|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Jul 18, 2019 15:31:53 GMT -5
Hambly is clearly no dummy and will do what is best in practice, and if it doesn’t hold up in game play he will make changes. If kipps offense outweighs McClure serve receive for those rotations that she will most likely play, if it doesn’t than she most likely will not. McClures offense got a lot better, whos to say kipps passing can’t get better? Vanjak has to pass and they managed it fine. I trust that he will only choose what makes the team better. It’s a tough position to be put in, but it’s pretty much a win win Agreed, but I don’t remember Vanjak in a passing role while she was in the game? She passed left back for 1 or 2 rotations when she was in the front row. The rotations lutz was front row only Plummer and hentz we’re back there. Vanjak would take up about 1/5 of the court on the left back sideline so serves were hard to target and when they did go at her, They were always in her midline and not difficult to pass. |
|
|
|
Post by Disc808 on Jul 18, 2019 15:58:23 GMT -5
If Hentz is as good as a lot of people make her out to be, then she should be able to pass a significant amount of court and pinch Kipp if that lineup materializes. Re: Plummer’s passing, she’s good and if she wants to succeed internationally then she needs to be even better. I don’t think it’s outrageous to expect her to improve that skill. Even so, I’d rather have Kipp hitting OOS balls than either Fitz or McClure tbh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Jul 18, 2019 16:13:15 GMT -5
Hambly is clearly no dummy and will do what is best in practice, and if it doesn’t hold up in game play he will make changes. If kipps offense outweighs McClure serve receive for those rotations that she will most likely play, if it doesn’t than she most likely will not. McClures offense got a lot better, whos to say kipps passing can’t get better? Vanjak has to pass and they managed it fine. I trust that he will only choose what makes the team better. It’s a tough position to be put in, but it’s pretty much a win win Agreed, but I don’t remember Vanjak in a passing role while she was in the game? It is good that you have blocked that from your memory. She averaged about 1 return attempt per set, and it was scary. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Jul 18, 2019 16:40:44 GMT -5
If Hentz is as good as a lot of people make her out to be, then she should be able to pass a significant amount of court and pinch Kipp if that lineup materializes. Re: Plummer’s passing, she’s good and if she wants to succeed internationally then she needs to be even better. I don’t think it’s outrageous to expect her to improve that skill. Even so, I’d rather have Kipp hitting OOS balls than either Fitz or McClure tbh. My sense is that Hentz is a good but not great passer. She will take court but not half. McClure is also a good passer. Plummer is not. She was fine in 3 rotations with Hentz and McClure squeezing a bit. But fine is the right word. And FWIW, McClure hit 270 versus Plummer at 282 and Fitz at 339. FWIW, McClure's hitting percentage was better than any team in the Pac-12 other than Stanford. |
|
|
|
Post by Disc808 on Jul 18, 2019 16:50:37 GMT -5
If Hentz is as good as a lot of people make her out to be, then she should be able to pass a significant amount of court and pinch Kipp if that lineup materializes. Re: Plummer’s passing, she’s good and if she wants to succeed internationally then she needs to be even better. I don’t think it’s outrageous to expect her to improve that skill. Even so, I’d rather have Kipp hitting OOS balls than either Fitz or McClure tbh. My sense is that Hentz is a good but not great passer. She will take court but not half. McClure is also a good passer. Plummer is not. She was fine in 3 rotations with Hentz and McClure squeezing a bit. But fine is the right word. And FWIW, McClure hit 270 versus Plummer at 282 and Fitz at 339. FWIW, McClure's hitting percentage was better than any team in the Pac-12 other than Stanford. While I do love McClure’s improvement, she was still mainly an in system attacker and had poorer hitting numbers against the better teams. Fitz had a great season so I think her spot is relatively safe, but with the dynamite arm that Kipp has, I wouldn’t be surprised if she cracks the starting lineup. If she can be more effective than Fitz, or if she can improve her receive, she should start. |
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Jul 18, 2019 17:03:39 GMT -5
How often does Stanford redshirt players? Unless Kipp flat out tells Hambly to play her or she'll leave (I do not think she feels that way), redshirting her would be the best option wouldn't it? Stanford is returning almost all of their production from a team that just won the title while all their primary challengers suffered significant losses. It stands to reason they're the heavy favorite to win again even without Kipp. Preserving a season of her eligibility could pay substantial dividends down the road.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disc808 on Jul 18, 2019 17:27:54 GMT -5
How often does Stanford redshirt players? Unless Kipp flat out tells Hambly to play her or she'll leave (I do not think she feels that way), redshirting her would be the best option wouldn't it? Stanford is returning almost all of their production from a team that just won the title while all their primary challengers suffered significant losses. It stands to reason they're the heavy favorite to win again even without Kipp. Preserving a season of her eligibility could pay substantial dividends down the road. One question is whether or not she wants to redshirt. Maybe she wants to try for the 2024 Olympics, and redshirting would eliminate one year of pro. Maybe she just wants to have a regular 4 year experience. Just something to consider. |
