ADVERTISEMENT

Women's Hoops Team

Nelson and Garvin are both new freshman and they both played a lot in the first half. And of course the players have been playing together with some practicing this summer. But I would absolutely agree that we shouldn't read too much into any of this.
 
Robbed. Hardly.

Your definition of "great" is different than mine.
I might compare her work at Duquesne to what Walt Harris did here. Pitt football had returned to it's late 60s status before Walt got here. While we have yet to return to elite status, we've been a solid, respectable program since then. Suzie took a joke program at Duquesne, and turned them into a legit D1 program, a solid top 75 program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saboteur
Nelson and Garvin are both new freshman and they both played a lot in the first half. And of course the players have been playing together with some practicing this summer. But I would absolutely agree that we shouldn't read too much into any of this.

Yes they are new to Pitt. Garvin is a 5-11 JUCO transfer listed as a junior. Nelson, however, is a freshman. She is the Brit PG with International experience.

The two freshmen post players were whom I was thinking of as being invisible, however. They were both decently rated coming out of HS and are probably not ready for prime time in this trip environment. IMHO their development is the key to having a winning overall record in the 2017-18 season.
 
I might compare her work at Duquesne to what Walt Harris did here. Pitt football had returned to it's late 60s status before Walt got here. While we have yet to return to elite status, we've been a solid, respectable program since then. Suzie took a joke program at Duquesne, and turned them into a legit D1 program, a solid top 75 program.

Except Walt took a moribund program that hadn't had a winning record and 5 years and had been getting blown out repeatedly and actually finished ranked twice including peaking with an in-season top 10. He actually won a conference championship, and reached the post-season out of 8 seasons while playing in an actual power conference, recruited what arguably one of the best players in the sport along with several others that were notable, and was a 2X conference coach of the year along with being named a regional coach of the year.

Duquesne women's hoops could certainly have been described as moribund, but was only 3 years removed from a 20 win season and a 3rd place conference finish. Now I think she did a good job and built a foundation for the program, but she could never get it over the hump of getting into the NCAAs despite being located in a region with more than respectable prep talent, unlike what is available on the men's side. But it isn't like Duquesne, while never consistent, had never before finished higher in the A10 standings than it did under Suzie. The A10 is at best a 2-3 bid league ever year, so the target was clear. She peaked in 2011 as a bubble team with a 3rd place finish and 3rd round WNIT appearance. 3 ties for 4th accompanied by early WNIT exits were the next best, and the WNIT expanded to a field of 64 while she was there so a bid isn't even necessarily as prestigious as one to the the NIT. It may be "good" considering the starting point, but that's not "great" IMO. This resume would never have been seriously considered by Pitt if it had been turned in at, say, URI by a coach with a different last name.
 
Last edited:
Women win their second game of the tour, 74-44 over the Italy All Stars.

From the Pitt web site:

"New addition to the Pitt roster". What's up with that?
 
Women win their second game of the tour, 74-44 over the Italy All Stars.

From the Pitt web site:

"New addition to the Pitt roster". What's up with that?

Maybe a player on loan from the Italian team? The name is Senegalese, French Speaking country in Africa.
 
Last edited:
Maybe a player on loan from the Italian team? The name is Senegalese, French Speaking country in Africa.


There are a couple of clips on Youtube of what appear to be a Senegalese girl named Magatte Sall hitting a couple of threes. Is it possible that is her and she is coming to Pitt? Who knows.

There is a web site called out from the video clip but if you try to go there McAfee flags the site as a possible malware site, so no thanks.
 
Looks like Pitt started the same lineup as the first game, Nelson, Gribble, Diop, Garven, Walters.

It also looks like Whitney, Bugg, Walsh and Lamb are hurt, because it doesn't appear that any of them played again and they were wearing different shirts on the bench before the game.
 
Looks like Pitt started the same lineup as the first game, Nelson, Gribble, Diop, Garven, Walters.

It also looks like Whitney, Bugg, Walsh and Lamb are hurt, because it doesn't appear that any of them played again and they were wearing different shirts on the bench before the game.

