those claims. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Apr 9, 2018 9:31:12 GMT -8
I definitely have to side with 411500's comments and perspective over what willtalk has stated above. Willtalk is one of the very few posters who have asserted that the '16-'17 Beavs squad "underachieved" and did not have a successful season. To post that the '16-'17 Beavs were an example of a "failure of such a system" is laughable. For the record, a little research will show that the '16-'17 Beavs accomplished the following: - Went 31-5 and advanced to the third round of the NCAA tournament
- Captured a third consecutive PAC-12 regular season title
- Advanced to the championship game of the PAC-12 tournament
- Captured the 2016 Play for Kay tournament in Las Vegas
- Captured the 2016 Maui Classic
The Beavs accomplished the above despite graduating five seniors and three starters from the '15-'16 team that advanced to the Final Four in 2016 for the first time in program history. 411500's above post seemed to me to point out how the play and leadership of Sydney Wiese in '16-'17 did not cause resentment with her teammates despite the fact that the ball was in her hands the great majority of the time. I would agree with that assessment wholeheartedly. Syd was consistently the team-first leader who would deflect praise after wins to point out the positive contributions made by her teammates. Willtalk points out the games in which Syd struggled from the field in '16-'17, but fails to acknowledge the multitude of games (the first two wins over Stanford that season, both wins over Oregon, the road win at ASU, and many more) in which Syd's ability to simply take over games at critical times during those games helped carry the Beavs to victory. I watched either in person or via the PAC-12 Network nearly every game the Beavs played that season. Wiese's play was consistently strong if you objectively evaluate her entire body of work that season. She had very few games like the third one against Stanford and the final game of the season against Florida State. All players, even star players, will have difficult games and produce less-than-expected results. There were critics that season who would point out that she had trouble with and turnovers against smaller and quicker guards. I can assure you that those smaller and quicker guards had significant problems with trying to cover Syd as well. As for Melgoza's role with the UW during her freshman season.... Melgoza had Plum, McDonald, and Romeo in the line-up ahead of her and she didn't play defense well enough to earn more minutes in Mike Neighbors' line-up that season. Neighbors would have played Melgoza more if she could have helped the Huskies that season. He wanted to win. He is paid to win. Neighbors saw Melgoza in practice every day. People who saw Melgoza play in high school and during AAU ball (Cal Stars-Team Taurasi) recognized that she was a gifted scorer who might struggle on the defensive end. Melgoza's offensive prowess during her sophomore year is in part attributable to the fact that her team didn't have many other viable offensive options and she had to take a lot of shots (she shot .429 from the field) for her 7-23 team to have a chance to win. I have seen a number of willtalk's posts on other women's basketball college message boards, including the Bearinsider.com (California) and the-boneyard.com (UConn's board). He is a relative latecomer to the OSU board and his analysis reflects that OSU is not his home or favorite team. He often posts negatively about OSU players in what appears to be attempts to stir up discontent and offer his expert analysis. Part of his problem seems to be that he simply doesn't watch enough of OSU's games to really have an solid insight as to what has transpired. His analysis is often biased against a player or players that he has witnessed have off nights. I don't like his tendency to single out players negatively for their play and opine that a specific OSU player or players have low basketball IQs as he has done repeatedly on at least two other message boards. He just doesn't know the game well enough and/or has watched enough OSU women's basketball to make those claims. But, you have to admit, his moniker is appropriate... he 'willtalk' and talk and talk. I can do some long posts, but not every single one! 🤔😉 |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Apr 9, 2018 10:10:51 GMT -8
I kinda agree with willtalk about the 2016-2017 team on one point. I thought they overly relied on/deferred to Sydney at times, and it may have affected portions of a couple games... not sure if it affected the win/loss record though. That team did very well, but it wasn't like Sydney was the only talent on the team. This year's team was much more balanced in my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by lotrader on Apr 9, 2018 10:27:28 GMT -8
I disagree with the poster that stated willtalk speaks negatively about the OSU Team on other boards. I find willtalk's discourse refreshing, and, seems to speak truth (sometimes truth hurts). willtalk has spoken mostly positively about the OSU Program, and, it seems to me, he is wanting OSU to maximize their potential. To say the OSU offense wasn't built around Sydney Wiese is patently false. And it is true, that if Sydney Wiese went cold, the Beavers struggled. Not only that, but OSU was far too dependent on Sydney to control the ball at point, and, all it took was for a solid defensive team to double Sydney, and OSU's offense was disabled. In the end, Sydney Wiese was fantastic, but OSU's dependence on Sydney cost us the earlier development of other offensive weapons. I don't fault the OSU coaching staff, she was spectacular, and, as everyone saw this year, OSU centered its offense around Marie. And when Marie was doubled, our offense stagnated. With the addition of Destiny Slocum, I believe our offense will be centered around Destiny (as it should be). And, opposing defenses will not be able to double Destiny, as we have far more able ball handlers than every before.
|
|
