The Matchup: Stanford

by thecassino on Mar 12, 2009 1:01 PM PDT Comment 18 comments

Stanford beat OSU to advance in the Pac-10 tournament and play the Huskies.

Though they were the lower seed, Stanford is the more dangerous matchup for UW; Stanford is better than OSU in just about every phase of the game. In fact Stanford is a much better team than their 6-12 Pac-10 record indicated. Just for a comparison, here are their overall/ofensive/defensive ratings with national ranks in parentheses.

Stanford: .8556 (48th) / 113.4 (26th) / 97.2 (87th)

OSU: .6194 (122nd) / 103.8 (132nd) / 99.5 (134th)

So our road to the tournament title got a little tougher.

How does UW match up against Stanford? Pretty well. Their guards are taller than ours, but so are everybody's. Mitch Johnson is 6-1 and Anthony Goods is 6-3, so the height advantage is not big enough to think that it's going to be a problem. The rest of their team is a lot like the Huskies', with their contributing players in the 6-6 to 6-8 range. Only Will Paul is taller than that at 6-10, but he is very soft and a downright terrible rebounder for someone his or any size.

One advantage that the Huskies will have (much like they've had over nearly every opponent) is superior depth. Stanford relies heavily on Johnson, Goods, Lawrence Hill and Landry Fields. It's a good quartet, but I believe that the reason Stanford has not won more games is that they do not have a lot of role players who can come in and make the difference. We know that that is not the case for the Huskies, who throw out guys like Venoy Overton, Darnell Gant, Justin Holiday and Matthew Bryan-Amaning to defend, rebound and score when given opportunities.

Stanford is a talented team that played us tough twice this season. We cannot get caught looking past them or thinking about the other tournament or they will make us pay. For the Huskies to beat Stanford they have to continue to do what they've done all year: get after it on the offensive glass and get to the free throw line. Stanford is a quality team, but they are not on the level of the University of Washington. So long as the Dawgs come out focused the result should be favorable.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

on furd...

… I agree and I don’t think the dawgs will overlook them, not their style.

by mynameisdavid on Mar 11, 2009 8:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Huskies are hungry

Washington wants to win this tournament and move on to Portland as a #3 seed. Like I said they could move up to a #2 but I have to agree with the guys who say the #3 is better because we play in Portland.

by John Berkowitz on Mar 11, 2009 11:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Stanford's offense is pretty potent, so UW will have to keep them off the boards.

The dawgs should tear up their defense, but letting them have second-chance points would kill us. Luckily, that’s not their strong suit, and the Huskies are a good defensive-rebounding team.

by lailaihei on Mar 12, 2009 12:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Stanford matchup

I like the Stanford matchup because they don’t have those really long wings that create man to man problems on both ends for our small guards. However, they are a better shooting team than we are. To exploit that, I expect that they’ll play various zones against us much of the game as a means of trying to get us impatient and to turn it into a deep shooting contest. Our best zone breaker is Quincy – he is strong enough to muscle the ball inside against a zone and talented enough to make tough shots. If he can beat the zone a few times early, he’ll not only create shot opportunities for Dentmon and IT, but he’ll create a ton of dump-off or o-rebound opportunities for J-Brock. Quincy is the key tonight.

On defense, we need to keep in mind that even the best outside shooting teams will only nail 42-45% of shots outside of 12 feet. We need all hands working for the defensive rebounds because second chance shots are the lifeblood of shooting teams (lailaihei is exactly right). This sounds cliche – but it is a discipline. We need five guys rebounding even if we need to sacrifice a fast break or two to do so. Fortunately, this is a strength for us.

The fact that Stanford is playing a second game in less than 24 hours gives us that more of an edge rebounding and at the end of the ball game.

"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.

by Gekko Mojo on Mar 12, 2009 6:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Inside ... outside ... inside ...

I think we need to pound the ball in the paint. Stanford’s post players play on finesse. We are more physical down there and we need to take advantage of it. Inside … outside … inside … outside … All day long.

One reason I think we are playing great this year is because we have the ability to pound the ball inside, we can spot up for the treys, and we get great penetration in the paint. When you can do all three, offensively you are almost unstoppable.

With that said I’ve said all season long the key to us winning is limiting our 2nd half turnovers. We are going to have the rebounding advantage- almost every night. The key has been and will continue to be our ability to limit our 2nd half turnovers. Most often it will decide the outcome of a closely faught contest.

