Women's Team

[valporun]

I don't see benching both of them at the same time. Bench one or the other, but can't bring them both to the bench at the same time. We don't have anyone else strong enough to bring the ball downcourt, if they are both benched.

In terms of the post players, they are practically statues. There needs to be a set to open up a post player coming across the paint to get the ball, not just go to a spot and post up. None of our posts can do that effectively, which leads to turnovers in the paint.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

On the plus side, this is the biggest debate involving the most people on this board regarding women's basketball since i've been here (almost 3 years, I think).  So, enthusiasm is still there.

[jack]

I don't see benching both of them at the same time. Bench one or the other, but can't bring them both to the bench at the same time. We don't have anyone else strong enough to bring the ball downcourt, if they are both benched.

In terms of the post players, they are practically statues. There needs to be a set to open up a post player coming across the paint to get the ball, not just go to a spot and post up. None of our posts can do that effectively, which leads to turnovers in the paint.

You don't bench your coach appointed and team appointed leader leader and for issues that really are out of her control. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Our offense is far too vanilla. These ladies are playing in a system they are asked to play in. As you point out there are no high screens, pick and rolls, slashing to the basket, etc. We do the same thing up the court on every possession. Dribble up to the key, pass it around a few times, dribble it around, and take a shot with no one already working for position for an offensive board. Or we feed it inside and hope the bigs can handle the pass. Anyone scouting us only has to watch a handful of plays to know our game and how to defend us. Let's be real here. Have you seen us try one thing this season that you haven't seen before? I am all for trying something different. If that means another guard running point and letting Carr spot up let's try it. A lot of our points come from these guards thinking outside of the box and not staying on script.
I still feel our success will come with positioning inside and holding on to the damn ball. I don't know what game others here are watching but our lack of catching and finishing inside is where we are losing the battle.

[valpo4life]

there are no high screens, pick and rolls, slashing to the basket, etc.
[/quote]

I really enjoy going back and forth debating and everything. But points like this make me really scratch my head. This offense is about 90% ball screens so I have absolutely no clue what you are watching out there. Your point about the guards not staying on script to get points is somewhat correct. The point of this offense is to give players the freedom to make their own plays. So when they, in your mind, are going against the script I see a girl making a play within the offense. The problem that seems to happen in the women's game is the players think they need to do exactly as what coach says and become robots out there. Hence the statues point made, which I agree with.

[bbtds]

And back to the post entry debate, I just believe it's being blown way out of proportion.

I don't know why you want to bring this up again because you simply are wrong. How can you say when Valpo's best post scorer, Dani Franklin, is scoring much of her points from three that it's not that important. Valpo may not be missing all the post entry passes but when they do catch them the posts eventually fumble it out of bounds, travel with the ball, or get blocked and lose the ball. It happens more than once or twice and really kills the Valpo scoring. If you really think it's being blown out of proportion you are simply not a very good observer of basketball. If you lose possession of the ball as many times as Valpo does under the basket against good teams it's a momentum killer and a huge reason this team loses.

[jack]

there are no high screens, pick and rolls, slashing to the basket, etc.

I really enjoy going back and forth debating and everything. But points like this make me really scratch my head. This offense is about 90% ball screens so I have absolutely no clue what you are watching out there. Your point about the guards not staying on script to get points is somewhat correct. The point of this offense is to give players the freedom to make their own plays. So when they, in your mind, are going against the script I see a girl making a play within the offense. The problem that seems to happen in the women's game is the players think they need to do exactly as what coach says and become robots out there. Hence the statues point made, which I agree with.
[/quote]


I can see where you'd be scratching your head. If what you are watching is what you call proper ball screening and pick and rolls, then there's not much sense in debating with you any further. Just reading the above statement you made, you contradict yourself, as you have with most of your statements. You claim that 90% of what you are watching are ball screens, and then you go on to agree with someone else that our bigs are just statues out there. So which is it? You're all over the place.
At the end of the day, we need to learn the PROPER way to screen, pick, and roll. Our bigs need to work on their footwork, get position, and squeeze the orange. Our blocking out technique needs a lot of work. And our guards need to work on creating their own shots.
You and I can agree to disagree. I've been involved in the game long enough to trust what I'm seeing.
Have a great day.

[Girlsbbfan]

It saddens me to see the women's team struggle the way they have over the last several years. The only fix for this situation is a total rebuild of the program. As the father of a former player, I would suggest that as long as the players are giving maximum effort that we don't saddle them with the circumstances created by decisions out of their control. Players should attempt to do things as directed by the coaching staff, if the players are not doing the things we all think they should, it is likely because they are doing what they are being told to do. The players don't recruit, coach, or administer the program. End of story. Encourage and back the girls, they deserve it.

[valpo4life]

I'll be short and sweet. I agreed that posts are statues when they are in the post. I never said anything about how good of ball screens are being set, just that they are being set a high majority of possessions. I never said our posts aren't struggling after they get an entry pass, just that they're aren't bobbling "60 to 70" of passes they receive. I agree that every player needs to work on putting a body on someone, anyone when a shot goes up. Yes, the guards need to work on being able to create for themselves and others.

[ARCInsider]

On the plus side, this is the biggest debate involving the most people on this board regarding women's basketball since i've been here (almost 3 years, I think).  So, enthusiasm is still there.

Most enthusiasm I have seen since Saderfan.

[jack]

It saddens me to see the women's team struggle the way they have over the last several years. The only fix for this situation is a total rebuild of the program. As the father of a former player, I would suggest that as long as the players are giving maximum effort that we don't saddle them with the circumstances created by decisions out of their control. Players should attempt to do things as directed by the coaching staff, if the players are not doing the things we all think they should, it is likely because they are doing what they are being told to do. The players don't recruit, coach, or administer the program. End of story. Encourage and back the girls, they deserve it.

I have to agree. Their struggles didn't start with this regime. I too have watched their struggles for many years now. When you follow a team long enough you get used to the Ebbs and Flows from season to season. We've been in the Ebb mode for quite some time. We are in a catch 22 of sorts. You have to have some success to recruit the talent you need, and you have to have the talent you need to have some success. I honestly feel these players are giving it all they have given what is asked, and not asked of them. It's their effort I applaud and will continue to support. For some I'm sure it's a conflict to buy into a system they aren't seeing improvement in.
I'm also not a big fan of loading up the front end of the schedule with several teams that will be on the move this season.  IU, Illinois, and Louisville shouldn't be in our schedule until we can start having some success with squads that match our talent level. Nothing good came from any of those games. In fact, we lost a player or two for a time after these contest. Loss of players is another battle we seem to be fighting too frequently.
Oakland will be a good test for us this week. Win or lose, we just need to make some progress in areas we are lacking in.
Go Crusaiders! 

[valpotx]

Unfortunate 71-54 loss at home to Oakland, when we were down 2 at half.  Our 3 point shooting was horrific, to say the least, going 1/15.  Not much you can do when you shoot that poorly, many of them being wide open shots, and then you have 19 turnovers (12 steals for Oakland).  We outrebounded Oakland 55-39.

[vu72]

Unfortunate 71-54 loss at home to Oakland, when we were down 2 at half.  Our 3 point shooting was horrific, to say the least, going 1/15.  Not much you can do when you shoot that poorly, many of them being wide open shots, and then you have 19 turnovers (12 steals for Oakland).  We outrebounded Oakland 55-39.

I watched the last five minutes or so and noticed only a couple of extra players on the bench (maybe I'm wrong on this). Once again no Sharon.  I also noticed a lack of coaching.  By this I mean no timeouts.  No, let's stop the bleeding.  I agree with tx that you can't be blamed as a coach for awful shooting.  Still, the overall trend sucks and the losses are piling up.

