UCLA Basketball: Hope is Nice, But Let's Be Realistic on our Bench
My last front page analysis post was an optimistic post and there have been a lot of you writing optimistic things about UCLA basketball. And from what I have seen our big 4 (Lee, Honeycutt, Nelson, and newcomer Smith) are looking better than last year or in the case of Smith, worthy of the hype. The PG position remains a big worry. But putting that aside, there is a second very good reason why the PAC 10 writers and others are a bit dubious of predicting UCLA higher than third or fourth in the conference, that is our bench.
First the obvious, we only have 10 available scholarship players. We also cannot afford to have any of the big 4 players hurt (remember last year we started 5 different people at Center alone). It is fair to say CBH was alluding to both when he said:
With only 10 eligible scholarship players, the Bruins cannot endure a similar spate of injuries if they hope to rebound from a 14-18 season in which numerous key players missed considerable stretches.
"We can't afford any major problems in terms of any significant injuries," Howland said. "That would be the one thing I would be most worried about that we have no control over."
There is a debate here on how many players CBH should play in a regular rotation and there will be again this year.
But, of course, CBH has the last word on the rotation and for now he has stated that:
[Last Season] Howland essentially used a seven-man rotation last season, with three players averaging at least 32 minutes a game.
The coach said he plans to go at least nine deep this season, sparing some of the wear and tear on his players. The Bruins also have put a renewed focus on conditioning, with Nelson lowering his body fat from 9% to a team-best 5%.
The latter seems a bit contradictory. If you are in better shape can't you play fewer players? In any case for purposes of this post, I will assume a 9 man rotation of the scholarship players. (Dr. Mexican's point aside.) .
10. The Sharpshooter: Matt Carlino.
Despite early signs that Carlino was going to compete for PG minutes, it seems like he may be the odd man out in a 9 man rotation. All though it is very early, some like Nestor, are comparing him to Brandon Lloyd. This is because he looks like a great shooting, skinny, relatively short shooting guard. It seems like Carlino is the best outside shooter on the team, but the question remains what else can he do? Isn't he small to be a backup swing? As one guy put it, he was only listed as a PG because he is six foot one. With only 10 players it seems like everyone needs to be able to help right now and Carlino looks really young.
I am hoping for the kid, but I am scared that after the year, we may be asking what was CBH hoping for when he recruited him?
9. The project: Anthony Stover.
The first question that comes to mind on Stover is when we had so many problems last year at Center, did anyone ever consider "un-redshirting" Stover? The answer may come from this 2009 twwl post:
Stover, who definitely falls under the "project" label, has a long ways to go on offense, but defensively he's tough to score against. He has a slight frame with very long arms, but UCLA is known for putting weight on their bigs. His timing is impeccable in the paint area and he controls the interior with his reach. Despite his size he gets off the floor fairly quick and has become a much more resilient rebounder in the past year. His offensive game is still in its infantile stage, but his footwork has improved and fundamentals are getting better. He still has a tendency to bring the ball down and his post skills are limited, but he has the potential to develop an unblockable jump hook. Stover is probably headed for a redshirt year when he arrives in Westwood, but he does possess a high ceiling.
Stover still looks very skinny. But it is reported he runs well and could be a good defender. On the flip-side, his time in the "Say No" league was similar to the scouting reports. He blocked shots but his offense was lacking, as far as I can tell his Say No League stats where 3-10 FG, 8 rebounds, and 5 blocks in 49 minutes of play.
Early reports from practice is Smith is out muscling Stover. Stover seems like a big who would benefit from running but is not ready to post up or play M2M defense against some of the stronger centers. I am hoping he is ready now but I agree with British Bruin who says "Centers often take longer to develop" and Stover may be a year or two away from being a regular PAC 10 Player. For now though, he looks like Smith's backup.
8. The fan favorite: Branden Lane.
First, Branden Lane in my mind earned his initials last year. No player played as hard as BL last year every time he came on the floor. And, as we found out after the season, BL was playing on a bum ankle. To give so much, especially on a team that is in the middle of such a bad year, is very impressive.
