RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Chicago Sky 2017
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19 ... 26, 27, 28  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bullsky



Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 20310



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 12:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
For me, if Coates were a sure thing like a Stewie, Nneka, or Aja Wilson, then it would make sense to take her at #2. I may be wrong, but I expect her to just be serviceable and mostly as a backup. Which means #2 was way too high, especially since it isn't where they need the help. If they did in fact take her thinking she could be part of a trade, then it was a huge mistake to not have the trade nailed down beforehand.


I have to disagree. I think Coates is a for sure thing, she's just different than the players you mentioned. She's biased, but Dawn mentioned that she feels Alaina's best moments are ahead of her and that she will only continue to develop.



_________________
"Don't do something until you get it right, do it until you can't do it wrong."
- Geno Auriemma
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 12494
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 12:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

bullsky wrote:
myrtle wrote:
For me, if Coates were a sure thing like a Stewie, Nneka, or Aja Wilson, then it would make sense to take her at #2. I may be wrong, but I expect her to just be serviceable and mostly as a backup. Which means #2 was way too high, especially since it isn't where they need the help. If they did in fact take her thinking she could be part of a trade, then it was a huge mistake to not have the trade nailed down beforehand.


I have to disagree. I think Coates is a for sure thing, she's just different than the players you mentioned. She's biased, but Dawn mentioned that she feels Alaina's best moments are ahead of her and that she will only continue to develop.


I was attempting to think of a past player to compare her too and the only person that came close to mind was "Cheryl Ford" dominant rebounder with so so offensive skills . She could be put to use ASAP by alot of teams not named Chicago.



_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
lynxmania



Joined: 18 Feb 2011
Posts: 10697
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 12:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Not that it's going to happen, but wouldn't it be interesting if Coates reentered the draft and the Sky got nothing from the 2 first round picks?


WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 12494
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 2:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

lynxmania wrote:
Not that it's going to happen, but wouldn't it be interesting if Coates reentered the draft and the Sky got nothing from the 2 first round picks?


I remember stating that on another post here , technically she can do it but the other posters noted she would have to skip playing overseas and the cash she could receive if she chose that route . Idk her financial situation to say if its a good idea or not but she didn't look excited during the draft at all when she realized she was going to Chicago tbh



_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
Rock Hard



Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 5348
Location: Chocolate Paradise


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 3:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The WNBA has a draft lottery. Yes it is weighted so the weakest team has the most lottery balls in the basket but it is still a lottery. Sky management want to sit down and play at the 2018 A. Wilson roulette table.



_________________
You can win, as long as you keep your head to the SKY! Be OPTIMISTIC!
toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22470
Location: NJ


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 5:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I think the Sky want DeSheilds. That's who they were rumored to want in the '17 draft.



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
Rock Hard



Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 5348
Location: Chocolate Paradise


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 6:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

toad455 wrote:
I think the Sky want DeSheilds. That's who they were rumored to want in the '17 draft.


IF the Sky are lucky enough to get the first pick of the draft they WILL imitate San Antonio and draft the best player in the draft which is WILSON.



_________________
You can win, as long as you keep your head to the SKY! Be OPTIMISTIC!
toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22470
Location: NJ


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 7:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Rock Hard wrote:
toad455 wrote:
I think the Sky want DeSheilds. That's who they were rumored to want in the '17 draft.


IF the Sky are lucky enough to get the first pick of the draft they WILL imitate San Antonio and draft the best player in the draft which is WILSON.


Agreed, they take Wilson. But San Antonio's odds will likely be high for them to get anything other than the #1 pick.



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
J-Spoon



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6775



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 11:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Just like there is a lot of competition to get into the finals, there is a lot of competition to get into the lottery.

SA, Indy, Dallas, Conn, Atlanta and Chicago. Only 4 of those 6 teams can land in the lottery. Chicago has the most talented roster from 1-12 of those six team IMO, so they will have to put in some effort if they want to finish in the bottom four, and even more if they want a decent shot at pick 1 or 2.

