The Lady Saders come into this game riding high, boasting an impressive 3 game winning streak and a staggering 5-1 record at home. They are currently in FIRST PLACE in the Horizon League.
Loyola enters this contest with an unsightly record of 5-9 and they are in the Horizon League basement. We have played a common opponent----NIU. The Huskies bested the Ramblers by 4 while we downed NIU by 5.
Thoughts, comments and predictions are welcome here. I'm going to be the first to chime in....
Loyola 48
Valpo 61
Quote from: SadersofthelostArc on January 13, 2013, 07:09:06 PMThe Lady Saders come into this game riding high, boasting an impressive 3 game winning streak and a staggering 5-1 record at home. They are currently in FIRST PLACE in the Horizon League.
We are not actually in first place
Quote from: SadersofthelostArc on January 13, 2013, 07:09:06 PMLoyola enters this contest with an unsightly record of 5-9 and they are in the Horizon League basement. We have played a common opponent----NIU. The Huskies bested the Ramblers by 4 while we downed NIU by 5.
Their unsightly record is actually only one worse than ours (6-8). They are not actually in last place....
Quote from: SadersofthelostArc on January 13, 2013, 07:09:06 PMLoyola 48
Valpo 61
That one I think is about right.
I say that we continue our solid home play:
Valpo 63
Loyola 51
Ok, Indy Valpo...correction...Valpo has the best winning percentage in the HL and Loyola has the worst winning percentage in the HL. Happy?
Yeesh....tough crowd...then he copies my prediction. :troll: ????
Quote from: SadersofthelostArc on January 14, 2013, 04:29:57 PMOk, Indy Valpo...correction...Valpo has the best winning percentage in the HL and Loyola has the worst winning percentage in the HL. Happy?
I thought you would want to be accuarate but whatever...
To be honest only a moron would use a 1-0 and 0-1 record as an indicator of anything,
Quote from: IndyValpo on January 14, 2013, 09:06:47 PMTo be honest only a moron would use a 1-0 and 0-1 record as an indicator of anything,
Exactly what are you trying to say about our pal, sadersofthelostmind?
Quote from: IndyValpo on January 14, 2013, 09:06:47 PMTo be honest only a moron would use a 1-0 and 0-1 record as an indicator of anything,
I dunno about that...that's the statistic we use to determine who won the Super Bowl...
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on January 15, 2013, 07:41:28 AMI dunno about that...that's the statistic we use to determine who won the Super Bowl...
Last time I checked the Super Bowl was one game while a conference standings has a few more games. Perhaps the question should be who other than Sader and apparantly you would make a point about leading (which was not even correct) or being last (which was not even correct) 1 game into a 16 game schedule.
While I am understandably loathe to revive the "is this guy really 'Sader' under a different name?" idea which arose at my debut, I do have to point out the absurdity of anyone calling someone else a "moron" when the first person can't spell
--"apparantly"
--"accuarate"
--"perfer"
etc., correctly.
Keep your insights, sure, but maybe keep the insults to yourself (in both senses of the phrase).
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on January 15, 2013, 08:56:33 AMI do have to point out the absurdity of anyone calling someone else a "moron" when the first person can't spell
I can certainly own that one.
That's cool.
Let's save the name-calling for those to whom it truly belongs.
(http://cbsdetroit.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/titans-coach-ray-n-son-ray-mccallum-getty.jpg?w=195&h=146&crop=1)
Thanks for having my back, Apostle!!! 'Ppreciate ya, bro!
(I totally see how people think we are the same person....our posting style, thoughts about hoops, sense of humor, pet peeves, etc are pretty much identical...maybe we ARE the same person lol ;))
Down 23-13 at half. Tab had a 3-point play with 10:31 to go that put us up 10-3. Our only score the rest of the period was another 3-point play, which came from 'Quira in the final minutes.
In the words of the color commentator, "Valpo is playing a lot of mistake basketball." 14 turnovers in 20 minutes, including giveaways on each of the final four possessions of the period.
