|
Minutes
Jul 10, 2024 18:03:14 GMT -5
Post by ucchamp on Jul 10, 2024 18:03:14 GMT -5
I'm not worried about UConn's offense. There are 7 highly skilled offensive players joining the team, the 3 freshmen, El Alfy, Fudd, Chen & Ducharme. While it's unlikely that all 7 will become star scorers this season it's a near certainty (at least right now) that as a group they will give Geno multiple scoring options. And that was the basis of my comment about defense. Of that group, those who do it at the defensive end will play more than those who are "less enthusiastic" about defense. My perception of this roster is that they are all ready to dive to the floor and expend lots of energy on defense so I expect UConn to have a top defensive team. They may not shut down a few teams but they will slow them all down a lot more than their own offense will be slowed. My major disagreement (or maybe its just prerception) with you is that imo the UCONN Defense overall won't be elite vs the other super teams. It will be a question of can they score enough. IMO if your pov is accurate that you aren't worried about UCONN's offense - if that holds true- then imo UCONN is gonna win a title. So I'm hopeful your pov regarding the Offense is spot on.
|
|
|
Post by swash on Jul 10, 2024 19:26:10 GMT -5
Wow! I hope both of you turn out to be right.
1. UConn will have an elite offense
2. UConn will have an elite defense
Go dog go!
|
|
|
Post by linkster on Jul 10, 2024 19:28:51 GMT -5
Elite defenses are elite against everyone they play. They don't dominate great offenses but they reduce their efficiency.
According to Massey UConn had the 4th best offense and third best defense last season with only 7 players. Four of those were 1st year players. It's not a stretch to think they will be much better this year.
|
|
|
Minutes
Jul 10, 2024 20:13:20 GMT -5
Post by ucchamp on Jul 10, 2024 20:13:20 GMT -5
Elite defenses are elite against everyone they play. They don't dominate great offenses but they reduce their efficiency. According to Massey UConn had the 4th best offense and third best defense last season with only 7 players. Four of those were 1st year players. It's not a stretch to think they will be much better this year. I don't agree in context. When UCONN played South Carolina - the UCONN offense couldn't be elite. South Carolina showed that when they played UCONN. If we want to say "dominated" or "not dominated" it doesn’t matter. The offense only put up 65 points. Massey provides an overall rating but when you lump in data of South Carolina vs data of say Butler and combine it as an average, it skews the data if one were to speak how a team performs vs other super teams. Taking a look at how they perform vs good-to-elite teams etc. UCONN's tough 4 games in NCAA's they averaged 68.5 ppg. And Geno specifically remarked 69 points vs Iowa it was the Offense that let the team down. The Offense wasn't elite vs top teams if the coach is saying his Offense didn't perform as well as it should have. They weren't dominated but obviously games vs South Carolina and Iowa - the elite teams - not good enough. Calling them an elite Offense if we were to do that when they showed they didn't perform that way vs the two Big Dog teams, - it is sort of hollow.
|
|
|
Post by linkster on Jul 10, 2024 22:11:54 GMT -5
Elite defenses are elite against everyone they play. They don't dominate great offenses but they reduce their efficiency. According to Massey UConn had the 4th best offense and third best defense last season with only 7 players. Four of those were 1st year players. It's not a stretch to think they will be much better this year. I don't agree in context. When UCONN played South Carolina - the UCONN offense couldn't be elite. South Carolina showed that when they played UCONN. If we want to say "dominated" or "not dominated" it doesn’t matter. The offense only put up 65 points. Massey provides an overall rating but when you lump in data of South Carolina vs data of say Butler and combine it as an average, it skews the data if one were to speak how a team performs vs other super teams. Taking a look at how they perform vs good-to-elite teams etc. UCONN's tough 4 games in NCAA's they averaged 68.5 ppg. And Geno specifically remarked 69 points vs Iowa it was the Offense that let the team down. The Offense wasn't elite vs top teams if the coach is saying his Offense didn't perform as well as it should have. They weren't dominated but obviously games vs South Carolina and Iowa - the elite teams - not good enough. Calling them an elite Offense if we were to do that when they showed they didn't perform that way vs the two Big Dog teams, - it is sort of hollow. It appears you think the UConn offense wasn't good enough last year. To me it wasn't that they weren't good enough. My thinking was that they were too few. Fudd, Ziebell and Strong may all be better 3pt shooters than Bueckers and that changes the entire equation. Bueckers is going to be surrounded by great scorers, three level scorers. Besides, Geno gets paid to worry.
