Does the "new" CBH play favorites?
by DCBruins on Mar 3, 2010 4:06 AM PST
Email
PrintBumped. GO BRUINS. -N
Reading the postgame thread for Saturday's game versus Oregon and the ongoing debate between Nestor and Bruinponcho over JA and ND who kills us more made me think of the larger point, why does CBH play either one of them the way he does? I thought of this because even CBH knew it was wrong. To wit:
1. He started the second half with BL over ND. He knew that we needed BL's rebounding and defense more than we needed ND's potential shooting. (It may also have been because ND was hurting but I will give coach the benefit of the doubt.) All the arguments for starting ND in the second half (offense, senior day, etc.) didn't matter because CBH knew that BL was a better 5 for the Oregon game.
2. He twice pulled JA for MAH after JA was torched on defense. It is not that MAH is a great defender. But MAH is technically solid and was able to make it 5 on 5 on defense and limit Porter. Another time, he went big with BL, TH, and ND all in the game albeit briefly before TH got his fourth foul. He knew that JA was not up to it for this game.
Then why play JA and ND at the end of the game when it was on the line? The obvious reasons:
1. It is Senior Day. You want to have your seniors on the court and live and die with them on Senior Day. That works for ND but not for JA. If this was true Senior MAH was a must play. In addition to being a crowd favorite, MAH HAS hit the biggest shot of the season for UCLA at home to beat Washington.
2. JA and ND are part of the best team against OR for that game. There is no way coach could have thought that realistically. He didn't start ND in the second half because he knew BL was a better match up in this game. Maybe you can make an argument to go big with ND at 3 but BL must be in the game at 5 at the end. BL will be your 5th option scoring but that is okay because he can rebound (the biggest problem) and play down low, something OR does not defend well.
If you are not going "big" and keeping MR at 3, then two questions, why isn't ND down low as a 4(where he was 2-2 shooting) and how can you pick JA over MAH? ND was cold outside and with him at 5 we had no one down low. Neither JA or MAH are going to be the key scorer in the last minutes. If you have to chose who to shoot one shot for this game it would be MR (on the season and this day), TH recently (or to pass), and maybe even ML as he scored 18 and was able to slash through OR this game. You don't want anyone else shooting anything but a wide open shot. MAH could hit the wide open shot and would not throw the ball away. He knows this is MR's game and TH is the man.
Am I missing something? Or is Coaching playing favorites and stubbornly trying to prove he is right? Is that the biggest difference from old CBH of three final four runs from 2005--2008 and the current or new CBH?
On the latter point, a few examples starting last year.
1. DC at 1 only. DC is turning into a great point guard in the pros. Yet there is no talk of him starting at 2 guard when arguably the best point guard Chris Paul comes back for the Hornets. DC is only a PG in the pros. But he is a very good shooter (shot 52% from three and 51% from the field in various years at UCLA) and can score as shown by his games at the pro level. Why wasn't he a 2 sometime last year? JH was never comfortable as a 2 and it may have been better for the team to have the senior leader DC at 2 as the primary scorer. This is not an individual argument as all would agree DC is the better point than JH. But it seems that JH at point and DC at two, at least some of the time, would have been better for the team. CBH never did this, was it out of deference and respect for DC who shocked us all and came back for his senior year? New CBH may have thought that playing DC out of position at 2 may have hurt his pro stock because he was only going to be a 1 in the pros, good point but it had to hurt the team not to try JH at 1 with DC at 2.
Yet in the 05-06 season, old CBH did just that. He played the then raw freshman pg DC at point and moved his best offensive player, point guard Jordan Farmar, to 2 at times for stretches during the first final four run. Has CBH changed?
2. JA as point guard. IMO, JA did not look good last year. But putting that aside, I could never understand why he played JA at backup point over the now pro PG JH. How could JA be better than JH? Can anyone argue that ML at 2 a few minutes last year on defense alone was not a better play than JA at backup 1? Or how about MR at 2 last year.
Yet, this year JA was given the keys to the kingdom at point and played his way out of the position. Yes he has been hurting but he has attitude issues . Yet with the game on the line against Oregon, the ball was in JA's hands. Why?
