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 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 12, 13, 14  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lynxmania



Joined: 18 Feb 2011
Posts: 7895
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/15/17 7:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Amber Harris lives!


sigur3



Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Posts: 5605
Location: Chicago-ish


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/15/17 7:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stocks is lost.

You KNEW Sloot and Quigley could be missing time to start the season and that one of them could also be participating in Eurobasket this June. Presumably this is why Jankoska was drafted at #9.

Thens she gets cut after one game? And you're keeping Amber fucking Harris???? Where is your scouting? Where is your drafting strategy? You're already stuck with Coates because you drafted her for a trade and couldn't pull it off, now your other first rounder is already off the team?

Total waste of an asset. Gross.



_________________
chicago sky tankwagon 2017
hangtyme24



Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 2126



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/15/17 7:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

sigur3 wrote:
Stocks is lost.

You KNEW Sloot and Quigley could be missing time to start the season and that one of them could also be participating in Eurobasket this June. Presumably this is why Jankoska was drafted at #9.

Thens she gets cut after one game? And you're keeping Amber fucking Harris???? Where is your scouting? Where is your drafting strategy? You're already stuck with Coates because you drafted her for a trade and couldn't pull it off, now your other first rounder is already off the team?

Total waste of an asset. Gross.


I'm assuming both Vandersloot and Quigley are on the way with the release of Jankoska and Cooper



_________________
HERE 2 STAY!
lynxmania



Joined: 18 Feb 2011
Posts: 7895
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/15/17 8:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

hangtyme24 wrote:
sigur3 wrote:
Stocks is lost.

You KNEW Sloot and Quigley could be missing time to start the season and that one of them could also be participating in Eurobasket this June. Presumably this is why Jankoska was drafted at #9.

Thens she gets cut after one game? And you're keeping Amber fucking Harris???? Where is your scouting? Where is your drafting strategy? You're already stuck with Coates because you drafted her for a trade and couldn't pull it off, now your other first rounder is already off the team?

Total waste of an asset. Gross.


I'm assuming both Vandersloot and Quigley are on the way with the release of Jankoska and Cooper


They have the Turkish finals on Wednesday, tho. So why even have Tori and Shayla on the roster if you were going to cut them after Game 1?


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 20359



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/15/17 8:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So was Stocks at Xavier when Harris was there? That might explain it.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 19489
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/15/17 8:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

lynxmania wrote:
hangtyme24 wrote:
sigur3 wrote:
Stocks is lost.

You KNEW Sloot and Quigley could be missing time to start the season and that one of them could also be participating in Eurobasket this June. Presumably this is why Jankoska was drafted at #9.

Thens she gets cut after one game? And you're keeping Amber fucking Harris???? Where is your scouting? Where is your drafting strategy? You're already stuck with Coates because you drafted her for a trade and couldn't pull it off, now your other first rounder is already off the team?

Total waste of an asset. Gross.


I'm assuming both Vandersloot and Quigley are on the way with the release of Jankoska and Cooper


They have the Turkish finals on Wednesday, tho. So why even have Tori and Shayla on the roster if you were going to cut them after Game 1?

Waiver claims, maybe? Unless they're bringing other players in before Sloot/Quigley arrive, the timing doesn't make much sense. Either start the season with 12 including the players you're waiting on, or give them those remaining days to make an impression before you're required to cut them.



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



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5310



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/15/17 8:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
So was Stocks at Xavier when Harris was there? That might explain it.


Yes, they were both there for 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.


WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 3880
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/15/17 8:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Thibault loved him some Tori's (plural) ijs



_________________
2-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-2-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 6589



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/15/17 9:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Well -the timing might make sense if you didn't want to pay their salary for a week, and wanted to avoid paying for their cars and apartments, etc.......just sayin.


Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 19489
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/15/17 9:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Randy wrote:
Well -the timing might make sense if you didn't want to pay their salary for a week, and wanted to avoid paying for their cars and apartments, etc.......just sayin.

But the opinion on whether they wanted to do that or not changed between Friday and Monday?



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
zune69



Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 5875



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/15/17 9:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This is the downside of being a average team with great depth.I've Been saying it since the offseason,chicago is doing a poor job off managing their assets.Too many bench players capable of starting,but not enough stars to be a championship contender.which means,limited cap space to hold on too your depth,or waiving quality players/high draft picks.

Chicago should have:

Drafted Gray #2
Drafted Davis or best player available at #9
Drafted a pg in the 2nd round
Traded Faulkner,Young,and Pondexter or Quigley

Bad job by Stocks/Sky management.




Last edited by zune69 on 05/15/17 9:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 14462



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/15/17 9:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Sky waive Tori Jankoska and Shayla Cooper

http://sky.wnba.com/news/chicago-sky-waive-tori-jankoska-shayla-cooper/


Definitely saw Jankoska getting cut. That last spot was either Cooper or Harris.



