"Inexperience" - Never an Excuse for a UCLA Team Playing "Ben Ball" in March
by Bellerophon on Mar 16, 2011 5:00 AM PDT
in Basketball
Email
PrintIt's no secret that this year's edition of UCLA basketball has been less than stellar. These Bruins have been wildly inconsistent, have either won (BYU, St. John's, Arizona) or kept it close (Kansas) in some real big games against higher-seeded NCAA tournament teams, to only lose (Montana, Oregon, at Cal) or barely win (Arizona State, Cal, UC Irvine) against teams that they should have blown away.
Now, we're been prognosticating on these inconsistencies for a while at BN. Class of 66 had a great break-down of this team's failure to meet his expectations, the standard set by Coach, with their lackadaisical, mentally-soft, and inconsistent play. Achilles broke down the diseased culture surrounding Howland's program and reminded folks that the embarrassment against Oregon at Staples shouldn't be a surprise for this maddeningly inconsistent bunch.
Of course, when the criticism has flown, the sycophants and patsies (who probably supported Lavin through his regular run to the Steve-16 and Dorrell due to his one 10-2 season), have come out of the woodwork to make excuse after excuse for this basketball team. In fact, the sycophants seem determined to advance that narrative: that this team is inconsistent because of inexperience.
Sure, there are folks acknowledging that the problem is multi-faceted and not solely attributable to experience.
Let me make this clear: experience, or the lack of it, is an absolute non-factor in why this edition of UCLA men's basketball is such an inconsistent joke.
Inexperience is NOT why this team is an inconsistent. This team is inconsistent because they are mentally-soft, unfocused, and the sophomore core of this team (Tyler "Mr. NBA" Honeycutt and Reeves "The Incredible Sulk" Nelson) lack the heart and determination of AA and JF. Period.
In fact, I'm going to make this bold claim:
If this UCLA team digs down, focuses on the task at hand, and commits to Ben Ball, they are equally equipped to match the wild success of a particular UCLA team in the recent past (read: Final Four level).
Let's break that down after the jump.
Now, the sycophants have been tossing out the inexperience excuse out throughout the threads here at BN and in other Bruin online communities. For example:
However, I do believe that part of the reason for our failures this year has been inexperience. As previously stated, we run a very tight rotation, 7 or 8 guys seeing playing time at the most (this presumes that Brendan Lane is classified as a "rotation player"). Of those 8, Joshua Smith, Anthony Stover, and Tyler Lamb are all getting significant minutes for the first times in their career, and are all experiencing very significant growing pains which I do not need to rehash here. Then there are players like Tyler Honeycutt, Reeves Nelson, and Brendan Lane who are all sophomores, with one year of "experience" under their belts.
Now, this is one of the more well-reasoned inexperienced comments. Not even one from the usual sycophants. But let's talk about even this line-of-thought, from an otherwise astute UCLA basketball observer, is completely and totally wrong.
A few days ago, DCBruins put up a post comparing this year's team to the 2004-2005 UCLA Bruins. I don't think that's a real good, or fair, comparison (for many reasons, but primarily because JF and AA were key cogs of that team and they were true freshmen, whereas Nelson, Honeycutt, and Malcolm Lee are sophomores and a junior, respectively). To me, let's find a UCLA Bruins' basketball team with a similar make-up in terms of experience: the 2005-2006 squad.
Photo Credit: Getty Images
Yes, that's right: the 2005-2006 squad that was one game short of bringing the twelfth banner home to Westwood. Now, I know the sycophants are just screaming to their screens: "that's not fair, this team is inexperienced and that team had experienced players, and it's just not fair!"
And yes, that's right: if the UCLA Bruins buckle down, keep themselves mentally in check (read: Reeves), focus on playing tough, focused basketball (read: Honeycutt), and commit to Ben Ball, they have the same experience and talent that the 2005-2006 team relied on to reach the national title game.
Now, the 2005-2006 team was led by Jordan Farmar at PG and Arron Afflalo at SG. Both were true sophomores with the same level of experience as Honeycutt and Nelson (one prior season as a starter). Luc Richard Mbah a Moute was starting at PF as a true freshman. Our bench contributors included Michael Roll, Alfred Aboya, and Darren Collison, all true freshmen, as well as true sophomore Lorenzo Mata-Real. Josh Shipp, another true sophomore, was posed to be a significant player that season as well, until he got hurt and was lost for the whole year. Why do I say they were significant? If you look at the statistics, let’s say points scored, you’ll see DC, MR, AA2, and LMR were the #6, #7, #8, and #9 scorers for UCLA that season, behind only the five starters (JF, AA, Cedric Bozeman, LRMAM, and Ryan Hollins).
When you break it down, you have two starters with only one year under their belt (AA and JF), another starter with no experience in college (LRMAM), and then three significant rotation players with no college experience (DC, MR, AA2), and another rotation player with one year on the team, but few minutes that season (LMR). The only difference was the presence of two seniors: redshirt senior CB (coming off a season off due to injury) and true senior RH.
In comparison, this year’s squad has a true junior in Lazeric Jones running the point (so with no NCAA experience, for the sake of argument, let’s equate him to LRMAM who also had no NCAA experience; although if you remember the Prince was recently new to basketball whereas Zeek has prior JC basketball experience, but like I said, for the sake of argument, let’s equate them). So far, both teams have two sophomores with one year of starter’s experience (AA and JF vs. Honeycutt and Nelson) and one starter with no NCAA experience (LRMAM vs. Zeek).
The question then becomes: does CB and RH and their experience as seniors make the difference between a woefully inconsistent team (like this year’s edition of the Bruins) and a team one game short of winning banner #12?
My answer is a simple no. First, CB was coming off of injury, so there was a lot of rust to be shaken off. Moreover, his prior college experience almost overwhelmingly came at PG. With JF running the show, CB was moved to the wing. New position, one where he has minimal (if that) experience while in college. Second, CB to be equates to Malcolm Lee, the captain of this team and the most focused player on this Bruins’ squad. During that 2005-06 season, CB averaged 27.4 minutes per game, scored 7.6 points per game, 3.3 rebounds per game, and 2.3 assists per game. Lee, a true junior (so only one year less of experience than CB), is averaging 32.9 minutes per game, 13.0 points per game, 2.9 rebounds per game, and 2.1 assists per game. Based on those numbers, I’d say the advantage goes to Lee. But even without the numbers, Lee, when compared to CB, is a focused, experienced, mentally-tough basketball player who is committed to playing defense and within himself on offense. If anything, when comparing CB and Lee, in terms of experience, the advantage goes to Lee (who also had more years with Howland and his system than Bozeman did; in fact, Bozeman almost gets negative experience points for having to deal with that retard Lavin).
That only leaves true senior RH versus true freshman Josh Smith. If you compare the numbers, Smith is the better center, by a long shot. More points per game (10.6 vs. RH’s 7.0) and more rebounds per game (6.5 vs. RH’s 4.8). RH was a good role player and he had a great run in the tournament. In terms of experience, it’s not like Hollins had some crazy number of minutes: he was often a reserve or role player before his senior year, and in fact, the year prior (2004-2005) he was sitting behind Michael "Stone Hands" Fey (Hollins only started 6 games that season). Yes, technically, RH is the more experienced player compared to Josh Smith, so let’s give the advantage there to the 2005-2006 team (even if it’s a marginal one).
So, now we’re left with the question of whether Hollins versus Smith made the difference. We all know the answer to that.
If anything, this UCLA team is more balanced than the 2005-2006 team. If you look at the stats from that magical ride to the title game, the team relied almost exclusively on JF, AA, or to a lesser extent, LRMAM, for points. It was pretty much a two-man show and the other guys were key role players.
This team, on the other hand, is more balanced. The five starters are scoring between 9.4 PPG (Zeek) at the low-end to 13.9 PPG (Nelson) at the high-end, whereas the 2005-2006 players were scoring between 7.0 PPG (Hollins) at the low-end to 15.8 PPG (AA) at the high-end.
The bench players in 2005-2006 were much better contributors though (DC, MR, AA2, and LMR) than this year’s bench rotation guys (Brendan Lane, Anthony Stover, and Tyler Lamb). But like I said, DC, MR, and AA2 were all true freshmen. Lamb is the only true freshman of that group. Stover is a redshirt freshman and Lane is a true sophomore (like LMR was). So, if anything, bench experience shows this year’s team has MORE experience on the bench than the 2005-2006 team.
At it’s core, the 2005-2006 team relied on two stars: JF and AA. They were the engine that made UCLA run. The other guys were all contributors who filled their respective roles perfectly. This team, if anything, is really a three-man core: Lee, Nelson, and Honeycutt.
Lee has shown all the focus and heart that we’ve seen in AA and JF. Honeycutt and Nelson, on the other hand, despite having the same EXPERIENCE as JF and AA, have nowhere near the heart and focus of AA and JF.
So yes, saying it’s inexperience is a weak cop-out BS answer that sycophants are using to make excuses for a Bruins squad that has often been mentally-soft, unfocused, and weak.
In other words, despite injuries (which, if you go through a lot of Nestor's old work in the BN archives, you'll see the 2005-2006 squad had plenty of them) and being built around a core of underclassmen (JF and AA vs. Honeycutt, Nelson, and Lee), this team has no excuses for not going deep into March Madness.
If these guys play to their potential, focus on committing to Ben Ball, keep themselves mentally in-check, then there is no limit to what they can achieve.