Go Huskies! WOOF!!!

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Mar 12, 2009 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i wish it were that easy

…entry passing has been our bane most of the season and we’ve not been effective in the pick and roll game. I agree that Stanford’s interior is soft which is why I think they’ll implement a zone for much of the game – an effective zone makes getting the ball to the interior pretty tough – especially if you don’t have a 7 footer.

"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.

by Gekko Mojo on Mar 12, 2009 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love it when teams play zone against us

We’re not a good enough shooting team to beat them that way, but when teams go into zone it makes our offensive rebounding that much better. Tougher to score, but easier to score on second chances.

http://www.spartyandfriends.com/

by thecassino on Mar 12, 2009 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree. This is where Quincy gives us an advantage

…. he really can break down the interior of a zone leaving Brock to clean up offensive rebounds.

"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.

by Gekko Mojo on Mar 12, 2009 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Man I love to see a semicolon used correctly

I wonder if Stanford has any motivation in this game. Probably they want revenge for the season but I think UW will be more focused.

UW 73 – Stanford 58

Tony Bennett for Heisman!

by johnnycougar on Mar 12, 2009 7:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

;

Beautiful

by mynameisdavid on Mar 12, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope...

…we get after them quickly. That being said, we’ve found a way to win even when we’re not playing well. GO DAWGS!!

This game’s pretty early, are you guys all going to be able to watch? I love that HD appears to be the rule now, rather than the exception.

Washington Husky Football-1991 National Champions

by dawgfan22 on Mar 12, 2009 8:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Kansas lost to Baylor

So if we take care of business we may jump them in seeding. But again, with us having lost to them I don’t think it’ll happen.

http://www.spartyandfriends.com/

by thecassino on Mar 12, 2009 12:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I can smell a No.2 seed for us!

I smell it fellas. Although I respect your opinion casino, I do however think we have a great chance of receiving a No.2 seed. I recall the list you provided and yes everyone of them are/were worthy of a No.2 seed or higher. My arguement was that the trend of offering “style points” by going deep in your league tournament by the selection commitees the last few years has become huge in getting those upper seeds. Why are the selection commitees putting emphasis on the league tournaments? Because the NCAA wants all leagues to participate in league tournaments. Remember when the Pac 10 and Big 10 didn’t play in a league tournament? Having league tournaments adds exposure to the teams and just adds more exposure for the NCAA tournament. Make no mistake the NCAA wants league tournaments and I’d argue that this is the reason the selection commitees have placed emphasis on them based on the outcome.

Note: Carolina will still be a No.1 seed even if they reach the ACC championship game and lose. But if they win the ACC tournament and say Pitts loses early in the Big East, maybe Carolina becomes the overall No.1 seed over the Pitt Panthers. We on the other hand could play ourselves right into a No.2 seed.

Go Huskies! WOOF!!!

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Mar 12, 2009 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

there is a lot between us and a #2 seed

Duke, Villanova and Wake all have more of a chance (rightly or wrongly)….and that assumes that the KU loss drops them down a notch.

"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.

by Gekko Mojo on Mar 12, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying it's impossible

Just that I don’t think it’ll happen. Especially considering the 3 seed would put us closest to home.

http://www.spartyandfriends.com/

by thecassino on Mar 12, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

2 or 3 seed I’m not worried, but yeah a 3 seed would keep us closer to home and could get a home court advantage.

Actually I’m not sure if I want a 2 seed attached. Having a 1 or 2 seed gets teams fired up to beat you. But a 3 or 4 seed can stay under the radar a tad and get a decent bracket to play in.

But if we have more teams like Kansas fall early, we could jump to a No.2 seed if we win the Pac 10 tournament outright just like in league play.

Go Huskies! WOOF!!!

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Mar 12, 2009 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

#3 makes more sense

You guys sold me on that.

by John Berkowitz on Mar 12, 2009 12:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Game Thread Opens at 1:30 PM Pacific Time

The game thread will be up an hour before the game so we will transfer the discussion over at that time. If you haven’t used the thread before it acts like a chat room since you do not have to refresh the page to update comments. Just tune on in and enjoy the interactive experience with your fellow Husky fans!

by John Berkowitz on Mar 12, 2009 12:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs