12-21-2016, 07:25 PM
Recap is up a the top.
WBB: Stanford 71 George Washington 52
12-21-2016, 07:25 PM
(12-20-2016, 12:01 PM)81alum link Wrote:If we could bottle the Tennessee first quarter or the GW second quarter and pour it out at will, we would be an offensive juggernaut.Â
That would be a good question to ask the coaches at the next home game; how to harness that offensive output and make sure we do it on a consistent basis.
But as you also pointed out, another opposing head coach would be foolish if they don't play zone or at least key in on McCall, we need to execute when that happens and not just hope we are hot from 3-point range that particular evening.
(12-20-2016, 12:01 PM)81alum link Wrote:If we could bottle the Tennessee first quarter or the GW second quarter and pour it out at will, we would be an offensive juggernaut.Â
That would be a good question to ask the coaches at the next home game; how to harness that offensive output and make sure we do it on a consistent basis.
But as you also pointed out, another opposing head coach would be foolish if they don't play zone or at least key in on McCall, we need to execute when that happens and not just hope we are hot from 3-point range that particular evening.
12-21-2016, 07:25 PM
(12-20-2016, 12:01 PM)81alum link Wrote:If we could bottle the Tennessee first quarter or the GW second quarter and pour it out at will, we would be an offensive juggernaut.Â
That would be a good question to ask the coaches at the next home game; how to harness that offensive output and make sure we do it on a consistent basis.
But as you also pointed out, another opposing head coach would be foolish if they don't play zone or at least key in on McCall, we need to execute when that happens and not just hope we are hot from 3-point range that particular evening.
(12-20-2016, 12:01 PM)81alum link Wrote:If we could bottle the Tennessee first quarter or the GW second quarter and pour it out at will, we would be an offensive juggernaut.Â
That would be a good question to ask the coaches at the next home game; how to harness that offensive output and make sure we do it on a consistent basis.
But as you also pointed out, another opposing head coach would be foolish if they don't play zone or at least key in on McCall, we need to execute when that happens and not just hope we are hot from 3-point range that particular evening.
12-21-2016, 07:29 PM
We shot 49% they shot 29%. Which is great but being out rebounded by 11 is well terrible.
Still we win on the road by 19.Â
Still we win on the road by 19.Â
12-21-2016, 07:29 PM
We shot 49% they shot 29%. Which is great but being out rebounded by 11 is well terrible.
Still we win on the road by 19.Â
Still we win on the road by 19.Â
12-21-2016, 07:43 PM
the small lineup leaves us really susceptible to being outrebounded. Everyone was guarding a much taller player
12-21-2016, 07:43 PM
the small lineup leaves us really susceptible to being outrebounded. Everyone was guarding a much taller player
12-21-2016, 07:55 PM
(12-21-2016, 07:43 PM)mbdude link Wrote:the small lineup leaves us really susceptible to being outrebounded. Everyone was guarding a much taller playerThis is true. Seen it several times now.
Having McCall, Karlie, McPhee, and a point is a given. But the fifth position has alternated between a second small guard or a second post. I think the long term solution is that Nadia should play more regularly unless we have to have both Marta and Bri for defensive purposes.
(12-21-2016, 07:43 PM)mbdude link Wrote:the small lineup leaves us really susceptible to being outrebounded. Everyone was guarding a much taller playerThis is true. Seen it several times now.
Having McCall, Karlie, McPhee, and a point is a given. But the fifth position has alternated between a second small guard or a second post. I think the long term solution is that Nadia should play more regularly unless we have to have both Marta and Bri for defensive purposes.
12-21-2016, 07:55 PM
(12-21-2016, 07:43 PM)mbdude link Wrote:the small lineup leaves us really susceptible to being outrebounded. Everyone was guarding a much taller playerThis is true. Seen it several times now.
Having McCall, Karlie, McPhee, and a point is a given. But the fifth position has alternated between a second small guard or a second post. I think the long term solution is that Nadia should play more regularly unless we have to have both Marta and Bri for defensive purposes.