|
|
|
Post by swash on Jul 11, 2024 5:09:55 GMT -5
Elite defenses are elite against everyone they play. They don't dominate great offenses but they reduce their efficiency. According to Massey UConn had the 4th best offense and third best defense last season with only 7 players. Four of those were 1st year players. It's not a stretch to think they will be much better this year. I don't agree in context. When UCONN played South Carolina - the UCONN offense couldn't be elite. South Carolina showed that when they played UCONN. If we want to say "dominated" or "not dominated" it doesn’t matter. The offense only put up 65 points. Massey provides an overall rating but when you lump in data of South Carolina vs data of say Butler and combine it as an average, it skews the data if one were to speak how a team performs vs other super teams. Taking a look at how they perform vs good-to-elite teams etc. UCONN's tough 4 games in NCAA's they averaged 68.5 ppg. And Geno specifically remarked 69 points vs Iowa it was the Offense that let the team down. The Offense wasn't elite vs top teams if the coach is saying his Offense didn't perform as well as it should have. They weren't dominated but obviously games vs South Carolina and Iowa - the elite teams - not good enough. Calling them an elite Offense if we were to do that when they showed they didn't perform that way vs the two Big Dog teams, - it is sort of hollow. There's a difference between having an off night and not being good enough. Did you think Iowa played great defense in that game, or did our team just come up short that day? Paige and Ash missed a lot of shots they usually hit. Sure, Iowa gets some credit, but sometimes it just isn't your day. Geno’s statement wasn't that the O was bad, just that it wasn't as good as the D that day. I expect the team to be better offensively this time around. With a likely regression at the other end... at least early on
|
|
|
Minutes
Jul 11, 2024 11:49:24 GMT -5
Post by ucchamp on Jul 11, 2024 11:49:24 GMT -5
I don't agree in context. When UCONN played South Carolina - the UCONN offense couldn't be elite. South Carolina showed that when they played UCONN. If we want to say "dominated" or "not dominated" it doesn’t matter. The offense only put up 65 points. Massey provides an overall rating but when you lump in data of South Carolina vs data of say Butler and combine it as an average, it skews the data if one were to speak how a team performs vs other super teams. Taking a look at how they perform vs good-to-elite teams etc. UCONN's tough 4 games in NCAA's they averaged 68.5 ppg. And Geno specifically remarked 69 points vs Iowa it was the Offense that let the team down. The Offense wasn't elite vs top teams if the coach is saying his Offense didn't perform as well as it should have. They weren't dominated but obviously games vs South Carolina and Iowa - the elite teams - not good enough. Calling them an elite Offense if we were to do that when they showed they didn't perform that way vs the two Big Dog teams, - it is sort of hollow. It appears you think the UConn offense wasn't good enough last year. To me it wasn't that they weren't good enough. My thinking was that they were too few. Fudd, Ziebell and Strong may all be better 3pt shooters than Bueckers and that changes the entire equation. Bueckers is going to be surrounded by great scorers, three level scorers. Besides, Geno gets paid to worry. I still wonder is if we are disgareeing in perception - becuase -- 1-- If I were to make a statement as you have done that a team has "too few" - in my pov/ my context that also means "not enough." Otherwise I would never say " too few." So, " "too few" and "not enough" is equivalant to " not good enough." They weren't " good enough" in FF, were they? 2-- And you mentioning of other scorers for this year-- well that's my point. The additional Offense is the key so for example when they do get in FF - their offense should be leaned on to be "good enough." 3-- Yes Geno is paid to worry. And we as fans can have opinions if we agree or not with his worries. I recall last year before the injuries you were not in favor of Paige playing the SF not only offensivley but defensively, correct? Whether it be "worry" or "not in favor of" etc you offered an opnion just as I am.
