The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 (/thread-2741.html)

Pages: 1 2

WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - 81alum - 01-05-2012

An outstanding offensive game with another one of Nneka's eye-popping performances (32 points and 15 rebounds on 15-21 shooting--many shots from contorted and acrobatic positions.)  But in this game the offensive support  for Nneka came not from the usual suspects but from Bonnie Samuelson and Taylor Greenfield, each of whom had an outstanding half--Bonnie in the 1st and Taylor in the 2nd.  The team also passed well, racking up 24 assists compared with Oregon's measly 8.  Even better, we had only 7 turnovers for the entire game.

Bonnie seems like a streaky shooter but she was very much "on" in the first half.  At one point she made 4 three point shots in a row, and I don't remember seeing any of them hit anything but net.  She got a standing ovation from the crowd after that sequence.  She wound up with 18 points on 6-13 shooting.  I watched her defense carefully, and while I saw her beaten to the basket once, all-in-all she seemed solid. 

Taylor started the game and played the way I am used to seeing her play--good passes but extremely hesitant to ever take a shot.  I think she was 0-1 in the first half.  Then Bonnie came in with her offensive show and something changed in Taylor when we next saw her.  Taylor started the second half with her own show--she also made four shots in a row--3 of them threes.  Again, I thought she seemed pretty solid on defense, but I don't have the trained eye that some of you have.

Defensively Stanford seemed suspect, but that is what Oregon does with its fast break offense.  It uses a lot of speed to get to the basket before the defense can really get set, and we gave up 70 points for only the 2nd time this year.  Even Connecticut at home did not score 70 points against us--only Tennessee got that many.  I saw Lindy beaten, Toni beaten, Amber beaten--pretty much everyone let a speedy Oregon guard get past them once or twice.  On the other hand, we had 7 steals and 6 blocks.  We opened with a zone and then switched to a man for much of the rest of the game. 

At the end of the first half I was getting a bit worried about Toni, Lindy, and Chiney.  Toni did not score a point until there was only 8:15 left in the game.  The Stanford bench erupted when she did--they all noticed that she had gone cold and were ecstatic to see her break out of her slump.  She finished 1-10, but she had 8 assists and only 1 turnover!

Lindy and Amber seem to be getting more or less equal playing time recently.  Lindy was 1-7 with 3 assists and 1 turnover, while Amber was 0-2 with 5 assists and 1 turnover.  Lindy can look very good defensively at times when she smothers a stationary player--but keeping up with the quick Oregon guards when they were on the move was another story.  Amber seems quick but did not necessarily fare better on defense, as her 3 fouls seem to indicate.  Probably just a matter of experience.

Chiney missed her usual double-double tonight by a point.  In the first half she had just 3 points--even though Nneka got two fouls and took a few minutes off.  She finished up with 9 points on 4-6 shooting.  She rebounded as well as always--12.  (She would have had that double-double if she had made both of her two free throws instead of 1-2.)

One oddity about the game.  Stanford shot only 5 free throws for the entire game.  Oregon shot 20.  I can't accept that Stanford was 4 times sloppier than Oregon.  If someone else who watched the game has some insight as to why there was such a massive disparity, I would be interested to hear it. 






WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - 81alum - 01-05-2012

An outstanding offensive game with another one of Nneka's eye-popping performances (32 points and 15 rebounds on 15-21 shooting--many shots from contorted and acrobatic positions.)  But in this game the offensive support  for Nneka came not from the usual suspects but from Bonnie Samuelson and Taylor Greenfield, each of whom had an outstanding half--Bonnie in the 1st and Taylor in the 2nd.  The team also passed well, racking up 24 assists compared with Oregon's measly 8.  Even better, we had only 7 turnovers for the entire game.

Bonnie seems like a streaky shooter but she was very much "on" in the first half.  At one point she made 4 three point shots in a row, and I don't remember seeing any of them hit anything but net.  She got a standing ovation from the crowd after that sequence.  She wound up with 18 points on 6-13 shooting.  I watched her defense carefully, and while I saw her beaten to the basket once, all-in-all she seemed solid. 

