Guess who's back? Back again? Sader's back! Tell ya friends.....LOL! Just wanted to make a proper re-entrance folks, I know there are many who have contacted me via private message asking for me to break down some women's hoops.
Well, Wednesday we start our march towards March (play on words)....With 8 regular season games, quite honestly, I see us finishing the regular season at 15-14 and our first winning mark in years. If we can go on that kind of run, we squarely place ourselves right back on the bubble. According to my guy, the NCAA goon squad has kept one eye on us since the win over IU and a solid finish will put us into the last four out. A solid run in the HL tourney gets us into the last four in. But first things first...we gotta take care of a decent Ramblers' program.
I'll predict right now that Geradot will show up in a monster way and put Loyola on blast. BOOK IT----21 POINTS, 15 REBOUNDS. Lady Saders will pick up a big win- 72-51. What say you folks??? How will we do???
*sits back and waits for a blob of text with no paragraphs to scold me for being too optimistic*
We seem to struggle on the road, even with holding a halftime lead. I hope that I am wrong:
Loyola 67
Valpo 61
There's nothing wrong with being optimistic... as long as there's some sense of realism
No way this team finishes the season above .500. Only way that happens is if we finish out 8-0 or 7-1, that would include some combo of wins against Detroit, @ YSU, and/or @ Green Bay which would be tough to do. They're all top 3 in the league in wins and defense right now. I still wish well, but these are no "circle wins" to be sure.
Short term, I see nothing wrong with expecting a Crusader win against the Ramblers. I'm sure they'll be fired up giving the earlier loss to LUC. Plus, I'd imagine how much the coaching staff should be driving into this team the goal to play with consistency. We need a more complete effort over 40 minutes tomorrow and every game we have left. No lapses on either end like we've had in some of our recent games.
Just get Tab and Gina a lot of touches, get some secondary scoring behind 'em, control the basketball, play good D, and we can get a W tomorrow
We have nothing to lose with shaking up the starting lineup tomorrow. It's time to try. The first 7 to 9 minutes of every game are vanilla, and predictable. We are far too easy to defend. If you watch film, nothing changes with our approach. Bring the ball up, dribble into the right corner, swing it around the horn, run low on time, force a shot up. It's time to come up the floor, left or right center, and look for screens, picks and rolls, and start slashing to the hole. We have far more options when we can keep the ball front and center. We get ourselves in trouble when we drive into the corners.Our guards need to see what's out in front of them and making the passes when they are there. Seems like by the time we recognize them, they're gone.
I'd still like to get Horton in to start one game and see what happens. She played solid minutes last game and earned a shot to get it going early. I also think we need to change things up with the guards we start. Starting the contest each and every week with 2 defensive minded guards has not been the answer. We get off to slow starts in the scoring game, and can't get any momentum going. I'd start Carr and Richardson, or Wiedeman and Richards one time and shake things up. We have to give the opponents a different look once in a while. We are stuck in a rut at the guard possition right now. Time to think outside the box.
My strategy next game would be to start Gina, Tabby, Horton, Carr, and Richardson, and come in at the 5 to 7 mark with Richards, Weidemann, and Scott. This keeps a legitimate 3 pt. threat on the floor with each group. It also allows us to get some confidence going with a broader group of players. It's time for a different look, and tomorrow night would be a good game to try something new.
This game is winable. Let's mix it up.
I was looking over the schedule the other day, and I figured they could at least go 4-4 in the second half of conference play. This would get them to 7-9 and should keep them out of the 8/9 game. There's a clear delineation between the top three teams (GB, Det, YSU) and everyone else, so I would not be surprised if this team finishes anywhere from 4th to 7th.
Quote from: jack on February 12, 2013, 12:43:53 PM
This game is winable. Let's mix it up.
While you're explicitly talking about the starting lineup, it might be the rotation as a whole that really needs a kick. Through the first round of Horizon League games, here is average minutes played by our regular players, the top five underlined is our most frequent starting lineup
Gerardot 33.8
Richards 33.8
Richardson 32.1
Lange 31.5
Scott 27.9Carr 15.1
Wiedemann 13.9
Horton 9.4
Callaway 5.4
I do like the idea of platooning our point and wing positions. That's worth a shot. I haven't seen enough games or paid enough attention to make my best argument, but after seeing these numbers I wonder how much of an effect it might have. I know before I have said that Tab and Gina should carry our team. You can argue I say that just a couple posts above. Still, we can't put a whole team on their backs, nor force our other starters to shoulder too big a burden within our games if that is in fact the case.
Tab and Gina need their minutes for us to be successful, but they also need their blows too. I was hoping that they could get Jansone acclimated to that possition. They've been using Horton for that roll, but I really feel we should be counting on her for a bigger roll. She has a nice shot, can't be left alone, makes good decissions with the ball, and has some size to help out inside.
We need to split up Richards and Richardson IMO. Granted, Richards had a nice scoring outting last game, but that isn't the norm. When she puts up that many shots, it means our offense is breaking down elsewhere. I just don't think you can be successful in this game if one of your guards on the floor isn't a serious threat to score. Richards does a lot of good things, but I still feel we stagnate with her at the point. Richardson runs hot and cold with scoring, and she still wants to dribble around a lot. With the two out there, we don't really have a scoring threat, and much of the time we are forcing something up at the last seconds. We can do better. Nice job with the minutes chart KL31NY. This is a good indication of the point i was trying to make. When your 2 starting guards are averaging those kind of minutes, you MUST get more offensive production out of them. I haven't really figured out why they see that many minutes, unless it's just the status quo the coaches are comfortable with. I think our W/L ratio doesn't support that philosophy. I am really dissapointed in how the Detriot game panned out. That was our game to lose. Granted, it may not have been that close if Detroit could hit their shots, but we had the opportunity to close them out when they weren't playing their best, and we just didn't do it. We have to get hungry as a team, and sometimes, that hunger comes from shaking things up, and letting these players earn their minutes, instead of starting the game with 5, just because it's what you always do. Time to keep the opponent off balance a bit, and let these ladies know if they play good, smart ball, they'll be rewarded.
Quote from: SadersofthelostArc on February 11, 2013, 11:00:11 PMasking for me to break down some women's hoops.
So, exactly where in this post did you "break down" some women's hoops"?