(12-21-2016, 07:43 PM)mbdude link Wrote:the small lineup leaves us really susceptible to being outrebounded. Everyone was guarding a much taller playerThis is true. Seen it several times now.
Having McCall, Karlie, McPhee, and a point is a given. But the fifth position has alternated between a second small guard or a second post. I think the long term solution is that Nadia should play more regularly unless we have to have both Marta and Bri for defensive purposes.
12-21-2016, 10:22 PM
(12-21-2016, 10:04 PM)BobK link Wrote:Point guard recruit Kiana Wiiliams scored 41 tonight
We could use that type of offensive production
12-21-2016, 10:22 PM
(12-21-2016, 10:04 PM)BobK link Wrote:Point guard recruit Kiana Wiiliams scored 41 tonight
We could use that type of offensive production
12-22-2016, 06:56 AM
Boy, you have to wonder what next year's starting lineup will look like. Will it be Marta, Anna, or Kiana at point? Probably Kaylee and Nadia at post, unless Dodson (listed as a wing?) breaks through over the summer. Wing looks very crowded--Britt of course but Carrington will hopefully be up to full speed and incomers Moschkau and Jerome (a 6'1" forward?) could have a real chance. Shooting guard--Brewer maybe? Or will we just play two wings given how much talent we have there?
There will be a lot of competition at nearly every slot next year, because of McCall's and Karlie's graduation along with the uncertainty at point. The team will be quite different, however it shakes out.
For now, however, we need Erica and Karlie to have stupendous senior years--and while they have generally been solid, they are not thus far having breakout seasons. Our point guard situation is unsettled, as is our second forward position. And McPhee seems to be streaky. So none of the five positions are really at championship caliber yet, but all five positions tantalize us with hints of what they could become.
There will be a lot of competition at nearly every slot next year, because of McCall's and Karlie's graduation along with the uncertainty at point. The team will be quite different, however it shakes out.
For now, however, we need Erica and Karlie to have stupendous senior years--and while they have generally been solid, they are not thus far having breakout seasons. Our point guard situation is unsettled, as is our second forward position. And McPhee seems to be streaky. So none of the five positions are really at championship caliber yet, but all five positions tantalize us with hints of what they could become.
Boy, you have to wonder what next year's starting lineup will look like. Will it be Marta, Anna, or Kiana at point? Probably Kaylee and Nadia at post, unless Dodson (listed as a wing?) breaks through over the summer. Wing looks very crowded--Britt of course but Carrington will hopefully be up to full speed and incomers Moschkau and Jerome (a 6'1" forward?) could have a real chance. Shooting guard--Brewer maybe? Or will we just play two wings given how much talent we have there?
There will be a lot of competition at nearly every slot next year, because of McCall's and Karlie's graduation along with the uncertainty at point. The team will be quite different, however it shakes out.
For now, however, we need Erica and Karlie to have stupendous senior years--and while they have generally been solid, they are not thus far having breakout seasons. Our point guard situation is unsettled, as is our second forward position. And McPhee seems to be streaky. So none of the five positions are really at championship caliber yet, but all five positions tantalize us with hints of what they could become.
There will be a lot of competition at nearly every slot next year, because of McCall's and Karlie's graduation along with the uncertainty at point. The team will be quite different, however it shakes out.
For now, however, we need Erica and Karlie to have stupendous senior years--and while they have generally been solid, they are not thus far having breakout seasons. Our point guard situation is unsettled, as is our second forward position. And McPhee seems to be streaky. So none of the five positions are really at championship caliber yet, but all five positions tantalize us with hints of what they could become.
12-22-2016, 06:56 AM
Boy, you have to wonder what next year's starting lineup will look like. Will it be Marta, Anna, or Kiana at point? Probably Kaylee and Nadia at post, unless Dodson (listed as a wing?) breaks through over the summer. Wing looks very crowded--Britt of course but Carrington will hopefully be up to full speed and incomers Moschkau and Jerome (a 6'1" forward?) could have a real chance. Shooting guard--Brewer maybe? Or will we just play two wings given how much talent we have there?
