Game Thread: Lady Vols vs. Ole Miss; Thurs Feb 2nd @ 6:30PM; SECN+

[Voluble2]

I watch the shooting very intently, as "mechanics" are what I excel in as a coach...My golden rules of shooting are two fold...1 if your distance is perfect and you are hitting left or right on the rim, it is in your mechanics (dropping or drifting your follow-through/elbow-hip-knee not in line/etc) ; if your ball-path/line is perfect and you are hitting long or short, it is mental. Either your head is not in the game or something (illness/emotion/outside influences/etc.) has clouded your mind in calculating...2. If it is the latter, short=more push and focus on back of the rim; long=more arc.

Almost every miss was short or long. Something got into their heads!



At no time when I watched the game did I see a lack of effort. From either team. That was a battle and it was not played, it was fought.



Doesn't matter who starts is pure BS. And I am not sorry to anyone for saying so!



Saying "starters/starting doesn't matter" would equate with saying Head Coaching doesn't matter and every coach would have a rotation in running games!

We were tight to open the game. Our offense did not flow until late when we felt we had control. That was mental. I would be absolutely shocked to see us come out and play a whole game with confidence. That never seems to happen anymore.

Ole Miss had lots of open looks. Had they shot a decent percentage we would have been in trouble. Same applied to LSU, who managed to hit a few more and get a few more fouls to beat us, but overall did not shoot that well.

The pieces are coming together to play better with Walker and Hollingshead improving. Now the team has to get the right attitude and execute. I don't see them beating SC, but stranger things have happened and that is their last chance to get a signature win before the tournaments. They really need it for seeding and to have a shot at a share of the conference regular season crown.

Time is running out and it is no time to pout or doubt. They have to come together and be intense and confident.

I would really like to see them turn it around.

 

[madtownvol]

I think you missed the point. Tennessee lost that game in large part because UConn completely overwhelmed the starters at the beginning of the game -- one or two of which were clearly NOT ready for real minutes against an opponent of that caliber which Geno happily exploited. The Lady Vols were fighting an uphill battle the rest of the game but the deficit was too much to overcome.

This "doesn't matter who starts" is total BS...

I must have a fever because I want to agree with you on this point but when you look at the the play-by-play, it is not so clear cut.

Kellie's starters were down 15-7 with 5:47 left in the first quarter. Then she subbed in Horston (who started on the bench because she was recovering from an illness), Hollingshead, and Puckett who were paired with Jackson and Powell. I don't think there is any debate that Horston, Jackson, and Hollginshead are the three best options at those positions. Walker was struggling so the Powell sub seemed reasonable and I think Puckett vs. Darby is kind of a wash. So, with our "big three" on the court, Uconn extended its lead to 16 points at the end of the quarter. Rickea was subbed with 2 minutes left in the quarter but the Uconn lead was already up to its 16 point pinnacle.

Then in the 2nd quarter, that core group, with Franklin, cut the lead down to 4.

It is possible that if Kellie had started Hollingshead and Horston (again, who was recovering from an illness), along with Jackson, Walker, and Darby/Puckett (or maybe Franklin), they might have gotten off to a quicker start but the flow of the game suggest maybe not.

The team not being ready for what Uconn was throwing at them definitely falls on the coaching staff. Whether their choice of starters would have changed that, well it seems that no one was initially ready for the pace of this game.

 

[lvocd]

I must have a fever because I want to agree with you on this point but when you look at the the play-by-play, it is not so clear cut.

Kellie's starters were down 15-7 with 5:47 left in the first quarter. Then she subbed in Horston (who started on the bench because she was recovering from an illness), Hollingshead, and Puckett who were paired with Jackson and Powell. I don't think there is any debate that Horston, Jackson, and Hollginshead are the three best options at those positions. Walker was struggling so the Powell sub seemed reasonable and I think Puckett vs. Darby is kind of a wash. So, with our "big three" on the court, Uconn extended its lead to 16 points at the end of the quarter. Rickea was subbed with 2 minutes left in the quarter but the Uconn lead was already up to its 16 point pinnacle.

Then in the 2nd quarter, that core group, with Franklin, cut the lead down to 4.

It is possible that if Kellie had started Hollingshead and Horston (again, who was recovering from an illness), along with Jackson, Walker, and Darby/Puckett (or maybe Franklin), they might have gotten off to a quicker start but the flow of the game suggest maybe not.

The team not being ready for what Uconn was throwing at them definitely falls on the coaching staff. Whether their choice of starters would have changed that, well it seems that no one was initially ready for the pace of this game.