Anywho...
This year's team certainly has some issues, and a lot of it has to do with personnel, as jack and others have said. The problem is this: We have players who are above average at one end of the court and below average at the other.
On the perimeter:-
Richards - Excellent defender, no doubt. I will stop short of calling her a liability on the offensive end, but she's certainly not a player who can be looked at/expected to go out and get 10-12 points every night.
-
Richardson - Pretty good on the defensive end, but needs to be more efficient on offense. Shooting 31% (and worse from 2 than from 3) for the season simply isn't going to get it done. She is a solid off-guard in games when she is making shots, but then has to slide to the point when Richards needs a break (more on that later) and that takes away from her offense...running the point really takes away the ability for most players to look to be scorers.
-
Scott - The most talented offensive player on the team, but doesn't really fit into a position. She isn't quite big enough to guard inside and isn't quite quick enough to guard great players on the outside. I think she is still growing and will continue to get a LOT better...remember, she isn't yet 20 years old and is a sophomore.
-
Wiedemann - Teams have her figured out. She doesn't do much on offense other than shoot threes, and defenders get into her as soon as she catches and she is really unable to do much with the ball. I honestly think she would be better served if the team had a couple "drivers", because she really is someone who is best as a standstill shooter. As the other guards get better, she will improve simply because she will get more open looks. Again, she is young - just a freshman - and the coming summer will be big for her as a time to improve. Defensively, she needs more footspeed to really be a good defender.
-
Carr - Can knock down shots, but doesn't come across as a great ballhandler, which means she can't really play the point, especially against pressure. I saw her in high school, and I think that, unfortunately, her injury issues - while behind her - robbed her of a lot of her quickness, which limits her significantly at the defensive end.
-
Miller - Hasn't played much lately...and I think the idea that she had committed to D2 is showing. I do believe that she can contribute in the future, but this year she just seems a bit overwhelmed by the athletes at the D1 level. I would think that as she gets older, she will become a solid, but not spectacular, reserve in the backcourt, at both ends.
-
Dean - Good player...something is holding her back and I haven't seen enough to know. I know she's not exactly a lock-down defender, but with her length, I think she could be decent. Needs time and a summer.
In the post:-
Gerardot - Don't really need to say much here. She needs as many touches as possible, period. Above average defender, great rebounder (despite not being a great athlete) and knows how to score. She needs breaks, but with media timeouts and such, probably needs to and will continue to play 32+ minutes.
-
Lange - Doesn't come across as tremedously skilled on the offensive end, but is a VERY good defender inside. She runs the floor really, really well, which forces opponents to run with her, and this is a much overlooked aspect of post play. On defense, she is a lock down type inside...strong, physical and rebounds well.
-
Horton - Might well be the most skilled post on the offensive end, but is below average on defense. It could be noted that in the CSU game, Valpo was up 18-6 when Lange got her second foul, bringing Horton in...the team was forced to play zone and the lead evaporated every time Lange had to leave. She's going to be a starter next year, playing starter's minutes, and she has potential to combine with Gerardot to be a DOMINANT inside force in the Horizon League.
-
Callaway - Skilled on offense, really high volume shooter, but doesn't quite make enough. Struggles to defend. Tough to play inside when you can't guard.
-
Jansone - Not sure here...she's skilled but doesn't seem to grasp something.
So, basically, you have to choose what you want to do...score points or defend.
The offensive system the team is running works...it has been successful AT EVERY LEVEL - including last season for these coaches at Ferris State. Men's teams run it, women's teams run it, NBA teams run it, high school teams run it, it works. Right now, the team simply doesn't have the players who can get it done on BOTH ends...and that's really a result of the players the current staff inherited. The blame isn't solely on the previous staff, but it's hard to look at this year's team and think they aren't improved.
Some of the things the team is doing this year are, quite literally, the same. Unfortauntely, in my opinion, a side ballscreen offense will struggle with a point guard who doesn't score and off guards who don't attack well. The only player (again, my opinion) who can really thrive with a ballscreen is Scott. The posts are carrying the load right now, but I think with a summer of improvement and a recruiting class that reflects the new coaching staff, this team will quickly see improvement on offense.
If they can take the offensive players and teach them to defend (so they don't have to play zone when the better defenders go out...we've seen how well that works) this team can be good. Everyone who plays meaningful minutes except Lange and Richards comes back next year...and those two are players who can be replaced.
Hoops...excellent review, nailed most everything.
In simple terms we do not have enough shooters, PG's who can penetrate and dish to the shooters we have or quickness and defense in the interior. Given that and the fact that these are Freeman's recruits I think we are about where we should be. We have won a few we probably should not have and lost some we should have won.
My big concern is that we have no one signed for next year. Good D1 players sign early.
Quote from: IndyValpo on February 12, 2013, 06:37:28 PM
My big concern is that we have no one signed for next year. Good D1 players sign early.
The problem with that is, good D1 players start getting recruited the day the NCAA allows them to be, and in many cases before. The previous staff was well into their 2013 recruiting and started on 2014 no doubt. With the change, you basically have to throw that out and start over, and many times this is what gets new coaches in trouble....they never get a foothold in recruiting and once the previous coach's players are gone, it's all over.
I know this staff has their sights on some very good players, have worked very hard to recruit them and they believe that these players will come to VU and help build the program back to where it belongs.
Quote from: ValpoHoops on February 12, 2013, 07:03:08 PMThe problem with that is, good D1 players start getting recruited the day the NCAA allows them to be, and in many cases before. The previous staff was well into their 2013 recruiting and started on 2014 no doubt. With the change, you basically have to throw that out and start over, and many times this is what gets new coaches in trouble....they never get a foothold in recruiting and once the previous coach's players are gone, it's all over.
Agreed though coaching changes go on all the time. I would have thought a young, successful D2 coach who brought her only assistant and who has had success recruiting in Indiana previously who also retained someone from the prior regime would have had better luck....oh well.....time will tell.
Recruiting at the D1 level is a different bird, then at the D2 level. I hope you are right, and this staff has sparked some interest in some bigs coming to VU. Size cost us the Detriot game. We have to get some size back to VU.
Interesting review of the team and players Hoops. Most of it appears to be dead on.
