Trust, Ben Howland & UCLA Basketball
by Nestor on Nov 16, 2011 12:28 PM PST
in Basketball
Email
Print
Let's start this hoops posts with three quick notes:
- As I am blogging this post, UCLA basketball was running up the Google trends. Suffice to say we weren't trending for good news around UCLA basketball.
- UCLA is currently ranked 166th in the Sagarain ratings 3 spots below IUPUI.
- As noted by Matt Norlander on CBSSports.com, 'It's been eight years since the Bruins started 0-2," which happened to be Steve Lavin's last one at UCLA when we finished 10-19. Note Ben Howland has already posted 2 losing seasons at UCLA. We gave him a mulligan for the first one. But the second one was counted as a massive strike against Howland's record at UCLA.
If you are following the national conversation around hoops, it will become pretty clear that we have already become kind of a joke. We know that is going to hurt the feelings of few coach worshipping loyalists, but that is the reality. So like it or not after two historic losses against mid-major programs, as Tracy Pierson put it his post game wrap dubbed "Wow, Part 2," it's officially "panic time" in Westwood. Perhaps there is still time for Howland to get us out of this train wreck, but time is short at this point. Howland needs to take some dramatic steps to get back to his roots, with a total commitment to defense, to bring UCLA basketball out of the malaise that has held back this program for last three years. Extended thoughts after the jump.
Heading into this season there were lot of high expectations around the hoops team. Pac-12 media picked us to win the conference. We were ranked in top-20 in most of national polls. Now I didn't necessarily think we had a top-15 team but I do think we have enough talent on this squad to put together a borderline top-25 program, contend for the conference, and improve upon the aggregate performance of last year (which was a barely average year per the normal standards of UCLA basketball). Instead we are now facing a disastrous start and the worst one since Lavin's last year in Westwood. I still think there is a chance for Howland to save this season and close it with a strong recruiting class, but the window is getting narrower.
We have been concerned for the status of Howland's basketball program for a while here on BruinsNation. If folks need to refresher, I'd recommend revisiting this post f rom February of 2010, when we laid out 5 factors Ben Howland needed to address to get UCLA basketball team back on track. They were:
- Rebuilding our shattered and demoralized backcourt
- Frontcourt management: defining roles and developing youngsters
- The conditioning of Josh Smith
- Flexibility in Howland's approach
- The need to fill in a missing link in assistant ranks
Well I will say Howland at least made some moves to address the "missing link" in assistant ranks by bringing in Phill Matthews and Kory McCray. He also brought in Tyus Edney in his staff (not officially as a coach). It is unclear whether any of them will turn out to be the recruiting ace/mentor role Kerry Keating played over the years. We will see how UCLA closes during spring recruiting signining period and how the team chemistry is managed this year before making any final conclusions.
As for other factors, suffice to say not much has changed. Our back-court, even after two years, remains a discombobulated mess. We don't have any viable point guards to run our offense. It is telling when UCLA fans were longingly looking at Jerime Anderson as a possible solution to first game debacle. Anderson IMO is a better pg than Jones then again that is saying Kevin Prince is more serviceable than Nick Crissman at QB.
We thought we were deep up front. Yet after two years the roles remain unclear and confusing. I thought the Wear Twins would provide decent depth for the team. I didn't anticipate that they would emerge as Howland's primary options. It's only two games but their inability to play "Ben Ball defense," to block out or provide help on defense, is becoming a huge concern.
It's going to take a while to figure our Reeves Nelson issues and frankly it's not a surprise that we are to this point given Howland hasn't done much in last two years to hold him accountable. It is also problematic to see how Howland continues to treat guys like Brendan Lane, who has shown patience and maturity through three years of our program. I was dumbfounded to see how he got 26 seconds in each half as he was pulled after he made mistakes that Wears were making all night long.
I don't think I need repeat the concerns about inflexibility in Howland's approach. It is stunning to me how a guy like Howland didn't anticipate that with his slow footed front court, there would be a need to play zone this season. Howland conceded in his post game presser that he may try out zone now, but the question folks should be asking why did it take a disastrous result for him to him consider this obvious option? Why didn't he have his team prepared during the pre-season by practicing some basic zone defense concepts.
Speaking of unprepared there is not much to say about Josh Smith's conditioning. I just feel sad for all parties involved that he hasn't been properly motivated or taken it upon himself to take advantage of the God given talent with which he has been blessed. It's a sad situation and I guess that goes for the entire team.
So after two years we haven't seen much progress. Yes, the team made the Dance but that hid the fact that the team put together number of humiliating losses that was peppered through the season.
Back in March of 2010, the frontpagers also collectively observed this:
From our vantage point, Howland encountered what we see as a "perfect storm" of early NBA defections, injuries, and recruiting malcontents. Given how it was Howland's staff that failed to foresee and prepare for some of these developments (many that were anticipated by almost everyone else, i.e. Jrue Holiday's early departure), how long it took for Howland to make obvious adjustments and the way he developed personnel on his roster, the season didn't even live up to bare minimum of expectations of putting together a winning record in Westwood. Ironically, and make no mistake, this season still has been an underachieving disaster, because, despite all the problems, we still have a better team on paper than some of the teams that beat us. Even with all the roster problems this team managed to underachieve.
However, while we have lobbed heavy criticism in how he has managed this program, we still think he is the right guy to be in charge of our program at this snap shot in time. Yet our support doesn't mean we have complete trust in him given what we have seen on the court. It means that he has to earn back the trust which was lost this season.
Needless to say Howland is making it very difficult to earn back that trust. We have already noted extensively how a losing basketball season will not be acceptable at UCLA. From another post in January of 2010:
I realize Ben Howland's first year was a losing one. However, I never counted that record on Howland because it was a result of the total decimation of the program under the previous "poser" of a head coach. However, if this year results in a losing record, Howland will be solely responsible for it. He will have to fix it without making any kind of excuses and taking definitive measures to ensure that it never happens under his watch in Westwood.
Now, note very carefully. There is no way I am suggesting that UCLA should be firing Ben Howland if we end up suffering a losing season in 2009-10. That is not the case. However, what I am arguing is that if this season ends up being a losing one, there will be no excuse for it and should end up putting Howland under pressure to not only produce a 20+ win season and a tourney run next season, but he also needs to instill confidence that a losing season in 2009-10 was nothing short of an aberration.
Suffice to say lots of questions now whether that 2009-10 was an aberration.
All this said, I think Howland still has a way out. I am hoping he and Nelson will communicate with each other effectively and put that drama behind them (maybe there is still some hope on that front). More importantly, what I want to see from Howland is a true commitment to go back to his roots - defense and fundamentals - by having that reflected through personnel on the court.
This means I would like to see Howland go with a rotation something like this:
| PG | SG | SF | PF | C | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Starter | Anderson | Powell | Lamb | D Wear | Smith |
| Reserves | Jones | Anderson | Parker | Lane | Stover |
| T Wear |
If Nelson comes back with a total commitment to program, I'd eventually consider starting him over David Wear and make D. Wear the first forward of the bench. I'd ensure that Lane gets at least 15-20 mins a game depending on the needs at 4 and 5 spot. Also, wrt to A
I think it's key to have Anderson, Powell and Lamb play together as much as possible because together I think they can give us the best combination of defense around the perimeter. Lamb is struggling with his shooting but I think he will get it back. As for Powell, Howland must find a way in himself to trust freshman talent and enable him to grow through mistakes. He can't make the same mistakes with him as he has with numerous other youngsters documented over the years.
Most importantly, the team on the court should be the extension of Howland's original personality: a fierce competitor who brought UCLA basketball back through fundamentals and defense. He has lost that vision in last three years. If he wants to regain the trust back of this community, he needs to get back to his roots. Despite my harsh observations, I am still rooting for Howland. Really hope he will not let us down like what we have experienced with Rick Neuheisel and UCLA football.
GO BRUINS.
106 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
100% Correct
Points all on the mark. Howland especially is going to have to trust and let Powell play a lot more. Nelson will be a ongoing question mark, if he comes back, all year. I love putting Stover at the 4 spot with Smith or T. Wear at center. We’ve got options. Let’s be smarter going forward, calm down and get this together.
Go Bruins!
One thing I should add
I stand by what I wrote earlier today. I think UCLA alums and students who want to stay away from any even associated with UCLA athletics have good reasons for doing so. Until I see definitive actions from Howland to go back to his roots, I wouldn’t consider making the effort to see this team in person. Not worth it. I am rooting for him but it’s up to him to earn that trust back.
If Nelson can refocus
this team does have options. I really like Powell’s game.
N, I've brought this up in several other threads but
How do you feel about the idea of implementing a full-court trap in the event that we start to fall behind? One thing our guards have going for them is height (Powell, Parker, and Lamb are all 6’4 or taller), so they’d be able to deflect a lot of passes and easily surround less athletic guards. Plus, the Wears are decently fast for forwards and they’d be able to get back on D easily if the trap got broken. It’s something that would take time if the team hasn’t been practicing it, but if you’ve got superior athleticism over your opponent and they’re scoring on you at will (as LMU and MTSU were), then don’t you HAVE to switch it up on D against them and make it harder for them to run their offense? I continue to be amazed that Ben didn’t go to the halfcourt trap even ONCE in the first two games.
Not sure if the Wears have the athleticism for full-court trap
My observation is only based on watching them twice in UCLA unis and sporadically in UNC ones. I do think a full court trap could be interesting with Anderson, Powell, Lamb and Stover. That could be fun.
The issue here is though can we just deploy it effectively without practicing it much during pre-season? What say you basketball nerds?
Is this just a different name for a full court press?
It seems like every team we’ve played has tried a full court press against us at least once (St John’s being one of the primary candidates), I would think it would be a useful tool to have in our arsenal, and it must be doable if so many teams can employ it. Now if Howland has the time and patience to teach it would be another story…
UCLA 73, Gonzaga 71
Would not have happened without a full-court press. Which is why this is so mystifying; Howland KNOWS how to teach it and run it, and yet it does not get run despite us having tall/athletic guards and mobile forwards. Why??
