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

Early declarers - Azura Stevens
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32326



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/18 9:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

willtalk wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:


. . . without the effort, excellent attitude, and defense.--------------------

----------She may get over-drafted that highly because height sways GMs. But I don't think she'll ever ever play like a #2 pick. -------------.


I see her as coming with a bunch of red flags as well. I don't feel she is that coach-able.


JMO: Azura really lacks physicality - kinda like a lesser (quite a bit lesser) Aja. She appears to prefer to play outside but doesn't seem to have an outside shot. I don't think she's an immediate starter except on a pretty bad team. Coming from Duke, I want to think she has a brain, but it seems like she does some pretty dumb things on the court. Geno seemed to always be a bit miffed at her so I assume she somehow wasn't/isn't very good at taking instruction. Still I could see Chicago taking her as a project and they do need help at the PF. Since they have two picks, I don't think it's unreasonable to use one on her.



_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/18 12:09 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

*duplicate*




Last edited by tfan on 04/04/18 12:12 am; edited 1 time in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/18 12:11 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

willtalk wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:


. . . without the effort, excellent attitude, and defense.--------------------

----------She may get over-drafted that highly because height sways GMs. But I don't think she'll ever ever play like a #2 pick. -------------.


I see her as coming with a bunch of red flags as well. I don't feel she is that coach-able.


Rebecca Lobo crowed about how much Stevens had improved her post moves - "just this year". A Duke fan in this forum attributed better passing by Stevens this year to the tutelage of Auriemma. Other Duke and UConn fans said it was obvious how much Stevens had improved under Auriemma. I don't think that a coach who very likely requires an amount of subservience that pro coaches cannot get away with, throwing shade in the press (assuming that actually occurred) is definitive proof that a player is "uncoachable".


CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/18 4:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This is what I posted to the Boneyard, in response to a poster (and friend) who commented that Stevens was Iciss Tillis on the low end and Brittney Griner on the high end. This was my response:

Having seen both players countless times in college, here is my assessment of Iciss Tillis vs. Azura Stevens:

-- In terms of north/south speed and leaping ability, Tillis was superior.
-- Tillis was a slightly better three-point shooter (using Stevens' three-point shooting at Duke as the barometer, instead of the one year at UConn).
-- Tillis was not especially adept at getting her own shot.
-- Stevens, by contrast, is much better at creating her own shot. Her pull-up and mid-range jumpers are excellent.
-- Stevens is better in attacking the boards at angles.
-- Stevens is a better rebounder and shotblocker.
-- Stevens is mentally tougher and more aggressive than Tillis, which was obvious from the first minute Azura walked onto the floor.
-- Iciss Tillis was a ridiculous athlete who happened to play basketball.
-- Azura Stevens is a basketball player who happens to be a very good athlete. Stevens would be a basketball player at any height.

Basically, it boils down to these key points, in my assessment:

1) Azura Stevens is a natural guard. She grew up being a guard, playing the position. She then had a massive growth sport.

2) Stevens is built for the modern pro game. If a WNBA franchise is drafting Azura Stevens to make her into a center, that would be, to be blunt, idiotic, unless you are running a five-out motion, like Phoenix did in 2007.

3) In essence, Stevens is not Tillis (she is significantly better than Tillis), nor is she Griner (Stevens is not a center). She is going to be a better Tangela Smith, in that Stevens is more physical, has a handle, can attack the rim, but also can face-up. Tangela Smith made one All Star team and was a career 11.0 ppg scorer over her 15 WNBA seasons. I see Stevens as the next evolution of Smith, someone who can make a few All Star teams, but will not likely be a first or second All-WNBA team performer. In other words, she will be a great WNBA player, but not an outstanding one.


OldGoat



Joined: 09 Apr 2008
Posts: 408
Location: overland park


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/18 5:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Nice analysis, thank you!


Rock Hard



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


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/18 5:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

CamrnCrz1974 wrote:
This is what I posted to the Boneyard, in response to a poster (and friend) who commented that Stevens was Iciss Tillis on the low end and Brittney Griner on the high end. This was my response:

Having seen both players countless times in college, here is my assessment of Iciss Tillis vs. Azura Stevens:

-- In terms of north/south speed and leaping ability, Tillis was superior.
-- Tillis was a slightly better three-point shooter (using Stevens' three-point shooting at Duke as the barometer, instead of the one year at UConn).
-- Tillis was not especially adept at getting her own shot.
-- Stevens, by contrast, is much better at creating her own shot. Her pull-up and mid-range jumpers are excellent.
-- Stevens is better in attacking the boards at angles.
-- Stevens is a better rebounder and shotblocker.
-- Stevens is mentally tougher and more aggressive than Tillis, which was obvious from the first minute Azura walked onto the floor.
-- Iciss Tillis was a ridiculous athlete who happened to play basketball.
-- Azura Stevens is a basketball player who happens to be a very good athlete. Stevens would be a basketball player at any height.