On different note. Who would trade their first round pick in 18 for Coates? Obviously you need a team confident that they won't be in the lottery this year. Coates could fit in Washington, Minnesota, NY, LA or Seattle. All of those teams could use some youthful size and strength down low.

Two first round picks in 18 would be good for Chicago, maybe they could even package them to move up if they don't land a top 3 pick.


LibFan25



Joined: 01 Sep 2012
Posts: 893
Location: NY


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/17 5:54 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

J-Spoon wrote:
Just like there is a lot of competition to get into the finals, there is a lot of competition to get into the lottery.

SA, Indy, Dallas, Conn, Atlanta and Chicago. Only 4 of those 6 teams can land in the lottery. Chicago has the most talented roster from 1-12 of those six team IMO, so they will have to put in some effort if they want to finish in the bottom four, and even more if they want a decent shot at pick 1 or 2.

On different note. Who would trade their first round pick in 18 for Coates? Obviously you need a team confident that they won't be in the lottery this year. Coates could fit in Washington, Minnesota, NY, LA or Seattle. All of those teams could use some youthful size and strength down low.

Two first round picks in 18 would be good for Chicago, maybe they could even package them to move up if they don't land a top 3 pick.


No thanks. Do not want Coates anywhere near NY. I would rather have Bone back with the libs


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/17 6:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Sky's stock low, but players high on coach Amber Stocks

Quote:

But Stocks and several players said traditional positions like center, power forward, etc., will be irrelevant in their new system because players will move around on offense to exploit mismatches and shadow their assignments on defense.


Quote:
So Sunday night, you might see Dolson and Boyette in and out of the post (Stocks calls them "symmetrical"), Breland at small forward, Tamera Young as a guard-forward hybrid and Pondexter as the "pusher."


Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/17 7:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So a rookie coach is going to re-invent basketball. This strikes me as one of those experiments that will either be a huge success or a massive failure.


Rock Hard



Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 5348
Location: Chocolate Paradise


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/17 9:19 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The Sky need to update their team photo asap. Jankoska and Cooper are gone. Rolling Eyes



_________________
You can win, as long as you keep your head to the SKY! Be OPTIMISTIC!
toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22470
Location: NJ


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/17 9:52 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Breland doesn't work at SF. Start her at PF and have Dolson & Boyette split time at C. With them at full strength, their line-up should be:

PG: Vandersloot/Epps
SG: Pondexter/Quigley/Copper
SF: Young/Hampton
PF: Breland/Harris
C: Boyette/Dolson/Parker



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/17 10:07 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Randy wrote:
So a rookie coach is going to re-invent basketball. This strikes me as one of those experiments that will either be a huge success or a massive failure.


That reinvention has been going on, though, so it's not completely new. Watch the Warriors or any four-out team that does a lot of switching.

The basic idea is to get your best players on the floor, regardless of positional nomenclature, and usually that means a lot of combo guards and wings just because there are more of them out there. One thing it does require, though, is a relatively high basketball IQ because that kind of system relies more on flow than structure.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/17 10:19 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Randy wrote:
So a rookie coach is going to re-invent basketball. This strikes me as one of those experiments that will either be a huge success or a massive failure.


That reinvention has been going on, though, so it's not completely new. Watch the Warriors or any four-out team that does a lot of switching.

The basic idea is to get your best players on the floor, regardless of positional nomenclature, and usually that means a lot of combo guards and wings just because there are more of them out there. One thing it does require, though, is a relatively high basketball IQ because that kind of system relies more on flow than structure.


It's not all that different from what Paul Westhead was doing in Phoenix.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/17 11:00 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Randy wrote:
So a rookie coach is going to re-invent basketball. This strikes me as one of those experiments that will either be a huge success or a massive failure.


That reinvention has been going on, though, so it's not completely new. Watch the Warriors or any four-out team that does a lot of switching.