--
TOs on 5 of the first 6 trips in the 2nd half, yet we're scoring when we keep the ball. Down 27-19, 15:03 to play
--
Down 38-34, under eight left. Tab and Gina are owning the inside. Tab's got a double-double, Gina could get one as well
--
2:52 to go, trailing 46-42. Scott shooting FTs after a timeout. Crusaders got a chance, but they have to execute all the way home
--
Final: Loyola 52-44 Valpo. Crusaders gave the Ramblers 20 points off 25 turnovers. WAY too many giveaways. Can't let that happen.
Gerardot with another good night (team-best 17 points, game-high 14 rebounds), Lange pretty good too (6, 9). Valpo's gotta get the ball inside to these two workhorses as often as possible. Our perimeter game was good in spurts. Need to be consistent, aggressive on the outside to help out. From what I saw, we're best on the inside, and the better we get outside can help us be more versatile on offense.
Did not anticipate I'd do some blogging watching this game online. Don't expect it to be a staple in the future, but who knows what'll happen
I hate to say it but we were out coached from the start in this one. We came off of a huge win, only to start the game with a freshman, who contributed zero on either side of the ball. I don't get it. We needed to come out strong and jump on Loyola, build off of last games momentum, and the coaching staff laid an egg. We got a comeback and then played another freshman, who turned the ball over 3 possesions in a row. I know they are trying to get these newbies experience, but when we come out of the gate the way we did, all bets are off. It's time to play the best 5 you have, and build some momentum. Then, late in the second, Carr hit her second 3, and we yank her, at which point we had no one out there that was hitting outside shots. I am absolutely astounded by what I witnessed tonight from a coaches standpoint. Tough loss ladies - not your fault.
We are trying too hard to prove to everyone that our freshmen are ready. It's time they sit and learn.
Wiedemann has been starting the last four games in place of Scott. Does anyone who's been following this team consistently know why?
Also, Charae had a rough one out there tonight. Is changing our starters gonna do more good or not? Tab and Gina are gonna keep doing work inside. If Jess and Charae aren't clicking, that does not help the spark on the outside. Laura can only do so much, and she's mostly a pass-first type that can still play well (John Stockton, anyone?)
Charae appears to have these type of games WAY too often. She shoots a lot, and hits 10-20% sometimes
Quote from: KL31NY on January 16, 2013, 09:54:12 PM
Wiedemann has been starting the last four games in place of Scott. Does anyone who's been following this team consistently know why?
Also, Charae had a rough one out there tonight. Is changing our starters gonna do more good or not? Tab and Gina are gonna keep doing work inside. If Jess and Charae aren't clicking, that does not help the spark on the outside. Laura can only do so much, and she's mostly a pass-first type that can still play well (John Stockton, anyone?)
I believe Scott was hurt for a while, but she's been healthy for a couple of weeks now it seems. I have no answer or understand the starting line up at this point. Tab and Gina are no brainers. I'm old school. I believe players should be earning their starts. Last night was a great opportunity to make that statement to the team, and play the players that got it done vs YS. That didn't happen. We started Wiedemann, who started vs YS, played 12 minutes, got 2 def. rebounds, 3 turnovers, 0-2 with zero points. No other stats. We had another guard give us 27 solid minutes, 5 boards, 4 assist, 5 points, and did a nice all around job. Personally, I felt she earned at least a start last night. Last night Wiedemann had 14 minutes, 0 -1. She put up one shot in 14 minutes. She's not in there for her rebounding or passing. I can only assume they are playing her in hopes of getting some points. In 2 games, she's 0-3 in 28 minutes. Am I the only one scratching my head here? I'm certanly not trying to pick on her, but I feel she needs to sit, and learn for a while. freshmen are rarely ready for that kind of playing time, much less starting, and it is showing. Our other 2 guards are still wanting to dribble the air out of the ball. Richards is to be the point, run the offense, and distribute the ball. Points from her are a bonus, really. When your other starting guard plays 27 minutes, and goes 1-9 for 2 points, it's time to shake things up a bit, don't you think? She had a bad game, as players do, but when you're struggling that bad, you should not be in for 27 minutes.