Doesn't have to be the WHOLE game
That would be stupid; we’d have no energy left in the second half and we’d get blown away. But in situations where the other team goes on a run and we start to fall behind by 7-8, THAT’S when you bust out the press for four or five minutes and throw the other team’s offense out of whack. Ben could have done that in either of the first two games this year, but decided to just let the other team’s offense keep doing their thing where the point guard brought the ball over halfcourt easily, ran the offense, and got someone an easy jumper or a layup. A halfcourt trap throws off the other team’s rhythm and usually forces turnovers. Gee, wouldn’t that have been awesome to do instead of letting MTSU and LMU jack up uncontested threes or go right to the hole for easy layups?
Trap
It’s something that really has to be worked on…everyone has to be on the same page and you can’t be slow footed in the backcourt otherwise it leads to layups on the other end. The Wear Twins need to play defense within their defined areas..aka a zone. Saw them chasing guys to the basket last night.
I have the same impression of Wear as well
Although I will be honest. I fell asleep for 10 mins both nights watching our games – because I was so bored by the putrid product on the floor.
More Physical
The Weak Twins need to play more physical. They constantly dropped and/or had rebounds stripped from them. If they would rotate over and make D switches as they are suppossed to then they would be able to stop the drives to the basket. Killed me last night when they had a double team on MTSU center and he still shot the ball over them and scored. They need to play with more agression and attitude.
Bruin 1986
Stover -- the key to pressing?
When Coach’s teams pressed, as a matter of routine — not desperation — he had some incredible athletes playing under the basket to deter easy layups, guys like Keith Erickson, Kareem and Walton.
Stover has the speed to get down court, the long arms to cover a lot of ground, and the athleticism to be effective. Smith has none of those attributes and there really is not much of a role for him in a press — and that’s a major problem. In addition, with his “reaching D” as opposed to footwork D, he will pick up a lot of fouls
Also, our guards are very slow — and I’m now sure how they would be able to keep the ball in the back court.
Finally, constant pressing requires either conditioning and/or depth. I’m not sure we have that, either.
In years past, under Howland, we had the talent to press but never did — even when we needed to, to come back from deficits or to change the tempo of games.
It would be nice to think we could shake things up by adopting a press, but I’m not sure we have the players to do it.
Ugh! This is really bad.
sjh
Our guards with the current line up is slow
I think we can change the dynamics if we go with Anderson/Powell/Lamb.
If we're that wary of the Wears (haha)
Why not go with Lane in that lineup? We know he’s not redshirting because he got into the MTSU game in the last minute of the first half. He’s got length and quickness for a 4. Anderson, Powell, Lamb/Parker, Lane, and Stover could be our “murderous press” (copyright: Rick Pitino) lineup, for when Smith gets in foul trouble and/or we fall behind to a team with inferior athletes.
I second Stover being a big help on the defensive side
and Powell speeding up the backcourt.
With how poorly the team as a whole is with defensive rotation
I shudder to think of what they would do if asked to handle a trap defense. They’ve all been bad on D, but the Wears have been flat out horrible.
Perfect example is when the Wears doubled Dendy (I think) in the low block. Instead of rotating over to cut off his shooting side and use the baseline as a third defender (and how every Howland big has done) they both lined up next to each other and allowed Dendy to simply step back and shoot over the top of them.
Right
That’s my concern. I think we will take a beating if we just roll out a full court trap w/o a lot of practice/preparation. That is why it’s puzzling to me why we don’t teach our guys change up Ds (zone, trap/full-court) during the pre-season when we are supposed to be drilling in the basics.
It was cool to see MTSU changing up their D last night befuddling us and at the same time frustrating wondering why our program can’t do the same (with better recruited athletes).
I'm also afraid of what they'd look like trying to run a 1-3-1
They cannot cover that much court to save their lives.
More Rotation, Harder Effort
The most puzzling aspect about Coach Howland’s defense throughout the years is how much he expects them to expend on the court, but hardly uses his bench. Since we have so many bodies in the front court, it’s inexcusable that he doesn’t tell them to go out there and push it to the max, and then get a spell after that. If you knew you would be out there for about five minutes and then a scheduled break, you’d push it a lot harder than being out there for the majority of the half. And, hey, that may actually make it attractive for more recruits if they see 8, 9, 10 guys playing regularly instead of the 7 1/2 once Pac 10 Season starts. Just a thought…and from the outside, that’s the problem – Coach’s inability to try new things.
by rocket rod forever on Nov 16, 2011 1:21 PM PST reply actions
I'm a fan of Brendan Lane
and I appreciate his patience and maturity, but I didn’t feel that he was particularly effective (on offense or defense) during his 15 min/game last year. He had a tendency to pick up fouls quickly too, so it’s difficult to see why Lane deserves 15-20 min per game without knowing what the coaches see in practice.
Well we disagree
I thought Lane did have his moments last year. He never got a chance to perform consistently because … well to date he hasn’t been given a fair shot at UCLA.