The basic idea is to get your best players on the floor, regardless of positional nomenclature, and usually that means a lot of combo guards and wings just because there are more of them out there. One thing it does require, though, is a relatively high basketball IQ because that kind of system relies more on flow than structure.


The problem seems that she's trying to play 3 posts instead of having wings and combo guards. Sparks did the same thing until they gave up on it and won the title.....


Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24327
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/17 11:04 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Randy wrote:
So a rookie coach is going to re-invent basketball. This strikes me as one of those experiments that will either be a huge success or a massive failure.


That reinvention has been going on, though, so it's not completely new. Watch the Warriors or any four-out team that does a lot of switching.

The basic idea is to get your best players on the floor, regardless of positional nomenclature, and usually that means a lot of combo guards and wings just because there are more of them out there. One thing it does require, though, is a relatively high basketball IQ because that kind of system relies more on flow than structure.

That's precisely not what it means in Chicago, though. They have more bigs than Stocks knows what to do with, especially with Quigley and Vandersloot out of town. So everything trends big and slow rather than quick and mobile.

That said, this:
Quote:
So Sunday night, you might see Dolson and Boyette in and out of the post (Stocks calls them "symmetrical"), Breland at small forward, Tamera Young as a guard-forward hybrid and Pondexter as the "pusher."

isn't remotely revolutionary. It's 4/5 being interchangeable, which lots of teams have been doing for years in this league; Breland being pushed into being a 3, which Pokey was doing all last season; Young as a 2/3, which is essentially her whole career; and Cappie being the 'lead guard', which is currently their only ballhandling option unless they trust Epps. That ain't reinventing the wheel.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/17 12:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Then it sounds more like a failed formula than a new invention. Wink


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/17 12:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I have no idea how successful the Sky or their new coach will be, or what the best use of their players is, but positional and numerical nomenclature has changed substantially over the years.

Women's basketball used to be a three court game in many parts of the country. The "forwards" played only in the "front court" and were the offensive players. The "guards" played in the "back court" and only played defense. The "center" played in the "center court" and could, under some rules, also move into the front and back courts.

In my recollection, numbers became associated with players primarily when small magnetic court boards began to be used by coaches. They would diagram plays using little round magnets with the numbers 1 through 5 printed on them. Those numbers weren't intended to represent some sort of a priori position of the players, but simply to illustrate what was supposed to happen on the particular play. For example, maybe the play was for #5 to set a screen for #2, who would shoot a 15 foot jump shot. #5 could be any player capable of setting a screen, which conceivably could be any of the five players; and #2 could be any player capable of making a 15 foot jump shot, which also conceivably could be any of the five players. Hence, #5 and #2 could be Madonna and Gaga on one play, and could be Eve and Salome on another play.

When I played high school basketball we did use the classic terms center, forward and guard, but those terms were not accompanied by the words "small", "power", "shooting" or "point". Hence, there was no positional or numerical description of players as SF, PF, SG, PG, or 1-5.

What basketball has always been about is having a mix of relevant skills on the floor -- shooting, rebounding, ball handling, passing, defense, speed and quickness. In general, once the three court game became a one court game, we tend to have the better shooters shooting from the outside, the better rebounders staying closer to the basket, and the better ball handlers bringing the ball up court, but even those generalities are not true for all plays or situations.

I've long noticed that lots of posters on this forum tend to analyze teams in terms of finely granulated positional acronyms and numbers, whereas I don't think most top coaches do except in the general skill set sense.

The best teams are often ones with players who can interchange floor positions on different plays and employ skill sets from different positions of the floor, using a free-flowing read-and-react motion offense. For example, there have been years when Wilt Chamberlain led the NBA in assists from the center position and Maya Moore led UConn in assists from the forward position.

