Heart Stopper: Bruins Start The Pac-10 Season With A Victory By Holding On To Beat Arizona State
by Nestor on Dec 31, 2009 4:16 PM PST
in Basketball
Email
PrintPhew. Bruins give the entire Bruins Nation a collective heart attack in the closing mins but hold on to beat a tough Arizona State by a score of 72-70. Here is the box score. I will take the heart stopping win, however, I have to say right now I have a weird feeling that is a mixture of relief and disgust what took place in the last few mins on the court. On one hand I feel relieved because some Bruins such as Malcolm Lee, Reeves Nelson and even Jerime Anderson showed a lot of heart in those closing moments to hold off a hard charging Sun Devils. At the same time, I am still disgusted by the bonehead performance of Nikola Dragovic, who through his consistent dumb plays pretty much negated the 12-15 mins of offensive glory he enjoyed this entire season.
Yes, the Bruins got off to a great start thanks to once in a blue moon shooting from Dragovic who masqueraded as someone else in the opening mins of the first half. Drago connected in first few of his three point shots, getting a false sense of confidence of his ability as a basketball player, which hurt us later in the second half. Anyway, in the first half Bruins looked like a top-25 basketball team which used precision passing to rip and smart shots to rip apart ASU's vaunted zone that has given us a lot of trouble over the years. At the same time they showed their own version of an effective 2-3 zone frustrating the entire ASU team except for Rihards Kuksiks, who seemed to be matching Dragovic for shot for shots. Bruins raced to a 42-31 lead at half time which could have been bigger if not for some careless turnovers early on.
Then it got ugly real fast in the second half thanks to an uninspiring and boneheaded efforts from all of our seniors. James Keefe who had played a solid first half early on committed a stupid foul on three point attempts, Mike Roll was committing dumb turnovers on his own end, while Dragovic reverted to his usual form of jacking up dumb shots, looking lost on defense and making boneheaded plays almost costing us at the end.
We were bailed out at the end because of some tough defense by Malcolm Lee and what I thought was a pretty inspiring effort by Reeves Nelson and Jerime Anderson. Malcolm Lee finished with 16 points while Andersen finished with 10 points, 6 assists and just 2 TOs. He did miss a FT towards the end but he was more clutch on the line than anyone else including Michael Roll who missed another crucial one on one just like he did against Cal State Fullerton.
On one hand there are lot of encouraging takeaways from this game. Our effort in first half was a thing of beauty. And I am not talking about those 3 point shots. I am talking about the effort we showed on the defensive end and the tenacity we showed in how we attacked ASU's zone. It was encouraging to see Howland adjusting his defensive philosophy to fit the talent and skills of his team. It was cool to see Lee and Honeycutt using their long arms and height to confuse and befuddle the ASU offense.
On the other hand it was discouraging to see the seniors fail to show any modicum of leadership in the crucial minutes. While boneheaded basketball is Dragovic's hallmark at this point, it was particularly disappointing to see lack of composure from well coached players such as Roll and Keefe. I am hoping these guys will get back in the gym and work to address the tentative effort we saw in the second half. I think it's clear that we might have the ingredients to put together a decent season. The question is whether we will see it on a consistent basis for the entire 40 mins game after game.
Still not a bad way to bring in the New Year in Bruins Nation. We get a huge bowl win and start the Pac-10 season with a W. Hope we can run the win streak to 4 on Saturday. Happy New Year everyone. Fire away in our post game thread.
GO BRUINS.
98 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Oregon takes a 15 point lead on WSU, late in the 1st half
While $c takes an early 8-5 lead on UA
formerly bruinhoo
Last in the Pac-10 in attendance this year
by over 1,000. They’re at 3,300ish I believe and OSU is second to last at 4,700ish.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 31, 2009 4:21 PM PST up reply actions
DG bears part of the blame
This is in part a marketing issue. DG needs to tell his marketing staff—produce results or you are out.
by peggysue69 on Dec 31, 2009 4:45 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
We're not last
SC is last in attendance over at Pauley East. I agree though that the Morgan Center has done a poor job.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 31, 2009 4:47 PM PST up reply actions
I think you have to give special mention to JK
RN was setting a new low for defensive play (not to be confused with effort, which he had plenty of) early on in the game when ASU jumped out to their quick start. Keefe came in and played great defense, starting the 14-0 run that gave us command of the game. Even though we went to zone when RN came back in, he did play some man to man later and was much better, which I think is partly because he got to see Keefe play it. JK’s D changed the game in the first half so huge props to him.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 31, 2009 4:20 PM PST reply actions
Oh definitely
I was really liking what I saw from Keefe early on. It was awesome. Then he commits that stupid foul in second half. I just don’t get it.
I've never seen a smarter player
who so consistently makes 1 or 2 stupid plays a game.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 31, 2009 4:22 PM PST up reply actions
Arizona just stole SC's recruiting class when Floyd resigned/got the boot
Derrick Williams, Solomon Hill and MoMo Jones all made the move to Zona. All good players.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 31, 2009 4:31 PM PST reply actions
Though
Hadn’t Solomon Hill previously committed to Arizona?
by SuperBruinMan on Dec 31, 2009 5:11 PM PST up reply actions
More positives than negatives
Sure, there were defenses lapses that gave us all heart attacks. And yes, the seniors could have done better. But, considering where we’ve been so far this year, we DID win our 1st Pac 10 game, and we didn’t completely fall apart at the end.