Again in 05-06, CBH did not play his old starting point Cedric Bozeman a minute at that position. JF was the point and DC was backup. Bozeman was an all world Orange County PG when he came to UCLA and was the PG on CBH's first UCLA team but there was no way he was as good as JF or even a freshmen DC and CBH decision to move him to forward reflected that.
So why is CBH playing JA at PG when the game is on the line when he must know that JA can't do it right now?
3. ND in regardless of what he does plays the same minutes. Even ND defenders think that he plays too much and that CBH should bench him more. So why is he not pulled more? Why does he get away with so much?
In 2007-08, while not a perfect analogy, CBH had no problem benching LMR for KL. No one is going to argue that LMR is better than KL. But CBH rarely thought of playing KL at 4 and playing LMR at 5. Yet LMR was the starting Center for a final four team! KL is a 4 in the pros. LMR was a favorite in that he did everything he could with limited skills, yet he was not going to force LMR into games.
Then, why with the game on the line play ND out of position at 5 when BL was playing well against a weak team, has played and practiced 5 this season and most of all ND is not a 5?! CBH also knew the other problems with ND as evidenced by his quote earlier in the week about ND's shooting.
Why is CBH so determined to keep ND in the game out of position? There is no way the old CBH done that to force LMR in the game on Senior Day at say 4 or 3?
CBH needs to go back to being the CBH of the final four teams and not play favorites or be stubborn. I am not saying my examples are perfect but I am saying CBH knew it was wrong to play ND and JA the way he did against OR and did it anyway. Resulting in UCLA losing to a bad team.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
77 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think our disagreements on Anderson is not as intense
… as it appears in comment sections.
I just think the kid should get another year to prove himself. Although I agree with poncho and others that he should not have been playing during crunch time. The issue around Rag’s playing time is not worth debating any more. He is a proven miserable failure and the worst defensive forward ever to play at UCLA.
From what I am seeing right now Howland’s rotation has been putrid and inexplicable. Your explanation above is a rationale one but it only raises more disturbing questions about Howland.
That's my point
JA and ND aren’t an issue seemingly even to CBH who on some levels understands their problems. The real question is why with the game on the line CBH had JA at point and ND at 5 at our last home game?
We agree more than we disagree
As frustrating as he is, I’m not going to give up on JA yet either. The reality is that he still has two years of eligibility left and isn’t going to transfer because no one would want him (Gordon was a headache who could play, JA is just a headache). So the decision is either absolutely dread the next two years and watch JA destroy the program or hope that he gets better next year. That said, I really really really hope that Lazeric Jones is serviceable.
I would like to see us getting another pg this spring
as insurance. I am dreading just depending on Anderson and Jones.
Yup
I think we’re out of it for McCallum (wasn’t expecting it anyways) but even if he did come, I doubt our PG issues get fixed. McCallum isn’t an “All World” talent and the team isn’t established enough to allow a FR PG to focus on a limited role/specialize on specific needs. I think we’ll end up with Burton.
Recruiting
We didn’t go hard after pgs such as Ben Vozzola or Stephen Holt because we were chasing after McCallum (he is not coming). Instead of making a full court press for Anthony Brown we initially went hard after Zeigler (he is NOT EVEN MENTIONING US at this point).
I think Howland will have a chance to salvage this class just a bit if he can finish up with Deonte Burton and get someone like Kadeem Jack. We are apparently going after Will Yeguette, a 6-8 Cameroonian F playing in Florida. Perhaps LRMAM can help us but we will see.
But we wasted a lot of time on recruiting Zeigler and McCallum when we have lost out on kids like Brown.
Totally agree
I know we’ve beaten to death CBH’s recruiting missses the past few years but I thought we should have gone after a kid like Kawhi Leonard (academics good?) who plays like a BBW. The kid plays hard and is a terror on the boards although he’s undersized. I hope some of these late targets work out.
Why wouldn't either want to play PG at UCLA?
Farmar, Westbrook, Collison, and Holiday are all playing the pros. What are they thinking? I don’t understand how we can’t get ONE FRICKIN’ talent at PG…what is happening to us?
There's the difference between
“at UCLA” in general and “at UCLA in 2010-11” specifically. As a whole, UCLA has been a great place for point guards. For the coming school year, though, an incoming PG could count on playing alongside TH, an undersized, hard-working but foul-prone RN, a Jekyll-and-Hyde ML, and…a few others. This PG would come into a program where, based on both rumors/Tweets and the allocation of minutes, one/a few/more than a few players are unhappy with the coaching (minus whoever transfers out). A freshman PG would also be looking at junior PGs JA and LJ, and even if skilled enough to earn a starting role, would still likely be on a short leash.
Is it possible that CBH has always played favorites?
And that it’s just more noticeable now because his favorites aren’t very good? Was JS one of his favorites? I think so. AA could have been a favorite, but because he was so good, we didn’t notice it. It may have been noticeable to others in practice when CBH let things slide if AA got something wrong. I’m not saying that it is the case, but I think it’s very possible that CBH has always played favorites, only his favorites on past teams were better.
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
Good Point
AA is irrelevant because there was never a time that it was bad to have him on the floor.
But JS is very good point. I tried to fit him into the examples but it did not work. JS went through a horrible slump and still played the same minutes in the last final four run. He may be like ND a bit in that regard. But I still don’t think “old CBH” would have played JS at 4 just to keep him on the floor as he did with ND at 5 at the end of the OR game.
I also can find no equivalent example for JA in the past. The closest case was when he gave up on CB as point. Again, JA is hurt and young. Maybe he will get better next year, but right now, the only possible reason is he is the “best we got,” which I don’t buy because even CBH replaced him “out of rotation” with MAH or “went big.”
I don't think anyone is irrelevent
because we often forget that practices account so much and with CBH, they’re closed to the public. How does it affect a team when a player who does something wrong isn’t punished (and by punish I mean have to run, etc.) or at least called out on it? It changes the attitude of the rest of the team when the player knows the coach is playing favorites.
Sure, AA was always a good option to have on the court, but when he messed up in practice (and even the best mess up) was he punished? Did CBH call him on it the way other players would be called on it?
What I’m trying to get at here is that a lot of the concerns we’ve brought up about CBH are things I’ve heard rumblings about in the past. Playing favorites, assistant coaches, stubborn in game, unwilling to add wrinkles. These are all things that people had brought up as concerns, but we were winning so they were swept under the rug. The things that are troubling the program aren’t new, just more noticeable now.
No coach is perfect and every coach has things they don’t do extraordinarily. CBH is no different, but now that he’s been made to pay for it, how does he adjust? Some of the things that are troubling the program are things that I heard he did at Pitt and Northern Arizona, but he wasn’t there long enough for them to bite him in the ass. Now they are so how does he adjust? It will be interesting because as multiple people have pointed out in the last few months, CBH has never proved himself at a school for any sustained period. CBH is a smart guy so as long as he’s willing to change things up, I think we’re fine, but that stubborness that makes him so successful in turning a program around could also make it tougher to sustain one. We’ll see..
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Mar 2, 2010 9:41 AM PST up reply actions
Point Taken
And I should not have been flip. But AA was a great defensive player, a good scorer, a class act, and a leader. It is hard for me to imagine him screwing up or letting up. If you heard different in practice, I stand corrected. I just was thinking that ,from what I saw, AA was treated correctly.
On the other hand, CBH did call out KL for his defense early on even though we all knew he was a great player. KL worked hard and admitted he had problems on “hedges.”
I didn't hear anything specific on AA because I didn't hear on specific players
It’s why I said AA could have been a favorite. I did hear about CBH playing favorites at times at both Pitt and Northern Arizona, before coming to UCLA and then some with us, though. During games, AA was treated correctly, but we’re not 100% sure what goes on practice and while I can’t see him letting up in practice, I could see him screwing up because everyone does. All players screw up time and time again in practice. It’s why you have practice. The question is whether or not all players were treated fairling in practice and from what I’ve heard, that was a no. When you’re in a rebuilding project, it really is “my way or the highway” withing a program because there is so far to go. When you have som success, things do change though and we’ll have to see if CBH does. I think he does, but we’ll have to see.
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Mar 2, 2010 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
I really need to proofread
Excuse my typos.
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Mar 2, 2010 11:10 AM PST up reply actions
Screwing up is one thing, mental errors/effort are another
The problem with ND, as CBH said after OSU, is that he shoots 26 footers with 30 seconds left on the shot clock not that he misses the three in the corner when he is left wide open. The problem is not that he gets beat on defense, MR does too in M2m, it is that he does not appear to always try.
