I'm Still Waiting for An Offense from CBH
by uclahy on Nov 27, 2009 12:44 AM PST
Email
PrintIt took Wooden years to get it right. It may take CBH just as long. I know no one works harder than he does or bleeds Bruin Blue more than him, but even he is subject to criticism. And, frankly, I can't take it anymore. So here goes.
Let's face it, CBH's offense has pretty much stunk ever since he came to UCLA. Not only has it not been Woodenesque, it has normally been pretty ugly. But with the record of success that he has compiled who can rightly complain, even if his success has been despite his lousy offense?
Well, after tonight we can complain. Oh, I know his offense is normally very efficient. The stats prove it. But efficiency and effectiveness are two different things. Yes, when the score is in the low 60s he can keep up with a slow down, take the air out of the ball offense. He can win a lot of games with it, get to final fours with a tremendous defense, but he will never win the Big Enchilada when he goes up against really talented teams that actually play basketball at tournament time IMO.
I was reminded of this tonight in the Portland game. Not only was it one of the worst performances in the history of UCLA basketball, not only was it one of the worst coaching jobs by any coach I have ever seen at any level in any sport, it was very reminiscent of the way we have been punked in all of our final four appearances and even Villanova in the second round last year under CBH. Only this time it wasn't Memphis or Florida. It was just a well coached mid-Major team playing essentially Mike Montgomery Stanford Basketball from the 1990s. The loss, in fact, was so Lavinesque that for awhile I thought Steve had left the color booth and taken over CBH's body.
I think it is the understatement of the year to say that CBH has not adapted his coaching to his players yet. I'm very sure he sees that as well after the Portland disaster. My fear is that he will decide his team is so bad that he will follow Lavin's brilliant on air suggestion to play even "muckier" basketball, that is, to play an even uglier Big East style slowdown style.
I hope that's not true. I really think that's the wrong answer. As much as he might like the style, we do not have the makings of a Big East power basketball team with big guards, power forwards or a dominating big man. It doesn't have the personnel to shut people down on defense alone. For better or worse we're a generally athletic, but slight team with potentially good shooters and cutters. Kind of like Wooden's earlier champion teams but of course without a Goodrich or Hazard, duh. I would love to see a return to the Wooden staples of a high post offense and a zone press. It may not work, of course, but it's certainly worth a try. Some of our players might actually develop quite well if they were given a chance to fly. Could we be any worse? I don't think that's possible.
I'm left to wonder just how good the team with Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook, Darren Collison and Luc Richard, all excellent NBA players now, as well as Mata and Aboya and Shipp, could have been if CBH had let them spread their legs under his tutelage instead of putting the governor on their gas pedal every time they tried to speed things up. Can you believe a team with those NBA players got creamed in the final four by a team with really just one great player, Derrick Rose? Well they did, big time because IMO CBH does not let his players play on offense. He shackles them.
More than winning games this year I would like to see if CBH can actually run an offense that puts points on the board. They say he did that at Northern Arizona. Can't he do it here?
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Actually, efficiency and effectiveness are the same thing
I’m all open for questioning the state of our program, but his rehashes every cliche criticism of the last 5 years while adding nothing to the discussion. How do you propose running a high-post offense when you have no big guy who can either shoot or pass?
And let’s not forget something about that 2008 team. Yes, it had a bunch of fine players, but it was not a completely balanced team. The only two guys on the team who could shoot from outside were Collison and Love. Love played inside. So other than Collison, we had no outside threat to stretch the defense. Shipp, if you remember, shot the ball horribly that year and Roll was injured all year. That team needed one extra shooter to be unstoppable, and we didn’t have it.
Can’t we please focus the criticism a little bit?
Two points
I agree the offense is efficient. However, when you look at Ken Pom’s ratings, Ben Howland teams at UCLA all have one thing in common historically: They play slow and, with the exception of one season, are ranked somewhere between 170 and 330 in the NCAA D1 in pace of a game. Even with superior talent, we don’t try to overwhelm teams and push the pace of the game, or play more players and use the bench, we slow it down. I think that is a major problem.
I don’t know why you would come to a major program and try to attract major talent to play slow down basketball.
Secondly, after your third year of coaching, you are responsible for the roster. If you have unbalanced teams, or not enough talent, that is your responsibility as head coach and is either because you couldn’t evaluate talent properly or you couldn’t recruit enough talent to get here, or you did not make good decisions in handling your one and done players.
I do agree with you about the criticism of the 2008 team.