Again, I don't know that the Sky has highly interchangeable skill set players. Dolson is one of the best classical low posts in the WNBA, in my opinion, because she has such outstanding back-to-the-basket moves. On the other hand, she is also a very good passer and a good shooter from the high post. The double post or double stacked offense is a very old one. Bob Cousy used it a lot when he coached Boston College from 1963-69, and he learned it from someone before that.
readyAIMfire53



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 7355
Location: Durham, NC


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/17 4:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
I have no idea how successful the Sky or their new coach will be, or what the best use of their players is, but positional and numerical nomenclature has changed substantially over the years.

Women's basketball used to be a three court game in many parts of the country. The "forwards" played only in the "front court" and were the offensive players. The "guards" played in the "back court" and only played defense. The "center" played in the "center court" and could, under some rules, also move into the front and back courts.

In my recollection, numbers became associated with players primarily when small magnetic court boards began to be used by coaches. They would diagram plays using little round magnets with the numbers 1 through 5 printed on them. Those numbers weren't intended to represent some sort of a priori position of the players, but simply to illustrate what was supposed to happen on the particular play. For example, maybe the play was for #5 to set a screen for #2, who would shoot a 15 foot jump shot. #5 could be any player capable of setting a screen, which conceivably could be any of the five players; and #2 could be any player capable of making a 15 foot jump shot, which also conceivably could be any of the five players. Hence, #5 and #2 could be Madonna and Gaga on one play, and could be Eve and Salome on another play.

When I played high school basketball we did use the classic terms center, forward and guard, but those terms were not accompanied by the words "small", "power", "shooting" or "point". Hence, there was no positional or numerical description of players as SF, PF, SG, PG, or 1-5.

What basketball has always been about is having a mix of relevant skills on the floor -- shooting, rebounding, ball handling, passing, defense, speed and quickness. In general, once the three court game became a one court game, we tend to have the better shooters shooting from the outside, the better rebounders staying closer to the basket, and the better ball handlers bringing the ball up court, but even those generalities are not true for all plays or situations.

I've long noticed that lots of posters on this forum tend to analyze teams in terms of finely granulated positional acronyms and numbers, whereas I don't think most top coaches do except in the general skill set sense.

The best teams are often ones with players who can interchange floor positions on different plays and employ skill sets from different positions of the floor, using a free-flowing read-and-react motion offense. For example, there have been years when Wilt Chamberlain led the NBA in assists from the center position and Maya Moore led UConn in assists from the forward position.

Again, I don't know that the Sky has highly interchangeable skill set players. Dolson is one of the best classical low posts in the WNBA, in my opinion, because she has such outstanding back-to-the-basket moves. On the other hand, she is also a very good passer and a good shooter from the high post. The double post or double stacked offense is a very old one. Bob Cousy used it a lot when he coached Boston College from 1963-69, and he learned it from someone before that.


After years of playing and watching real basketball, I had to endure "learning" 6 aside girl's basketball in gym class in the 60's. At that point, it was "2 forwards, 2 guards and 2 rovers." Forwards and guards had to stay on one half of the court, the rovers could play regular basketball. In college, my school, UC Davis, did not have a women's team. Intramural offered regular basketball to the men and 6 aside for women. UC Davis began an intercollegiate women's basketball team right after Title IX became law. It was regular basketball.

Not pleased at being reminded of this horrible experience. The torture we girls had to experience while the boys got to play the real game. What a terrible message that girls are not real people like boys are.



_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.

~rAf
root_thing



Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/17 6:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:

In my recollection, numbers became associated with players primarily when small magnetic court boards began to be used by coaches. They would diagram plays using little round magnets with the numbers 1 through 5 printed on them. Those numbers weren't intended to represent some sort of a priori position of the players, but simply to illustrate what was supposed to happen on the particular play. For example, maybe the play was for #5 to set a screen for #2, who would shoot a 15 foot jump shot. #5 could be any player capable of setting a screen, which conceivably could be any of the five players; and #2 could be any player capable of making a 15 foot jump shot, which also conceivably could be any of the five players. Hence, #5 and #2 could be Madonna and Gaga on one play, and could be Eve and Salome on another play.

