2009 NCAA Tournament

[RDub21]

Once again I ask, how can you possibly make that claim when she's being interviewed 30 seconds after winning the biggest game in her life to date? Did you not see Candice Wiggins' passion-filled outburst last year (after beating the same team, incidentally)? She flipped out, too! She didn't call out anyone, but she rambled on then about as much as Angel did a couple of days back. It's all part of the joy of reaching the Final Four in one's senior year. After she'd calmed down a bit, Angel gave a gracious post-game interview on ESPN News. Too bad most of you didn't see it and choose to remember such a great athlete and person by 30 seconds of elation captured on YouTube.

The difference is that Wiggins didn't call anyone out and Angel did. I'm pretty sure that's what's causing this "uproar". One showed "passion" as you describe and the other one showed it by calling a commentator out. I would FULLY expect any player to be excited to reach the final four (as Angel showed she is). I wouldn't expect a player to randomly call out a commentator who just happened to pick the favored team to win. Maybe she'll call me out next game because I chose Oklahoma to beat them

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

Newton can score and handle the ball, she's just not been asked to do that in the time here, which is why I said she's the 2009 version of Newton, which was to imply that she is nothing like the 2005 version drafted because I said she was better skilled in some areas.

Defensively, they are similar types of players, January tends to not be so reckless with her body or maybe more fairly is smarter with how she uses her body defensively.

 

[uncommonclay]

K-Law breaks down Ashley Walker's game ... and Crystal Kelly's ...

With Ashley Walker, I like that she is physical and I like that she finishes well and attacks. I think being out on the west coast that people don’t get to see her as much; I’m not saying she’s undervalued, but people don’t know as much about her and her game than maybe some of the players we get to see more games of their teams. She’s a work horse. She is really physical, she gets up and down the court really well, she’s a little undersized for the power forward position, but she posts up well, rebounds well, she scores and she’s been the go-to player on that team for a little over two years, so she’s had the pressure of getting most of the attention of the team she playing against. I think she has a chance to be a solid player. She’s just a solid all-around player. I’m not sure if she does anything absolutely great, but I think she’s productive and sometimes whether or not you have someone that does something really great, you just need someone to produce for you, someone that is smart enough to handle offensive and defensive schemes and can score for you. She reminds me a little bit of Crystal Kelly for us, who did a great job for us in Sacramento last year. She’s a little undersized at the power forward position, and was cut by Houston, but she just produces, she’s just a productive player. You give her the basketball and she scores, she understands how to defend, she‘s smart. I think Ashley walker could be in that mold of a player that really helped us last year as a rookie.

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

I agree with Kara in the comparison with Walker and Kelly. I was describing Walker to someone earlier this season and that's the point of reference I used. I think in another thread here where we spent a few days debating the merits of Kelly and Harper that I said I thought that there is a difference between the two of them that makes Walker more intriguing to me and that is that she has developed her game away from the basket this season and had extended it to beyond the arc. I think folks who hadn't seen Cal this season (read east coasters who diss the quality of players in the Pac-10) got to see that range during the tournament where Walker was dropping threes in the second round and sweet 16 games.

Some folks compare Walker to Langhorne, I sorta see similarities there, but again point to Walker's game being more developed away from the paint.

Because Walker's game extends out further, she doesn't score as much from the free throw line as Kelly does, but does convert free throws she does get at a similar clip. Walker will be a solid role playing pro. Her problem will be that there will be fewer and fewer roster spots in the future as the draft classes start pushing the one another out of jobs each year.

 

[creative one]

Newton can score and handle the ball, she's just not been asked to do that in the time here, which is why I said she's the 2009 version of Newton, which was to imply that she is nothing like the 2005 version drafted because I said she was better skilled in some areas.

If she could score and handle the ball, she would be starting. Playoff teams don't keep their best players on the bench. Plus, if she could score and handle the ball, as you claim, we wouldn't be hoping for Zellous to fall into our laps at #7. We'd be looking more closely at Vaughn.

Truth is, Newton's an offensive liability whose defense isn't good enough in this new era of the WNBA. She cannot stop highly-skilled offensive perimeter players like Augustus, Wiggins, or Pondexter--all of whom entered the WNBA AFTER Newton.

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

I didn't say she was a prolific scorer or the second coming of Curly Neal...just that she could do both.

We are hoping for Zellous because we need another scorer coming off the bench. I'm not convinced that she necessarily will have the same impact she has had in college in this system, because this system seems to kill that instinct in players. I won't speak for anybody else, but I want Zellous here because she scores in a much different way than many of the players were currently have. And that might come in handy both now and in the future. Zellous is neither going to start here, nor is she going to be the future point behind Ticha. But she should be a solid contributor in this offense when she's on the floor...

 

[RDub21]

I didn't say she was a prolific scorer or the second coming of Curly Neal...just that she could do both.

We are hoping for Zellous because we need another scorer coming off the bench. I'm not convinced that she necessarily will have the same impact she has had in college in this system, because this system seems to kill that instinct in players. I won't speak for anybody else, but I want Zellous here because she scores in a much different way than many of the players were currently have. And that might come in handy both now and in the future. Zellous is neither going to start here, nor is she going to be the future point behind Ticha. But she should be a solid contributor in this offense when she's on the floor...

Definitely agree with that assessment of Zellous. We have guards who can shoot 3's (Powell/Lawson), who can slash/get to the basket (Scho/Ticha), and who IMO have a mid-range jumper (Newton). Zellous can shoot the three, can get to the basket, but the best part of her game is that mid-range jumper. It's something we don't see too often in women's basketball or in basketball in general. Whenever we run the shot clock down to 10 seconds and haven't done anything (not hard to imagine) with Zellous, we have someone who can shoot the 3 or can take their defender off the dribble to score...refreshing thought.

 

[creative one]

http://www.wnba.com/draft2009/confcall_coaches_090401.html

From the conference call, it sounds like Whiz doesn't want one of the scoring PGs (Montgomery or Toliver):

"I don’t really want a point guard that is trying to score. I want that to be their fifth option. I want them to be offensively aggressive"

That leads me to think he's either thinking about another option at PG (January) or not thinking PG at all. He did bring up Kara's name as the back-up PG, so maybe she really is the PG of the future (i.e. the player who will play PG when Ticha retires). I suppose that leaves us to choose the best player available regardless of position, which suits me just fine.

As for who he covets, he's awfully complimentary of Bonner. No complaints from me if she's the pick.

 

[uncommonclay]

http://www.wnba.com/draft2009/confcall_coaches_090401.html

From the conference call, it sounds like Whiz doesn't want one of the scoring PGs (Montgomery or Toliver):

I suppose that leaves us to choose the best player available regardless of position, which suits me just fine.

As for who he covets, he's awfully complimentary of Bonner. No complaints from me if she's the pick.

thanks for the link ... too bad all the coaches/GM's ddn't answer all the questions ...

hmmm ... maybe whiz will draft the best regardless of position ...

i wonder if bonner will still be available on the 7th pick ...

Tolliver has said she wants to go to Phoenix ...

 

[StevenHW]

Since some of us --- maybe most of us --- would prefer to see Zellous selected by the Monarchs, here's an article:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/s_618857.html

 

[uncommonclay]

the article makes it seem somewhat likely she will still be available at the 7th pick ...

the mind of whiz ... ??? ... who knows ...

 

[Den-Den]

After watching several games now, I REALLY like January. She seems to play the closest to Monarch basketball of the three. I think she has a much better defensive game than most of the one's that I've seen. Of course, I would not be heartbroken if we got Bonner or Zellous...

That Zellous can really elevate. Amazing to watch her elevate on a vertical jump right over the top of the Paris twins

 

[creative one]

Tolliver has said she wants to go to Phoenix ...

Not sure if the feeling's mutual. She's not as high on their list as she or others may think. They still like Bonner, Montgomery, and Vaughn more.

 

[creative one]

Since some of us --- maybe most of us --- would prefer to see Zellous selected by the Monarchs, here's an article:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/s_618857.html

Thanks for the link, Steven, but I feel dumber for reading that article. Not only does Nancy not know what the HELL she's talking about (the coaches think Zellous will be drafted between 7 and 9), she brought up the most absurd non-sequitur I've read yet with regards to Zellous and her chances of making a roster:

"It's a tough year because you only have 15 players in camp and 11 on the rosters now," Lieberman said. "You might have liked the 11 or 12 you had last year so do you bring them back? Think about this - LaToya Thomas five years ago was the No. 1 pick and right now she's having a hard time getting into a training camp because the rosters are so tight.

Nancy, you don't the real reason why LaToya Thomas hasn't received a training camp invite is because she's a complete bust who no one wants to pay $50,000 to keep (which makes her $15,000 more expensive than a young player)? No, it couldn't be that.

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

Nancy's comment re: Zellous was actually more egregious. She prefaced what she said by saying she hadn't seen much of Zellous. She should have stopped there while she was ahead or turned the question over to Rebecca Lobo.

I have mentioned in previous posts that January is protypical Whiz and that I would not be surprised to see him pick her regardless of whatever prognostications were about her draft position.

 

[Luv13fan]

Jumping in a tad bit late but....


As I have watched the tourney and the various options, while Zellous is fantastically athletic and a fine scorer, I believe January would be a better fit for our system.

Maybe it's because I have been watching her for the last 4 years. But I just think she has all the tools to be successful in Jenny B's system. Solid Defender, Not to mention that she is very capable of scoring, a good (not great) passer, and a decent (not great) ball handler. So that translates into a 1 and/or 2 guard that defends and isn't a liability on the offensive end.

Personally I am still not particularly sold on anyone not named Kara Lawson at the 2 guard right now. And believe that January/Zellous could bump any of them down the depth chart. But I will reserve the right to change my mind based on what we see in camp.

And speaking of Changed Minds... Can someone sell me on the redemptive value of Newton? I mean... she is fine I guess, but she seems rather ordinary at this juncture. In my eyes she seems to be a defensive specialist that isn't stopping anyone defensively, real ordinary in terms of scoring, and seems to keep nagging injuries. So since she seems to be the choice over Sholanda in most people’s opinions, can someone fill me in on what we think she can bring when she is healthy?

 

[6th]

As I have watched the tourney and the various options, while Zellous is fantastically athletic and a fine scorer, I believe January would be a better fit for our system.

Maybe it's because I have been watching her for the last 4 years. But I just think she has all the tools to be successful in Jenny B's system. Solid Defender, Not to mention that she is very capable of scoring, a good (not great) passer, and a decent (not great) ball handler. So that translates into a 1 and/or 2 guard that defends and isn't a liability on the offensive end.

Personally I am still not particularly sold on anyone not named Kara Lawson at the 2 guard right now. And believe that January/Zellous could bump any of them down the depth chart. But I will reserve the right to change my mind based on what we see in camp.

And speaking of Changed Minds... Can someone sell me on the redemptive value of Newton? I mean... she is fine I guess, but she seems rather ordinary at this juncture. In my eyes she seems to be a defensive specialist that isn't stopping anyone defensively, real ordinary in terms of scoring, and seems to keep nagging injuries. So since she seems to be the choice over Sholanda in most people’s opinions, can someone fill me in on what we think she can bring when she is healthy?

paragraph 1 & 2: As I have watched the tourney, I have to agree. She seems to be the best fit among guards.

paragraph 3: Again, I agree with you. Besides Kara, I see no progression among the 2 guards that we have. I could see either Zellous or January playing at the 2 when Kara slides over to the 1 to spell Ticha.

paragraph 4: I have been sorely disappointed in Chelsea (or in her usefulness) since she has returned to the M's. Her effectiveness as a defensive specialist has plummeted since she was such an important piece of our 2005 championship. If, in fact, this is due to all her injuries, then I don't see her ever getting back to where she once was.

I have not seen any growth in Sholanda in the past couple of years. That is sad for me to say as I love Scho-Time. Her once bright ceiling seems to have come crashing down.

 

[RDub21]

paragraph 1 & 2: As I have watched the tourney, I have to agree. She seems to be the best fit among guards.

paragraph 3: Again, I agree with you. Besides Kara, I see no progression among the 2 guards that we have. I could see either Zellous or January playing at the 2 when Kara slides over to the 1 to spell Ticha.

paragraph 4: I have been sorely disappointed in Chelsea (or in her usefulness) since she has returned to the M's. Her effectiveness as a defensive specialist has plummeted since she was such an important piece of our 2005 championship. If, in fact, this is due to all her injuries, then I don't see her ever getting back to where she once was.

I have not seen any growth in Sholanda in the past couple of years. That is sad for me to say as I love Scho-Time. Her once bright ceiling seems to have come crashing down.

Maybe we need to stop looking for "defense first" guards(Newton, Scho, January) in the draft? Could it be easier to draft a player with a solid offsensive skill set and then try to fit her into the defensive scheme as good as possible?(Zellous)

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

What is Newton's selling point and why she would possibly stick over Scho? Newton can handle the ball or at the bare minimum bring it up the floor. They have never asked Scho to do that. Newton can defend on ball better. I tossed Newton's 2008 out as a mulligan....she was never healthy at a single point in the season which followed a season where she was coming off a knee injury. I would wager just on her defensive value and size that if healthy she'd out perform Robinson defensively and be passable on offense in more ways than scho that a rotation with her in it wouldn't look vanilla. January would either complement Newton in a rotation or better her for the reasons I mentioned upthread. The wildcard in all this speculation is that whiz says in that press conf that he's brought back Maio. If she breaks camp with the team, there is now one more less spot for a returning player if you assume they will keep the player they draft @ 7. Robinson and Newton may both be battling for their jobs, especially so if it's January or Zellous. (I would be shocked if Bonner wound up here) Who Whiz picks I think will have a lot to do with what his end game has been behind the moves he made predraft.

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

I have no problem with a defense first guard, especially for a team that has a defense first mentality. I have a problem with defense ONLY or defensively challenged guards who can't or won't take shots in the offense. Their offensive scheme isn't vibrant enough to absorb either of those. January's heightened offensive transformation this season moves her out of the 'only' category and I think as part of a system where she is an option for a shot out on the wing or cutting inside she'll get hers. Zellous would be excellent here too as we've mentioned here because of how she can get hers, Kara wasn't a world beater defensively in college but she's improved to passable here so it's possible. I just don't think we are hurt either way. there will be more, deeper drafts where we can add players who fit what zellous or january do. I don't see the choice as zero sum.

 

[Luv13fan]

yup...

I have no problem with a defense first guard, especially for a team that has a defense first mentality. I have a problem with defense ONLY or defensively challenged guards who can't or won't take shots in the offense. Their offensive scheme isn't vibrant enough to absorb either of those. January's heightened offensive transformation this season moves her out of the 'only' category and I think as part of a system where she is an option for a shot out on the wing or cutting inside she'll get hers. Zellous would be excellent here too as we've mentioned here because of how she can get hers, Kara wasn't a world beater defensively in college but she's improved to passable here so it's possible. I just don't think we are hurt either way. there will be more, deeper drafts where we can add players who fit what zellous or january do. I don't see the choice as zero sum.

Ditto...

In fact IMO... January is more of a scorer who can play defense. And that to me is something that complements our system better. Defense is an instinct for her, so we wouldn't have to sell her on it. Plus as MBF so eloquantly stated passing on one for the other isn't a zero sum game. There is alot of talent coming out in the next few years, that can compliment either one of them. Although I would prefer January.

 

[creative one]

Maybe we need to stop looking for "defense first" guards(Newton, Scho, January) in the draft? Could it be easier to draft a player with a solid offsensive skill set and then try to fit her into the defensive scheme as good as possible?(Zellous)

Does that mean we should overlook players like Sylvia Fowles and Alexis Hornbuckle?

I kinda see what you're saying, but keep in mind that Newton was a second-round pick. You take whatever you can get in the later rounds. Scho Robinson was the final pick in the first round of a very top heavy draft. Again, you take what you can get there. Both players could be getting their walking papers this year and that'd be okay by me. Whiz has certainly blown his fair share of picks/potential personnel moves. But I can't completely saddle him with Newton/Robinson. He took what he could get. My only problem with him regarding those two is that he kept them on the roster for so long that they actually LOST value.

While it's tough to teach offensive skill to a player who's offensively deficient, it's nearly impossible to instill defensive pride into a player who's never been held accountable for her defense. Powell and Lawson are weak defenders, but it doesn't mean they're not trying nor does it mean they weren't drilled on it in college. You can't play for Tara or Pat if you don't at least give effort on that side of the ball. But I wonder about players like Zellous, Toliver, and Coleman, none of whom were held responsible for putting forth effort on defense, and their ability to adjust in a league that focuses in on defense. I don't think you can be a pro if you're only going to pay attention to half the game. It's not impossible to find prolific scorers who were also great defensive players in college. In recent years we've had: Angel McCoughtry, Candice Wiggins, Courtney Paris, Sylvia Fowles, and others I haven't mentioned.

 

[RDub21]

I have no problem with a defense first guard, especially for a team that has a defense first mentality. I have a problem with defense ONLY or defensively challenged guards who can't or won't take shots in the offense. Their offensive scheme isn't vibrant enough to absorb either of those. January's heightened offensive transformation this season moves her out of the 'only' category and I think as part of a system where she is an option for a shot out on the wing or cutting inside she'll get hers.

I watched January in the 3 point shooting contest this morning and she has a really nice three point shot. Great arc and rotation on it. It's looking harder and harder for us to completely miss on this draft.

 

[RDub21]

Does that mean we should overlook players like Sylvia Fowles and Alexis Hornbuckle?

I don't think Sylvia Fowles is a guard, which is the position I was talking about

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

I watched January in the 3 point shooting contest this morning and she has a really nice three point shot. Great arc and rotation on it. It's looking harder and harder for us to completely miss on this draft.

Why do I keep missing this?!?!

I saw her go a career best 7of9 fro three in December in a game against UC Davis. Tho it felt like she was alone in the gym, she was shooting those threes under duress. That clued me in that she worked on her offense over the summer. I don't have her final numbers on the season, but when I last saw her during her final visit to the bay area schools she was shooting 46% from three. That she shot 20% as a freshman told me something too...

I'm in complete agreement, I don't think we'll whiff on Thursday.

 

[RDub21]

Why do I keep missing this?!?!

I saw her go a career best 7of9 fro three in December in a game against UC Davis. Tho it felt like she was alone in the gym, she was shooting those threes under duress. That clued me in that she worked on her offense over the summer. I don't have her final numbers on the season, but when I last saw her during her final visit to the bay area schools she was shooting 46% from three. That she shot 20% as a freshman told me something too...

I'm in complete agreement, I don't think we'll whiff on Thursday.

Now I'm not sure when I saw it, it may have been last night...but I just stumbled upon it . Heather Ezell from ISU was there too, she got to the semis.

 

[creative one]

I don't think Sylvia Fowles is a guard, which is the position I was talking about

Fine. Take Fowles out, insert Wiggins. Doesn't change the point of my post.

 

[creative one]

I watched January in the 3 point shooting contest this morning and she has a really nice three point shot. Great arc and rotation on it. It's looking harder and harder for us to completely miss on this draft.

She has a great outside shot and has obviously put in the work to improve over the years. Of course, the same could've been said for Scholanda Robinson three years ago. We aren't in the clear yet. 7th pick in a draft this weak is still hit or miss. I don't even remember the 7th pick in the 2007 draft.

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

The #7 pick was Katie Gearlds...a rotation piece in Seattle. The number 7 pick will be a rotation piece, which is all they would have been in a deep draft. I could care less if anybody remembers her name a year from now quite honestly, I care about whether or not she fits the role and the system she's going to find herself in. Hell, with the way the teams have stocked up with vets already at the top of this draft, the #1, 2 and 3 may all be rotation pieces.

Does she fit the system and can she make an impact in ways this team need an impact made THIS season. Those are the two questions I see worth asking heading into this draft. That to me boils down to whether or not she can defend and score when she has an open shot in the half court sets. I'm not looking at whether or not she will be here next year because quite honestly that is immaterial given the moves the league made this season.

The economic landscape for the teams changed. As a result how they construct their rosters changed with it. The players drafted in the first round are likely to stick for at least one year until the next draft class is ready to challenge them or a more expensive vet for a roster spot in 2010. Lottery teams certainly may look at it differently with the picks they are making, but as I mentioned earlier (maybe save Chicago), they've all been wheeling and dealing to bring vets in and incorporate their dispersal picks.

January is a growth player. All word in Pittsburgh is that Zellous is that AND some. Things certainly can change once they become pro, but I'm not sure the make up of those two suggests that. Scho never was a first option @ LSU, I don't even remember if she was the third option offensively, but athletically she was a nice addition here. Smith never seemed to distinguish herself here on either side of the ball. I don't see that as a problem for either of the two players we've been discussing this final week. Zellous is unique in her athleticism and ability to get a shot. January comes from a system program and has tools on both sides of the ball will benefit a team with a system.

What makes it hard to whiff is that this team is not rebuilding, merely looking for a piece to complement the 10 players it already plans to break camp with. If Sacramento was a lottery team or an expansion team, I might be losing sleep trying to figure out if I'm screwing up my franchise for years to come by not selecting the "right" player in a weak draft. I don't think there's such a thing @ #7. Especially not when I think either of the two names we've been bandying around should be nice fits. I think Whiz at the end of the season last year, he saw value at the end of the first round. I think the testimony of that is that he has not traded out of the draft like he did in 2007.

 

[creative one]

Again, you're evaluating them based on what they were in college. Can Zellous handle not being a first, second, or even third option here? Can January be as effective on the ball as she's been off the ball during her career AT A PRO LEVEL (because the Pac-10 is certainly not in the same stratosphere athletically as the WNBA)? Nobody knows what to expect with that #7 pick. Katie Gearlds, who was supposed to be a "steal" at #7, is barely a rotation player in Seattle despite being a 19 ppg scorer in college as a first option with serious three-point range. She beat Aaron Brooks during the three-point challenge as a senior. Now, she is basically a scrub because she can't do anything well at the pro level.