Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Drug Testing, Alistair Overeem & UFC 146's Potential Legacy

UCLA Hoops Roundup: Ben Howland’s Bad Decisions

Ben Howland's bad decisions cost the Bruins a big win. (Photo by J. Meric/Getty Images)

So Ben Howland's Bruins are off to a 0-1 start in the PAtheticC-12 conference season. What is eating away at many of us is how we blew a winnable game against an average team because of bad coaching decisions. Tracy Pierson at BruinReportOnline.com singled out Howland's bad and dumb founding decision to come out in M2M defense as the reason UCLA lost against Stanford: (piece is not behind the subscription firewall at the time of this post):

It was a game in which you could find much wrong with it. UCLA got down 6-13 in the first 6 minutes of the game due entirely to the fact that it was playing man defense. In the last 14 minutes of the first half, when it switched to its zone, UCLA "won," 17-11. It's difficult to understand why Ben Howland would use the incredibly poor man defense and get UCLA in such a hole to begin the game. It's not as if the zone is going to be sprung on Stanford as a surprise. It's not as if UCLA really has a chance of moving between man and zone effectively, since it's pretty much proven out that the man, if played beyond a possession here or there, will make UCLA one of the worst teams in the conference. Did he use it for the first 6 minutes merely because there is some miniscule hope that Howland is clinging to that the man D might be effective? It clearly was the reason UCLA lost this game. It clearly put UCLA in a hole it just couldn't ever climb out of, having 8 chances to take the lead over the Cardinal after the zone allowed the Bruins to climb back in, but not having enough to make it over the hump. What if UCLA had played the zone from the beginning and didn't have to "get over the hump?" If man defense, perhaps, kept players fresher we could understand, but a man D tires out players quicker, and makes foul-prone bigs more vulnerable to fouls. Then, down the stretch, after the zone defense had gotten UCLA back in this game, Howland returned to the man, almost like Howland doesn't still trust the zone, even though it's clearly the #1 element of this team that has made it even remotely competitive this season. With the Bruins down 57-58 and 1:25 left in the game, a not-quick Aaron Bright took Jones, who isn't a great man defender and at this point in the game very tired (playing 38 minutes in this game) off the dribble with ease. Josh Smith had to step over to help and fouled Bright, which anyone could have predicted would happen - with it being Smith's fifth foul. This has to be one of the most inexplicable times to ever opt for the man D, when the only real talent advantage you have on the floor, your center, has four fouls.

Emphasis ours throughout. More after the jump.

Star-divide

Tracy also rightly called out Howland's bad timeout management that had an effect on lack of good decisions at the end of the game. Then there was the issue of minute allocation - a topic that has been a huge source of consternation among UCLA hoops community this season and in last 3 years:

Then, there is determination of playing time. We've been maintaining all year that Stover needs to get Wear minutes, and this was a game where it was abundantly evident. Stover played 7 minutes, and those 7 minutes were when UCLA played its best and made its first-half run that got the Bruins back in the game. He's a defensive force that has a chance to be one of the few elite strengths of the team and, after the game that the Wears had, it's clear that Stover needs to get on the court. The Wears, between the two of them, played 55 minutes. And then there's Brendan Lane, who played for one possession, ran up the court, and then was taken out. Lane, at the very least, is a better athlete than either Wear and could add a more athletic dimension to the zone. When the Wears combine for such a poor game you'd think that Lane, at least, deserves more of a chance.

Amazingly in his post game comments Howland sounded completely tone deaf.

While it was the lack of defense - specifically from the Wear Twins - that killed our chances to take control of the game early, Howland amazingly focused on our offense:

The Wear twins combined for seven points.

"We've got to get more offensive production out of those two," Howland said. "David he thinks too much at times where he gets wound up to where he's maybe going too fast. He needs to slow down on offense."

Really coach? You are worried about offense? Did he not notice that it was David Wear getting PWNed on the defensive end that was leading to clutch Stanford buckets in crunch time. Did he not notice that it was David Wear who failed to clear out in 2 of the 3 straight three point makes late in the second half, that allowed the Trees to cling to their slim lead. Did he not notice that it was lack of basic box out skills from the Wear twins that resulted in the Trees advantage in the rebounding department?

