HaydenHawk56
Well-Known Member
I think we have got off on the wrong foot somehow. We are on the same side. We may evaluate things differently, but we are on the same side.
Hawk women played very well; most all coming back
- Thread starter uihawk82
- Start date
HaydenHawk56
Well-Known Member
Huck that was a fair statement by cohawkeye. She needed to have an exceptional game (and likely a few others) for Iowa to pull of the upset. She was playing against a team on her skill level or better. It showed. She is still awesome for her age though and will only get better.
But, like the men in upgrading certain positional needs(guards), Bluder needs to recruits some Amazon women (posts) to be able to take the UConn's of the world out.
That said, I think Bluder is doing an awesome job with the women's program.
judzeehawk
Well-Known Member
I would just like to point out a couple of things. Most of you think the Hawks are out to lunch but just consider this. U Conn a favorite to win it all and the Hawks scored 72 points on them! 72! Hawks had 4 players in DOUBLE figures! Caitlin 21 McKenna 20 Monika 14 and Gabbie 12 Our offense is sot on. Now the Hawks gave up 92! This defense is the worst in women's basketball. Hawks hung with them for most of the game and some very untimely TOs cost us dearly. Hawks can't afford mistakes when they don't lay defense. At times the Hawks made U Conn look silly. I hope the Hawks work very hard on their defense and rebounding because that's the key to the Final 4.
HaydenHawk56
Well-Known Member
Agreed....at times....Iowa looked UConn light. First time in awhile/maybe ever outside of Stringer teams (when I have tuned in to watch IA women's games...usually against the top opponents like today) where Iowa was punching a uber blue blood like UConn in the face. The amount of 3s Iowa hit on them was very good. Iowa also was able to score here and there on them in the paint.
But, yes, for the amount 3s we hit on them, we still lost the game by 20 because we could not stop their inside game and dribble drive penetration. Like the men, we also left shooters wide open on the perimeter far to often.
If Fran needs athletic guards that can shoot, Bluder needs some 6 feet 5 post players and forwards to make life rougher on taller teams like UConn.
This team with some added taller players could be a final four team.
loesshillshawk
Well-Known Member
I am fine in my reality. Hawk fan for years know Lisa and Jan very well. My daughter worked for them. Head down your river Huck...Truth is we have 1 elite athlete, UCONN had 8.
loesshillshawk
Well-Known Member
We lost to UCONN in the first half when they scored 14 second chance points on offensive rebounds. WE NEED ATHLETES, not 6'4" post players, athletic forwards, length is needed and quickness.
judzeehawk
Well-Known Member
Head back over to the men's threads. They could use your help.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
Damn, this is the most activity I've ever seen on the womens board and a long time member on here gets called a troll and told to go back to the mens board. It must be the Clinton effect, can't say anything negative about the womens program.
Some good points are being made here. This team needs a couple more top players to compliment Clark in order to take that next step. Without it the Sweet 16 is probably the ceiling for this team. I'm excited about being able to watch a Clark for the next 3 years, a talent like hers doesn't come around very often. Is it wrong to have dreams of this team being a Final 4 or, gasp, a NC contender? We haven't seen a team like that at Iowa since Stringer was on the sidelines.
Some good points are being made here. This team needs a couple more top players to compliment Clark in order to take that next step. Without it the Sweet 16 is probably the ceiling for this team. I'm excited about being able to watch a Clark for the next 3 years, a talent like hers doesn't come around very often. Is it wrong to have dreams of this team being a Final 4 or, gasp, a NC contender? We haven't seen a team like that at Iowa since Stringer was on the sidelines.
judzeehawk
Well-Known Member
There's nothing wrong with negative comments if they make any sense. Obviously we have a poster that has an outstanding resume and even has family working on the inside. Maybe since they know so much about the women's game and recruiting and all they should aske Lisa for a recruiting job. We sure could use the help recruiting a 5* post player. I mean after all usually there's only 1 a year and they always pick a blue blood school. Recruiting in the women's game is very very hard. Hawks are very fortunate to have had Caitlin come to Iowa and try to get this program to another level. Yet when the Hawks actually did a pretty good job against the number 1 team here comes the Debbie Downers spewing their crap. The women's thread has been shit on for several years with people making ridiculous posts and now since they are making headline news finally people are joining in. That's fantastic! It just gets old with all the negative stuff. My goodness haven't you heard enough over the years on the football and men's basketball threads. It seems it's against the rules or something around here to have a positive attitude. It's gloom or doom all the way!
judzeehawk
Well-Known Member
By add do you mean in the starting 5 along with Monika?
HaydenHawk56
Well-Known Member
Won't disagree...athleticism is a major added bonus. But, I do think Iowa could benefit from getting some taller players on the roster as well. You can't coach height as they say.
MattinColumbus
Well-Known Member
Generally, I think you’re right with this, and though putting Mac as an ‘elite’ athlete is questionable, Gustafson did have another great athlete in Doyle.
I replied to a former UConn athlete on Twitter who replied to a post talking about what Geno said to Clark after the game. Someone said he was telling her a spot was open on the team, and this person said ‘respectfully, we don’t need her’. Note she didn’t say they wouldn’t take her, but they have 8-10 high-end athletes on that team, and a very good point guard.
We need athletic bigs. UConn killed us on the boards. Maryland killed us on the boards. When we run up against teams that have mobile bigs, we struggle (which could be said about most teams in WBB). They’re hard to get.
But Clark can’t take us to the Final Four alone. Goodman's only a freshman, Czinano is money down low. We have 2 of the top 100 girls, both bigs, coming in. Ediger plays VB, too, so I’m hoping she may be a bit more mobile. Not sure about O’Grady, but she was playing next to a 6’7” center.
You have to be ‘in’ on kids early. Hopefully we can take advantage of Clark in 2022 and 2023.
Yes, a new player, a freshmen ready to go and play minutes or a transfer juco if there are any of those. Warnock looks to be 6-1 or 6-2 but she and Monica dont jump very high for the rebounds. Maybe boxing their player out a couple more feet from the basket will let them get more rebounds also, a technique thing where you have to get into your opponent early in the shot and move them back a bit
judzeehawk
Well-Known Member
McKenna is 6ft. 1. Yes neither are leapers and would benefit on the technique you are talking about. I'm hoping it gets worked on very hard before next season. I have been hoping for a player like Ayanna Patterson. A 6ft. 2 wing player with a ton of athletic ability but she'll go to a blue blood.