There will be a lot of competition at nearly every slot next year, because of McCall's and Karlie's graduation along with the uncertainty at point. The team will be quite different, however it shakes out.
For now, however, we need Erica and Karlie to have stupendous senior years--and while they have generally been solid, they are not thus far having breakout seasons. Our point guard situation is unsettled, as is our second forward position. And McPhee seems to be streaky. So none of the five positions are really at championship caliber yet, but all five positions tantalize us with hints of what they could become.
There will be a lot of competition at nearly every slot next year, because of McCall's and Karlie's graduation along with the uncertainty at point. The team will be quite different, however it shakes out.
For now, however, we need Erica and Karlie to have stupendous senior years--and while they have generally been solid, they are not thus far having breakout seasons. Our point guard situation is unsettled, as is our second forward position. And McPhee seems to be streaky. So none of the five positions are really at championship caliber yet, but all five positions tantalize us with hints of what they could become.
Boy, you have to wonder what next year's starting lineup will look like. Will it be Marta, Anna, or Kiana at point? Probably Kaylee and Nadia at post, unless Dodson (listed as a wing?) breaks through over the summer. Wing looks very crowded--Britt of course but Carrington will hopefully be up to full speed and incomers Moschkau and Jerome (a 6'1" forward?) could have a real chance. Shooting guard--Brewer maybe? Or will we just play two wings given how much talent we have there?
There will be a lot of competition at nearly every slot next year, because of McCall's and Karlie's graduation along with the uncertainty at point. The team will be quite different, however it shakes out.
For now, however, we need Erica and Karlie to have stupendous senior years--and while they have generally been solid, they are not thus far having breakout seasons. Our point guard situation is unsettled, as is our second forward position. And McPhee seems to be streaky. So none of the five positions are really at championship caliber yet, but all five positions tantalize us with hints of what they could become.
There will be a lot of competition at nearly every slot next year, because of McCall's and Karlie's graduation along with the uncertainty at point. The team will be quite different, however it shakes out.
For now, however, we need Erica and Karlie to have stupendous senior years--and while they have generally been solid, they are not thus far having breakout seasons. Our point guard situation is unsettled, as is our second forward position. And McPhee seems to be streaky. So none of the five positions are really at championship caliber yet, but all five positions tantalize us with hints of what they could become.
12-22-2016, 05:39 PM
(12-21-2016, 07:29 PM)BobK link Wrote:We shot 49% they shot 29%. Which is great but being out rebounded by 11 is well terrible.
Still we win on the road by 19.
The numbers are even worse than they look, because it is generally easier to rebound on the defensive end than to corral offensive rebounds. With such an awful shooting percentage, that means there were more opportunities at the GW end of the floor, so the fact that George Washington outrebounded us overall is a red flag.
To put some numbers to it... on the GW side of the floor, we captured 30/51 rebounds available (30 Stanford defensive rebounds + 21 GW offensive rebounds) for a defensive rebounding percentage of 59%. On our own side of the floor, we captured 6/32 available rebounds (6 Stanford offensive rebounds + 26 GW defensive rebounds) for an offensive rebounding percentage of 19%. Compare that to GW, who had a defensive rebound percentage of 81% and an offensive rebound percentage of 41%.
BC
(12-21-2016, 07:29 PM)BobK link Wrote:We shot 49% they shot 29%. Which is great but being out rebounded by 11 is well terrible.
Still we win on the road by 19.
The numbers are even worse than they look, because it is generally easier to rebound on the defensive end than to corral offensive rebounds. With such an awful shooting percentage, that means there were more opportunities at the GW end of the floor, so the fact that George Washington outrebounded us overall is a red flag.