Howland also mentioned:

"This was a disappointing finish to a game where we fought back hard," UCLA Coach Ben Howland said.

Someone ought to point it out to him that it was his disappointingly bad coaching moves that put the Bruins in a hole to begin with putting us in a tough position where we had to fight back. It happened against Richmond but we recovered against that team at the Sports Arena. We didn't have that luxury in a true road game.

Howland may have had a great start at UCLA and we are grateful for the Final-4 runs. However, he used up all his capital after the unacceptable losing season two years ago. While last year was barely above average it also featured multiple disappointing losses during which a defensively lethargic UCLA team blew winnable games.

I am sure Howland really cares about the Coach's program but as of right now he is not getting the job done. If his bad decisions continue cost us victories and result in a non-tourney season, he will turn into a sorry lame duck coach. It will be up to us to demand Chancellor Gene Block complete the regime change at the top of the athletic department, so we can have a competent AD conduct a hiring search and bring in a head coach who can make the Bruins nationally relevant again.

Get this thing back on track Ben. Time is running out.

GO BRUINS.

Comment 27 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Being stubborn and wrong at the same time...

not a good combo, CBH. I wonder if he really doesn’t see what we all see

by bruinbunz on Dec 30, 2011 12:09 PM PST reply actions  

I hope this is Ben's last season

Even though I highly doubt he gets fired, I really wish he would just step down or something. His terrible coaching is destroying the program. I’ve never seen a coach that plays favorites with players that aren’t producing. Brendan Lane must really love going to UCLA,because I really can’t see why he hasn’t transferred to somewhere else. Neither one of the Wear twins were doing anything in this game but yet Ben insists on giving them a ton of minutes. His stubbornness isn’t allowing him to see that we don’t have the right players to play Man to Man defense. It hasn’t worked at all this season.Josh Smith isn’t in good enough shape to play man,which means he will foul out and tire easily. Ben wastes more timeouts than any coach in the nation.He’s the only coach I’ve ever seen that is dead set on using up all of his timeouts.

by Fresh45 on Dec 30, 2011 12:23 PM PST reply actions  

Disagree Strongly about zone

When Randle, Bright and Gage were knocking down 3s, Howland had to switch to man. More importantly, who is to say if we started in the zone they weren’t just going to start knocking down 3s, build their confidence and then wipe us out even more.

Bottomline is we had a chance to win this game and as far as affecting the outcome, if anything is frustrating its Howland’s use of time outs. We were on a run, I think Lamb had just got scored when Howland calls one of his focus time outs. Come on, we are on a run and you call a time out. If anything, it helps the other team save a time out. I’ve always hated those run killing time outs and they don’t really help to get us focused.

We had no time outs in the end and that last play just looked like no one knew what to do but Zeke was going to try to score. MOre importantly, we looked out of sync on the inbound play. These guys have not been together long enough to rely upon the mentality “they know what to do”. Save those time outs, they are important.

by ylbruin on Dec 30, 2011 12:42 PM PST reply actions  

That reasoning only works

If you close out on perimeter shooters in M2M. This team doesn’t do that, so they might as well play zone and reap the advantages of playing it.

by Tydides on Dec 30, 2011 1:03 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Zone...my thoughts exactly

general wisdom says, a zone is great until the other team starts getting/making wide open threes. The move to zone wasn’t “inexplicable”, it was a direct response to Furd getting hot from downtown.

by LVBruin on Dec 30, 2011 1:04 PM PST up reply actions  

Good Zone Teams

Don’t necessarily give up 3 point shots.

The fact is, we are a poor defensive team in general. Howland has had to use zone to keep Josh Smith in games, to attempt to hide our deficiencies in perimeter defense and getting beat off the dribble, and to somehow justify playing both Wears at the same time (because they simply are not good defenders in any sense).