Kellie lost patience with Cora in her last interview after she was asked again about starting lineups. Kellie made it crystal clear, with a tad bit of a sharp tone, just how serious (plain ol' stubborn IMO) she is about "not liking change," so she is not going to start Hollingshead because, well, Hollingshead hasn't been a starter this season and, yeah, that's that. lol

 

[LV renaissance]

So, we finally got Jackson back in the starting lineup. Now how much longer is Kellie pretending Striplin is an SEC starter?

And I would add Franklin for at least 5 to 10 more minutes depending on the opponents and how our other bigs are doing.

 

[glv98]

Kellie lost patience with Cora in her last interview after she was asked again about starting lineups. Kellie made it crystal clear, with a tad bit of a sharp tone, just how serious (plain ol' stubborn IMO) she is about "not liking change," so she is not going to start Hollingshead because, well, Hollingshead hasn't been a starter this season and, yeah, that's that. lol

We talked about this upthread. KJH is clearly irritated for this to continue to be an issue. To her, it's not. But just like with RJ, it is an issue, which is why she keeps getting asked. In RJ's case bc she's so good, not starting was so dissonant it became a distraction.

Scary thing is, RJ only got back in the starting lineup bc Jordy was sick and didn't go to Missouri. Gave ole stubborn Kellie cover to go ahead and do it. Silly as it seems, it feels like the more she's asked about it, the less likely she is to make the obvious change.

To be fair though, Jill has been pretty foul prone. I'm sure that would be KJH fall back position on her.

Also, KJH may be plain ole irritated with Cora since Cora did that hit piece on her about the timeouts without ever asking her for an explanation. Despite having interviewed her after the game she wrote about! I really like Cora and her coverage but that wasn't fair.

 

[Prophet1]

She has went back to starting RJ and Horston and of course Walker has always started. I could see Hollinghead for Striplin is the main player she should replace of the starters. If she thinks she needs a three point shooter then Darby, Puckett, or Pissott are about the same for me with Puckett having the better overall game so it wouldn't make a huge difference which one got in there first. So I can see one starter change as being the most beneficial if you think a three point shooter needs to be in there. If you don't believe you need that then you could go with Franklin over Darby or the others then I think you have your best five starting.

This . And it's real preaching and Hollinghead/ Franklin should start over the rest. Stagger Jillian and Frank minutes with Darby, Puckett, or Stripling . Stagger Jack and Jordan minutes with Wynn and Pissott. Stagger Walker minutes with Miles and Jasmine , please don't put Walker and Powell on the floor together EVER. Keep this rotation and familiarity will settle in causing less turnovers and every players knowing player's sweet spot and etc etc. This will also help us for next year. Kellie needs to master staggering minutes.

 

[Prophet1]

I must have a fever because I want to agree with you on this point but when you look at the the play-by-play, it is not so clear cut.

Kellie's starters were down 15-7 with 5:47 left in the first quarter. Then she subbed in Horston (who started on the bench because she was recovering from an illness), Hollingshead, and Puckett who were paired with Jackson and Powell. I don't think there is any debate that Horston, Jackson, and Hollginshead are the three best options at those positions. Walker was struggling so the Powell sub seemed reasonable and I think Puckett vs. Darby is kind of a wash. So, with our "big three" on the court, Uconn extended its lead to 16 points at the end of the quarter. Rickea was subbed with 2 minutes left in the quarter but the Uconn lead was already up to its 16 point pinnacle.

Then in the 2nd quarter, that core group, with Franklin, cut the lead down to 4.

It is possible that if Kellie had started Hollingshead and Horston (again, who was recovering from an illness), along with Jackson, Walker, and Darby/Puckett (or maybe Franklin), they might have gotten off to a quicker start but the flow of the game suggest maybe not.

The team not being ready for what Uconn was throwing at them definitely falls on the coaching staff. Whether their choice of starters would have changed that, well it seems that no one was initially ready for the pace of this game.

Madtown you sure hate to agree with Darth but he's right. It does matter , Look a faster lineup would've wore out uconn heavy minute players more sooner than later. Kellie do act like it doesn't matter but need to get with being more decisive with who and when and where she fit her players in.
You almost talked yourself out of agreeing with Darth. smile

 

[LasVegasBill23]

Perhaps I am overly sensitive to effort. Both players you mentioned are definitely effort players, especially Walker. Very evident against LSU.

i see the old pat game films supreme effort always

 

[chuckiepoo]

i see the old pat game films supreme effort always

…you could tell they didn’t wanna be down range of that stare…

 

[Coach Jumper]

Kellie lost patience with Cora in her last interview after she was asked again about starting lineups. Kellie made it crystal clear, with a tad bit of a sharp tone, just how serious (plain ol' stubborn IMO) she is about "not liking change," so she is not going to start Hollingshead because, well, Hollingshead hasn't been a starter this season and, yeah, that's that. lol

That particular response brought me out of my computer seat...Imagine a potential recruit reading that

On how she chooses who starts on the post...
"I don't like to change things. I'm not big on change. I like to settle in and everybody defines their roles. As long as something is working for us, and right now Jillian [Hollingshead] is playing really well off the bench, that's fine. The starting lineup is not the biggest thing for me. Let's have consistency. Let everyone know their roles and understand what's about to happen. That to me is more important than who's out there first."

In business, life, and sport the rules are the same... "People who don't change, get changed"
and my views on starting I have already shared...,
Starting, to a player is like head coaching, to a coach
Assistants are wanting to work into a HC position
Players work for a starting position

People may take this as an anti-Kellie post, but its not
this is simply something she and I fully disagree on

 

[Volfan2012]

I think you missed the point. Tennessee lost that game in large part because UConn completely overwhelmed the starters at the beginning of the game -- one or two of which were clearly NOT ready for real minutes against an opponent of that caliber which Geno happily exploited. The Lady Vols were fighting an uphill battle the rest of the game but the deficit was too much to overcome.

This "doesn't matter who starts" is total BS...

Yes but like I stated in another post it wasn't who started it was the total minutes that the best players played in the game. In that game it was way to low. They played 127 minutes and should've been around 170. So if you or anyone thinks starting someone for three or four minutes will affect the outcome of the game keep that opinion. I mean if any particular player is going to play five minutes in a game then it doesn't matter if it is in the beginning or the end. As you remember she went to who should be the starters and it was a four point game at halftime. She should've stuck with that lineup in the third played them most of the rest of the game. So no problem if you think starting is something important. I think it is how many minutes you are playing your best players whether they are starting or not. At this point she has failed to do that in any game they have played by a lot. Starting is BS how many minutes a player plays is the problem and she is letting some players get way to many minutes that should be on the bench a lot more.

 

[Volfan2012]

Kellie lost patience with Cora in her last interview after she was asked again about starting lineups. Kellie made it crystal clear, with a tad bit of a sharp tone, just how serious (plain ol' stubborn IMO) she is about "not liking change," so she is not going to start Hollingshead because, well, Hollingshead hasn't been a starter this season and, yeah, that's that. lol

I don't think she has to start but she has to play more than 17 minutes more like over 30. You can start Striplin for five minutes if you are giving 30 minutes to Jill sometime in the game.

 

[Raebo]

If you want to give a player 35 minutes in a game, you don’t sit them for the first 5 minutes and then expect them to play full speed for 35 minutes. You start them and give them a 2-3 minute break midway through the 1st half and same thing in 2nd half.

Here is a Pat Summitt quote that I agree with
The willingness to experiment with change may be the most essential ingredient to success at anything.

 

[Coach Jumper]

Yes but like I stated in another post it wasn't who started it was the total minutes that the best players played in the game. In that game it was way to low. They played 127 minutes and should've been around 170. So if you or anyone thinks starting someone for three or four minutes will affect the outcome of the game keep that opinion. I mean if any particular player is going to play five minutes in a game then it doesn't matter if it is in the beginning or the end. As you remember she went to who should be the starters and it was a four point game at halftime. She should've stuck with that lineup in the third played them most of the rest of the game. So no problem if you think starting is something important. I think it is how many minutes you are playing your best players whether they are starting or not. At this point she has failed to do that in any game they have played by a lot. Starting is BS how many minutes a player plays is the problem and she is letting some players get way to many minutes that should be on the bench a lot more.

I agree with minutes played being pertinent,,but you lost me at "Starting is BS"
If you believe that,,,you have never coached or played

 

[Coach Jumper]

If you want to give a player 35 minutes in a game, you don’t sit them for the first 5 minutes and then expect them to play full speed for 35 minutes. You start them and give them a 2-3 minute break midway through the 1st half and same thing in 2nd half.

Here is a Pat Summitt quote that I agree with
The willingness to experiment with change may be the most essential ingredient to success at anything.

The defense rests!