Lane did have a few good moments last year
Unfortunately there weren’t enough of them. Although I don’t doubt his effort, he isn’t a great defender and he isn’t an offensive threat. On that basis, it’s hard to argue that he should get more playing time when players like Stover have earned more playing time based on effectiveness and the addition of the Wears adds more competition for the remaining minutes.
And I have to disagree about Lane not being given a fair shot. He averaged 10 min/game as a freshman and 15.4 min/game as a sophomore, and it’s highly likely that his minutes per game last year would have been greater if he’d been more effective and less foul prone. He’s had his chances but not taken full advantage of them.
by ScottishBruin on Nov 16, 2011 1:45 PM PST up reply actions
As I said we disagree
Lane should have gotten more mins his freshman year. However, his mins (along with those of Moser) were compromised due to heavy mins given to Dragovic. Last year Howland. Last year Lane should have gotten more mins when Nelson and Honeycutt were showing no effort on D in number of games. Instead Howland looked the other way.
Lane has limitations but he has been giving everything he have. If Howland had given him a fair shot – which means meaningful mins (while others were not being held accountable) – perhaps his development wouldn’t have been this stunted.
We went over these issues game by game last year. You can look through post game posts, reflections where we kept going over this issues in detail. If we just disagree on this that’s fine but I feel good based on the body of work laid out in detail to make the argument Howland hasn’t given Lane a fair shot at UCLA.
I think Lane is a great kid
but I hope that he doesn’t get that many minutes, because I ultimately hope that some of the guys with more talent than Lane start putting in the same effort as Lane – in which case, on meritocratic grounds he wouldn’t play much.
But until that is the case, I’m all for giving him minutes based on effort and challenging the others to match it.
May be we are watching different games
But I haven’t seen anything from Travis Wear which gets him substantially more mins than Lane while Lane is relegated to 26 seconds per half. That was disgraceful on the part of Howland.
I agree that Lane deserved more than a minute of court time last night.
He deserves more playing time in all of these early season games, IMO. His effectiveness in these games should be a key factor in determining his playing time as the season progresses.
In comparison to the Wears, I’d say Lane is less talented offensively and similar defensively, although that’s based on seeing only two games with the Wears this year, and seeing Lane in previous years. It’s impossible to make a better comparison without seeing practices or seeing Lane in the early season games.
by ScottishBruin on Nov 16, 2011 2:12 PM PST up reply actions
Agree
Lane is very slightly built which makes it difficult for him to compete down low. For example, Jones made a nice drive to the basic and scooped a nice little pass to Lane on the opposite side. With his height advantage it should have been an easy bucket but he was overpowered and got blocked.
Travis Wear has more strength to both make shots inside and defend. However, his defense to date hasn’t been good enough.
by abasketballfan on Nov 16, 2011 4:31 PM PST up reply actions
no, I get your point
and I also don’t think that players having ‘more upside’ is a reason for them to be on the court more if they are not making things happen. I have seen nothing from Travis Wear in 2 games so far that warrants substantially more minutes than Lane. My comment above is more a case of “if Brendan Lane is getting 15-20 minutes in this rotation, it means that some other people are really not living up to expectations”.
With our backcourt/wing woes, the strength of the team was supposed to be a improved rotation of bigs. With no disrespect intended to Lane, if he is getting big minutes I think it shows that our frontcourt isn’t all that strong – and that some combination of the followingis true, Nelson is pouting, Smith is gased, the Wear twins were dramatically overrated, or Stover has totally failed to build on previous promise.
Lane may have been better served if he went somewhere else
So that a coach would have developed his talent. Given how he has been treated at UCLA, he’d better of going somewhere like Gonzaga and have a coach optimize his talent. Moser and Stanback made the right decisions for themselves.
possibly so
at least, from a basketball standpoint. For Moser and Stanback, I hope they make it as basketball players, as they traded a UCLA degree for a UNLV degree…
I don't feel Stanback was a huge loss
Even though we could clearly use him now. He would’ve been behind Shipp & Collison, as well as Holiday/Anderson/Lee. I think the more damaging departures were Honeycutt & Lee, and Moser, as our current backcourt starters are lacking.
Stanback would have graduated by now
but could have helped last year.
As an option over Honeycutt
But I maintain his departure wasn’t nearly as bad as Moser’s or, Honeycutt & Lee the following year.
Moser is looking very good
at D, rebounding and scoring when needed. He would be a big help.
media are lambasting UCLA
including the Loose Cannons on KLAC 570. In their well reasoned plaudits for Coach K, they point out how he has adapted, how he is loyal without being stubborn, how he has disciplined without becoming like…Bob Knight! Most important is that he builds a game plan around his available personnel. Isn’t that all we on BN are asking Howland to do? I still say start Stover, Nelson, Powell, Anderson and D. Wear with Lane and Smith early off the bench. Without Nelson back? I dunno. It is time to reward the players who make a difference when they are in the game. btw, I don’t recall Lane being pulled, both halves ended within seconds of his getting on the floor.
Lane was on the court when the first half ended...
I didn’t see him play in the second half because I lost my game feed.