|
|
|
Post by ucchamp on Jul 11, 2024 12:03:16 GMT -5
I don't agree in context. When UCONN played South Carolina - the UCONN offense couldn't be elite. South Carolina showed that when they played UCONN. If we want to say "dominated" or "not dominated" it doesn’t matter. The offense only put up 65 points. Massey provides an overall rating but when you lump in data of South Carolina vs data of say Butler and combine it as an average, it skews the data if one were to speak how a team performs vs other super teams. Taking a look at how they perform vs good-to-elite teams etc. UCONN's tough 4 games in NCAA's they averaged 68.5 ppg. And Geno specifically remarked 69 points vs Iowa it was the Offense that let the team down. The Offense wasn't elite vs top teams if the coach is saying his Offense didn't perform as well as it should have. They weren't dominated but obviously games vs South Carolina and Iowa - the elite teams - not good enough. Calling them an elite Offense if we were to do that when they showed they didn't perform that way vs the two Big Dog teams, - it is sort of hollow. There's a difference between having an off night and not being good enough. Did you think Iowa played great defense in that game, or did our team just come up short that day? Paige and Ash missed a lot of shots they usually hit. Sure, Iowa gets some credit, but sometimes it just isn't your day. Geno’s statement wasn't that the O was bad, just that it wasn't as good as the D that day. I expect the team to be better offensively this time around. With a likely regression at the other end... at least early on I don't think the Offense was an off night. That's why I mentioned 4 games in NCAA's. In those 4 games it was the same average as the one game. So, UCONN scored in the 50's vs Duke -- so do we say that was another off night too? Maybe it was but then if the gap is two games then maybe the 80 points they scored vs SoCal was the other way? Vs top teams I'm looking back and only vs Louisvile did they score 88, - then they scored 72 vs Cuse. After that every other top team they didn't break 70. It was the Big East that brought their numbers up. Then looking back at their next game vs a top tier team it was South Carolina then before that Notre dame UCON scored 65 and 67 points respectively . So, outside of the Big East, when we played ND and SoCar then the 4 NCAA games outside of rd 1, they scored 67, 65, 72, 53, 80 and 69. This is an elite Offense? We have seen elite offenses - six of UCONN's toughest opponents and end of year with an average of 67.67 ppg - and that's "elite?"That's near the same as Iowa. I also want to add just because I say “not good enough” in my pov that doesn’t mean “bad or stink.”
|
|
|
Post by swash on Jul 11, 2024 12:40:06 GMT -5
There's a difference between having an off night and not being good enough. Did you think Iowa played great defense in that game, or did our team just come up short that day? Paige and Ash missed a lot of shots they usually hit. Sure, Iowa gets some credit, but sometimes it just isn't your day. Geno’s statement wasn't that the O was bad, just that it wasn't as good as the D that day. I expect the team to be better offensively this time around. With a likely regression at the other end... at least early on I don't think the Offense was an off night. That's why I mentioned 4 games in NCAA's. In those 4 games it was the same average as the one game. So, UCONN scored in the 50's vs Duke -- so do we say that was another off night too? Maybe it was but then if the gap is two games then maybe the 80 points they scored vs SoCal was the other way? Vs top teams I'm looking back and only vs Louisvile did they score 88, - then they scored 72 vs Cuse. After that every other top team they didn't break 70. It was the Big East that brought their numbers up. Then looking back at their next game vs a top tier team it was South Carolina then before that Notre dame UCON scored 65 and 67 points respectively . So, outside of the Big East, when we played ND and SoCar then the 4 NCAA games outside of rd 1, they scored 67, 65, 72, 53, 80 and 69. This is an elite Offense? We have seen elite offenses - six of UCONN's toughest opponents and end of year with an average of 67.67 ppg - and that's "elite?"That's near the same as Iowa. I also want to add just because I say “not good enough” in my pov that doesn’t mean “bad or stink.” Very difficult to compare, because UConn plays more top teams than most anyone else other than SCar. The data clearly supports your case. The only caveat is that UConn had ... about a million ... different lineups over the season. Some of those readjustments are going to show in lower output. By the NCAAs, they had standardized, but with a very short bench. Shot turns, less rest, foul worries, all pile up as the pressure grows in tourney time, and the further you go, the better the competition. Seems almost a given that the offense will be better in the coming season. I think we're saying the same things with a different accent
|
|
|
Post by linkster on Jul 11, 2024 14:39:53 GMT -5
What does "good" mean? UConn lost in the 2024 tournament and many would say it was because they weren't good enough. I agree that their offense and their defense wasn't good enough but not that the cure is for all the returning players to do more this year.