 

[Volfan2012]

I agree with minutes played being pertinent,,but you lost me at "Starting is BS"
If you believe that,,,you have never coached or played

Because if you start someone and they play three minutes it is no different if they play that three minutes anytime during the game unless the game is on the line. It is still three minutes. Barnes didn't start Zach until here recently and I think he might have been playing better coming off the bench. I can agree with people that say she is not using her best players enough minutes not going to agree that starting to play those minutes or playing them anytime during the game is better. If you believe that starting is that important then a lot of the best coaches ever would be at fault.

 

[Volfan2012]

If you want to give a player 35 minutes in a game, you don’t sit them for the first 5 minutes and then expect them to play full speed for 35 minutes. You start them and give them a 2-3 minute break midway through the 1st half and same thing in 2nd half.

Here is a Pat Summitt quote that I agree with
The willingness to experiment with change may be the most essential ingredient to success at anything.

You wouldn't do it that way. You wouldn't play them for 35 minutes in a row after not starting them. . You would play them six to seven minutes a quarter and all or most of the last quarter. A lot of teams use one of their best players as a sixth man or even a seventh man. Barnes has done it. A lot of coaches do it. If you are wanting a player to play for 40 minutes out of 40 then yes you have to start them. If they are playing 30 then no they don't have to start. The change that needs to be made with the Lady Vols more than who starts is who plays the most during the game.

 

[Coach Jumper]

Because if you start someone and they play three minutes it is no different if they play that three minutes anytime during the game unless the game is on the line. It is still three minutes. Barnes didn't start Zach until here recently and I think he might have been playing better coming off the bench. I can agree with people that say she is not using her best players enough minutes not going to agree that starting to play those minutes or playing them anytime during the game is better. If you believe that starting is that important then a lot of the best coaches ever would be at fault.

 

[Coach Jumper]

Starting is a different Mindset For players. Starting gives them The inner feeling that they have attained the top spot on the Team.. The only thing that equates Too starting is the Is 6th man Position.

The only players The who work to become substitute players are the players that are deep in the substitution rotation And only Is getting garbage minutes.

 

[Volfan2012]

Starting is a different Mindset For players. Starting gives them The inner feeling that they have attained the top spot on the Team.. The only thing that equates Too starting is the Is 6th man Position.

The only players The who work to become substitute players are the players that are deep in the substitution rotation And only Is getting garbage minutes.

Well the why does so many players that are in the top five on their team not start? Is it because they choose not to start or that the coach prefers someone else to start. Angel Baker does not start for Ole Miss she is definitely one of their top five players. Abrams and McQueen do not start for Alabama but are performing better on the court than the two players that are starting. I can keep going on and on with examples of the best performing players on a team not starting. They do however get huge minutes almost always more than the starter. I can see them being starters as well as coming off the bench. From a performance standard it doesn't seem to bother most players. How many time did we see the stat that Jackson was averaging more points not starting than starting. She is starting now and that is not problem, but it did not affect her performance when she wasn't. As far as our team goes not hung up on who starts, but really concerned about why some players are not getting more minutes. When you measure performance on the court then we have players that should be playing more and some who should be playing less. When that is corrected I really won't care that someone starting is getting 8 minutes a game.

 

[glv98]

You wouldn't do it that way. You wouldn't play them for 35 minutes in a row after not starting them. . You would play them six to seven minutes a quarter and all or most of the last quarter. A lot of teams use one of their best players as a sixth man or even a seventh man. Barnes has done it. A lot of coaches do it

One more time on this bc I've said it a thousand times. First, lots of coaches don't not start their best players. Some do, occasionally. But it's definitely the exception, which is why KJH is asked to explain it, sometimes twice in the same press conference. It becomes a thing. Also, as in the case of Zeigler and RJ, it usually doesn't last that long because it was never a great idea to start with.

Once again, and for the last time, the biggest issue with not starting a 30+ min player is how it hampers the options for resting them. If you are playing someone 30-35 mins a game, they get about 8 minutes of rest. If 5-6 of those mins are gobbled up at the start of each half when they aren't tired, simple math tells you rest options during their actual play is shot to hell. Either they won't be able to play the number of mins you had hoped, or they'll play some of them tired.

It's not arguable that it's better or equal to rest a high minute player during times they're not playing as opposed to sprinkling in those minutes when they are playing.