A W is a W, and as long as we can build on this, we’re going to have a decent conference season. Drago showed the long range shooting we have to have to effectively break down zones. JA had an in-control game. ML showed he’s maturing with every game. And RN is a monster who’ll only get better and better. Add in TH and the rest and I’m guardedly optimistic.
CBH proved he’s not SO stubborn that he’ll never change. A ZONE defense, and a pretty good one. I think throwing in the zone really through AZ for a loop. They totally were unprepared to play against a CBH zone!
Like everyone else, I cringe with the stupid TO’s, especially when they come from our seniors! But all in all, I walk away from this game experience feeling positive.
That sounds reasonable
I think the last few possessions offensively has me scratching my head. If we had the game tied up because of that ridiculous Dragovic pass, it would have been ugly. But still good to get out with a win. You are right.
ASU is a better team than us right now
Yet we still managed to beat them. Sure I would have loved to blow them out by 20, but the fact that we controlled the game and were able to beat a team with a far better record than us right now has me very excited.
Drago
7/11 shooting
3/3 FT’s
4/5 3’s
Can’t find the rebounding stats but I think he did well.
Yes, he had some D lapses, and turnovers — but he was not the only starter to do so.
For those of you who don’t want him playing, I’ll repeat a question I’ve posted before: Who will you put in the line up to replace him?
He is one of the 5 best players on this team — sad as that may be. I like TH’s game and D, but I don’t think he’s a better all around player, NOW, than ND.
I like MR a lot — but do you think he played a better game than ND? How about that elbow foul? Smart?
The players who belong on the floor are ML and RN.
There have been a lot of complaints about JA, but he gets on the floor because there is no clear replacement. So, you have TH, MR, ND, BL, JM and JK — pick 2 to start and get a lot of minutes.
Today, who will they be?
Who do you think should start against Arizona?
ND sometimes does stupid things. And, has D lapses. But, he did not make all of our turnovers, today and was not responsible for all of our defensive lapses.
I could not find the rebound stat’s and the TO stat’s. Would someone please aim me toward them or post them, by player?
sjh
ND was definitely the player of the game
I know a lot of people around here like to make themselves sound foolish in order to take out all of their frustrations on ND, but the fact is we would have gotten blown out today if it weren’t for him.
I don’t have much to add to everything you have very accurately stated 66, but I would like to add that ND/MR/JA are going to have more mistakes because of the volume of minutes they play. TH had a few nice plays, but he also had a few terrible possessions. Even ML disappeared for a large part of the game today and RN still finds himself in terrible defensive position far too often. Of course, these things aren’t as easy as just bashing ND, so of course they go unnoticed.
I think JA was the player of the game.
10 pts., 6 dimes, 6 boards and only 2 TOs. His best performance as a Bruin.
by orlandobruin on Dec 31, 2009 5:41 PM PST up reply actions
Dragovic is not the top two forwards in our team
I don’t really believe he is one of the five best players in this team. He has experience which merits him perhaps 15-20 mins but not more than that. The shots he made today early on can be labeled as an aberration given how he has played his entire career. While he connected on those shots early on he was also playing vanilla defense and getting burned repeatedly.
I have already stated who I prefer in the starting line up with detailed thoughts so I don’t want to regurgitate that again. As for Michael Roll, I specifically called out his performance in the second half.
I am not saying that ND should get only 5-10 mins a game. That’s a strawman position you and others seem to keep bringing up to knock down the concerns re. Dragovic.
Also, highlighting Dragovic’s ineptitude is not meant to understate our lazy defense and poor free throw shooting and tentative offense in the second half. Unfortunately Dragovic sets the tone for it like he did when he basically shot us out of the game against Notre Dame (you can go back and watch that replay of second half again).
Dragovic shouldn’t be getting more than 15-20 mins a game. He is nothing more than a role player who should get limited mins off the bench. Yet for some reason Howland continues to let him skate with extended minutes while using the quick hook for more younger and talented athletes.
Uhm TH was not spectaculor today
Nor has he been so far this season. He has shown flashes (like his two passes today, one of which set up by ND btw), but has shown no ability to shoot. Today he was 0-2 fg and 0-2 on free throws. He had 2 rebounds and 1 turnover in 11 minutes today. Meanwhile ND tied his career high. TH has more potential, but ND is far and away superior player right now.
As for down the stretch play, ND had a key play on ASU’s second to last possession knocking a rebound to a teammate. Him getting beat off the dribble by Glasser wasn’t his fault as no power forward is going to stay in front of Glasser in that situation and RN should have come over with the help defense, which he didnt. ND probably could have hung on to the ball instead of passing to RN, but if RN makes that basket the game is over. Also, if ND doesn’t make that pass, the complaint would have been that ND didn’t pass to a wide open RN.
Watch your tone
TH was for 0-2 and 0-2 on FTs. So we judge him base on that while ignore the career number of Dragovic?
Honeycutt played pretty solid defense and was one of the key reasons when the Bruin offense was flowing and slicing apart the ASU defense while also using his athleticism on D.
Dragovic had a great shooting start but that was about it. He got burned repeatedly on defense all game long. Again if not for Lee’s clutch defense and actually solid basketball from Anderson down the stretch, we would have choked the game away. And the way Dragovic set the tone for it with his sloppy effort early in second half set the stage for an almost collapse.
I am glad we got the win. I made sure to note that. And I do think there are lot of encouraging aspects from it. However, to celebrate an aberration of a shooting night from Dragovic as something special is a little ridiculous.
Has a point re. TH
No doubt that Honeycutt is a better talent, and may already be a better all-around player than Drago, but TH has not been that great shooting the ball so far. He had a great game vs. NMSU, and has shown flashes, but he is shooting just 34% from the field (keeping in mind TH’s small sample size, but no less than Drago had in his frosh season).
formerly bruinhoo
TH has not been that great shooting the ball
But he hasn’t gotten the unlimited minutes of Dragovic. Dragovic has had four years to “prove” himself. The only thing he has “proven” is that he is a bad shooter, who has good shooting stretch once in a blue moon and consistently hurts the team playing terrible defense.
We don’t have the same amount of data on Honeycutt to make the same kind of conclusion.
The issue is that of those 3 forwards
Only Drago is capable of going off for 23 points on 7-11 shooting — as he did a number of times in Pac 10 last season — in a game-deciding fashion, and it will take that kind of performance from SOMEBODY for us to win these any games with this team.
We don't know that
We don’t know whether other forwards are “capable of going off for 23 points on 7-11 shooting” because they have not been afforded the same opportunity to make mistakes and stay in the game by Ben Howland.
Moreover, your argument about him doing it in a “number of times in Pac-10” last season is baseless considering he only scored over 20 points just ONCE in the entire Pac-10 season last year. That was against Washington State. He played well for a stretch and then reverted back to the same form in that same game.
So stop revising history.
When it was clear that ND was not having
a good shooting second period, I would have much preferred to see TH for his quickness on D. I think in the second half, TH’s D would have made up for his mediocre shooting and helped keep our lead.
I think it is good to have a game like this especially for the young players. It will give them something to think about next time they have a big lead.
Just for the record --
I have never represented your position as one that says ND should only get 5-10 minutes. Never. So, the straw man is in your post, not mine.
All I’ve done is ask a simple question as to who should be starting. And, Nestor my friend, although you may well have given your starting line up and details, I did not direct that question at your personally. For all of your negativity, you have not cursed at him or called him terrible names.
There are many people complaining about ND and it is really directed at them. It’s easy to be negative. If they want to second guess CBH, that’s fine. But, I think they have an obligation to tell us who they would start and how they would replace what he’s giving us — 2nd in rebounds, first in FT’s, and 3rd in scoring. Amongst the players who start, he is 4th in TO’s and he’s played more minutes than most.
I am not blind to his deficiencies, read my prior posts. But, also read the ones that are consistent with the one I posted, today. CBH has a dilemma. He has too few really good players. He’s made the decision to start ND. When someone can take that spot away, I think he’ll play him.
I think the key to taking it away is to play strong D — attack ND where he is weakest, rebound like crazy, and add some points from somewhere. I think the most likely challenger will be TH — but he is not there yet. BL won’t be there for a year or so. And, JK isn’t either.
sjh
My problem with ND...
…is that he’s just not very good. I understand that CBH feels compelled to play him given some of our current roster problems, but that said, he’s still a lazy-ass defender who takes terrible shots.
Yes, today, without his points, our Bruins would have lost. But for every game that he shoots lights out and basically keeps us in it or wins it for us, he costs us at least two games by shooting us out of the game with terrible shot selection and brick-after-brick.
Moreover, he brings in points, but how many points does he give up to the opposition with his terrible defense?
I’m seeing a lot of garbage comments from drive-by posters proclaiming how great ND is and how wrong all of us who are calling for his minutes to be curtailed are wrong. There’s a lot more to the game than how many points ND puts up. No one is talking about how many points he cost us on the defensive end or how many games he has totally shot us out of. Easy to trumpet him when he has his once-every-three month lights-out shooting game.
Don’t worry folks: Brickovic will return against Arizona.
No, ND Is Not Very Good
But, other than ML and RN, who on this team is consistently good on both ends of the floor? And, who would be more effective playing his minutes?
bruinponcho and I are hardly “drive by posters”. Both of us have had a consistent theme, all season — in the context of what we have, CBH’s decision to play ND is correct.
bruinponcho has a far better eye for the intricacies of BB than I do, and probably better than many posters here. Throughout the season, he has analyzed the plays on which many here have yelled about ND’s “defensive breakdowns” to point out that the mistakes were not ND’s but were those of other “more favored” players. But, even I can see when ND has to leave his man to help out someone who has been beat — often JA .
The level of hatred and criticism directed at ND is irrational. He played as well as he could play last night and still got criticized more than any other player on the floor.
I am not a drive by ND fan.
I am a Bruin fan. I want what is best for this team. And, I think what is best for this team is to respect the players when they do well, to criticize constructively when it is due, and to leave irrational hatred and name calling out of the equation.
The attacks on ND, are going way over the line. He has become the scapegoat for the frustrations many feel about the current state of the program. RN was 4-7 from the line. TH 0-2. Shooting us out of the game? ML was 1-4 on 3’s.
Critics of ND lose their credibility when their vicious attacks follow games in which he has played better than usual and others have not.
sjh
ND is not very good, he is atrocious
And calling him that is not “vicious.” After all Karl Dorrell had a 13-9 here and there. It didn’t make him a good coach.
ND
For a senior, his shooting is poor. He’s supposed to have a good touch, but he only produces in streaks. Defensively, also poor. When he tries I give him an average rating, but that is rare. Mosf good players make up for their poor shooting nights in other places, ND doesn’t and makes poor choices at the same time.
The only reason I think Howland likes him is his size and is praying he gets on a hot streak to end the season.
Regarding making the attacks on him very aggresive, yes too many people rip on him consistantly. He may be bad, but most of the people here are mature adults, and on top of that Bruins. A little more class would look better on all of us.
Class of 66 your post on the Texas Tech blog was perfect!! You nailed every point regarding Leach, the coverage, aftermath, epic post. My wife found it yesterday, tried posting there but needed to wait for the login to work.
Then our whole team is not very good
B, your argument makes no sense. First you say:
I understand that CBH feels compelled to play him given some of our current roster problems, but that said, he’s still a lazy-ass defender who takes terrible shots.
Well given our current roster problems, who would you rather see in there? This was 66’s original question to BN? Its easy to say “not ND”, but the flipside of that argument is if not ND, then who? I like BL more than most out here, but he is still very tentative and not nearly physical or athletic enough to play meaningful minutes. JK is JK. JMM is still as lost as ever. So that leaves TH. But TH is a small forward, not a power forward where ND plays. If you want more of TH, that means less of MR, not ND. TH will be good, but at this point he is so raw offensively that he isn’t a threat to make anything that isn’t a layup and is a shaky ballhandler.
Then you make this as you say “garbage comment”
But for every game that he shoots lights out and basically keeps us in it or wins it for us, he costs us at least two games by shooting us out of the game with terrible shot selection and brick-after-brick.
Really? So the reason we lost to Fullerton had nothing to do with JA missing two potential game winners or ML taking a record number of ill advised shots? Or our other losses had nothing to do with the fact that the team as a whole cannot shoot free throws? To put the blame for losses on the fact that ND has been shooting poorly is to misallocate blame unfairly onto one player when those losses were team losses.
However, you are absolutely right that
There’s a lot more to the game than how many points ND puts up.
ND has been one of the better rebounders on this team, although its true that he has played more minutes then others. He has also been a better playmaker this year finding open teammates than he was last year. Yes he got beat defensively early in the season when we were playing small teams where he was put in the tough position of guarding a 6’3 guy. Now that he is playing exclusively at power forward and against bigger teams, I don’t think his defense as as much of a liability as it was earlier in the year.
As for other aspects of the game being ignored, what about the rest of the team. JA still makes terrible ball handling decisions and cant shoot free throws, despite being the starting point guard. That said, he probably had his best game of the year yesterday, which isn’t saying much. How about ML? He had a few ill advised passes and become a non-factor as the lead slowly dripped away. Not exactly the leadership from your team’s best player that ML has been hyped by some to be. And what about the golden child RN? I love that he makes hustle plays, but 6 rebounds in 32 minutes from your starting center playing against a small opponent isn’t anything to right home about. His weak breakaway layup that was blocked also was disappointing. I wont even touch his free throw shooting, but finally, his positional defense still leaves a lot to be desired. He also blew the rotation on the Glasser drive past ND that allowed for Glasser to have an uncontested lineup.
I’m not saying that ND is infallible. All I am saying is that I wish the many intelligent members of BN would be honest and fair in their analysis. When ND does well, give him credit for it. At the same time, don’t blindly ignore the many shortcomings of the rest of the roster.
But
No excuse for letting people walk right around him on D. I agree, Howland likes his size, best guess why he keeps his minutes. Other players need to improve also but the main discussion is ND.
For a senior, his example is poor. Leadership is big in my book, after so many years, just have higher expectations of him, as he should for himself.
Also
This was ONE game, if ND does it for the next 5 games and everyone else continues to play at a low level then some of the points may stick.
Yep
If Dragovic does it consistently then I’d be more than happy to give him due credit. He had 3-4 decent games the entire year last year. So far this year he has had one good game and that’s about it. Not good enough for someone who has been around for four years and have gotten the amount of mins.
right...
N, I don’t think anyone here is saying “look, ND had a lot of points tonight, that shows he should definitely be the starter forever more and CBH’s confidence was totally justified”
I think the overall reaction on this thread – in keeping with the game thread and in contrast to earlier games – is based on how commenters seem to want to tear ND even when he is having his one good game of the season. A couple of comments on the game thread (not yours) were way overboard in tone, language and unnecessary vitriol aimed at a specific player.
I think everyone here appreciates the high level of analysis provided on BN – particularly when games can be difficult to get to, or nearly impossible to watch on rough internet feeds. But I think some of the mild backlash on this thread comes from comments like
“At the same time, I am still disgusted by the bonehead performance of Nikola Dragovic, who through his consistent dumb plays pretty much negated the 12-15 mins of offensive glory he enjoyed this entire season "
where you (in accordance with a number of other people here) allow your frustration with ND’s performances this season (and over his career) to deem his above-average contribution to the win as a matter for disgust.
ND played well the entire first half, played poorly at the start of the second half, and pulled himself together enough at the end of the game to make some important shots. “The Pass” may live on in infamy, but that play was not as negative as many other players making unforced turnovers down the stretch. His D was weak, but CBH kept him in most of the last stretch playing with 4 fouls, and the team defense when we were defending the lead was also pretty poor.
The team’s poor play, keyed by ND, let them back in at the start of the 2nd half. The team’s poor FTs, matador defense and poor execution on offense almost let the game slip away, but singling out ND for that just doesn’t seem to me (in my subjective way…) to be an objective reading of the last minutes of that game.
Your many points about ND this season have had a lot of validity, and while there is clearly some debate as to whether CBH has better options available to him, no-one could argue that your overall assessment of ND’s disappointing performances are far from the mark. But I think your instant analysis take on last night – “ML, RN and even JA are great, and managed to overcome ND’s typically boneheaded performance” – is completely unreflective of the reality of that game.