[valpo4life]

We got anything we wanted pretty much the whole game offensively just couldn't throw it in the well. If we could have made anything in the first half especially we would more than likely been up by 10-15. Open 3's all game long that didn't go in and open layups were being missed as well. We played the best defense that I've seen from us in a while in that first half. Then come out in the second half and they don't act like they wanted anything to do with playing defense. And when something goes wrong with this team, the girls seem to start to turn on each other as sad as that sounds. Carr was knocked to the floor twice in that 2nd half and not one girl even thought about helping her up. That speaks volumes to me.

And I agree Tracey probably should have used her last timeout to help somewhat stop the bleeding. But down 18 with 2:00 minutes to go there isn't a whole lot you can do. The game plan she used was working about as good as a coach could hope for, at least in the first half. Under the balls screens on everyone except Popkey worked well and we were very prepared for their dribble weave motion. This was one that we needed. Ugh.

[valporun]

In the first half, we looked ready to play, but were missing shots left and right, inside and out. We kept the game close in hopes that momentum would change. Coming out for the second half, we looked the same, but more shots weren't falling, and we were turning the ball over in traffic a lot. We'd practically hand them the ball, or throw poor overhand passes that the Grizzlies could pick off. I was getting fed up with the lack of drive from this team. I hate to say it, but it looks like these girls are just giving up if they don't have a lead going into the second half. Yes, we had chances all over, but we were just not making shots or doing the fundamental things, like creating openings or communicating on screens. We looked like a low level high school girls team, instead of a D-I college program. All in all, the attitude of the players and coaching staff was rather depressing in the closing minutes of the game.

[jack]

"Low level high school girls team" seems a bit harsh. The biggest issue last night was that the shots weren't falling from any of the players. No one got going. That doesn't happen often, but it happens unfortunately. There seems to be some players that don't play with heart, and drive. This got worse as the deficit increased. We do have a few players that play hard from whistle to buzzer. We also have players that just don't seem to have the fire. Heart, drive, and fire isn't something that can be learned or coached. You either have it, or you don't. This may be our biggest detriment. No need to name names. Those that watch, play, and coach know. The only way to change this is to weed out some, and get to know your recruits and their make up much better before bringing them on board. Back in the day when I was scouting talent, I spent as much time studying the players on a losing effort than I did when they were winning. I still believe you learn a lot more about a player when they lose, than when they win. We're lucky to have a few players that play just as hard if were up by 20, or down by 20. It'd be nice if they all were on this same page. 

[valpo4life]

"Low level high school girls team" seems a bit harsh. The biggest issue last night was that the shots weren't falling from any of the players. No one got going. That doesn't happen often, but it happens unfortunately. There seems to be some players that don't play with heart, and drive. This got worse as the deficit increased. We do have a few players that play hard from whistle to buzzer. We also have players that just don't seem to have the fire. Heart, drive, and fire isn't something that can be learned or coached. You either have it, or you don't. This may be our biggest detriment. No need to name names. Those that watch, play, and coach know. The only way to change this is to weed out some, and get to know your recruits and their make up much better before bringing them on board. Back in the day when I was scouting talent, I spent as much time studying the players on a losing effort than I did when they were winning. I still believe you learn a lot more about a player when they lose, than when they win. We're lucky to have a few players that play just as hard if were up by 20, or down by 20. It'd be nice if they all were on this same page. 

Agreed. Which is seeming more and more like this teams downfall. Chemistry and effort don't seem to be there. Oakland's bench was loud and very supportive. Lots of silence from our bench.

[VULB#62]

I might add that the mental/emotional side of the game, which many posters are citing, comes largely from the coaching staff.  They are the ones who set tone, foster team relationships, bring 12 different kids from different playing backgrounds and mold them into a team.  We have a great case in point just this fall -- football.  With virtually the same players from the 2013 team that had won 3 games in four years, Dave Cecchini molded the 2014 team into one that was constantly competitive and won 4 games and were down to the wire in three more.  Feedback I got from some of the players' parents indicated that Dave and his staff did three things different from the past -- two of them on the mental side:  (1) got the players to believe in them as a staff and what the staff was trying to do, (2) got the players to care more about each other, and (3) coached them up in O and D systems that used the players' talents to the optimum.  Sounds like those three are what most of us are seeking in WBB.