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Nov 27, 2009 7:33 AM PST up reply actions
You are also responsible for recruiting one-and-dones
and if you choose to do that, you have to have a contingency plan for when they leave.
I am in the minority. I’m against the practice for many reasons.
But, it is unfair to blame JH, as some did last night, for our predicament. It was predictable he would not stay long and if CBH wanted him, he had to plan for that eventuality.
sjh
I think JH can be blamed for slow playing his decision
he should have announced earlier to allow CBH to make a contingency plan, but this roster is so full of problems it really comes down to talent selection, recruiting, and use of players.
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Nov 27, 2009 9:07 AM PST up reply actions
It's not just one and dones
Forget Love and Holliday. The most costly early departures for Howland were AA and Luc being 3-and-dones. How can you blame either one on Howland?
If AA stayed, I think 2008 goes down as an undefeated season, with no more than a handful of games being even close. He was the missing piece to perfection that year. If Luc stayed last year, the majority of our defensive flaws would’ve been fixed.
As for Westbrook, how is a coach supposed to plan for a low-radar recruit to explode so much that he leaves after only two years?
He seems to be much more unlucky than other elite coaches who haven’t had this problem because they have talent ready to fill in when they lose players. After getting programs turned around, this is how other coaches have done:
Coach K had one subpar season, but that was after being on medical leave the year before.
Roy Williams never had this kind of slump at Kansas or UNC
Calapari didn’t have this kind of slump at UMass or Memphis
Dean Smith had a subpar season in 1970, but still won 2/3rds of their games.
John wooden;’s 1965-66 team was a “disappointment” but still won 2/3rd of their games.
The only elite coach I see that did something similar was Bob Knight in 76-77. He went 16-11 after winning the NCAA title
So, if Ben Howland’s problem seems to be a rarity among elite coaches. Take it for what you will…
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Nov 27, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions
Don't you think that list is a little self selecting?
I mean, if you define “elite coach” in terms of what CBH hasn’t done then he won’t ever be one by definition. Billy Donovan was supposed to be an elite coach. Ditto with Tom Izzo, Boeheim, etc.
There's no such thing as an "elite coach" Only good coaches with
elite players. Name one NCAA champ that had a mediocre team and an “elite coach”
Considering the coach recruits the players
and are responsible for the talent, yes, there are elite coaches.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Nov 27, 2009 7:16 PM PST up reply actions
good point
I just went off the coaches that came into my head.
Izzo has a strange record… He lost 12 or more games in 5 of his last 8 seasons and has won the big 10 only once since 2001…
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Nov 28, 2009 12:17 AM PST up reply actions
Offense
How can you run an offense when you don’t have players who are offensively gifted? There’s no one on this team that you can watch and say they’re an offensively talented player. Everyone had glaring holes in their game and they’re starting to show. So far this season only Gordon has shown any marginal improvement on his game. Nobody else has improved in any aspect and that’s gravely disappointing. The other problem is nobody on the team seems to even execute the offense well. I don’t see any strong solid picks being set. I hardly see players cutting to the basket or moving off the ball to create spacing. It’s unfortunate to see this team not show any of the toughness we’ve grown to expect from Howland’s teams. If a CSUF loss and a Portland beatdown doesn’t wake up these guys, it’s never gonna happen. Howland may need to re-assess his talent evaluation at that point.
I know we are all frustrated, so let me respond
1. It is true. My basic point has been made before. That does not mean it should not be raised again, hopefully in an interesting way, or that the point is invalid.
2. I agree running a high post offense requires a center, not necessarily a big man, who can pass and shoot the 15 footer from the top of the key, but whose to say we don’t have anyone who can do that if given the chance or the role? Are you saying UCLA does not have one guy who can? think we have a number of “big men” who can hit that shot with regularity. But we don’t employ the offense, period, so how would we even know?
3. Claiming our 2008 roster filled with NBA talent was unbalanced or missing a shooter misses the point. We never played the up tempo, high octane, transition offense that would have allowed any of them to shoot the three in their defined, limited role, especially Russell Westbrook, for example. And focusing on just that one year misses the point about how we were blown out every other year once we got to the Final Four or by Villanova in the 2d round last year.
4. Props to silverlakebruin. He gets my point and makes it better. Why recruit fantastic talent, ie. JH, and then play slow down basketball where the talent can never be exploited?
5. It may be this is a weakly talented team. No one has really stood up to be counted yet. But, if so, who is responsible for that? I don’t want to criticize any particular players at this time. It’s way too early in the season to do that, but some of them have been absolutely wretched in their execution of fundamental basketball, from youngsters to veterans, and I wonder why they are allowed to keep playing?
6. Right now we have the worst of all possible worlds. Our offense stands around passing the ball around the perimeter trying to play slow down, then shoots in desperation wild, off-balanced shots to beat the clock. Then we get so far behind we just start playing street ball like we’ve never been coached.
7. This team will never win playing half-court, Big East, "power basketball. Look at it. The guys CBH has recruited do not have the size, muscle or attitude to do that. If that’s the style he wants to play, why doesn’t he recruit the brutes to play it?
8. Nevertheless, the players he has recruited are still talented, wiry, athletic, quick players who should excel in a more up tempo, transition style, fast break offense which can be promoted with a zone press. This is not a team filled with defensive stoppers. It has to be more balanced and score much quicker and more often, and develop a rhythm to be a consistent winner IMO. UCLA used to play that kind of basketball. Wooden essentially invented it for the modern era. I’m not saying this team is even close to that level. I just think it’s time to give UCLA basketball a chance.
-1
N’s post on the frontpage has better directed and more logical criticism based on past data points and not speculation.
Transition offense
A “transition style, fast break offense” requires good defense and rebounding. I don’t know any coach that emphasizes that more than Howland.
There is not one single
scorer on this team. Someone will surely develop, but right now there is no “go to.” You can run any system you want with these kids, but they aint puttin up big numbers. NO ONE CAN SHOOT!
With a team this young and raw, CBH’s slow, methodical offense is precisely what they SHOULD be running. Can you even imagine, with this defense, how badly we would have lost the last game trying to run some helter skelter offense and our guards turning it over another 10 times?
Dustball!
I'm not sure
that what we’ve seen can be called a methodical offense. What I’ve seen has been constant passing the ball around the perimeter with the hope that Roll might get a shot off (unless Drago’s in and jacks up a wild shot as usual).
I see constant hesitation
The ball is slow to leave anyone’s hands for either a shot or pass. Cuts are not crisp. Flashes to the post and freethrow line are late or just poorly timed and executed. Methodical doesn’t necessarily imply well run.
Dustball!
And we could also add that it is
BORING — both to the fans (except Nestor and Tydides) as well as to the players themself. I don’t know what CBH told them at recruiting time, but it sure seems like many of the guys are frustrated already and lack enthusiasm. Maybe a good win or just a decent showing will snap them to attention, but its sad to see the team in such a dour mood game in and game out.
I got news for you
Winning is never boring. And we’ve won an awful lot of games the past few years with such a “boring” offense.
High tempo=bad defense + effecient offense
I’m not a basketball guru and I couldn’t explain the intricacies between different defensive and offensive schemes. I do believe, though, that the pace of the game is determined at both ends of the court. I would consider the game against Portland to be a good example that demonstrates this.
Portland offense vs. UCLA defense: Portland’s offense was high-tempo because everyone seemed to know what their role in the offense was. The players moved to the right spaces, knew what to do with the ball before they got it, and shot the ball when it was appropriate. On defense, the Bruins were slow to rotate and lost track of their defensive assignments-they were still thinking too much and in the time that it took the Bruin defense to think about what they are supposed to be doing, the Portland offense had moved to the next step in its progression. A good defense will lengthen the game while a poor defense makes the game more up-tempo.
UCLA offense vs. Portland defence-On offense, the UCLA players seemed to also be thinking too much. Someone asked above, how can you run an offense when you don’t have players that are offensively gifted? The answer is that you run a system that creates mismatches and takes advantage of players’ strengths. This, however, requires the players to know what they are going to do before they get the ball and while they don’t have the ball. It seems to me that it’s not so much the system that you run, but how well the players know the system. Currently, the UCLA players seem to take time to think when they get the ball. This gives the defense time to react. The best offensive play in terms of this was Gordon’s alley-oop dunk against Portland. Malcolm Lee got the ball at the 3 point line. As he got the ball, Jerime Anderson cut to the high post. Without taking time to think, Lee got the ball to Anderson. While that was happening, Gordon was cutting the baseline. Without taking time to think, Anderson threw up the oop. The defense didnt’ have time to react. So an offense that takes time to think, regardless of the type of offense, will slow the game down.
My point is that I don’t think it’s Howland’s offense that can take the complete blame for slowing the game down. Many of the games that have scores in the low 60’s or less are that way because it has taken the other team 30-35 seconds to get a shot off. Also, it may not be the offensive system that slows the game down as much as the fact that the players are still adjusting to the fact that there is a system at all. You may be able to make the argument that different systems are simpler, etc., but that is beyond my understanding of the game. :)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