However, effort is not enough. Lane, like Stover, is skinny. We are told Lane added 20 pounds of muscle. I am not seeing it. Further, Lane was also the rawest player to start a game last year and it showed. Lane's best game was against Oregon who had no interior players and as UCLA was playing without RN, Oregon was not playing interior defense, BL took advantage for a big game. But against a disciplined defensive team like USC, Lane was literally pushed around, looked lost and could do little more than foul. Lane led the team last year in the dubious category of fouls per minute with a foul every 7.29 minutes which was in part due to his rawness and his lack of weight.
I am rooting for Lane but I still think we should not hope for too much from him this year against the better teams. He will be Reeves Nelson's backup.
7. Is Hope for Change Wasted? Jerime Anderson
First, CBH is adamant he has not picked a starting PG. Listing Anderson on the bench could be wrong. However, for Anderson's sake I am hoping he comes off the bench for a strange reason, less pressure. JA had times were he was just burned in an ugly matter (the USC ball strip), when he was lazy (missing rehab sessions for his groin injury which caused him to be benched) but his worst moment may have been the Oregon game on Senior Day. A very shorthanded UCLA was coming down at the end of the game with a chance to win. Anderson had the ball in his hands about 10 feet above the three point line with no defensive pressure and . . . he threw the ball straight out of bounds. I gotta believe he just choked.
Anderson has some ability on offense. He has made some shots and is our best returning three shooter.
I am concerned about it but also concerned that CBH has not made an alternate plan for Anderson. I remain unconvinced that JA is a PAC 10 PG but can see him as a 2. I hope that CBH knows what he is doing with JA but I am not sure what has changed.
6. A new Mr. Clutch? Tyler Lamb
I ended the "optimistic" post on starters on a note of concern on the PG position. I will end this concerned post on the bench with a positive note on the bench. The one sub I am not concerned about but more interested in how good he will be is Tyler Lamb. Lamb seems like a guy who plays at his best in the big games, see this story on his high school career:
While his teammates made only 9 of 41 shots against Westchester, Lamb was 13 for 22 from the floor. He was 3 for 7 on 3-point shots, while his teammates were 2 for 22. Mater Dei was No. 1 in the state rankings, and Westchester was No. 2.
That was in many ways a typical game for Lamb, as he often was Mater Dei's best player against the Monarchs' better opponents. He scored a team-high 21 points in the Regionals semifinals against Taft of Woodland Hills, which was No. 2 in the state rankings.
Lamb led Mater Dei with 26 points in a triumph over Bishop Gorman of Las Vegas in the Nike Extravaganza, scored 24 and 19 points in the Monarchs' two Trinity League victories over Orange Lutheran, and had team highs of 23 points and 11 rebounds in a nationally televised victory over De Matha of Maryland.
Not that the scrimmage at the Bruins only public practice equals the pressure of High School playoffs but notice some of the similarities:
Freshman shooting guard Tyler Lamb has impressed Howland with his defensive tenacity and three-point accuracy, making five of six shots from beyond the arc during a scrimmage Saturday.
. . . The display was especially welcome because Lamb had not shot particularly well during the Bruins' early practices, Howland said. The coach was also encouraged by Lamb's play on defense.
. . ."I have high expectations for Tyler Lamb to play a major role on this year's team," Howland said.
I think Lamb will back up the 2-3 spot not just shooting guard. If the other subs don't measure up, come PAC10 time look for Lamb to play more minutes and other guys to move over for brief periods. By that I mean, Lamb could find himself, while only playing 2 and 3, essentially backing up all positions from 2-5 because TH could slide over to 4 and Reeves Nelson 5 again to get Lamb on the floor. Note I said could. All I can say for sure is what CBH said:
"He's going to have to play right away," Howland said of Lamb. "He's going to play and he's going to play an important role right away.
"He can get a lot of time. We've got 10 guys on scholarship. He's going to play a major role this year. There's no question. I can't be anymore clear than that.