And if they don't believe me, they should call up a few guys named Arron Afflalo, Jordan Farmar, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, Cedric Bozeman, Ryan Hollins, Michael Roll, Darren Collison, Alfred Aboya, and Lorenzo Mata-Real. I hear they know a little something about making a deep tourney run with a class built around underclassmen.
56 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thanks for the articulate post, Belle!
Your narrative was so encompassing I felt as if I was getting that 2005-6 UCLA hardwoods tinge; thereafter I’ve had my milk and cookies….
wanting to be able we certainly wished,
... but being allowed to try we didn`t dare
2005-06 team played defense
they were wide in the front court and had fast feet in the back court. and when players like MR were in the game our front court width inside helped out. if we had AA2 or LM this year we would have won the cal and osu game easy cause we would not have fallen asleep in the lane. if we can commit to all five guys playing tough nose defense and help when people get screened we can go far. please bruins… play some D! GO BRUINS!
Excellent Analysis -- It's Not About Experience, It's About Mental Toughness
The 2005-6 team won because it bought into Ben Ball and played ferocious D.
I actually think we have more scoring “potential” on this team IF Reeves stays focused and the Box uses all of his tools. Both of these guys can outscore their counterparts on the 2005-6 team and both can rebound equally well. The difference between winning and losing is how hard the Box plays and how focused Reeves plays (he plays very hard most of the time).
Smith and Hollins are an interesting comparison. Smith is the greater scoring threat, both could rebound, Smith is probably the better passer, and both could block shots. But, Smith’s size down low and his ability to take up space are an important variable. However, Hollins’ conditioning may well tip the balance toward him. He could run up and down the court more easily AND had the stamina to stay in the game longer. That’s probably a product of two things — he was a track athlete AND his body was more “mature”. As we have seen with many key players, the summer between a first and second year is often critical to body development and getting in shape. Smith will likely come back stronger, leaner and more able to play long minutes.
This season’s inconsistency is not on Zeek. He’s played hard — but has been too hurt to be at his best. This is not an “inexperience” issue, it’s an injury issue.
I think Malcolm can be AA like and is probably as close as we will get on this team.
And, I think Stover is a push with the AA2 and LMR of that team. Neither of those guys, at an early stage, could catch the ball or score. Stover’s shot blocking stands out. And, I don’t think he’s soft — but AA2 and LRM are the gold standard for Ben Ball toughness.
One huge advantage, mentioned in Beller’s write up is that the current players have had a real coach for whatever time they’ve been here. They’ve had real practices. They’ve had real game plans and real preparation. They have a coach who can understand whether they are facing a man or zone D, can scheme and adjust — who does not tell them to play a defense or offense derived from Seinfeld (a show about “nothing”).
One, two or three seasons under CBH is a huge advantage this team has.
So, if comparisons are apt, I think Beller has done a great job of dispelling the “experience” myth.
That said, would I prefer a team with junior and senior starters? Would I like some of our NBA guys back? Do I wish they had stayed? Of course.
Does experience make a difference? Sure. Do you think St. Johns would be where it is if it played freshmen and sophomores instead of 9 seniors? I don’t.
But, we are not the only team in the field that has been hit by the one and done. There are other young teams playing very well.
And, we are as talented as any of them. And, can match up with most. If we play our best for a full 40 minutes.
Young or old, a team must play with consistency and focus. If we do that, for the next run of games, I’ll see you all in Houston.
sjh
Good Point on Inexperience but
Not sure on comparsions. First, forgive me for butchering the quote as I am doing this from my blackberry, but Coach said he would rather have talent than experience. You have a good point there.
The difference between the teams though is talent especially on the bench where it is most striking. The 2005-6 bench actually was better than the starters in certain ways. This year’s bench is much worse in almost every way.
Take freshman DC. He was one of the quickest players in UCLA history and as a freshman was a better defender than JF. JF was the team leader and most important offense player (while DC was still working on his shot) but with DC in the game we improved on D.
Next MR was one of the best pure shooters in UCLA history just a step slow on D. When he played for Bozeman we lost a lot on D but again gained this time on offense.
Last AA2 was a great athlete and a high energy guy. LRM was better but there was not much difference between him and LRM.
This years bench? Anderson is solid but slow and not as good as a healthy Jones in any part of his game.
Lane, next in minutes, is so bad that he has played himself down to 9th man.
Lamb is a good defender but horrid on offense and not as good a defender as Lee, one of the best in the country.
Stover is good on D but cannot rebound like Smith and Smith bulk changes the game on D. On offense, Stover is a liability.
