Quote:

---

coaching profession is WAY over paid and over idolized, There are a finite number of ways to play basketball/football. It is very very rare that a coach with marginal talent can sustain wins at a power conference level.

Nay, coaching isn't about coaching, it is about getting the best talent. Talent makes coaches, coaches don't make talent (they refine it). Coaches, in general, are too into themselves. Cignetti, a rare find, is an exception. Can he and Indiana sustain this success, time will tell.

---

I agree to a certain extent but coaching is also about preparation. The best coaches have their teams motivated for every game. They also have them drilled in the fundamentals and thus they make fewer mistakes. Lots of coaches have had superior talent but not been successful because they were out-played by better prepared teams. Talent is the most important element in a team's success but is not the end all be all.

Barnes is shooting 26.1% from three. We would be better off encouraging her to go inside more instead of hanging out on the perimeter.

I've seen thousands of games . both high school and college. Use to go to the state high school tournament and sit thru 10 games in two days. Had season tickets for Cal women and men for 20 years. Have seen many of the players you see in high school. Usually go to the Jamboree every year. Go to BOD and Alameda to see high school games. Even went to Stockton to see St. Mary's Rams.

Stanford's bigs hit a ton of threes yesterday in their upset of UNC.

wvitbear said:

---

I've seen thousands of games . both high school and college. Use to go to the state high school tournament and sit thru 10 games in two days. Had season tickets for Cal women and men for 20 years. Have seen many of the players you see in high school. Usually go to the Jamboree every year. Go to BOD and Alameda to see high school games. Even went to Stockton to see St. Mary's Rams.

Stanford's bigs hit a ton of threes yesterday in their upset of UNC.

---

Depends on the player. Barnes was 0-3 on threes against NC and 1-7 on threes against NCSU. It is not great for the team for her to be shooting threes as her primary weapon, and also not good for her development as a player.

annarborbear said:

---

wvitbear said:

---

I've seen thousands of games . both high school and college. Use to go to the state high school tournament and sit thru 10 games in two days. Had season tickets for Cal women and men for 20 years. Have seen many of the players you see in high school. Usually go to the Jamboree every year. Go to BOD and Alameda to see high school games. Even went to Stockton to see St. Mary's Rams.

Stanford's bigs hit a ton of threes yesterday in their upset of UNC.

---

Depends on the player. Barnes was 0-3 on threes against NC and 1-7 on threes against NCSU. It is not great for the team for her to be shooting threes as her primary weapon, and also not good for her development as a player.

---

Exactly. For all the talk about not using Naya at the 4, Taylor is shooting 26 percent this year from 3 point land. And without even looking at it, I can guarantee you that her first half 3 point percentage is higher than her second half 3 pt percentage, because in so many games this year Taylor is gassed by the 4th quarter.

Bottom line: Coaching strategy should be based on the skills and deficiencies of your team, not based on what "everybody else" is doing.

Which is better than 0 for 0 which what our two bigs bring to the game. When Naya was at her last school she was 1 for 10m from three point land. According to my math 26% is better than 1 for 10 or 10%. Players have to guard her out there. Will they guard Naya out there?

wvitbear said:

---

Which is better than 0 for 0 which what our two bigs bring to the game. When Naya was at her last school she was 1 for 10m from three point land. According to my math 26% is better than 1 for 10 or 10%. Players have to guard her out there. Will they guard Naya out there?

---

My goodness. This is my last time. Naya DOESN'T HAVE TO BE "OUT THERE." There is no rule that says any player on the court is required to shoot 3 pointers. Your "1 for 10" obsession with Naya's past season is completely irrelevant. Does "your math" address quantity? This season Taylor is averaging 1.125 made three pointer per game. That means she missing 3.3 3 point shots per game. Does that sound like it's helping the team? A player who's just giving us just barely one 3 point shot per game? Do you think that if Taylor didn't have to play so many minutes her 26percent 3 point shooting might go up? Do ya think?

This issue goes way past a "Naya/Taylor" comparison. Honestly wvit, if the question of whether Naya can be used partially as a 4 limits you to this 3 point thing, you're really limiting your scope of observation.

Being a threat means someone has to guard you outside. If not then your defender can collapse on the other big. And we know Sakima is not going to draw her defender outside if she goes out there. Ergo, there can be two defenders guarding either Sakima or Naya. When Taylor plays her defender has to follow her outside. Means Sakima or Naya will only have to deal with one defender. I'd rather face one defender than two. and if both are inside then they get in the way of each other and clog the lane if one of our guards wants to drive .

I'd rather have a team that doesn't limit playing an athletic player who shoots 60% percent from the floor and rebounds well - to a whopping 10 minute average per game. Especially when the team has extremely limited depth, and continuously keeps losing games over and over again by evaporating in 4th quarter due to fatigue, caused by unbalanced minute distribution.

In the last two games I've seen Sakima hit shots from just inside the free throw line. I think there's this offensive strategy called high/low. Ever hear of it? Nope we can't consider that, because one of the two players involved has to be behind the three point arc, oh well.

I'd like to see Naya at forward once in a while. It can't be too much for several reasons:

• Sakima can't play 40 minutes and needs a backup
• both Taylor and Gisella are playing well, including rebounding
• we'd need to change the offense to accommodate two posts, that's extra work for everyone (as well as extra work for opponents to prepare for)

stu said:

---

I'd like to see Naya at forward once in a while. It can't be too much for several reasons:

• Sakima can't play 40 minutes and needs a backup
• both Taylor and Gisella are playing well, including rebounding
• we'd need to change the offense to accommodate two posts, that's extra work for everyone (as well as extra work for opponents to prepare for)

---

agreed. Again, Naya's increased minutes can be staggered between spelling Sakima and spelling our other 4 starters. An adjustment to what we've seen the last half dozen games needs to be implemented.

Another consideration is I think Naya's length and quickness make her better suited to play forward than center. If I were she I'd spend the off-season working out with the guards to improve my outside game.

stu, why would naya stick around for next season & next enter the transfer portal??

right now despite being the bears most efficient scoring threat she's sitting on the bench & forced to play as a backup as a undersized 5, it would make no sense to do that again next season

the bears will struggle to win a acc conference game this season with the current playing rotation & not getting the best players on the floor, next season without sakima, miracle & probably naya could be a 20+ loss season

fafo#

Because Naya has transferred three times already. I mentioned this before and Stu picked up onit. she needs to practice ball handing and shooting skills. a 5'11" center is not going to go far with big minutes plus she has been partly injured. Fighting with 6'4" centers will take its toll with heavy minutes.

Shocky1 said:

---

the bears will struggle to win a acc conference game this season with the current playing rotation & not getting the best players on the floor, next season without sakima, miracle & probably naya could be a 20+ loss season

---

What's up with Mjracle? She's a junior this season.

You don't have to shoot threes, but you have to be able to draw the defense out of the paint or none of your perimeter players have a good chance to penetrate and score at the rim. With two defenders in the lane (no defensive three-second rule in college) all the time, your offense is limited.

High/low is nice but that big playing high has to be a good passer. Between the two bigs, they have 25 total assists on the season in 584 minutes. Naya has a total of four. I'm not sure Cal has the weapons to run an effective big-to-big high/low.

The other point, to me, is more important: As mentioned, talent is key, and if you bench one of the starting perimeter players to get Naya in, the benched player will almost certainly transfer. And going to out a three-out two-in to win two or three more games, and maybe one in postseason, doesn't make sense long-term. Those two wins will be long forgotten when opposing coaches tell recruits/transfers "Look, they don't have minutes for you. Charmin likes two posts."

The marginal value of playing two posts, even if it were a viable strategy -- which I don't think it is -- is erased by the impact on the roster.

That said, it might be worthwhile to try playing them both together to see what happens. My guess, though, is that the other teams gets a bunch of really good looks from the perimeter on offense, and clogs the paint on defense.