That observation seems correct. They are all basically point guards aren't they? We need to find a good PG who stays healthy. Maybe the new addition, Nelson is it? She seems to be doing well in Italy, at least. Hopefully at least one of the others gets healthy enough to provide some decent point guard depth.
 
Last edited:
There are a couple of clips on Youtube of what appear to be a Senegalese girl named Magatte Sall hitting a couple of threes. Is it possible that is her and she is coming to Pitt? Who knows.

There is a web site called out from the video clip but if you try to go there McAfee flags the site as a possible malware site, so no thanks.

There is a very tall girl (tallest) in one of the group touristing pictures. Maybe that is Magatte?
She looks to be about 6-4 in the picture if the other two tall ladies are the 6-2, 6-3 freshmen.
 
Last edited:
There is a very tall girl (tallest) in one of the group touristing pictures. Maybe that is Magatte?
She looks to be about 6-4 in the picture if the other two tall ladies are the 6-2, 6-3 freshmen.


I was wondering the same thing. I was looking at some of the pictures to see who was in them, and there is a tall woman in several pictures that I had no idea who she was. At this point I'd guess that it is Sall.
 
They are all basically point guards aren't they?


Whitney is a point, and we really need her to be healthy. Before her back problems last year she showed a lot of promise. After her back problems started her level of play dipped noticeably. Bugg plays the point, and did it a lot last season, but she isn't really a point guard. She clearly plays better off the ball. She thinks the game like a shooter/scorer rather than a passer/facilitator. Lamb is a two, maybe she could play the point in a pinch but I don't think she really has the handle to play there against a decent opponent. Walsh has played some point, but again she's someone that I don't think has a nearly good enough handle to play there regularly against a good opponent. If she's your secondary ball handler on the court you are OK, but if she has to have the ball in her hands most of the time she hasn't really shown that she can handle that, at least in my opinion.
 
Bugg, Walsh and Lamb are all listed on the Roster as 5-7 guards. IMHO, In P5 women's basketball 5-7 is on the short side for playing the 2G. Ideally you want taller unless you have an exceptional talent. That is why I assumed they were PG candidates. The roster doesn't distinguish between 2G and PG.

When looking at the roster I noticed that the new video coordinator--director of program development is a Senegalese gentleman. So, the plot thickens. I think we really do now have a third post player with height. If Whitney heals she and Nelson should make a decent point combo. If so, we may have a team that has some strength at the two most important spots the 1 and the 5 for the first time since Coach Serio's first Pitt season. That should make the complimentary positions (2, 3 and 4) where we already have our best talent more effective.
 
I'm thinking that due to Coach Duzz's influence, Coach Suzie is keeping all point guard play under wraps until league play.
Then we will see some jet sweeps comin' round the picket fence!

Could it be that Heather Luke gave Coach Suzie the go-ahead to fill up the roster? This seems like more scholarship players than Pitt normally carries...(and none of them are Serio's).

Go Pitt.
 
Counting Magatte there would be 13 on ship. The NCAA allows 15 in women's hoops vs the 13 for men's. Pitt has always seemed to have had low numbers on the women's team. IMHO that was mostly due to so many transfers out and not wanting to have 15 in the first place since up to 4-6 probably would not get any PT and transfer anyway. Unlike men's hoops where transfers out are most often the result of coaches pushing players out, women's hoops transfers usually appear to be initiated by the players themselves looking to be in the staring lineup somewhere vs bring even a valued sub. So, I am not convinced there were any institutional restrictions keeping the Pitt roster below 13. I think it was more organic.
 
Counting Magatte there would be 13 on ship. The NCAA allows 15 in women's hoops vs the 13 for men's. Pitt has always seemed to have had low numbers on the women's team. IMHO that was mostly due to so many transfers out and not wanting to have 15 in the first place since up to 4-6 probably would not get any PT and transfer anyway. Unlike men's hoops where transfers out are most often the result of coaches pushing players out, women's hoops transfers usually appear to be initiated by the players themselves looking to be in the staring lineup somewhere vs bring even a valued sub. So, I am not convinced there were any institutional restrictions keeping the Pitt roster below 13. I think it was more organic.

I took an unscientific survey of a few successful P5 women's teams and found the roster numbers range from 10 to a high of 13. No one seems to go to 15. Around 11-12 seems what most carry on ship.
 