Basically, it boils down to these key points, in my assessment:

1) Azura Stevens is a natural guard. She grew up being a guard, playing the position. She then had a massive growth sport.

2) Stevens is built for the modern pro game. If a WNBA franchise is drafting Azura Stevens to make her into a center, that would be, to be blunt, idiotic, unless you are running a five-out motion, like Phoenix did in 2007.

3) In essence, Stevens is not Tillis (she is significantly better than Tillis), nor is she Griner (Stevens is not a center). She is going to be a better Tangela Smith, in that Stevens is more physical, has a handle, can attack the rim, but also can face-up. Tangela Smith made one All Star team and was a career 11.0 ppg scorer over her 15 WNBA seasons. I see Stevens as the next evolution of Smith, someone who can make a few All Star teams, but will not likely be a first or second All-WNBA team performer. In other words, she will be a great WNBA player, but not an outstanding one.

Great assessment. She sounds like the player my favorite team needs. Very Happy



_________________
You can win, as long as you keep your head to the SKY! Be OPTIMISTIC!
WNBA 09



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


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/18 6:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Tangela Smith 2.0 i like that comparison for Stevens. Rather shoot jump shots than battle in the paint. Tangela was exceptionally great at hitting her open shots though something Azura will need to improve .



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



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/18 7:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If Stevens has Smith's mental toughness, then the comparison would be complete. That's my question about Stevens, as the physical package certainly appears to be there.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
GEF34



Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14102



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/18 11:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

One thing some people seem to be forgetting is there are non-basketball factors that could play a role in this decision, like this is her 4th year of college so she could be on track to finish her degree or already have her degree (not sure if Uconn is quarter or semester) or maybe school just isn't her thing so she has no interest in a minor, a second bachelor's or a master's and you can't compete in college unless you are also a student. Now I don't know her situation, but it's not unreasonable to thing she already has or will finish her degree this term. During the NCAA Tournament Monique Billings tweeted she took her last college final ever, so she is done with school and she has her degree in hand and will begin her pro career.


willtalk



Joined: 13 Apr 2012
Posts: 1088
Location: NorCal


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/05/18 7:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
willtalk wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:


. . . without the effort, excellent attitude, and defense.--------------------

----------She may get over-drafted that highly because height sways GMs. But I don't think she'll ever ever play like a #2 pick. -------------.


I see her as coming with a bunch of red flags as well. I don't feel she is that coach-able.


Rebecca Lobo crowed about how much Stevens had improved her post moves - "just this year". A Duke fan in this forum attributed better passing by Stevens this year to the tutelage of Auriemma. Other Duke and UConn fans said it was obvious how much Stevens had improved under Auriemma. I don't think that a coach who very likely requires an amount of subservience that pro coaches cannot get away with, throwing shade in the press (assuming that actually occurred) is definitive proof that a player is "uncoachable".
If you were referring to my statement- "not that coach-able" is not the same as uncoachable. By the time Stephens hit the floor for Uconn she had already been in Geno's program for a year. Naturally it would have some effect. That team focuses and thrives on ball movement and passing. What I was referring to was Geno's oft comments in respect to Stephens development. I suspect that she did not meet his expectations for her development.

In that context the red flag would be that teams might need to accept her for what she is and not expect her to be able to coach her to another level.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/05/18 8:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

willtalk wrote:
tfan wrote:
willtalk wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:


. . . without the effort, excellent attitude, and defense.--------------------

----------She may get over-drafted that highly because height sways GMs. But I don't think she'll ever ever play like a #2 pick. -------------.


I see her as coming with a bunch of red flags as well. I don't feel she is that coach-able.


Rebecca Lobo crowed about how much Stevens had improved her post moves - "just this year". A Duke fan in this forum attributed better passing by Stevens this year to the tutelage of Auriemma. Other Duke and UConn fans said it was obvious how much Stevens had improved under Auriemma. I don't think that a coach who very likely requires an amount of subservience that pro coaches cannot get away with, throwing shade in the press (assuming that actually occurred) is definitive proof that a player is "uncoachable".
If you were referring to my statement- "not that coach-able" is not the same as uncoachable. By the time Stephens hit the floor for Uconn she had already been in Geno's program for a year. Naturally it would have some effect. That team focuses and thrives on ball movement and passing. What I was referring to was Geno's oft comments in respect to Stephens development. I suspect that she did not meet his expectations for her development.

In that context the red flag would be that teams might need to accept her for what she is and not expect her to be able to coach her to another level.