The bench is CBH’s fault. But comparing 2006 to 2011 IMO is not fair. The 2005 bench of Morrision and Hollins is much closer as is that team. The 2006 bench was an asset.
by DCBruins on Mar 16, 2011 7:17 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
DC I understand your thinking
but I personally think you’re giving DC, MR, and AA2 too much credit. In that year, DC was good but extremely small. He provided quality backup minutes at point, but did not have a very large impact on the game. He was perhaps a slightly better defender than JF, but certainly not as advanced offensively or as good at getting teammates involved. MR was horribly inconsistent this year. He provided a few big baskets, but overall did not shoot very well, as was a gigantic step down on defense from CB. AA2 was nowhere near LM in terms of offense, and was slightly less advanced defensively. He brought more athleticism, but there was a reason he was behind LoMata.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
BUt compare to this year
I think a tired and sulking Reeves may still be better than Lane. Stover and Lamb are playing 5 on 4 on offense.
MR was still a designated zone breaker. DC played 19 minutes a game more than just for JF. I would rather have the raw DC and MR than our current bench.
It goes to Bell’s point on inexperience but in a different way. I would rather have a raw freshman talent like DC than a junior Anderson who has learned to play within himself coming off the bench. DC was so much better as a junior and senior but even as a freshman he was a key cog.
I'
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
by OswegoBruin on Mar 16, 2011 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm simply saying you're overrating our bench for that year
not that the bench is not superior to our current one… it absolutely is.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
by OswegoBruin on Mar 16, 2011 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree about talent
This team is not as talented as our 2006 team. Our 2006 team featured three regular NBA starters (AA, DC, LRMAM) and two players in their respective teams’ regular rotation (JF, RH). I don’t see anyone on this team who’ll start in the NBA. TH might have shown flashes of NBA talent, but if he can’t bring it on a consistent basis during a 30-game schedule, he’s not going to catch on in the NBA (NO BOYS ALLOWED). RN could be a contributing bench player in the NBA, but he’s an under-sized 4 or a 3 with an inconsistent jumpshot. Josh Smith has the most upside because size something that can’t be taught, but he’s going to have to shed a lot of weight and expand his range beyond 4 feet. I don’t think we’ve seen the best from ML yet, but who knows when it’ll finally manifest. He might be another Bruin who realizes his potential after college.
Not only was the 2006 team more talented, but they were mentally tougher and more cohesive. Going into this year’s tournament, there’s a lingering fear that our most difficult opponent isn’t on the other side of the floor but inside our players’ heads, which is something that never plagued our Ben Ball Warriors of year’s past.
Good post.
This team is incredibly talented. Probably more so than the 2005/6 team. The key difference is that the 2005/6 team sold themselves out for the team. If I remember correctly, they won the last four or five games of the season and then really hit their stride by winning the Pac-10 tournament. They were consumed with winning, and it didn’t matter how they won.
This year’s squad does not have that same attitude. ML has turned the corner, but at this point I would say that only LJ and ML give 100% to winning, and they are both hurt. I’m not making excuses, just observations.
I hope the guys can pull it together and start playing inspired basketball. If they do, they could be very dangerous. I’m just not holding my breathe following a season in which I thought the team only showed up at KU, vs. Zona, vs. USC, and at UW.
by AllHailMightyBruins on Mar 16, 2011 7:34 AM PDT reply actions
Rec'd
Great work. Can’t wait for Thursday
by Josh Schlichter on Mar 16, 2011 7:34 AM PDT reply actions
You're right about experience
But that team enjoyed playing 40 minutes of ugly basketball. They loved to play man2man, set traps, clog the lane, take charges, dive for loose balls etc. I don’t know if these guys have the heart to do that.
by Strathmore&Gayley on Mar 16, 2011 7:38 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
LMR was never a red shirt freshman
by chirobruin on Mar 16, 2011 8:35 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
Thanks!
Appreciate you catching the error. The parenthetical stating LMR was “like someone” in class was supposed to be after Lane, a true sophomore, like LMR was in 2005-06.
Awesome write-up
Quick question:
Is it fair to compare this team to the ‘04-’05 UCLA squad, rather than the Final Four teams?
Agree completely about experience vs. effort...
The deciding factor between this year’s squad and 05-06 is not experience, but the “heart of a lion.” JF and AA came in determined to lead UCLA back to the tournament. They did, and then realized what the tournament was all about after facing a senior-laden squad in Texas Tech. They came back the next year just as determined and with a clear understanding of what they needed to do to be successful in post season play.
This year’s team has no such tournament experience. They really don’t know how different things are in the post season, intensity wise. Of course intensity has been their problem all year. I think that was a key contributor to how badly they lost to Oregon. They simply did’nt understand or care how much more intense a team will play when it is desperate to extend its season. So, in terms of experience, I think this team does suffer from not having “been there” before. This could be overcome if they simply put out maximum effort every game, but we all know how that has gone this year.