[valpo4life]

Difference is, say 2 or 3 girls don't buy in and are "bad apples" it can effect the whole team. With the football team if there were a couple guys who fit into the "bad apple" category, they aren't going to bring down the whole team. The basics I agree with, getting players to buy in and act like a team on and off the court are essential and seem to be needing some work. But there are just too many different dynamics to truly compare the two sports in my opinion.

[StlVUFan]

But down 18 with 2:00 minutes to go there isn't a whole lot you can do.

Down 18 with 2:00 to go the game has been statistically over for about a minute.

[jack]

More so than the men's squad, there are always "drama and chemistry" issues that factor into the dynamics. Dorow, being female, would be in tune with this. You have to get players to buy in to what you are trying to do. I can see where a female head coach with 2 male assistants would create a who different, and maybe a counterproductive environment. The male "ego" can add a layer of difficulty I'm sure.

[VULB#62]

Difference is, say 2 or 3 girls don't buy in and are "bad apples" it can effect the whole team. With the football team if there were a couple guys who fit into the "bad apple" category, they aren't going to bring down the whole team. The basics I agree with, getting players to buy in and act like a team on and off the court are essential and seem to be needing some work. But there are just too many different dynamics to truly compare the two sports in my opinion.

Wasn't trying to draw a 1 to 1 comparison, just trying to make a point about the impact a coach can/should have (which you got BTW).  And in a BB situation the job should be easier IMO because you only need to knit 12 players together, not 100. We have other models that come to mind as well -- MSO and VB, for instance.  And the Avery's are great at building cohesive teams.  Bryce has created a place where kids feel comfortable (see comments about Smits' reasons for signing).

Again, in my opinion, one of the greatest draws for a recruit in any sport (and their parents too) is that when a player enrolls at Valpo he/she is moving from their nuclear family to an extended family that cares about them like mom and dad do.  The coaches that don't succeed here (again in my opinion) are those who don't understand that.

Going back 5 decades that is why coaches like Gene Bartow, Darrell Zimmerman and Walt Reiner were able to draw the best out of us.

[VULB#62]

More so than the men's squad, there are always "drama and chemistry" issues that factor into the dynamics. Dorow, being female, would be in tune with this. You have to get players to buy in to what you are trying to do. I can see where a female head coach with 2 male assistants would create a who different, and maybe a counterproductive environment. The male "ego" can add a layer of difficulty I'm sure.

Very good point Jack, but a good HBB coach has the skill to temper/optimize/blend those characteristics to also build a staff team with a common approach that pushes toward the same goals. Carin Avery has 3 male assistants but seems to be competitive every year.  Doesn't it come down to the individual regardless of gender?  I think that's called leadership.

[historyman]

I watched the last five minutes or so and noticed only a couple of extra players on the bench (maybe I'm wrong on this). Once again no Sharon.

Karungi rides the bike when she is not playing so you might not have seen her on the bench. Godwin and Wiedemann are hurt and therefore not dressed and on the bench. Carr, Dean, Thompson, Walker, Hamlet, Franklin, Karungi, Hamilton and Miller all played. Donchetz I don't remember seeing and she didn't play.

[historyman]

But down 18 with 2:00 minutes to go there isn't a whole lot you can do.

Down 18 with 2:00 to go the game has been statistically over for about a minute.

I'm not sure calling time out with 3 minutes to play would have been better than time out with 2 minutes to play. Even though Valpo may not have been statistically out of the game with 3 minutes remaining they were just going through the motions by that time.

[valpotx]

I hate to single anyone out, but I hope that Hamlet really takes this offseason to heart.  If she can train with her younger sister that is coming in, great.  Her shooting percentage is 28% (35/125) overall, and 22/79 (27.8%) from 3.  If you are going to take that many shots, you need to make a minimum of 35% overall (absolute minimum), otherwise it is a major drag on the team.