I took an unscientific survey of a few successful P5 women's teams and found the roster numbers range from 10 to a high of 13. No one seems to go to 15. Around 11-12 seems what most carry on ship.


Yeah, 15 is way too many. You can't come anywhere close to getting 15 players any real playing time. Most top programs only play eight or nine at most in big games where the outcome is in doubt. Six (or so) players who sit on the bench and never play meaningful minutes in meaningful games is a recipe for disaster.
 
Bugg, Walsh and Lamb are all listed on the Roster as 5-7 guards. IMHO, In P5 women's basketball 5-7 is on the short side for playing the 2G. Ideally you want taller unless you have an exceptional talent. That is why I assumed they were PG candidates. The roster doesn't distinguish between 2G and PG.


5-7 is fine for a two guard in the women's game. I mean sure, you'd rather have someone 6-2 with the same skills, but it frequently doesn't work that way. And Bugg was most certainly not out of place playing the two as a freshman.
 
5-7 is fine for a two guard in the women's game. I mean sure, you'd rather have someone 6-2 with the same skills, but it frequently doesn't work that way. And Bugg was most certainly not out of place playing the two as a freshman.

When I looked at those 4 or 5 top ten women's teams rosters (3 or so ACC teams) only one had more than 1 player 5-7 or shorter (there were 2 vs Pitt's 3). Most guards were about 5-10 to 6-0 (even point guards) on those teams and the overall heights on their rosters made last year's Pitt team look very vertically challenged. This coming year's team roster matches up far better height wise with these teams. I'm hoping that will also make a real difference in games making Pitt a lot more competitive in ACC play.
 
When I looked at those 4 or 5 top ten women's teams rosters (3 or so ACC teams) only one had more than 1 player 5-7 or shorter (there were 2 vs Pitt's 3). Most guards were about 5-10 to 6-0 (even point guards) on those teams and the overall heights on their rosters made last year's Pitt team look very vertically challenged. This coming year's team roster matches up far better height wise with these teams. I'm hoping that will also make a real difference in games making Pitt a lot more competitive in ACC play.


Florida State finished second in the league last season (tied, iirc) and they started a 5-8 player at the two. A couple seasons ago Notre Dame made the Final Four while starting three players 5-9 or shorter. It is far, far more important that the player actually be good rather than be an inch or two taller. A good 6-1 player is better than a crappy 6-4 player. A good 5-7 two guard is better than a crappy 5-9 two guard. Pitt's problem is, and has been for a long time, that they do not have enough GOOD players, not that the players they have are an inch or two shorter than ideal.
 
Florida State finished second in the league last season (tied, iirc) and they started a 5-8 player at the two. A couple seasons ago Notre Dame made the Final Four while starting three players 5-9 or shorter. It is far, far more important that the player actually be good rather than be an inch or two taller. A good 6-1 player is better than a crappy 6-4 player. A good 5-7 two guard is better than a crappy 5-9 two guard. Pitt's problem is, and has been for a long time, that they do not have enough GOOD players, not that the players they have are an inch or two shorter than ideal.

Joe--I think we are getting into a mostly Symantec arguement here. Yes, of course, we need better players. Also, they all do not need to have the ideal height for the position they play. We can agree on that. However, if we had those better players, many would probably be taller because our recruiting results if they made us competitive with the upper half of the ACC would look pretty similar to that of those other top ACC teams. That similarity would include having a roster that had more taller players than the one we fielded this past season.

This coming year's team will more resemble those better ACC teams in terms of overall team height--but it is highly unclear at this point whether it will be talented enough to get Pitt out of the bottom end of the ACC--certainly not if it only had more height but is not also more talented.

I am hoping it at least will be a team that will have improved inside defense and overall better rebounding (offensive and defensive) due to having three bigs vs having only one last year. Aside from a lack of sufficient overall talent, last year's team also had to play some significant stretches of games without a post presence when Harvey-Carr was either in foul trouble or just needed rest time. Not having a true post sub for her was, IMHO, one contributing factor to the overall unsatisfactory results.
 
ADVERTISEMENT