The other experience difference between the two squads is the presence of seniors CB and RH in 05-06. I truly believe that, as the season came to a close, these guys consciously or subconsciously stepped it up because their time was coming to an end. They were desperate to make it last as long as they could. JF and AA set the tone and I believe the seniors caught the fever, actually adding to the intensity down the stretch sheerly because of their experience (years of not succeeding) and the fact that they had become desperate seniors.
I guess what I’m saying is that I do agree that inexperience is a cop-out excuse. It can be mitigated with heart and effort. However, experience is a factor and this team lacks experience in the form of tournament play (knowing what it takes to win in the post season) and senior contributors (players desperate to keep playing).
That said, if this group pulls it together and plays with focus and intensity, it certainly can overcome any experience issues and make a push. I’m hoping they figured that out in the Pac-10 tournament, but the year’s body of work has me concerned that such hopes are not based in reality. If we could just get a focused and determined Honeycutt (turnovers and defense) and a consistent Nelson, who knows what this team could do.
While you have sound arguments about the comparative amounts of experience,
I would suggest that the relative quality of the experience should also be considered. Reeves and Honeycutt spent last year playing extensive minutes in a "diseased" environment: one where certain players played with complete disregard to the Ben-Ball ethos/mentality and were almost never sanctioned. It was also an environment where other players (also no longer present) apparently polluted the team unity/camaraderie and undercut Howland’s authority and his coaching efforts. I suspect it could take two years to fully recover from some of these negative influences.
Experience is an issue
Just as it was with that 05-06 team. That team took games off as well – remember the USC game? Everyone remembers that team as a great UCLA team because they finished so strong – and it should be remembered as such. But don’t forget that team was inconsistent as well, and many questioned whether or not Farmar was a good leader. We snuck by Drexel and Wagner early that year, as bad as many of the teams we snuck by this year. I’m amazed that so many seem to forget these points and act as if they were 100% behind that team the whole year.
I agree with your points on experience, this team is about as experienced as that team. The issue is the players. . .this is a completely different group with a different mindset, different skill set, different personalities, etc. . .This group may be as talented as a whole as that group, but without Zeke at 100% we lack a good PG, which is THE key position in college basketball. But it really comes down to personalities. . .this group is not as driven as the Farmar / AA group, or at least is motivated in different ways. Not all five star recruits are the same. Some want to blame motivation on Howland yet they forget this simple fact.
Never said it wasn't
Howland’s biggest mistakes aren’t X’s and O’s mistakes, they are recruiting mistakes. He needs to find the tough, hard-nosed kids like Mata, Aboya, as well as the kids that combine that with great skills like Farmar and AA, not to mention Lee and Josh Smith.
The mentality of these kids is changing, however. There has been a huge improvement from last year, and I expect to see the same jump in attitude next year, which should put us back into national consideration. To me, that’s coaching – it’s not that Howland can’t coach them up, it’s just that it has taken MUCH longer with these kids. Or maybe last year was a lost year given the makeup of the team, so these kids didn’t get the same progress as Farmar / AA did their freshman year. Either way, I see progress.
(Wait, here it comes. . .“But last year never should have happened!”)
It goes beyond recruiting
It also has to do with managing the entire roster and developing the bench. It has to do with playing favorites which what Howland has done last few years.
Well shit, as long as there's progress
Then everything must be just peachy. I’m glad my standards are so low that I can use virtually anything as justification to feel good.
Why are your standards so low?
If you are insinuating that mine are, you are wrong. Last year should never happen. . .but given that it did, Howland has done a good job cleaning up the mess (that he created, yes) and getting the team on the right track.
You tried to make a preemptive dig and a snide remark at the end of your post
In essence, trying to put words in others’ mouths. So you got the same done back to you.
u mad?
Exactly
The issue in major college athletics is that the head coach = GM. We deserve championships and should expect nothing less, and if the HC isn’t both a superior evaluator and developer of talent, it’s not good enough
by bruinhopeful on Mar 16, 2011 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
LOL
you “deserve” championships? Why? You deserve a coach who can achieve success with the ultimate goal being a championship. Just because Coach won 11 does not mean you “deserve” championships or even that Bruins deserve championships. We deserve success in everything we do, and if that results in a championship, even better.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
by OswegoBruin on Mar 16, 2011 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I think the theme here is
UCLA deserves to be a ‘championship caliber’ elite program which should be contending for championships on a regular basis. It would also entail giving championship level of effort. UCLA alums have every right to expect that from this hoops team and all facets of our athletic program.
“Deserve” as in demanding the ultimate goal and not settling for mediocrity. We as fans shouldn’t settle for mediocrity and make excuses for poor records when a program is going in the wrong direction ie. the Dorrell Apologists and Lavin’s sweet-16 crew. It’s not good enough.
