|
Post by Rutgers fan on Jul 6, 2020 9:07:49 GMT -5
Skinner is the real deal
|
|
|
Post by dman on Jul 6, 2020 9:24:46 GMT -5
Both of them are! Hearing Avery is in great shape and is gonna come out swinging (literally)!
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Jul 6, 2020 11:43:26 GMT -5
Both of them are! Hearing Avery is in great shape and is gonna come out swinging (literally)! I always thought Avery would be a great OPP.
|
|
|
Post by secsportsfan on Jul 6, 2020 11:51:19 GMT -5
Both of them are! Hearing Avery is in great shape and is gonna come out swinging (literally)! I always thought Avery would be a great OPP. Agreed. My uneducated, non-Kentucky knowledge lineup prediction OH: Younger Skinner OH: Stumler OPP: Avery Skinner MB: Paris MB: Bell S: Lilley L: Curry DS: Tharp
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Jul 6, 2020 13:41:35 GMT -5
I always thought Avery would be a great OPP. Agreed. My uneducated, non-Kentucky knowledge lineup prediction OH: Younger Skinner OH: Stumler OPP: Avery Skinner MB: Paris MB: Bell S: Lilley L: Curry DS: Tharp I think Avery will end up as a back up OH. Too many pins on the right with Tealer, Rutherford and Fischer. Also think Goddard will beat out Bell.
|
|
|
Post by vballvball on Jul 6, 2020 22:29:06 GMT -5
she’d be able to set in the back row and hit in the front row. She’s used to a 6-2 from club. When you have 2 great setters and enough good hitters to make a 6-2 run well, it is an easy choice. Coach Skinner has already hinted at the idea of a 6-2 and has recruited for it. I understand how a 6-2 works but it is normally used if your setters aren’t good at the net (too short, blocking liability, etc). That wouldn’t be the case with Rutherford. She could still hit in the front row in a 5-1, much like Camille Conner who racks plenty of kills from match to match. There are some disadvantages when running a 6-2 as I mentioned earlier. Consistency in setting is one of them. Much easier for a hitter to stay in a groove with one setter than switching between two. Additionally, you’ll never have a chance to fight for tight balls at the net. In a 5-1 there are 3 rotations where the setter can save, dump, joust, etc for an overpass from their team. In a 6-2 it’s not easy for the setter to do anything about a tight pass without being called as a backrow attacker/blocker. There’s a reason most top teams run a 5-1, even ones who have plenty of depth on the bench. If Rutherford wasn’t a lefty, I think a 6-2 would make more sense. I don’t think she’s capable of running a 5-1 for a top ten team. Is that answer better?
|
|
|
Post by houstonbear15 on Jul 6, 2020 23:40:40 GMT -5
I understand how a 6-2 works but it is normally used if your setters aren’t good at the net (too short, blocking liability, etc). That wouldn’t be the case with Rutherford. She could still hit in the front row in a 5-1, much like Camille Conner who racks plenty of kills from match to match. There are some disadvantages when running a 6-2 as I mentioned earlier. Consistency in setting is one of them. Much easier for a hitter to stay in a groove with one setter than switching between two. Additionally, you’ll never have a chance to fight for tight balls at the net. In a 5-1 there are 3 rotations where the setter can save, dump, joust, etc for an overpass from their team. In a 6-2 it’s not easy for the setter to do anything about a tight pass without being called as a backrow attacker/blocker. There’s a reason most top teams run a 5-1, even ones who have plenty of depth on the bench. If Rutherford wasn’t a lefty, I think a 6-2 would make more sense. I don’t think she’s capable of running a 5-1 for a top ten team. Is that answer better? Sure, though you called her a great setter.
|
|
|
Post by vballvball on Jul 7, 2020 11:03:49 GMT -5
I don’t think she’s capable of running a 5-1 for a top ten team. Is that answer better? Sure, though you called her a great setter. I was talking about why a coach may choose a 6-2 over a 5-1. When you have two great setters and a lot of great hitters. I don’t know if Rutherford or Grome will be great college setters yet simply bc we haven’t seen it yet. All I’ve seen is the both of them in club. I would agree with the other poster that said it seemed like Rutherford was simply a setter, not a “quarterback” of sorts. Grome is that type of setter, but a little undersized, hence my guess as to why they may run a 6-2 in the future. Kentucky has a history of trying new things in the beginning of the season and I assume they’ll attempt a 6-2 for the start of fall 2021. They tried it with Lilley and Dailey during Lilley’s freshman season, but eventually ended up in the 5-1 with Lilley.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Jul 7, 2020 12:07:51 GMT -5
Sure, though you called her a great setter. I was talking about why a coach may choose a 6-2 over a 5-1. When you have two great setters and a lot of great hitters. I don’t know if Rutherford or Grome will be great college setters yet simply bc we haven’t seen it yet. All I’ve seen is the both of them in club. I would agree with the other poster that said it seemed like Rutherford was simply a setter, not a “quarterback” of sorts. Grome is that type of setter, but a little undersized, hence my guess as to why they may run a 6-2 in the future. Kentucky has a history of trying new things in the beginning of the season and I assume they’ll attempt a 6-2 for the start of fall 2021. They tried it with Lilley and Dailey during Lilley’s freshman season, but eventually ended up in the 5-1 with Lilley. With Grome being 5'8 or maybe 5'9 do you think it could possibly be the plan? I don't see her setting front row if they want to become a contender.