I’m disappointed he didn’t get more playing time—with both Stover and Nelson out, he deserved more minutes.
by ScottishBruin on Nov 16, 2011 1:48 PM PST up reply actions
Lane deserves more minutes
as he plays better D than the Wears and rebounds well. He also plays well with Smith in the lineup who takes away the need for Lane to score. If nothing else, he plays physical.
Am I all alone
In stating, even before this horrible start of the season, UCLA basketball is not fun to watch. I am a proud and strong supporter of my Bruins, but it really feels like a chore to watch a game, in particular, in person. No excitement, no fastbreaks, no dunks, no smiles, no crowd enthusiasm, it really is striking. A friend of mine from North Carlina, went to the LMU game with me, he really was surprised at the apathy of the crowd and level of play. I really like Howland and he knows how to win, but I am really beginning to believe that winning “ugly” and boring offense, will never bring fans to the games, even at a new Pauley.
by Redondo228 on Nov 16, 2011 1:37 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Ben Ball Played by Ben Ball Warriors Is fun to Watch
We just have not seen it for the last few years.
sjh
I'll add fuel to the fire by disagreeing.
I remember during the Final Four years we would go for long spells without scoring. It was mitigated by the fact that our opponents went longer spells without scoring, but then once we ran into Florida then Memphis those long scoring droughts occurred while the other team was still scoring. In my opinion, that’s what cost us those championships.
I’m not alone. I very important Bruin and former member of the basketball team told me in no uncertain terms that Ben Ball, the slow grind it out style of basketball was killing UCLA basketball. I won’t reveal who told me this in public, of course. But those of us who are able of having private conversations, I would be happy to divulge the information so long as it remains completely confidential.
Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. ~ Vince Lombardi
+1000
I have been saying this for years. We went to the final fours despite the clamps he put on some great, future players. They were good enough to overcome it, but not against the top teams who could run and shoot threes.
It’s not JRW basketball. It’s the opposite.
That’s why he strikes out on the top PGs and shooting guards. His teams play tight, never loose.
Your post confirms my worst speculation.
MexiBruin, I personally know six players who've complained of it.
And it’s costing us players.
However, Howland still instills the Defensive skills that help his gaurds survive and even thrive in the NBA. It’s a Double-edge-sword though. Keep some, lose some.
Agreed (uclahy), Losing point gaurds sucks!
But Tracey Murray says Kyle’s supposed to play point at 6’ 8", I asked him last night " who will gaurd the other teams quick point gaurd next year?" We both laughed in conern. Neither one of us had an answer other than our SG.
Shabaaz still looks viable and would create one tough wing-set at UCLA.
Howland stubbornly sticks to Howland's system even when the ship is sinking
His biggest flaw as a coach. Second-biggest: deciding in the preseason who HIS guys are, and refusing to give others a chance until desparation sets in (see: none of the great class of ’08 being properly utilized/broken in on the 2008-09 team, Drago getting 30 minutes a game in 2009-10 as more talented guys like Gordon, Honeycutt, Moser, and Reeves stewed on the bench for most of the season, Lane not getting any time at all last year, etc).
I agree...
I’ve watched CBH since he arrived at UCLA and he has never seemed to like to make in-game adjustments.
On the plus side, he has always spoken in reverential tones about Coach Wooden’s legacy and how he ran the program. Unfortunately, Drago, and now it looks like Nelson and maybe Anderson, tend to make it look like actions speak louder than words.
Almost to a man, former players will say of Coach Wooden that he treated everyone the same, even the team managers. I hope that is the case with CBH.
I may work with the Waves, but I'm still a Bruin!
(Formerly "HoozierDaddy")
Hold on a second...
Nelson played 23.4 min/game in 2009-2010.
Honeycutt played 27.8 min/game in 2009-2010.
Gordon played 24.5 min/game in his 6 games at UCLA in 2009-2010.
Of the players you listed, only Moser was left on the bench (4.7 min/game) most of the season.
BTW, Lane averaged 15.4 min/game last year. That’s not even close to “not getting any time at all last year.” In fact, that’s within the range that Nestor is proposing for Lane this year.
by ScottishBruin on Nov 16, 2011 2:00 PM PST up reply actions
Howland gave Lane some mins early in the season
But then completely reduced his role during the conference season. His mins were haphazard. It amazes me how people still make excuses for Howland’s rotation from last 2+ f**cked up years.
Gordon should have been playing 30+
He was the most talented player on that team by far. Honeycutt was second, and he wasn’t even moved into the starting lineup until halfway through the year. Nelson didn’t start getting consistent playing time until halfway through the season. See Nestor’s comment for the Lane rebuttal as well. And the death knell, of course, is that Drago played THIRTY TWO minutes a game in 2009-10, when he shouldn’t have even been given 3.2.
Also, in 2008-09
We should have been acclimating our young guys into the system, with Collison and Shipp and Aboya all ready-to-depart seniors. So how does Howland do that? Plays Gordon and Lee 11 minutes a game (I specifically remember wondering at times that season if Lee was injured or something, because I hadn’t seen him in so long), and uses Anderson and Morgan as “mop-up guys,” giving them 9 and 5 minutes a game, respectively. That might have even been a bigger sin: not letting those guys be a bigger part of the team in 2008-09, causing them to go cold in 2009-10 because they didn’t know what they were doing.