Perhaps Deserve isn’t the appropriate word here, but Demand is.
by bruinhopeful on Mar 16, 2011 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions
In a reply to hopeful and Achilles
I understand the demands that we be championship caliber, completely. I demand it too. But to say we deserve championships, as hopeful noted, is sort of a strange idea. I think we should, every year or two, be a strong contender for the national championship, with, as A mentioned, championship caliber effort a-la the original Ben Ball Warriors. We demand cleanliness in our programs and that our student athletes be sterling representatives of our community and our university. These are demands worth meeting. If we do these, championships will come. And if they don’t, does it mean that our players or ben failed? I don’t necessarily believe so, as it would depend on other factors. But I believe we should have these expectations.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
I’m coming from a realistic place on this though. Do we expect a national championship in football or basketball this year? Of course not. But it doesn’t mean that the players/administration/fans should be okay with this consistent “rebuilding phase” we’ve been stuck in lately, 10+ years of mediocrity in football and, lately, a slippery slope in basketball. Going back to the great writeup above, “rebuilding” tends to be explained by chalking poor results up to “inexperienced” and that’s not acceptable.
by bruinhopeful on Mar 16, 2011 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions
True, and we're in agreement
However there are valid extenuating circumstances to “rebuilding”, specifically mass NBA exits. While these should be planned for, in some cases they cannot be (Luc, Westbrook is debateable, JF his 3rd year). IMO these are valid reasons why a team might have a down year. Should it stay this way for more than one? Absolutely not. We don’t do “mediocrity” at UCLA.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
I think the comparison is valid but our expectations should not be equal
I remember when the brackets were announced and calling my son and saying we were going to the Final Four in 05-06. That year I knew the likely match-ups, Gonzaga in particular, and said we could do well against those teams. In fact, I was surprised it was as close as it was against Gonzaga because we matched up well.
I think with hindsight we know that team had hearts of lions or whatever….but I dont think many of us knew it before the PAC 10 tournament. I think if we are truthful with ourselves we would admit we got to the Final Four earlier than anyone expected (I have made that point in other threads about expectations around CBH).
One thing about that team is it peaked at the right time. Got a 2 seed if I remember correctly and played reasonably close to home if I remember.
I do not know enough about college basketball generally to know how we match up against the diverse teams in our bracket this year so I am surely not making reservations for the Final Four yet.
But I believe the team does have the talent to pull some upsets if the matchups are favorable (speedy guards will continue to haunt us as will balanced scoring as we are usually good at taking teams dependent on one scorer down).
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Mar 16, 2011 9:31 AM PDT reply actions
Agreed! It's all mental!
This team can accomplish anything it wants if it wants to. At this stage of the season it’s about will; the will to overcome yourself and your weaknesses and the will to overcome your opponent. If this team can figure out this “will” thing now they can go as far in this tournament as they want to. And more importantly they will learn an important life lesson too.
One of my favorite tournament memories is Russell Westbrook bending over and slapping the floor with his hands as the opposing team brought the ball downcourt. The message was clear; “You need to get through me and I’m not letting you get to the basket.”
Our favorite Ben Ball teams were teams that surely had talent but moreover had a no retreat/no surrender attitude that carried them far down the tourney road. May this team find its inner warrior onThursday.
I think the two biggest things hurting this team
are lack of depth resulting in starters playing more minutes, and the lack of a star. This team desperately needs a Kemba Walker, a Nolan Smith, a JF AA duo. Just someone that can put the team on his back when the D isn’t up to par or the offense is stagnant. we have seen flashes of this from all of our starters but never consistently. Yes, great teams are made by great team effort, but most of the great teams that go far in the tournament have that one “star”
Troy is burning
by bruinbasketball on Mar 16, 2011 9:51 AM PDT reply actions
Agree, issue isn't experience, it's "leadership"
Who stepped up and put the team on his back last season? Michael Roll. MR?? Over better “talent” ML and Honeycutt? Really??
I see a lot of talk about talent/skill levels of our recruiting classes: AA/JF vs. TH/RN. But there’s a trait that can’t be “coached”. It’s called the “intangibles” by scouts: leadership. Both AA and JF had it. TH, RN, ML, JA, JS all don’t have it. Out of everyone, I think ML and JA have the biggest potential to do so here (RN had one instance when he asked to guard D. Williams vs. Zona).
Is Howland to blame then? For not recruiting a single player with that leadership trait? That’s a hard argument.
Howland is in chage of recruiting
He is responsible for the roster buildup and how it has been developed.
I agree with Achilles on this one
For example, Drew Gordon had a lot of talent but he was well known as a head case. CBH gambled on him and lost. A coach needs to recruit more than talent and/or needs to be able to manage egos.
CBH made some big mistakes recruiting and paid the price.
I think he has righted the ship and I am very optimistic on Powell next year and think the Wear twins give us instant depth. I am most interested to see Da’End.
Well-reasoned argument
Apologies for the post that inspired it, it had been a rough day.