What UConn lacked last year was experience and depth. Time cures the first and a healthy 14 player roster filled with elite talent takes care of the later. The returning players only need to keep working as they have been doing. Nothing more. The sophomore leap is all about experience gained. Add in Chen, a walking ad for experience. The four 1st year players are a coach's depth dream come true. 6'5,6'2,6'2,5-10. Three of them are 3 level shooters and they all can play multiple positions. A lot of my optimism is based on my opinion that all four of them will be valuable next season.
To my eye UConn is already a much better team that last year, a year where they made the FF after losing in the S16 in 2023.
|
|
|
Post by ucchamp on Jul 11, 2024 20:37:28 GMT -5
I don't think the Offense was an off night. That's why I mentioned 4 games in NCAA's. In those 4 games it was the same average as the one game. So, UCONN scored in the 50's vs Duke -- so do we say that was another off night too? Maybe it was but then if the gap is two games then maybe the 80 points they scored vs SoCal was the other way? Vs top teams I'm looking back and only vs Louisvile did they score 88, - then they scored 72 vs Cuse. After that every other top team they didn't break 70. It was the Big East that brought their numbers up. Then looking back at their next game vs a top tier team it was South Carolina then before that Notre dame UCON scored 65 and 67 points respectively . So, outside of the Big East, when we played ND and SoCar then the 4 NCAA games outside of rd 1, they scored 67, 65, 72, 53, 80 and 69. This is an elite Offense? We have seen elite offenses - six of UCONN's toughest opponents and end of year with an average of 67.67 ppg - and that's "elite?"That's near the same as Iowa. I also want to add just because I say “not good enough” in my pov that doesn’t mean “bad or stink.” Very difficult to compare, because UConn plays more top teams than most anyone else other than SCar. The data clearly supports your case. The only caveat is that UConn had ... about a million ... different lineups over the season. Some of those readjustments are going to show in lower output. By the NCAAs, they had standardized, but with a very short bench. Shot turns, less rest, foul worries, all pile up as the pressure grows in tourney time, and the further you go, the better the competition. Seems almost a given that the offense will be better in the coming season. I think we're saying the same things with a different accent Yes UCONN plays many top teams but once their lineup got established- their last 6 games vs the to their opponents (i.e. non-Big East and exclude rd 1 of NCAA's) I referenced above - that offense is not élite. So, it wasn't "many different lineups" from the point I referenced. The point is when you had mentioned to me that they missed many open shots v Iowa-- yet when I look at the data that was around the same number of points they scored vs ND, SoCar, Cuse, Duke, And SoCal. Thus, wouldn't it be more realistic to say the 80 pt game was an absolute peak vs SoCal while the Duke game was an absolute clear bottom therefore they probably were about an upper 60's scoring team (Which basically they were v ND, SoCar, Cuse, and Iowa.)?" So I'm referencing a pattern of games at the backend of the season and not easy Big East Teams. So, this is when their lineup was established. SO that why I say "not elite." I think this might be our disagreement? Other than that- imo we are all in agreement (btw this has nothing to do with me being "worried."), that the Offense will be better. IMO if healthy I believe the offense will be much better. And with that said - I've expressed that it has to be much better. I certainly believe it will be - just depends on the degree. And if it is much better I lean toward "we're the best." No way was I leaning toward UCONN being the best leading into NCAA Tourney last year or even when we were in FF did I believe that. of course one single game anyone can win. There was this hockey game many years ago . . . and this was no way near that in terms of miracle. Just talking “in general.” IMO Scoring with an average of upper 60's over several gmes in the NCAA's will not lead to a championship. of course they could get a favorable draw among other things. I'm speaking in general terms.
|
|
|
Minutes
Jul 11, 2024 21:46:32 GMT -5
Post by ucchamp on Jul 11, 2024 21:46:32 GMT -5
What does "good" mean? (1) UConn lost in the 2024 tournament and many would say it was because they weren't good enough. I agree that their offense and their defense wasn't good enough but (2) not that the cure is for all the returning players to do more this year. 3.) What UConn lacked last year was experience and depth. Time cures the first and a healthy 14 player roster filled with elite talent takes care of the later. The returning players only need to keep working as they have been doing. Nothing more. The sophomore leap is all about experience gained. Add in Chen, a walking ad for experience. The four 1st year players are a coach's depth dream come true. 6'5,6'2,6'2,5-10. Three of them are 3 level shooters and they all can play multiple positions. 4 .) A lot of my optimism is based on my opinion that all four of them will be valuable next season. 5.) To my eye UConn is already a much better team that last year, a year where they made the FF after losing in the S16 in 2023. 1-- Overall, specifically to #1, ss Swash says; to a degree maybe we aren't arguing or what I think is more our own personal perspective. We agree they weren't good enough. 2--- So, in regarding to number 2 - again it is perspective, I don’t know what you mean by "returning players." For example, if Azzi is defined as a returning player, then she needs to be much better because she wasn't good the very little she played - though of course she was probably hurt or not 100% healthy while playing. And the same with Caroline etc. And are Jana and Ayanna considered "returning players?" Atyanna did play the year prior. I agree with you 100% that UCONN doesn't need the others that played last year to be that much better if you are not referring to them, especially Azzi and Jana as returning players. 3--- I don't see #3 as you do unless one major thing happens. But to exclude that for a moment, imo their frontcourt is Sarah, Jana, Ayanna, Adn Ice. Thus the frontcourt is not more experienced vs having Edwards. This the entire reason why I say Offense is the key factor for this UCONN team. I feel for a different reason(s) that you and I and Swash are in agreements that the Offense will be better? I think they definitely will be better but my view is probably different than yours and others; I feel they have to be much better because their frontcourt defense will be worse along with their Offense last year wasn't elite. SO they have to overcome it vs the elite teams. Now in regard to the exception, overall they can have more experience at the frontcourt, - if they do one thing and that is put Paige again at pf in big games I don't believe they will do that. But if they did, then of course they would be relying on their Offense to win . 4-- My optimism is based on superstars. Paige, Azzi and to a degree Sarah and also or maybe Jana. The potential offensive firepower of these 4 is awesome. 5--- I believe this team is much better too. Last year at start of NCAA Tourney and even in FF I didn't think we had much of a chance to beat the best team SoCar. This year I feel we are the best team if the 3 or 4 player mentioned above are as good as I feel they can be. Their potential Offense is off-the charts.
|
|
|
Post by ucchamp on Jul 11, 2024 21:48:48 GMT -5
Hope I'm not upsetting anyone. Have a good night.
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on Jul 12, 2024 2:28:36 GMT -5
Hope I'm not upsetting anyone. Have a good night. Not me! I’m not having a good night (I’m typing this at 3:09 ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) ) and I doubt—at least certainly hope—you’re not upsetting anyone. You, swash, and linkster are all having a good and deep discussion that I, for one, am enjoying. It’s a tough time to know much about the team, not only because this session of practice is over and it’s the dog days (no pun on Huskies: it has to do with the rising of Sirius) but because there are so many unknowns—injured and therefore recently untested players—and several freshmen (especially if we include Jana) with enormous potential, but are, after all, still freshmen. For me, the stunning thing is that there really are 5 teams with extremely good chances (UConn, South Carolina, Southern Cal, TX and ND; I’m a UCLA-skeptic until proven otherwise). That’s the new world of WCBB, with so much more top talent, and, with the portal, the ability to concentrate it. In a one-and-done tournament anything can and likely will happen. So, I’m just looking for an exciting season, with some ups and downs, but just enjoying the game for what it still is at this level: real basketball.
