Every one of these comments is so true. On the face of it they may seem a bit contradictory, but in actuality I think they're all true.
The point about not being able to inbound the ball very well is particularly important. In the final minutes of the Rutgers game, I thought we were toast, and might lose just on 5-seconds inbounding violations. Rutgers had us covered so tight that we'd throw the inbounds pass, only to have it tipped out of bounds or nearly have it intercepted, burning only a second of shot clock. If Rutgers had put on that type of pressure earlier, there's a good chance they might have won. Possibly a coaching error by CVS.
How bout this for an inbounds play on our end when the other team is (or should be, at least soon, but might not be yet since we're still throwing the ball away) intentionally fouling. Screen Pitts on her out court side so she can get away and sprint down-court past the time-line, as if she's fast-breaking toward the wrong basket, and hit her with the long football pass. Pretty much no one's on her since she's going the wrong way. She catches near the opposite three-point line and dribbles it back, burning about 6 seconds of shot clock. When over the time-line she can continue to dribble hoping for the intentional foul, or if she's doubled with no foul, then Keke or Jaz can bail her out. If single guarded she can continue to dribble, taking her sweet time to burn more shot clock. Then the eventual play is, someone gives her an on-ball screen and she takes a three-point shot. If you recall, that (the on-ball screen and three) was the play on which Rachel Banham scored the bulk of her points. This play gets the ball to the player that's your best shooter and your best free-throw shooter, and burns clock and puts her in position to score.
After her extreme success against Indiana, I think we're all very hopeful that Perez will have the confidence to shoot more. After all, throughout the season (while Pitts was slumping) and until quite recently, Perez was the team's percentage-wise three-point scoring leader (albeit on, in hindsight, too few shots). Her 3-3 against Indiana along with Pitts 1-4 puts Irene back on top again for the moment (at least until the next game in which Destiny is on fire). With Perez hopefully gaining confidence to shoot, that gives us two huge three-point threats. Plus, Brunson and Bell and Staples are not all that far behind them in the three-point stats. We actually have 5 three-point threats when Staples gets healthy (I know Staples shot can be a bit shakey at times, but she's actually improving slowly but steadily, and Bell's three has been improving too). It's a pretty good thing to have 2 good + 3 viable trey shooters. 3 good + 3 viable when Hubbard gets back, but we have to mostly discount that option for now. While we weren't looking, Brunson's three has gotten a lot better than anyone has noticed, but I think she needs to gain enough confidence to shoot more too.
Wouldn't it be funny if during the remainder of the season we turned into the Big Ten's premiere three-point shooting team.