As to the rest of the season: like you, I found JA’s performance the most promising, as it seems like he really is developing as a point guard (6 assists, 2 turnovers) and making some forward progress as a sophomore, while ND’s game was a streaky performance in a career of streaky perfomances.
I don’t take ND’s performance as validation of anything, or even as providing promise for the rest of the season. I just don’t agree with attacking him for last night’s performance; if he stays true to form people will have plenty of fodder to criticize him in the coming weeks, but the overall level of analysis suffers when ND’s deficiencies are overemphasized and other team deficiencies are underemphasized.
by britishbruin on Jan 1, 2010 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
I spent plenty of time
Pointing out the letdown performances of other seniors such as Keefe and Roll. I didn’t underemphasize their mistakes in any way.
If you don’t think my post game recap wasn’t good enough for you then you are more than welcome to write up your own and offer up your analysis in the fanposts to fill in any gaps we might have missed. Otherwise, keep the whining to a minimum.
it is not about 'good enough for me'
While, of course, everyone has their own take on things, I have rarely watched a football or basketball game over the last couple of years without finding myself broadly in agreement with your assessments. I wouldn’t presume anyone on this board (and least of all me) would do a better job than you do week in and week out.
However, you regularly call other people out for not providing ‘objective’ analysis on this board, and call out people in the MSM for trying to fit the facts of a situation into some predetermined narrative or to fit some agenda. To say that ND’s performance last night seemed like an aberration compared with the season so far would be one thing; but to spin his performance last night as boneheaded, a huge negative only overcome by inspiring effort from JA and RN, does not seem an objective assessment.
by britishbruin on Jan 1, 2010 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
Newsflash for you: we are not journalists
Neither do we care about being part of the main stream media. We are fans. I have never claimed to be an objective observer. I am a Bruin partisan through and through and will view everything through blue and colored prism while depending on facts. At the same time I will not make apologies for offering my opinions here. I do believe on balance Dragovic’s performance typified his low basketball IQ which included boneheaded plays almost costing us the game.
If you see it other way then offer up your own analysis. Stop lecturing us on what we should be or shouldn’t be writing or how we should be doing it. Thanks.
we're all Blue and Gold partisans
which is why we have a hard time being ‘objective’ about the merits of our teams and coaches compared with those at other schools. It shouldn’t make us incapable of being objective about the relative merits and performances of one of our players versus our other players, unless we are partisans for (or against) particular players rather than partisans for the team.
by britishbruin on Jan 1, 2010 12:10 PM PST up reply actions
I feel
I am being more than fair in my assessment of Dragovic based on 3+ years of datapoints (compared to other athletes we haven’t had the chance to see as much of). As I said, we disagree on this. At this point I’d suggest you drop the matter if you are intend on lecturing what or how I should be writing. Thanks.
I agree with your general assessment of Dragovic
I agree that he has subpar defense, makes dumb decisions, demonstrates poor effort, commits bad fouls, is insufficiently careful with the ball and has a habit of poor shot selection when he isn’t getting open looks. Also, as mentioned on a previous thread, his off-the-field issues make me wish he wasn’t representing my school at all, and I would like someone (TH seeming like the only likely option) to step up their performance and seize some of ND’s minutes through superior play.
by britishbruin on Jan 1, 2010 12:33 PM PST up reply actions
Fair enough
As I noted to poncho I will try to keep in mind the feedback you guys have given. Let’s just leave it at that. I will root for Dragovic to make me eat crow through consistent performances rest of this season. I am sure you guys will be on it.
Fair enough
Over the last three games (all wins), ND was had 17, 11, and 23 points and was importantly 11-12 on free throws. Seems like a pretty good trend to me.
Two of those opponents were cupcakes
Against whom you’d expect a 4th year senior to have decent games. It’d be something different if he were a true freshman or first year starter being productive in the early season.
Moreover
As noted previously, his <a href=“http:// ”http://www.bruinsnation.com/2009/12/28/1222256/ben-ball-roundup-dreadful-dragovic" target="_blank">http://www.bruinsnation.com/2009/12/28/1222256/ben-ball-roundup-dreadful-dragovic" target="new">performance against Delaware was dreadful:
Nikola Dragovic, despite scoring 11 points, had a pretty dreadful game. We could laundry list the many things he did poorly, on the majority of UCLA’s offensive and defensive possessions. He only scored on lay-ups created by his teammates’ assists, or free throws; he missed every other shot he took from beyond 3 feet, and actually missed a couple of lay-ups, too, that were barely contested. Usually, at least, he rebounds well, but he didn’t even do that in this one. To start the game, Dragovic on a break missed a teammate on a sloppy behind-the-back pass, had a couple of more bad passes and poor defensive trips, but he inexplicably stayed in the game. In the second half, Dragovic missed a wide-open three, and then drove the lane and tried to go up for a flashy one-handed dunk and was easily called for a charge. A couple of minutes later, Howland did, in fact, pull Dragovic and his back-up, freshman Brendan Lane, came into the game and immediately hit a three-pointer.
But hey even Dorrell supporters found a way to fling around isolated stats without looking at the big picture.
So ND = Dorrell now
Great to see that defending a current player is now equivalent to defending a hapless coach who was in over his head.
Also, I know a lot of people didn’t see that Delaware game, but I did. ND was not nearly as bad as Pierson’s description would have you believe. The “flashy one handed dunk” wasn’t flashy at all. He got a pass that put him in a position that there was no way of avoiding a charge. ND was not “pulled” for BL in that game. ND was substituted for at the normal time that he is any other game. The fact that BL made his first 3 of the season just gave Pierson an angle to write his recap.
I was at Pauley for DSU
The entire game was sluggish, disjointed and the entire team slept walked through the game. The entire second half was a great reason to have a running clock like they do in pee wee league games.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Exactly
It was a crappy game that was over pretty easy. Hence my point that Pierson needed some sort of snappy angle for his recap in order to get readers to his story. The game recap really could have just been your two sentence description instead of a platform to throw attacks at ND.
ND
In games ND started last season he was the Bruins 2nd leading rebounder, lead the team in blocked shots, was 2nd on the team in FT , shot 45 from the field and was the Bruins 3rd leading scorer, again, as a starter.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
You're both missing the obvious
First, 66 and Poncho, you’re both long-standing members of the BN community, so obviously I wasn’t referring to you when I was commenting on “drive-by posters.” What I meant by my comment, if you look through the thread, a lot of the folks jumping on the ND bandwagon are folks just showing up to the party. That’s weak.
Now to the point. My comment was on ND and ND only because the commentary between 66 and Nestor was re: ND. You’re calling me unfair for not being critical of the whole team. I think I’ve shown in the past I’m not afraid to criticize these players, so if you want me to spread it around, okay: JA sucks at PG. ML and TH are too inconsistent. RN is way too raw. BL plays way too soft. JMM is basically clueless. JK is well, I don’t even know at this point.
On the plus side, none of our guys, ND included, is a major cancer to the program like DG was, so plus one for all of them.
MR has bad games, but he’s shown consistency. ASU was not a very good game for him. Typically, though, he makes smart plays, usually has good shot selection, knows CBH’s offense and defense and does a servicable job on both ends of the floor. I expect that from a senior. JK doesn’t draw a lot of flak from me because he rarely gets to play.
Why does ND often draw my ire? Why am I not so critical of the younger guys, like JA?
ND is a senior. He’s been in this program for four years. JA is a sophomore. JA gets more latitude to make mistakes than ND does. I have seen next to no improvement in ND’s game since he arrived in Westwood. His defense is still poor, his shot selection is terrible, and he’s distruptive to our offensive flow. Yes, he gets rebounds, but that’s statistical fool’s gold (given how many more minutes he gets, etc.).
As a senior, he sets a poor example with his poor defense and bad shot selection. Nestor has said it time and time again: if you’re a younger player and you see him play the way he does (which often looks sluggish and lazy) and he still gets minutes, that has to be discouraging. Look at the numbers from the first half of the ASU game (when we were “doing good” and winning). Who was responsible for the most ASU points defensively? Roll allowed 10 and ND allowed 9. No other player was responsible for more than 2. Look at each defensive series. Our two seniors allowed ASU 19 points. I give MR a bit of slack since typically he plays better. For ND, that’s a typical half for him.
Let’s look at ND’s season stats:
CSU Fullerton: 2 for 14, 1 for 9 from 3PT.
Portland: 1 for 5, 0 for 1 from 3PT.
Butler: 4 for 7, 2 for 4 from 3PT.
Long Beach State: 2 for 10, 0 for 6 from 3PT.
Kansas: 5 for 13, 3 for 8 from 3PT.
Miss. St.: 0 for 9, 0 for 5 from 3PT.
Notre Dame: 4 for 12, 0 for 2 from 3PT.
In every Bruin loss, I see a consistent pattern: ND shooting us out of the game. Is he the only player to blame for those losses? Obviously, no. JA played like crap in some of those games. ML did nothing in some of those games. The list goes on.
But ND is the one consistent factor in every Bruin loss. For a SENIOR, he’s supposed to be better and his poor defense and terrible shot selection continues to kill us. Yes, he more or less won the ASU game. But he cost us dearly against Long Beach and Miss. St., didn’t he? Numbers don’t lie.
Finally, to answer 66’s question, I don’t know. That’s the problem for me. Our team is lacking in talent and depth, so hell, ND might be the only option we have. That’s pretty troubling. ND should be a role player, coming off the bench for 15 minutes or so. He shouldn’t be starting. I know, we’re stuck with the roster we have (which brings up the point I made about CBH’s recruiting the last few years, but I digress).
in defense of JMM
I saw him run out and hedge in the perfect spot once yesterday.
ASU still scored on the possession, but it was a great hedge…
by britishbruin on Jan 1, 2010 11:11 AM PST up reply actions
Very good points
I especially enjoyed your one line snyposis of each player’s abilities. Too funny.
The one quibble I would have with looking at the first half points scored against is that Kouskis was pretty much unconscious yesterday making shots he had no business making. Better defense may have made him miss one or two of those, but for most of his shots there was nothing anyone could do to stop them. Amazing offense beats any type of defense any day.
ND
Our first half offense was a combination of ND going off (thanks to some good ball movement), and things opening up on the inside once they started pushing their zone further out in respect of our outside shooting. He didn’t just get the points, he created the situation in which the other offensive players could thrive. At one point, they were sending two guys at him on the outside to force him to give up the ball. Second half he cooled off, and suddenly things did not come so easily for us inside.
Overall he was 7-11, 6-8 from 3-point land, for a career-high 23, and should have had more but for some horrible refereeing. Without ND’s offensive production, we lose this game. To harp on him for the way we almost let ASU snatch it is to completely overstate ND’s deficiencies and understate the huge number of turnovers, poor shot selections and ugly free throw shooting that stymied our point scoring in the second half.