|
|
|
Post by swash on Jul 12, 2024 5:48:57 GMT -5
Hope I'm not upsetting anyone. Have a good night. Not me! I’m not having a good night (I’m typing this at 3:09 ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) ) and I doubt—at least certainly hope—you’re not upsetting anyone. You, swash, and linkster are all having a good and deep discussion that I, for one, am enjoying. It’s a tough time to know much about the team, not only because this session of practice is over and it’s the dog days (no pun on Huskies: it has to do with the rising of Sirius) but because there are so many unknowns—injured and therefore recently untested players—and several freshmen (especially if we include Jana) with enormous potential, but are, after all, still freshmen. For me, the stunning thing is that there really are 5 teams with extremely good chances (UConn, South Carolina, Southern Cal, TX and ND; I’m a UCLA-skeptic until proven otherwise). That’s the new world of WCBB, with so much more top talent, and, with the portal, the ability to concentrate it. In a one-and-done tournament anything can and likely will happen. So, I’m just looking for an exciting season, with some ups and downs, but just enjoying the game for what it still is at this level: real basketball. I see Texas and UCLA as a half notch below the others today, with everyone else a full step or more below them. To me, those are the six SCarolina another top crop of youngsters and a solid returning core, but Kamilla was their goto in emergencies. USC brings in a stellar set of newbies and still have their super Juju. ND ... Olivia and Hannah and Sonia plus a solid ste of role-players with experience. Texas has two presumed AA. UCLA should have three.
|
|
|
Post by grrrrr on Jul 12, 2024 7:56:26 GMT -5
Am UCLA coach skeptic fer sure. Will have have a pretty good idea by Feb since we play 3 of them. Longest off season ever.
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on Jul 12, 2024 8:17:48 GMT -5
Not me! I’m not having a good night (I’m typing this at 3:09 ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) ) and I doubt—at least certainly hope—you’re not upsetting anyone. You, swash, and linkster are all having a good and deep discussion that I, for one, am enjoying. It’s a tough time to know much about the team, not only because this session of practice is over and it’s the dog days (no pun on Huskies: it has to do with the rising of Sirius) but because there are so many unknowns—injured and therefore recently untested players—and several freshmen (especially if we include Jana) with enormous potential, but are, after all, still freshmen. For me, the stunning thing is that there really are 5 teams with extremely good chances (UConn, South Carolina, Southern Cal, TX and ND; I’m a UCLA-skeptic until proven otherwise). That’s the new world of WCBB, with so much more top talent, and, with the portal, the ability to concentrate it. In a one-and-done tournament anything can and likely will happen. So, I’m just looking for an exciting season, with some ups and downs, but just enjoying the game for what it still is at this level: real basketball. I see Texas and UCLA as a half notch below the others today, with everyone else a full step or more below them. To me, those are the six SCarolina another top crop of youngsters and a solid returning core, but Kamilla was their goto in emergencies. USC brings in a stellar set of newbies and still have their super Juju. ND ... Olivia and Hannah and Sonia plus a solid ste of role-players with experience. Texas has two presumed AA. UCLA should have three. Southern Cal: More than the newbies: via the portal Kiki Iriafen, who was among the most unstoppable players in all WCBB in the final part of last season. Juju and Kiki have to be the best high-low combo in all WCBB....not to mention the best syllabic reduplication. South Carolina no longer has Kamilla, but they now have (thanks in part to the portal) 2 solid 5's (Walker who was pretty good as Kamilla's back-up and Dauda, who was quietly one of the better gets in the portal) with experience and a reasonable amount of talent (especially defense and the boards--neither is a serious offensive threat). Returning are Fulwiley, Kitts, Johnson, and Paopao; and a fantastic freshman in Edwards (who will make an immediate impact). They have speed, shooting, and rebounding. And of course, they will play tough, physical defense.
|
|
|
Post by linkster on Jul 12, 2024 10:17:47 GMT -5
I see Texas and UCLA as a half notch below the others today, with everyone else a full step or more below them. To me, those are the six SCarolina another top crop of youngsters and a solid returning core, but Kamilla was their goto in emergencies. USC brings in a stellar set of newbies and still have their super Juju. ND ... Olivia and Hannah and Sonia plus a solid ste of role-players with experience. Texas has two presumed AA. UCLA should have three. Southern Cal: More than the newbies: via the portal Kiki Iriafen, who was among the most unstoppable players in all WCBB in the final part of last season. Juju and Kiki have to be the best high-low combo in all WCBB....not to mention the best syllabic reduplication. South Carolina no longer has Kamilla, but they now have (thanks in part to the portal) 2 solid 5's (Walker who was pretty good as Kamilla's back-up and Dauda, who was quietly one of the better gets in the portal) with experience and a reasonable amount of talent (especially defense and the boards--neither is a serious offensive threat). Returning are Fulwiley, Kitts, Johnson, and Paopao; and a fantastic freshman in Edwards (who will make an immediate impact). They have speed, shooting, and rebounding. And of course, they will play tough, physical defense. Juju & Kiki have exactly zero games together and yet bulkey anoints them? Swash has Texas and UCLA with half of the nation's AA's? Swash also has no doubts that Miles and Harmon are 100% after their ACL's. I hope Swash is as confident about Fudd, Griffin and Patterson. Only UConn fans will see all that is good about their opponents while seeing dark clouds swirling around the Huskies. It's a good thing I'm around to provide some balance. I agree with them that there are several teams with legit title hopes.
|
|
|
Minutes
Jul 12, 2024 13:35:43 GMT -5
Post by bulkey on Jul 12, 2024 13:35:43 GMT -5
Southern Cal: More than the newbies: via the portal Kiki Iriafen, who was among the most unstoppable players in all WCBB in the final part of last season. Juju and Kiki have to be the best high-low combo in all WCBB....not to mention the best syllabic reduplication. South Carolina no longer has Kamilla, but they now have (thanks in part to the portal) 2 solid 5's (Walker who was pretty good as Kamilla's back-up and Dauda, who was quietly one of the better gets in the portal) with experience and a reasonable amount of talent (especially defense and the boards--neither is a serious offensive threat). Returning are Fulwiley, Kitts, Johnson, and Paopao; and a fantastic freshman in Edwards (who will make an immediate impact). They have speed, shooting, and rebounding. And of course, they will play tough, physical defense. Juju & Kiki have exactly zero games together and yet bulkey anoints them? Swash has Texas and UCLA with half of the nation's AA's? Swash also has no doubts that Miles and Harmon are 100% after their ACL's. I hope Swash is as confident about Fudd, Griffin and Patterson. Only UConn fans will see all that is good about their opponents while seeing dark clouds swirling around the Huskies. It's a good thing I'm around to provide some balance. I agree with them that there are several teams with legit title hopes. If you can suggest a pair with better syllabic reduplication, pls do so! :-) Seriously, I said "has to be." That suggests a future realization, not an established fact (about high-low; I stand by syllabic reduplication).
|
|
|
Minutes
Jul 12, 2024 14:30:45 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by doggydaddy on Jul 12, 2024 14:30:45 GMT -5
Juju & Kiki have exactly zero games together and yet bulkey anoints them? Swash has Texas and UCLA with half of the nation's AA's? Swash also has no doubts that Miles and Harmon are 100% after their ACL's. I hope Swash is as confident about Fudd, Griffin and Patterson. Only UConn fans will see all that is good about their opponents while seeing dark clouds swirling around the Huskies. It's a good thing I'm around to provide some balance. I agree with them that there are several teams with legit title hopes. If you can suggest a pair with better syllabic reduplication, pls do so! :-) Seriously, I said "has to be." That suggests a future realization, not an established fact (about high-low; I stand by syllabic reduplication). No, you said “Juju and Kiki have to be the best high-low combo in all WCBB....not to mention the best syllabic reduplication.”. “Have” not “has”.
|
|
|
Minutes
Jul 12, 2024 14:46:35 GMT -5
Post by swash on Jul 12, 2024 14:46:35 GMT -5
Southern Cal: More than the newbies: via the portal Kiki Iriafen, who was among the most unstoppable players in all WCBB in the final part of last season. Juju and Kiki have to be the best high-low combo in all WCBB....not to mention the best syllabic reduplication. South Carolina no longer has Kamilla, but they now have (thanks in part to the portal) 2 solid 5's (Walker who was pretty good as Kamilla's back-up and Dauda, who was quietly one of the better gets in the portal) with experience and a reasonable amount of talent (especially defense and the boards--neither is a serious offensive threat). Returning are Fulwiley, Kitts, Johnson, and Paopao; and a fantastic freshman in Edwards (who will make an immediate impact). They have speed, shooting, and rebounding. And of course, they will play tough, physical defense. Juju & Kiki have exactly zero games together and yet bulkey anoints them? Swash has Texas and UCLA with half of the nation's AA's? Harmon and Booker are already AAs, whether they repeat in 2024/25 or not. UCLA has Betts and Kiki Rice. (I had accidentally given them an extra Kiki ... (Iriafen, actually at USC). Swash also has no doubts that Miles and Harmon are 100% after their ACL's. I did not say that, but ...