Wow...
I didn’t think I’d EVER see anyone argue that J’mison Morgan deserved more playing time in 2008-2009.
by ScottishBruin on Nov 16, 2011 2:16 PM PST up reply actions
amen
frosh Morgan makes Josh Smith look very agile.
Is this selective memory?
No offense intended, but the only thing Morgan makes Smith look like is fat. Morgan was even more immobile than Smith, if that’s possible.
Morgan was a five-star recruit coming out of high school
Does he turn into a mopey, poorly-conditioned punchline if he doesn’t get benched for practically all of his first two years in college? Howland never showed any confidence in him and even publically called him out a couple of times. That’s not how a good coach handles a struggling recruit.
he was seriously injured prior to getting to Westwood
and was in no shape to play in his freshman year at all.
"Seriously injured"?
I don’t remember hearing that at all. And when I did a search, I found that Morgan missed “four practices” in late October of ‘09 with a swollen knee. Doesn’t sound “serious” to me.
maybe I'm misremembering
I thought the reason he was so drastically out of shape/immobile his freshman year was due to injury. Maybe I’m being too kind. He was in no shape to play at all that year. Anyone else remember better?
I thought that it was just a Josh-esque conditioning problem
And yes, it is unforgivable for a player to show up out of shape for a season when he’s being counted on to be a major part of a team. But if he does it for two seasons in a row, you start to wonder if the coach had anything to do with it, i.e., did Howland just not give him the time of day in 2008-09, and so he just went into 2009-10 with an “eff this, I’m leaving after this year anyway” attitude, whereas a dedicated coach would have tried to light a fire under his ass and get him back to being a promising, functioning player?
You're not misremembering...
Morgan had a medical condition that supposedly made it difficult for him to get in shape. I don’t remember more than that, but I recall that he was, in fact, completely unfit for college basketball.
by ScottishBruin on Nov 16, 2011 3:01 PM PST up reply actions
I followed UCLA basketball religiously back then
And I find it very hard to believe that I knew NOTHING about a predisposed “condition” for Morgan, and also find it hard to believe that he would have been ranked a five-star recruit out of high school if he had some deficiency keeping him from getting in shape. The only time I can remember him getting hurt is midway through the 2009-10 season; research has shown that he did have a minor injury right before the start of the 2008-09 season, but definitely not a “serious” one, unless you can tell me otherwise.
Are you insisting that Morgan wasn't terribly out of shape as a freshman?
If you don’t think he had any physical reason for being out of shape, then you must attribute his poor conditioning to bad work habits.
Seriously, I’m trying to understand where you’re going with this. Unless you’re asserting that Morgan was in shape as a freshman, on what basis are you suggesting he deserved more playing time?
by ScottishBruin on Nov 16, 2011 3:27 PM PST up reply actions
I'm saying that he WAS out of shape, nobody can deny that
Then I started getting lambasted with “NO HE WAS HURT” claims, which I can’t remember at all.
Here’s the bottom line: Morgan was out of shape as a freshman. So not playing him in 2008-09 was justifiable (although, I mean, come on…even a barely-in-shape Morgan would have taken SOME pressure off Aboya down low and provided a shot-blocking presence). And then he arrived in 2009-10 just as out of shape, and Howland put him in the doghouse again. Here’s what I’m trying to say: doesn’t SOME responsibility fall on the coach to motivate his players and get them in the right mindset? Look at Phil Jackson at Pat Riley; both of them are good in-game coaches, but their mastery lies in the fact that they were able to deal with/motivate some of the toughest players to handle in NBA history (Riley with Bob McAdoo and Shaq, Jackson with MJ/Kobe/Shaq to just give some basic examples). If a guy isn’t giving it his all, isn’t it the coach’s responsibility to get his ass into gear and motivate him? I continue to think that, with Morgan’s prospect status coming out of high school, he should have been at least as good as Ryan Hollins or Josh Smith (on a good night for Smith). Maybe a large part of Morgan’s failure to develop was his own fault, but I still blame Howland for not motivating him and getting the best out of him.
Morgan's problem was a hangover
He had/has a great body but was only interested in partying. He put out minimial effort. Such a waste. If he had AA’s dedication he would have been a good player.
by DCBruins on Nov 16, 2011 3:30 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Honeycutt didn't start because he missed time to injury
IIRC he didn’t begin playing until conference play started. Nelson was a starter immediately after Gordon defected. Agreed that Dragovic played way too much but Honeycutt and Nelson played plenty of meaningful minutes in 09-10.
Fair, but
Once it became clear that Drago was one of the worst players on the team, as well as one of the laziest and the least interested on D, his ass should have been benched or thrown off, with Honeycutt and Nelson immediately inserted into the starting lineup. This did not happen; in fact, he kept playing MORE as the season went on. That’s unforgivable.
Dude. I'm agreeing with you.
Do note that Honeycutt and Nelson were starters in 09-10. Anderson-Lee-Honeycutt-Dragovic-Nelson was our starting lineup most of the year.
I went back and checked
And yes, you are correct; Reeves was firmly in place in the starting lineup from the Notre Dame game on, and Honeycutt was firmly in place from the first Cal game on. I could moan about the fact that it took Ben a month to realize that Nelson should have been starting from the get-go, as well as the fact that it took Ben a month to begin consistently starting Honeycutt once he got healthy, but whatever.
Also, IIRC, it was Keefe and Dragovic battling for a starting time early on
Nelson and Honeycutt were starters almost immediately.
Facts say Reeves wasn't consistently a starter until a month into the season,
and Honeycutt for a month after he first got back from injury. But you are mostly right; my statement was something of an exaggeration.
I think we're missing the big issue, though
I live in Oregon, and got to watch Mike Moser dominate when he played for Grant. I honestly thought he was better than Kyle Singler, who was considered the second-best high school basketball player in Oregon history (after K Love). Howland’s reaction to that hype was to play him less than five minutes a game his freshman season, while allocating 32.2 per game to the useless Dragovic anchor. That is much worse than waiting slightly longer than necessary to begin using Honeycutt and Nelson consistently.
It's hard to say how many minutes per game Gordon should have played
in the 2009-2010 season since he left the program after 6 games.
by ScottishBruin on Nov 16, 2011 2:31 PM PST up reply actions
Gordon in 2010-11 for New Mexico:
13.0 points, 10.5 rebounds, 1.3 blocks, 52.7% from the field. Um, yeah, he should have been playing many more than 24.5 minutes. He was probably the most talented player on the team, with the POSSIBLE exception of Honeycutt, and definitely the best low-post scorer and defender.
if you remember
he managed to pick up 3.5 fouls per game in those minutes, which was a major factor limiting his time.
6 games is probably too small of a sample size, yes
And honestly, I think that Gordon’s reasons for transferring were his decreased minutes in 2008-09 (only 10.9, despite being probably the best low-post scorer on the team?), the fact that UCLA didn’t run an “up-tempo” offense (which he publically expressed concern about several times), and the fact that his personality didn’t jell with Howland’s. Still, he was the most talented player (or if not, than close) on the 2009-10 team, and losing one of the most talented players on your team due to transfer has to be considered a black mark on a coach’s resume.
Gordon is nuts if he thought he was going to play ahead of Aboya
And he’s also equally nuts about the offensive scheme, which he knew full well was in place before he arrived.
The bigger questions are, why did he bother to commit if that’s how he felt, and why did Howland recruit him, if Gordon wanted to be a SF and not a post.
Not Aboya
Aboya was the de facto “center” for the 2008-09 team (because we didn’t really have any other options), and the power forwards were Drago and Keefe. It shouldn’t have taken Howland most of the season to realize that Gordon was better than both of them, offensively AND defensively, and should have been playing more.
Gordon problem runs
Deeper. He has more issues than Reeves
by DCBruins on Nov 16, 2011 3:32 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
We'll see how Reeves reacts to all this negative publicity
And if the losing continues, how he reacts to that.
Go back and look at the game box scores
for those 6 games in 2009 and you’ll understand why Gordon averaged 24.5 minutes per game (instead of 30+). His 6 games include one where he fouled out, two in which he picked up 4 fouls, and his last game in which he picked up 3 fouls in 12 minutes and was benched for behavior issues.
No one denies Gordon is talented. His playing time in 2009-2010 was less than 30 min/game because of foul trouble and attitude problems.
by ScottishBruin on Nov 16, 2011 2:56 PM PST up reply actions
I recanted that in an earlier comment
It WAS attitude problems, and his general feeling about UCLA’s offensive gameplan, that most likely caused him to transfer (and the early-season losses to CSUF and Portland probably didn’t help). Still, like I also said, losing your team’s most talented player to transfer has to be considered a black mark on a coach’s resume, no matter what the reason.
You’re also sort of glossing over the big issue of Moser. Like I also said in an earleir comment, I thought the guy was even better than Singler during his Oregon high school career, and Howland played him fewer than five minutes a game his freshman year. In his first game for UNLV this year, he put up 16 points and 20 rebounds. Jeez, a guy like that would be nice to have on this Dead Team Walking.
I liked Moser a lot coming out of high school...
so I was a bit surprised by how poorly he played in the few minutes he played as a freshman. Obviously I didn’t see him in practice, so I don’t know if he deserved more minutes based on that, but he certainly didn’t earn more court time based on his game performances.
Howland didn’t want to lose Moser, but I’m not convinced that wanting to keep a kid in the program is, by itself, a justification for giving the kid playing time.
by ScottishBruin on Nov 16, 2011 3:20 PM PST up reply actions
You're honestly trying to get a read on a guy by looking at less than five minutes a game?
When he was always coming in cold off the bench, or at the tail ends of blowouts? I’ll take his absolute dominance in four years of high school, plus all the Youtube highlight complations of Moser going off (and several where he throws down outrageous dunks), plus the fact that he began his UNLV career with a 16-20 and then an 8-11 with five steals and two blocks in just 23 minutes.
Totally agree
I have always been a Ben supporting but he is really making it tough on us. The last two games we have been torched but he made no adjustments, at least none that I saw.
It seems clear that we do not have the athletes to play hard core man-to-man against even mid-major teams. I am no coach—so I am sure this has flaws—but I would try a 1-3-1 or a 3-2 in order to limit the dribble-drive penetration and put more pressure on outside shooters. I’d let my (supposedly superior) big men handle the paint along with weakside help.
by RealisticBruinFan on Nov 16, 2011 2:04 PM PST up reply actions
Reeves is back
Acording to Courtney Jones (one of the few highlights of our Bruin basketball broadcasts these days), Reeves is back.
https://twitter.com/#!/I_amCourtJones/status/136913676623020032
I think I'm one of those "coach worshipping loyalists"
and I am thoroughly depressed… I wish I had more to add.
by DoubleTroubleBruin on Nov 16, 2011 2:37 PM PST reply actions
I wasn't referring to you DTB
I was referring to about three people today who were whining about our posts from today. Kind of pathetic.
oh i know (but thanks)
i’m just laughing to myself over here. i’ve been a huge fan of howland and a staunch supporter in this community. I had just yesterday written a long comment to your “silver lining” post praising howland and arguing that his positives far outweigh his negatives ad hoping that the benchng of reeves was a great first step toward change, blah blah blah.
Now? The only silver lining i can think of is the current state of our hoops program, coupled with the disgrace that is our football program, increases the likelihood that we’ll get ourselves a new AD soon.
Again, I wish I had more to add to this conversation. I need a drink.
by DoubleTroubleBruin on Nov 16, 2011 2:55 PM PST up reply actions
So well written, thank you
What’s amazing is what one comma (and some tough times) can do:
“Trust, Ben Howland & UCLA Basketball” vs.
“Trust Ben Howland & UCLA Basketball”
The PG play is the initial problem!
LJ just manages the game, doesn’t control it. Can’t break you down, drive and dish.
Anderson just wants to shoot. Not a consistant passer for assists.
Parker should also play PG sometimes, with Powell who can shoot, at shooting gaurd.
The 3 spot will be our problem all year and will depend on the team we play.
Tyler Lamb-Bust, I watched almost all of his high school games and those shots from outside where falling. I told Dad that at the game last night-He was unconvinced! Pissed me off, cause I love Tyler Lamb. But, Tyler is playing scared. He has the talent. He would pump fake in high school and DUNK on the Center of the opposing team in fun. Now he won’t even drive, no confidence on the jumper, he’s killing me! I wanted him to be our breakout player and he’s still struggling. Soooo, Start Powell.!! Til Tyler gets his head right. Lamb’s been getting destroyed on perimeter defense, and drives, as is everyone else.
Stover should start center. Reeves needs the ball from Everyone, not just the PG.
I think Howland's programs have seen their best days
Howland doesn’t have nor has he been able to bring in the kind of talent he had when we went to three straight final fours. MULTIPLE players from those squads not only went on to play in the league, they are legitimate superstars and NBA champions. If CBH couldn’t win an NCAA title with the likes of Afflalo, Farmar, Westbrook, Darren Collison and Kevin Love, there is NO CHANCE he will be able to do it with, Lazeric Jones, the Wears, Josh Smith and Reeves Nelson. With the exception of the 2006 Gonzaga games, very few Howland teams came back to win games after being in a deep hole. Howland is a very rigid person, he plans meticulously and sticks to the plan, which is why he annihilated opponents on thursdays and squeaked by on Saturdays. He always lacked the ability to make adjustments to the game plan during the game. This is why I think we will continue to crater this season and spiral into our third losing season in the Howland era. Something in his plan isn’t working, I don’t think he is going to figure it out.
What saddens me is that UCLA has fallen out of the greatest of all time discussions in the grand scheme of college hoops. We have eleven banners, yet we are irrelevant because the last one came over a decade ago. People talk about Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, UConn. UCLA isn’t even in the conversation anymore. After this garbage season is played out in the garbage arena, I think we need to go out and get a marquee coach who gets his players excited to play at the greatest Basketball program in the history of college hoops, period.
by Strathmore&Gayley on Nov 16, 2011 7:44 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Howland needs to try these lineups. And employ a half-court-trap at times.
Stover- Shot Bloker and Rebounder
Reeves- Studd
D. Wear- Active, with decent outside shot
Powell- The kid can flat out score
Parker/Anderson- Parker can break you down and get to the rim, and dish
-—————————-
Smith- His future is in his hands. if he really wants it, he could start. We’ll see.
T. Wear- Active, with a serviceable outside shot.
Lane- Needs to play. Smart and unselfish, while active.
Lamb- Remember Tyler, NBA Scouts are watching. Me too. Please step up!
Lazeric- Glorified backup. I could gaurd him, and score on him. That’s pathetic.
Lastly, I talked to my buddy, Tracy Murray last night, and he’s still hearing Shabaaz! : )
God I hope he’s right. If not, Tracy needs to suit up and heeeeelp us. No eligibility. : (
I really agree with playing Parker and Powell.
They have talent. Let’s not waste it like he normally does with freshmen.
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.