I am sure AA screwed up and he did airball a few shots. But I can’t imagine CBH having to tell him not to shot a 26 footer with 30 seconds left on the clock or to make an effort on defense.
hey Ryan
why so many comments re: AA? Is there any reason he is your example, rather than JF, LRMAM, JS, DC, or anyone else?
by britishbruin on Mar 2, 2010 11:34 AM PST up reply actions
I used AA
because he was my favorite Bruin and of those in the CBH era, it seems as if he is the most beloved so I used him to point out that being great, as he was, may mask certain favoritism.
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Mar 2, 2010 12:32 PM PST up reply actions
He gave JS certain breaks ...
… that he didn’t give to other kids. I have never been a JS hater. I have always liked the kid and will fondly remember how it was his class (along with AA, JF and LMR) brought back our program. However, after JS’s multiple hip surgeries he lost lot of his quickness. He still gave us some great moments including clutch shots but also in number of games he was lethargic on D (and never was held accountable for it).
At the time I was learning to live with it because JS did bring something to the table. Now looking back at it though I am not sure if it really strengthened the foundation of this program for the long term. The problem with Ragovic’s playing is the same type of issue we had with JS’s playing time on occasion. However, it has gone to a whole another surreal dimension doing even more damage to the moral around this program.
I've always rooted for JS
Because I recall how badly he wanted to get back onto the court, including trying to come back too early when he was hurting and was subsequently forced to shut it down for the rest of the year. I also remember the player he was as a freshman, the “best pro prospect on the team” so it was said, and then the surgeries happened and that player was gone. TBH, with the way his offensive abilites were hampered, I’m not sure how much of his lollygagging on defense was mental and how much was lack of physical ability. The easy going attitude he always carried with him seemed to suggest the former, but I think we need to at least consider that the latter played a part in the perception as well.
That doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t have been pulled if he was unable to stay with his man or rotate properly, but it makes it slightly more forgivable in my eyes if he was simply physically unable to keep up. Also, as you said, there was always seemingly a built in justification for keeping him on the court because at least he wasn’t outright shooting our chances of victory in the foot. He was always contributing something.
Next year even worse.
What blue chip high school star would want to play in Westwood after seeing this year’s debacle? Even before this they could see that CBH does not play exciting offense. That is why Chace Stanback is flourishing at UNLV. Bobo will leave after the season. What was CBH dreaming about when he gave JA a scholie?
Your Q. On JA I am begining to understand a bit because of DC and RW
were both not highly recruited and where why the heck is CBH taking them at the time? DC was choosing between UCLA and San Diege State! According to Wikipedia, RW “did not attract too much attention from top college basketball programs until Ben Howland offered him a scholarship to play for the UCLA Bruins.”
So even though JA was also not initially highly sought after, maybe CBH thought he struck goal again. And maybe he can improve. I am just worried CBH may be thinking he does not make mistakes as I don’t see DC or RW in JA.
JA was supposed to be good
3rd best PG in the country according to Scout.com, although that was a weak position that year. JA isn’t a diamond in the rough.
DC was supposedly the 11th best PG, RW the 16th best SG.
That's what I thought but it is not entirely correct
All three went up in value AFTER CBH recruited them. JA was a complete head scratcher when CBH chose him
“A lot of people were questioning why UCLA would want me and whether I was really that good.” . . . [CBH] was the first to jump on Anderson last fall, when only Cal had offered a scholarship and USC, Gonzaga, Illinois and Connecticut had yet to make their pitches to the 6-foot-2, 170-pounder. During an unofficial visit to Westwood on Sept. 7, Howland met with Anderson and his parents, Mark and Delana, offered the full ride and said, “I’d like you to lead us to our next national championship.” . . . But after news emerged about Anderson’s commitment, the recruiting analysts wondered whether Howland had been hoodwinked into locking up an unhyped player so early in the game."
ok...
… but doesn’t that mean that all three were initially rated worse? ie the point still holds that JA – after ‘scout-grade-inflation’ – was significantly more highly thought of than DC and RW? Or is your point that the earlier commitment gave more inflation than the later commitment of a RW?
Also, the fact that a power like UConn, a perennial tournament threar in Gonzaga, and three other big conference teams offered to JA, vs DC and RW who were both choosing between UCLA and mid-majors, seems to show that in one case it was CBH and co who saw more potential in DC and RW than other teams, while JA apparently looked good to a lot of people…
by britishbruin on Mar 2, 2010 11:39 AM PST up reply actions
To Clarify
I am trying to figure out a reason for the illogical, giving JA the ball at point with the game on the line given his history this season and in the OR game. The logic of this post is that he MAY have stuck to JA because he had so much invested in him. With DC and RW, CBH proved to be a genius in recruiting kids who no one else saw the same way and making them great.
With JA, he looked like a similar genius. Everyone else started to be impressed after he recruited him, maybe in part because of DC and RW. But what if CBH whiffed? Is he sticking with JA even though he is not up to the job? Would this be like sticking to Bozeman, who was an all world point in Orange County in High School but not up to it at the PAC-10?
Nestor and others rightly say the kid is a sophomore, had injuries and could really turn it around. I say fine, but why play him now with the game on the line? Is it because CBH does not want to admit that he may have blown it ? Is CBH going to keep playing JA until he is proved right or else?
Again, I am thinking aloud here. I don’t think we should have lost the OR game and can’t understand why CBH made the decisions he made. There may be a good reason I am missing.
Stanback is "flourishing" at UNLV
because UNLV plays a weak schedule. It’s really easy to play fancy “exciting” offense when you play schools like Hawaii, Holy Cross, Pitt. St., etc that have no tournament hopes. Considering the downgrade in schedule, if Stanback had been an amazing player that “just needed the offense sped up a bit,” he would be looking like the next Tyler Hansborough at UNLV.
We are not in position to snicker
Considering we have gotten clowned by Cal State Fullerton and Long Beach State. We have been worse than a decent mid major team this season. So I wouldn’t knock someone like Stanback who would certainly bring more to the table than the garbage Rag eating up 30+ mins a game.
where would Stanback be playing for us?
It seems like SF is his position, or maybe as a big 2-guard.
I don’t think I would start him ahead of TH or MR at this point, and next year I don’t know that he would start ahead of TH and ML as the putative SF/SG combo.
Obviously he would add depth (help keep TH out of foul trouble), and potentially TH could play the 4 to accommodate him, but I don’t know how much better we would be as a team with him. Ryan Wright – if he had done as he was told and redshirted his freshman year – would probably be our starting center right now but would have had to wait 3 years (redshirt +2) to get meaningful minutes.
I'd play him at 3 ...
and move Honeycutt to 4. If Dijon Thompson could play the 4 in his senior season in Westwood .. .I could also see using Stanback at the 4 .. .he’d be a better rebounder and defender than Rag (that’s not very difficult to do).
Stanback leads UNLV in Rebounds
and does not shoot the three real well. Yeah, he would play 3 but I could even see him play 4. From what i have seen he is more of an athlete than a shooter. Would help this team a lot obviously but he is not a 2, even if he thinks he is.
am I right in thinking
that his transfer ‘conveniently’ opened up a scholarship for Bobo? ie is he the guy on the current squad we would have been trading for Stanback?
We had the scholarship available either way.
Last year’s team had 3 seniors, 3 juniors and 5 freshman, so we had two more available.
IIRC
Stanback announced his transfer
Then Bobo ‘signed’ with us (grant-in-aid)
Then RW, KL and LRMAM decided to stay in the draft, with JS pulling his name out.
So, I guess we could have promised Bobo that one of the NBA guys was definitely going…
by britishbruin on Mar 3, 2010 12:37 PM PST up reply actions
You misunderstand my intent
I’m not snickering. I’m just pointing out that Stanback, while a decent player, would not be a solution to this terrible season. People are looking at his 10.5ppg and however many assists/gm at UNLV and assuming that would magically translate into the tougher schedule, which is completely false. Sure, he could play for this team, but he would not flourish, even in this year’s Patheic10. All I’m saying is that if he was a good Pac10 player and the “speed of Howland’s offense” was the only factor holding him back here, then he should be looking a whole lot better than he is now with the offense he wants and UNLV’s weak schedule.
by b d on Mar 3, 2010 1:00 PM PST up reply actions
No one is suggesting he would be a "solution"
However, he would certainly be a better option than Rag and could have contributed to making this season average or above average compared to the debacle it has turned out to be.
That's the thing; I'm not so sure he'd be much of an improvement
From a stat-line perspective, Drago’s 11.6ppg trumps Stanback’s 10.5 outright (not considering the difference in schedule strength). Stanback edges out Drago on the assists 1.5 to 1.2 per game, and Stanback really pulls away on the boards 5.7 to 4.4 per game. Drago wins on the (wait for it) 3P% .288 to .286. Finally (and surprisingly), Drago wins outright in points per shot 1.19 to 1.15.
Now, these are all unadjusted for the difference in schedule, and what really stands out to me is the PPS stat. Everyone (rightly) bashes on Drago’s shot selection for jacking up ill-advised shots, but still he edges out Stanback in points per shot. That either means Stanback shoots an inordinate amount of FTs, or he jacks up shots too. In terms of offense, Drago wins outright. Defensive stats in general are a little more fuzzy, so I’m not sure how to quantify how much better Stanback defends (though I do know he does better than Drago).
by b d on Mar 3, 2010 1:16 PM PST up reply actions
Stanback
Has a better offensive rating (102.8) than Rag (96.3). He doesn’t get the same amount of PT as Rag. I have seen 3 of his games now and Rag is no where close to him when it comes to defensive intensity and effort. It is not even close.
Alright
I still say Stanback is at best comparable on offense (when you account for the schedule disparity), but there’s no stat for defensive intensity/effort, and if you’ve seen it, I’ll trust you. It’s certainly something Drago doesn’t bring to the table.
by b d on Mar 3, 2010 1:46 PM PST up reply actions
Forget ND for a Moment
Stanback could still help this team. Right now we are playing\starting MR at 3 as a forward in zone. Stanback is leading UNLV in rebounding, something else we could really use help with.
Stanback would give us options and would be able to help this team even if he never played a minute for ND.
Yeah
I think that’s the biggest thing. Stanback would have given us a little more flexibility in our lineup.
hate to be the one to say this
but don’t you think that if CS was still around this year he would have retarded TH’s development, as CBH would have stuck with him at the SF?
On the positive side, this might have forced CBH to think about playing MR at the 2 and training ML as a point guard from the start of the season.
I thought of that as well but not sure it would have made a difference
TH and CS are similar style players with TH being much better. So CS may well have been the starter at the beginning of the year but it would not have made a difference as TH was hurt and took a while to get healthy.
And with all the injuries and such (Gordon leaving and JA’s implosion/nagging injuries) it would have cost TH a few minutes in the early part of the season when he was hurting but would not have made much difference during the PAC 10. Remember TH’s first start was for JA not for anyone else.
right
my point being – if the JA implosion had already been dealt with by going with a lineup of ML, MR, CS, ND and RN/JK earlier in the season with TH injured, DG departed and JA incompetent, that would have been harder to break into than the lineup TH eventually broke into. TH would still have got minutes by the end of the season, but I suspect not nearly as many as he has done this year.
Or, put another way – TH can’t start for JA if JA is already on the bench.
Stanback
was not good enough to play more on a UCLA final four team his freshmen year but is certianly good enough to play on this team. If he was encouraged to leave bad on us, if he left because he thought he was good enough to play more as a freshman on that final four team, bad on him.
Blue Chip Recruits
I’m not sure if blue chip recruits are the best fit for CBH’s style of coaching. His teams in Pitt and the early UCLA squads weren’t teeming with 5 star guys. I’d rather see players come into UCLA buying into the system instead of wanting to use the school as a stepping stone to the NBA.
That’s not to say that I don’t think that CBH has no fault with the current state of affairs. Obviously recruiting needs to change as well as some of the recent coaching decisions.
Yep
Both DC and RW were not 5 star recruits. DC was choosing between UCLA and San Diego State! According to Wikipedia, RW "did not attract too much attention from top college basketball programs until Ben Howland offered him a scholarship to play for the UCLA Bruins."
The Rub
I’ve thought about that point but it doesn’t work at a place like UCLA where expectations are high. You can win consistently without 5 star talent but you aren’t going to hang a banner. If the UCLA fanbase is content with Tourney appearances without title aspirations then it works but we all know that is not the case.
Agree on High Expectations
Yes, expectations are extremely high at UCLA, and deservedly so. I’m not suggesting that we do not go after 5 star recruits, but that UCLA needs to be a bit more picky. It has to be the right fit 5 star player. A KL-type who bought into the system. UCLA shouldn’t be going after 5 star recruits for the sake of having 5 star recruits. Drew Gordon was an amazing recruit who did not/would not fit in the system.
I think this is absolutely incorrect, revisionist history
The bluest chip recruit in Howland’s era was Kevin Love. He was obviously an incredible player in Howland’s system.
People forget that Farmar and Affalo were blue chippers and also thrived mightily. Ariza (not Howland’s recruit) had a very strong freshman season.
Honeycutt is arguably the only blue chip recruit in the freshman class, and he is doing well.
The blue chippers who did not fare as well? Keefe was a McDonald’s AA (lord knows how) and the class of 2008 (with possible exceptions of Holiday (incomplete grade) and Lee. My take is that blue chippers thrive unless they suck (are overrated).
In other words, was it the system that held back Holiday, Anderson and Morgan? No way. Howland’s system is great for point guards. Love absolutely thrived. What held back Anderson and Morgan was their lack of talent and/or work ethic.
The thing about DG I don't get
Is his goofy comment when he left UCLA, that UCLA was not his style and wanting a faster pace offense suited for his game. Had he watched UCLA under CBH? I could see him complaining about a lot of things but if that is what he was after, why did he go to UCLA?
That's because it wasn't true
DG didn’t leave because UCLA wasn’t his “style”. He “left”, and was probably encouraged to leave, because he couldn’t handle losing and he couldn’t handle having a tough guy as a coach. He had a bad attitude.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
It raises the question
Whether Gordon (these guys don’t deserve to be intialed) was throughly scouted and vetted during the recruiting process. Article from the Bay Area this year pointed out that Gordon’s temper issues were well known in the Bay Area:
It’s funny, because somehow Gordon missed the bulletin that Howland prefers a slow-it-down, half-court offense when he was being recruited by UCLA. And Howland and his staff wouldn’t have been so surprised by Gordon’s emotional flare-ups with coaches and teammates if they had checked into his anger-management issues during high school.
How did our coaches miss that?
Both are good points
Attitude is important and obviously Gordon had issues. It does play into, the “bad assistant” theory that they are not doing their homework.
I also agree that the offense reason of Gordon’s was probably an excuse. Not sure he would have left if we were winning the PAC 10 right now.
Temper and emotionalism isn't necessarily bad
They may have known about it and thought it was the immature excess of a very passionate, very committed player who always tries hard. Temper often is. In Gordon’s case, it was a misjudgment, because his problems went beyond anger. But it doesn’t necessarily mean they had no clue about his issues.
Good point
RN is very passionate and I have seen him argue with CBH. But there are other issues that go more toward anger management that are not good.
Let's see
how he does at New Mexico. He’ll probably tone it down because that’s essentially his last chance, but we’ll see.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Gordon obviously had talent
He was a good shot blocker, a good leaper and was one of the few who have a basketball body. I was astounded when he left, and I could not believe that they could not come up with a way to work it out. I think he will do well at New Mexico.
It will be interesting
to see how he deals with Steve Alford’s less than steady temper…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
When evaluating recruits
It is probably more difficult to assess character given the maturity (or lack thereof) of the typical high school senior. So much of the recruitment process seems to hinge on assessing all aspects of potential (character and athleticism), so what becomes obvious in hindsight may be overlooked during the process. Obviously recruiting is an art, and hopefully we will do better in the future, learning from the mistakes of this year and last.
Kendall Williams
I think he had the same emotional flare up issues as gordon. But again, the thought was that if Gordon has identified this and wants to fix it, then perhaps he is a “good fit”. In the end, the attitude was just too much to overcome.
And
Kendall Williams will get to play with Drew Gordon next season for classy Steve Alford in New Mexico. So cute.
About Gordon
From what i recall, he had a chance to go with Romar and the whole freewheeling style, but ultimately decided on Howland because Gordon knew what he needed to fix. He knew he had to get learn D and become more disciplined. I think Gordon’s camp, after recognizing this issue thought the guy who could do this for Gordon would be Howland. Obviously it didn’t work out.
But I think the staff also was fully aware of the attitude issue but thought, if Gordon recognizes this inherent problem and wants to fix it, then that’s half the battle, just work on him a little bit more, and all will be fine. I think the staff didn’t realize how much a process it would be though. I think in retrospect they bit off more than they could chew.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
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.
