How Holly and Pat are alike...

#2
#2
The only thing they have in common is they both wear orange, there are no coaching similarities. If Holly were to take over UCONN right now they wouldn't be relevant in 3 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
#4
#4
They are alike in one key way that has been quite detrimental to the program over the last 15 years. They are both stuck in a 1975 women's basketball mindset, with PS emphasis on defense and rebounding and utter lack of concern about offense. At that time nobody could score, and there was NO three-point shot, and so the philosophy was effective. But that hasn't been true for a long time now. There is more talent around the country, offenses are better, there is the three-point shot, there are a LOT of good coaches. You have to be good on both ends of the floor--and yet Warlick DOES NOT GET THIS. If we manage to win a game, she doesn't really care if we are terrible offensively, as we usually are, and she seems not to get the fact that when you play good teams, and get to the Sweet 16, having a crap offense will get you beat. She does not get it--and one has to be pretty dense not to get it, especially since she's been watching our Crap offense, and been partly if not mostly responsible for it, for many years. You HAVE to be good on both ends of the floor, you have to have a good offense, to be a championship team nowadays. But Warlick still thinks like it's the same era when she played. This is why our offense never gets better--why we have 20 turnovers and low assist totals game after game, year after year. Until we get a coach and staff that knows how to put our team through its paces offensively, be more demanding, we will struggle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 people
#5
#5
armchair said:
They are alike in one key way that has been quite detrimental to the program over the last 15 years. They are both stuck in a 1975 women's basketball mindset, with PS emphasis on defense and rebounding and utter lack of concern about offense. At that time nobody could score, and there was NO three-point shot, and so the philosophy was effective. But that hasn't been true for a long time now. .
Click to expand...

Let's not carried away in the negativity. You don't win 1098 games, 8 NCs (including back to back in 06-07 and 07-08) by being stuck in a 1975 mindset, (unless everyone else is in a 1970 mindset).

Pat evolved (and indeed came to embrace the 3 pt shot-- remember Lawson, Zolman, and Bjorklund?). I think the illness made her more rigid in her approach in the final years but to say that CPS style held the team back for 15 years (a stretch that included 2 NC, 2 NC runner-ups and 6 final four appearances) is needlessly besmirching an amazing legacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6
#6
armchair said:
They are alike in one key way that has been quite detrimental to the program over the last 15 years. They are both stuck in a 1975 women's basketball mindset, with PS emphasis on defense and rebounding and utter lack of concern about offense. At that time nobody could score, and there was NO three-point shot, and so the philosophy was effective. But that hasn't been true for a long time now.
Click to expand...

Yes. I see that ND scored almost 50 in the first half today with a 4 guard offense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8
#8
Everyone is going to scream racist at me. But I'm sorry there is no easy way to say this. We have a lack of white girls that shoot the three. All these athletic girls who can dribble. Rebound. And run like deer are great. But besides Deshields none of them on most occasionsuccessful can't hit the grand Canyon standing on the edge. Quit recruiting athletes and recruit basketball players. That's the difference in UT and UCONN.
 
#9
#9
madtownvol said:
Let's not carried away in the negativity. You don't win 1098 games, 8 NCs (including back to back in 06-07 and 07-08) by being stuck in a 1975 mindset, (unless everyone else is in a 1970 mindset).

Pat evolved (and indeed came to embrace the 3 pt shot-- remember Lawson, Zolman, and Bjorklund?). I think the illness made her more rigid in her approach in the final years but to say that CPS style held the team back for 15 years (a stretch that included 2 NC, 2 NC runner-ups and 6 final four appearances) is needlessly besmirching an amazing legacy.
Click to expand...

I think you have a good point. I think though that armchair is going back to the time when the separation began but not necessarily noticeable, which he is correct in that it was 2000-2005ish. Over the last five years you've seen the true separation start to manifest itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#11
#11
armchair said:
They are alike in one key way that has been quite detrimental to the program over the last 15 years. They are both stuck in a 1975 women's basketball mindset, with PS emphasis on defense and rebounding and utter lack of concern about offense. At that time nobody could score, and there was NO three-point shot, and so the philosophy was effective. But that hasn't been true for a long time now. There is more talent around the country, offenses are better, there is the three-point shot, there are a LOT of good coaches. You have to be good on both ends of the floor--and yet Warlick DOES NOT GET THIS. If we manage to win a game, she doesn't really care if we are terrible offensively, as we usually are, and she seems not to get the fact that when you play good teams, and get to the Sweet 16, having a crap offense will get you beat. She does not get it--and one has to be pretty dense not to get it, especially since she's been watching our Crap offense, and been partly if not mostly responsible for it, for many years. You HAVE to be good on both ends of the floor, you have to have a good offense, to be a championship team nowadays. But Warlick still thinks like it's the same era when she played. This is why our offense never gets better--why we have 20 turnovers and low assist totals game after game, year after year. Until we get a coach and staff that knows how to put our team through its paces offensively, be more demanding, we will struggle.
Click to expand...

This makes too much sense. Can't be right.:)
 
#13
#13
madtownvol said:
Let's not carried away in the negativity. You don't win 1098 games, 8 NCs (including back to back in 06-07 and 07-08) by being stuck in a 1975 mindset, (unless everyone else is in a 1970 mindset).

Pat evolved (and indeed came to embrace the 3 pt shot-- remember Lawson, Zolman, and Bjorklund?). I think the illness made her more rigid in her approach in the final years but to say that CPS style held the team back for 15 years (a stretch that included 2 NC, 2 NC runner-ups and 6 final four appearances) is needlessly besmirching an amazing legacy.
Click to expand...

Good point. :good!:
 
#16
#16
cwbytruckers said:
Everyone is going to scream racist at me. But I'm sorry there is no easy way to say this. We have a lack of white girls that shoot the three. All these athletic girls who can dribble. Rebound. And run like deer are great. But besides Deshields none of them on most occasionsuccessful can't hit the grand Canyon standing on the edge. Quit recruiting athletes and recruit basketball players. That's the difference in UT and UCONN.
Click to expand...

Racist! :)

But you may be on to something there.

Recruit Basketball Players regardless.
 
#17
#17
cwbytruckers said:
Everyone is going to scream racist at me. But I'm sorry there is no easy way to say this. We have a lack of white girls that shoot the three. All these athletic girls who can dribble. Rebound. And run like deer are great. But besides Deshields none of them on most occasionsuccessful can't hit the grand Canyon standing on the edge. Quit recruiting athletes and recruit basketball players. That's the difference in UT and UCONN.
Click to expand...

Yes, more Sydney Smallbone's would definitely solve all the problems facing the LVs. :banghead2:If you look around the sport, you will see that there are lots of athletic guards who can shoot, sometimes they are white, sometimes black sometimes other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#18
#18
armchair said:
They are alike in one key way that has been quite detrimental to the program over the last 15 years. They are both stuck in a 1975 women's basketball mindset, with PS emphasis on defense and rebounding and utter lack of concern about offense. At that time nobody could score, and there was NO three-point shot, and so the philosophy was effective. But that hasn't been true for a long time now. There is more talent around the country, offenses are better, there is the three-point shot, there are a LOT of good coaches. You have to be good on both ends of the floor--and yet Warlick DOES NOT GET THIS. If we manage to win a game, she doesn't really care if we are terrible offensively, as we usually are, and she seems not to get the fact that when you play good teams, and get to the Sweet 16, having a crap offense will get you beat. She does not get it--and one has to be pretty dense not to get it, especially since she's been watching our Crap offense, and been partly if not mostly responsible for it, for many years. You HAVE to be good on both ends of the floor, you have to have a good offense, to be a championship team nowadays. But Warlick still thinks like it's the same era when she played. This is why our offense never gets better--why we have 20 turnovers and low assist totals game after game, year after year. Until we get a coach and staff that knows how to put our team through its paces offensively, be more demanding, we will struggle.
Click to expand...

Not a big fan of the ladies game (maybe because I mostly watched Tenn games) but think this post is spot on. Biggest thing I see about the women's game is there are very few ELITE players, and if you can sign them you've got a team hard to beat. UConn has been getting most the super elite players and ultimately have the championships. Just like Tenn had Holtzclaw, Catchings, Parker etc. One dominant player is usually enough in the womens game
 
#19
#19
Darth_Vol said:
I'm sure Pat would have been yukking it up after a great 7 point win over a 1-6 mid-major...
Click to expand...

the real difference between the two is that Pat could coach and Holly can't and is in wayyyyy over her head. It's obvious that her players don't respect her as a coach
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#20
#20
They preach the same defense first philosophy, which by itself isn't bad, but when the offense is neglected for defense, it is a problem. The majority of our players don't seem to develop offensively which will make recruiting harder and harder. Before, players wanted to play for PAT. Even though Holly is the same kind of coach, she doesn't have Pat's reputation to get the best of the best recruits. Other teams will use our lack of offense and development against us for players who now have professional aspirations.
 
#21
#21
madtownvol said:
Yes, more Sydney Smallbone's would definitely solve all the problems facing the LVs. :banghead2:If you look around the sport, you will see that there are lots of athletic guards who can shoot, sometimes they are white, sometimes black sometimes other.
Click to expand...

Yes there is. But most of the athletic players tend to be black. We need some pure spot up shooters. I don't care if their yellow. Orange. Or green. As long as their IQ is better than what this team has.
 
#22
#22
If Pat was the coach those girls would be catching hell right now. I doubt Holly has done anything except try to still be friends.
We will get crushed in these next two games unless something unexpected happens. We'll see where we go from there.
 
#23
#23
cwbytruckers said:
Everyone is going to scream racist at me. But I'm sorry there is no easy way to say this. We have a lack of white girls that shoot the three. All these athletic girls who can dribble. Rebound. And run like deer are great. But besides Deshields none of them on most occasionsuccessful can't hit the grand Canyon standing on the edge. Quit recruiting athletes and recruit basketball players. That's the difference in UT and UCONN.
Click to expand...

I guess we recruited two of the bad white girls. Damn Holly she can't even recruit the right white girls. Damn that Genno&Muffy, they know how to recruit black and white girls who are both athletics, dribble, rebound, run like a deer and by the way, shoot the threes.
 
Last edited:
#25
#25
cwbytruckers said:
Yes there is. But most of the athletic players tend to be black. We need some pure spot up shooters. I don't care if their yellow. Orange. Or green. As long as their IQ is better than what this team has.
Click to expand...

I know this discussion is futile but...

Ariel Massengale, who was classified as A-A player (those these categories are far from absolute) was the team best 3 pt shooter last year. But the rap on her was that she was not athletic enough to match up against top flight guards. I could mention players like Shannon Bobbit and Kara Lawson who were both athletic and knock down 3pt shooters.

You need shooters who are also athletic enough to defend and do other things or else they become liabilities and can't get on the court (do you remember Dunbar of last season).

But, I apologize for misinterpreting you. When someone writes "We have a lack of white girls that shoot the three" they obviously don't care about color.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top