When I played high school basketball we did use the classic terms center, forward and guard, but those terms were not accompanied by the words "small", "power", "shooting" or "point". Hence, there was no positional or numerical description of players as SF, PF, SG, PG, or 1-5.

What basketball has always been about is having a mix of relevant skills on the floor -- shooting, rebounding, ball handling, passing, defense, speed and quickness. In general, once the three court game became a one court game, we tend to have the better shooters shooting from the outside, the better rebounders staying closer to the basket, and the better ball handlers bringing the ball up court, but even those generalities are not true for all plays or situations.

I've long noticed that lots of posters on this forum tend to analyze teams in terms of finely granulated positional acronyms and numbers, whereas I don't think most top coaches do except in the general skill set sense.

The best teams are often ones with players who can interchange floor positions on different plays and employ skill sets from different positions of the floor, using a free-flowing read-and-react motion offense. For example, there have been years when Wilt Chamberlain led the NBA in assists from the center position and Maya Moore led UConn in assists from the forward position.


I think you're being a bit disingenuous. Certain skills tend to be found with certain sized players and those players are most commonly deployed in certain positions. To the extent that there is a norm, you have to acknowledge its existence. So, if you want to play that newly drafted college PF at SF, then she'd better have shooting range. If she doesn't, then you need to offset that shortcoming with a PF or C who can stretch the floor. Or if you decide to push a 5-9 SG into the 3 spot, then you'd better consider the fact that she's likely to be guarding someone who is 6-1. No, you don't have to use players in a particular way, but to the extent that your talent pool is generally available with certain skills attached to specific positions, and your opponent is likely to use a traditional alignment, then you have to keep those "granular" position norms in mind.

As far as Wilt and Maya leading in assists goes, that had more to do with their scoring prowess than their passing ability. Not saying they weren't good passers, but the need for other teams to double or triple team them usually left teammates wide open. You can certainly make that a component of your offense, but I don't think it's the main determinant for what combination of players you put on the floor.



_________________
You can always do something else.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/17 8:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

root_thing wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:

In my recollection, numbers became associated with players primarily when small magnetic court boards began to be used by coaches. They would diagram plays using little round magnets with the numbers 1 through 5 printed on them. Those numbers weren't intended to represent some sort of a priori position of the players, but simply to illustrate what was supposed to happen on the particular play. For example, maybe the play was for #5 to set a screen for #2, who would shoot a 15 foot jump shot. #5 could be any player capable of setting a screen, which conceivably could be any of the five players; and #2 could be any player capable of making a 15 foot jump shot, which also conceivably could be any of the five players. Hence, #5 and #2 could be Madonna and Gaga on one play, and could be Eve and Salome on another play.

When I played high school basketball we did use the classic terms center, forward and guard, but those terms were not accompanied by the words "small", "power", "shooting" or "point". Hence, there was no positional or numerical description of players as SF, PF, SG, PG, or 1-5.

What basketball has always been about is having a mix of relevant skills on the floor -- shooting, rebounding, ball handling, passing, defense, speed and quickness. In general, once the three court game became a one court game, we tend to have the better shooters shooting from the outside, the better rebounders staying closer to the basket, and the better ball handlers bringing the ball up court, but even those generalities are not true for all plays or situations.

I've long noticed that lots of posters on this forum tend to analyze teams in terms of finely granulated positional acronyms and numbers, whereas I don't think most top coaches do except in the general skill set sense.

The best teams are often ones with players who can interchange floor positions on different plays and employ skill sets from different positions of the floor, using a free-flowing read-and-react motion offense. For example, there have been years when Wilt Chamberlain led the NBA in assists from the center position and Maya Moore led UConn in assists from the forward position.