I still ask though – what about the quality of experience that Honeycutt, Reeves, and Lane had to go through last year? I spoke with quite a few of the players last year and they all agreed last year’s experience was awful. We’ve written at length about the failures of a certain UCLA Senior last year, but I don’t think we even scratched the surface on some of his habits. Apart from partying ridiculously mid-season (eye-witness) he would miss some practices and when he attended, he was not a positive presence at all. I have no idea why CBH didn’t punish him more (and neither did the players for that matter) and I’d argue that also had a detrimental impact on the development of players last year.
Goes back to accountability
Howland never held that senior accountable. Similarly he hasn’t held either Reeves or Tyler accountable this season and failed to use the bench as a motivating factor from start of the season. Consequently towards the end of the season we ended up with a short bench that wasn’t developed through the season. The talent has always been there. Lamb and Lane were sought after recruits. Lane wasn’t brought along last season which hampered his growth. Howland failed to develop Lamb this year when he could have used him early substituting his defensive effort to teach Tyler a lesson. It goes back to Howland. He is responsible for it. B is right … injury and inexperience shouldn’t be an excuse at this point.
Lane
was also injured a lot last season, which hampered his growth.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
by OswegoBruin on Mar 16, 2011 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Correct
That doesn’t apply to Tyler Lamb or Anthony Stover this season. Stover’s “potential” might not have been flashed this season if Smith hadn’t gotten a concussion heading into Stanford game. So the way our bench has been used and developed is a real concern.
Stover brings a lot on defense, but takes a lot off on offense
He adds depth, but he is not a legitimate 25 minute-a-game guy yet.
Lamb still makes A LOT of freshman mistakes on defense. He has potential, and I expect him to make a huge leap next year, but he plays like a freshman.
On the contrary
Lamb plays better defense than Lazeric Jones, Tyler Honeycutt, and Reeves Nelson. He is relentless in his effort. His offense however, is a significant work in progress, and as Achilles stated, would be in much better condition to handle the tourney had he been more of a factor in the early season. Ben’s substitution patterns have been troublesome. Unfortunately early minutes (IMO) went to Lane instead of Lamb and Stover.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
It goes back to Howland's accountability, yes
We all know that a lot of the blame for last season falls on Howland’s inability to hold his players accountable. What I’m asking is what impact you feel that had on the players themselves, and if we can really credit last year as a year of quality experience for those players.
And I’ll agree, inexperience is not this team’s main issue, or secondary issue, or third issue. By this point in time they’ve already had an entire season under their belts. But in comparison to other teams, such as the Michigan State one we’re about to face, I’d say we were less experienced than them.
I think one thing would take us a very long way in this tournament --
If somehow Tyler Honeycutt have a Ryan Hollins moment — you know, that moment when Hollins became a totally different player. The momen where he just got it — and started to play in ways we’d never seen before. I don’t think any of us believed he was as good as he proved to be.
Honeycutt is a bit different. He has shown how good he can be. But, the switch has to go off in his head. If he can just “get it”, NOW he can lead us very deep into the tournament. A strong, focused Honeycutt — who re-earns the “Toolbox” label — is perhaps the variable we need most.
We will get a full effort from ML, LJ, JS, AS, and JA. I truly believe we will see the focused Reeves who has taken over this team to lead it to victory in several games. To me, the real variable is which Honeycutt will show up.
Come on Tyler. Watch the last several games Ryan Hollins played. Buy in, now, and show the world all of your skills. Now is the time — especially if you won’t be here next year.
sjh
Yes, we need Honeycutt to be focused
He needs to go into full Toolbox mode. He has the ability to block like Stover, rebound like Josh, attack the basket like Reeves, and hit outside shots like Lee (when healthy) and Anderson. He has teased us all year with what he is capable of doing. Now he needs to put all together and just do it.
by Gen2Bruin1987 on Mar 16, 2011 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions
If he wants to go pro
this is his make or break time. He has not shown nearly enough this year, IMO, to warrant any kind of decent draft status. Unless he’s completely surrounded by ego-pumping sycophants (there’s that word again) he’s got to know that he has to show up big in the tournament to have any shot at a first round NBA spot. The motivation will be there. It may not be the motivation we would hope for (UCLA pride), but it will still be strong motivation. As it likely won’t be UCLA pride, there is also the danger that his effort won’t be team oriented — and that Howland won’t pull him if there are signs of that. But, if Honeycutt performs well enough to get us deep into the tourney, he’ll likely be gone. If he flames out, we’ll likely be “lucky” enough to get him back. How much would we all love if he carried us to number 12 and we could all wish him the very best as he went off to the pros?
Honeycutt Can Go Pro Either Way
The drafting of Jrue Holiday convinced me that the smart guys here who say “The NBA drafts potential” are right. For whatever his lapses, Tyler has played as well as Jrue did the year Jrue was drafted.
