|
Post by WahineFan44 on May 1, 2019 17:26:58 GMT -5
A fair warning. You know what you did. And 90 percent of posters on this board will agree with me that its annoying. We get it. You cant tell us a name, no one said you have too, just don't say anything. Its one of the most annoying things a poster can do on this site is post "I know something you dont know" Just dont do it. Simple as that. Also the fact that you said "And thats ALL im gonna say" makes it more irritating. Just dont post about it. Let the fans find out about it when it happens. Theyre gonna be shocked regardless because you wont say the name. I personally would rather know that someone is re thinking Stanford and not know who it is than have no idea about any of it. That’s why I posted it. Because I would want to know if another poster had info as well, even if they don’t release a name. “Don’t do it”, sorry but I’m not going to answer to you, keep coming after me in every thread possible it’s clealry changing me You argue like a teenager. Im done with this convo. Its clear everything just goes in one ear and out the other.
|
|
|
Post by volleylbc on May 1, 2019 19:09:15 GMT -5
If someone is “re-thinking” Stanford because of “playing time” then ...........BYE FELICIA. You go to Stanford because of the education not just for Volleyball. This is Fake News. Thank You, Next.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on May 1, 2019 20:50:42 GMT -5
So you have to be talking about one of the Smith's. But when they join the team, Gates will be gone and they will have to compete with Campbell and Vicini. With Leilah's athletic ability, she could push both. I thought I read somewhere that Stanford is Annabelle's dream school. Minor maybe?
|
|
|
Post by Disc808 on May 1, 2019 21:00:29 GMT -5
So you have to be talking about one of the Smith's. But when they join the team, Gates will be gone and they will have to compete with Campbell and Vicini. With Leilah's athletic ability, she could push both. I thought I read somewhere that Stanford is Annabelle's dream school. Minor maybe? Was recently informed that A. Smith is very unlikely to “decommit”. I agree about Leilah Smith’s potential, and Oglivie has a good shot to play too, so I’m doubting the validity of a “decommit”. 2021 is too early to call a decommit
|
|
|
Post by pdxcardfan on May 1, 2019 21:38:36 GMT -5
6-2 anyone? I don't like it, but will it even be attempted? OHs: Plummer/McClure MBs: Gates/Campbell Opps: Fitz/Kipp Setters: Gray/Xu L: Hentz DS: Formico Redshirts: Baird, Berty, Vinici Is there an inherent virtue to using a 6-2? Am a relatively new fan and only remember one year Stanford using it and the season turned around after they went away from it. In this specific case, if your current setter in a 5-1 wins two out of three national championships, is there a weakness that you can shore up (and/or improvement that you can make) with a switch to a 6-2? My naive observation is that in general the 6-2 gives you three attackers up front consistently. But Stanford seems to be doing just fine without that.
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on May 1, 2019 22:03:19 GMT -5
So you have to be talking about one of the Smith's. But when they join the team, Gates will be gone and they will have to compete with Campbell and Vicini. With Leilah's athletic ability, she could push both. I thought I read somewhere that Stanford is Annabelle's dream school. Minor maybe? Not a smith, it’s a 2021 whos “committed”
|
|
|
Post by Disc808 on May 1, 2019 22:30:03 GMT -5
So you have to be talking about one of the Smith's. But when they join the team, Gates will be gone and they will have to compete with Campbell and Vicini. With Leilah's athletic ability, she could push both. I thought I read somewhere that Stanford is Annabelle's dream school. Minor maybe? Not a smith, it’s a 2021 whos “committed” Lol so basically all this drama was fake ? Gotcha. The 2021s are hardly considered “committed”, heck the 2020 recruits aren’t even committed yet. Also weren’t you adamant about Miner being Stanford bound? Even if she or Francis change their mind, it wouldn’t be shocking at all
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on May 1, 2019 22:46:52 GMT -5
6-2 anyone? I don't like it, but will it even be attempted? OHs: Plummer/McClure MBs: Gates/Campbell Opps: Fitz/Kipp Setters: Gray/Xu L: Hentz DS: Formico Redshirts: Baird, Berty, Vinici Is there an inherent virtue to using a 6-2? Am a relatively new fan and only remember one year Stanford using it and the season turned around after they went away from it. In this specific case, if your current setter in a 5-1 wins two out of three national championships, is there a weakness that you can shore up (and/or improvement that you can make) with a switch to a 6-2? My naive observation is that in general the 6-2 gives you three attackers up front consistently. But Stanford seems to be doing just fine without that. The 3 attackers, plus maybe having a bigger block is the virtue. The risk is always having a back row setter on tight passes and if the setters don’t set very similarly the timing gets hard for hitters. Last national champ in a 6-2 was USC in 2002 I think.
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on May 1, 2019 23:42:26 GMT -5
Not a smith, it’s a 2021 whos “committed” Lol so basically all this drama was fake ? Gotcha. The 2021s are hardly considered “committed”, heck the 2020 recruits aren’t even committed yet. Also weren’t you adamant about Miner being Stanford bound? Even if she or Francis change their mind, it wouldn’t be shocking at all It’s not fake, it is a recruit with a wide consensus saying Stanford for sure who has also told friends that she is going to Stanford. Being in the club work you’d be surprised how many players “commit” to stanford when they are freshman and sophomores. Thought they aren’t in yet they have a pretty good idea of their chances. Example : grayce Olson is set for Stanford. The coaching staff has recruited her and she has said that she is going to Stanford unless she doesn’t get in ( stanfordvwont recruit players who they don’t think will get in). Everyone is extremely amgry over this and I’m done with it. A player who has said she is committed to wait for Stanford and the staff has offered and she has accepted, is now second guessing and looking in to Minnesota as a possibility. That should give it completely away at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Disc808 on May 1, 2019 23:50:52 GMT -5
Lol so basically all this drama was fake ? Gotcha. The 2021s are hardly considered “committed”, heck the 2020 recruits aren’t even committed yet. Also weren’t you adamant about Miner being Stanford bound? Even if she or Francis change their mind, it wouldn’t be shocking at all It’s not fake, it is a recruit with a wide consensus saying Stanford for sure who has also told friends that she is going to Stanford. Being in the club work you’d be surprised how many players “commit” to stanford when they are freshman and sophomores. Thought they aren’t in yet they have a pretty good idea of their chances. Example : grayce Olson is set for Stanford. The coaching staff has recruited her and she has said that she is going to Stanford unless she doesn’t get in ( stanfordvwont recruit players who they don’t think will get in). Everyone is extremely amgry over this and I’m done with it. A player who has said she is committed to wait for Stanford and the staff has offered and she has accepted, is now second guessing and looking in to Minnesota as a possibility. That should give it completely away at this point. Look all im saying is that saying she is decommiting is wrong. Instead of creating unnecessary drama to grab attention, you could’ve just said “Miner is considering Minnesota because she’s unsure about potentially sitting behind Xu”. It’s not that shocking, she’s an elite player who deserves playing time (also who’s to say she wouldn’t win the setter spot from Xu?). Additionally, it kinda sounds like you think she’s abandoning a “commitment” when in reality she’s considering all her options. Besides, I think it’s never a guarantee with Stanford admissions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 0:55:13 GMT -5
Lol so basically all this drama was fake ? Gotcha. The 2021s are hardly considered “committed”, heck the 2020 recruits aren’t even committed yet. Also weren’t you adamant about Miner being Stanford bound? Even if she or Francis change their mind, it wouldn’t be shocking at all It’s not fake, it is a recruit with a wide consensus saying Stanford for sure who has also told friends that she is going to Stanford. Being in the club work you’d be surprised how many players “commit” to stanford when they are freshman and sophomores. Thought they aren’t in yet they have a pretty good idea of their chances. Example : grayce Olson is set for Stanford. The coaching staff has recruited her and she has said that she is going to Stanford unless she doesn’t get in ( stanfordvwont recruit players who they don’t think will get in). Everyone is extremely amgry over this and I’m done with it. A player who has said she is committed to wait for Stanford and the staff has offered and she has accepted, is now second guessing and looking in to Minnesota as a possibility. That should give it completely away at this point. Sheesh, who would want to de-pre-commit for 2021 from Stanford for Minnesota when she [or inexplicably in a WVB thread "they"] would then have to face up to extreme scrutiny from (R)uffda! or other rabid GG's?