We had a 43 - 30 edge in rebounding, and we lost. let me say that again. 43 - 30 edge and we lost. That can't, and should never happen. Especially vs a team like Loyola. Our starters accounted for 15 turnovers. Loyola's accounted for 5. And the biggie - Loyola turned our tunovers into 20 points. a 13 count edge in rebounding is nullified by a 17 count turnover advantage for them. We needed to come out and pounce on them early last night, and make a statement. I saw no confidence in any of these girls early on. It's possible they were looking past this team. We aren't a good enough team to be giving up games we should be winning, especially at home.
The coaches have some work to do to get ready for the next game. They are the ones that have much more to learn from that loss than the players do.
Quote from: KL31NY on January 16, 2013, 09:54:12 PMWiedemann has been starting the last four games in place of Scott. Does anyone who's been following this team consistently know why?
My guess is that they hope Wiedemann hits some shots early and opens other things up. From what I have seen she is the best outside shooter. Unfortunately she can not create her shot and we do not have a PG or working plays to get her the ball in an open spot. I also think they like Scott off the bench as a spark.
I did not see last night's game but poor Lexi Miller had 5 turnovers in 6 minutes. I did not know that was physically possible.
Sorry jack, but if you think that a person that comes off the bench to put up 5, 5, and 4 means they start the next game you are crazy. Sure a starter struggles even now and then, but that doesnt mean they automatically should sit. Wiedemann is easily the best shooter on this team. She just struggles to create shots. But if people would come off of a ball screen hard there would be more shots. My best solution is for the guards as a whole to be more aggressive off of the ball screens which puts the defense in a tougher situation allowing for more things to open up.
Those were just the recordable stats. I felt she did far more to keep the offense flowing then Weidemann, and she does create her own shots. Not saying she's the answer to our woes, but we damn well better be looking for answers. Weidemann is a gym shooter. She can have streaks, but they are few and far between. I still don't think she's ready for a starting role yet. If your possition is, she's our best option when she goes 0-3 in 28 minutes of play, then I'm probably waisting my time discussing this with you. We lose too much with her defensively, when she's not producing offensively. It's time to try something different.
Hey all! Sorry, been having some computer issues lately. Luckily, I have an iPod Touch, so I could watch last night's game.
We should have started out attacking the basket from the start of the game. Loyola would have been very beatable downlow, if we had just been attacking the rim, instead of pitching tents around the perimeter, and chuckin' 'em from the cheap seats. I will agree, a major part of our problem last night was coaching philosophy and fundamentals. We made too many mistakes in transition, and screwed up simple passes because they weren't coming off screens as much as going into traffic. Loyola took advantage of this, and that lead to the 18-3 run over the final 12 minutes of the first half.
In the second half, we started going inside a lot more, but then, much like a Dale Carlson or Bryce Drew feeling of "they are catching on to this", we go away from attacking, in favor finesse and mistakes. As much as Loyola outcoached us, we outcoached ourselves.
Still not feeling Laura Richards is the right point guard for this team, Charae is only good when she's feeling it, and that isn't often enough yet, and Lange and Gerardot can only do so much inside to help this team stay in games. The guards have to start putting their work in to create openings and shots for themselves, otherwise Lange and Gerardot are going to wear down badly in early February.
We're just going to have to settle with what we get during this rebuilding year, and hope that next year's reloading manifests what Coach Dorow is looking for, otherwise we're looking at more of the same next season, and no one wants that.
I really don't think it's about the talent as much as it is, how we are using it. We had far more talent on the floor, in my opinion, then Loyola did. We just don't seem to move with a purpose on offense. Lots of dribbling, and standing around.
I think that's a great point, not just in comparing this year's team to Loyola, but even by comparing this year's team to last year's. We have much more talent and depth this year since we've had less injuries and we haven't had a transfer like Mallory Ladd.
We need to be aggressive with how we use this talent. jack, especially on the "move with a purpose" idea, that seems like something we just haven't had the last couple seasons. We need to make the perimeter more of a threat to open up our options.
Side note: since I dropped Mallory Ladd into the discussion, it's worth noting that she's doing really well at Evansville. 6 double-doubles in 6 games, and her team is currently in 3rd place in the Valley after defeating Illinois State by 14 yesterday (Evansville was 10th in this year's preseason poll, Illinois State was 3rd and they're a mighty good team).
