UCLA at Oregon Hoops Roundup: The Numbers Don't Add Up
by DCBruins on Jan 22, 2012 5:59 AM PST
in Basketball
Email
PrintUCLA lost to Oregon yesterday afternoon and as Jerime Anderson said:
Anderson added, "Obviously this was a huge setback. We're 3-4 (in Pac-12 play) now. I'll let those numbers speak for themselves."
I have to write an entire post, so let me give you ten numbers:
10. 3-4 in Pac-12 (8th place).
That means right now we would have to play in the Wednesday, March 7 first round games and have to win four games to win the Pac-12 tournament and would have to play the #1 seed in the second game. I like you Zeek but this is not happening now:
Besides, guard Lazeric Jones said, "the goals are the same. We want to win the Pac-12."
9. Free throw shooting: 10-21 for the game, 1-8 for the first half.
If you did not watch the game like 66, you would say this is where we lost the game. I don't think that it is but it points to a more important problem. Why did the team shoot so badly from the from throw line? I think it was the Matt Court students. They were loud and obnoxious. They had an effect. They had unique chants for each player from yelling "Jenny Craig" at Smith to making fun of David Wear for missing a dunk. I think they got in our players' heads. Don't forget Travis Wear had made 20 in a row coming into the game.
A series of Bruins lapses at both ends of the floor fueled an 11-0 Oregon run to open the second half that permanently shifted momentum and rattled a UCLA team that was never able regain its bearings. However, it was in the first half when the Bruins missed a chance to bury the Ducks.
- 12.5: UCLA's free-throw percentage in the opening half when the Bruins connected on just 1 of 8 free throws.
"It's a disappointing loss, a great opportunity to get a road win," Howland said. "And we couldn't get it done."
UCLA was so bad from the foul line that even Wear, who had began the trip having made his previous 20 foul shots, missed both of his free-throw attempts in the first half. The Bruins ended up shooting 47.6 percent from the line, the normally automatic Wear going 3 for 6.
What makes this worse to me is Chianti Dan tried to make this literally impossible for UCLA students by trying to put them so far away from the basket. Matt Court was a true home court and Chianti Dan's lack of understanding that the students are a key part of what make a home court shows once again he is clueless Dan as well.
8. 11 is barely more than 8.
Before the game CBH mentioned that he needed to play Stover more. Stover played 11 minutes instead of his usual 8. CBH blew it again:
UCLA star of the game: Anthony Stover's final stat line won't stand out much as he had only two points and four rebounds, but his defensive presence changed the game every time he was on the floor.
He finished with four blocked shots in only 11 minutes and altered many others. His defensive energy sparked the Bruins for key stretches and Oregon seemed to have trouble scoring whenever Stover was in the game.
7. Josh Smith's stat line was as poor as his waist line.
Certainly Joshua Smith doesn't have it. He is supposed to be the team's dominant player, but he pretty much pulled a no-show in Oregon, combining for 16 points, eight rebounds and seven personal fouls in 31 minutes in the two losses. His body language was awful in both games. He looked dazed and as if he didn't want to be there.
Against Oregon, he played like someone who had mentally checked out before the opening tip and finished with six points, three rebounds and four turnovers in 12 minutes.
6. Two Wear Twins does not equal a small forward.
ESPN's Peter Yoon makes some good points. Yes, this team lacks talent. But they play hard. I am sick of people bitching about the Wears. The kids are playing hard but Howland is just asking too much of them. After squandering the 13 point lead, UCLA went back up by 8. Then CBH inexplicable went to the big lineup of Smith and the Wears. David and Travis Wear cannot play the three and Oregon came back to win. That is not their fault.
It's no secret that this isn't the most talented team UCLA has ever had, but it's a team that should be able to contend in a weak Pac-12 conference. The players frequently talk about their unity and camaraderie, so that's clearly not the issue. . . .
The Wear twins are playing much better, but they also seem to lack the competitive fire and leadership qualities necessary to will a team to victory. The Bruins are playing hard for the most part. They compete, they hustle and they sweat. They are coachable and well-coached and have enough talent to win the Pac-12 conference.
5. Jerime Anderson is not a PG.
The last losing season (2009-10) began with Anderson as the PG. The next losing or unacceptable season will end with Anderson as the PG. Anderson's problem is he has troubles with the most basic of PG tasks: bringing the ball up. Both Oregon and Oregon State exposed that by pressing UCLA. Oregon's press was a key in turning the game around:
His [Oregon Coach Altman] solution was to put the Ducks into full-court pressure. It helped, as did Tony Woods blocking two shots in UCLA's first three possessions and Sim hitting a pair of three-pointers in the first two minutes of the second half, one of them turning into a four-point play when he was fouled.