If anytime we change the line-up someone is going to transfer out, I think I am about to lose interest. This is a WNIT team, but no changes in line-ups or strategy are allowed? Why bother having a coach?

annarborbear said:

---

If anytime we change the line-up someone is going to transfer out, I think I am about to lose interest. This is a WNIT team, but no changes in line-ups or strategy are allowed? Why bother having a coach?

---

Missing my point, and I'm also not making it clear.

So should Naya play more? Sure, nothing to lose. Find out if it can work better than what's going on now.

Start Naya and Sakima, and go three-out, two-in? No. Losing strategy in the long run.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

" As mentioned, talent is key, and if you bench one of the starting perimeter players to get Naya in, the benched player will almost certainly transfer."

Why does every scenario in which Naya gets more minutes have to be so absolute? Why does more playing time for Naya mean we have to "bench" one single player?

Reduce (not bench) Lulu (who sometimes plays the whole game), Taylor, Puff, Giselle, Mjracle, Lola (who's been highly ineffective, all by 3 to 5 minutes each, and you have created minutes to use Naya.

I just don't get it. We have an extremely talented player but getting her in more than a measly 10 minutes per game is somehow going to ruin the structure of the entire basketball program. I just don't get it.

---

If part of the reason why cal is losing to the better higher tier/ elite teams due to being gassed out by the 4th quarter it makes sense to reduce all of those other players' minutes and give those minutes to Naya.

ClayK said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

If anytime we change the line-up someone is going to transfer out, I think I am about to lose interest. This is a WNIT team, but no changes in line-ups or strategy are allowed? Why bother having a coach?

---

Missing my point, and I'm also not making it clear.

So should Naya play more? Sure, nothing to lose. Find out if it can work better than what's going on now.

Start Naya and Sakima, and go three-out, two-in? No. Losing strategy in the long run.

---

Sorry Clay. You are the one missing the point. Not once during this entire discussion has anyone ever stated to "start Naya." Another "absolute" assumption. More minutes for Naya does not require that she starts.

And 3 out and 2 in is a guaranteed a losing strategy? This team has lost 7 games and except for one opponent all of their wins have been against cupcakes. Are you watching what we are currently doing? We are already using a losing strategy.

I think clay understands,

Okay wvit. I guess we've gone far enough on this issue. Anyway, no matter who plays it will help to get Puff back moving forward. We can only hope that at the very least the team will play up to its abilities for the rest of the season.

this is an imperfect team since the loss of Gabby

Injuries made it worse (Claudia, Sheppard, Naya and Puff)

besides Lulu we lack top shooters, and we're very thin in the front court and on ball handlers

Naya doesn't need to shoot 3s, but a mid-range 12-15 foot shot would help if she plays PF with Walker (or just in general as an undersized post)

Walker and Maul has been huge for the team. Lulu, Barnes and Maul are the future.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

ClayK said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

If anytime we change the line-up someone is going to transfer out, I think I am about to lose interest. This is a WNIT team, but no changes in line-ups or strategy are allowed? Why bother having a coach?

---

Missing my point, and I'm also not making it clear.

So should Naya play more? Sure, nothing to lose. Find out if it can work better than what's going on now.

Start Naya and Sakima, and go three-out, two-in? No. Losing strategy in the long run.

---

Sorry Clay. You are the one missing the point. Not once during this entire discussion has anyone ever stated to "start Naya." Another "absolute" assumption. More minutes for Naya does not require that she starts.

And 3 out and 2 in is a guaranteed a losing strategy? This team has lost 7 games and except for one opponent all of their wins have been against cupcakes. Are you watching what we are currently doing? We are already using a losing strategy.

---

From Shocky: playing sakima & naya both 30+ minutes a game with 10 minutes of them both being on the floor together as the twin towers is the only solution to the bears FAILING playing rotation

I will agree, there is no perfect solution no matter what is done. What's making it frustrating is this year's team has enough talent to compete with good teams, but not quite enough talent to beat good teams.