|
|
|
Post by dman on Jul 7, 2020 12:14:57 GMT -5
I was talking about why a coach may choose a 6-2 over a 5-1. When you have two great setters and a lot of great hitters. I don’t know if Rutherford or Grome will be great college setters yet simply bc we haven’t seen it yet. All I’ve seen is the both of them in club. I would agree with the other poster that said it seemed like Rutherford was simply a setter, not a “quarterback” of sorts. Grome is that type of setter, but a little undersized, hence my guess as to why they may run a 6-2 in the future. Kentucky has a history of trying new things in the beginning of the season and I assume they’ll attempt a 6-2 for the start of fall 2021. They tried it with Lilley and Dailey during Lilley’s freshman season, but eventually ended up in the 5-1 with Lilley. With Grome being 5'8 or maybe 5'9 do you think it could possibly be the plan? I don't see her setting front row if they want to become a contender. Worked well for Texas with Chloe Collins but I have no idea of the athletic ability of Grome in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Jul 7, 2020 12:26:52 GMT -5
With Grome being 5'8 or maybe 5'9 do you think it could possibly be the plan? I don't see her setting front row if they want to become a contender. Worked well for Texas with Chloe Collins but I have no idea of the athletic ability of Grome in comparison. Pretty athletic. Runs leftside front row. Sets back row in club. I'm pretty sure she is #21 opposite of the net.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jul 7, 2020 13:55:08 GMT -5
6-2s are too often deployed when coaches don’t have a single setter who is good enough to play all the way around. Usually, it seems that having two “mediocre” setters on the court (versus one “mediocre” setter) for the sake of having one more arm, usually causes more issues than it solves.
There may be a perfect roster someday, where you have two elite setters who set similarly enough, and you have enough arms, where a 6-2 might make sense. But I think anecdotally, there’s a reason more short setters have won National Championships than setters in 6-2s.
|
|
|
Post by blackiechan1999 on Jul 7, 2020 14:03:16 GMT -5
Y’all don’t need a 6-2, you literally have a top 3 setter in Lilley. It would be a crime to reduce her role to 3 rotations in the back row.
|
|
|
Post by dman on Jul 7, 2020 14:11:08 GMT -5
Y’all don’t need a 6-2, you literally have a top 3 setter in Lilley. It would be a crime to reduce her role to 3 rotations in the back row. Think they are thinking ahead to the following year!
|
|
|
Post by friendlybanter on Jul 7, 2020 14:35:41 GMT -5
6-2s are too often deployed when coaches don’t have a single setter who is good enough to play all the way around. Usually, it seems that having two “mediocre” setters on the court (versus one “mediocre” setter) for the sake of having one more arm, usually causes more issues than it solves. There may be a perfect roster someday, where you have two elite setters who set similarly enough, and you have enough arms, where a 6-2 might make sense. But I think anecdotally, there’s a reason more short setters have won National Championships than setters in 6-2s. A 6-2 system in volleyball is much like a two quarterback system in football. The saying is if you have two quarterbacks, you have no quarterback. Setting (and quarterbacking) are about having skill, but the intangibles separate the good from the great. The relationship with their hitters, the leadership, and the ability to trust a setter is huge. The most recent setters to win national championships are Kelly Hunter and Jena Gray, which should tell you all you need to know. Last year, you saw the two best setters up for the national championship in Hilley and Gray. Yes, Wisconsin has Rettke, and Stanford has Plummer, but the setter keeps everything running. That’s why you saw Baylor and Minnesota lose, for two different reasons though. Baylor lost because Lockin didn’t perform well. If the hitter is continuously telling the setter where she wants the ball, that’s not good. So even though Baylor had an excellent hitter in Pressley, their setting wasn’t good enough. Not saying that Lockin can’t become great, she just wasn’t in that game. And for Minnesota (it was gonna be hard to beat Stanford with any setting) it was just that lack of connection. Miller has been in and out the lineup all season and that wasn’t gonna beat Stanford’s conenections. And yeah Plummer was out the a decent part of the season. But her and Gray have been together for 4 years, so it very hard to break that.
|
|