Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Players Ready To Welcome Gay Teammate

[UPDATE] Mike Moser Is Transferring Out Of UCLA

Can't say I am too surprised given the events of this past season. Mike is leaving UCLA after spring quarter:

"Mike is a good kid, a great student and a very hard worker," Howland said. "I have enjoyed having him in our program. He has a great attitude and I'm supportive of him finding a program where he will have a chance to play more minutes than we envision he will have here."

Moser averaged 0.6 points and 0.5 rebounds per game while appearing in 15 of the 32 contests without making a start during the 2009-10 season. He played in 70 minutes (4.7 minutes per game) while shooting 20.0 percent (4-for-20) from the field and 9.1 percent (1-for-11) from three-point range on the year. His season high of three points (came on his only three-pointer of the year), was in the 69-67 loss to then No. 12 Butler on Nov. 27, 2009.

"The way the season worked out for me this year, I feel it is necessary for me personally, to make a move somewhere else so I can play," Moser said. "I have enjoyed my time here at UCLA and have built great relationships with my coaches and teammates. I'm going to stay in Division I and haven't spoken to anyone at all about playing. I won't rush into a decision. I'll just wait and see what happens in the next few weeks."

Tough news. I really wish we had a chance to see Moser develop in this program but we can't blame him for this decision. Also, clearly it was not an issue of his attitude as noted in the difference in the tone of Howland's comments in this case compared to the "dismissal" press release for Bobo Morgan.

Star-divide

These are interesting times for UCLA basketball. I think it is a reasonable to speculate that this will not be the last "news" (in terms of departures) coming out of  UCLA basketball program during this off-season. We will see how Ben Howland handles all of it in the coming weeks.

GO BRUINS.

UPDATE (N): Let's pick up on the "reset" we did less than a week ago. We now have just 6 scholarship guys left in the program and 3 earmarked for signed/committed recruits:

In School:
1. Malcolm Lee
2. Tyler Honeycutt
3. Jerime Anderson
4. Reeves Nelson
5. Anthony Stover
6. Brendan Lane (just had surgery)

Committed:
7. Josh Smith
8. Tyler Lamb
9. Lazeric Jones

Actually we just have 5 healthy scholarship players on the roster now since Lane will probably be out at least 5 months or so due to his surgery. He might even be a candidate for medical red-shirt next season. As mentioned above we might even see more attrition before we are done this season. Not to mention we are probably looking at additional coaching turnover in the coming weeks. GO BRUINS.

Comment 77 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

agreed

The tone of this statement is night and day compared with the Bobo statement.

Sounds like a genuine mutual separation. If he has continued to work hard despite limited playing opportunities, all power to him and good luck for the future. I hope he doesn’t go to a Pac-10 school.

Hopefully CBH can bring in some recruits and fast. Plenty of opportunities to get meaningful minutes…

by britishbruin on Apr 5, 2010 4:17 PM PDT reply actions  

Wow

considering we aren’t favored to pick up any additional top rated recruits, I can’t imagine Ben is going to replace him with a more talented recruit.

If Ben can’t do better on the recruiting trail than is expected, we are in for a very long stretch of mediocrity.

by silverlakebruin on Apr 5, 2010 4:20 PM PDT reply actions  

I'm disappointed

3 transfers in one year? This isn’t a record is it? I feel like all these transfers just make CBH’s program look worse.

Indeed, unlike the previous 2, it seems MM did not have any sort of attitude problems. He should have had more minutes in the next season, what with ND no longer being around to steal them. I wish he could have been patient and waited for the next season.

Now when you say other departures, do you mean more transfers or NBA-related? I’m not strongly familiar with the time frame of the NBA draft.

by BruinEngy on Apr 5, 2010 4:21 PM PDT reply actions  

Not necessarily NBA related

Check the link I shared above to see the relevant NBA dates.

As for the Moser transfer, while I am disappointed, we have to be a little realistic. I was excited about the promise of his athleticism but he probably wasn’t going to get mins behind Honeycutt at 2 and Nelson/Lane at 4. Still, I wish he was recruited to stay at the program and get him to envision how he could develop into a solid contributor as a junior or senior.

by Nestor on Apr 5, 2010 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

yeah

Honeycutt is gone after next year (in my opinion) and a combo of Nelson/Lane leaves us somewhat thin at the forward spot. It seems just yesterday we had more forwards than we could handle. I’ve said this before, but I think CBH is doing a full scrub of the program…can’t say I disagree.

Good luck, MM.

by hicalliber on Apr 5, 2010 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

In this case though

Howland wanted Moser around. This was a different situation than Morgan.

by Nestor on Apr 5, 2010 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

Wanted him around but did not expect him to get minutes

I thought the tone of the release was quite different from Bobo. But the key words to me were:
  " I’m supportive of him finding a program where he will have a chance to play more minutes than we envision he will have here"

by Bruin Dad and Grad on Apr 6, 2010 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

Bummer

We did not get to see much from MM this year, but I liked his effort and attitude. I wish he had stayed. However, CBH must expect someone good to enter the program if he told MM that he would not get many minutes next year. I assume that Nestor meant that Moser would would get many minutes behind Honeycutt at the 3, not the 2. I still think MM is a 3 so CBH must have high hopes for another 3 — C.J. Leslie?

by Arturo del Mundo on Apr 5, 2010 4:33 PM PDT reply actions  

CJ Leslie

Yes, UCLA is not on Leslie’s list of schools, but I saw a report that CBH had offered him a scholarship. Bogus report? Would CBH offer a scholarship to a guy with no interst in UCLA? Who knows? OK, maybe it’s just wishful thinking on my part. I like his game.

by Arturo del Mundo on Apr 5, 2010 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

and yeah

my bad. I meant Honeycutt at 3 (not 2).

by Nestor on Apr 5, 2010 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm not disappointed, but I am confused

I would really like to know what is going on in the program. I really hope Coach Howland can pull this together, because there’s been a steady exodus of talent (whether they fit UCLA or not) but really no plan/forseeable top recruits coming in. I’m really hoping the coaches can pull in some diamonds-in-the-rough, but does the current coaching staff have that eye?

by impaulv on Apr 5, 2010 4:36 PM PDT reply actions  

I know what you mean

But I think CBH is rethinking his recent recruiting philospohy. I bet that he starts recruiting guys who are blue collar, defense-oriented players. Time will tell.

by hicalliber on Apr 5, 2010 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

There are plenty of "fish" (RECRUITS) left in the sea

Losing Mike Moser is no big deal. Although some may argue he never had a chance to prove anything, It seems Moser wasn’t going to get PT next season. With Drago-BRICK gone and SF & PF minutes going to Honeycutt, Nelson, Lane, Fat Albert (J Smith), maybe even Stover, Moser would have done a fine job keeping the bench at an optimal temperature.

I wish Moser luck in the future, but let’s move on… there are a few Mickey D’s and 5-Star guys left. Before you say we don’t have a shot at any of them, a few of them are listed via Rivals.com with UCLA interests: PF Terrence Jones (5-star stud), and SG Trey Ziegler (4-Stars), PG Ray McCallum (4-stars). Now, despite what any “insider,” may say about what college these kids are leaning towards, no one REALLY knows until these kids call their BS Press conference and tell everyone. At least the Bruins are on their mind, and that’s a start.

Regardless, we’re going to still be young, but we’re going to have TALENT. And talent will AT LEAST get us back to respectability, and more importantly, the NCAA tourney.

by TE193 on Apr 5, 2010 5:08 PM PDT reply actions  

Speaking of Josh Smith

Did you see him in the McDonald’s All American game? He got his 10 points, but boy is he SLOW and he stands around on defense like a statue. He better get in better shape or he’ll be doing a lot of sitting. His defense consisted of putting an arm out in traffic. Yeah, I know its an all-star game, but that’s what I saw in the WA state championship game, too. Good around the basket on second chances, rebounds, and blocks, but a big zero on any other defense. I sure hope he gets his cardio workouts going!!

by GoSolar on Apr 5, 2010 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

Fat Albert Smith has some game!

I was at the game… I am impressed with this kid. You are 100% right about it being an all-star game. NO ONE plays Def. He has great moves / instincts / hands. Didn’t show his full physical bruiser play (it’s an all-star game), but I get the feeling defenses are going to have a hard time containing him one on one because he is powerful.

 He was a little slow on the defensive end… BUT IMO, he is NO WORSE than DragoBrick attempting to play Defense. Now, that’s not necessarily an improvement, but I’ll take Fat Albert’s offensive game over DragoBrick’s anyday.

He needs to put a picture of Demarcus Cousins in front of him on the treadmill. That’s who he has the potential to be… if he can get to 280 – 290 lbs. And Cousins could stand to lose 10-20 lbs., but look how dominant he was this year playing slightly plump.

by TE193 on Apr 5, 2010 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

Is that really his nickname?

Because if it isn’t, you might consider changing your nickname for him.

Saying Josh needs to work to get in better shape is certainly reasonable. He’s facing a longer season against better, bigger, and more physical players than he has faced. We will need him on both ends of the floor.

greg in denver - UCLA guy for life

by gbruin on Apr 5, 2010 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

Cool nickname

What’s wrong with “Fat Albert?” Fat Albert was the man! Funny! Smith looks like Fat Albert! Besides, “Josh Smith,” is such a boring name, and also the same name as the superstud on the ATL Hawks.

I am a big supporter of Fat Albert. I think he is our meal ticket (no pun intended) to getting back to the tourney. Sorry you don’t like the nickname. Is “Drago-BRICK,” better for you?

by TE193 on Apr 5, 2010 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

Smith DOES have a lot of game!

He will definitely have a big impact inside. He’s got a nose for the ball, makes good passes (!) and displays some really nice moves in close. He’ll be tough to handle.

OTOH, players in HS just out hustled him to the hoop, leaving him standing there like a tree. In Division 1, he’ll face much faster guys with great inside moves too.

I’m VERY pleased he chose UCLA and think he’ll be an impact player.

by GoSolar on Apr 5, 2010 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

Wow. Very young again.

The doubt about whether there are more transfers must be about ML and/or JA.

Assuming both stay, we will have 3 juniors (counting Jones) and 3 sophs (BL, TH and RN).

The rest, freshmen.

I think the key issue for us has been that our freshmen have not either tough or strong enough to play Ben Ball. They need at least one summer in the weight room, usually between their frosh and soph years.

BL won’t be able to do that — and he’s one who needed it. In fact, I’d not be surprised if he takes a red shirt year.

We really need JA and ML to use the summer wisely. We need TH to get stronger. RN has to learn to shoot FT’s.

And, once more, we will start players who have never played Div 1 ball and played with our more experienced guys.

Still, I have faith in CBH. If he thinks MM leaving is the right move, it probably is.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Apr 5, 2010 5:11 PM PDT reply actions  

We are young

and we will stay young year after year after year unless Howland can stem the tide of attrition in this program.

And anyone who uses the “we are young” excuse to explain why we have a sub .500 team next year, remember that we have lost 3 potential upper classmen in the last 6 months to “greener pastures”.

Either Howland is not recruiting/developing players that can play for UCLA, or is not recruiting/developing players who want to play for UCLA. Neither scenario is going to bring success to this program.

"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09

by Blue Me on Apr 5, 2010 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'd be highly surprised if we don't sign a couple more players

to get up to 10 healthy + Lane.

The question is how good they will be.

We currently have 2 specialist PGs (JA, LJ), 2 SGs (ML, TL), 1 SF (TH), 2 PFs (RN, [BL]) and 2 Cs (JS2, AS)

Seems like the place we could most use a blue chip talent is PG; but we could do with a backup 3/4 hybrid for depth and to develop for next year in case TH thinks of bolting. If we (bizarrely) ended up with a SF stud like Terence Jones, it would be interesting to see if we could play him and TH at the same time on opposite wings.

by britishbruin on Apr 5, 2010 5:25 PM PDT reply actions  

Terrence Jones

Has grade issues (not just per UCLA observers) is the longest of long shot.

by Nestor on Apr 5, 2010 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

What kind of grade issues?

GPA or SAT’s? Have not seen any red flags on his grades from other schools recruiting him. Not that any of those schools care about grades anyway…

by TE193 on Apr 5, 2010 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

We need more guys like Mata

who will stay four years and work their butts off without egos. Moser would be a very productive junior or senior. I can understand wanting to play, but there is something to be said for having to work for it. The trogans would say he didn’t want to compete…unfortunately, in my mind, it rings with a bit of truth.

by sponkey21 on Apr 5, 2010 5:52 PM PDT reply actions  

Diamonds in the rough??

Who is going to polish them, to make them better players? I do not see that happening with this staff. Possibly a couple of young guns who have shown ability and can demonstrate patience can be lured to Westwood but CBH must be willing not just to hire them but to let them coach. we shall see. One of them with a solid recruiting background would definetly be a major plus. Possibly looking to alumni would be a plus in this area.

by john4justice on Apr 5, 2010 5:57 PM PDT reply actions  

Damn

We all knew this was coming but it still sucks. MM is going to end up like Stanback IMO. Unless we get a stud who has NBA written all over him, this is a loss. It is highly unlikely whomever picks up his ride is going to be better prepared to contribute considering Moser has been in the program for a year already.

by BlueReign on Apr 5, 2010 6:33 PM PDT reply actions  

Stanback

Would have played on this team this past year as a Freshman. Stanback was on a loaded team. MM couldn’t find time this year on a team with a losing record. Very different situations.

by DCBruins on Apr 5, 2010 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

Moser was insurance

and a hard worker. You need players like him on a team. But I don’t think he was going to be in the PAC 10 rotation next year unless Tyler Lamb and other incoming players are a bust. Remember CBH chose to play MR down low in the zone over MM. He could not find time on this year’s depleted weak team which means he was a project. This is the key quote:

supportive of him finding a program where he will have a chance to play more minutes than we envision he will have here."

If MM played for us next year we may have been in a big trouble.

by DCBruins on Apr 5, 2010 7:00 PM PDT reply actions  

For next year perhaps

He would be a role player. Still I think he had the potential to become a solid player ala Stanback by his junior or senior season. From what I have heard Howland wanted him around the program. This was a matter of Moser wanting immediate PT.

by Nestor on Apr 5, 2010 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

No one has the patience to wait 2-3 years to get their chance. But here’s what I don’t understand about MM…he will have to sit out next year, and by that time he might have earned some PT in our program. I totally agree that the Stanback transfer is pretty similar to MM’s. The big unanswered question is why this happens. I know there are a lot of variables when it comes to figuring out who wll emerge as a starter, but MM did NOT look ready for Div I BBall.

Why did CBH recruit so many forwards?

by hicalliber on Apr 5, 2010 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

I can understand the PT argument

if we were 35-3, stacked two deep in every position, and had everyone coming back. But we were 14-18 and graduating 3 seniors all of whom had started at one point.

 If a 5 star recruit (Bobo) and a 4 star recruit (Moser) can’t get PT on a 14-18 club graduating 3 starters, I basically have 2 questions: 1. why the hell did we go 14-18? 2. how in the hell do Bobo and Moser think they’re going to get PT anywhere else?

That’s why I think PT is only part of the equation for both these young men.

"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09

by Blue Me on Apr 5, 2010 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

Very good questions

I honestly don’t have an answer. I really hoped Moser would have stuck around because I think he has a shot of being a good player. The question for me is why he didn’t stick around and whether our coaches made the right pitch giving him incentives and motivation to stick around.

As we have said all along how the scenarios unfold next few weeks and next two years will tell us everything we need to know. Being “young” will not be a sufficient excuse next year in my book.

by Nestor on Apr 5, 2010 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

in addition to pitch of incentives/motivation

it would be interesting to know what was said to them while they were being recruited. If MM was being told he would probably be a productive guy off the bench his first year and competing for a starting job his second year, he may have been pretty disappointed. I wonder how much they sell “you could be the next Russell Westbrook” on the recruiting trail.

by britishbruin on Apr 6, 2010 7:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

correct me if I'm wrong.

but MM’s departure now gives us 4 scholies to offer.

The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on Apr 5, 2010 7:25 PM PDT reply actions  

Is this another case of poor evaluation?

No one on this team this year stepped up so much that he will be earning more minutes next year (and thus depriving others of minutes) than expected.

So did CBH initially think MM would be better and more deserving of time, and has now realized this isn’t true? The alternative is that he recruited a player that he didn’t envision playing more than a few minutes. Neither option is very reassuring.

greg in denver - UCLA guy for life

by gbruin on Apr 5, 2010 7:33 PM PDT reply actions  

Am I the only one

who is deeply troubled with what is going on in this program?

"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09

by Blue Me on Apr 5, 2010 8:55 PM PDT reply actions  

Definitely concerned

I am waiting to see how next few weeks/months turn out.

by Nestor on Apr 5, 2010 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

No.

You are not.

greg in denver - UCLA guy for life

by gbruin on Apr 5, 2010 9:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

Howland's

fault. He’s going to lose some more coaches.

by LA Bruin on Apr 6, 2010 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Nope. Not the only one.

"In this program your passion bucket must be full to play SC." -- CRN, to Dan Patrick, 1/2008

by Meriones on Apr 6, 2010 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

Nope

but gotta let things play out even though I have a not so funny feeling.

by BlueReign on Apr 6, 2010 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Concerned you said it

I am more than concerned. Looking asround the Pac-10 makes me afraid that we may be in much worse shape next year. If it takes a couple of years to develop where CBH trusts you on the floor, then why is the player at fault when it seems the systems nuances are harder to learn it is the system which is wrong. I see u8nheralded freshmen playing other places by the start of conference seassons why not here? Be afraid be very afraid.

by john4justice on Apr 5, 2010 9:15 PM PDT reply actions  

We have 4 schollies to give out but

I wouldn’t give them all out this next recruiting year unless they’re all studs. Next year we are looking at no senior class and unless we get some defections to the NBA or transfers, we’ll have no schollies to give out. Hopefully these next few weeks help steer the program in the right direction

"I can't believe I ate the whole thing" Homer Simpson

by AMM19 on Apr 5, 2010 9:27 PM PDT reply actions  

Not concerned at all

I really don’t get the fuss of people worrying about JMM and MM leaving. Neither of them were Pac 10 level players and neither was going to be much of a factor next year. TH is going to play 33-36 minutes per game next year which would have left 5 minutes at most for MM to battle for with TL and any other recruits CBH lands in the next few weeks. JMM couldn’t beat out RN, BL, or even ND at center and I am pretty confident that AS is already a better player than him. With Smith coming in next year, he would have just sat on the bench alongside MM. In both cases, the writing was on the wall for MM and JMM that if they wanted to get the playing time they wanted, they needed to go elsewhere. If they had stuck around for two/three more years, we would just be talking about them as pathetic seniors who never panned out and are taking minutes from the new young guys which they need to develop / so they don’t transfer.

The fact of the matter is that in college basketball, you don’t need depth. In fact, the shorter the rotation the better. Look at Duke today, there three best players (Scheyer, Singler, and Smith) never come out of the game. They rotate four bigs and that is it. Every minute that a 8th, 9th, or 10th man gets is minutes that your better players are off the floor. ML, TH, RN, and Smith should each play 30+ minutes per game next year.

The only person that matters for next year is TH. If TH leaves, then it is definitely panic time. If he stays, we will be a good team next year.

by bruinponcho on Apr 5, 2010 9:54 PM PDT reply actions  

That is what he has to say right now

I will be very very surprised if TH or ML declare, but stranger things have happened.

by bruinponcho on Apr 5, 2010 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hopes

No one ever knows for sure except for the person making the decision. That goes for college kids deciding to turn pro and especially applies to high schoolers deciding where to go to college. The recruiting services do their best, but they really have no idea where a recruit will land.

by bruinponcho on Apr 5, 2010 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't think so

He mentioned our top 3 returners in terms of productivity, all of whom started numerous games. I wouldn’t group JA with them and ideally JA will be one of 3 PGs on our roster within the next few weeks. Jerime could become part of the nucleus but he definitely isn’t there atm.

Also, given our recent woes at PG I think losing depth at that position is not something CBH is interested in, I believe he wants JA to stick around. In addition, JA, perhaps unlike Moser, was given to opportunity to perform this year and was very underwhelming. He should be more frustrated with himself than CBH and thus less inclined to transfer and more inclined to work on his game like crazy this offseason.

by Chris09 on Apr 6, 2010 8:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

Also, Duke has had plenty of players transfer

In fact, I can recall off the top of my head three McD recruits who transferred and were much more productive than Stanback. Those would be Cal’s Jamal Boykin, ASU’s Eric Boateng, and Villanova’s Taylor King. All three of those guys are much much better than Stanback. Gordon, Morgan, or Moser and Coach K didn’t seem to miss them too much.

by bruinponcho on Apr 5, 2010 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

the Duke comparison is interesting

but last night’s team had two five-star seniors (Thomas, Scheyer) a five-star stud junior (Singler), a four-star senior (Zoubek) and a four star junior (Smith) starting.
Their bench is also loaded with four and five star talent; and that is despite three four or five star guys leaving early for the NBA or by transfer.

Duke is loaded. We are not at all.

by britishbruin on Apr 6, 2010 7:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

but I should add the other side of it

which is that apart from Zoubek – who was a project throughout his whole career – the other four guys got at least 15 mins as freshmen and two of them were starters as freshmen. They are a lot more talented than MM has shown so far.

From MM’s perspective: he is sitting way behind TH next year, and potentially another year if TH sticks around; so MM might have to wait until his senior year to get a shot, at which time some other young gun might have arrived in Westwood. It is a natural problem with getting two guys in the same class to play the same position. If we bring in a backup SF for next year with potential to grow – a la having RW as a freshman backup for soph DC – we should be fine.

by britishbruin on Apr 6, 2010 7:40 AM PDT up reply actions  

You can chose not to be concerned

Coach Howland wanted Moser around. This was not a case of Stanback being encouraged to leave. This was a case of Moser leaving on his own (which is a bit disconcerting). Plus it is a little dangerous position to be in to count on Honeycutt to come through with 33-36 minutes a game because he is only going to be a sophomore who had health issues and had a fragile start to his freshman season. Same with Josh Smith who has his conditioning issues at this point of time.

The fact of the matter is in college basketball experience from quality players is necessary to form the foundation of a program. I did look at Duke very carefully and observed that Scheyer was a senior, Singler was a junior and Smith was a junior. If Howland can hang on to his players who are not NBA lottery talents (but good enough to go to NBA), then we would be making progress.

Singler case is especially interesting. From what we have seen it is questionable if he would have stayed in college for more than 2 years had he played in Westwood. Losing Morgan perhaps wasn’t a blow. However, losing Moser is part of disconcerting trend we have seen in departures of players like Stanback and Wright, who we could have used as quality upperclassmen to prevent the humiliation of one of the worst seasons in history of UCLA basketball.

Honeycutt is not leaving this season. However, if he tries out for the draft and high tails it out of Westwood at the end of next season, it will continue to pose concern for the state of UCLA basketball. I am trying to be positive about UCLA hoops but I am not going to pretend everything is peachy when 3 players have left the program in less than a year (with 2 malcontents) and more turnovers (either via staff or personnel changes) on the way.

by Nestor on Apr 6, 2010 4:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

you are right about us having to hold onto NBA-level talents

but it seems that Moser isn’t likely to be that if he couldn’t get minutes with our depleted squad.

I’m not sure Moser is part of a disconcerting trend – we asked Stanback to leave to make room for other guys, and Wright would never have started for us (after he refused to redshirt his first year, he would have been a third string center as a junior behind KL and LM(-R) and, I think, would have been backup to PAA in his senior year) and wouldn’t have been around to ’prevent the humiliation of one of the worst seasons in history of UCLA basketball).

by britishbruin on Apr 6, 2010 7:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well

I don’t think of Moser as an NBA level talent. I think of Moser as someone in the mold of a Stanback who could have been very helpful if he stuck it out for four years. Shoot I think of him as someone in the caliber of LMR who was just as raw and often clueless his freshman season.

The Scheyer/Singler/Smith reference was more for players like Lee and Honeycutt. I think for UCLA to succeed Howland consistently needs to hang on to those guys and figure how to keep them together for at least more than 2 years. Unclear whether that will be the case in next 2 years.

by Nestor on Apr 6, 2010 7:58 AM PDT up reply actions  

sure

Singler and Scheyer have started together for three years, which is pretty extraordinary for two five-star guys. Smith has been a highly used bench player for two years before starting this year.

Re: Moser/LMR etc – I just don’t know that you want ‘projects’ at the SF position, while it might make more sense for bigs (Zoubek for Duke last night, LMR, PAA, even Ryan Hollins for us). As far as I can see from a quick glance at the Final Four teams, nearly every starter was getting 20 mins per game by the time they were sophomores and a lot of them were starters as freshmen. I’m definitely not saying the Moser couldn’t have been a productive backup as a junior, I just don’t know that a team with Mike Moser starting could be elite. Of course, I have no real idea of how much he will develop – just that if he is a project, I don’t know we can carry one as a SF, particularly with CBH’s offense that seems to require the 1-3 to be primary scorers.

by britishbruin on Apr 6, 2010 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

Non Points and Centers as Projects

From last year’s team alone (Gulp) Drago did not play his Freshman year, MR did not start until his senior year, etc. I would argue that MR was strictly a 3 shooter until this year. So he developed.

From the past, Kris Johnson, a 3, did not start until his senior year and did little besides wave a towel his freshman year. CB, while playing a lot, was not a 3 until his senior year, which was his best.

Thus if you are saying a MM type would not develop into a first round pick or an elite 3 I agree. But I think a 2/3 (I see them as somewhat interchangeable) could develop into a good player/starter by his senior year.

On bigs, you are right. FWIW, I see BL in that category. He is a 4 not a 3 to my mind. Needs weight and time to develop.

by DCBruins on Apr 6, 2010 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think you're making my point for me

I don’t think any team with Drago starting could be a Final Four team. Likewise (probably) with Mike Roll, unless you had four great players around him. And Ced was a McD all-american and PG starter who was clearly talented and happened to work out well as a SF, not a guy who wasn’t good enough to start for 3 years.

My point isn’t that you can’t become a starter at SF after 2-3 years as a role player, just that this probably bodes ill for your team. We ‘carried’ just one ‘role-player-as-starter’ in our Final Four years, LMR in his junior year, surrounded by quality skill players and an excellent PF running-mate. In college basketball it appears you can get away with some hard-working, less-skilled bigs if you have the skill players around them; I don’t know that the converse is true.

by britishbruin on Apr 6, 2010 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions  

Interesting Point/Clarification

So a role player is a non-NBA level player who is a starter for this point. That is tough because I think all the starters get drafted from NCAA Champs and play for a few years regardless of whether they are “good enough.”

While three is a position where many great players have come from on our last championship team Charles O’Bannon was arguably the weakest starter. Not sure he had pro talent from a non-championship though he did play 38 games over 2 years.

But broadly your point is certianly good. It seems hard to go far with “role players” or non-NBA level talents at 1-3 except maybe center where size can overcome talent at the college level.

by DCBruins on Apr 6, 2010 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

Loss of MM, Bobo and DG in one year

Reflects on their quality as recruits in the first place, and with the loss of Daniels gives the impression that the program is in freefall. While in each case, we can say that the team is not hurt by their loss, in toto, it reflects poorly on the program. All of that will go by the wayside 1) if we get some unexpected quality in recruiting CBH is doing to fill the four scholarships, or 2) the teams performs well (with low expectations) next season. So its a wait and see situation.

by 75NatChamps on Apr 5, 2010 10:13 PM PDT reply actions  

I agree with pancho

I think CBH was having a hard time with talented recruits because we are 3 deep at the 3 spot. Moser leaving and BL injured makes that position more attactive to potential recruits.

by timostouts on Apr 5, 2010 10:41 PM PDT reply actions  

MM leaving is a bad sign IMO.

It’s a sign of one of two things, neither of which is good, poor player evaluation or poor support by the coach or maybe both.

After all, the kid has a great attitude according to all information. So it becomes a questionn of talent, that is, is he a keeper or not? I really have no idea myself because his playing time was so limited it is impossible to make any judgment outside of practice.

Apparently CBH is more than happy to let him go because he won’t get PT here. So did CBH mess up in his initial evaluation when he recruited him? And he’s going to get it right this time late in the recruiting game? Mmmm.

It doesn’t add up or smell right to me. There’s something we don’t know. DG was a head case. Bobo, who knows? But now a good, young kid with the right attitude who never really got a chance to play is jumjping or being nudged out to nowhere? Something’s not right IMO.

I thought those 4 letters on your chest meant somethng special. I’m not blaiming the kid under the circumstances. I’m not blaming CBH. Too little information. It just doesn’t add up. All in all, not a good sign IMO.

GO BRUINS!

by uclahy on Apr 6, 2010 11:36 AM PDT reply actions  

This is simply not accurate

This is not accurate:


Apparently CBH is more than happy to let him go because he won’t get PT here. So did CBH mess up in his initial evaluation when he recruited him? And he’s going to get it right this time late in the recruiting game? Mmmm.

CBH was not “more than happy to let him go.” That is not true and I have enough information via background to make that assertion. In public Howland’s statement (which was in sharp contrast to the one issued wrt Morgan) also points to the fact that Howland liked Moser. The question for me is how Howland went about in trying to retain Moser in the program and convince him to stick around so that he could leave with a productive career at UCLA.

It’s just not accurate to say Moser was shown the door. This was a unique situation and different from the ones involving Gordon and Morgan.

by Nestor on Apr 6, 2010 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thanks for the correction, but I specificially ended by saying

I didn’t blame Howland because I had too little information. I inferred CBH didn’t mind seeing MM going because MM wasn’t going to get much playing time. So if he can get a better recruit out of it, maybe CBH thinks he can turn the loss into a plus. But that’s the minor point.

The larger point is, to me, it’s just not a good sign that a good kid with the right attitude is leaving the program. I don’t think any of us fans or CBH are so mercenary about winning that we want to encouorage or support the transfer of players after just one season to free up a shcolie for some newer, hotter, recruit.

I have no idea what’s really going on any more than any other fan. I thought MM was and is a good kid. I wish he was staying. That would be better overall IMO.

GO BRUINS!

by uclahy on Apr 6, 2010 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

that sounds right

I am bummed to lose Moser. I think losing him is bit of a setback unlike the cases of Morgan and Gordon. Should be interesting how next few weeks turn out.

by Nestor on Apr 6, 2010 3:20 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Some perspective

Does anyone know if UCLA made the scholarship offer to MM after Hollis Thompson announced for Georgetown? I know MM’s official visit was after we missed on Thompson (who was an LA area recruit and averaged just under 5 pts and 20min/game for Georgetown this year).

Our attempt to stockpile forwards last year seems pretty mind boggling now doesn’t it?

by Chris09 on Apr 6, 2010 1:47 PM PDT reply actions  

The trend bothers me,

and so does what it has meant for each transferring player.

In a program with long-term plans, young players are brought along. This applies, whether they’re future starters or merely role players. They get a little time in games, here and there, early in the season and in their careers, and more time later. Of course, this presumes that they’re willing hard-workers. As far as I know, this was the case with Bobo and MM.

Now, it may be that giving even a few minutes to young players who won’t be stars could adversely impact winning now. If so, so be it, for it is part of the long-term plan that all players are brought along. Each player is, not only better, but also better able to contribute, as time goes by. Each player is made to feel that their presence and their contributions are important to the team.

But, that’s not what happened with Bobo and MM. They attracted cobwebs on the bench. They remained unimportant. They didn’t develop. They languished.

Yeah, their leaving opens up some scholarships. But, to me, this is like trading in all your cards for the chance at a better hand. Duke and Butler showed us, as if we needed reminding, what an asset it is to have upperclassmen on the roster. I think this is true for both NBA-level players and for role players. There is something about working hard, and sticking around as a unit that pays intangible benefits. Not to mention, greater year-to-year stability. A team with multiple players who can step in, after injury, foul trouble, or just to give starters a blow, and not lose much is a strong team.

But, to me, CBH seems all too eager to plow under last year’s crop and replant. Even if he should land some hot-shot recruits to fill the void, the strategy is unreliable. For one, incoming hot-shots are not likely going to stick around for long. For another, fragile assets such as collective purpose and team chemistry are not given much chance to take root.

I think CBH squandered Bobo and MM’s time at UCLA. Whatever their eventual level of play, they could have been valuable contibutors this year and next. But, they weren’t, and they won’t be. This is what I find most troubling.

by Bruinut on Apr 6, 2010 3:13 PM PDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Bruins Nation, an unofficial daily online scrap book covering the greatest collegiate athletic program in the nation. Established June 16, 2005. GO BRUINS.

Managers

Uclabear1_small Nestor

Arron_afflalo1_small Tydides

Brad_pitt_as_achilles_small Achilles

377011_2642084725867_1068030137_32302525_1166539782_n_small Ryan Rosenblatt

Telemachus_small Telemachus

Licenseplate_small gbruin

2761_small tasser10

Blue_bellerophon_small Bellerophon

Img_0052_2_small Patroclus

Small DCBruins

Of Counsels

094_small Ajax

Menelaus2_small Menelaus

Small Meriones

Small Odysseus

Associates

Eee_small freesia39

Uclabruins_small AHMB