Perimeter:
Couple of obsevations: Richardson needs to work on her scoring as she is, and should be the shooting guard. She is not a point guard. The floor awareness isn't there. I feel Carr does a better job of running point, and should be spotting Richards. she seems to be a better ball handler than you mention, and, in my opinion, probably sees the floor better than any of the guards we play. She's not as quick as some, but when our guards are dribbling quickly into the corners, we aren't gaining much. You may be right, her injuries have robbed her of some of her speed, but it could come back with some hard work and playing time. We need to engage all of our guards at points throughout the games, even if for a few minutes. There is no reason that Richards and Richardson should be averaging 32 to 33 minutes a contest, with the lack of offesive output they have. Dean does a nice job on D, and can hit shots when opened. She needs to be seeing 5+ minutes a game. Miller hasn't figured out the speed of the game yet. She will, and be able to contribute next year. Weidemann has been figured out as you mention. She's a set shooter. She needs to work on her foot speed, and get off of screens to create space for herself. Scott is a "tweener". Her size and speed has her between possitions. She's quick to the hole, but needs to work on body control. She has a decent shot from outside, but needs to follow her shots.
Post:
You're pretty much right on here.
I'd love to see them start Horton tonight and see what she brings. We need to get her confidence up, and let her know we'll be counting on her, big time, next season.
Calloway needs to bust it this off season and get into shape if she's going to be able to help out with a bigger role next year. She does an average job inside on the offensive side, but is always trailing the play on defense, and can rack up some fouls in a hurry. 5 minutes is about tops for her without some serious conditioning in the off season.
Jansone, in my opinion has lost confidence. She does have some skills, but is so worried about making a mistake and getting yanked, that she makes a mistake - and gets yanked. I really thought she'd have a bigger roll after a really good game at the begining of the season. The coaches just don't seem to know what to do with her.
The system you mention may work, but we aren't running it correctly. We do far too much dribbling around, and standing around. It's like we are trying to run a motion offense, without the motion. We don't execute screens well, and we don't slash and cut to the basket often. This brings me back to the guard possition. early on in games, we do try to slash, cut, and back door occasionally, but our starting guards aren't seeing it develop until it's come and goes. A good point guard will see these things develop before they happen. Our starting guards are a step slow of recognizing it. JMO. If you have an opportunity to watch tonight's game, keep an eye on this.
One of the things I wonder with Scott is if her ACL limits some of her movement?
With Weidemann, was she the type in high school who could score at-will because she was playing a lot of weaker opponents, and was she a Freeman or Dorow recruit?
Jansone, I wonder if her problem isn't so much with skill, but experience on the court? It seems like she would be able to get more confidence if the coaching staff would just let her make mistakes and keep her moving forward to learn from them while on the court, instead of watching from the end of the "depression zone"? I mean it seems like sending her out after a mistake changes her mood, and then after awhile she's simply forgotten about.
Calloway might just need some time too, but to me, she just seems like a lost puppy out there. Like she knows how to play offensively, but once she has the ball, she's too far out for just putting the ball in the basket. On defense, she just seems so oblong and out of position along the perimeter, like she should just be camped out near the rim? Maybe an Evva Commans type on defense, in terms of tall, oblong away from the rim?
Richardson strikes me more like a Suzie Hammell-type who was a combo guard, but could also play the 3, as needed. Charae doesn't need to do a lot of dribbling, but when we're "cornered", it means Charae has to do some dribbling around until the cornered girl is freed again. She should be more of a "spot-up" shooter, but can't really do that when her best touches of the ball come when passing out of the corner at the wing extended to the top of the key, where Charae may not be the most direct shot.
Gerardot and Lange are going to do what they do, and no need to further beat that equine.
The handful of players I didn't mention, either I haven't seen enough of, or the originial opinions seem to do justice enough.
Quote from: jack on February 13, 2013, 12:18:54 PM
Recruiting at the D1 level is a different bird, then at the D2 level. I hope you are right, and this staff has sparked some interest in some bigs coming to VU. Size cost us the Detriot game. We have to get some size back to VU.
Interesting review of the team and players Hoops. Most of it appears to be dead on.
Perimeter:
Couple of obsevations: Richardson needs to work on her scoring as she is, and should be the shooting guard. She is not a point guard. The floor awareness isn't there. I feel Carr does a better job of running point, and should be spotting Richards. she seems to be a better ball handler than you mention, and, in my opinion, probably sees the floor better than any of the guards we play. She's not as quick as some, but when our guards are dribbling quickly into the corners, we aren't gaining much. You may be right, her injuries have robbed her of some of her speed, but it could come back with some hard work and playing time. We need to engage all of our guards at points throughout the games, even if for a few minutes. There is no reason that Richards and Richardson should be averaging 32 to 33 minutes a contest, with the lack of offesive output they have. Dean does a nice job on D, and can hit shots when opened. She needs to be seeing 5+ minutes a game. Miller hasn't figured out the speed of the game yet. She will, and be able to contribute next year. Weidemann has been figured out as you mention. She's a set shooter. She needs to work on her foot speed, and get off of screens to create space for herself. Scott is a "tweener". Her size and speed has her between possitions. She's quick to the hole, but needs to work on body control. She has a decent shot from outside, but needs to follow her shots.
Post:
You're pretty much right on here.
I'd love to see them start Horton tonight and see what she brings. We need to get her confidence up, and let her know we'll be counting on her, big time, next season.
Calloway needs to bust it this off season and get into shape if she's going to be able to help out with a bigger role next year. She does an average job inside on the offensive side, but is always trailing the play on defense, and can rack up some fouls in a hurry. 5 minutes is about tops for her without some serious conditioning in the off season.
Jansone, in my opinion has lost confidence. She does have some skills, but is so worried about making a mistake and getting yanked, that she makes a mistake - and gets yanked. I really thought she'd have a bigger roll after a really good game at the begining of the season. The coaches just don't seem to know what to do with her.
The system you mention may work, but we aren't running it correctly. We do far too much dribbling around, and standing around. It's like we are trying to run a motion offense, without the motion. We don't execute screens well, and we don't slash and cut to the basket often. This brings me back to the guard possition. early on in games, we do try to slash, cut, and back door occasionally, but our starting guards aren't seeing it develop until it's come and goes. A good point guard will see these things develop before they happen. Our starting guards are a step slow of recognizing it. JMO. If you have an opportunity to watch tonight's game, keep an eye on this.