I think you're being a bit disingenuous. Certain skills tend to be found with certain sized players and those players are most commonly deployed in certain positions. To the extent that there is a norm, you have to acknowledge its existence. So, if you want to play that newly drafted college PF at SF, then she'd better have shooting range. If she doesn't, then you need to offset that shortcoming with a PF or C who can stretch the floor. Or if you decide to push a 5-9 SG into the 3 spot, then you'd better consider the fact that she's likely to be guarding someone who is 6-1. No, you don't have to use players in a particular way, but to the extent that your talent pool is generally available with certain skills attached to specific positions, and your opponent is likely to use a traditional alignment, then you have to keep those "granular" position norms in mind.

As far as Wilt and Maya leading in assists goes, that had more to do with their scoring prowess than their passing ability. Not saying they weren't good passers, but the need for other teams to double or triple team them usually left teammates wide open. You can certainly make that a component of your offense, but I don't think it's the main determinant for what combination of players you put on the floor.


I was primarily responding to two related things: the unhelpful use of positional and numerical terminology instead of talking about skills; and the criticism in this thread of coach Stocks' description of her offense, which avoids positional terminology, as some sort of "reinvention" of basketball. It isn't.

Generally, I don't find it helpful to say that Eve "is" or "is not" a "3" or a "PF", for example, because those terms don't have fixed meanings to me. I'd rather talk about the skills that Eve does or doesn't have. If a team has three good outside shooters in the lineup, then it may not matter that Eve is a poor outside shooter if she has other necessary skills such as rebounding. If, on the other hand, the team only has two good outside shooters, then Eve may not be a candidate to be in the lineup specifically because she's a poor outside shooter. Her skill set relative to the skill sets of her teammates determines whether she's a good fit in the lineup -- not whether she "is" a 3 or a 4.

Specifically as to Stocks' (hoped-for) offense, the linked article about her says:

Quote:
But Stocks and several players said traditional positions like center, power forward, etc., will be irrelevant in their new system because players will move around on offense to exploit mismatches and shadow their assignments on defense.

"I trust my coach," said Boyette, a natural center now playing power forward. "I kind of had those same (doubts) before training camp, (but) getting into the swing of it, the way we play, no one's in a specific position for very long. So while 'Bre's' at three, she could be at the rim the next play and vice versa."

So Sunday night, you might see Dolson and Boyette in and out of the post (Stocks calls them "symmetrical"), Breland at small forward, Tamera Young as a guard-forward hybrid and Pondexter as the "pusher."

"(Stocks) likes to call it the pusher," Pondexter said. "Not point guard but pusher. You have me basically facilitating everything. Still being aggressive on the offensive end and making sure everybody's getting involved, but focused on pounding the ball inside and playing the game how it should be played. … When it's time, late shot-clock situations, I have the ball in my hands making sure I get in the right positions and reading the floor really well. … It's great. I love everything (Stocks) has going on."


To me, Stocks is not reinventing anything and what she says makes eminent historical basketball sense . . . IF her players have the necessary complementary skill sets.

I'm skeptical that the big trio of Stefanie Dolson, Imani Boyette and Cheyenne Parker has a sufficient mix of complementary skills to all be in the lineup at the same time. I wouldn't be at all skeptical that the big trio of Lauren Jackson, Candace Parker and Breanna Stewart would be dynamite together -- because they have skills that span baseline to baseline and arc to rim. And I can come to these conclusions without labeling any of the players with positional names or numbers.
Luuuc
#NATC


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21901



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/17 8:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

You get that when we call a player a 4, we're not claiming to describe every aspect of her game in a single number, right? Confused



_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/18/17 8:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Revamped Chicago Sky embracing change as season begins


Quote:
"Kahleah Copper is a superstar unfolding before our very eyes," Stocks said at media day. "She can do so many different things. On top of that, she's enthusiastic, she loves the game and she loves to compete.

"And Stephanie (Dolson) is a fabulous leader and appreciates the importance of team and that's evident in how she plays both offense and defense. She'll be a great compliment to Imani Boyette and it's been exciting to see those two learn each other and watch them play together."


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19 ... 26, 27, 28  Next
Page 18 of 28

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin