UCLA Hoops Thoughts: Mix Of Silver Linings In A Mostly Infuriating Game Against An 0-9 Road Team
by Nestor on Feb 5, 2010 8:58 AM PST
in Basketball
Email
PrintSo Ben Howland's Bruins are now tied for "first place" in the PAthetiC-10. Yet I am not feeling the same joy or excitement around this team, like I felt during previous 5 seasons including Howland's tourney run in his second year in Westwood. Bruins pulled it out against a sorry Stanford basketball team at Pauley last night. However, they had to do it in crunch time because they could not play defense or be patient on offense for most of the game until the final six or seven minutes of the game. The end result was a feeling of relief after watching a game that was infuriating for most of the night.
There are obvious bright spots in this team. They are none other than two freshmen - Tyler Honeycutt and Reeves Nelson - who are doing their part to keep this team's faint hopes alive despite the predictably inconsistent performances from rest of the core players in this rotation (except for Michael Roll). It is too bad Honeycutt was injured for an extended stretch during early part of the season. If he had him healthy all along, I am guessing this team would have beaten Cal State Fullerton, Long Beach State, Butler and perhaps gotten one or two toss up wins from other games early in the season. Honeycutt, Nelson, and Roll and forming the same chemistry that existed between AA, JF and DT in Howland's second season in Westwood (it's just too bad lot of it at times get ruined by the other senior scrubs on our roster).
Tyler Honeycutt is living up to his pre-college reputation. Gold wrote in the Daily News:
While still showing some freshmanitis, missing a pair of clutch free throws and two 3-pointers, Honeycutt displayed the passing skills that drew coach Ben Howland's eyes.
"The thing he does a great job of is seeing the floor," Howland said. "He's learning now not to over-dribble. He's got that height - like a Magic Johnson advantage. He made some great passes tonight. He's doing a great job rebounding. He made some unbelievable plays today."
It is very interesting to see Honeycutt and Nelson flourishing in front of our eyes, as they are taking advantage of a situation, where Howland had no choice but to give them minutes. I wonder how their game would have developed (or stunted) if they were on this roster two-three years ago, and played with the mindset as if they are walking on eggshell, constantly fearful and tentative of getting the hook after very first mistake. It's the same luxury that allowed AA and JF to flourish in their first seasons, and also enabled guys like LMR and PAA to give minutes for their defense, even if they were getting burned every now and then and picking up cheap fouls.
I also liked the fact that Howland made a critical adjustment late in the game by going man-to-man which sparked a 9-0 run:
Fields' layup off an offensive rebound gave Stanford a 60-54 lead with eight minutes left. The Bruins went man, Howland's preference until his current team changed his mind.
The zone has become so embedded in the Bruins' game plan that they have not worked on man defense in practice, "not a bit," Howland said.
They seemed to remember how. Stanford, leading 60-56, made only two of six shots and turned the ball over three times in the next five minutes.
"I think it confused them," Roll said.
It's too bad we were confused for the first 32 minutes of the game. More after the jump.
I know there is that whole cliché of taking one game at a time. However, not sure if this team that continues to feature a player who shows no commitment to play defense (for 90 percent of the game), deserves that kind of commitment from its fan base. Regarding Ragovic, his apologists are sounding more and more like Dorrelistas from back in the day. Otherwise, there is no other explanation for some of these people with short attention span to over look the first 30-35 minutes, when he was getting PWNed on D one possession after another and just flat out quitting on trying to get offensive boards.
His defense except for getting couple of loose balls at the end of the game was worse than useless. For the idiots, celebrating his "big shot" and "clutch free throws," are completely forgetting that it was his atrocious play for most of the game that was one of the big reasons, we need those freaking clutch shots against a team which is now 0-9 on the road.
Rago is of course not the only problem (read that line before posting one liner whiny comment about how we just hate on Rago). We still don't have a point guard on this team who can shoot from outside. We have a walkon who can make some shots, but he doesn't get the minutues. Patroclus keeps a separate spread sheet but at one during the game thread he noted Malcolm Lee is something like 3 for 23 from the three point line since the Pac-10 season started. That is just insane.
Moreover, our rotation looks tired and drained down the stretch because our head coach doesn't have the guts to trust the potential talent of his freshmen (who were just as hyped as any other freshmen group in America). I wonder if Moser and Lane's parents are wondering whether Howland wasted their entire freshmen season by not redshirting them. It is a very good question.
Going back to a positive data point from last night, the team did cut down on TOs. They had 23 against the Cardinal up in Maples and were looking pathetic in that department against Oregon State this past Saturday. They only had 5 TOs last night. Yet at the same time number of time they were taking hurried shots (including a brain freezing three point attempt from Ragovic during the closing minutes of first half) amounted to few that do not show up on box score.
Despite the win, I can't stay I am really looking forward to rest of the regular season. We have a brutal stretch coming up against Cal and then consecutive road games against Southern Cal, Washington State, and Washington. I doubt we are going to win three out of those four. I doubt if even win 2 and there is a chance we get swept, killing the laughable aspect of having an 11-11 team winning this joke of a conference.
Guess tomorrow afternoon's tilt against Cal is a "big" game. You know those guys are going to be looking for vengeance after the way we got lucky up in the Bay Area. Our zone defense hasn't really improved all that much despite all the chatter from the players this week. They shredded it pretty good last time we played them by consistently going after you know who. Marques Johnson took note of that trend in Berkeley, while Don MacLean did the same in Pauley last night. They will most likely kill us on man-to-man because our guards are incapable of staying in front of them and I don't see the Bears shooting 3 for 18 from the three point line again.
If someone wants to pimp sunshine about this 11-11 team and write a long post on why we should all get excited about this team's next few games, they are more than welcome to. From what I am seeing with my own eyes, I see a team that has couple of bright stars and hard working role playing senior, who are often getting pulled down by an inconsistent, maddening bunch, who are infuriating to watch. Thank god we have had so much football news to keep us occupied during this dreadful hoops season. It hasn't been fun and I can't wait till the Senior Day.
GO BRUINS.
145 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I would also note people just celebrating last 5-7 mins
without looking at what happened in the first 30-35 minutes of the game are showing the same mindset, who would zero in on those Steve-16 appearances to embellish and pimp CHP, while completely overlooking the body of work which led to frantic, desperate finishes at the end of the season with a total thud at the end.
Sat slumps and rotation
notwithstanding the last couple of weeks, an analysis earlier this year (forgive me forgetting who put it up) showed how we tend to do well on Thursdays and poorly on Saturdays (relatively speaking).
There have been comments about whether CBH prepares a team well for early week games but does less well turning it around for Saturdays; or that our predictability on offense makes us an easy scout for Pac-10 teams we play in the second game of the weekend.
It would be interesting to try to work out whether our reliance on our core players almost exclusively in the first game leads to defeat in the second game. Maybe matters less when we play zone and expend less energy, but it seems a consideration.
I always got the impression those first few Howland years that we weren’t helped by having $C as our travel buddies – we would come off a tough first game and then go play a team that had blown out $C and rested their starters. It’s possible that this year’s Trogans – playing tough, scrappy basketball – our doing us a favor by wearing down our Saturday opponents a bit.
Tired rotation?
I really didn’t get the feeling that anyone was tired down the stretch yesterday. In fact, the move to a shortened rotation where lineups are on the floor together more than one or two possession and have some time to build chemistry (playing MM/JMM/BL for two minute spurts is counterproductive as they don’t have time to get in the flow of the game and it takes the players they are coming in for out of it) on the court is as responsible for the season turnaround as the move to zone. The zone lets players save their energy and with all the timeouts that CBH calls, players are pretty rested.
Speaking of timeouts, I thought it was ironic that we only had one timeout left with 7+ minutes to go. Since that was the same time that CBH switched to the man-to-man (which had success for the first few minutes as it confused Stanford, but as time went on our rust with rotations became pretty evident), it is impossible to separate what the real source of our comeback was, but I don’t think it was that the players were tired. The discouraging thing to me was that once we were ahead with two minutes left, we went into play-not-to-lose mode running out the shot clock.
Perhaps
Re. tired rotation that is my persona impression based on what I am seeing. I think that is definitely a reasonable ground for debate. To me we looked tired down the stretch against Oregon Ducks. If not tired, perhaps the operative word is “lethargic.” What is the reason behind that? Is it because our guys are not getting enough rest, the rotation is not working? Right now it just seems like we are step slow on our rotation. It didn’t change last night until the switch to man-to-man which perhaps instilled a sense of urgency. I am not sure. It is maddening and I want to pull my hair out.
I agree we looked tired in the last minute or 2
But I think the switch to the man defense was only one of the changes in the second half of the second half that led to the win We got back on track on offense. We got patient (think about how many times we heard the students start counting down and we ended up with a wide open inside shot). Is this a starter thing? Them getting to know each other better? Could be?
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Feb 5, 2010 9:45 AM PST up reply actions
Its a tough one
I’m trying to remember the Oregon game and I cant recall how we looked energy wise. That was a very winnable game where we just couldn’t get a break. The Singler tip from about six feet out was a big turning point in that game. It might have been prevented by a little bit better effort, but it was such a lucky play that there wasn’t much anyone could do to stop it. If ML had shot even marginally better than 1-9 (0-5 on 3s) in that game, we would have won in overtime and the minutes wouldn’t have looked as bad with the starters getting 5 extra minutes.
As for moving forward, I don’t see CBH switching from the rotation he has developed. He is such a stubborn/superstitious guy that once he finds something that works, he isn’t going to change. JK’s 1:30 seconds of start time are a pretty good example of this. I was laughing when RN didn’t even really sit down to start the second half since he knew he was coming in after two possessions.
Energy
Unlike previous CBH models, this team get’s its energy from positive results off the offensive end. The switch to zone defense has allowed the team to expend less energy. The shortened rotation is due in large part to injuries to JA and Bobo, now that those guys are back, Howland has enough trust in those players to give them 5-15 minutes a game and not see much slippage in performance.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
JA but not JMM
I think being injured and moved to the bench has been a freeing experience for JA. He doesn’t come in trying to do too much now and is playing to his potential as a backup guard (what he should have been all along). JMM has not shown me anything to be encouraged about and with RN playing so well and JK being CBH’s good luck charm, I don’t see JMM getting many if any minutes the rest of the year. With Josh Smith coming around next year, I don’t know if JMM will ever get many minutes. In fact, just from watching warmups, I would say Anthony Stover is already ahead of JMM as far as foot work and athleticism.
Agree
Bobo was getting about 5 minutes per game before he was injured. He has not played anywhere close to his ability. Funny thing is I was on the phone with my dad last night watching the game and he said that the team would be better off swapping out JA for ML in the starting lineup. He feels ML is playing way too tenative and passing up shots – that he isn’t being an asset while he’s on the floor. TH and Roll really are the true facilitators on offense.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
ML and JA are good where they are
ML is struggling, but that has more to do with the fact that he isn’t a good shooter than being tentative. JA is playing good as a reserve where he isn’t asked t do too much. It would be a mistake to now ask JA to do more. The biggest difference between the two is that ML is a far better defender than JA. JA is so bad with his lateral movement and staying in front of his man that he makes ND look fleet of the foot. Neither ML or JA are significant offensive threats, but at least with ML you know he can hold up his end on defense.
I agree with you
My dad is an astute basketball observer and just feels ML is pressing. Feels a seat on the bench to start the game might fire him up and help him relax.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
MR looked totally beat at the end of the game.
Not sure how many minutes he played but a lot.
I worry that TH will get another stress injury; he too, plays a lot of minutes.
sjh
But Coach Howland has to play both of them - they're our best guys.
Question re Honeycutt’s injury – is it the kind of injury that heals and that’s that, or is it the kind that almost heals a little at a time, and will be completely healed when he’s my age?
Different perspective
For starters, give Stanford credit. The Cardinal came in very prepared to attack the zone. They were successful, primarily, by overloading the side of the court Dragovic was defending. They forced UCLA out of the zone by making outside shots – 11 for the game.
UCLA didn’t have a lot of energy on defense. It was a game this team would have easily lost earlier in the season. While ND left a lot to be desired with his defensive effort he did manage to collect six rebounds, make three steals, block a shot, and make the most important shot of the game – his three when the Bruins were down four and unable to get stops. That was the beginning of thier 11-0 run.
The Bruins will have these types of performances because they aren’t good on defense and have poor point guard play. At this point of the season I’m just tickled that this team hasn’t packed it in after a horrible start and tumult in the locker room. That is a credit to Howland and his ability to lead young men and make adjustments. The team also deserves credit for having the ability to implement the changes during the season with a relatively inexperienced roster.
I’m not lowering my expectations for the program or settling for mediocre results. Not at all. Instead, I’m understanding that these are the same problems other “elite” programs across the nation are facing, namely, UNC, UConn and Arizona.
The Pac-10, regardless if it’s weak as Kool-Aid or suffering from early NBA defections is very winnable and we sit atop the standings. That is the reality. That same reality seems an impossibility when this same team had a 2-6 record coming off and embarrassing loss to MSU.
Biggest game of the season on Saturday for the Bruins and California. It will again come down to not turning it over, making shots and cleaning up the back boards.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
by 11 Banners on Feb 5, 2010 9:39 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
Interesting the contrast between the in game thread and the talk around me at Pauley
Last night there was a total disconnect. The fans around me were not nearly as frustrated by the game as those on the in-game thread (and UCLA fans tend to be very vocal in their criticism). I will watch the game tonight on replay and maybe I will get frustrated too.
In the arena, it appeared to me that the team played with intensity (particularly the starters). The level of play and energy was well above what we saw against SC, in the 76 Classic etc. They may have lost last night but it was not the hopeless team from earlier in the year.
We seemed to play pretty good defense over most of the game. I have said before that our zone packs the paint and if the opposition passes crisply it will force our over rotation to the point where there were wide open shots. Stanford did that and got wide open shots. They beat the zone by making their 3’s. That is how you beat the zone. But beating the zone does not mean we did not playwith intensity.
The team does appear to lose focus at times. One of the things I will watch for in tonight’s replay is if the subs are as good at getting it inside as the starters. The run to pull it out at the end was a patient focus on getting high probability inside shots. Have not seen the subs able to get the ball in.
And, N, one of the things that you sense when you are in Pauley is how much this team is together. A coworker who was also at the game last night was talking with me about how excited the bench got during the game. They were into it for the whole game not just the last few minutes. That specifically included BL and MM. This is different than they looked in Anahiem or in some of the earlier games. They appear, admittedly from a distance, to be coming together as a team. All the comments about the other players resenting the starters does not appear to be true in Pauley. (But who really knows).
To me the following are the positive things:
1. Team is starting to show signs of improvement: free throw shoting, turnovers etc.
2. The team appears to be developing an identity
3. The team appears to coming together.
4. The team is starting to play closer to its potential. The team is starting to bring more intensity to every game.
Admittedly this was all suppose to happen earlier in the season and the team’s potential may not be that great.
So I am looking forward to the end of the work day to try and figure out why the tone of the thread was so overwhelmingly negative compared to how it felt in Pauley.
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Feb 5, 2010 9:41 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Very good points
I go to half the home games and pay attention to the bench for body language, mood, etc. This team is together, I pointed the same thing out around the start of Pac-10 play. The other thing you accurately stated was that Stanford was effecient on offense and made open shots. That is their job afterall.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Also a note about our thread being "negative"
There are other factors in play behind that tone … that I am not at liberty to explain! :-)
Can someone else offer a hint?
It might add more to the mojo equation.
Couldn't agree more
I felt the exact same way at Pauley last night. There is more energy around this team now then there was all season and possibly more than there ever was during the final four years. Something about rooting for the underdog I guess.
I also skimmed through the game thread last night and noticed the disconnect between my experience and what was written there. I’m not a behavioral psychologist, but I know when we watch games with our friends and complain about something, there has a tendency to be an echo effect where you just make fun or complain about the same thing and the other person feels encouraged to complain about it too because you are doing it.
It could also just be that watching the game free of a constant reminder of the various stats makes it a more enjoyable experience. I was talking to my dad on the way home last night and said “TH had a great game.” He said “Yeah, he almost had a triple double” and then listed off his stats. Sort of a qualitative versus quantitative way of analyzing the game.
You have a short memory
if you think there is more energy now they during the final four years.
For one example, I couldnt even hear for the first ten minutes of the game vs Texas in Pauley. It was so loud pre tip-off I thought my ears were going to explode.
The energy did feel great last night, for “this season.”
UCLA '08
by BruinTrouble on Feb 5, 2010 10:06 AM PST up reply actions
I would tend to agree with you
I think their has been an overwhelming sense of apathy at a number of games I have attended. Pauley hasn’t rocked like it did when I was in school in the mid 90’s nor during the Final Four years. Team will need the crowd against Cal.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
I was not talking about the energy of Pauley
But the team.
Apathy rules, and has ruled for the last 4 years, in Pauley. They got engaged in the last few minutes. If you sit in the Alumni section you are actively discouraged from cheering and heaven forbid standing up.
Luckily I am in the cheap seats.
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Feb 5, 2010 11:31 AM PST up reply actions
Well Donnie Mac disagrees with you
Because he basically called the team lethargic, listless and playing with no energy. He kept imploring us to push the temp and just lacerated Dragovic for his defense (I am pretty sure he was not looking into BN to get some kind of psychological input).
I appreciate the vibe in Pauley everyone is experiencing but I ultimately trust my own eyes which saw a team that looked listless and handicapped by a particular player not even trying on defense. If you don’t like feeding off the game threads, then don’t log on to BN and check it.
It’s a simple solution for you.
Drago
He obviously is a poor defender… one thing i did notice last night is he had a few successful rotations on help defense that led to a block or missed shot. That is the first time i’ve seen him not be 5 seconds late! It doesn’t make him a good defender, but it was nice to seem him be a little less terrible on D. I just wish he could remember a little better, it never looks like he is using his height advantage properly.
UCLA '08
by BruinTrouble on Feb 5, 2010 10:11 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, so he has 2-4 defensive posessions
Every 2 games where he looks to make an effort. That’s some expectations from a player coached under Howland in a UCLA uniform in his senior season.
He's a poor defender...
But ND contributes in other areas and without his 3 -point shooting and rebounding this team would be toast. He will never be confused with Luc Richard Mbah A Moute, but his three last night was the turning point in the game.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
You're giving Rago too much credit IMO
3 point shooting? 1-3 last night. He had a good night from the charity stripe (6-6) because TH was dishing out good looks to everyone on the team last night.
Rebounding? 6 boards total in 38 minutes. JK had 4 in 14. 6 over 38 is not the kind of numbers you’d want from a PF.
by bruinhopeful on Feb 5, 2010 10:20 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not a ND apologist
But he’s a senior, his experience is not to be overlooked, his primary asset is his ability to shoot the ball. He’s not a good defender, he lacks foot speed and overall athleticism – but, he’s the Bruins best option this year. Instead of bashing him for what he can’t do, I just stay positive and focus on things he does well. When he’s making shots UCLA goes from a mediocre team to a good team. Outside of Roll this team struggles to hit jump shots, ND is a viable part of the offense. He really helps space the floor.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Yes, but
I do understand that we’re on different sides of the fence here, but now the season is long enough where season statistics are a valid point.
ND = 31% from 3, 39% overall, 5 boards, an A/T ratio of .58. 11.7 PPG while playing 32 minutes.
I find it hard to think that any combination of our freshmen can’t replicate these numbers while getting the necessary experience for next year when we really can be a contender. If we look sluggish next year due to lack of experience, there’s really no excuse—we will really need one of MM or BL to contribute next season in the rotation and we all know it.
by bruinhopeful on Feb 5, 2010 10:30 AM PST up reply actions
Your fighting a losing battle
Its easier just to let people bash ND than try to defend him. Focus your efforts on other parts of the game or you are just going to end up getting into an argument that you will never win. For what its worth, I agree with you.
Our best option is someone who shoots 31% from three?
His primary asset is occasionally lighting up from three. Streaky doesn’t even begin to describe Dragovic.
And didn’t he come to America to improve the parts of his game that don’t get emphasized in the land of 6’10" three point shooters, aka defense and being physical…
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 5, 2010 10:31 AM PST up reply actions
ND in Pac 10 play...
If you are going to point out stats as a barometer of a players effectiveness then it would be fair to also point out that ND has flourished once Pac-10 play started:
46/99 FG (.464 ), 22/56 3PT (.392 – that includes an 0-5 and 0-3 performance vs U of A and USC respectively – both blow out losses), 29/33 FT (88 %)
Howland is a smart coach, he understands the game and, more importantly knows his players better than any of us, if he didn’t feel ND was an asset, he would not be getting the minutes.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
If you read my username
you’ll more than realize my trust in Coach Howland’s grasp of the game. Merely pointing out that Drago is not a consistent shooter, and when he is off, dear God he doesn’t even come close. He takes some really, really stupid shots.
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 5, 2010 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
Has he shot consistently at that rate?
In even Pac-10 game? Have you even seen every game (you wrote you were away for last three weeks?). Or are you just basing your arguments based on stats?
I've seen every game this season...
Either in person, via tv/slingbox/tivo or the web. Without Dragovic teams would play junk defenses against us. Pack it in, man pressure Roll – it would get ugly. As ugly and streaky as ND can be he spaces the floor, keeps teams honest and – yes- he does catch fire now and then and help win a game (ASU and Cal come to mind).
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
At some point,
don’t you think a player should say, “Um I can’t hit the broad side of a barn right now, maybe I should take my 6’9” self and start focusing on defending (people are gameplanning to exploit me) and rebounding."
But, nope, he keeps hoisting them, and missing terribly.
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 5, 2010 10:54 AM PST up reply actions
That's not his role
His job is to get rebounds and score. Any contributions he gives on defense are a bonus. What are we really arguing about? He can’t play defense, he’s a streaky shooter, he makes bone headed plays, I agree, but there aren’t any other options on the roster. Plain and simple.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
But defense is never a bonus
On a CBH team. On a run-and-gun type team? Sure, you can make that argument, but definitely not on a CBH team.
by bruinhopeful on Feb 5, 2010 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
Yep
Playing this scab has essentially compromised the very principle upon which Ben Ball was established in Westwood. Ragovic is a classic Ben Ball Clown then a “Ben Ball Warrior.”
Nikola Dragovic: 3 star recruit, doesn't play defense, bonehead
Luc Richard Mbah a Moute: 3 star recruit, defensive terror, NBA Second round draft pick and starter
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 5, 2010 11:04 AM PST up reply actions
Salivating for the combo
of RN and Josh Smith at the 4 and 5 respecitvely next year…
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 5, 2010 11:05 AM PST up reply actions
Smith...
UCLA will have to play zone with Smith, he lacks the lateral quickness and is just too big of a man to hedge atop the circle and disrupt the screen and roll game.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
yeh
he needs to lose 20 lbs to play man to man. I hope he hits the gym/cardio hard this summer.
UCLA '08
by BruinTrouble on Feb 5, 2010 11:08 AM PST up reply actions
Given the way Howland has been operating
Bobo will get all the mins next season because Smith doesn’t have “experience.”
Cmon N,
Smith and Bobo aren’t on the same level. Bobo was never advertised as having any offensive game. Smith is a threat in the low post.
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 5, 2010 11:11 AM PST up reply actions
Bob was advertised ...
… as one of the best center prospect in nation. Lane was advertised as a solid forward who had a decent touch from the outside and pretty good court awareness. I am guessing both of those guys would have thrived a little more under a coach like Self or even Sean Miller at Arizona (where freshmen are being allowed to play). Instead he (and Moser) has had their red shirt season wasted in their first year.
BL & MM
Howland is trying to give his team the best opportunity to win. MM and BL aren’t ready to contribute yet. Both players are learning and will be factors next year. Nothing wrong with that.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
That's the issue though 11
They will both be leaned on next year after the senior graduations, and they’re getting next to no gametime experience. If this was the plan, they could have been redshirted, especially MM.
by bruinhopeful on Feb 5, 2010 11:18 AM PST up reply actions
Next year...
Both those guys are essentially role players. Jones PG, Lee SG, Honeycutt SF, Nelson PF, Smith C – Bench: JA, Lamb, MM, BL, Bobo, Stover
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Ragovic
Playing him 30+ mins doesn’t give us the best opportunity to win and in fact it has cost us few times this season.
I'm going to side with CBH
on the Dragovic issue. I’m done arguing about a player that I think is playing hard and doing what he can. Just because guys aren’t diving all over the floor and screaming and yelling doesn’t mean they don’t care or aren’t playing hard.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Uh no one is asking to "scream and yell"
That’s a BS strawman. Playing with effort means to at least make a sincere effort to stick with your assignment or guard the players you are supposed to be on. 90 percent of the time when Bruins are playing D, they are guarding 5 with 4, because Rago takes time off possession after possession by lollygagging and playing out of position. It doesn’t have to do with screaming and yelling, it has to do with showing some effort and basic understanding of how to play D. After 4 years he still doesn’t have any of that or shows he actually cares. Yet he has been coddled by Howland and there are people here who are so much into authority worshipping that they can’t admit it.
I don't like him either BUT
he does give us the best chance to win. Who made the big 3 last night? Who made his FTs down the stretch?
That said he should not be playing 38 minutes but if we want to win, we need him to play.
Playing BL or MM is giving up on the season. I can see an argument for that, but I don’t agree. I think we need to have a winning season for recruiting, pride going forward, etc. If we end up below 500 though, I will admit you were right and I was wrong.
Lane and Moser's seasons have been wasted
When Howland decided to keep them on the bench while playing his BFF and then going on to embarrass the program one game after another.
Recruting is a crapshoot
I remember way back, Kevin Walker was compared to James Worthy as a Quick Forward and listed as one of the top in the nation.
On the other side, Coach Harrick had to be talked into Tyus Edny who was “too small and too frail” to play D-1 basketball according to many.
There are only a few Ed O’Bannons or Kevin Loves that are truly locks.
You said it...
I think guards are easier to project than big guys. All that said, it is truly and inexact science.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Love
was out of shape at first but got better. Not comparing the two, but CBH wouldn’t bring in someone he didn’t think could at least develop man to man ability.
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 5, 2010 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
JS
Smith’s biggest asset is his size. He will be an outstanding rebounder and shot blocker initially, but he doesn’t have a real refined back to the basket game yet. He has good touch around the rim, and he is a good FT shooter. He has a tremendous amount of room to grow, but is strictly a low post defender, he will not be great – even with the weight loss – at defending players in space.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Scout.com
Strengths: Low block scorer
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 5, 2010 11:20 AM PST up reply actions
He's not close to KL
I’ve seen him play twice. He’s going to be a very good player for UCLA. He is a true center, one of his biggest assets is his unselfishness – he is a willing passer and takes the double team well.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
yup
in the one game I saw him on TV, his offense looked good, his defense looked ok, and his rebounding looked passable.
by britishbruin on Feb 5, 2010 12:03 PM PST up reply actions
He reminds me of...
I hope I’m dead wrong on this comparison – Michael Fey
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
NO!
I do think you are wrong on that one! I think he has MUCH better hands. Fey used to soak his in butter before every game.
"The entire world that bleeds blue and gold ... they have been dying for this." - Coach Rick Neuheisel
You are right..
Fey had zero hands or work ethic. Smith looks like he’s a capable player and, at the very least, can contribute next year as a space eater, grab some boards and redirect a few shots. His weight will be an issue.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
His job is to "get rebounds"
That’s why he basically quits consistently on even trying to get boards?
Also, did he consistently shoot in the 40s from 3 point in every Pac-10 game?
No..
ND has had some poor performances with the three ball in conference – I noted SC and UA, but his last two games he’s made 2-8 from three, but to be fair he’s made 9-19 FG in the last two overall and average 14 ppg.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Wow
That is an amazing performance against heavyweights such as Oregon State and Stanford!! Let’s all rejoice and cheer for this scab so that he keeps getting 35+ mins per game.
He is averaging 14 ppg, but giving up 23+ in every game.
What do you want from him?
He is what he is. I don’t think its fair to expect him to be an elite defender when he’s not capable of being one. There isn’t a big on the roster that can stay in front of anybody. Why just point out ND?
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Well
What I want from him – hustle, effort, intensity – he is not capable of providing it in a consistent basis. So I want him to ride the pine and not play more than 15-20 mins per game.
It always seems like his mind is
on the Red Bull and vodka he’ll be enjoying at Maloney’s later that night. I swear, I saw him and Keefe more at Maloneys than any other athlete. Kai Forbath a close second but at least he brought it on the field.
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 5, 2010 11:14 AM PST up reply actions
God bless em
Isn’t it the right of every legal aged man to imbibe to the limits of his liver?
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
I'll never forget when KLove tried
to get into Maloneys, the bouncer was like “dude, there’s not a single person in the country that doesn’t know you’re 18”
He got bounced!
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 5, 2010 11:28 AM PST up reply actions
That is the most random group of 3
That I can imagine.
Throw in some track guys and we’re all set.
by bruinhopeful on Feb 5, 2010 11:28 AM PST up reply actions
i never see anyone go ofer so many times.
for a lot of people, 1 for 7 is a bad game. but if you look at Drago’s game stats there are like 5-6 ofer games.
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 5, 2010 10:50 AM PST up reply actions
judging from ur stats
i will only put in drago in on offense only in a tight game, for his FT and occasion rainbows and sub him out immediately after
ability to shoot the ball?
he doesn’t space the floor, he makes the offense stagnant by chilling at the 3pt line and shoot rainbow…. the only time i would cheer for drago is when he gets the ball down low and try for his shot there.. we don’t need 4 guys on the perimeter!
we seriously Nestor has said it a million times, we probably won’t be in the situation for him to “save” us if we didn’t have his pathetic D
That is EXACTLY the issue at hand
He does take the occasional charge, body positioning, etc. But there are another 30 possessions or so when he goes out and gets torched, forcing the rest of the team to make up for his defensive deficiencies. IMO you have to look at it in a much broader sense, which is why, in terms of overall team benefit (not personal statistics), BL or MM might be an option.
by bruinhopeful on Feb 5, 2010 10:17 AM PST up reply actions
I thought a very telling stat on Rag was zero fouls
You have a guy who scores 35 points, and Rag never even manages to touch him (or anyone else)? I think he would have been willing to have a couple of fouls but he couldn’t get close enough to hit them.
I not keen on his offense, which is why I dropped the O along with the D.
Fields
Fields torched the entire unit. ND’s problem is he needs a PR guy.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Good one Fox
But what if he continues to rebound at his current pace? No one will know who “Ag” is
by bruinhopeful on Feb 5, 2010 11:15 AM PST up reply actions
Definately Agree with this
I think this is why Drago has attracted so much hate this season. We can see he has the potential to be a good (definitely not great) defender as in every game he has these good defensive moments. Then his defenders then say look he had that steal or took that charge, and then the rest of us are like, why the #!@^$ isn’t he doing that the entire game. Couple that with him never seeing a contested 3 point shot that he didn’t like and you end up with people throwing up their hands and cursing his name. While I personally don’t like the name calling directed at him I definitely see where it is coming from.
I think if the guy went 0 for whatever while taking all of his shoots within the flow of the game and playing solid defense, people wouldn’t have that big an issue with him. It’s the erraticness of both his offense and defense that has everyone fuming.
Agreement and Disagreement
First, there were times where I thought we should have pushed the ball. In particular TH was open on the wing a number of times in the second half. We elected not to pass to him. I personnally did not attribute that to lethargy but rather the “control” we all wanted our team to have.
Second, the vibe is attributed to the team not an individual player. So Donnie Mac could be right in saying ND was awful on defense. That would not say the team played without intensity. (Though I am surprised by the use of TV commentators to prove things).
Further, the first half might have been more acceptable to all of us if RN did not get a second foul so quickly. A “patient inside out offense” is impossible to execute with JK.
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Feb 5, 2010 11:36 AM PST up reply actions
Fullest it has been all season
Not sure what the official count was, but I would say it was about 80% full. The biggest difference from yesterday compared to earlier this year was that the crowd was actually into the game feeding off of the team’s energy.
+1
even when we were repeating Final Four appearances and coming into Pauley ranked no. 1 in the nation, filling Pauley seemed a challenge…
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 5, 2010 10:24 AM PST up reply actions
Eh not quite
SC and Kansas were the fullest game. Lotsa empty seats last night as usual.
True
But those games also had a lot of Kansas and SC fans. And for a game against, as Nestor reminds us, a terrible and pathetic Stanford team, it was a pretty good turnout. I don’t want to criticize the people who finally showed up as front runners or fair weather fans, but it would be nice if they showed up in their season tickets for every game.
How can there be empty seats and still have students wanting to get in.
If the seats are sold and people aren’t there by game time, then let students fill the seats. If the guy comes late, the students can move, but at least the house will be full.
Frankly, I don’t remember ever seeing an empty seat at Pauley other than during gym class.
I agree with point #3 & #4
Judging from the way they interacted with each other on the court, and the increasingly quick, deft passes to when they didn’t turn over the ball, this team IS starting to play together. It’s about time. Unfortunately, only three players contribute consistently.
Nelson & Honeycutt exuberated promising potentials. If they stay beyond next year, there’s really no telling how much they can accomplish.
100% Agree
I was just going to say the same thing about how it felt being at Pauley. It was so exciting and and the players were pumping up the crowd. People were really anjoying it. I guess it is different watching from home because I was surprised to get home and see a lot of negative posts. I was all excited then, thump. lol. I know we are not a great team this year, but last night I saw more teamwork and a team that was working much better together. The conversation around me was the same as what you are saying. Maybe we were in the same section? LOL!
GO BRUINS!!!
"The entire world that bleeds blue and gold ... they have been dying for this." - Coach Rick Neuheisel
by uclafan11 on Feb 5, 2010 10:48 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I have a different view
I thought we played one of our best overall games so far. We had a low turnover count and we were able to respond when Fields and Green started knocking down every shot they took.
Also, for the first time it seemed as if every player knew his ROLE. I can’t say i saw that in any game up until now. ML still needs to be more of a force offensively if we are to have a chance at winning the conference, though.
UCLA '08
My Problem with "best so far"
is that we played a smaller, not very good Stanford team and almost lost to them.
They have 2 people who can score.
They cold not stop our inside game yet we needlessly shot 3’s early in the clock.
Yes, the TO’s were a good story. And, after getting out rebounded early in the game we took over the boards.
But, best so far as opposed to playing an all out and consistent game is not enough.
sjh
to be fair
cbh’s offensive scheme always promotes jacking up 3’s. even in the past with better teams, we’ve been bad about feeding the post and taking advantage of size advantages on the block. stanford was jacking up shots from deep and they were going in. for most of them a hand was in their face. even donnie mac was surprised from how deep they were shooting. they recovered from a lame first half, rebounded better and hit key ft’s to pull one out.
Across The Face
Cup half full or half empty
I think the issue here is some of us are comparing ourselves to earlier in the year (cup half empty) and some against some form of different barometer.
We got our clocks cleaned by this “not very good Stanford” team last time. Why? Because we did not play intensely, did not play as a team and all in all played awful.
I thought we played with lots of intensity. No “all out” particularly all the time but generally up tempo. Consistency will be a challenge for this team all year. And it can not win without intensity and consistency. So my prediction is even when we win it will be close with dull moments.
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Feb 5, 2010 1:34 PM PST up reply actions
One point about defense
I have never undersood why more coaches don’t switch defenses once or twice a game, just for a handful of possessions.
I have rarely seen college offenses sophisticated enough to handle a defense change without make a few mistakes their first few posessions.
I think this team is a better defensive team in a zone (but still not a particularly good defensive team) but I think Howland should mix in man to man periodically just to throw the other team off balance for a few posessions.
by silverlakebruin on Feb 5, 2010 10:09 AM PST reply actions
+1
so long as it doesn’t throw our defending equally off-balance…
by britishbruin on Feb 5, 2010 11:59 AM PST up reply actions
The loudest I ever heard Pauley when i was a student there
was when West Virgina came to play. Soooooooooo loud!! And Bruin Trouble, that Texas game was pretty loud too
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 5, 2010 10:14 AM PST reply actions
Yeh that was great
I remember watching Gainsey (sp?) shoot 3s pregame and knock down like 11 in a row. Sick shooter.
UCLA '08
by BruinTrouble on Feb 5, 2010 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
team
I agree especially BruinDad’s point #3 above that this team appears to be “coming together” as a unit. Remember, the early season embarrassing losses and injuries, coupled with the behind the scenes disruption caused by the departed hothead, took a huge toll on team unity. It has taken longer than i expected to see it improve but it’s become more obvious to me that these kids are enjoying playing together, and want to win. That is a testament to CBH and his vision for our program. Unfortunately, the talent is obviously not on par with our past teams and, at the end of the day, I just don’t think we’re good enough this year to win a conference title (even in this weak Pac 10). Still, I think we must acknowledge the importance that “team” is playing on our recent (albeit moderate) success and hope that we continue to improve.
by DoubleTroubleBruin on Feb 5, 2010 10:16 AM PST reply actions
Thread Vibe v. Pauley Vibe
We see a completely different game on tv — I think we “see” more and “feel” less. And, we have replays.
To those of you there in person: Was it obvious that Stanford was attacking ND’s side of the court and winning the battle?
With isolation camera work, replays and some astute comments from Donny Mac, it was obvious to us at home.
sjh
I almost threw my dinner through my TV
Because it was so blatantly apparent that Stanford was consistently attacking wherever Rago was lined up. It was so repetitive and, quite frankly, I have no idea how we won a game in the upper 70s.
by bruinhopeful on Feb 5, 2010 10:26 AM PST up reply actions
Yes and no
It wasn’t necessarily obvious that Fields was targeting ND. Fields does a good job of moving without the ball and Stanford’s whole offense is designed to get Fields and Green open shots. The rest of their team rarely shoots, even if open. I think Stanford would have played the same way whether ND was out there or if they are playing SC tomorrow.
I love Donny Mac and think he is the best color commentator in college basketball. The one thing you have to keep in mind with TV is that they are in the business of telling a story. They don’t show every replay and the replays they do show are usually only the three seconds that led to the basket as opposed to the ten seconds that set up that play. I’m not saying that fox sports has some vendetta against ND, but I’m saying that when watching a game on TV you only see what they show you and everything you do see is coupled with immediate commentary which doesn’t give you the opportunity to form your own opinion. Donny Mac doesn’t say many stupid things, but there are many other announcers who make patently incorrect comments all the time.
Pauley Vibe
The problem with being in person is it is hard to keep track of any statistics other than points and fouls. Trends are harder to see. (I was stunned to find out we outrebounded them and how well we shot free throws in the second half).
That said, my personal impression is that they deliberately worked ND. They deliberately rotated to force our guard to commit to the center and then ND was 1 on 2. He needed help from the center (which is why RN ended up guarding a player in the corner so often).
It appeared to me that they executed their offense precisely to put a zone defense into a position where it was vulnerable. And they knocked their shots down.
Sometimes you make a mistake and sometimes you get beat by good execution by the other team. Stanford executed their offense.
NOT trying to defend ND. Just giving an impression.
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Feb 5, 2010 1:40 PM PST up reply actions
One deficiency on this team --
when we finally do pull down a D rebound or force a turnover, we don’t push the ball up court for a transition basket. This team seems incapable of running a true fast break.
On TV, in those circumstances, you can hear CBh yelling “Push, Push” as we lazily bring the ball up court.
In the last few years, transition O contributed greatly to our O efficiency. This year, it is almost non-existent.
sjh
in the last few years we've had NBA quality ballhandlers...
therein lies the problem
by DoubleTroubleBruin on Feb 5, 2010 10:29 AM PST up reply actions
Exactly
Poor defense, subpar point guard play, lack of rebounding, deficient FT shooting = 11-11
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Say a lot when our best ballhandler is Michael Roll...
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 5, 2010 10:37 AM PST up reply actions
Yep
i’d say our best ball handler is Lee, the best decision makers are Roll and TH
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Lee is such an interesting topic on his own
It’s supremely clear he is not ready to run the PG, but his effort and willingness to play there is admirable. But, it’s clearly impacted his offensive contributions. Love the kid for stepping in to fill the void, but it’s clearly limiting what he can do offensively. The shooting slump is horrendous, and that’s being kind.
by bruinhopeful on Feb 5, 2010 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
Remember when Collison was having troubles with dribbling the ball too high
I think Lee has the same problem. He came in as an average ball handler, but has improved.
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 5, 2010 11:25 AM PST up reply actions
Lee's problem is he is a terrible shooter
He has improved tremendously from the beginning of this season in playing more under control and not turning the ball over. He also plays above average defense. Those are the two most important things for him as a point guard with a team that has RN, MR and ND to carry the scoring. The biggest problem for ML is that he just isn’t a very good shooter. Whereas DC had bad mechanics but still shot a high percentage, ML has bad mechanics and predicatably has poor results.
He's just lacking confidence
Lee has always been a slasher, more of an open court player, but I saw him play a handful of games in HS and he can knock down the three ball. I think the entire team has suffered from paralysis by analysis at times this year. They all just need to relax and play ball. These guys are more talented than they’ve shown.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
ML is doing what the team needs
He is a better open court player and 2 guard. This team needs him to be point and get back on D. He is doing it well (see lack of TOs) but his offense is suffering.
First we say we want control and now we say we want to push it
I agree this team is not pushing it. As noted above TH was open a number of times.
But this team’s identity is TO prone, so they have decided to be under control. To me that is a smart use of the resources you have (may not be the best resources).
I will guess that next week we might get a few more fast breaks as CBH moves for a little more balance.
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Feb 5, 2010 1:42 PM PST up reply actions
This year, we have
Continental League, or perhaps YMCA Community League ball handlers.
Also Nestor
Donnie Mac brought up something that warrants attention during the game:
Missed FTs/hurried shots = Turnovers
While they dont show up in the statline, they’re virtually identical for a team that needs to use a 2-3 zone.
With that said, the turnover count was a good sign, but still—way too many rushed shots.
I look at TH and RN and ahve hope...
… and marvel at how much of a (bleep) DG was.
Can anybody imagine a with-the-program DG playing backstop and running the floor next to the shotgun-riding RN and the smooth and slick TH slipping through creases in the defense?
Drew Gordon.
IDIOT.
M
"In this program your passion bucket must be full to play SC." -- CRN, to Dan Patrick, 1/2008
Agreed M!
I was thinking the same thing last night.
On a side note, it sure is nice to be critical of a team that won a game again. folks are being a bit overcritical though.stanford is winless on the road but we took their best punch last night. they were hitting deep shots last night. problems rebounding and ft’sin the first half notwishstanding, the guys did enough to win. as much as people criticize nd for last night, he hit all his clutch fts which was the difference in this game.
yes it was a frustrating game to watch at times, that’s been the whole season. this team has a chance and needs to gut it out every single game. and again, we’re going to need to find someone besides jk to spell rn and nd. it is just not working with him. and all the buzzwords of his “experience” or “physicality” or “knowing where to be” are not apparent in his production on the court, i’m sorry.
Across The Face
Correct about Stanford
This same team should have beaten Kentucky (lost in OT after missing some FTs in regulation). The Cardinal also defeated Virginia (likely NCAA team). My point is they are capable of having nights like they had last night. They have two pro level players in Fields and Green and, in my opinion, they are expertly coached by Dawkins.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Ucla is growing.
This young group of freshman are growing together. They are defining their Roles, creating an Identity, learning how to play Defense as a team. Not as individuals!
I am proud of the team for not giving up or throwing the towel in. These young players are having to learn on the fly. Their adjustment time has come in games, not in practice. With freshman coming in and playing heavy minutes, is huge for Ucla. Yes, the players have made mistakes along the way….But they are learning from their mistakes.
Improvements in record from the past few months
win /loss
Nov- 2-4
Dec 4-3
Jan 4-4
Feb 1-0 so far.
With a 6-4 record in the Pac-10 they are tied for first with four other teams. Ucla has been in a lot of these games till the end with a young team. I am not saying they will win the Pac-10, but they will be close at the end.
Wow what a thread
This is the 142nd comment at this point in this thread.
Serious discussion. Lots of arguments. Lots of passion.
So maybe that energy I felt last night found itself here.
I guess I would sum my comments up with: we should not give up on this team yet. They are not going to the Final Four. They are not going to live up to even modest expectations from the beginning season. Maybe, just maybe, they are going to play ball and get better through the rest of the year.
We are where we are. A season of ugly losses. Some so bad that I did turn off the TV. For the first time ever in my life, I left before the end of the game (against LB State). I was ready to give up on the team. Wait until next year.
But now I feel the Team deserves our attention and support.
Go Bruins
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Feb 5, 2010 5:31 PM PST reply actions
Well it was so positive
That Lee had to tweet about how he felt chained for two years right after that “exciting” win. Sure it makes me get all fired up to root for him tomorrow.
There are two reasons for the drastic improvement
of the Bruins 1) TH became healthy and 2) They have finally learned not to turn it over, which is a measure of experience. The Bruins had 20 turnovers in the first game against Stanford and only 5 in last night’s game. They are getting better. A third reason is that Drago is not bricking it up like he did in the first ten games.
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.