- Olivia Miles will be nearly two years since her injury. She is too good not to get a mention at this point.
- Fair to question her recovery, but Rory Harmon will be a full year removed from surgery by mid-season. I haven't followed closely, but have seen no stories about her recovery. I would expect her to be on a similar timeline to Azzi.
I hope Swash is as confident about Fudd, Griffin and Patterson. That's three different questions ....- I am extremely bullish on Azzi being available for Game 1, and to full strength and minutes before December.
- Audrey will almost certainly be late to the dance. Her injury was in early December and had surgery in mid-January. I hope she can prove again her super-human ability to return and be a factor on this team.
- I believe Ayanna will be healthy and fit. Whether she can crack this deep rotation, I expect will be a question of her progress in abilities, not health.
Only UConn fans will see all that is good about their opponents while seeing dark clouds swirling around the Huskies. It's a good thing I'm around to provide some balance. I agree with them that there are several teams with legit title hopes. Nearly every team has hopes. Five or six have a legit shot at the FF and beyond.
|
|
|
Post by swash on Jul 12, 2024 14:51:23 GMT -5
Juju & Kiki have exactly zero games together and yet bulkey anoints them? Swash has Texas and UCLA with half of the nation's AA's? Swash also has no doubts that Miles and Harmon are 100% after their ACL's. I hope Swash is as confident about Fudd, Griffin and Patterson. Only UConn fans will see all that is good about their opponents while seeing dark clouds swirling around the Huskies. It's a good thing I'm around to provide some balance. I agree with them that there are several teams with legit title hopes. If you can suggest a pair with better syllabic reduplication, pls do so! :-) Seriously, I said "has to be." That suggests a future realization, not an established fact (about high-low; I stand by syllabic reduplication). It is a reasonable forecast. Few players are better than Juju, last she and a box of crackerjacks made the Elite 8. Kiki Iriafen started a bit slower, but was playing extremely well late. Correct to wonder how they will jell and whether they will avoid stepping upon each others' toes.
|
|
|
Minutes
Jul 12, 2024 15:46:07 GMT -5
Post by bulkey on Jul 12, 2024 15:46:07 GMT -5
If you can suggest a pair with better syllabic reduplication, pls do so! :-) Seriously, I said "has to be." That suggests a future realization, not an established fact (about high-low; I stand by syllabic reduplication). No, you said “Juju and Kiki have to be the best high-low combo in all WCBB....not to mention the best syllabic reduplication.”. “Have” not “has”. Did I? Well, I was wrong the first time, since I was treating them as a collective and that takes a singular verb. Fine in colloquial speech but not the King's English, though I suspect swash will weigh in to the contrary. :-)
|
|
|
Minutes
Jul 12, 2024 16:00:16 GMT -5
via mobile
bulkey likes this
Post by swash on Jul 12, 2024 16:00:16 GMT -5
No, you said “Juju and Kiki have to be the best high-low combo in all WCBB....not to mention the best syllabic reduplication.”. “Have” not “has”. Did I? Well, I was wrong the first time, since I was treating them as a collective and that takes a singular verb. Fine in colloquial speech but not the King's English, though I suspect swash will weigh in to the contrary. :-) If the subject is combo ... has. If the focus is on the two individuals ... have. In this case, the two players specifically named preceding have to be, with combo in the predicate. I think I like the original. LOL. For those cringing ... it's just a long running joke between bulkey and me. Neither of us care to become grammar police!
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on Jul 12, 2024 16:07:40 GMT -5
Did I? Well, I was wrong the first time, since I was treating them as a collective and that takes a singular verb. Fine in colloquial speech but not the King's English, though I suspect swash will weigh in to the contrary. :-) If the subject is combo ... has. If the focus is on the two individuals ... have. In this case, the two players specifically named preceding have to be, with combo in the predicate. I think I like the original. LOL. For those cringing ... it's just a long running joke between bulkey and me. Neither of us care to become grammar police! I'm definitely NOT going to ask you to copyedit my next book. You're way too good at this!
|
|