WBB: #10 Duke @ #2 Connecticut

[uh_no]

On the 10th anniversary of duke winning in Hartford (was there....sad day....), I figured I'd kick off this thread.

Duke comes into the game with 3 losses, all to ranked opponents, all relatively close. They also come in off a big win against #8 UK at home. They are #1 in rebounding in the country.

Connecticut comes in with 1 loss, an overtime 2 point loss at stanford, who has gone on to lose to #10 texas, #11 UNC, #11 tennessessee, and chatanooga. They lead the country in offense, scoring margin, and shooting %.

Uconn lost two key pieces off their two time defending national championship squad: center Stephanie Dolson, and guard Bria Hartley.

Here's the rundown for the huskies:

PG: Moriah Jefferson: small and exceptionally fast. averaging 10 and 5. Shoots 39% from 3.....i wouldn't say she's a threat to blow by you and take it to the hole, but that is never really a big part of geno's offense anyway. She manages the game well and can knock down shots. good for 2-3 steals a game. Duke should be concerned about not turning it over to her in the open court, as she will probably beat everyone down the floor for an easy 2.

SF: Kalena Mosqueda-Lewis...just tied Maya Moore on Uconn's all time 3's made list and is only a few off Taurasi for the school record. She's shooting over 55% on the year. She has really punished duke in the past, hitting 7-11 in last years game. Duke left her wide open for many of those shots, and she made them pay. They're going to have to always be aware of where she is on the court, even if shuffling to double team...

C: Breanna Stewart...national player of the year, and twice F4 MOP. 6'4 with handles, post moves, and a 37% three point shot. averages 17 and 7. She was effectively unstoppable last year while playing across Dolson. This year, she's much more isolated down low, allowing teams to double and triple her...as stanford did when they beat the team. She dominated E-will in last years matchup...24 and 11 vs 9 and 6. If the matchup tends to the way it went last year, duke will have to commit a double.


SG: There have been two players who have gotten the majority of the time here. Early in the season it was Saniya Chong, and she had trouble being effective on the offensive end. She's since been replaced in the starting lineup, but still getting 20 minutes. The minutes and start are now going to freshman kia nurse, who is showing a lot for a freshman, averaging 14 points and 4 assists, while shooting 42% from 3. These two, along with Jefferson will get almost all the minutes at the guard spots.

The Other Tall Person: Uconn has gone with two lineups here, a big one and a small one. Early in the year, they went big, playing Kiah Stokes here. She's a big girl....6'3, on the heavier side...a "banger" if you will...if such a thing were to exist in the women's game. The idea was to slot her in as a drop in replacement for dolson....the stanford game showed that wasn't going to work out. She simply doesn't have the passing nor offensive ability of dolson. This came to light in the stanford game, when the cardinal mostly ignored her to double stewart. She still averages 8-9 boards a game, though not much of an offensive threat. (20 minutes a game)

Since stanford, uconn has mostly gone smaller with morgan tuck. She's slightly smaller at 6'2, and less weight, though much more offensively skilled. She had 25 against ND, and has much more ability to make you think twice about doubling stewart. Unlike Stewart and KML, though, she has no 3 point shot. Recently she's getting about 30 minutes a game.

Gabby Williams (G 5'11) has gotten some garbage time minutes. Don't expect to see her unless the game is in hand.


So so so. how does duke approach this game? I'm not sure if I can give a great answer, since uconn has looked superb since making the aforementioned lineup changes after the stanford game....but i'll give it a shot:

1) don't turn it over....Duke's been absolutely killed in transition by connecticut in the past....limit those live ball turnovers! especially with moriah jefferson out there...with an offense so good, you can't give up easy ones.

2) don't take bad shots assuming you'll get the rebound....Duke is a very good rebounding team, often depending on offensive boards as a component of the offense...it won't be as much of a sure thing against connecticut....and those second chance points will be much harder to come by. Get good looks the first time.

3) temper the matchup with stewart. If E-Will can do it, great. but if she can't, and it starts looking like last year, two things need to happen: E-Will needs to not get in foul trouble, and Duke needs to adjust and bring the double. Hold stewie under 20 and there's a much better chance.

4) Don't ignore KML. as I said, she shot 7-11 last year....and shoots 55%....when you bring that double down low, #1 priority MUST be to ensure that KML is still covered.

Basically you hope you can do what stanford did: double/triple stewie to take her out of the game, and hope uconn shoots poorly from outside. Even better if you can get someone in foul trouble. Uconn has 5 threats on the floor, but not much coming off the bench.

Good luck to all. Go Huskies.

[AIM4excellence]

Excellent set up for this game. Quite good summary of UConn's season so far, with who's contributing (or not) and why (or why not). I don't think it will be Breanna Stewart who could beat Duke this year. Duke has too much height for Breanna in the post and Breanna's 3 pt shot is not falling well this season. I think the key is not letting Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis get going. She is the one I would drape with our best defender. When she has a tough defender playing her tight, she's not shooting the three anywhere close to the 55% clip she averages.

In addition, the Duke team must believe they can beat UConn, even if UConn gets a decent lead. At that game 10 yrs ago, Duke looked really bad and overmatched through most of that game. I was at the game surrounded by UConn fans who looked at me in my Duke gear kind of pitifully. But Duke came out like a bunch of banshees midway through the second half, down by a lot, creating turnovers, forcing tough shots and getting in the heads of the UConn players, leading to a lot of missed free throws.

This is a winnable game for Duke, but only if this Duke team believes they can do it.


On the 10th anniversary of duke winning in Hartford (was there....sad day....), I figured I'd kick off this thread.

Duke comes into the game with 3 losses, all to ranked opponents, all relatively close. They also come in off a big win against #8 UK at home. They are #1 in rebounding in the country.

Connecticut comes in with 1 loss, an overtime 2 point loss at stanford, who has gone on to lose to #10 texas, #11 UNC, #11 tennessessee, and chatanooga. They lead the country in offense, scoring margin, and shooting %.

Uconn lost two key pieces off their two time defending national championship squad: center Stephanie Dolson, and guard Bria Hartley.

Here's the rundown for the huskies:

PG: Moriah Jefferson: small and exceptionally fast. averaging 10 and 5. Shoots 39% from 3.....i wouldn't say she's a threat to blow by you and take it to the hole, but that is never really a big part of geno's offense anyway. She manages the game well and can knock down shots. good for 2-3 steals a game. Duke should be concerned about not turning it over to her in the open court, as she will probably beat everyone down the floor for an easy 2.