Did ND have a great game? Clearly not, from an overall perspective taking into account some of his own turnovers and defensive lapses. Was he a serviceable player on our team? Surely he was?
+1
You can blame a lot of things on ND, even in this game, but the almost-comeback for ASU is absolutely not one of them. There was one play (the pass) where he might have hurt us during that stretch, and its importance has been far overstated. There is only one reason the game got as close as it did near the end: their players had fouls to give and we stunk it up from the charity stripe. Simple as that. The strategy of fouling to get the ball back is predicated on the assumption that:
a) You (the fouling team) can make more points in the following possesion than the opponent gets for free (i.e. shoot a three, draw a foul for a three-point-play, etc.), and/or
b) The other team bricks the free throw(s).
Both of those assumptions were well-warranted today over the several times ASU employed that strategy, and (IIRC) none of them involved ND.
Say what you will about the shot selection, but ND and MR were without a doubt the two most important players for us today. Basic basketball strategy states that to beat a zone, you need outside shooting to force them to divide their resources between the paint and the perimeter. Take away the outside threat, and you’ll see how difficult it gets to score in the paint (second half, anyone?) We don’t have many players that can create their own shots, so the fact that ND and MR created shots for our shorter-range guys is a huge part of the win today, and at least in my opinion, more than makes up for the defensive blunders.
The ND-bashing is excessive. Where else can a player have a 23-point game, help create shots for teammates, have a major part in breaking down a well-respected zone defense, yet still get the kind of flak he’s gotten in this thread? Yes, he needs to work on defense. Yes, he could choose better shots at times. But 7/11 for 23 points is pretty outstanding in my book, and this coupled with last game’s 17 points makes me think this is less of an anomaly and more the end of a slump. If he goes back to scoring in the single digits on 30+min of playtime on a consistent basis, I’ll certainly eat crow, but I was taught not to throw out data as anomalous until you have a good perspective on it.
by b d on Jan 1, 2010 2:31 AM PST up reply actions
Love it...
I split season tix with a buddy and we cannot understand why ND is such a polarizing player. He has some pluses – length, rebounding, experience, ability to stretch defenses, is a good passer, and he can shoot the ball. He’s not a good defender, that puts him with 70% of NCAA basketball. He does play hard and he does have big role with this team. Howland knows his teams limitations, if he thought ND was a detriment he wouldn’t give him minutes.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Zona gametime WTF
Gametime is 10am PST?! WTF?! People
in the east coast want to watch this game this bad?
by hongerelli on Dec 31, 2009 5:08 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Dragovic
Would we have won today without him?
We need him to play and produce offensively, which he has struggled so far to do in the same way he did last year. But that is expected from someone without the athleticism to carry a team or play lockdown d, and the lack of others to be the main focus. So his production has dipped.
But his 9 straight games to end the season last year and 8 other games through out scoring in double digits were not an aberration or a ‘flukey hot-streak’. Howland seems to believe that, and I think we will not win many games this year in the Pac-10 without him playing, and playing well offensively.
Great week to be a Bruin
A great FB 2nd half on Tuesday to win the game, and a great BB 1st half today that we held onto to win the game.
A great way to end 2009 and reason for optimism in 2010.
Happy New Year all.
Just finished watching game on DVR.
The time difference in HI doesn’t allow me to watch early games live, since I have to work. After reading the post game thread, I found the statment by Nestor, “The Bruins got off to a great start thanks to once in a blue moon shooting from Dragovic ..” to be funny, because today is actually a blue moon.
Oregon-Wazzu playing double-OT.
$c has maintained a high-single digit lead over the Mildcats throughout much of their game, and hold a 56-50 lead with 10 seconds to go.
formerly bruinhoo
I searched the guide on DirecTV
and found nothing.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 31, 2009 6:12 PM PST up reply actions
Wazzu up 2, 53 seconds remaining
Oregon in severe foul trouble. Wazzu has attempted 42 ft’s!
formerly bruinhoo
All close games
Perhaps a foretaste of a tough close Pac 10 season. If so, the team that improves the most and the best coached will have the edge. I wonder who that might be?
by peggysue69 on Dec 31, 2009 7:14 PM PST via mobile reply actions
To win close games we MUST make FT's
especially our guards.
This drives me crazy. It’s not like the players are learning a new system — they’ve been shooting FT’s all their lives. Why in the world are we so bad?
sjh
Hmm,
how can you be a 4 or 5 star recruit and not shoot FT’s?
Especially at a position where drawing fouls is part of the game?
sjh
I don't think scouts pay attention to that
Reading DC’s profile and a few other guards, it doesn’t mention free throws at all… It should definately be put in the mix though.
I’ve watched Jerime and Malcolm play (and torch) my high school, and they still hit about 70 percent from the foul line
Formerly ucla13_usc9
by 03rdn9 on Jan 1, 2010 6:56 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
2-3 Zone
Unfortunately, I didn’t get to catch any of the game (yay workday and a lack of an online stream), but what caught my attention was the mentioning of Howland throwing out a zone defense.
WHAT?!
Kidding aside, I’d love to read any commentary/remarks on how we looked while we ran it (any video clips would be wonderful). Having personal experience with the 2-3, I always thought that we should throw in some elements to at least throw off our conference foes who expect that we’ll be facing up with them man-to-man. Seems Howland’s finally adapted, despite his stubbornness.
GO BRUINS!