I don't think many players get coached to "another level". And how do we determine how much improvement in a player came from just more time playing and practicing the game or how much came from what a coach said to them? I suspect that Auriemma gripes the most when a player isn't subservient enough, not when they aren't going to another level. Didn't seem like Kiah Stokes went to another level while playing for him - came to the pros as only an athletic defender and rebounder, and yet I don't recall him griping about her. Ditto for Tameka Williams. Don't recall #1 recruit Ann Strother going to another level, but also don't recall Auriemma griping about her. In fact, I don't know which, if any UConn players went to another level in their 4 years there. They leave top WNBA picks, but they came in top college picks, most having played for USA basketball in high school. The irony of any griping he did, is that it is likely that if he played her more in the Final Four semi-finals, he would have won another championship. That is, it looked to me like his team was better with her, than without her.

Azura Stevens was not good enough to make the USA Basketball U18 team (but was invited to try out) and was also not a McDonald's all-American (although was a Parade magazine all-American) and only an honorable mention WBCA all-American (outside the top 10 who were full-fledged). Now the odds are looking good that she is a WNBA lottery pick. And if not that, somewhere in the first round, which isn't where most thought she was in high school. So, averaging out the ratings of her in high school, she has shown better improvement than her peers.


willtalk



Joined: 13 Apr 2012
Posts: 1088
Location: NorCal


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/05/18 2:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Geno was trying to get her to develop more post skills and Stephens was happy playing as a wing. Nothing wrong with either one of theirs objectives, but that doesn't change the reality that they had different agenda's. My point was that she probably will not be comfortable playing as a post if that's what some teams project and draft her as.

Geno has his way of doing things and when you are in his program you should be ready for that. His record in getting most players WNBA ready speaks for itself, although he is neither God nor perfect and has had misses as well. For Stephens long term career it might have been better if she stuck it out one more year, but that choice is up to no one but her. Not everyone thrives in or is suited for his program.


bballjunkie



Joined: 12 Aug 2014
Posts: 785



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/05/18 2:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

You are a smart cookie Will.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/08/18 2:06 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KHn6pt5uwVs" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


GEF34



Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14102



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/06/18 8:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Perhaps this is the only reason she entered the WNBA Draft and it has nothing to do with being unhappy, coaches, other players, etc. just as simple as she got her degree and is ready to move on to the next part of her life.

https://twitter.com/UConnWBB/status/992804759580086272


readyAIMfire53



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


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/07/18 11:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

willtalk wrote:
Geno was trying to get her to develop more post skills and Stephens was happy playing as a wing. Nothing wrong with either one of theirs objectives, but that doesn't change the reality that they had different agenda's. My point was that she probably will not be comfortable playing as a post if that's what some teams project and draft her as.

Geno has his way of doing things and when you are in his program you should be ready for that. His record in getting most players WNBA ready speaks for itself, although he is neither God nor perfect and has had misses as well. For Stephens long term career it might have been better if she stuck it out one more year, but that choice is up to no one but her. Not everyone thrives in or is suited for his program.


After today's pre-season debut, this comment seems right on point. Z was beasting, including hitting her 3 pt shots (like she did at Duke). While she was at UConn, I puzzled over why her outside shot was so abyssmal. The answer that makes the most sense is that Geno did not want her taking them, so she knew when she was taking them that she'd be in the doghouse, so froze up and missed most of them.

Also on point is CamCrz's analysis, comparing Z to Iciss Tillis. Z came up as a wing player until her late and quick growth spurt. Z has been learning to take advantage of her height on offense and has some very smooth moves near the basket. She can shoot over wings guarding her and out quick post players. Tillis has always been one of my favorite people who wore Duke blue and used her smarts well to play overseas before attending law school and now passing the New York bar. Despite being famous for her airhead moves (like going to the wrong free throw line) Ice has parlayed her basketball skill and Duke degree into a possibly very lucrative career in sports law.

Z's start in the WNBA (pre-season) was pretty spectacular and fits with her plan to make basketball her main career. I expect her to be a solid player in the WNBA, in the running for Rookie of the Year and making a few All Star appearances. Her ability to learn and follow team defensive schemes improved under Geno, though it was never up to Geno's standards. Like other gifted offensive players, her defense in the WNBA and overseas will have to be "good enough" so she can stay on the floor and score buckets. To her credit, her rebounding is very good, which helps the equation turn in her favor. She'll never make an "all defense" team but her height and mobility will keep her defense above average for the league.



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

~rAf
bballjunkie



Joined: 12 Aug 2014
Posts: 785



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/08/18 8:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

LMAO she took 51 threes at 17% but enjoy the 3 she made and keep making excuses for her 17%. Btw the team had to play zone when she was in the game I would not call that improvement.


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
Page 3 of 3

 
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