To put some numbers to it... on the GW side of the floor, we captured 30/51 rebounds available (30 Stanford defensive rebounds + 21 GW offensive rebounds) for a defensive rebounding percentage of 59%. On our own side of the floor, we captured 6/32 available rebounds (6 Stanford offensive rebounds + 26 GW defensive rebounds) for an offensive rebounding percentage of 19%. Compare that to GW, who had a defensive rebound percentage of 81% and an offensive rebound percentage of 41%.
BC
12-22-2016, 05:39 PM
(12-21-2016, 07:29 PM)BobK link Wrote:We shot 49% they shot 29%. Which is great but being out rebounded by 11 is well terrible.
Still we win on the road by 19.
The numbers are even worse than they look, because it is generally easier to rebound on the defensive end than to corral offensive rebounds. With such an awful shooting percentage, that means there were more opportunities at the GW end of the floor, so the fact that George Washington outrebounded us overall is a red flag.
To put some numbers to it... on the GW side of the floor, we captured 30/51 rebounds available (30 Stanford defensive rebounds + 21 GW offensive rebounds) for a defensive rebounding percentage of 59%. On our own side of the floor, we captured 6/32 available rebounds (6 Stanford offensive rebounds + 26 GW defensive rebounds) for an offensive rebounding percentage of 19%. Compare that to GW, who had a defensive rebound percentage of 81% and an offensive rebound percentage of 41%.
BC
(12-21-2016, 07:29 PM)BobK link Wrote:We shot 49% they shot 29%. Which is great but being out rebounded by 11 is well terrible.
Still we win on the road by 19.
The numbers are even worse than they look, because it is generally easier to rebound on the defensive end than to corral offensive rebounds. With such an awful shooting percentage, that means there were more opportunities at the GW end of the floor, so the fact that George Washington outrebounded us overall is a red flag.
To put some numbers to it... on the GW side of the floor, we captured 30/51 rebounds available (30 Stanford defensive rebounds + 21 GW offensive rebounds) for a defensive rebounding percentage of 59%. On our own side of the floor, we captured 6/32 available rebounds (6 Stanford offensive rebounds + 26 GW defensive rebounds) for an offensive rebounding percentage of 19%. Compare that to GW, who had a defensive rebound percentage of 81% and an offensive rebound percentage of 41%.
BC
12-22-2016, 05:53 PM
(12-22-2016, 05:39 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:The numbers are even worse than they look, because it is generally easier to rebound on the defensive end than to corral offensive rebounds. With such an awful shooting percentage, that means there were more opportunities at the GW end of the floor, so the fact that George Washington outrebounded us overall is a red flag.
To put some numbers to it... on the GW side of the floor, we captured 30/51 rebounds available (30 Stanford defensive rebounds + 21 GW offensive rebounds) for a defensive rebounding percentage of 59%. On our own side of the floor, we captured 6/32 available rebounds (6 Stanford offensive rebounds + 26 GW defensive rebounds) for an offensive rebounding percentage of 19%. Compare that to GW, who had a defensive rebound percentage of 81% and an offensive rebound percentage of 41%.
BC
Our terrible offensive rebounding strikes me as inevitable with a four-guard lineup - only Erica's positioned at/under the basket. And because Karlie generally shoots from the perimeter and McPhee made almost every shot she took, neither of them would be near the basket to pick up a missed shot. I didn't see the game, but I heard that we gave up inches at every position. I imagine our rebounding will improve tremendously when we get Kayl back for conference play. She hasn't blossomed into a consistent offensive threat, but she's been a tremendous rebounding asset from basically day one.
At this point, I'm mostly worried about the 1 spot, because neither Bri nor Marta have been able to consistently fulfill the three things we need from the 1: perimeter shooting, clean passing, and good defense.
(12-22-2016, 05:39 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:The numbers are even worse than they look, because it is generally easier to rebound on the defensive end than to corral offensive rebounds. With such an awful shooting percentage, that means there were more opportunities at the GW end of the floor, so the fact that George Washington outrebounded us overall is a red flag.
To put some numbers to it... on the GW side of the floor, we captured 30/51 rebounds available (30 Stanford defensive rebounds + 21 GW offensive rebounds) for a defensive rebounding percentage of 59%. On our own side of the floor, we captured 6/32 available rebounds (6 Stanford offensive rebounds + 26 GW defensive rebounds) for an offensive rebounding percentage of 19%. Compare that to GW, who had a defensive rebound percentage of 81% and an offensive rebound percentage of 41%.
BC
Our terrible offensive rebounding strikes me as inevitable with a four-guard lineup - only Erica's positioned at/under the basket. And because Karlie generally shoots from the perimeter and McPhee made almost every shot she took, neither of them would be near the basket to pick up a missed shot. I didn't see the game, but I heard that we gave up inches at every position. I imagine our rebounding will improve tremendously when we get Kayl back for conference play. She hasn't blossomed into a consistent offensive threat, but she's been a tremendous rebounding asset from basically day one.
At this point, I'm mostly worried about the 1 spot, because neither Bri nor Marta have been able to consistently fulfill the three things we need from the 1: perimeter shooting, clean passing, and good defense.
12-22-2016, 05:53 PM
(12-22-2016, 05:39 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:The numbers are even worse than they look, because it is generally easier to rebound on the defensive end than to corral offensive rebounds. With such an awful shooting percentage, that means there were more opportunities at the GW end of the floor, so the fact that George Washington outrebounded us overall is a red flag.
To put some numbers to it... on the GW side of the floor, we captured 30/51 rebounds available (30 Stanford defensive rebounds + 21 GW offensive rebounds) for a defensive rebounding percentage of 59%. On our own side of the floor, we captured 6/32 available rebounds (6 Stanford offensive rebounds + 26 GW defensive rebounds) for an offensive rebounding percentage of 19%. Compare that to GW, who had a defensive rebound percentage of 81% and an offensive rebound percentage of 41%.
BC
Our terrible offensive rebounding strikes me as inevitable with a four-guard lineup - only Erica's positioned at/under the basket. And because Karlie generally shoots from the perimeter and McPhee made almost every shot she took, neither of them would be near the basket to pick up a missed shot. I didn't see the game, but I heard that we gave up inches at every position. I imagine our rebounding will improve tremendously when we get Kayl back for conference play. She hasn't blossomed into a consistent offensive threat, but she's been a tremendous rebounding asset from basically day one.
At this point, I'm mostly worried about the 1 spot, because neither Bri nor Marta have been able to consistently fulfill the three things we need from the 1: perimeter shooting, clean passing, and good defense.
(12-22-2016, 05:39 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:The numbers are even worse than they look, because it is generally easier to rebound on the defensive end than to corral offensive rebounds. With such an awful shooting percentage, that means there were more opportunities at the GW end of the floor, so the fact that George Washington outrebounded us overall is a red flag.
To put some numbers to it... on the GW side of the floor, we captured 30/51 rebounds available (30 Stanford defensive rebounds + 21 GW offensive rebounds) for a defensive rebounding percentage of 59%. On our own side of the floor, we captured 6/32 available rebounds (6 Stanford offensive rebounds + 26 GW defensive rebounds) for an offensive rebounding percentage of 19%. Compare that to GW, who had a defensive rebound percentage of 81% and an offensive rebound percentage of 41%.
BC
Our terrible offensive rebounding strikes me as inevitable with a four-guard lineup - only Erica's positioned at/under the basket. And because Karlie generally shoots from the perimeter and McPhee made almost every shot she took, neither of them would be near the basket to pick up a missed shot. I didn't see the game, but I heard that we gave up inches at every position. I imagine our rebounding will improve tremendously when we get Kayl back for conference play. She hasn't blossomed into a consistent offensive threat, but she's been a tremendous rebounding asset from basically day one.
At this point, I'm mostly worried about the 1 spot, because neither Bri nor Marta have been able to consistently fulfill the three things we need from the 1: perimeter shooting, clean passing, and good defense.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »