|
Post by hammer on Sept 2, 2014 12:24:39 GMT -5
From where I sit, Stanford looks better in every position with maybe the exception being libero. You need to find another seat. Unless Nebraska has a libero--as Stanford does--who is about to finish No. 2 all-time in the team's record book. With two All-American middles (Wopat and Ajanaku) keeping limiting dig opportunities. Gilbert's DPS last year was 4.95, and is over 4 for her career. She's the class of the Pac-12 this year, and one of the top liberos in the country. Don't forget Benson (a sophomore) at Oregon ... not sure if she is better than Gilbert but if I was building a team I wouldn't mind having her as my L.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 2, 2014 12:54:27 GMT -5
You're exhausting. The gap in talent was nowhere near as large as you're suggesting. Nebraska absolutely has the kids to compete with Stanford. The disparity wasn't in level of talent; it was in level of play. There is nothing more exhausting than people arguing, without making any argument. I am giving some explanation, data, reasoning for my opinion, opposed to you just saying its wrong or ridiculous. You never did answer my very straightforward question regarding determining difference in talent. How do you reconcile Stanford has a first team AA, a second team AA, and two honorable mention AA's, with Nebraska only having a third team AA and an honorable mention that you just described as "ridiculously horrendous"? What does that suggest? To some it would suggest that the people who are experts, evaluate top players, think the difference in talent is somewhat significant. It "tells" me that people like Kelly Sheffield, Craig Skinner, Chris Lamb, Jeff Nelson believe that Stanford has much better talent. Also it is your assertion it was "level in play" not level of talent. I will ask you another direct question, what do feel is the #1 determiner in level of play? It is my opinion that level of talent is. Again, this is my opinion, but I am offering basis for that thinking, you're shouting at the rain. I would be interested in you answering those questions or giving some sort of explanation as to yours, instead of just insisting its wrong. Does FSU have more talent than Nebraska as well or could it be something besides "level of talent" determining "level of play"? Stanford has good players, but Nebraska certainly has more than enough to work with to get to 20 points in a set at home (esp. given the offseason grandstanding by Husker insiders on the board, touting Kadie as a future Nat'l team starter (and J-Wo), Larson as being an "all-American" caliber attacker; Amber as the top RS blocker around, etc.). Stanford is going to play a dozen or so teams with substantially less talent than Nebraska, many of whom will manage to press Stanford in at least one set. Iowa St. returned NO All-Americans (and put out a makeshift line-up because of transfers etc.), doesn't have near the horses Nebraska does, and performed practically identically/perhaps slightly better against Stanford. Your talented players not playing well (and not playing well together) doesn't all of a sudden make the gap bigger. It's just a weak excuse - save it for a situation when your team plays well and just doesn't have enough (and not on a weekend when you get beaten by a team with less talent).
|
|
|
Post by bball on Sept 2, 2014 14:28:53 GMT -5
...I think Stanford started their season real rocky last year. They pretty much had the same roster, and look where they are today? I believe they will be playing for the National Title and they deserve it. Nebraska will be fine. They played exceptional last season for where people thought they would be, and i think the same will pan out for them this season. The Rolfzens are STUDS! I expect Kadie to be training with the USA in 3 years and I think most of us would agree (as show grows and matures) . I cannot wait to see them grow the next few years. Amber has been starting out pretty good this season, and I think we will see her take lots of gains throughout this season. I also think by next year and their senior years they will be a top 5 team contending for a National Title. Let's watch them develop and grow. I still expect them to run hard for the B1G title this season.
Pollmiller did struggle in this match, but so did the passing. I think The Huskers will be fine. They need to figure out how to relax on their own home court _DEVANEY_ it seems the teams that come in to play there have exceptional nights!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 14:33:35 GMT -5
You're exhausting. The gap in talent was nowhere near as large as you're suggesting. Nebraska absolutely has the kids to compete with Stanford. The disparity wasn't in level of talent; it was in level of play. There is nothing more exhausting than people arguing, without making any argument. I am giving some explanation, data, reasoning for my opinion, opposed to you just saying its wrong or ridiculous. You never did answer my very straightforward question regarding determining difference in talent. How do you reconcile Stanford has a first team AA, a second team AA, and two honorable mention AA's, with Nebraska only having a third team AA and an honorable mention that you just described as "ridiculously horrendous"? What does that suggest? To some it would suggest that the people who are experts, evaluate top players, think the difference in talent is somewhat significant. It "tells" me that people like Kelly Sheffield, Craig Skinner, Chris Lamb, Jeff Nelson believe that Stanford has much better talent. Also it is your assertion it was "level in play" not level of talent. I will ask you another direct question, what do feel is the #1 determiner in level of play? It is my opinion that level of talent is. Again, this is my opinion, but I am offering basis for that thinking, you're shouting at the rain. I would be interested in you answering those questions or giving some sort of explanation as to yours, instead of just insisting its wrong. Explanation, data, reasoning? Is that what you're calling that? What unbiased data do you have to prove that Stanford has more talent than Nebraska? I haven't seen any numbers, which, IMO, are usually the most compelling form of unbiased data. Do you have numerical data to present? The entirety of your post is completely laughable. "Nebraska didn't get as many All-Americans last year as Stanford, so they aren't as talented and don't have the capacity to compete with the Cardinal. There's nothing they could have done." Until you change your argument from that, I won't engage with you. Nebraska ABSOLUTELY has the kids to score AT LEAST 20 against Stanford in Lincoln. They just played like crap. Quit making excuses for your beloved John Cook. It's ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by chisovnik on Sept 2, 2014 15:51:48 GMT -5
How about the LITERAL translation of esque: in the style of. All of this would be unnecessary if you actually knew what the word you took exception to actually meant. Note, that poster politely responded to what he meant in the comparison, that I responded twice politely what he meant, but you just wanna keep going, and calling everything you don't agree with ridiculous. When you slam someone for using a word which you don't know the definition of, you end up looking......... Burgess plays like Robo, she isn't nearly as good. Why he said esque, and not she is as good as. Burgess doesn't play like Robinson. I know the definition of the word, "esque," and the use of it wasn't appropriate. There was no reason to put Robinson's name into the discussion if not to attempt to suggest some similarities, and, IMO, there are very few. Burgess reminds me more of the 2008 version of Tara Mueller than of any version of Kelsey Robinson. Sorry, I disagree with this completely. Burgess is nothing like Mueller. I actually don't think the comparison to Robinson is a stretch. Hell, I think Burgess will be as good (if not better) than Robinson by the time she's done at Stanford.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Sept 2, 2014 16:30:24 GMT -5
Burgess doesn't play like Robinson. I know the definition of the word, "esque," and the use of it wasn't appropriate. There was no reason to put Robinson's name into the discussion if not to attempt to suggest some similarities, and, IMO, there are very few. Burgess reminds me more of the 2008 version of Tara Mueller than of any version of Kelsey Robinson. Sorry, I disagree with this completely. Burgess is nothing like Mueller. I actually don't think the comparison to Robinson is a stretch. Hell, I think Burgess will be as good (if not better) than Robinson by the time she's done at Stanford. I'll reluctantly chime in to say that Burgess reminds me a lot of Kristen Richards Hilldebrand. Or put another way, KRB is the past Stanford player closest in ability/style to JB. I'm trying to compare them both as juniors, not the current professional KRB. I haven't seen enough of Robo, especially in person, to make an informed judgement on how she compares to Burgess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 16:38:47 GMT -5
Burgess doesn't play like Robinson. I know the definition of the word, "esque," and the use of it wasn't appropriate. There was no reason to put Robinson's name into the discussion if not to attempt to suggest some similarities, and, IMO, there are very few. Burgess reminds me more of the 2008 version of Tara Mueller than of any version of Kelsey Robinson. Sorry, I disagree with this completely. Burgess is nothing like Mueller. I actually don't think the comparison to Robinson is a stretch. Hell, I think Burgess will be as good (if not better) than Robinson by the time she's done at Stanford. I think that's insane. Sorry. Burgess isn't the competitor, athlete, or leader that Robinson was.
|
|
|
Post by StuffU on Sept 2, 2014 17:12:52 GMT -5
Burgess doesn't play like Robinson. I know the definition of the word, "esque," and the use of it wasn't appropriate. There was no reason to put Robinson's name into the discussion if not to attempt to suggest some similarities, and, IMO, there are very few. Burgess reminds me more of the 2008 version of Tara Mueller than of any version of Kelsey Robinson. Sorry, I disagree with this completely. Burgess is nothing like Mueller. I actually don't think the comparison to Robinson is a stretch. Hell, I think Burgess will be as good (if not better) than Robinson by the time she's done at Stanford. I don't wish to get involved in a comparison of players, so I won't. But I do think Burgess has stalled in terms of development. If she has improved since her frosh year, the improvement is slight. I'm not trying to knock on her, I just think Burgess came in very seasoned in all areas of her game. What I never saw in Burgess was a big, undeveloped upside ... so the idea that I don't notice any significant improvement makes sense. There wasn't much room to improve her skill set.