 

[Volfan2012]

One more time on this bc I've said it a thousand times. First, lots of coaches don't not start their best players. Some do, occasionally. But it's definitely the exception, which is why KJH is asked to explain it, sometimes twice in the same press conference. It becomes a thing. Also, as in the case of Zeigler and RJ, it usually doesn't last that long because it was never a great idea to start with.

Once again, and for the last time, the biggest issue with not starting a 30+ min player is how it hampers the options for resting them. If you are playing someone 30-35 mins a game, they get about 8 minutes of rest. If 5-6 of those mins are gobbled up at the start of each half when they aren't tired, simple math tells you rest options during their actual play is shot to hell.

It's not arguable that it's better or equal to rest a player during times they're not playing as opposed to sprinkling in those minutes when they are playing.

How does it hamper resting them? That would only be true if the starter of the game played huge minutes before coming out. I can agree Harper is doing some things wrong, but the starter in question is only playing three minutes to start a game almost everytime before a substitution is made. So the sub still can play seven minutes in that same quarter. To me it is arguable because they are still totally rested when they do enter the game. Plus JMO it is better for them to finish the game having played less to start it. All in all playing 32 minutes is the same whether you start or come off the bench. If there was some huge difference then so many coaches wouldn't be using one or two top players as sixth and seventh men on the team. We can differ in our opinion of what you are saying as we will have to. If I didn't see coaches using one or two of their best players as subs that still wouldn't convince me, but since they are evidently they don't accept your theory on rest and minutes played.

 

[Volfan2012]

One more time on this bc I've said it a thousand times. First, lots of coaches don't not start their best players. Some do, occasionally. But it's definitely the exception, which is why KJH is asked to explain it, sometimes twice in the same press conference. It becomes a thing. Also, as in the case of Zeigler and RJ, it usually doesn't last that long because it was never a great idea to start with.

Once again, and for the last time, the biggest issue with not starting a 30+ min player is how it hampers the options for resting them. If you are playing someone 30-35 mins a game, they get about 8 minutes of rest. If 5-6 of those mins are gobbled up at the start of each half when they aren't tired, simple math tells you rest options during their actual play is shot to hell. Either they won't be able to play the number of mins you had hoped, or they'll play some of them tired.

It's not arguable that it's better or equal to rest a high minute player during times they're not playing as opposed to sprinkling in those minutes when they are playing.

What if they played the last 8 minutes of each quarter are they tired then? Because you are saying five or six minutes are gobbled up. That is not happening with the starter in question on our team. Your looking at about a three minutes stint in the first and third quarter and a couple minutes somewhere else in the game. Plus do you want the starter to start every quarter. If so what happens in the fourth do they play the entire quarter after starting it?

 

[lvocd]

I also disagree with Kellie's notion that bringing players like Kea and Jillian off the bench is such a great idea because they can give your team a spark right away.

i say, what the heck is wrong with having their spark AT THE BEGINNING OF THE GAME?! Why do we need to wait and see if we're going to struggle and/or just need a better player in there after 5 or 7 minutes when that player has been dying to be on the floor all damn day?

Harper is obviously a very bright woman. I believe she loves her job and loves her team and university as deeply as any coach possibly could. However, her admitted resistance to change, and her (IMO) somewhat warped sense of what's more important -- either getting off to a great start with your five best players OR leaving some of your best players on the bench in case you have a terrible start -- is concerning.

Me? I'd much rather my team have the best chance of getting off to a great start score-wise and mentally by having the best five out there to begin the game. Granted, some matchups may call for starting different players but that's not the same as not starting someone because you want them to knock the opponents socks off by coming off the bench. Knock the opponents socks off from the beginning! Don't wait until you find you now need that player to come in and lift your team!

Good grief. I love Kellie, but this quirk of hers drives me batty. lol

 

[glv98]

What if they played the last 8 minutes of each quarter are they tired then? Because you are saying five or six minutes are gobbled up. That is not happening with the starter in question on our team. Your looking at about a three minutes stint in the first and third quarter and a couple minutes somewhere else in the game. Plus do you want the starter to start every quarter. If so what happens in the fourth do they play the entire quarter after starting it?

I got a little lost in this answer, but I think we (and KJH) are making this harder than it needs to be. If you project to play someone 32 mins a game and rest them 8, if 6 of those rest mins are automatically at the start of each half, you've limited your options for their needed rest during their play unneccessarily. Which of course, is why KJH doesn't do that with RJ anymore, espec since RJ is playing 35+ now, thank God.

Also again, "lots" of coaches don't bench their best players, especially not super good ones. Happens, but it's rare.