We tend to forget that last year Honeycutt was hurt for much of the time.
He’s shown flashes of brilliance this year.
Enough to show his potential.
All I want is for him to play to that potential for every game he has left as a Bruin. I want him to play well enough to smile his way deep into the tournament.
sjh
He has been hurt this entire year as well
He has never recovered from his shoulder injury. I’m not absolving him, as his effort is incredibly poor IMO. His departure will leave us a more complete team mentally, if not physically.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Holiday was/is a PG
and there is always a premium on PGs. Honeycutt is a tweener 3/4 who has shown to have problems in traffic and with defending anyone with quick lateral movement — not to mention the TO and attitude problems we’ve often lamented here. I don’t necessarily believe that he’s shown enough “potential” to overcome those negatives on the pro level.
I think Honeycutt's spot in the first round is pretty much secured
First and foremost, this is one of the weakest NBA drafts in recent years. There are very few proven prospects out there and teams are going to be drafting mostly on potential (which really is not incredibly different from any other year).
Honeycutt has shown that potential, and his talent will get him in the first round for sure. The question is his place in that first round. A solid tournament performance with a deep run could net him a place in the lottery.
No truer words
Two quotations warrant emphasis.
First, Beller says it all:
If these guys play to their potential, focus on committing to Ben Ball, keep themselves mentally in-check, then there is no limit to what they can achieve.
That is a fundamental indisputable truth and bringing those words to culmination rests with our players.
Second (and this undercuts my inexperience views) our team is no longer made up of a front line consisting of mere sophomores, a freshman and a redshirt freshman. CBH made it clear in the Jim Hill interview that Josh Smith and Tyler Lamb are really no longer freshman. They are part of a team that has played 32 games and now bring experience to the table.
In other words, the comparatively inexperienced 4-5 team of last December who got ground down by the dreaded Montana Grizzilies no longer exists. The problem is the more experienced team that rolled by the Ducks last week still exists.
I disagree in many ways
But it is late, and I will not get into all of them. However, I will challenge one point of your argument:
[Jordan Farmar and Arron Afflalo] were true sophomores with the same level of experience as Honeycutt and Nelson (one prior season as a starter).
This is not true. Yes, all four were true sophomores in the respective seasons. However, they played very different amounts in their freshmen seasons.
Farmar and Afflalo started every game of their freshmen seasons (link to official site stats). The team played 29 games, they started 29 games (and no other player started every game, as a side note). They averaged 34.4 and 31.3 minutes per game, respectively, second and third on the team after senior Dijon Thompson. Looking to kenpom, Farmar played 84.9% of the possible minutes, leading the team, while Afflalo played 77.2% of the possible time for third (link). In total, Farmar played 997 minutes and Afflalo 907. For comparison, that’s basically the amount Honeycutt and Nelson play this year, and what Lee and Dragovic played last year. They were very experienced when they became sophomores.
Honeycutt and Nelson played a lot less their freshmen season (link to official site stats). Both started a number of games, true: 18 for Honeycutt and 14 for Nelson. But neither started every game, and both essentially started about half of the season, in which we played 32 games. Neither played every game. In the games they played, even as subs, they played less. Honeycutt averaged 27.7 minutes and Nelson 23.4, fourth and sixth on the team (excluding Gordon). Honeycutt played 55.5% of the possible minutes, and Nelson 50.6% (link). The final totals were 719 minutes for Honeycutt and 655 minutes for Nelson. Those are basically the minutes (less in absolute terms) of Collison’s freshman season, and Anderson and Smith this season.
Calling the experience levels of sophomore Farmar and Afflalo and sophomore Honeycutt and Nelson the same is disingenuous at best. Farmar and Afflalo were the team’s leaders their freshman season, playing full starter minutes. Honeycutt and Nelson played approximately substitute minutes their freshman season, if highly used substitutes. They played a lot, but not as much as suggested. Certainly they were not permanent starters for the team like Farmar and Afflalo, as the post essentially claims.
Those mins are more than comparable
And supports B’s underlying assertion that Reeves and Tyler were seasoned sophomores just like AA and JF were. That undercuts the inexperience argument. Your data provides specific time comparison but it only helps to take away the experience excuse. So think again if you attack a moderator as disingenuous.
by Nestor on Mar 17, 2011 4:01 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
The post says they played as much as Farmar and Afflalo
They didn’t. We may have different opinions on the value of the minutes they did play, and how they compare, but they simply didn’t play as much as, which the post says they did.
Read closely
The post says they had the “same level of experience.” I’d strongly recommend you drop your sniping bc its clear you are not here to offer disagreement w respect but engage simply in confrontation. Thanks.
by Nestor on Mar 17, 2011 5:03 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
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.