Quote from: jack on January 17, 2013, 03:03:14 PMshe's our best option when she goes 0-3 in 28 minutes of play
You can't use a small sample size like that when it comes to shooting. My argument here is that she is our best 3 point shooter at 39%. That's not too shabby if you ask me.
Quote from: valpo4life on January 18, 2013, 02:53:58 PM
Quote from: jack on January 17, 2013, 03:03:14 PMshe's our best option when she goes 0-3 in 28 minutes of play
You can't use a small sample size like that when it comes to shooting. My argument here is that she is our best 3 point shooter at 39%. That's not too shabby if you ask me.
Weak arguement. By your own admission, she is out there to score. She has put up 3 shots...3.....in 28 minutes. That's a problem. I bet I'd be a 50% shooter out on the floor by myself. If she can work to find her own shots, thats a problem. 0 - 3 in 28 minutes?? You don't see a problem with that? When your primary role on your team is to score, as you lack in other areas, if you've put up 3 shots in 2 games?? Come on man. Come up with something better here!!
I can't believe Coach Dorow isn't getting more out of this UBER-talented team!!!!
(Do I fit in with the groupthinking talking heads 'round here now??)
Quote from: jack on January 18, 2013, 05:27:55 PM
Quote from: valpo4life on January 18, 2013, 02:53:58 PM
Quote from: jack on January 17, 2013, 03:03:14 PMshe's our best option when she goes 0-3 in 28 minutes of play
You can't use a small sample size like that when it comes to shooting. My argument here is that she is our best 3 point shooter at 39%. That's not too shabby if you ask me.
Weak arguement. By your own admission, she is out there to score. She has put up 3 shots...3.....in 28 minutes. That's a problem. I bet I'd be a 50% shooter out on the floor by myself. If she can work to find her own shots, thats a problem. 0 - 3 in 28 minutes?? You don't see a problem with that? When your primary role on your team is to score, as you lack in other areas, if you've put up 3 shots in 2 games?? Come on man. Come up with something better here!!
She is out there because she can shoot the 3. She is by no means a scorer whatsoever, every time she dribbles towards the basket I get nervous. And I would much much rather have someone shoot just 3 shots if they are good looks and not settle for bad ones. Ray McCallum and Kobe must be your favorite players if you are into field goal attempts so much. She is essentially the Will Bogan of the women's team, out there because you can shoot and if you struggle then your minutes go down
Scott back in the starting lineup today, replacing Weidemann in the starting five for UIC. Here's some sleek live stats to enjoy the action: http://stats.statbroadcast.com/statmonitr/?id=14288. (http://stats.statbroadcast.com/statmonitr/?id=14288.) Audio through WVUR, video through HLN, links should be on valpoathletics.com
Having timed all three links, video appears to be the fastest, stats mere seconds behind, WVUR about 15 seconds behind video, ~10 behind stats
Thru the first half, I have no real bad things to say about how we're playing. Of course, some of that reason is due to UIC not being all that good either, but have to give credit to the ladies for how they are hanging in. Neither team really has a height advantage, but it's a rather up and down game. The pace is good, and this is a good game to see a variance of lineup combos involving some players that don't get a lot of action, like Dean, Miller, and Callaway. Richards has been playing well in this game, again because UIC isn't that strong, and she's made some good decisions. The ball movement has been very agressive, just want to see use attack the rim a little more physically, in hopes of getting some more layups to fall today. Here's hoping that this energy keeps up in the second half, and we get a momentum push to put this game away early.
The second half has been full of turnovers for the ladies, and UIC got a lot more physical this half. Let's hope the last portion of this game is a turnaround swing for the Brown and Gold, otherwise chalk this one up to the turnovers doing us in. Not going to be a pretty turnover result, that's for sure.
Turnovers were the deciding factor for the ladies. Too many today, but it was a good, strong game. Road woes will hurt us the rest of this season. Can't complain about today's game. We weren't outcoached, just made fundamental mistakes with the ball.
