annarborbear;494683 said:
I am a little confused on what knowledgeable people would really recommend at this point:
1. More players who might have a better shot at making an all academic team? Sounds like a great idea if they are available and we can attract them. I would never want to recruit anyone who is clearly not capable of getting nor highly motivated of obtaining a Cal degree. Winning is never worth wasting valuable academic space and opportunities.
2. Players who might be more coachable but perhaps less talented, at least on paper? Certainly takes a lot of work and perhaps luck to make the right decisions on personnel with that approach, but some coaches do it well.
3. Players who have already played in a structured system similar to Joanne's and who would respond better to her coaching style and personality, along with fewer players who would not fit this style? Again, you would have to recruit more carefully to your particular system, or change the system.
4. Some better shooters? Yes, please.
5. Fewer injury-prone players? If you can somehow be certain on that.
6. More natural leaders? All successfull teams do have players who are willing to take charge and make the overall team play better.
7. Some taller players? There really is quite a bit of parity in the women's game on the frontlines, with so many players of about the same size.
8. A different coach or system at this point? Do players leave or play poorly because they are feeling too many negative vibes? Is Joanne not capable of recruiting a team that does fit together as a group?
I look at this downyear as primarily due to injuries and with a pretty big mismatch of some player skills at some positions. We do have to get some shooters or coach some of these players up in that area, and we also need some people to develop a midrange game. Also, we were lacking a take-charge player and a real distributor at point guard, who must also shoot well enough to keep defenses honest. (Eliza, I still think you can develop into that player.)
Or do the departures and late season collapse instead mean that we really are going to have to just start over?
More role players, more players likely to matriculate w/o problems, smarter players, players with charector, players that fit Cal more, and yes, more coachable players. I actually think this next class has more of these elements. The problem is not with Boyd, she knows how to coach, and she has a strong staff. Gettign a lot of AAs is not always the cure-all. People look at the talent and just assume the team should automatically win. When the UCLA radio guy keeps going on that you have better talent than any other team in the conference as his team is up by twenty plus...