SF: Kalena Mosqueda-Lewis...just tied Maya Moore on Uconn's all time 3's made list and is only a few off Taurasi for the school record. She's shooting over 55% on the year. She has really punished duke in the past, hitting 7-11 in last years game. Duke left her wide open for many of those shots, and she made them pay. They're going to have to always be aware of where she is on the court, even if shuffling to double team...

C: Breanna Stewart...national player of the year, and twice F4 MOP. 6'4 with handles, post moves, and a 37% three point shot. averages 17 and 7. She was effectively unstoppable last year while playing across Dolson. This year, she's much more isolated down low, allowing teams to double and triple her...as stanford did when they beat the team. She dominated E-will in last years matchup...24 and 11 vs 9 and 6. If the matchup tends to the way it went last year, duke will have to commit a double.


SG: There have been two players who have gotten the majority of the time here. Early in the season it was Saniya Chong, and she had trouble being effective on the offensive end. She's since been replaced in the starting lineup, but still getting 20 minutes. The minutes and start are now going to freshman kia nurse, who is showing a lot for a freshman, averaging 14 points and 4 assists, while shooting 42% from 3. These two, along with Jefferson will get almost all the minutes at the guard spots.

The Other Tall Person: Uconn has gone with two lineups here, a big one and a small one. Early in the year, they went big, playing Kiah Stokes here. She's a big girl....6'3, on the heavier side...a "banger" if you will...if such a thing were to exist in the women's game. The idea was to slot her in as a drop in replacement for dolson....the stanford game showed that wasn't going to work out. She simply doesn't have the passing nor offensive ability of dolson. This came to light in the stanford game, when the cardinal mostly ignored her to double stewart. She still averages 8-9 boards a game, though not much of an offensive threat. (20 minutes a game)

Since stanford, uconn has mostly gone smaller with morgan tuck. She's slightly smaller at 6'2, and less weight, though much more offensively skilled. She had 25 against ND, and has much more ability to make you think twice about doubling stewart. Unlike Stewart and KML, though, she has no 3 point shot. Recently she's getting about 30 minutes a game.

Gabby Williams (G 5'11) has gotten some garbage time minutes. Don't expect to see her unless the game is in hand.


So so so. how does duke approach this game? I'm not sure if I can give a great answer, since uconn has looked superb since making the aforementioned lineup changes after the stanford game....but i'll give it a shot:

1) don't turn it over....Duke's been absolutely killed in transition by connecticut in the past....limit those live ball turnovers! especially with moriah jefferson out there...with an offense so good, you can't give up easy ones.

2) don't take bad shots assuming you'll get the rebound....Duke is a very good rebounding team, often depending on offensive boards as a component of the offense...it won't be as much of a sure thing against connecticut....and those second chance points will be much harder to come by. Get good looks the first time.

3) temper the matchup with stewart. If E-Will can do it, great. but if she can't, and it starts looking like last year, two things need to happen: E-Will needs to not get in foul trouble, and Duke needs to adjust and bring the double. Hold stewie under 20 and there's a much better chance.

4) Don't ignore KML. as I said, she shot 7-11 last year....and shoots 55%....when you bring that double down low, #1 priority MUST be to ensure that KML is still covered.

Basically you hope you can do what stanford did: double/triple stewie to take her out of the game, and hope uconn shoots poorly from outside. Even better if you can get someone in foul trouble. Uconn has 5 threats on the floor, but not much coming off the bench.

Good luck to all. Go Huskies.

[burnspbesq]

In case you've forgotten what happened the last time Duke played in Hartford, here's a little reminder.

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&ATCLID=209815851&DB_OEM_ID=4200

[Henderson]

On the 10th anniversary of duke winning in Hartford (was there....sad day....), I figured I'd kick off this thread.

Duke comes into the game with 3 losses, all to ranked opponents, all relatively close. They also come in off a big win against #8 UK at home. They are #1 in rebounding in the country.

Connecticut comes in with 1 loss, an overtime 2 point loss at stanford, who has gone on to lose to #10 texas, #11 UNC, #11 tennessessee, and chatanooga. They lead the country in offense, scoring margin, and shooting %.

Uconn lost two key pieces off their two time defending national championship squad: center Stephanie Dolson, and guard Bria Hartley.

Here's the rundown for the huskies:

PG: Moriah Jefferson: small and exceptionally fast. averaging 10 and 5. Shoots 39% from 3.....i wouldn't say she's a threat to blow by you and take it to the hole, but that is never really a big part of geno's offense anyway. She manages the game well and can knock down shots. good for 2-3 steals a game. Duke should be concerned about not turning it over to her in the open court, as she will probably beat everyone down the floor for an easy 2.

SF: Kalena Mosqueda-Lewis...just tied Maya Moore on Uconn's all time 3's made list and is only a few off Taurasi for the school record. She's shooting over 55% on the year. She has really punished duke in the past, hitting 7-11 in last years game. Duke left her wide open for many of those shots, and she made them pay. They're going to have to always be aware of where she is on the court, even if shuffling to double team...

C: Breanna Stewart...national player of the year, and twice F4 MOP. 6'4 with handles, post moves, and a 37% three point shot. averages 17 and 7. She was effectively unstoppable last year while playing across Dolson. This year, she's much more isolated down low, allowing teams to double and triple her...as stanford did when they beat the team. She dominated E-will in last years matchup...24 and 11 vs 9 and 6. If the matchup tends to the way it went last year, duke will have to commit a double.


SG: There have been two players who have gotten the majority of the time here. Early in the season it was Saniya Chong, and she had trouble being effective on the offensive end. She's since been replaced in the starting lineup, but still getting 20 minutes. The minutes and start are now going to freshman kia nurse, who is showing a lot for a freshman, averaging 14 points and 4 assists, while shooting 42% from 3. These two, along with Jefferson will get almost all the minutes at the guard spots.

The Other Tall Person: Uconn has gone with two lineups here, a big one and a small one. Early in the year, they went big, playing Kiah Stokes here. She's a big girl....6'3, on the heavier side...a "banger" if you will...if such a thing were to exist in the women's game. The idea was to slot her in as a drop in replacement for dolson....the stanford game showed that wasn't going to work out. She simply doesn't have the passing nor offensive ability of dolson. This came to light in the stanford game, when the cardinal mostly ignored her to double stewart. She still averages 8-9 boards a game, though not much of an offensive threat. (20 minutes a game)

Since stanford, uconn has mostly gone smaller with morgan tuck. She's slightly smaller at 6'2, and less weight, though much more offensively skilled. She had 25 against ND, and has much more ability to make you think twice about doubling stewart. Unlike Stewart and KML, though, she has no 3 point shot. Recently she's getting about 30 minutes a game.

Gabby Williams (G 5'11) has gotten some garbage time minutes. Don't expect to see her unless the game is in hand.


So so so. how does duke approach this game? I'm not sure if I can give a great answer, since uconn has looked superb since making the aforementioned lineup changes after the stanford game....but i'll give it a shot:

1) don't turn it over....Duke's been absolutely killed in transition by connecticut in the past....limit those live ball turnovers! especially with moriah jefferson out there...with an offense so good, you can't give up easy ones.

2) don't take bad shots assuming you'll get the rebound....Duke is a very good rebounding team, often depending on offensive boards as a component of the offense...it won't be as much of a sure thing against connecticut....and those second chance points will be much harder to come by. Get good looks the first time.

3) temper the matchup with stewart. If E-Will can do it, great. but if she can't, and it starts looking like last year, two things need to happen: E-Will needs to not get in foul trouble, and Duke needs to adjust and bring the double. Hold stewie under 20 and there's a much better chance.

4) Don't ignore KML. as I said, she shot 7-11 last year....and shoots 55%....when you bring that double down low, #1 priority MUST be to ensure that KML is still covered.

Basically you hope you can do what stanford did: double/triple stewie to take her out of the game, and hope uconn shoots poorly from outside. Even better if you can get someone in foul trouble. Uconn has 5 threats on the floor, but not much coming off the bench.

Good luck to all. Go Huskies.

Tried to spork you for the excellent UConn scouting report, but well, you know. No sporks for the Go Huskies thing, and "Duke" is always capitalized. :)

[uh_no]

"Duke" is always capitalized. :)

"dukebasketballreport.com" says different :p

But it's mostly out of laziness. I missed uconn and connecticut several times

[Dukehky]

Not thrilled about the ole Lady Blue Devils' prospects for this one, but you never know. That's why they play the game.

[Tappan Zee Devil]

Not thrilled about the ole Lady Blue Devils' prospects for this one, but you never know. That's why they play the game.

They are not "Lady" Blue Devils - They are Blue Devils

[AIM4excellence]

They are not "Lady" Blue Devils - They are Blue Devils

Thank you for pointing that out. Yes, they are Blue Devil women. They aren't out there sipping tea.

[AIM4excellence]

In case you've forgotten what happened the last time Duke played in Hartford, here's a little reminder.

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&ATCLID=209815851&DB_OEM_ID=4200

I was there. That game was another step up for the program. Great, great fun! Would be nice for our program to return to that level of play. It will be a great game to assess where we are in relation to where we were.

[uh_no]

In case you've forgotten what happened the last time Duke played in Hartford, here's a little reminder.

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&ATCLID=209815851&DB_OEM_ID=4200

It was that article which spurned me to finally write a scouting report.....I watched the whole video and it hurt. I feel somewhat cartharsis-ized (definitely not a word...) when i see the "2004 #1 final AP ranking" in cameron, though, since I know who ended up actually cutting down the nets (it's the small things).

It was certainly a big win, along with the tournament win 2006....and it really kicked off the duke's future among the top teams in the game.

[miramar]

But I'll miss Geno. He's no saint but he has never bothered me like some other women's coaches I won't name, even if they happen to be in CH and College Park. Not to mention the former men's coach in Storrs.

[burnspbesq]

I was there. That game was another step up for the program. Great, great fun! Would be nice for our program to return to that level of play. It will be a great game to assess where we are in relation to where we were.

Win or lose tonight, comparisons between this year's team and the 03-04 team are inherently unfair. 03-04 was the most talented team Duke has ever had (five WNBA players). And lest we forget how silly it is to compare teams based on what happens in the crapshoot that is the NCAA tournament, the 03-04 team lost in the Elite Eight.

[CameronBlue]

But I'll miss Geno. He's no saint but he has never bothered me like some other women's coaches I won't name, even if they happen to be in CH and College Park. Not to mention the former men's coach in Storrs.

I'm impressed by anyone who can elevate the standards of his/her chosen profession and broaden the field's body of knowledge. Geno has outclassed every women's coach the game has produced, including Pat Summit IMO. Only Notre Dame's coach is within striking distance. As much as I admire her for her recovery from cancer, the nameless coach in CH has done a pretty decent job at times of dragging the game into the gutter.

[-jk]

DBR Chat (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/misc.php?do=cchatbox) is still open!

-jk

[Snork]

First post in years....

Frustrated watching first 8 minutes. Duke's women have all the talent but their execution looks like they're playing a summer league game and not the two-time defending national champions. A small selection:

- Making moves before actually catching ball, which goes through hands and out of bounds
- Dribbling before even looking up court, leading to an obvious charge
- Power dribbling in place off an offensive rebound, going nowhere, but allowing UCONN defense to recover so you can miss a two-foot shot
- Allowing shot clock to expire without any realization it was dwindling down

If there's a more talented yet less disciplined (i.e. coached) team in the country, I haven't seen it. Our women deserve better.

[Duvall]

If there's a more talented yet less disciplined (i.e. coached) team in the country, I haven't seen.

Might want to check ten miles down the road first.

[Snork]

Might want to check ten miles down the road first.

I did.

Last year Duke had a top 5 recruiting class and UNC was not in the top 20 (based on ESPN rankings). The year before UNC was 1 and Duke was 2 in the same rankings. And Duke won the recruiting battle over UNC the prior 2 years as well (at least based on top 50 players).

For our women, the recruiting is among the best in the country. On-court results fall far short. It's frustrating to watch.

[AIM4excellence]

first post in years....

Frustrated watching first 8 minutes. Duke's women have all the talent but their execution looks like they're playing a summer league game and not the two-time defending national champions. A small selection:

- making moves before actually catching ball, which goes through hands and out of bounds
- dribbling before even looking up court, leading to an obvious charge
- power dribbling in place off an offensive rebound, going nowhere, but allowing uconn defense to recover so you can miss a two-foot shot
- allowing shot clock to expire without any realization it was dwindling down

if there's a more talented yet less disciplined (i.e. Coached) team in the country, i haven't seen it. Our women deserve better.

post of the day! Bulls eye! Ringer! Snake eyes!

[Duvall]

I did.

Last year Duke had a top 5 recruiting class and UNC was not in the top 20 (based on ESPN rankings). The year before UNC was 1 and Duke was 2 in the same rankings. And Duke won the recruiting battle over UNC the prior 2 years as well (at least based on top 50 players).

Recruiting rankings are an imperfect measure of talent. Especially when they include players that are no longer there...


For our women, the recruiting is among the best in the country. On-court results fall far short. It's frustrating to watch.

Eh, "far short" is objectively false. Duke has had top-5 recruiting results and top-10 on-court results, which is what it is. The frustrating part is that there doesn't seem to be any reason to expect improvement at this point, but top-10 isn't bad.

[AIM4excellence]

post of the day! Bulls eye! Ringer! Snake eyes!

LOL. Anybody else get a list of "similar threads" at the bottom? They're all the same beatdown by UConn year after year. I wonder if the post game remarks will also be similar. If I hear the words "they're just more talented" I just might puke.

[dudog84]

They're just more talented.

[CameronBlue]

They're just more talented.

Cleanup on aisle nine!

[dudog84]

I did.

Last year Duke had a top 5 recruiting class and UNC was not in the top 20 (based on ESPN rankings). The year before UNC was 1 and Duke was 2 in the same rankings. And Duke won the recruiting battle over UNC the prior 2 years as well (at least based on top 50 players).

For our women, the recruiting is among the best in the country. On-court results fall far short. It's frustrating to watch.

Your point?

Duke is 8-3 against UNC the past 4 years. Please note that includes 3 wins in the ACC Tournament.

The last time UConn played UNC, in 2012, they beat them 86-35.

[Mike Corey]

I liked the way we started the game, and the way we fought in the first half.

UConn capitalized on our weaknesses, and we did not capitalize on theirs. The better team and program won.

[Snork]

Your point?

Duke is 8-3 against UNC the past 4 years. Please note that includes 3 wins in the ACC Tournament.

The last time UConn played UNC, in 2012, they beat them 86-35.

My point was simply to respond to Duvall, who implied that UNC was both more talented and more poorly coached than Duke. The claim that UNC has more talent is objectively false.

[AIM4excellence]

Cleanup on aisle nine!

Feeling much better now, thank you. There's one in every crowd who can't resist pulling the chain.

[Kedsy]

Duke's women have all the talent but their execution looks like they're playing a summer league game and not the two-time defending national champions.

* * *

If there's a more talented yet less disciplined (i.e. coached) team in the country, I haven't seen it.


Honest questions: how much women's basketball do you watch that doesn't involve Duke? How many other women's teams have you seen this season? Have you seen UConn in other games this year? Do you think most other teams have executed significantly better against UConn than Duke did?

You're complaining about Duke's turnovers, and we did have 22 turnovers in the game. Which admittedly is a lot. But UConn also forced 24 turnovers against Notre Dame (also 24 against Vanderbilt, 24 against Charleston, 21 against UCLA, and 30 against SMU). I assume you would acknowledge that Notre Dame has as much or more talent as Duke? I assume you wouldn't say Notre Dame is undisciplined or poorly coached? Yet against UConn they coughed it up more than Duke did. What does that tell you?

Also, this year's Duke team may be talented, but we have a SF playing PG. Turnovers and poor execution were expected for this year's team by most people who've been paying attention.

[jv001]

Honest questions: how much women's basketball do you watch that doesn't involve Duke? How many other women's teams have you seen this season? Have you seen UConn in other games this year? Do you think most other teams have executed significantly better against UConn than Duke did?

You're complaining about Duke's turnovers, and we did have 22 turnovers in the game. Which admittedly is a lot. But UConn also forced 24 turnovers against Notre Dame (also 24 against Vanderbilt, 24 against Charleston, 21 against UCLA, and 30 against SMU). I assume you would acknowledge that Notre Dame has as much or more talent as Duke? I assume you wouldn't say Notre Dame is undisciplined or poorly coached? Yet against UConn they coughed it up more than Duke did. What does that tell you?

Also, this year's Duke team may be talented, but we have a SF playing PG. Turnovers and poor execution were expected for this year's team by most people who've been paying attention.

Bingo! Duke has several talented players, but lacks a true point guard. The 22 turnovers were critical to Duke's demise last night. Johnson and Riggs are not division one PGs. We have a good SG in Greenwell, but she is just a freshman that has trouble creating her own shot. Azura is going to be a special player, but Duke needs that good point guard. Do we have one coming in next years class. I don't know the answer to that question, but I sure hope we have one on the way. GoDuke!

[tieguy]

Soon after I watched us get beat down by Stanford (right after I moved to San Francisco) I became curious how we did against other #1 seeds, which I think in the women's game is probably the fairest mark of an elite program given the lack of depth in the women's game. Even Geno and Pat don't win all of those games, but the elite programs (Stanford, ND, UConn) win many and are usually competitive in all of them. If you get blown out by the #1 seeds, that's a sure sign you may be good but you're in the second tier. This is, I think, a more fair measure than tourney success, given how random one-and-done tourneys can be, and how that doesn't tell you much about the difference between a close loss and a blowout loss.

Here's how we did in the six seasons from '01-'07: 5-11, average margin -1.75; no losses by more than 15. 5-11 isn't great, but that is five wins against the very best (including UT, LSU, and MD and UNC at the height of their success). And the average margin was close and there were no huge blowouts. I think at that time it was fair to say we were a top-tier program, even if we never did break through and win a title. (Note that this # does not include the win at UConn in '03-'04, since they won the title as a #2 seed that year, which is a reminder that this is a somewhat arbitrary metric.)

Updated through last night (assuming UConn and SC will be #1 seeds this year): in the 6+ seasons from '08-'14 (ignoring the understandably bad '07-'08 team): 1-17, average margin -17.83; 11 losses by > 15. The sole win was in the first year of the sample, against a Maryland team we knew inside and out; take out that year and the numbers only get worse.

Note that I've been updating these #s for a while, but I'd love an extra pair of eyeballs to make sure there are no errors. If anyone is interested poke me and I'll share the spreadsheet. I'd also love to extend it to #2 and #3 seeds, but simply will never have the time for that.

~tieguy

[CameronBornAndBred]

Bingo! Duke has several talented players, but lacks a true point guard. The 22 turnovers were critical to Duke's demise last night. Johnson and Riggs are not division one PGs. We have a good SG in Greenwell, but she is just a freshman that has trouble creating her own shot. Azura is going to be a special player, but Duke needs that good point guard. Do we have one coming in next years class. I don't know the answer to that question, but I sure hope we have one on the way. GoDuke!
We have two elite PGs coming in next year. Angela Salvadores (ranked 5th in her class) and Kyra Lambert (ranked 9th in her class).

[Duvall]

Also, this year's Duke team may be talented, but we have a SF playing PG. Turnovers and poor execution were expected for this year's team by most people who've been paying attention.

Then again, it's Duke - turnovers and poor offensive execution were expected by most people that *weren't* paying attention.

[CameronBlue]

Feeling much better now, thank you. There's one in every crowd who can't resist pulling the chain.

Jesus,

The Messiah schtick is a bit more nuanced than you think.

Yours,
Judas

[Mike Corey]

We have two elite PGs coming in next year. Angela Salvadores (ranked 5th in her class) and Kyra Lambert (ranked 9th in her class).

With the absurd amount of talent on this roster, if we can just stay healthy through the next few seasons, we should see the program take a step forward once our roster is filled in once again.

[Duvall]

With the absurd amount of talent on this roster, if we can just stay healthy through the next few seasons, we should see the program take a step forward once our roster is filled in once again.

I respect, but cannot share, your optimism. Very goodness isn't so bad, though.

[Kfanarmy]

Thank you for pointing that out. Yes, they are Blue Devil women. They aren't out there sipping tea.

I agree, Please don't call the men Gentlemen either, God forbid!

[Kfanarmy]

With the absurd amount of talent on this roster, if we can just stay healthy through the next few seasons, we should see the program take a step forward once our roster is filled in once again.

I just don't see it. The weakness on offense seems the same every year. No apparent plan. They ran the pause, dribble, brick drill over and over in the lane.

When the good teams push, Duke gets tentative; they get hit and they generally stay down.

Last night the poor offense translated to a wilting defense. Instead of working harder, harder, harder on D, they wilted. I was amazed to see them stand five feet from a three point shooter and simply dare the Huskies to hit another one...Strangely, UCONN made the wide open shot over and over.

The second half was a replay of every game against UCONN for the past few years. The number 5 point guard aint helping this matchup. Coaching to go straight at the other team over and over and over again is the only way to beat #1s. Be aggressive and have a plan. Right now they have a plan on D but nothing on O. That hasn't and doesn't seem to be changing IMO.

[miramar]

I'm sure that we all agree that to beat Connecticut, you need outstanding point guard play and you have to keep turnovers to a minimum.

So far, so good.

Nevertheless, I don't think that with two good point guards we'll be at UConn's level.

If you look at the last eight losses, by an average of 29 points no less, you will see that Duke had 22, 13, 15, 15, 15, 19, 23, and 22 turnovers, so with the exception of last night, ballhandling has improved (from an admittedly terrible base).

Nevertheless, the shooting percentages have been 31.5, 41.5, 35.7, 24.6, 28.4, 25.4, 33.9, and 35.7.

Shooting percentage defense has been equally bad: 51.7, 49.2, 50.0, 45.1, 57.4, 59.3, 53.6, and 52.2.

That's a simple average (which does not account for differences in the number of shots taken in each game) of 32.0% for Duke and 52.3% for UConn.

So unless those incoming point guards are Kyrie's younger twin sisters, I don't think that McCallie's teams will be anywhere near Auriema's level for a long time. Luigi is sixty, which isn't that old any more (trust me on that one), so he could be at it for a while.

[Kedsy]

I don't think that McCallie's teams will be anywhere near Auriema's level for a long time. Luigi is sixty, which isn't that old any more (trust me on that one), so he could be at it for a while.

"Auriema's level" is one of the handful of most successful major sport college coaches in history. Why is that the bar we're setting?

[chrishoke]

Starting three freshmen and no point guard is a recipe for disaster playing at UConn.

However, I can't explain or understand this team getting out rebounded so badly. We were leading the nation going into the game.

[Duvall]

"Auriema's level" is one of the handful of most successful major sport college coaches in history. Why is that the bar we're setting?

I suspect people are less interested in the nigh-impossible goal of matching UConn's success than in the more achievable objective of not getting humiliated by UConn every time the teams play.

[jv001]

I suspect people are less interested in the nigh-impossible goal of matching UConn's success than in the more achievable objective of not getting humiliated by UConn every time the teams play.

A lot of non-UCLA basketball fans were probably thinking the same thing during the Bruins run. But alas, John Wooden retired and the domination was over. GoDuke!

[killerleft]

I just don't see it. The weakness on offense seems the same every year. No apparent plan. They ran the pause, dribble, brick drill over and over in the lane.

When the good teams push, Duke gets tentative; they get hit and they generally stay down.

Last night the poor offense translated to a wilting defense. Instead of working harder, harder, harder on D, they wilted. I was amazed to see them stand five feet from a three point shooter and simply dare the Huskies to hit another one...Strangely, UCONN made the wide open shot over and over.
The second half was a replay of every game against UCONN for the past few years. The number 5 point guard aint helping this matchup. Coaching to go straight at the other team over and over and over again is the only way to beat #1s. Be aggressive and have a plan. Right now they have a plan on D but nothing on O. That hasn't and doesn't seem to be changing IMO.

When you pressure with power forwards on elite guards, they tend to blow by you and create another set of problems. We sometimes picked one poison, sometimes another. This problem will not go away this year, especially against superior opposition. Let's see how we compensate as the year goes on. The schedule has been killer for a team with no point guard and freshmen in key spots.

[burnspbesq]

If I hear the words "they're just more talented" I just might puke.

Puke away, then. Just because you're in denial doesn't make it less true.

We're exactly where anyone who realistically assessed this team's strengths and weaknesses before the season would expect us to be. You don't win consistently against top teams without an elite PG, and we don't have one. It should have surprised exactly no one that we would have problems with UConn's press, and it should have surprised exactly no one that Jefferson would key the decisive run to open the second half. It should surprise exactly no one when we lose between three and five ACC games. That's who we are this year. If you can't deal, that's your dadgum problem.

The only game that matters now is A&T.

[killerleft]

First post in years....

Frustrated watching first 8 minutes. Duke's women have all the talent but their execution looks like they're playing a summer league game and not the two-time defending national champions. A small selection:

- Making moves before actually catching ball, which goes through hands and out of bounds
- Dribbling before even looking up court, leading to an obvious charge
- Power dribbling in place off an offensive rebound, going nowhere, but allowing UCONN defense to recover so you can miss a two-foot shot
- Allowing shot clock to expire without any realization it was dwindling down

If there's a more talented yet less disciplined (i.e. coached) team in the country, I haven't seen it. Our women deserve better.

Perhaps you can send an email to Coach P and suggest a drill for that 'dribbling before looking up' thing. And that moving before catching the ball. She's probably never thought of it, and never cautioned the players about the detrimental effect such things have on offensive capability.

Or maybe she should substitute our sterling point guard into the game. What's her name? Or another point guard into the game. How silly to have a shooting guard bringing the ball up. What kind of discipline is that?

Seriously, do you watch about as often as you post? Do you realize that we have no point guards on the roster? That we're relying on freshmen in key positions? Or that we were playing against one of the premier defensive teams in the country?

Anyway, I'd introduce you to a couple or three like-minded posters on these boards, but you'll find them.

[aswewere]

Game notes and press conference. http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22760&SPID=1846&DB_LANG=C&ATCLID=209824896&DB_OEM_ID=4200

[miramar]

I suspect people are less interested in the nigh-impossible goal of matching UConn's success than in the more achievable objective of not getting humiliated by UConn every time the teams play.

I have become inured to the double-digit losses (27 and counting at this point), but losing by almost thirty points a game for the better part of the decade is really something.

I can certainly understand the comparison between Geno's teams and John Wooden at UCLA since I grew up watching them on TV, so I can say that's definitely not a stretch. In fact, in high school I made sure that I would be home at 11:00 PM on Fridays and Saturdays so that I could see the UCLA games on tape delay, with Dick Enberg as the announcer. I'm even old enough to remember USC's 1971 team, which went 24-2 with both losses to UCLA, and they couldn't go to the NCAA tournament since they only took one team from each conference.

I also remember Tarkanian's teams at Cal State Long Beach, and even at that time the Shark was ready to play Wooden (very competitively in fact) any time, any place. That's a good lesson for all of us.

PS. One of the reasons I love to watch Justise Winslow is that he reminds me of a left-handed Sidney Wicks. Most of you probably don't remember Wicks, but that is a huge compliment.

[Duvall]

Puke away, then. Just because you're in denial doesn't make it less true.

We're exactly where anyone who realistically assessed this team's strengths and weaknesses before the season would expect us to be. You don't win consistently against top teams without an elite PG, and we don't have one.

True enough, and yet...Duke didn't win consistently against top teams when they *had* an elite PG.

[burnspbesq]

True enough, and yet...Duke didn't win consistently against top teams when they *had* an elite PG.

And that was just as true under Goestenkors as under McCallie.

Remind me again how many championships we won with Lindsey at the point?

[uh_no]

Figured I'd give some points. Tale of 2 halves:

first half

duke did some really nice things, and on the whole played very well

1) duke ran some really nice plays in the half court set....one they ran several times with success involved an off ball screen of Kia Nurse off E-Will....nurse got lost each time it was run, leading to easy shots, and I believe soniaya chong coming into the game for defensive reasons.

2) when uconn picked up the pressure, duke fell apart. The score was 6-2 duke, then a couple minutes later it was 19-8 uconn. It seemed they could break the press, but then weren't able to get into any sort of half court offense. The lack of a PG showed.

3) they did an exceptional job preventing uconn from doing what they wanted...uconn made stupid plays they might get away with vs most teams, and duke made them pay...pulling the game all the way back and taking the lead...the double against stewie was largely effective.

4) uconn adjusted to this by bringing stewie up to the high post and running the offense through there (much how the offense was run last year through dolson), leading to uconn getting a decent lead back by the half. Tuck played the post role brilliantly

5) moriah jefferson might be the best on ball defender in the game
6) duke had at least three effective shot clock violations in the half...though one was really a 3 second call, and another was the end of the half...where they didn't get a shot off


Second half


This was more like how these games usually go...and with about 10 minutes left, most of us were rooting for Uconn to get to 82 points so we can get free wings from buffalo wild wings (note: Ollie elected to hold the ball when uconn had 81 points the other day (after scoring 80 a few days prior) and was booed off the floor. Earth knows no wrath as when students are denied free food....especially at Uconn, where students go to bed hungry).

Uconn was less tentative on O, and it showed. Duke didn't close down on shooters, and got killed. Uconn also cranked down on the sloppiness/turnovers.

Overall, E-Will had a much better game than last year...putting up similar numbers to stewie, given stewie was doubled much of the game, but she looked alright out there. Liked some of the sets duke ran in the half court, but they just don't have the weapons to pull this one off.

Rebounding: Duke had top numbers in the country and got beaten on the boards. It just serves as an excellent example of the difference between good teams and elite teams in the women's game.

I had said after uconn beat UL for the title a year and a half ago that they wouldn't lose again for 2 years. Stanford got them in overtime, they've adjusted their play, and I'm not sure there's anyone in the country that's going to beat them going forward. I think you're nuts if you think USC is better than this team and is actually #1. we'll find out on 2/9.

The series contract expired after this game, and P strongly indicated it won't be renewed, indicated that they weren't getting anything out of the game, and that their schedule was too hard. Personally, I think that's the coward's way out. I'd expect ESPN to push to keep it on the schedule. (apparently they're pushing to get uconn tennessee back too.....great article: http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-womens-basketball/hc-jacobs-column-uconn-tennessee-women-1228-20141227-column.html#page=1 )

The ACC race this year ought to be really enticing, with a tossup between UNC Duke ND and UL. IMO. For the record, i'm pulling for duke :)

Edit: forgot....azura ought to be an all american down the line

[Duvall]

The series contract expired after this game, and P strongly indicated it won't be renewed, indicated that they weren't getting anything out of the game, and that their schedule was too hard. Personally, I think that's the coward's way out. I'd expect ESPN to push to keep it on the schedule.