We average 20 turnovers a game (rounded up). That's really sloppy, and the fact that we were able to actually win a couple games this season when giving it away 20+ times is crazy.
We were down 1 with 6 minutes to go, and then UIC scored 10 in a row while we turned the ball over or missed all of our free throws in EVERY possessions during that run by the Flames. You can't have that many empty trips in a close game.
Quote from: valpo4life on January 19, 2013, 11:27:53 AM
Quote from: jack on January 18, 2013, 05:27:55 PM
Quote from: valpo4life on January 18, 2013, 02:53:58 PM
Quote from: jack on January 17, 2013, 03:03:14 PMshe's our best option when she goes 0-3 in 28 minutes of play
You can't use a small sample size like that when it comes to shooting. My argument here is that she is our best 3 point shooter at 39%. That's not too shabby if you ask me.
Weak arguement. By your own admission, she is out there to score. She has put up 3 shots...3.....in 28 minutes. That's a problem. I bet I'd be a 50% shooter out on the floor by myself. If she can work to find her own shots, thats a problem. 0 - 3 in 28 minutes?? You don't see a problem with that? When your primary role on your team is to score, as you lack in other areas, if you've put up 3 shots in 2 games?? Come on man. Come up with something better here!!
She is out there because she can shoot the 3. She is by no means a scorer whatsoever, every time she dribbles towards the basket I get nervous. And I would much much rather have someone shoot just 3 shots if they are good looks and not settle for bad ones. Ray McCallum and Kobe must be your favorite players if you are into field goal attempts so much. She is essentially the Will Bogan of the women's team, out there because you can shoot and if you struggle then your minutes go down
This had to sound better in your head then it does after you type it. 3 shots in 2 games for 28 minutes. And she missed all 3. And she's in for one reason. To score. But yet, you felt she was starter material. Again, I'm waisting my time discussing it with you. Time to move on.
Quote from: valporun on January 19, 2013, 03:48:28 PM
Thru the first half, I have no real bad things to say about how we're playing. Of course, some of that reason is due to UIC not being all that good either, but have to give credit to the ladies for how they are hanging in. Neither team really has a height advantage, but it's a rather up and down game. The pace is good, and this is a good game to see a variance of lineup combos involving some players that don't get a lot of action, like Dean, Miller, and Callaway. Richards has been playing well in this game, again because UIC isn't that strong, and she's made some good decisions. The ball movement has been very agressive, just want to see use attack the rim a little more physically, in hopes of getting some more layups to fall today. Here's hoping that this energy keeps up in the second half, and we get a momentum push to put this game away early.
The second half has been full of turnovers for the ladies, and UIC got a lot more physical this half. Let's hope the last portion of this game is a turnaround swing for the Brown and Gold, otherwise chalk this one up to the turnovers doing us in. Not going to be a pretty turnover result, that's for sure.
Turnovers were the deciding factor for the ladies. Too many today, but it was a good, strong game. Road woes will hurt us the rest of this season. Can't complain about today's game. We weren't outcoached, just made fundamental mistakes with the ball.
Turnovers were a problem in this game. Very un-characteristic of Richards on back to back turnovers. I have noticed a pattern of dribbling it down into the corner and getting in to trouble far too frequently, for her and Richardson. We have to do a better job of staying out of the corners when we bring the ball up. It's always the right corner also. UIC saw this, and were pouncing, quite affectively.
I thought the ladies did a much better job, all around, in this contest then they have been doing. At the end of the day, we lost this one because we failed to block out. We struggle at this when both Gina and Tab aren't in the game at the same time. We need to worked past this. At one point, UIC had 4 tries at the basket. There were 3 times when we played good, solid D, all the way to the end of the clock, only to give up possition underneath and let them rebound. We had to play D for 100 seconds on one occassion. That beats a team down to go hard on D for that kind of stretch. It's nice to see some shots dropping in this one.
The girls are SO close to being a good squad. They have looked better this year than they have in a while. I loved Keith, you all know that....but it was time for him to move on and Coach Dorow is a fresh, young hot coach who can change the culture. I like where we are headed.