|
|
|
Post by wonderwarthog79 on May 2, 2019 2:52:40 GMT -5
Is there an inherent virtue to using a 6-2? Am a relatively new fan and only remember one year Stanford using it and the season turned around after they went away from it. In this specific case, if your current setter in a 5-1 wins two out of three national championships, is there a weakness that you can shore up (and/or improvement that you can make) with a switch to a 6-2? My naive observation is that in general the 6-2 gives you three attackers up front consistently. But Stanford seems to be doing just fine without that. The negatives greatly outweigh the positives, assuming you have a setter who is a minimally capable blocker and can dump effectively. The subs you save in a 5-1 allow you to DS for a bigger, more offensive RS blocker/attacker. Also, for 3 rotations you have 3 back row passers (you always have 2 in a 6-2) and for 3 rotations when your setter is in front, they cannot take you out of system in transition by simply targeting your setter. You also gain setting consistency with one setter versus constantly switching back and forth between two. It's funny that the "also" sentence is the most important in this analysis.
|
|
|
Post by tnp101 on May 2, 2019 3:02:48 GMT -5
6-2 anyone? I don't like it, but will it even be attempted? OHs: Plummer/McClure MBs: Gates/Campbell Opps: Fitz/Kipp Setters: Gray/Xu L: Hentz DS: Formico Redshirts: Baird, Berty, Vinici Is there an inherent virtue to using a 6-2? Am a relatively new fan and only remember one year Stanford using it and the season turned around after they went away from it. In this specific case, if your current setter in a 5-1 wins two out of three national championships, is there a weakness that you can shore up (and/or improvement that you can make) with a switch to a 6-2? My naive observation is that in general the 6-2 gives you three attackers up front consistently. But Stanford seems to be doing just fine without that. As I said that personally I would prefer 5-1 better with 1 quarterback to run the team. But 6-2 can have some benefits if you have so many good players who are vying for playing time and you want to keep them happy to be on the court. You will also have 3 offensive hitters at all time in the front. I think Hambly will probably go with 5-1 which is a good choice. Gray has led the team to win 2 out of 3 national championships. Why changed it when it worked, right?
|
|
|
Post by Sbilo on May 2, 2019 4:28:38 GMT -5
Well at least Stanford is recruiting Grayce Olson. That kid has a hammer. She is going to be soo good.
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on May 2, 2019 7:16:40 GMT -5
It’s not fake, it is a recruit with a wide consensus saying Stanford for sure who has also told friends that she is going to Stanford. Being in the club work you’d be surprised how many players “commit” to stanford when they are freshman and sophomores. Thought they aren’t in yet they have a pretty good idea of their chances. Example : grayce Olson is set for Stanford. The coaching staff has recruited her and she has said that she is going to Stanford unless she doesn’t get in ( stanfordvwont recruit players who they don’t think will get in). Everyone is extremely amgry over this and I’m done with it. A player who has said she is committed to wait for Stanford and the staff has offered and she has accepted, is now second guessing and looking in to Minnesota as a possibility. That should give it completely away at this point. Look all im saying is that saying she is decommiting is wrong. Instead of creating unnecessary drama to grab attention, you could’ve just said “Miner is considering Minnesota because she’s unsure about potentially sitting behind Xu”. It’s not that shocking, she’s an elite player who deserves playing time (also who’s to say she wouldn’t win the setter spot from Xu?). Additionally, it kinda sounds like you think she’s abandoning a “commitment” when in reality she’s considering all her options. Besides, I think it’s never a guarantee with Stanford admissions. Not trying to grab attention, I was just putting out info. If people have a problem with it, please message me. Miner is most likely to stay as Stanford and has been locked on Stanford. She looking at other possibilities but like visiting or being actively recruited. Vt is far too angry when people don’t agree. Like way too much. It’s not that deep. It’s high schools girls volleyball recruits. MANY more things to get worked up about
|
|