Powell and Stover spend WAY too much time on the bench. They are two of our best defenders and frankly I can see Powell leaving after his freshman season if he doesn’t get more minutes soon. I’d be playing Powell over Anderson right now…except Ben won’t do that to a Senior because seniority is more important than playing the best players (which seems to be a policy that crosses our revenue sports).

by Nigel on Dec 30, 2011 1:50 PM PST up reply actions  

The 3s

Basketball has become more and more a 3 points contest…as I had predicted longtime ago.. and I do not like it. Push the line back one or more feet won’t change anything…players will adjust. over time

I would rather have the paint aera widened under the basket to limit the big man presence under.. something like that….

by velo route on Dec 30, 2011 2:15 PM PST up reply actions  

+1

don’t know how tracy missed that switch late in the second half. three 3s from slow rotation in the zone. if i’m coaching i switch to man too… but overall howland needs to look at his defensive schemes and the personnel he has to execute those schemes. it is clear the zone is stronger for us in terms of steals and trapping. if howland wants to play m2m than he needs to teach his players to talk to each other and to stay on the ground and slide their feet ugh!

by BruinArts on Dec 30, 2011 3:34 PM PST up reply actions  

We didn't make fts. Sequence of events re M2M.

We went mtm with 4;:30 remaining after fund made 3 consecutive hard threes – two from deep in the corner with a degree of difficulty and which gave furd a 5 point lead. They came from the weakside after excellent ball rotation which is exactly how you exploit a zone.
Upon the switch, we made three consecutive stops but only score 3 pts in that span including a missed ft throw from L J. Then Jones put Bright on line with a really stupid foul at half court. He made both to make is 55-57 with 2:07.
So, I don’t agree the switch to m2m wasnt appropriate. If anything CBH might have switched too late.

Hail to the Hills of Westwood.

by Mr. Hilgard on Dec 30, 2011 6:19 PM PST up reply actions  

Howland is the only coach in history...

….to make a habit of calling timeouts 30 seconds before a TV timeout.

Clueless.

by Seth Chandler on Dec 30, 2011 1:04 PM PST reply actions  

I have absolutely zero confidence that DG could find a Basketball Coach better than CBH

And at this point, my trust in CBH is declining quickly… this is the quandry of watching UCLA athletics… as bad as the product may be on the field, I don’t trust leadership to ever make a change in the right direction, and so I’m forced to choose between a known mediocre product or an unknown and potentially disastrous alternative.

Larry Scott needs to get Chancellor Block on the phone and tell him that UCLA, as one of if not THE marquee athletic program of the PAc-12, needs to make some changes and stat. I’m sure Larry Scott has a list of 5-6 names that he could easily forward to Block regarding better AD’s.

by CPOBruin on Dec 30, 2011 3:04 PM PST reply actions  

Did DG really "find" Howland?

I thought Howland always wanted the UCLA job, so Chianti Dan had his work cut out for him. Who knows what kind of foolish decision he’ll make if we CAN’T find another good coach who had a passion for UCLA.

by BruinEngy on Dec 30, 2011 3:17 PM PST up reply actions  

Exactly, CPO

I’m all for retaining Howland because whomever Chianti Dan picks will be worse, guaranteed. It will be just like FB, we’ll try to throw money at some unattainable big name coach like Izzo, because that’’s the only coach Dan’s heard of, the guy will blow us off like dust from his lapel, underlining how no one takes us seriously as a power, and then we’ll end up in a bidding war with ourselves for some ridiculous high-profile failed NBA retread with no other chance for employment. Come on down, Mike Dunleavy, you’re UCLA’s new head coach!

by Cade McAdverb on Dec 30, 2011 11:20 PM PST up reply actions  

can't figure howland...

powell was cold so i can see why he played less minutes. but then why not the wears? the perception is he favors certain players over others. he needs to focus on performance and not just those that appear to be his favorites. lane and stover both deserved more of a look based on the ugly play of josh the pie man smith and the wears…

howland also NEEDS one of his assistants to update him who is HOT so that at the end of games he can have the right personnel. when we got the ball back for the last shot, i would have brought in powell for one of the wears so that during the subsitution 1) howland would have time to settle the players down and 2) run the play through zeke (which was called cause he was hot) and 3) remind him if he is double teamed TO PASS THE BALL to the open shooters! Lamb was also on a roll late… eck!

by BruinArts on Dec 30, 2011 3:45 PM PST reply actions  

You really have to wonder about how stubborn CBH is.

1) Not saving a time out. How many times have we seen this play out with this group of clowns for guards.
2) Not plaing more zone. All good points about the 3’s etc. Maybe it’s because most people see playing the zone as admitting a weakness-and it is, but it’s better than losing.,
3) If you are in a zone, then you don’t have to play another guard at the 3. Did he not see the rebounding problem?

by chrissorr on Dec 30, 2011 3:50 PM PST up reply actions  

Powell wasn't "cold"

Powell isn’t getting the opportunity to find his stroke. He plays two minutes…then POOF…he comes out.

He has the best mid-range shot on our team. It drives me crazy when I see Anderson, Lamb and Jones consistently clank their 12-15 foot shots off the rim…but Powell can knock those shots down. On several occasions last night he was sitting wide open on the wing watching Jones or Lamb force their dribble penetration and then throw up a shot or hope to get fouled.

So what happens is Powell is jacking up shots when he is in the game because he needs to hit a few to stay in the game. If he doesn’t, Howland takes him out.

I’ve seen this movie before…and I’m afraid he’s a guy we can lose if we don’t get him some minutes.

by Nigel on Dec 30, 2011 4:36 PM PST up reply actions  

Wear Twins Play

What concerns me about seeing the Wear Twins is they both had a whole season to practice/refine skills – shooting, defense, court awareness….yet they seem to lack all of these or at least in a consistent manner.

by basketball is fun on Dec 30, 2011 4:32 PM PST reply actions  

Make or Break at Cal

Tomorrow’s game may be the most important game of the year & will dictate whether this season provides an opportunity to play meaningful games or whether we’re simply playing to stay above .500. I’ve read recent comments about Howland’s apparent difference in dividing playing time when he was in full-blown rebuild mode (AA JF) as opposed to after the final four appearances. Someone needs to figuratively (or literally) slap Coach Howland’s in the mouth & make him realize that he is once again in rebuild mode; the only difference is this time it’s his fault.. The program (and he) do not have the luxury to have him play favorites. Hopefully he realizes that this is do-or-die time, so he starts coaching like it or permanent damage could be done to the program & recruiting.

by Nor-Cal Bruin on Dec 30, 2011 4:37 PM PST reply actions  

In fairness to the Wears

They have had much better games. That being said, since they played so poorly yesterday, they should have been yanked. Some players will be hot and some will have off days. CBH needs to adjust his team accordingly, which is the crux of the situation. I don’t get sticking with a player who isn’t doing well when you could bring in somebody from the bench and give them a chance to do a better job.

by ucla717274 on Dec 30, 2011 4:40 PM PST reply actions  

This
I don’t get sticking with a player who isn’t doing well when you could bring in somebody from the bench and give them a chance to do a better job.

has been the problem for far too long.

Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.

by KSBruin on Dec 30, 2011 7:50 PM PST up reply actions  

Middle Tennessee was my Arizona moment for Ben Howland

I don’t see how he can turn it around anymore. The Stanford game is the latest case in point.

Obviously, it’s going to be nearly impossible to find a suitable replacement given the recent football disaster. I don’t know what the solution is. But waiting for Ben Howland to suddenly see the light isn’t it.

by waters96 on Dec 30, 2011 8:05 PM PST reply actions  

Good analogy.

I don’t know if the directional Tennessee (was it Middle? I can’t remember) game was the Arizona game for me, but one of those blowouts was. I really can’t even watch these games any more.