Taylor started the game and played the way I am used to seeing her play--good passes but extremely hesitant to ever take a shot.  I think she was 0-1 in the first half.  Then Bonnie came in with her offensive show and something changed in Taylor when we next saw her.  Taylor started the second half with her own show--she also made four shots in a row--3 of them threes.  Again, I thought she seemed pretty solid on defense, but I don't have the trained eye that some of you have.

Defensively Stanford seemed suspect, but that is what Oregon does with its fast break offense.  It uses a lot of speed to get to the basket before the defense can really get set, and we gave up 70 points for only the 2nd time this year.  Even Connecticut at home did not score 70 points against us--only Tennessee got that many.  I saw Lindy beaten, Toni beaten, Amber beaten--pretty much everyone let a speedy Oregon guard get past them once or twice.  On the other hand, we had 7 steals and 6 blocks.  We opened with a zone and then switched to a man for much of the rest of the game. 

At the end of the first half I was getting a bit worried about Toni, Lindy, and Chiney.  Toni did not score a point until there was only 8:15 left in the game.  The Stanford bench erupted when she did--they all noticed that she had gone cold and were ecstatic to see her break out of her slump.  She finished 1-10, but she had 8 assists and only 1 turnover!

Lindy and Amber seem to be getting more or less equal playing time recently.  Lindy was 1-7 with 3 assists and 1 turnover, while Amber was 0-2 with 5 assists and 1 turnover.  Lindy can look very good defensively at times when she smothers a stationary player--but keeping up with the quick Oregon guards when they were on the move was another story.  Amber seems quick but did not necessarily fare better on defense, as her 3 fouls seem to indicate.  Probably just a matter of experience.

Chiney missed her usual double-double tonight by a point.  In the first half she had just 3 points--even though Nneka got two fouls and took a few minutes off.  She finished up with 9 points on 4-6 shooting.  She rebounded as well as always--12.  (She would have had that double-double if she had made both of her two free throws instead of 1-2.)

One oddity about the game.  Stanford shot only 5 free throws for the entire game.  Oregon shot 20.  I can't accept that Stanford was 4 times sloppier than Oregon.  If someone else who watched the game has some insight as to why there was such a massive disparity, I would be interested to hear it. 






WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - 81alum - 01-05-2012

An outstanding offensive game with another one of Nneka's eye-popping performances (32 points and 15 rebounds on 15-21 shooting--many shots from contorted and acrobatic positions.)  But in this game the offensive support  for Nneka came not from the usual suspects but from Bonnie Samuelson and Taylor Greenfield, each of whom had an outstanding half--Bonnie in the 1st and Taylor in the 2nd.  The team also passed well, racking up 24 assists compared with Oregon's measly 8.  Even better, we had only 7 turnovers for the entire game.

Bonnie seems like a streaky shooter but she was very much "on" in the first half.  At one point she made 4 three point shots in a row, and I don't remember seeing any of them hit anything but net.  She got a standing ovation from the crowd after that sequence.  She wound up with 18 points on 6-13 shooting.  I watched her defense carefully, and while I saw her beaten to the basket once, all-in-all she seemed solid. 

Taylor started the game and played the way I am used to seeing her play--good passes but extremely hesitant to ever take a shot.  I think she was 0-1 in the first half.  Then Bonnie came in with her offensive show and something changed in Taylor when we next saw her.  Taylor started the second half with her own show--she also made four shots in a row--3 of them threes.  Again, I thought she seemed pretty solid on defense, but I don't have the trained eye that some of you have.

Defensively Stanford seemed suspect, but that is what Oregon does with its fast break offense.  It uses a lot of speed to get to the basket before the defense can really get set, and we gave up 70 points for only the 2nd time this year.  Even Connecticut at home did not score 70 points against us--only Tennessee got that many.  I saw Lindy beaten, Toni beaten, Amber beaten--pretty much everyone let a speedy Oregon guard get past them once or twice.  On the other hand, we had 7 steals and 6 blocks.  We opened with a zone and then switched to a man for much of the rest of the game. 

At the end of the first half I was getting a bit worried about Toni, Lindy, and Chiney.  Toni did not score a point until there was only 8:15 left in the game.  The Stanford bench erupted when she did--they all noticed that she had gone cold and were ecstatic to see her break out of her slump.  She finished 1-10, but she had 8 assists and only 1 turnover!

Lindy and Amber seem to be getting more or less equal playing time recently.  Lindy was 1-7 with 3 assists and 1 turnover, while Amber was 0-2 with 5 assists and 1 turnover.  Lindy can look very good defensively at times when she smothers a stationary player--but keeping up with the quick Oregon guards when they were on the move was another story.  Amber seems quick but did not necessarily fare better on defense, as her 3 fouls seem to indicate.  Probably just a matter of experience.

Chiney missed her usual double-double tonight by a point.  In the first half she had just 3 points--even though Nneka got two fouls and took a few minutes off.  She finished up with 9 points on 4-6 shooting.  She rebounded as well as always--12.  (She would have had that double-double if she had made both of her two free throws instead of 1-2.)

One oddity about the game.  Stanford shot only 5 free throws for the entire game.  Oregon shot 20.  I can't accept that Stanford was 4 times sloppier than Oregon.  If someone else who watched the game has some insight as to why there was such a massive disparity, I would be interested to hear it. 






WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - 81alum - 01-05-2012

An outstanding offensive game with another one of Nneka's eye-popping performances (32 points and 15 rebounds on 15-21 shooting--many shots from contorted and acrobatic positions.)  But in this game the offensive support  for Nneka came not from the usual suspects but from Bonnie Samuelson and Taylor Greenfield, each of whom had an outstanding half--Bonnie in the 1st and Taylor in the 2nd.  The team also passed well, racking up 24 assists compared with Oregon's measly 8.  Even better, we had only 7 turnovers for the entire game.

Bonnie seems like a streaky shooter but she was very much "on" in the first half.  At one point she made 4 three point shots in a row, and I don't remember seeing any of them hit anything but net.  She got a standing ovation from the crowd after that sequence.  She wound up with 18 points on 6-13 shooting.  I watched her defense carefully, and while I saw her beaten to the basket once, all-in-all she seemed solid. 

Taylor started the game and played the way I am used to seeing her play--good passes but extremely hesitant to ever take a shot.  I think she was 0-1 in the first half.  Then Bonnie came in with her offensive show and something changed in Taylor when we next saw her.  Taylor started the second half with her own show--she also made four shots in a row--3 of them threes.  Again, I thought she seemed pretty solid on defense, but I don't have the trained eye that some of you have.

Defensively Stanford seemed suspect, but that is what Oregon does with its fast break offense.  It uses a lot of speed to get to the basket before the defense can really get set, and we gave up 70 points for only the 2nd time this year.  Even Connecticut at home did not score 70 points against us--only Tennessee got that many.  I saw Lindy beaten, Toni beaten, Amber beaten--pretty much everyone let a speedy Oregon guard get past them once or twice.  On the other hand, we had 7 steals and 6 blocks.  We opened with a zone and then switched to a man for much of the rest of the game. 

At the end of the first half I was getting a bit worried about Toni, Lindy, and Chiney.  Toni did not score a point until there was only 8:15 left in the game.  The Stanford bench erupted when she did--they all noticed that she had gone cold and were ecstatic to see her break out of her slump.  She finished 1-10, but she had 8 assists and only 1 turnover!

Lindy and Amber seem to be getting more or less equal playing time recently.  Lindy was 1-7 with 3 assists and 1 turnover, while Amber was 0-2 with 5 assists and 1 turnover.  Lindy can look very good defensively at times when she smothers a stationary player--but keeping up with the quick Oregon guards when they were on the move was another story.  Amber seems quick but did not necessarily fare better on defense, as her 3 fouls seem to indicate.  Probably just a matter of experience.

Chiney missed her usual double-double tonight by a point.  In the first half she had just 3 points--even though Nneka got two fouls and took a few minutes off.  She finished up with 9 points on 4-6 shooting.  She rebounded as well as always--12.  (She would have had that double-double if she had made both of her two free throws instead of 1-2.)

One oddity about the game.  Stanford shot only 5 free throws for the entire game.  Oregon shot 20.  I can't accept that Stanford was 4 times sloppier than Oregon.  If someone else who watched the game has some insight as to why there was such a massive disparity, I would be interested to hear it. 






Re: WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - CompSci87 - 01-05-2012

Thanks for the game report.

On the foul disparity: Oregon was driving aggressively to the basket against our tight man coverage, trying to draw fouls, and they had some success with that, particularly when we tried to block shots. In contrast, we were shooting 3's over the top of their packed-in zone and getting the ball in to Nneka when we could. So what fouls Oregon committed were non-shooting, or occasionally on Nneka shooting.

Re: WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - CompSci87 - 01-05-2012

Thanks for the game report.

On the foul disparity: Oregon was driving aggressively to the basket against our tight man coverage, trying to draw fouls, and they had some success with that, particularly when we tried to block shots. In contrast, we were shooting 3's over the top of their packed-in zone and getting the ball in to Nneka when we could. So what fouls Oregon committed were non-shooting, or occasionally on Nneka shooting.

Re: WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - CompSci87 - 01-05-2012

Thanks for the game report.

On the foul disparity: Oregon was driving aggressively to the basket against our tight man coverage, trying to draw fouls, and they had some success with that, particularly when we tried to block shots. In contrast, we were shooting 3's over the top of their packed-in zone and getting the ball in to Nneka when we could. So what fouls Oregon committed were non-shooting, or occasionally on Nneka shooting.

Re: WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - CompSci87 - 01-05-2012

Thanks for the game report.

On the foul disparity: Oregon was driving aggressively to the basket against our tight man coverage, trying to draw fouls, and they had some success with that, particularly when we tried to block shots. In contrast, we were shooting 3's over the top of their packed-in zone and getting the ball in to Nneka when we could. So what fouls Oregon committed were non-shooting, or occasionally on Nneka shooting.

Re: WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - 81alum - 01-06-2012

Elliott Almond's Merc write up has an interesting quote from Tara.  Apparently she commented on the poor shooting by Lindy and Toni.  According to the article:

"People are going to have to put in extra time" shooting, VanDerveer said. "If that's what they are going to give us, we're going to find people who can knock it down."

The coach also was displeased by the overall team defense and described Nneka Ogwumike's performance as less than her A game. Ogwumike nodded her head in agreement.

I wonder if that signals more playing time for some of the other players--perhaps some 1 guard packages to get Joslyn, Bonnie, and Taylor more time on the floor.  Sara James, unfortunately, had another off shooting night in the minutes she got, but one sometimes gets the feeling that her trouble shooting this year may come from the limited time she has been given--which ramps up the pressure when she is in.

Paul Westhead thought that his "pack it in" zone had actually done a good job on Nneka and was stunned to learn she had scored 32 points.  But Nneka got most of those on short to midrange jumpers--something she could not have done as a sophomore or junior.  The tight zone did seem to shut down Chiney in the first half.  Chiney definitely will need to work on her scoring versatility and her free throw shooting if she is going to step into Nneka's shoes next year.

Re: WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - 81alum - 01-06-2012

Elliott Almond's Merc write up has an interesting quote from Tara.  Apparently she commented on the poor shooting by Lindy and Toni.  According to the article:

"People are going to have to put in extra time" shooting, VanDerveer said. "If that's what they are going to give us, we're going to find people who can knock it down."

The coach also was displeased by the overall team defense and described Nneka Ogwumike's performance as less than her A game. Ogwumike nodded her head in agreement.

I wonder if that signals more playing time for some of the other players--perhaps some 1 guard packages to get Joslyn, Bonnie, and Taylor more time on the floor.  Sara James, unfortunately, had another off shooting night in the minutes she got, but one sometimes gets the feeling that her trouble shooting this year may come from the limited time she has been given--which ramps up the pressure when she is in.

Paul Westhead thought that his "pack it in" zone had actually done a good job on Nneka and was stunned to learn she had scored 32 points.  But Nneka got most of those on short to midrange jumpers--something she could not have done as a sophomore or junior.  The tight zone did seem to shut down Chiney in the first half.  Chiney definitely will need to work on her scoring versatility and her free throw shooting if she is going to step into Nneka's shoes next year.

Re: WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - 81alum - 01-06-2012

Elliott Almond's Merc write up has an interesting quote from Tara.  Apparently she commented on the poor shooting by Lindy and Toni.  According to the article:

"People are going to have to put in extra time" shooting, VanDerveer said. "If that's what they are going to give us, we're going to find people who can knock it down."

The coach also was displeased by the overall team defense and described Nneka Ogwumike's performance as less than her A game. Ogwumike nodded her head in agreement.

I wonder if that signals more playing time for some of the other players--perhaps some 1 guard packages to get Joslyn, Bonnie, and Taylor more time on the floor.  Sara James, unfortunately, had another off shooting night in the minutes she got, but one sometimes gets the feeling that her trouble shooting this year may come from the limited time she has been given--which ramps up the pressure when she is in.

Paul Westhead thought that his "pack it in" zone had actually done a good job on Nneka and was stunned to learn she had scored 32 points.  But Nneka got most of those on short to midrange jumpers--something she could not have done as a sophomore or junior.  The tight zone did seem to shut down Chiney in the first half.  Chiney definitely will need to work on her scoring versatility and her free throw shooting if she is going to step into Nneka's shoes next year.

Re: WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - 81alum - 01-06-2012

Elliott Almond's Merc write up has an interesting quote from Tara.  Apparently she commented on the poor shooting by Lindy and Toni.  According to the article:

"People are going to have to put in extra time" shooting, VanDerveer said. "If that's what they are going to give us, we're going to find people who can knock it down."

The coach also was displeased by the overall team defense and described Nneka Ogwumike's performance as less than her A game. Ogwumike nodded her head in agreement.

I wonder if that signals more playing time for some of the other players--perhaps some 1 guard packages to get Joslyn, Bonnie, and Taylor more time on the floor.  Sara James, unfortunately, had another off shooting night in the minutes she got, but one sometimes gets the feeling that her trouble shooting this year may come from the limited time she has been given--which ramps up the pressure when she is in.

Paul Westhead thought that his "pack it in" zone had actually done a good job on Nneka and was stunned to learn she had scored 32 points.  But Nneka got most of those on short to midrange jumpers--something she could not have done as a sophomore or junior.  The tight zone did seem to shut down Chiney in the first half.  Chiney definitely will need to work on her scoring versatility and her free throw shooting if she is going to step into Nneka's shoes next year.

Re: WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - Viking_Guy - 01-06-2012

I agree with Tara, last night was not a great defensive effort.  Stanford was trying to run a switching man, to prevent Oregon getting simple screens and driving the lane, but that also exposed vulnerable matchups - several times Oregon got quick guards against Taylor or (especially) Bonnie in the corner, and the Ducks simply isolated.  Still would like to see more zone against teams like that, but that might have led to the other problem last night - the Cardinal really didn't rebound all that well as a team.  Nneka had her typical array of amazingly athletic boards (and another late in the shot clock long jumper under duress that found nothing but net), but for a team with as little size as Oregon to only be outboarded 47-40 and get 14 offensive boards ain't that great.  The Cardinal defense really seemed unable to prevent penetration in any form of "player to player" set.  That in part led to the foul disparity, and to be fair, the defense did hold them under 38% shooting for the game.

One good thing I noticed:  second half, on consecutive transition opportunities for the Ducks. The first time, Amber basically tried to nudge Jackson and disrupt her shot, and ended up on her backside as Jackson bounced her off going up for an easy right-handed layup and-1 opportunity that she converted.  On the next Oregon offensive possession, the same transition matchup came up, and Orrange forced the ball to the center of the lane then made sure there was not going to be a three-point opportunity with a two-handed swat down on the ball.  Good foul, and better aggression on defense.

The zone 81alum refers to from Oregon was a little different - a 3-2 zone, with the SF at the foul line and the two guards on the wing.  Gave them height and reach at the top of the arc and quickness on the perimeter. It also left Stanford befuddled early on, as they reverted to three players essentially standing right where they were matched by defenders outside, very little movement of the ball inside and out, and a whole lot of the "toss it around the perimeter for 30 seconds" offense that we know and hate.  The open space was the baseline and deep corner shot, and Stanford's perimeter players seemed to be unwilling to get that deep and leave Oregon out for transition.  Until Bonnie started making her deep (and I mean 3-4 feet beyond the arc) threes, they kept it really packed in.  Would've liked to have seen some set plays on the baseline in a staggered Ogwumike screen, to take even more advantage of the open space in the zone.  Later in the game, as the Stanford threes started to pull the zone out, Nneka and Chiney both managed to pin their defenders high and get easy looks on entry passes from the top.

Hopefully a learning experience, but Lindy's got to find her shot (although I do like Orrange at the point and Toni at the 2 quite a bit).

VG


Re: WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - Viking_Guy - 01-06-2012

I agree with Tara, last night was not a great defensive effort.  Stanford was trying to run a switching man, to prevent Oregon getting simple screens and driving the lane, but that also exposed vulnerable matchups - several times Oregon got quick guards against Taylor or (especially) Bonnie in the corner, and the Ducks simply isolated.  Still would like to see more zone against teams like that, but that might have led to the other problem last night - the Cardinal really didn't rebound all that well as a team.  Nneka had her typical array of amazingly athletic boards (and another late in the shot clock long jumper under duress that found nothing but net), but for a team with as little size as Oregon to only be outboarded 47-40 and get 14 offensive boards ain't that great.  The Cardinal defense really seemed unable to prevent penetration in any form of "player to player" set.  That in part led to the foul disparity, and to be fair, the defense did hold them under 38% shooting for the game.

One good thing I noticed:  second half, on consecutive transition opportunities for the Ducks. The first time, Amber basically tried to nudge Jackson and disrupt her shot, and ended up on her backside as Jackson bounced her off going up for an easy right-handed layup and-1 opportunity that she converted.  On the next Oregon offensive possession, the same transition matchup came up, and Orrange forced the ball to the center of the lane then made sure there was not going to be a three-point opportunity with a two-handed swat down on the ball.  Good foul, and better aggression on defense.

The zone 81alum refers to from Oregon was a little different - a 3-2 zone, with the SF at the foul line and the two guards on the wing.  Gave them height and reach at the top of the arc and quickness on the perimeter. It also left Stanford befuddled early on, as they reverted to three players essentially standing right where they were matched by defenders outside, very little movement of the ball inside and out, and a whole lot of the "toss it around the perimeter for 30 seconds" offense that we know and hate.  The open space was the baseline and deep corner shot, and Stanford's perimeter players seemed to be unwilling to get that deep and leave Oregon out for transition.  Until Bonnie started making her deep (and I mean 3-4 feet beyond the arc) threes, they kept it really packed in.  Would've liked to have seen some set plays on the baseline in a staggered Ogwumike screen, to take even more advantage of the open space in the zone.  Later in the game, as the Stanford threes started to pull the zone out, Nneka and Chiney both managed to pin their defenders high and get easy looks on entry passes from the top.

Hopefully a learning experience, but Lindy's got to find her shot (although I do like Orrange at the point and Toni at the 2 quite a bit).

VG


Re: WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - Viking_Guy - 01-06-2012

I agree with Tara, last night was not a great defensive effort.  Stanford was trying to run a switching man, to prevent Oregon getting simple screens and driving the lane, but that also exposed vulnerable matchups - several times Oregon got quick guards against Taylor or (especially) Bonnie in the corner, and the Ducks simply isolated.  Still would like to see more zone against teams like that, but that might have led to the other problem last night - the Cardinal really didn't rebound all that well as a team.  Nneka had her typical array of amazingly athletic boards (and another late in the shot clock long jumper under duress that found nothing but net), but for a team with as little size as Oregon to only be outboarded 47-40 and get 14 offensive boards ain't that great.  The Cardinal defense really seemed unable to prevent penetration in any form of "player to player" set.  That in part led to the foul disparity, and to be fair, the defense did hold them under 38% shooting for the game.

One good thing I noticed:  second half, on consecutive transition opportunities for the Ducks. The first time, Amber basically tried to nudge Jackson and disrupt her shot, and ended up on her backside as Jackson bounced her off going up for an easy right-handed layup and-1 opportunity that she converted.  On the next Oregon offensive possession, the same transition matchup came up, and Orrange forced the ball to the center of the lane then made sure there was not going to be a three-point opportunity with a two-handed swat down on the ball.  Good foul, and better aggression on defense.

The zone 81alum refers to from Oregon was a little different - a 3-2 zone, with the SF at the foul line and the two guards on the wing.  Gave them height and reach at the top of the arc and quickness on the perimeter. It also left Stanford befuddled early on, as they reverted to three players essentially standing right where they were matched by defenders outside, very little movement of the ball inside and out, and a whole lot of the "toss it around the perimeter for 30 seconds" offense that we know and hate.  The open space was the baseline and deep corner shot, and Stanford's perimeter players seemed to be unwilling to get that deep and leave Oregon out for transition.  Until Bonnie started making her deep (and I mean 3-4 feet beyond the arc) threes, they kept it really packed in.  Would've liked to have seen some set plays on the baseline in a staggered Ogwumike screen, to take even more advantage of the open space in the zone.  Later in the game, as the Stanford threes started to pull the zone out, Nneka and Chiney both managed to pin their defenders high and get easy looks on entry passes from the top.

Hopefully a learning experience, but Lindy's got to find her shot (although I do like Orrange at the point and Toni at the 2 quite a bit).

VG


Re: WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - Viking_Guy - 01-06-2012

I agree with Tara, last night was not a great defensive effort.  Stanford was trying to run a switching man, to prevent Oregon getting simple screens and driving the lane, but that also exposed vulnerable matchups - several times Oregon got quick guards against Taylor or (especially) Bonnie in the corner, and the Ducks simply isolated.  Still would like to see more zone against teams like that, but that might have led to the other problem last night - the Cardinal really didn't rebound all that well as a team.  Nneka had her typical array of amazingly athletic boards (and another late in the shot clock long jumper under duress that found nothing but net), but for a team with as little size as Oregon to only be outboarded 47-40 and get 14 offensive boards ain't that great.  The Cardinal defense really seemed unable to prevent penetration in any form of "player to player" set.  That in part led to the foul disparity, and to be fair, the defense did hold them under 38% shooting for the game.

One good thing I noticed:  second half, on consecutive transition opportunities for the Ducks. The first time, Amber basically tried to nudge Jackson and disrupt her shot, and ended up on her backside as Jackson bounced her off going up for an easy right-handed layup and-1 opportunity that she converted.  On the next Oregon offensive possession, the same transition matchup came up, and Orrange forced the ball to the center of the lane then made sure there was not going to be a three-point opportunity with a two-handed swat down on the ball.  Good foul, and better aggression on defense.

The zone 81alum refers to from Oregon was a little different - a 3-2 zone, with the SF at the foul line and the two guards on the wing.  Gave them height and reach at the top of the arc and quickness on the perimeter. It also left Stanford befuddled early on, as they reverted to three players essentially standing right where they were matched by defenders outside, very little movement of the ball inside and out, and a whole lot of the "toss it around the perimeter for 30 seconds" offense that we know and hate.  The open space was the baseline and deep corner shot, and Stanford's perimeter players seemed to be unwilling to get that deep and leave Oregon out for transition.  Until Bonnie started making her deep (and I mean 3-4 feet beyond the arc) threes, they kept it really packed in.  Would've liked to have seen some set plays on the baseline in a staggered Ogwumike screen, to take even more advantage of the open space in the zone.  Later in the game, as the Stanford threes started to pull the zone out, Nneka and Chiney both managed to pin their defenders high and get easy looks on entry passes from the top.

Hopefully a learning experience, but Lindy's got to find her shot (although I do like Orrange at the point and Toni at the 2 quite a bit).

VG


Re: WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - 81alum - 01-06-2012

I always learn so much from you, VG.  It takes more experienced eyes than mine to really dissect the defenses as you do so well.  Thanks!

Re: WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - 81alum - 01-06-2012

I always learn so much from you, VG.  It takes more experienced eyes than mine to really dissect the defenses as you do so well.  Thanks!

Re: WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - 81alum - 01-06-2012

I always learn so much from you, VG.  It takes more experienced eyes than mine to really dissect the defenses as you do so well.  Thanks!

Re: WBB: Stanford 93 Oregon 70 - 81alum - 01-06-2012

I always learn so much from you, VG.  It takes more experienced eyes than mine to really dissect the defenses as you do so well.  Thanks!