May I make a small suggestion about your posts?
They would be a lot easier to read if you left a space or two between paragraphs.
Quote from: jack on February 13, 2013, 12:18:54 PMIf you have an opportunity to watch tonight's game, keep an eye on this.
I certainly will see the game. One of the things that one must realize is that with the system the team is running, it isn't necessarily set up for cutting/slashing/backdoors (this sounds like I'm trying to toot my own horn - and it certainly isn't intended that way, but I spent time with the staff when they learned this particular system, so I know it really, really well). Yes, we get a few early in games at times, but then the defenders just sag off of the perimeter players and meet the cuts (we are still cutting, just not open)...and why wouldn't they...we don't make enough shots to scare them.
Another thing to recognize is that when players are making these cuts, many times it is a post with the ball at the top of the key (again, just part of the offense...not good or bad). Our posts - and most posts as a general rule - are not as good of passers as the guards.
What the team, in my opinion, really needs to do better is understand how teams are guarding the ball screens and take advantage of this...we are clearing a side for a two-person game but it seems that we are using the screen to pass, rather than score. There are a bunch of ways to guard a ball screen (jam, switch, soft hedge, hard hedge, under, over, flatten, trap, blah, blah, blah) and each has a weakness...we need to find the weakness and exploit it.
"May I make a small suggestion about your posts?
They would be a lot easier to read if you left a space or two between paragraphs."
Trying to save paper!! ;D
Quote from: jack on February 13, 2013, 03:01:09 PMTrying to save paper!!
+1
Little known fact that may only interest me: many times, emails for a former MBB coach would be printed for him to read (thinking maybe tech wasn't his thing?). I learned the hard way to be short and sweet with those messages...
Anyone know why Callaway and Godwin aren't dressed to play tonight? Saw them in warm-up gear during the national anthem.
Also, where are the fans? I know women's basketball isn't the most exciting thing on a Wednesday night, but there's maybe 50 fans that I can see, and I think that's generous
Oh yeah, starters -> Scott, Richards, Richardson, Gerardot and Lange; Wiedemann replaced Richardson after about 90 seconds. BTW, don't listen to HLN. Watch if you like, but the announcer is rough and ignored our pronunciation guide. Despite my own advice, I'm still listening to the announcer. Just clueless, favorite quote so far: "Tracy Dorow in his- her first season at Valparaiso"
Half: LUC 34-25; Ramblers went 16-4 in the final 5:45 of the half
Valpo notes: Scott with 9, Gerardot and Richardson with 6; More or less a seven-player rotation - Lexi Miller played the final 2+ minutes and ran some point - No Jessica Carr yet though she appears to be in uniform
Godwin was not dressed on Saturday either...not sure about Callaway
Decent first 18 minutes, but gave up a bunch there at the end of the half. Our post play is really hurting us right now (5-17 from the field, no free throw attempts) on the offensive end and we have too many turnovers. Also, we've managed to turn 10 offensive rebounds into just six points (this goes along with posts shooting bad). If Shaquira didn't have that stretch where she scored a bunch of quick points, this could be really ugly.
Defensively, we were OK (just OK) until the very end of the half. In the middle of the half it felt like post defense was bad, but overall Loyola's bigs are 6-16, so it wasn't...just that Law got three quick ones and Hambric followed with a jumper.
Second half keys:
- Take care of the ball...5 TO or less on offense
- Force mistakes...easy baskets happen in transition, and we have managed to force but four TO's
- FINISH...basketball at its simplest is scoring more points than the other team...if you miss shots, you don't score
To me, Loyola's defense is a big reason why our posts are struggling. Most of our shots inside look forced.
Agree with the 2nd half keys. If we can be more aggressive without making more mistakes and convert our shots, we can come back
Quote from: KL31NY on February 13, 2013, 07:51:19 PMTo me, Loyola's defense is a big reason why our posts are struggling. Most of our shots inside look forced.
I know this sounds crass (haven't used that one in a while...), but if you don't get fouled, you have to make the shot. If you can't, kick it out or go sit down and let someone else who can play. Can't use "tough defense" as an excuse inside in a game that's been, for the most part, not physical.
Quote from: KL31NY on February 13, 2013, 07:04:24 PMAlso, where are the fans? I know women's basketball isn't the most exciting thing on a Wednesday night, but there's maybe 50 fans that I can see, and I think that's generous
I'm putting it at 79, and that includes the band.
Quote from: KL31NY on February 13, 2013, 07:04:24 PMBTW, don't listen to HLN. Watch if you like, but the announcer is rough and ignored our pronunciation guide. Despite my own advice, I'm still listening to the announcer. Just clueless, favorite quote so far: "Tracy Dorow in his- her first season at Valparaiso"
The portion I heard sounded fine. I could have sworn that was WSCR's own Ben Finfer, but then he finally gave his name toward the end of the half and it wasn't. Now that I'm listening during halftime, I can tell the difference. He does sound similar to Ben. I did hear the line you quoted, and though I didn't track it like you did, it did sound awkward.
As far as delivery is concerned, he's *tons* better than the Valpo announcers I've heard the past couple of years, who are not nearly as comfortable on the air.
Quote from: StlVUFan on February 13, 2013, 07:58:42 PMAs far as delivery is concerned, he's *tons* better than the Valpo announcers I've heard the past couple of years, who are not nearly as comfortable on the air.
This part is definitely better (hence why I'm listening to the HLN feed...). However, it annoys me to no end when announcers don't pronounce names correctly. Someone needs to let him know that its WEE-demann, not WHY-demann...
I guess I shouldn't complain...we do get to watch the games for free...
Down 9, and your inside game isn't working. you have Richards, and Richardson out there. Where does your offense come from? With 4:30 left in the first half, you have no scorers out there. What are we expecting to happen here?
Amazing. Down 9, we break up the Richards, Richardson tandem, and in a couple of minutes, we are only down 3. Someone needs to be taking notes.
Quote from: ValpoHoops on February 13, 2013, 08:04:23 PM
Quote from: StlVUFan on February 13, 2013, 07:58:42 PMAs far as delivery is concerned, he's *tons* better than the Valpo announcers I've heard the past couple of years, who are not nearly as comfortable on the air.