It was effective enough
I thought it worked well right off the bat, but I still think the best bet is Man. If we can mix it up with a longer set of players in, it will really be effective in the long run, but if we run it too much, it will start to fade.
ASU slashed it up with the younger players in, they have never played against UCLA, so basically no bad memories of the man defense.
Formerly ucla13_usc9
Agree
Zone will be good to have in the tool box given the dearth of lock-down D on this squad, but will never be our bread and butter. Part of its effectiveness tonight owed to the element of surprise – thus the need to be flexible and use it as needed. This team absolutely sucks on D relative to the past 4 seasons, so anything that keeps the opponent guessing is worth entertaining. Mixing in some full-court press wouldn’t be a bad call on occasion too …
The simple truth is
without Drago’s early scoring, we lose. I am very surprised that we beat ASU, based on our comparative records and the number of experienced players they have, compared to our relatively youthful and inexperienced squad, so I am not looking this gift horse in the mouth. We need to get ready for U of A, a team that I thought we could beat if we played well. Certainly, it is unlikely to develop in the same way as today’s outing. I am pretty sure that we won’t repeat our first half shooting performance. Nevertheless, if we attack and disrupt this young Arizona team and work for good shots on offense, we should prevail. In other words, traditional Ben Ball should do the trick. Not that some well played zone is not called for, too. In fact, CBH, who is not stubborn and incompetent, may realize that, for this team, he may have something there. And I am counting on JA to have two solid games in a row. Oh, yes, We will probably make some mistakes and show a lack of poise on occasion. But, mainly, we have to forget today’s extremely atypical game and maintain focus and effort.
OK, but
If we made 90 percent of our free throws, and Dragovic scores 5, we win by the same margin, its the underlying problem here.
Formerly ucla13_usc9
I'm no math major
but I’m pretty sure if we had hit 90% of our FTs instead of ~60%, and Dragovic scored 5 instead of 23, we lose.
We only missed 11 FTs. Even if we hit all of them we don’t make up 18 points in reduced Dragovic production in your hypothetical. Maybe you meant ‘if Dragovic scores 15’?
But it is definitely a problem when your two primary ball handlers can’t shoot FTs with any consistency.
by britishbruin on Dec 31, 2009 9:52 PM PST up reply actions
zone
I thought it looked great, and would have looked even better but for some very good long- range shooting on their part as the clock was winding down. There is a reason it is banned in the NBA: it works too well.
NBA
Still have some strange rules, like defensive 3 seconds. Not a true zone.
Defensive 3 was instituted at the same time as the removal of illegal defense
IMO, defensive 3 is a common sense rule that I think the NBA has correct and especially makes sense in the context of allowing zone defense. If offensive players can’t camp out in the paint, then defensive players shouldn’t be able to either. The other positive for removing illegal defense is that it was called very inconsistently. The more ambiguity you can remove from the rulebook, the better.
My observations...
I’ve never bashed Dragovic because I understand that he has limitations in a few areas, but, despite his struggles shooting, he is in the game to do one thing – score. If Howland felt there was a better option he’d turn to it. Every player goes through shooting slumps. Everybody can argue of what constitutes a slump and what is a true reflection of a players ability, but ND is a streaky shooter that UCLA needs. ND was an important part of last season’s team too. He played a good game, everybody had lapses on defense yesterday – to constantly ride ND for his is simply unfair.
ASU is a tough team to prepare for. They play small and their zone is an active one that traps and pressures from different points. The Bruins did enough to secure a victory. The fact that they made us sweat doesn’t take that away. This team is going to be inconsistent and go through stretches in games that they look ugly. Accept that as reality and this season will be a lot easier to swallow. All that said the team is playing a lot better than they were during their losing streak.
I liked that Howland went to the zone, it was a nice change up defense and was mostly effective. ASU carved it in the second half, but going to the zone in the first half is what afforded the Bruins the chance to get their big lead. I liked the way JA played, he stayed within himself and didn’t make the “bad” turnovers he’s prone to. I understand that we outrebounded ASU by 2, but I was disappointed we didn’t have a bigger advantage. UCLA seems to give up a fair share of long rebounds, that is a result of lack of hustle and bad communication on defense more than anything else.
Fair to say that the Bruins winning by only 2 points on a night they shoot over 60% for the game is an upset. The bench was non existent outside of JK who played a big role in the first half. The talent and athleticism of TH wasn’t able to be displayed yesterday because fo match ups – plain and simple. ASU’s style of play dictates you make and take a lot of jumpers. Make no mistake TH can shoot the rock, he hasn’t displayed it much this season (similar to Lane), but is a high caliber player. Yesterday wasn’t his time to shine – in Saturday’s contest against Arizona the Bruins will need TH because he has the ability to create offense.
U of A and UCLA are going through the same types of growing pains. It will be a tough game for UCLA because the Wildcats will pressure our guards defensively. The Cats do struggle scoring, but they have athletes that can exploit the Bruins weak points on defense containing the dribble. Keeping guys like Derrick Williams, Horne and Nic Wise out of the paint will be the big key in winning.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Zone should be effective against Zona
I really hope CBH uses a lot of zone against UA tomorrow. ASU had the shooters to break our zone yesterday as they are one of the better shooting teams in the conference. However, Arizona is built more on athleticism and driving than outside shooting. A zone defense played as well as CBH had working against ASU should be highly effective.
I hope so
UCLA doesn’t have a defender that can stay in front of Williams or Wise. Arizona has trouble on the boards and defending the perimeter. Sounds like another nail biter. I’ll be there tomorrow.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
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.