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Sept 2, 2014 17:17:15 GMT -5
I would take J-WO as well, not sure I agree about RS and M2, in fact I don't. I wasnt implying Nebraska doesn't have talent, but that Stanford has more, and they do. J-Wo is a nice player, but she finished 9th in the Big Ten in digs last year with a 3.5 DPS. Gilbert finished second in the Pac-12 with 4.95 DPS, behind only first-team AA Haglund of USC. You sure you can't use an upgrade? Dig numbers don't tell you anything about who's the better libero. You'd need to chart the digs made vs. reasonably attempted. You'd also need to chart the subsequent pass/location. Plus you'd have to factor in other variables which don't chart linearly via statistics.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Sept 2, 2014 20:07:27 GMT -5
Sorry, I disagree with this completely. Burgess is nothing like Mueller. I actually don't think the comparison to Robinson is a stretch. Hell, I think Burgess will be as good (if not better) than Robinson by the time she's done at Stanford. I don't wish to get involved in a comparison of players, so I won't. But I do think Burgess has stalled in terms of development. If she has improved since her frosh year, the improvement is slight. I'm not trying to knock on her, I just think Burgess came in very seasoned in all areas of her game. What I never saw in Burgess was a big, undeveloped upside ... so the idea that I don't notice any significant improvement makes sense. There wasn't much room to improve her skill set. I will say Burgess made a significant (but not huge) improvement from freshman to sophomore year. She was hitting the ball at a higher point and hitting the seam and high hands more efficiently and her blocking was somewhat improved. This year, I've seen her in some scrimmages at the Arrillaga practice gym and on TV, but no matches at Maples yet so I'm going to reserve judgement on year two to three improvements. However, as a general rule usually year one to year two is where the biggest leaps in performance are made.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Sept 2, 2014 21:33:11 GMT -5
Sorry, I disagree with this completely. Burgess is nothing like Mueller. I actually don't think the comparison to Robinson is a stretch. Hell, I think Burgess will be as good (if not better) than Robinson by the time she's done at Stanford. I think that's insane. Sorry. Burgess isn't the competitor, athlete, or leader that Robinson was. NOW that statement is applicable! There is no comparison in the level of player between Burgess and Robinson and I think Burgess is good. I am with you on this one Pelc.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Sept 2, 2014 21:34:17 GMT -5
I don't wish to get involved in a comparison of players, so I won't. But I do think Burgess has stalled in terms of development. If she has improved since her frosh year, the improvement is slight. I'm not trying to knock on her, I just think Burgess came in very seasoned in all areas of her game. What I never saw in Burgess was a big, undeveloped upside ... so the idea that I don't notice any significant improvement makes sense. There wasn't much room to improve her skill set. I will say Burgess made a significant (but not huge) improvement from freshman to sophomore year. She was hitting the ball at a higher point and hitting the seam and high hands more efficiently and her blocking was somewhat improved. This year, I've seen her in some scrimmages at the Arrillaga practice gym and on TV, but no matches at Maples yet so I'm going to reserve judgement on year two to three improvements. However, as a general rule usually year one to year two is where the biggest leaps in performance are made. I totally agree, sophomore year is the year for the most part you know if they are going to be players.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Sept 2, 2014 21:38:30 GMT -5
J-Wo is a nice player, but she finished 9th in the Big Ten in digs last year with a 3.5 DPS. Gilbert finished second in the Pac-12 with 4.95 DPS, behind only first-team AA Haglund of USC. You sure you can't use an upgrade? Dig numbers don't tell you anything about who's the better libero. You'd need to chart the digs made vs. reasonably attempted. You'd also need to chart the subsequent pass/location. Plus you'd have to factor in other variables which don't chart linearly via statistics. [/quote Absolutely, Nebraska was soft-blocked about 40 times, and didn't rip many balls. I like Gilbert but you sure couldn't make a comparison between her and Orantes based on statistics in that match. Stanford had great set balls to some really nice arms, Huskers set it poorly and nobody besides Ostrander was really banging it. The difference in level of offenses the two saw was huge.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Sept 2, 2014 22:18:51 GMT -5
And one more thing while admittedly not a large body of evidence, the stats for Stanford and Nebraska players are as follows
2 Nebraska OH's hitters are hitting .190 and .000 (a Blutarsky) 2 Stanford OH's hitting .283 and .286
2 Nebraska middles hitting .321 and .192 2 Stanford middles hitting .512 and .368
Nebraska RS hitting .175 Stanford RS hitting .333
Nebraska setter 10.4 APG Stanford setter 14.6 APG
It would appear that this example as well recognizes that they have better talent. You are currently at zero attempts to use examples, statistics, or any means as how talent is recognized in college volleyball.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 22:28:42 GMT -5
Wait. You're arguing that stats through two matches indicate which team has better talent? Stats that INCLUDE the match you are arguing about?
Hmmm. It takes some doing to lose an argument to pelcj11. Keep it up.
|
|