We managed 7 points in the first ten minutes of the game. Seven points in ten minutes. Playing defense is really great, but you’ve basically got to pitch like Koufax plus Ryan if you expect to win with seven points in the first ten minutes. There aren’t too many teams who win with 28 points (if we had kept going at that pace) or with 59 points. (I looked just now – there were 68 D-1 games last night – 6 teams won with 59 or fewer points. That means scoring 59 points will win 8.8% of the time. Yeah, it’s a small sample size, but it’s also a fact that our offense is very, very bad. ) I do not understand why we never try to run. Maybe it’s such a shock when we get a rebound that on one things about running. For whatever reason, our dribbling guard (I wouldn’t call him a point guard) walks the ball up the court, watches while our guys stand still long enough for the defense to make sure they’re in position, then one guy runs the baseline and then gets the ball about 35 feet from the basket. Then we do the same thing again going the other way.

OK, that’s enough analysis for me. I’m no expert. I guess having the misfortune of watching Coach’s teams actually run the floor got me spoiled.

Well, one more thing. Rebounds are not about height. The first 30-0 team was 6’5, 6’5, 6’3, 6’2 and 6’1. We beat Dook, which had two 6’10 guys who moved about as well as the Wear Twins. After Alcindor left, our front line was 6’9 (Patterson), 6’8 (Wicks) and 6’7 (Rowe.) Basketball players were taller at that point, but we never wanted for rebounds. It’s different now. We don’t get rebounds. It doesn’t look to me like we have any teaching of the art of rebounding. Love had it when he came to school, but besides him, who else has been a real rebounding machine?

All right. Now I’m done. Sheesh – I remember when it was fun to talk about B-ball.

by Fox 71 on Dec 30, 2011 9:12 PM PST up reply actions  

You and me brother

At this point, I dvr games and watch the ones we win.

Anybody would suffer in comparison to Coach, bit I look around the country and see many outstanding programs and ours is not currently one of them.

Regarding our current offense I remember the Ralph Jackson years where he would slowly dribble up court waiting for the defense to set, then perimeter pass until an outside shot under pressure was heaved in the direction of the basket.

I think your main point is important. You can’t win without an actual offense.

by waters96 on Dec 31, 2011 9:55 AM PST up reply actions  

Howland confuses me

I thought his staple is supposed to be defense. Stover is the team’s best interior defender regardless of his lack of offense. If healthy, he should play a lot more minutes. Stover is basically similar to Lorenzo Mata-Real and he got a ton of minutes. Why isn’t Stover afforded the same opportunities?

by UCLA4Life on Dec 30, 2011 10:32 PM PST reply actions  

offense

Although we are a bad m2m team I don’t entirely agree that was the main reason we lost. It was a new game at half and did not get it done. We had 23 pts at half and 59 at the end of the game. Our offense was not good on the whole. We failed to share the ball well. Jones score 26 of those pts. We shot 39 pct from the floor, 26.7 pct from 3 and 62.5 pct from the free throw line.

I think it’s a mistake to lump the Wears together. Travis right now is a better offensive player. David’s timing is off. He rushed shots and does not collect properly to score. Travis is more prepared to finish the very same opportunities. Travis should be getting more minutes.

I could only play Stover situationally. He is a strong defensive player, but is a terrible offensive player. One of the worst ever at UCLA.

Jerime Anderson is a bust. He gets props only because of diminished expectations. He is a senior now and is barely better than when he was a sophomore. I would be playing Powell many of his minutes.

Despite the mediocre team game we played the bottom line is we have made ourselves a guard oriented team that can’t reall shoot the 3. Fortunately Jones has heated up from outside, but what happens if he cools of even a little? Our 1st 7 games Jones was cool and we were awful because of it. We need to cut shooting the 3 out of our game and attack more. Either off the dribble or through the post. Even though Josh Smith is a huge disappointment if he’s going to be out there he needs to get the ball inside. Even if it is just as a decoy to pass out of.

We lost that game for many reasons, but the bottom line appears to be we are just not that good a basketball team. We are average among a slew of average pac 12 teams. The only chance at the NCAA tourney this season is an extraordinary run of say 16 of 17 wins or winning the pac 12 tournament. Does anyone think this squad can win 16 of 17 really?

by Penny2i on Dec 31, 2011 8:15 AM PST 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