Compare our bench to say, predicted first place finisher UW and you see a big difference starting at PG where they have two capable backup players. Of course the bench is not the equal of last final four team bench of LM-R, AA2, James Keefe and Michael Roll but it is also not even the equal of last year's bench at the start of the year of Reeves Nelson, Tyler Honeycutt, and James Keefe.
That said we need results and improvement and not just blind hope for future change. We need 20 wins or else CBH is going to face some hard questions on what he was thinking on PG, with the Carlino recruitment, or having only 10 scholarship players available including a couple very raw ones.
I think our Big 4 can do it, hopefully Lamb and the bench can do their part.
Go Bruins!
59 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I forgot about Doctor Mexican for a minute.
With that reminder, we know who will be starting at three positions simultaneously, but who will the other starters be?
(Also, I took another look at the Doctor Mexican link. He says he’s an “andrologixt.” I missed that the first time though. My on-line dictionary has never heard of that word. Is that a major or an occupation? Is it so highly technical or highly classified that I shouldn’t be surprised that I have never heard of it? Help a geezer on this, please.)
I think it may be
“one who determines the top 20 or 30 of all time.”
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
Andrology vs. Andrologixt?
Maybe Doctor Mexican was referring to the following:
" Medicine study related to male health, particularly relating to the problems of the male reproductive system and urological problems that are unique to men. It is the counterpart to gynaecology, which deals with medical issues which are specific to the female reproductive system." (Wikipedia).
Not sure how this is related to UCLA basketball but since all the player are male, this may be part of a secret plan for team performance, but still investigating how this all work work out at the day-to-day level. Would suspect that an Andrologist would be more interested in men Fox71 and my age rather than D-1 athletes…….
Mensgym
If nothing else
It made this awesome line possible:
My wife would laugh at me if she could see what I wrote, its like she always says, you can lead a horse to school but you cant make him think? So then I tell her "well then how did I become an andrologist?’ so she says "you’ll be an androgynist if you keep this arrogant act up."
Strongly disagree with your take on Lane
Lane was shortchanged by Ben Howland last year. He should have been inserted lot earlier in the lineup as Howland was wasting mins on Rago.
Furthermore, I think Lane has more upside than Nelson as Reeves Nelson. You might not be impressed with Lane’s offseason workout. Similarly I am not all that impressed with Nelson “developing a shot.” More, importantly I was not impressed at all with Nelson’s grasp of our defense and I am also concerned about reports I have read about his attitude issues at practice.
Nelson is a high energy and activity player. As Coach mention that doesn’t mean we should mistake that with “achievement.” If Nelson is not playing tough defense and playing within Howland’s scheme, I certainly hope he doesn’t hesitate to pull the trigger and get in Lane, who was coming into his own after getting mins before getting injured.
So completely disagree with you re. Lane. He is not just some “fan favorite” ala Sean Farnham. It really does him a disservice.
I think your statement is perfect . . . for Lane
First on Nelson you are right, there are questions on his defense. But Nelson is also a very good rebounder with great hands. He is strong and solid. As far as Nelson’s attitude, he is a fiery competitor who is going to yell at CBH and others. I am not concerned about that as I am the second UW game when he gave up on defense. The former makes him interesting the latter, if it happens again, is a problem.
But I think your statement on Nelson fits Lane better. I would say Lane “is a high energy and activity player. As Coach mention that doesn’t mean we should mistake that with "achievement."”
I am not saying Lane is Sean Farnham either. More like a young AA2 in that he hustles his behind off but makes a lot of fouls and is very raw. (AA2 fr and sophomore years averaged a foul every 6 plus minutes. It wasn’t until his senior year he cut that down.) Lane needs to work on his basketball skills and maybe he can to that next level like AA2 did. He is a good kid and will play a key role on this year’s team but he is not where Nelson was at the start of last year.
I just think it is premature to conclude
Nelson is clearly better than Lane at 4. Lane just didn’t get a fair shot from Howland last season. Nelson got some mins at 5 and he was productive but he was also lost on defense … a lot. Sometimes it appeared to me he was plain giving up.