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

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
J-Spoon



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 4004



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/15/17 9:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

trying to be positive the Hampton pick up was decent considering the player they drafted and traded for her didn't last. And whie Jankoska was viewed as a little high most of us dwellers had Epps between 8-18 so getting Epps in the third round worked out, and Epps beating out Janoska isn't that shocking.

so what is it now

Vandrsloot/Epps
Pondexter/Quigley/Copper
Young/Hampton
Dolson/Breland/Harris
Boyette/Parker

still looks like an OK middle of the pack kind of team


blaase22



Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 3469
Location: Paradise


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 12:00 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

lynxmania wrote:
Amber Harris lives!


I'm still bitter the Lynx drafted her over Lavender Laughing


bullsky



Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 20236



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 8:28 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

J-Spoon wrote:
trying to be positive the Hampton pick up was decent considering the player they drafted and traded for her didn't last. And whie Jankoska was viewed as a little high most of us dwellers had Epps between 8-18 so getting Epps in the third round worked out, and Epps beating out Janoska isn't that shocking.

so what is it now

Vandrsloot/Epps
Pondexter/Quigley/Copper
Young/Hampton
Dolson/Breland/Harris
Boyette/Parker

still looks like an OK middle of the pack kind of team


Exactly. I think it's a bit premature to call Stocks a colossal failure. Yes, the Jankoska pick was odd, but as you mentioned, Stocks used her 2nd and 3rd round picks well, which could balance it out. I haven't seen Amber Harris recently in order to make a judgement but it seems as though she's the placeholder that they will easily cut when Coates is ready.

I'm actually excited to see how Copper and Epps grow and develop.



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



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 54730
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 8:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Blowing the #9 pick is bad. The previous four #9 picks are all on rosters. Three of them are starters.

I'll cut Stocks some slack. LA certainly isn't the place to learn about good drafting. She may figure it all out before they can her.

Perhaps it is telling that we basement dwellers were able to identify Jankoska as bad pick right away.



_________________
No one knows what goes on behind closed doors
bullsky



Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 20236



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 9:17 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Blowing the #9 pick is bad. The previous four #9 picks are all on rosters. Three of them are starters.

I'll cut Stocks some slack. LA certainly isn't the place to learn about good drafting. She may figure it all out before they can her.

Perhaps it is telling that we basement dwellers were able to identify Jankoska as bad pick right away.


I am not defending the Jankoska move, I definitely agree it's bad. However, I think some of her other moves have turned out well for the Sky. You take the good with the bad.



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



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5438



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 10:05 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

sigur3 wrote:
Stocks is lost.

You KNEW Sloot and Quigley could be missing time to start the season and that one of them could also be participating in Eurobasket this June. Presumably this is why Jankoska was drafted at #9.

Thens she gets cut after one game? And you're keeping Amber fucking Harris???? Where is your scouting? Where is your drafting strategy? You're already stuck with Coates because you drafted her for a trade and couldn't pull it off, now your other first rounder is already off the team?

Total waste of an asset. Gross.


Shocked that an owner would turn over his/her franchise to an absolute rookie who never before was a head coach even. Again, another lame brain screwing up the Chicago franchise.

She should have known better. Most of the posters on Rebkell knew it was a bad draft pick and most/none of them are coaches. WTF. Now, Chicago could end up with nothing. Unbelievable... Shocked



_________________
CORINNE BAILEY RAE
The Heart Speaks In Whispers

s

zune69



Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 5875



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 10:08 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Chicago sky in a alternate universe:

G-Vandersloot
G-Gray #2
C-Boyette
F-Breland
F-Davis #9
6-Dolson
7-Copper
8-Parker
9-2nd rd pick

Other assets to trade or keep:
Pondexter
Quigley
Young
Faulkner

Enough assets to make 1 or 2 big trades,or just rebuild with youth.


RavenDog



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5438



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 10:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

zune69 wrote:
Chicago sky in a alternate universe:

G-Vandersloot
G-Gray #2
C-Boyette
F-Breland
F-Davis #9
6-Dolson
7-Copper
8-Parker
9-2nd rd pick

Other assets to trade or keep:
Pondexter
Quigley


Young
Faulkner

Enough assets to make 1 or 2 big trades,or just rebuild with youth.


Feel your pain... Evil or Very Mad



_________________
CORINNE BAILEY RAE
The Heart Speaks In Whispers

s

Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 19489
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 10:49 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Blowing the #9 pick is bad. The previous four #9 picks are all on rosters. Three of them are starters.

I'll cut Stocks some slack. LA certainly isn't the place to learn about good drafting. She may figure it all out before they can her.

Perhaps it is telling that we basement dwellers were able to identify Jankoska as bad pick right away.

I wonder if it turns out to be like the Lynx draft in 2006, where they were desperate for a point guard so took Shona Thorburn artificially high, and then took a flier on Megan Duffy further down as well. Turned out the only player from that draft from #7 on down who had a remotely meaningful WNBA career was Mistie Bass, so they were on a hiding to nothing looking for a lead guard with those picks anyway.

Sometimes maybe you take the wrong player, but sometimes there wasn't really anyone to take anyway.



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



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 13802
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 11:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
pilight wrote:
Blowing the #9 pick is bad. The previous four #9 picks are all on rosters. Three of them are starters.

I'll cut Stocks some slack. LA certainly isn't the place to learn about good drafting. She may figure it all out before they can her.

Perhaps it is telling that we basement dwellers were able to identify Jankoska as bad pick right away.

I wonder if it turns out to be like the Lynx draft in 2006, where they were desperate for a point guard so took Shona Thorburn artificially high, and then took a flier on Megan Duffy further down as well. Turned out the only player from that draft from #7 on down who had a remotely meaningful WNBA career was Mistie Bass, so they were on a hiding to nothing looking for a lead guard with those picks anyway.

Sometimes maybe you take the wrong player, but sometimes there wasn't really anyone to take anyway.


Kaela Davis might not turn out to be much of a player, but you have to think she has a better chance than anyone the Lynx missed out on. And she plays the same position as Jankowska.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 20359



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 11:45 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
Richyyy wrote:
pilight wrote:
Blowing the #9 pick is bad. The previous four #9 picks are all on rosters. Three of them are starters.

I'll cut Stocks some slack. LA certainly isn't the place to learn about good drafting. She may figure it all out before they can her.

Perhaps it is telling that we basement dwellers were able to identify Jankoska as bad pick right away.

I wonder if it turns out to be like the Lynx draft in 2006, where they were desperate for a point guard so took Shona Thorburn artificially high, and then took a flier on Megan Duffy further down as well. Turned out the only player from that draft from #7 on down who had a remotely meaningful WNBA career was Mistie Bass, so they were on a hiding to nothing looking for a lead guard with those picks anyway.

Sometimes maybe you take the wrong player, but sometimes there wasn't really anyone to take anyway.


Kaela Davis might not turn out to be much of a player, but you have to think she has a better chance than anyone the Lynx missed out on. And she plays the same position as Jankowska.


K. Davis is closer to a SF than a SG and Jankoska is a PG - maybe toward the SG side. They are not at all alike.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 13802
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 11:49 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
Richyyy wrote:
pilight wrote:
Blowing the #9 pick is bad. The previous four #9 picks are all on rosters. Three of them are starters.

I'll cut Stocks some slack. LA certainly isn't the place to learn about good drafting. She may figure it all out before they can her.

Perhaps it is telling that we basement dwellers were able to identify Jankoska as bad pick right away.

I wonder if it turns out to be like the Lynx draft in 2006, where they were desperate for a point guard so took Shona Thorburn artificially high, and then took a flier on Megan Duffy further down as well. Turned out the only player from that draft from #7 on down who had a remotely meaningful WNBA career was Mistie Bass, so they were on a hiding to nothing looking for a lead guard with those picks anyway.

Sometimes maybe you take the wrong player, but sometimes there wasn't really anyone to take anyway.


Kaela Davis might not turn out to be much of a player, but you have to think she has a better chance than anyone the Lynx missed out on. And she plays the same position as Jankowska.


K. Davis is closer to a SF than a SG and Jankoska is a PG - maybe toward the SG side. They are not at all alike.


I guess I meant they are a lot closer than Shona Thornburn and Mistie Bass.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 20359



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 12:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
bullsky



Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 20236



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: 3880
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.



_________________
2-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-2-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
lynxmania



Joined: 18 Feb 2011
Posts: 7895
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: 3880
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



_________________
2-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-2-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
Rock Hard



Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 2673
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.



_________________
Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn and tear you to pieces.
toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 14462



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: 2673
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.



_________________
Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn and tear you to pieces.
toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 14462



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: 4004



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: 341
Location: Yonkers, 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: 5310



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: 6589



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: 2673
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



_________________
Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn and tear you to pieces.
toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 14462



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: 8334



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: 54730
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.



_________________
No one knows what goes on behind closed doors
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 6589



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: 19489
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: 6589



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: 3873
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: 5237
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: 3890
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.



_________________
We live in a political world
Love don't have any place
We're living in times
Where men commit crimes
And crime don't have any face
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 3873
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



Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 17631



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



_________________
Seems rike no one takes me serirousreee
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5310



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 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 12, 13, 14  Next
Page 9 of 14

 
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