This part is definitely better (hence why I'm listening to the HLN feed...). However, it annoys me to no end when announcers don't pronounce names correctly. Someone needs to let him know that its WEE-demann, not WHY-demann...
I guess I shouldn't complain...we do get to watch the games for free...
No argument there. I get pissed at ESPN announcers who don't do their homework, so ...
Down 3. Pull Scott, put in Richardson. 4 minutes, now down 9. We will never had consistent success with Richards, and Richardson on the floor at the same time.
Scott can't play 40 minutes...she needs a rest sometime. I don't know why Carr isn't playing, but I'm sure there is a reason...and I'll trust that the staff has a good reason.
The "offensive" lineup just can't get a big stop when they get close, and the "defensive" lineup is able to get stops, but can't score enough...
Hopefully. If we don't have Carr's services and play with just 7 regulars, it spells some trouble.
Anyone thinking we're not defending close enough to Loyola? The difference in the space we allow their ball handler versus the space they give us is not even close.
Quote from: KL31NY on February 13, 2013, 08:37:28 PMAnyone thinking we're not defending close enough to Loyola? The difference in the space we allow their ball handler versus the space they give us is not even close.
We don't have the athletes/quickness that they do. They can get into the handlers and stay there, knowing they can recover if beat. Also, they have a couple girls inside who are shot blockers...they know they have help behind them if they allow penetration to the rim.
Coaching staff clueless in this one. Down 6, with 3:40 left, and we move Richardson to point, and pull Richards. Then we pull Scott, who's been our best offensive threat tonight, and all of our 3 point threats, minus one, are on the bench. ValpoHoops, you can spin this how you want, but our coaches were lost tonight. Would like to here the story on why Carr didn't see any minutes. She didn't appear hurt. Horton hits a 3 tonight and in 20 seconds, she's sitting. We need a voice of reason on the sidelines. We are 3 - 6 in the HL, because we deserve to be.
GameTracker stopped running at the 2:11 mark (for me at least) so no final numbers, but I really feel like the game was lost in the last few minutes of the first half (3:41 to be exact).
Charae put in a pair to make it 24-23 Loyola at that point, but Loyola went on a 10-2 run to take their halftime lead. Not only does that give them the nine-point cushion, it really serves as an emotional boost for them and a downer for us going to the break.
Post play tonight wasn't very good. We did a poor job at finishing around the basket (all players, not just the bigs) and there were too many turnovers (16 with 2:11 to go). Loyola made some threes, but otherwise didn't shoot anything spectacular (42% or so)...
And again...basketball at its simplest....score more points than the other team, whether that be by scoring a ton or holding them to few...and we did neither well enough in this one.
Our MPG for our main players in HL play entering tonight + today's minutes (misc. notes)
Gerardot 33.8 + 33 (11 PTS on 14 FGA)
Richards 33.8 + 30 (0 PTS, 8 REB)
Richardson 32.1 + 34 (TH 16 PTS, 5-5 FT)
Lange 31.5 + 30 (6 PTS, 10 REB, fouled out)
Scott 27.9 + 30 (15 PTS, good aggressive play)
Carr 15.1 + 0 (Dressed, did not play)
Wiedemann 13.9 + 24 (Career-high for minutes)
Horton 9.4 + 17 (TCH 2 assists)
Callaway 5.4 + 0 (Did not dress to play)
Not much of a surprise on minutes. Weidemann, Horton, and Lexi Miller (2 MIN) combined for the usual amount played collectively by the reserves. Like I said earlier, hopefully Carr is back soon for whatever kept her from playing tonight. She gives some nice minutes and an extra option outside.
Quote from: ValpoHoops on February 13, 2013, 08:45:34 PMGameTracker stopped running at the 2:11 mark (for me at least) so no final numbers
Posts: 10-27...not so good (and did not attempt a free throw...)
Guards: 12-33...also not so good
Really can't say I agree with some of the substitution patterns either, jack, but I'm not at practice, I don't sit in on meetings and I don't know the players personally, so I have to just leave that to the coaches somewhat (not that I have to agree...but its not going to do me any good to post it here...). I do agree that it seems like we take players out who are starting to get going on offense...which is definitely frustrating. I know the situation at the end, Richards was at the table to play defense and there wasn't a whistle so she ended up in the game for offense...which doesn't do much for us.
Going forward, if we only have seven players like tonight (I'm not really counting the 2 minutes Miller played), it doesn't really matter...you have a rotation and you pretty much have to roll with it or someone isn't going to get enough rest. Hopefully tonight wasn't a harbinger of things to come.
I really think we are losing the battle with the rotations we are using. I know we talk about Miller needing another year to get used to the D1 pace, and intensity, and it showed for what few minutes we saw her tonight. I truly believe, with all due respect, our coaching staff has some of the same issues they need to get used to as well. The game needs to be planned out from start to finish, with concessions for the unforseen. We seem to be adlibbing at every turn. Again, I have no idea why Carr didn't see any minutes, but if it wasn't due to injury, then I'd like to hear the reason why. I think we could have used her services big time tonight. Our guards were clearly not getting the job done. It was a good move to pull Richardson early, and I thought Weidemann gave us some possitive minutes. Our bigs struggled tonight on the offensive end, and maybe should have been substituted out sooner.
When you look at the game as a whole I think, what strikes me most is the last 5 minutes. Rather then make any specific assesments, take a look at who was on the floor, and in what role they were out there for. We absolutely, possitively, did not put ourselves in the best possition to overcome the deficit we were in.
It really isn't about the personnel we have to work with. We have the talent to be a 500 team at worst. It's about implementing an offense that works to your strengths. If, what ValpoHoops suggest, that the offense we run has been proven affective, but we don't have the personnel to run it, then maybe we need to be looking at running an offense we can run successfully. I certainly don't have all the answers, but I do know, if the coaching staff is watching the same game film I am, and they continue the same starting 5, with the same vannila offense, then they can certainly expect the same results.
Quote from: jack on February 13, 2013, 09:16:57 PMWe have the talent to be a 500 team at worst
I disagree...I won't get into why I think this, I could type all night. This is an overexaggeration, but donkeys don't win the Kentucky Derby.
I think this team, this year - IF THEY PLAYED THEIR ABSOLUTE BEST FOR TWO MONTHS - could go .500 in HL play...but realistically, 6-7 wins is (and always was) probably about right...hopefully the higher end of that. The next three home games (UIC/UWM/WSU) need to be wins...that's 6 wins and perhaps they get one of the YSU/CSU trip (CSU is beatable again). And, there should be one more win from the loss at WSU.
Last year, basically the same team went 10-21/5-13...this year is 8-14/3-6 (see above for 11-18/6-10 heading into HL Tournament).
Rome wasn't built in a day...I know patience isn't real big among sports fans...but that's really all we can do...it's not going to happen overnight...but it sure isn't any fun watching them be close and lose games...
ml, I hope you're reading this. Is it possible to go ahead and sign up jack as the head coach of the women's program? If he were at the helm, we'd be .500 at worst. It's obvious the current coaches are clueless.
:crazy:
Quote from: ValpoHoops on February 13, 2013, 09:28:18 PM
Quote from: jack on February 13, 2013, 09:16:57 PMWe have the talent to be a 500 team at worst
I disagree...I won't get into why I think this, I could type all night. This is an overexaggeration, but donkeys don't win the Kentucky Derby.
I think this team, this year - IF THEY PLAYED THEIR ABSOLUTE BEST FOR TWO MONTHS - could go .500 in HL play...but realistically, 6-7 wins is (and always was) probably about right...hopefully the higher end of that. The next three home games (UIC/UWM/WSU) need to be wins...that's 6 wins and perhaps they get one of the YSU/CSU trip (CSU is beatable again). And, there should be one more win from the loss at WSU.
Last year, basically the same team went 10-21/5-13...this year is 8-14/3-6 (see above for 11-18/6-10 heading into HL Tournament).
Rome wasn't built in a day...I know patience isn't real big among sports fans...but that's really all we can do...it's not going to happen overnight...but it sure isn't any fun watching them be close and lose games...
Not expecting a championship team, just a better plan to maximize our talent. Actually, this is a much different team then last season. We didn't have the services of Horton, and we didn't have Richardson, Weidemann, or Miller. We lost Varner and Timmy, but we picked up some speed. take away the silliness of scheduling top 25 teams early on, and scheduling games we had a shot at winning, and there really isn't any reason we couldn't be sitting around .500 right now.
Quote from: SadersofthelostArc on February 13, 2013, 10:27:37 PM
ml, I hope you're reading this. Is it possible to go ahead and sign up jack as the head coach of the women's program? If he were at the helm, we'd be .500 at worst. It's obvious the current coaches are clueless.
:crazy:
I keep wondering if, someday you'll actually post something that would suggest you have an uderstanding of the game. Still waiting.
Quote from: jack on February 14, 2013, 07:17:16 AM
Quote from: SadersofthelostArc on February 13, 2013, 10:27:37 PM
ml, I hope you're reading this. Is it possible to go ahead and sign up jack as the head coach of the women's program? If he were at the helm, we'd be .500 at worst. It's obvious the current coaches are clueless.
:crazy:
I keep wondering if, someday you'll actually post something that would suggest you have an uderstanding of the game. Still waiting.
I hope you're patient...
Quote from: jack on February 14, 2013, 07:17:16 AM
Quote from: SadersofthelostArc on February 13, 2013, 10:27:37 PM
ml, I hope you're reading this. Is it possible to go ahead and sign up jack as the head coach of the women's program? If he were at the helm, we'd be .500 at worst. It's obvious the current coaches are clueless.
:crazy:
I keep wondering if, someday you'll actually post something that would suggest you have an uderstanding of the game. Still waiting.
Learn how to take a compliment! Based on all I've read from you, it seems obvious you would have the team playing at a much higher level. The :crazy: sign was directed towards the fact that no one interviewed you.
Quote from: ValpoHoops on February 14, 2013, 09:00:13 AM
Quote from: jack on February 14, 2013, 07:17:16 AM
Quote from: SadersofthelostArc on February 13, 2013, 10:27:37 PM
ml, I hope you're reading this. Is it possible to go ahead and sign up jack as the head coach of the women's program? If he were at the helm, we'd be .500 at worst. It's obvious the current coaches are clueless.
:crazy:
I keep wondering if, someday you'll actually post something that would suggest you have an uderstanding of the game. Still waiting.
I hope you're patient...
Ok, I think I know what this is about. Are you upset that I put together a cool avy for Valpo04 and not for you? Don't worry, I'll work something up.
Quote from: SadersofthelostArc on February 14, 2013, 09:03:26 AM
Quote from: ValpoHoops on February 14, 2013, 09:00:13 AM
Quote from: jack on February 14, 2013, 07:17:16 AM
Quote from: SadersofthelostArc on February 13, 2013, 10:27:37 PM
ml, I hope you're reading this. Is it possible to go ahead and sign up jack as the head coach of the women's program? If he were at the helm, we'd be .500 at worst. It's obvious the current coaches are clueless.
:crazy:
I keep wondering if, someday you'll actually post something that would suggest you have an uderstanding of the game. Still waiting.
I hope you're patient...
Ok, I think I know what this is about. Are you upset that I put together a cool avy for Valpo04 and not for you? Don't worry, I'll work something up.
No, I'm disappointed that you said in your opening post of this thread that you were going to "break down some womens hoops". I was curious and interested to see that and as of yet, I'm still waiting....
ValpoHoops, I think we have a better shot of Saders breaking down Coach Dorow's fashion choice for each game, than we do her rotation patterns, gameday coaching, answering questions about injuries or why she decided Carr and Miller didn't get minutes that mattered against Loyola. Just sayin'...
Quote from: valporun on February 14, 2013, 11:53:43 AM
ValpoHoops, I think we have a better shot of Saders breaking down Coach Dorow's fashion choice for each game, than we do her rotation patterns, gameday coaching, answering questions about injuries or why she decided Carr and Miller didn't get minutes that mattered against Loyola. Just sayin'...
Et tu, run????
I, at least, had some kind of breakdown of women's basketball here, Saders.
So, jack, if you say that this offense won't for these girls then what would you try and do? You can't do a whole lot with the players that are on the roster as of now.
I've been pretty specific of the things I would try in this, and other post. I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but I know of one I do have: What we are trying is not working. Turning things around could be as simple as mixing up the starting line up. I did notice last night the energy that Weidmann played with. She also seemed to be moving more purposefully. Could very well be because she got into the game very early on. So much of this game is played in the space between the players ears. We need a spark. We need to mix things up. We need earned playing time. I'm not the only one that feels that starting the same 5, game in, and game out is not working. Period. Again, I think I've probably been more then clear here on what I think we need to try. I'd like to hear suggestions from others. What do you think we need to try Valpo4life?
This team will go as far as its post players can carry it. When they beat Cleveland State, Tabitha and Gina combined for 56, the two combined for 12 against Detroit and until Tabitha scored five late ones, they combined for 10 last night. Does the production from the guards have to be better? Absolutely it does. But this isn't a guard-oriented team, and when Gerardot and Lange struggle (as they have the last two games), it's going to be a struggle to win.
Quote from: jack on February 14, 2013, 02:22:00 PMI've been pretty specific of the things I would try in this, and other post. I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but I know of one I do have: What we are trying is not working. Turning things around could be as simple as mixing up the starting line up. I did notice last night the energy that Weidmann played with. She also seemed to be moving more purposefully. Could very well be because she got into the game very early on. So much of this game is played in the space between the players ears. We need a spark. We need to mix things up. We need earned playing time. I'm not the only one that feels that starting the same 5, game in, and game out is not working. Period. Again, I think I've probably been more then clear here on what I think we need to try. I'd like to hear suggestions from others. What do you think we need to try Valpo4life?
As I recall you reamed Dorow for starting Weidmann about 2 weeks ago. Regardless, I have no problem with starting different people. At least the current coach has been open to playing different combinations. Some work, some don't. I have said this for 3.5 years so here goes...we play Richards too many minutes. She is a 20-25 minute player. Coach has fallen into the same trap as Freeman. You look at the stats and see that she doesn't turn the ball over and you figure she has to be on the floor all the time. She doesn't have turnovers because her passes do not attempt to put anyone in a better scoring position. I love her energy, I would just love it about 10-15 minutes less per game.
You've pinpointed one problem if we are not a guard oriented team. We have seven guards on the roster. That can be used to an advantage at times. I think we need to look at utilizing our speed at times. Gina and Tabby's games rely on decent guard play. If our guards are stagnate, the D collapses in on the bigs.
Quote from: IndyValpo on February 14, 2013, 02:41:37 PM
Quote from: jack on February 14, 2013, 02:22:00 PMI've been pretty specific of the things I would try in this, and other post. I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but I know of one I do have: What we are trying is not working. Turning things around could be as simple as mixing up the starting line up. I did notice last night the energy that Weidmann played with. She also seemed to be moving more purposefully. Could very well be because she got into the game very early on. So much of this game is played in the space between the players ears. We need a spark. We need to mix things up. We need earned playing time. I'm not the only one that feels that starting the same 5, game in, and game out is not working. Period. Again, I think I've probably been more then clear here on what I think we need to try. I'd like to hear suggestions from others. What do you think we need to try Valpo4life?
As I recall you reamed Dorow for starting Weidmann about 2 weeks ago. Regardless, I have no problem with starting different people. At least the current coach has been open to playing different combinations. Some work, some don't. I have said this for 3.5 years so here goes...we play Richards too many minutes. She is a 20-25 minute player. Coach has fallen into the same trap as Freeman. You look at the stats and see that she doesn't turn the ball over and you figure she has to be on the floor all the time. She doesn't have turnovers because her passes do not attempt to put anyone in a better scoring position. I love her energy, I would just love it about 10-15 minutes less per game.
I haven't reamed Dorow, or any of the coaches. It's a learning process for them too. I've only pointed out things they continue to stick with, that aren't working. I had no issue with starting Weidmann. I had an issue with starting her withhout also starting a guard that could get her the ball in shooting possition. It's the combination of who we start that's critical. Continuing to start each game with two guards that aren't putting up the points we need them to, will not work. Playing them a collective 65 minutes a night isn't working either. Ditto on Richards. I've mentioned those very issues too. Playing a guard on average of 33 minutes a game, that doesn't put up points is a mistake. She had some nice assist. the other night, but like you state, I would accept some turnovers if we were getting the ball into the paint and setting up the bigs to score. Her passes are safe.
Valpo led UIC 7-4 early on, now trails 14-7 midway through the 1st.
When the Flames got up 11-7, Dorow called a timeout and completely changed the lineup. Carr, Miller, Lange, Scott, and Dean came in while Wiedemann, Richards, Horton, Gerardot, Richardson came out.
The team is flat to start. No fire it doesn't seem. Miller has provided a spark with a couple of threes now, as as I write a nice pass to Tab for an and-one. Starting to think we need to, as a team, play faster. Just attack all the time ad throw some caution to the wind.
More importantly, I'm upset that STL walked in, sat down in my row (we are the only two in this row), and sat down without saying hello.
Quote from: ValpoHoops on February 16, 2013, 01:30:16 PM
The team is flat to start. No fire it doesn't seem. Miller has provided a spark with a couple of threes now, as as I write a nice pass to Tab for an and-one. Starting to think we need to, as a team, play faster. Just attack all the time ad throw some caution to the wind.
More importantly, I'm upset that STL walked in, sat down in my row (we are the only two in this row), and sat down without saying hello.
I've always been about them playing faster. With a 7 guard squad, we need to utilize our speed.
Same starting 5, same slump to start. We went 7 min. without a score.
I hate to keep harping on it it but......At the 8 min. mark we were down 10 I believe. We sit Richards. At the 3 min. mark we are only down 2. we bring Richards back in. If not for the desperation shot going in at the buzzer by Miller, we would be down 9 at the break. We just don't play fast, or get the ball inside with Richards on the point. Even though Carr didn't take a shot, the offense seems to flow better when she is running it. Crisper passing, and always looking inside. JMO.
Great to see Miller getting some minutes, and confidence!
"I feel the need, the need for speed" in the second half!
Per Oren - the ladies are on a 28-6 run. Turned a 4 point deficit into an 18 point lead.
Smoked them in the second half. Defensive intensity was up, offensive aggressiveness was WAY up and the team scored 55...funny how attacking the basket will do that...
Saw some things I really liked from some of the players today...
Tab is Tab, a quiet 18-14 game today to be honest.
Liz was much more assertive on offense...not just making post moves and shooting, she was attacking the rim, making plays
Shaq was very aggressive. If she continues to be aggressive, its going to make things better for everyone
Lexi was very good today. Her first possession, she was the PG and turned it over. After that, she was on the floor with someone else to play the point, and she was very good. She can handle the game if she doesn't have to manage the team, and today was a sign of that (and really was the first time she played off the ball)...also did a nice job distributing
Wiedemann was a different player than normal today...aggressive, looked to drive but always was ready. Made some very nice plays to help the team.
Charae scored our first five points and hit a big shot in the second half during our big run and did a nice job of playing within her game...quietly had a nice game
Carr was solid as well. Didn't take a shot, but did a GREAT job rebounding on the defensive end, which led to her points from the FT line. Did a solid job when at the PG spot just getting the team into things, especially against a couple kids for UIC that are really good on-ball defenders.
Laura hit a couple of big threes in short order, as well as doing a GREAT job on the defensive end - especially in the second half. She was able to disrupt the UIC offense and held #4 (Story) under her season average...and just 4-12 from the floor. 9 pts, 7 reb, 5 ast (3to) and the defense she played was well worth the 32 minutes...and if we could get that from her on a nightly basis it would be a huge plus.
Gina was solid on both ends...tough to say much, she really seems to blend in until you look at a box score.
Abby played well in her few minutes...good hands on defense and was strong to the rim on offense...
Second half was really a beautiful thing to watch. I had the chance to take in practice yesterday and they were working on a lot of the things that I saw in the game today...including being aggressive and it really showed today. Hopefully, that idea continues to take hold and the team continues to score at this rate...defense only has to be "decent" when you score 88.
Not everything was great (you know, like the first half), but after a second half like that, its definitely good to roll with the good and worry about the bad tomorrow.
UIC's largest lead was 11, with 7:52 to play in the first half. I happened to look at my phone during the media timeout at this point and it was exactly 1:30...which is our normal start time for home games.
From there, we "won" 76-39...so I blame ESPN and the men's team for having this evening's game on TV, which led to the women sliding their game up the half hour.
Nice assesment VHoops. I think the coaches are starting to learn how to maximize our strengths. We have to be built on speed with the personnel we have. The second half sowed what we are capable of, when we get at it aggresively.
Great win ladies!
Well, well, well, how the tables have been turned.
Quote from: jack on February 16, 2013, 05:15:44 PM
I think the coaches are starting to learn how to maximize our strengths. We have to be built on speed with the personnel we have.
Not sure I agree with this. I think they're always known the strengths and its just a matter of everything clicking. Like is said, I was at practice yesterday as there was an extremely concerted effort to get certain players to do certain things....almost an exasperated message like "I've been telling you guys to do this all along why is it just now sinking in?" thing.
One of the things I thought about during the mens game tonight was in terms of the speed/pace/aggressiveness the team has. I also talked to a couple of the coaches during the game and they seemed to agree that it's been hard at time to break the players of habits (this is usually really, really, really hard to do) and if you think about the style they played with Freeman at the helm, it was a much more controlled, low tempo game...these coaches would love to score 90 a game but the players are still adjusting to that.
I think it's really a matter of the message, the understanding, the system and the execution all flowing together. Like I said, hopefully this was a sign of things to come.
ValpoHoops, aren't you on the VU staff or formerly on the staff?
I've really enjoyed reading your insights lately. The arm-chair coaches around here need to be put on notice and you're doing a fine job of that.
Quote from: SadersofthelostArc on February 16, 2013, 07:48:11 PM
ValpoHoops, aren't you on the VU staff or formerly on the staff?
No. If I was I wouldn't be posting on a fan message board...that's for sure.
Did you used to work for the program? Or were you just a consultant?
I remember reading about you breaking down IUN film last year, so I assumed...
Nope. And not sure what a consultant would do for a basketball program....I'd think if you trusted someone that much, you'd just have them as a coach.
But I digress...I was breaking down their film because I wa coaching a team that played against them. I've been more active on the board lately because I'm no longer coaching there and have had much more free time in my "new life". I'll leave it there (and ask that everyone else does too)
Quote from: ValpoHoops on February 16, 2013, 07:30:21 PM
Quote from: jack on February 16, 2013, 05:15:44 PM
I think the coaches are starting to learn how to maximize our strengths. We have to be built on speed with the personnel we have.
Not sure I agree with this. I think they're always known the strengths and its just a matter of everything clicking. Like is said, I was at practice yesterday as there was an extremely concerted effort to get certain players to do certain things....almost an exasperated message like "I've been telling you guys to do this all along why is it just now sinking in?" thing.
One of the things I thought about during the mens game tonight was in terms of the speed/pace/aggressiveness the team has. I also talked to a couple of the coaches during the game and they seemed to agree that it's been hard at time to break the players of habits (this is usually really, really, really hard to do) and if you think about the style they played with Freeman at the helm, it was a much more controlled, low tempo game...these coaches would love to score 90 a game but the players are still adjusting to that.
I think it's really a matter of the message, the understanding, the system and the execution all flowing together. Like I said, hopefully this was a sign of things to come.
Without the benefit of being at practice, it seems to have taken this staff a while to get these players to buy into the system, if what we saw on Saturday was the system they intend on using. As far as tempo, comparing it to last year, Freeman had no choice but to play a slower tempo. He only had 6, sometimes 5 healthy players at any given time. I'm still amazed at how he was able to pull out 10 wins with what he had to work with.
I still feel we need to shake up the starting five. We dig a hole every game, and play catch up for too long. We need that spark right out of the gate. We had a lot of players contribute in different ways Saturday. I don't believe our starting guards are the best we have at getting the ball inside like we need to.
I've notice that, in the ladies game, and not just with Valpo, coaches have quit stressing the importance of the bounce pass. We have a couple of players that do it well, but for the most part, it's non-existent. Back in my coaching days, if you weren't utilizing the bounce pass when needed, you were a spectator, until you learned.
A large percentage of our turnovers come from trying to force errant passes, when a bounce pass would get the job done.