I am not saying Lane is a world beater. That’s hard the case. I just don’t think it’s clear that Nelson is clearly the better option than Lane at 4. We can revisit this issue after we have had 10-14 games in this season but at this point to dismiss Lane as just a bench player with the likes of Carlino is extremely premature. It’s just not an accurate representation of Lane given how he was coming along when he was finally given a shot. Oh, and I don’t care much for that game against SC given IIRC it was barely the first game he started getting legit mins.
Comparing Lane and Nelson is apples and oranges
Have to side with Nestor on this one in defense of BL. He didn’t get the whole season to showcase his talents. I saw him play four years in high school and I assure you he has a serious outside shot. He just needs minutes to get comfortable at the new level of play and I believe that showed last year as the season wore on (and on). He needs the extra weight to become a tougher defender in the block where he will be because of his size. I see CBH utilizing BL as a pick and pop threat on offense, in relief of the 4. He will give up the pure inside game that Nelson has but without question in my mind will be a significant greater threat at the high post and perimeter.
by 84 on Nov 2, 2010 7:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Lane
Agree with you and N on various points. BL definitely did not get a fair shot from CBH. A lot of us were clamoring for him to get some PT. BL didn’t light the world on fire but you could see his potential. His struggles to me were mainly due to his lack of bulk and strength. He’s still not there yet but he has a decent set of skills, especially his ability to hit the perimeter shot. In due time, I think he’ll develop into a Ryan Anderson Light type.
The way Howland yanked him around ..
As soon as he made mistakes (while giving free reign to certain guys) certainly stunted his growth as well.
Nelson beat out Lane
Nelson beat Lane out last year on the bench before the problems began, it was Nelson who came off the bench first when Gordon was still around. Also, Lane did get a look at the end and some good minute and Nelson looked better.
Lane is not with Carlino. Lane is going to play this year in games when it counts, Carlino may not be in a 9 man rotation.
However, our bench is not as good as it was in past year. The first four PAC 10 games will be a good judge.
Nelson "beat out" Lane
Because Lane was saddled with an injury. Moreover, the argument was never about mins b/w Lane. Nelson was playing the 5. Howland jerked around Lane by not giving him a shot at 4 and sticking with Dragovic at 4. When Lane got in and made one single mistake, Howland immediately took him. He destroyed the kid’s confidence.
When Lane finally started getting some legit mins, he got comfortable and started playing within our defensive schemes. Lane has better shot. He is a better player in terms of fundamentals in boxing out. He is also more coachable without an attitude issue.
I certainly hope Howland doesn’t keep screw up the mins this season if Nelson is not getting it done on defense. Howland stubbornly stuck with JS in favor of MR two years ago when JS was lollygagging on D. He did the same last year with Dragovic. Those moves killed the chemistry in the program from last two years and we are going watch him very closely what he does wrt to mins between Nelson and Lane.
It just really offbase to call Lane just a bench player and dub Nelson as part of some “Big 4.” There are no “bigs” in this team.
None of those “Big 4” has proven anything. This is a team that is coming from a pathetic losing season and it better not have any set starters in place if these guys are not getting the job done.
I am optimistic that Honeycutt, Lee, Nelson will be better this year
And early reports on those guys sound good. Do you disagree?
For us to win 20, what I am calling the big 4 (Honeycutt, Lee, Nelson, and Smith) have to play well. I don’t see any reason to think they will be worse than last year or, in the case of Smith, not up to the hype. I think they will do their part.
Now if Nelson does not play defense (which I agree with you is a reasonable worry), he should be benched, as he was last year for Keefe and Lane. We agree on that. But Nelson is no Dragovic. He never took dumb shots and he always rebounded. The latter cannot be ignored. With Smith, Lane and Honeycutt we have the best rebounding front court we have had in years. TH is an awesome rebounder for a small forward.
So, without injury we should be better than last year with those 4. I think Nelson will be part of it.
Early reports
They are always nice, warm and fuzzy to read. Not going to form any opinion based on those and will wait to see what happens in the first 10-14 games.
I don’t see Nelson as indispensable to this team as Honeycutt. I am not all that sold on Lee either. He is a good defender but haven’t seen or read anything to give me any kind of confidence that he has developed a consistent mid range shot. It is also unclear whether he has gotten stronger.
Smith’s off-season condiitoning report is encouraging. However, it’s a different deal to see how he moves around the court and whether he can play classic Ben Ball defense and hedge.
As for Nelson, I have no idea how much he has “improved.” He was lost a lot on D. Sure he made some headline plays and got scratched up but he screwed up a LOT, and yet got favorable treatment from Howland. From what I have heard he has also had issues w his “attitude” in practice which is LOL funny considering he is coming back from a losing team.
None of these guys should come in with a sense of entitlement wrt to a starting spot. Period. These guys have proven nothing. As far as I know they were part of a team that was disgraceful on the court. These guys played like chumps in Coach Wooden’s last visit to Pauley.
So I am not going to feel warm and fuzzy about these guys until I see how they play and what kind of effort they give in the first 10-14 games. Not going to be a sucker and fall for these practice reports.
Nelson does not equal Honeycutt OR Dragovic but He was better than Lane
Nelson is obviously a fighter and a guy with issues with authority. Drago was a guy who was a born screw up, lazy, etc. Nelson sacrificed his body for the team (literally last year), Drago was not going to go inside if it meant breaking a nail. Nelson is no Drago, he is much better.
Honeycutt is the guy on this team with the best chance to play pro and if he can shoot outside, WOW. Nelson is no Honeycutt but he is still good.
I know you like Lane (I do too) but this is ridiculous:
Lane has better shot. He is a better player in terms of fundamentals in boxing out.
I disagree with you on the technical aspect and the statistics bear me out. Nelson shot 64% despite being the only post option. Nelson showed some great, yes great, moves for someone his size going to the basket. Nelson was second in the CONFERENCE in FG %.
Also, RN got a rebound once every 4.1 minutes while BL got one every 6.4 minutes. In other words RN got 3 rebounds for every two Lane got. This is not apples and oranges either. Rebounds are about technique, effort, size and ability.
Sorry, Nestor. You are right when you express concerns about Nelson’s defense but Nelson was pretty darn good on offense last year. With Smith being better than Drago, he will be even better this year.
Sorry
Nelson might have been good darn good on offense. It won’t mean jack if he doesn’t improve his defense. It was about the obsession with “darn good offense” that led Howland to poison last year’s season by sticking with Dragovic for so long. It was also obsession with “darn good offense” that led Howland often to give JS more mins than he deserved than MR who was a more complete team players.
The comparison between Nelson and Lane (none of those guys are deserving of initials by the way) is imperfect. So it’s ridiculous to pimp Nelson as one of the “big 4” while totally lumping Lane in with rest of the bench. It’s absurd really … just like were the reasoning you and others advanced while defending Howland’s decision to ruin last season by sticking with Dragovic.
I can agree with this part
“Nelson might have been good darn good on offense. It won’t mean jack if he doesn’t improve his defense.
Yep, Nelson needs to commit himself on D. I agree.
And if he doesn't
He needs to head to the bench. Also, Howland needs to give guys like Lane, Stover and Lamb a fair opportunity to develop off the bench. I sure hope he doesn’t bottle up Lamb like he did with RW in RW’s first season in Westwood.
Yep but the Devil is in the Details on Minutes
This needs to be a separate post. We are so young everyone needs minutes. Shoot even the returning minutes leader Lee needs minutes at 2 at this point in his career as he has probably played more minutes at PG and more in a zone than M2M!.
But how do you make this happen? There are only so many minutes to go around. I say we give everyone a chance in the early games but you have to start weeding down pretty quick as the PAC 10 approaches. That is why I disagree with you on Carlino. If he is truly the 10th man, well I am not sure he should play except in garbage time.
Also, if Lamb is really good and the best on the bench, then I am fine with “forcing” him in the lineup and having, for example, TH move to 4 (or RN to 5) for brief periods to give Lamb more minutes. But that would hurt Stover and/or Lane.
It is tough and we don’t know yet except to say CBH has to do right.
But what is not tough, if anyone gives up on D, he should be benched.
This is where I really agree with you
Howland can’t deviate from this:
But what is not tough, if anyone gives up on D, he should be benched.I don’t care who the player is. If he is not playing D, Howland should bench his rear end.
Agree whole heartedly....
You don’t play D, you don’t play at all. I think it is worth mentioning however that our worst M2M defenders are gone. As much as well all loved MR, his inability to keep defenders in front of him caused a lot of bigs (esp. Tyler Honeycutt) in foul trouble. Playing good D is contagious, when two guys are consistenly getting burned on defense, its tough for the other 3 to pick up the slack. With the Delinquent gone and the pick up of Zeke, I’m very interested to see how good we can be on defense. Also, with Josh Smith at 5, Nelson can now guard the 4 and not be so overmatched.
by Waitingfornumber12 on Nov 2, 2010 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Sadly
I have to agree with you re. MR’s ability to play M2M. However, the distinction between MR and Dragovic was that even though MR didn’t have the athleticism he never lacked heart and effort. He did his best.
It will be interesting to see which guys bring effort on defense in every possession this coming season. Overall the athleticism in this team has improved (at least potential wise) .. we will see if it materializes on court through dedication, effort, heart and focus.
+ 1
MR EARNED his initials, no doubt about it.
by Waitingfornumber12 on Nov 2, 2010 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Nelson isn't so crucial
precisely because we do have Lane. We need a solid starting 5 and some capable bench players; I definitely have no strong belief that Nelson is the ideal guy at the 4.
From an offensive standpoint, I think it’s clear that Nelson is a much better finisher around the basket, and probably a better offensive rebounder. While we didn’t get to see it much last year, I believe Lane has a better mid-range game and may be a threat from even deeper as a healthy sophomore. So, it’s definitely a tradeoff, and some of the decision may come down to what Smith can do inside – do we want Lane helping to create space for Smith to work by pulling men away from the basket, or Nelson in there fighting for put-backs? If reports on Stover are right (raw offense, defensive presence), there may also be a case for having Nelson on the court when Stover is playing the 5, and allowing Nelson to work inside on offense, and having Lane on the court when Smith is playing the 5. Nelson’s greatest offensive strengths may not be a point of emphasis in the half-court offense if Smith is the target down low; and his transition finishing may be particularly helpful if we want to push the ball more when Smith isn’t on the court.
On the defensive side – at the end of the season, Lane was playing the zone better than Nelson; prior to that, neither of them looked all that great playing man defense (in Lane’s case, partially explained by health issues). I think Lane is probably more disciplined, and potentially more coachable within the scheme; Nelson was definitely tougher than Lane last year. In some ways, I hope Nelson’s greatest defensive strength (IMHO) – battling for contested boards in a free-for-all – isn’t required this year, and that Lane’s more disciplined boxing out within the team defense is what we see.
All of this is speculative based on last year – maybe Nelson worked on his discipline and Lane got substantially stronger – but I think I’m with N’s point overall, that there is no reason to anoint Nelson the starter at the 4 (other than you need to name one guy a starter and the other a bench player for purposes of your preview structure :-) ). And, in the course of writing out the above, I have come to the conclusion that having Nelson as an impact player and inside scoring option off the bench (complementing Stover’s defensive presence off the bench) might be the best way to set up the rotation.
by britishbruin on Nov 3, 2010 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Really?
I love Lane’s hustle and effort. But I never saw his range, even watch the recent video , he throws up two airballs. Just like he did last year. he threw multiple airballs from three range and shot 57% from the FT line. I guess that is better than RN but I don’t see “a threat from even deeper”.
Also, I am not sure on Defense. Yes, RN gave up and that is a worry. But Nelson is a much better rebounder and can’t be pushed around. Lane is just too weak and skinny against a good 4.
Last. I hope Stover is not on the floor too much. Not a slam of him. I just want our best players on the floor as much possible. I think Nelson is there but we shall see.
I think Lane has a better shot
and would expect him to make more mid-range jumpers than Nelson; the longer range stuff may not be there consistently until next year, but even a guy with a decent mid-range jumper could open a little space.
On defense – we didn’t see a healthy Lane playing against good 4s very often if at all. We saw him playing out of position at the 5. By the end of the season my sense was that he did a better job than Nelson of being in approximately the right place most of the time and playing team defense, while Nelson was more of a threat to block shots and grab boards. Nelson played all season and didn’t seem to improve much at the defensive end, while Lane went from being totally lost in sporadic minutes early in the season to having a better understanding of what CBH wanted at the end of the season.
On Stover – I agree, hopefully he will be on the court to give Smith a breather and hold things down defensively for a small amount of time; if Smith isn’t winning large numbers of minutes, that’s probably a bad sign for the season.
i like both lane and nelson
and lane is one of the few guys coming back with experience as a starter. i think he’ll be good this year, very good as an upperclassman. i’d definitely put him above anderson in your rankings of “bench” players
plus if he's playing the "stretch-4" position
with joshua smith down low, he might be more effective than nelson, who last year had no outside game (though he has worked on that in the summer).
I meant JA MAY play more minutes
and I meant the ranking more in likely to play minutes. Thus Lamb will play most minutes off the bench and Carlino the least. Sorry should have made that clear.
disagree on carlino
a little premature to rule a guy out solely because of size, no? Not saying carlino is the next nate robinson or tajuan porter, but to infer that an excellent outside shooter (your words were “the best on the team”) won’t get minutes because of his size just doesn’t jive with recent Pac-10 history.
If you’re comments were more directed toward an inability to play defense against taller guards then yes, you might have a good point there. Then again we won’t really know until play starts.
Considering our collective three point percentage from last year wouldn’t it be worth the gamble to put in an undersized shooter? (I can already see the response to this ending with a reference to another “shooter” who couldn’t play defense…spare me)
Remember, Howland took this kid on a year early out of high school. Why wouldn’t he play him?
Howland took him
Because he was desperate at that point after pointlessly going after lost causes like McCallum and Zieglar. He was looking out to fill out his roster and was desperate.
I hope you are right
but I fear Nestor is right below.
Also, you are also right it is premature. The one thing that seems true is he is not ready to be PG. He is no longer in the PG mix as he was first mentioned when he was recruited. That is a bit of a worry.
We will have to wait and see.
I think
The Carlino experiment will be a success if he can give us 5-7 mins at the 2. I never thought of him as a pg (this goes back to earlier this year). I am also not enamored with bringing in recruits for their “shooting.” Didn’t work out with Lloyd, Crispin or Dragovic.
MR was very different because he came in as a player who would not only provide shooting but also be a complete player at the 2 who was projected to develop through 4 years. Just not sure if Carlino is in the same category.
MR had size and Lamb
MR could play 2 and 3. He became a good passer as well. It is hard to envision a skinny 6’1" Carlino playing 3. I also find it hard to believe that anyone besides Lamb will back up the two spot. I don’t think Lamb will give up minutes at 2. Carlino is a head scratcher right now.
I know
I don’t think Carlino will ever get to the level of MR or be an option at pg. However, if he is going to give us anything it would have to be at 2. You have just started realizing Carlino is not going to be a reliable option at 1. It’s something I told you when we signed him.
Yep
The part I cited was our debate at the time of his signing. You were right. I am not questioning you now but rather CBH in what he was thinking. I guess where we disagree is I hope Carlino can develop into a PG and am not sure he should play 5-7 minutes as that would take away from Lamb. The team needs Lamb. Right now on Carlino, I am not so sure. But maybe Bruin 2008 is right. Let’s hope so.
Some of us questioned Howland when he signed him ...
… just like some of us questioned him after 10-13 games WTH was he thinking staying with Dragovic.
If we have scholly issues next year, God willing
I have a feeling Carlino will be the first to go.
And don't those Lamb-related quotes from above indicate
That Lamb is progressing nicely as a three-point shooter himself? So why would we need a guy around exclusively for outside shooting (Carlino) if we have another guy playing his same position who can also shoot from outside in addition to many other abilities?
Good point
But in fairness to CBH no one on the current team has shown to be a good 3 point shooter except Carlino in a real season, high school or college.
must have saw something
in the kid to bring him in. my main point was that if he really is the best outside shooter that he should get some minutes this year.
I'm hoping
“the best on the team” turns into at least “pretty good” and not just “less bad than the rest.”
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
anxious to see injury free Lane
I don’t know when last season his ankle probs kicked in, but what I saw was not encouraging. He hit an occaisional 3, a nice jump hook in the Lane … but overall, he was slow afoot, earth-bound and didn’t see much lateral movement. This year, he is hopefully injury free and could be a most pleasant surprise. And he should be really motivated with the prospect of the Wears becoming eligible next year.
Really excited about Smith
and hoping Stover is an excellent defender to give Smith some decent practice. I think back to LMR and AA2 and how they made each other better by competing in practice every day. That is something I think we have been missing the last two years with some of the players that have come through.
And I disagree with you DCBruins when you typed earlier to Nestor that Nelson yelling at CBH and others makes him interesting. I can see a player yelling at teammates if he is trying to be a vocal leader but I cant think of any circumstance where he should be yelling at CBH. That just screams problem with his attitude to me
Or you are right on Nelson
His temper is an issue. I should have put “interesting” in quotes and said it is a potential problem but not as big as his giving up on defense.
Also, don’t forget the Wear twins. I think they will help Smith as well.
Oh I get what you were saying now, my bad
And yeah I forgot about them. Along with the workouts with Kevin Love I am excited about this kid, even though I know I shouldnt get my hopes up
Lane
BL didn’t show it much last year, but he has a very nice stroke out to the stripe. RN faced up in high school and actually as a pretty nice off the dribble game. I know that those skills might not translate in D-1, but they both have the ability to score. Both played out of position last year (something not to be underestimated – nor the Titanic nature of last years club, the cluttered front court mess, etc) , they’ll be more comfortable this season and it will benefit both of them to play with a pass first, natural PG in Jones. I don’t think the bench is a big issue. If the bench can play with defensive intensity, it’ll get enough easy buckets – I also think JA will rebound and hopefully stay healthy. I saw the majority of these guys play in HS and they all have great ability. Again, we will see how it all meshes in ten days – roles get defined in November, playing time earned in December. Lamb will push for a role on the wing, I don’t see Carlino making much a difference this year.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
I like this
Again, we will see how it all meshes in ten days – roles get defined in November, playing time earned in December.
I will add I hope we miss the injury bug as well.
Jobu has been too busy with football
hopefully he will forget about basketball.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
12 and 14
Are those Matt and Jack’s uniform numbers or their ages? Jeez. Smith looks 20 years older than both of them.
Once again... Joshua Smith is a massive man...
by DoubleTroubleBruin on Nov 2, 2010 5:04 PM PDT reply actions
Bench ratings/rankings
Tyler Lamb, based on numerous observations of Mater Dei, all-star games, travel ball and pick-up games, is the real deal as long as he pushes himself. I only saw Jones on film so I am not sure what he will really do as a PG at PAC10 level but I am hopeful. As far as Carlino goes I saw him live on three occassions and numerous times on film. He has the potential to be very good from the outside and can distribute the ball. We must be patient but by the end of the year he should be getting 4-6 minutes Anyone who has played high school ball in Indiana knows pressure. He will get better as he gets further into the season but needs to cut down on foolish fouls.
Very good piece
Thanks for it.
"I am going to smoke an 8 year old Monte Cristo Cigar, because I am successful." -R.I.P. JACK TATUM RAIDER D GOAT
Twitter feed: @dexterfishmore

by 

