|
|
|
Post by ShaneM2005 on Jul 19, 2019 8:00:14 GMT -5
How often does Stanford redshirt players? Unless Kipp flat out tells Hambly to play her or she'll leave (I do not think she feels that way), redshirting her would be the best option wouldn't it? Stanford is returning almost all of their production from a team that just won the title while all their primary challengers suffered significant losses. It stands to reason they're the heavy favorite to win again even without Kipp. Preserving a season of her eligibility could pay substantial dividends down the road. I feel the opposite way. Getting Kipp no experience this year with Gray, Plummer, Hentz, & Fitz graduating next season wouldn't be the best idea IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Jul 19, 2019 8:51:46 GMT -5
How often does Stanford redshirt players? Unless Kipp flat out tells Hambly to play her or she'll leave (I do not think she feels that way), redshirting her would be the best option wouldn't it? Stanford is returning almost all of their production from a team that just won the title while all their primary challengers suffered significant losses. It stands to reason they're the heavy favorite to win again even without Kipp. Preserving a season of her eligibility could pay substantial dividends down the road. I feel the opposite way. Getting Kipp no experience this year with Gray, Plummer, Hentz, & Fitz graduating next season wouldn't be the best idea IMO. You think acclimating to college life while practicing against those great players all season long isn't experience? If anything, having her on the scout team with Xu is kind of ideal so they can build their connection while facing stiff competition from the starters across the net during scrimmages in practice. If they're going to use her eligibility, it should be meaningful. Everyone knows she can hit, but she needs to develop the other aspects of her game, which means she needs to be on the court a lot, especially in the backrow. That also might make Stanford a worse team overall if it degrades team passing. I just think of it as value added. Does she add more value to Stanford's team as a true frosh in 2019 or potentially a redshirt senior in 2023? Based on uncertainty alone, it's the latter. |
|
|
|
Post by ShaneM2005 on Jul 19, 2019 11:46:45 GMT -5
I feel the opposite way. Getting Kipp no experience this year with Gray, Plummer, Hentz, & Fitz graduating next season wouldn't be the best idea IMO. You think acclimating to college life while practicing against those great players all season long isn't experience? If anything, having her on the scout team with Xu is kind of ideal so they can build their connection while facing stiff competition from the starters across the net during scrimmages in practice. If they're going to use her eligibility, it should be meaningful. Everyone knows she can hit, but she needs to develop the other aspects of her game, which means she needs to be on the court a lot, especially in the backrow. That also might make Stanford a worse team overall if it degrades team passing. I just think of it as value added. Does she add more value to Stanford's team as a true frosh in 2019 or potentially a redshirt senior in 2023? Based on uncertainty alone, it's the latter. Playing against great players in practice is not the same thing as in game experience. How do you know that this season won't be more "meaningful" than the next three? To save her for what MIGHT happen the following four years is silly if she can come in & contribute now. |
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on Jul 19, 2019 12:12:05 GMT -5
You think acclimating to college life while practicing against those great players all season long isn't experience? If anything, having her on the scout team with Xu is kind of ideal so they can build their connection while facing stiff competition from the starters across the net during scrimmages in practice. If they're going to use her eligibility, it should be meaningful. Everyone knows she can hit, but she needs to develop the other aspects of her game, which means she needs to be on the court a lot, especially in the backrow. That also might make Stanford a worse team overall if it degrades team passing. I just think of it as value added. Does she add more value to Stanford's team as a true frosh in 2019 or potentially a redshirt senior in 2023? Based on uncertainty alone, it's the latter. That is exactly why I was so against Eggleston playing last year. She did fine, especially for her age, but she was robbed of what could have been a spectacular year at the end of her time at Texas. I think it makes a lot of sense to redshirt most of their freshman this year, but I highly doubt that they will. Maybe it was more a Dunning thing than a Stanford thing, but they don't have a history of redshirting top players that aren't hurt. But she chose to not have her senior year of HS to play at Texas right away. No kid would give up HS senior year to arrive and redshirt. No robbery. Her choice. |
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Jul 19, 2019 12:51:36 GMT -5
You think acclimating to college life while practicing against those great players all season long isn't experience? If anything, having her on the scout team with Xu is kind of ideal so they can build their connection while facing stiff competition from the starters across the net during scrimmages in practice. If they're going to use her eligibility, it should be meaningful. Everyone knows she can hit, but she needs to develop the other aspects of her game, which means she needs to be on the court a lot, especially in the backrow. That also might make Stanford a worse team overall if it degrades team passing. I just think of it as value added. Does she add more value to Stanford's team as a true frosh in 2019 or potentially a redshirt senior in 2023? Based on uncertainty alone, it's the latter. Playing against great players in practice is not the same thing as in game experience. How do you know that this season won't be more "meaningful" than the next three? To save her for what MIGHT happen the following four years is silly if she can come in & contribute now. It's not silly, it's basic roster management and coaches think of their programs in multi-year windows all the time. Especially for Stanford, it's risk management and not fixing what isn't broken. They return everything of substance except Alade and Gates slides into that spot. The worst thing a coach can do is outsmart themselves by failing to understand the team as a dynamic system. The more parts you tinker with the greater chance for the system to fail. Ultimately, they'll determine whether she makes the entire unit better, but the bias Hambly has to guard against is whether she actually makes the whole better, or wanting to believe she makes the whole better. I remember Cook failing this test by electing to run a 6-2 with Sydney and Lauren setting when Lauren transferred in from UCLA. Both were very good collegiate setters, but getting both on the court and more arms into the lineup didn't have a linear additive effect, it actually degraded the results. |
|
|
|
Post by ShaneM2005 on Jul 19, 2019 13:09:25 GMT -5
Playing against great players in practice is not the same thing as in game experience. How do you know that this season won't be more "meaningful" than the next three? To save her for what MIGHT happen the following four years is silly if she can come in & contribute now. It's not silly, it's basic roster management and coaches think of their programs in multi-year windows all the time. Especially for Stanford, it's risk management and not fixing what isn't broken. They return everything of substance except Alade and Gates slides into that spot. The worst thing a coach can do is outsmart themselves by failing to understand the team as a dynamic system. The more parts you tinker with the greater chance for the system to fail. Ultimately, they'll determine whether she makes the entire unit better, but the bias Hambly has to guard against is whether she actually makes the whole better, or wanting to believe she makes the whole better. I remember Cook failing this test by electing to run a 6-2 with Sydney and Lauren setting when Lauren transferred in from UCLA. Both were very good collegiate setters, but getting both on the court and more arms into the lineup didn't have a linear additive effect, it actually degraded the results. Interesting "basic roster management" strategy coming from a Husker. Get back to me on that theory after you recall the 2007 Husker season. Complacency is never a good thing. As for your other reference, Cook should have been the 5-1 starter over Anderson, but I digress as the inconsistency of the right side was a major issue that year for Nebraska as well. However, getting back to the Cardinal, I think Kipp will end up front row & Mcclure will play backrow for her by the end of the season, but only time will tell I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Jul 19, 2019 15:22:25 GMT -5
I think it makes a lot of sense to redshirt most of their freshman this year, but I highly doubt that they will. Maybe it was more a Dunning thing than a Stanford thing, but they don't have a history of redshirting top players that aren't hurt. Dunning had a lot of great players come through; but many of his years were very thin. He never had the kind of depth the Card has this year. Any time he had top talent in a freshman, he needed her out on the floor right away. Projects, like Lutz, don't count. |
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on Jul 19, 2019 16:02:24 GMT -5
But she chose to not have her senior year of HS to play at Texas right away. No kid would give up HS senior year to arrive and redshirt. No robbery. Her choice. That was not a fair decision to ask her to make, IMHO. Lots of kids are giving up the spring of their senior years to early enroll. That is similar to a redshirt in some ways, as you are missing club and prom and graduation to go to college early, but you aren't going to play that year. The kid leaving early for Nebraska has little chance to play but they took her because they desperately need a backup S. That was her choice too, but I think it will work out dramatically differently than Eggleston, so a year or three from now we can reevaluate both of them and maybe a few others with our perfect 2020 hindsight glasses. Competitors want to compete and be challenged at the highest level. As with any athlete in that situation, I know Logan’s parents were part of that decision making process. An opportunity was presented.She went for it. AFAIK there are no regrets. She’s living and playing out her dreams! So happy for her. *sorry to carry on in Stanford thread, but the names are interchangeable for any team. |
|