Why? I can't imagine that the game has much value for them.

[Duvall]

And that was just as true under Goestenkors as under McCallie.

I understand that it's comforting to think that, but it's just not so. That's okay. Not every Duke sport has to be competitive nationally. Duke is producing student-athletes that play hard, graduate and represent the university well, and that's what matters.

[jv001]

I have become inured to the double-digit losses (27 and counting at this point), but losing by almost thirty points a game for the better part of the decade is really something.

I can certainly understand the comparison between Geno's teams and John Wooden at UCLA since I grew up watching them on TV, so I can say that's definitely not a stretch. In fact, in high school I made sure that I would be home at 11:00 PM on Fridays and Saturdays so that I could see the UCLA games on tape delay, with Dick Enberg as the announcer. I'm even old enough to remember USC's 1971 team, which went 24-2 with both losses to UCLA, and they couldn't go to the NCAA tournament since they only took one team from each conference.

I also remember Tarkanian's teams at Cal State Long Beach, and even at that time the Shark was ready to play Wooden (very competitively in fact) any time, any place. That's a good lesson for all of us.

PS. One of the reasons I love to watch Justise Winslow is that he reminds me of a left-handed Sidney Wicks. Most of you probably don't remember Wicks, but that is a huge compliment.

Yes, I remember Sidney and there is a similarity there. I even remember Walt Hazzard and Gail Goodrich the starting guards at UCLA. I also tried to catch their games on TV. Those teams were great to watch. Too bad one of the UCLA teams beat a great Duke team in the FF. GoDuke!

[Kedsy]

True enough, and yet...Duke didn't win consistently against top teams when they *had* an elite PG.

This isn't entirely true. As I posted after the SC loss, we've done very well against top teams who weren't named UConn or Notre Dame, and in three of the five Notre Dame losses, Chelsea Gray missed the game with an injury.

Between 2009 and 2014, in games when our starting PG wasn't injured, Duke has gone 5-4 against top 5 teams other than UConn.

[tieguy]

I understand that it's comforting to think that, but it's just not so.
This, 1,000 times this. Yes, we all remember some crushing losses pre-P, but they were a different kind of crushing and it is important to keep them separate when we're trying to evaluate P's abilities as a coach and our expectations for the program.

The pre-P losses were often crushing in part because they were close. In the current era, we don't lose close to the top teams, we get blown out. (See my earlier comment in this thread about win-loss record and margin of defeat against #1 seeds for details.)

And sometimes those pre-P losses were crushing in part because they were in the Final Four (three times in the last six years pre-P). This team doesn't lose in the Final Four, because it doesn't get there (zero times in P's 7 seasons).

Sometimes those losses were crushing because we were favored (five NCAA #1 seeds in the last six years pre-P). This team doesn't have crushing losses when we're favored, because we're not often favored when it counts (one #1 NCAA seed in the P era, in her second year still mostly with pre-P players).

So, yes, the years pre-P were often frustrating. But they were frustrating in a very different way - the failure of not quite breaking through, rather than the failure of expecting to lose by 30.

And it is perfectly fine to say "we should be happy to be where we are". It is absolutely true that we continue to recruit and graduate fine upstanding student athletes, which is the ultimately important thing, and it is absolutely true that most programs would kill to be where we are. But it is also unarguably true that we've taken a step back from where we were. And (much more arguably) we've taken a step back from where we should be given the huge institutional recruiting edges we have over most women's programs.

~tieguy

[burnspbesq]

This, 1,000 times this. Yes, we all remember some crushing losses pre-P, but they were a different kind of crushing and it is important to keep them separate when we're trying to evaluate P's abilities as a coach and our expectations for the program.

The pre-P losses were often crushing in part because they were close. In the current era, we don't lose close to the top teams, we get blown out. (See my earlier comment in this thread about win-loss record and margin of defeat against #1 seeds for details.)

And sometimes those pre-P losses were crushing in part because they were in the Final Four (three times in the last six years pre-P). This team doesn't lose in the Final Four, because it doesn't get there (zero times in P's 7 seasons).

Sometimes those losses were crushing because we were favored (five NCAA #1 seeds in the last six years pre-P). This team doesn't have crushing losses when we're favored, because we're not often favored when it counts (one #1 NCAA seed in the P era, in her second year still mostly with pre-P players).

So, yes, the years pre-P were often frustrating. But they were frustrating in a very different way - the failure of not quite breaking through, rather than the failure of expecting to lose by 30.

And it is perfectly fine to say "we should be happy to be where we are". It is absolutely true that we continue to recruit and graduate fine upstanding student athletes, which is the ultimately important thing, and it is absolutely true that most programs would kill to be where we are. But it is also unarguably true that we've taken a step back from where we were. And (much more arguably) we've taken a step back from where we should be given the huge institutional recruiting edges we have over most women's programs.

~tieguy

That's revisionist history, Luis, and I'm sure you know it. Surely you haven't forgotten 2000 and 2001, when we fell flat on our faces in the Sweet Sixteen against bad teams with one great player. In 2002 and 2003, the same player (Wynter Whitley) made calamitous failure-to-know-the-scouting-report mistakes at critical times that killed our chances to come back from substantial deficits; I'd like to hear the G apologists explain how that's not on the staff. The losses in 2004 and 2005 felt distinctly like underachievement--especially 2004, a one seed losing to a seven. In 2006, we took our foot off the gas. In 2007, I would have bet my house on Lindsey making those FTs, but why was an obviously inferior Rutgers team hanging around at the end of that game?

[jv001]

That's revisionist history, Luis, and I'm sure you know it. Surely you haven't forgotten 2000 and 2001, when we fell flat on our faces in the Sweet Sixteen against bad teams with one great player. In 2002 and 2003, the same player (Wynter Whitley) made calamitous failure-to-know-the-scouting-report mistakes at critical times that killed our chances to come back from substantial deficits; I'd like to hear the G apologists explain how that's not on the staff. The losses in 2004 and 2005 felt distinctly like underachievement--especially 2004, a one seed losing to a seven. In 2006, we took our foot off the gas. In 2007, I would have bet my house on Lindsey making those FTs, but why was an obviously inferior Rutgers team hanging around at the end of that game?

I'm not getting into this Coach P vs. Coach G. argument but I will say that the Coach G teams were fun to watch. The Coach P teams, not so fun to watch. But that's from my eye test only. GoDuke!

[Kedsy]

But it is also unarguably true that we've taken a step back from where we were. And (much more arguably) we've taken a step back from where we should be given the huge institutional recruiting edges we have over most women's programs.

Coach G did a great job turning a middling program into a national power. Several women's coaches over the years have built their programs into national powers. But here's my question: after the "program builder" coach has retired or otherwise left the school, has any subsequent coach at that school had more success than Coach P? I haven't researched it exhaustively but I don't think so. And, yes, I realize that Tara and Geno and Muffet and a few other program-builders haven't retired yet, but whoever takes over for them will be hard pressed to achieve more in their first eight seasons than Coach P has. Certainly Coach G wasn't able to do it after taking over for the program-builder Jody Conradt at Texas.

So I think it's possible Coach P is the most successful coach-following-a-program-builder in women's basketball history. And she's done it while losing her star players to crippling injuries, year after year. Frankly, even if she were the 2nd or 3rd best, it's worth some thought before bitterly complaining about Duke's next loss.

[aswewere]

Watched the press conference today. The usual comment about this being a "lesson" learned was there.

But when she was calling it "pathetic" and putting it on the players, that was just too much. At some point, there has to be some ownership by the head coach.

[uh_no]

Watched the press conference today. The usual comment about this being a "lesson" learned was there.

But when she was calling it "pathetic" and putting it on the players, that was just too much. At some point, there has to be some ownership by the head coach.

The quote that bothered me the most was


They've had better leadership on the floor than we've had. It's not rocket science.

That starts from the top.

[AIM4excellence]

I have become inured to the double-digit losses (27 and counting at this point), but losing by almost thirty points a game for the better part of the decade is really something.

I can certainly understand the comparison between Geno's teams and John Wooden at UCLA since I grew up watching them on TV, so I can say that's definitely not a stretch. In fact, in high school I made sure that I would be home at 11:00 PM on Fridays and Saturdays so that I could see the UCLA games on tape delay, with Dick Enberg as the announcer. I'm even old enough to remember USC's 1971 team, which went 24-2 with both losses to UCLA, and they couldn't go to the NCAA tournament since they only took one team from each conference.

I also remember Tarkanian's teams at Cal State Long Beach, and even at that time the Shark was ready to play Wooden (very competitively in fact) any time, any place. That's a good lesson for all of us.

PS. One of the reasons I love to watch Justise Winslow is that he reminds me of a left-handed Sidney Wicks. Most of you probably don't remember Wicks, but that is a huge compliment.

My dad taught US history to Sidney Wicks in high school and I helped my dad grade papers (the non-essay tests, obviously). Sidney Wicks was barely literate but one HECKUVA player. My dad made mention of the pressure he received to pass him so he could play for John Wooden. So I had added interest in watching those UCLA teams, despite my dad being an alum of cross town rival USC. They didn't do nearly as many interviews of the players back then - I'm sure the Sidney Wicks interviews would have been funny to watch.

I watched a LOT of men's basketball until women's games started appearing on TV. First it was one game each year - the NC game. Then it was the whole Final Four. Next came the Elite Eight games - all four games played back to back to back. For many years, I could pride myself on having watched every women's bball game that had appeared on TV. I still watch a goodly number of women's bball games, but certainly not every single one. Most people who have watched more women's bball than me are in the business as players, coaches or journalists. I have a very wide base of teams during different eras that I can compare to the UConn and Duke wbb teams. I only include this as some have questioned how much women's basketball has been watched by those critical of Duke's coach. I would actively discourage someone from watching a McCallie coached team if they want to "check out" women's basketball as it generally leads people to make pretty disparaging remarks about women playing basketball. By contrast, I actively encouraged people to watch Coach G's Duke teams and it generally led to people wanting to follow wbb more. I know that being fun to watch is not the primary reason the team exists. But it has a direct impact on the number of people who will choose to watch.

[AIM4excellence]

The quote that bothered me the most was



That starts from the top.

Good to see other people responding to the postgame press conference in a similar way to me. Every disparaging word McCallie uses about the players bounces back and applies to her. The players are not responsible for recruiting (& retaining) players for each position. They work hard to learn how to play out of position to fill the holes they didn't create. The buck doesn't stop with the players. It stops with the coach.

[AIM4excellence]

That's revisionist history, Luis, and I'm sure you know it. Surely you haven't forgotten 2000 and 2001, when we fell flat on our faces in the Sweet Sixteen against bad teams with one great player. In 2002 and 2003, the same player (Wynter Whitley) made calamitous failure-to-know-the-scouting-report mistakes at critical times that killed our chances to come back from substantial deficits; I'd like to hear the G apologists explain how that's not on the staff. The losses in 2004 and 2005 felt distinctly like underachievement--especially 2004, a one seed losing to a seven. In 2006, we took our foot off the gas. In 2007, I would have bet my house on Lindsey making those FTs, but why was an obviously inferior Rutgers team hanging around at the end of that game?

Holy misinterpretation Batman! Those 2000 and 2001 teams were rebuilding years. Duke WAY WAY overachieved thanks to Peppi Browne and Georgia Schweitzer. Calling out Wynter Whitley is a very low blow as she was struggling following the devastating personal losses she endured during this time. She was a kid who lost her brother for crying out loud. I find it to be extremely peculiar to label years Coach G didn't reach the FF as underachievement while defending a coach who doesn't get there at all. Coach G led Duke to FOUR Final Fours and TWO National Championship games. Yeah, back then, we expected to go to the FF every year so not getting there was a disappointment. But now that we don't get there at all, we're supposed to be satisfied with the fact they all graduate?

McCallie routinely throws players under the proverbial bus. But she doesn't call out a player whose play is affected by personal tragedy. I'm almost at a loss for words at how utterly insensitive it is to call out kids, who aren't paid professionals while lashing out at those who criticize a coach whose compensation approaches 7 figures.