When Anderson gets sped up, he makes mistakes on both side of the ball. After four years, Anderson is good at running the set offense. He knows it better than anyone else not named CBH. But pressing Anderson, and ball pressure generally, effects Anderson more than it should any PG.
4. 37 and 36 equal 6-16 and 3-9
CBH moved Lazeric off the point in part because he needs to be the number one option on offense. That does little good when Zeek has to guard the other's team PG or best guard (as he has) and play 36 and 37 minutes a night. Zeek is good but he is certainly no AA. Howland needs to get Zeek less minutes:
In addition to the press, Altman felt key factors on defense were Woods' blocks on those two shots and his presence in altering others. Also, Devoe Joseph "turned it up" in guarding Lazeric Jones, UCLA's leading scorer, who was 3-of-9 from the field in the second half.
3. Below average 12 and 15 minutes.
When the guards were facing a press, CBH inexplicably went big in both the Oregon State and Oregon games and away from Norman Powell. He has stated he would not play David Wear at small forward anymore without a zone (that did not happen). CBH also previously said that with Anderson there are diminishing returns when you play him too many minutes. Again despite facing presses for a game and half, CBH played his only backup guard less minutes than average. This disgusts me. Yes Powell was not great but Powell may be the best man-to-man defender (Stover is the best defender) and certainly potentially the best and better than a tired Jones and Anderson.
2. Two starts.
For the first time in seemingly forever UCLA started well. But as Jon Gold pointed out, there are really two starts:
The UCLA men's basketball team has had more false starts this season than a football team starting five freshmen on the offensive line. . . .
Case in point: The Bruins' woeful opening in their three-point loss at Oregon State on Thursday, when the Beavers scored the first seven points of the game. . ..
The Ducks went on a 15-2 run to open the second half and pulled away from UCLA with some clutch free-throw shooting to ruin the Bruins' trip to the Beaver State with a 75-68 win in front of 10,830 at Matthew Knight Arena.
Anderson's foul of Oregon guard Garrett Sim during a 3-point attempt spurred the Ducks (15-5, 6-2 Pac-12) early in the half and had the crowd building on a frenzy caused during a halftime ceremony celebrating the school's Rose Bowl-winning football team. Sim made the free throw to make it a seven-point game, then followed less than a minute later with another
1. Note to CBH: 2 out of 3 equals unemployment.
No UCLA coach can miss the NCAA tournament 2 out of 3 years. That is what CBH is looking at now. The bigger question is will Sports Arena Dan be gone as well:
Oregon showed resilience against a UCLA team that must have John Wooden rolling over in his grave. Coach Ben Howland has already booted the Bruins' most talented player, Reeves Nelson, and skilled 6-10, 305-pounder Joshua Smith is somewhere between a foul magnet and a basket case.
Harsh words but there are really too many reasons to list why this should not be happening.
Go Bruins.
57 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Pretty devastating analysis.
And 100% accurate, as far as I can see. I read this and I just get angry. Both of these losses were senseless. Oregon State is not a good team and we had plenty of ways to beat Oregon. An average high school coach would manage a game better.
Howland needs to turn game management over to an assistant.
Point Number 6
I don’t get Yoon’s last sentence. “They are coachable, well-coached, and have enough talent to win the Pac-12 conference.”
If all three points were true, the Bruins would be winning games and would not be stuck in 8th place in the conference.
So are they not coachable? Maybe, but Howland recruited them and should have known what he was getting, and worked extra hard to turn them around- that is what teachers do.
So do they not have enough talent? Maybe, but that again is on Howland. In running a program, you should anticipate where you have holes in advance, and recruit to fill those holes. And yet how many years in a row have we not had a point guard?
So are they well-coached? NOOOOOOOOOO
I think they are coachable
But the problem, and a huge problem at that, is when they need to deviate from plan A. The Oregon swing is an obvious case in point.
OSU: They came prepared to shut down the Beaver guards. They did for the most part, limiting their points to the charity stripe. They weren’t prepared to handle the Beaver posts, who completely owned them.
Oregon: They came prepared to beat a genarally slow-paced Duck offense/defense. Ducks speed the game up, amid UCLA completely falls apart.
In that regard I get why Howland calls so many time outs. It’s as though this team cannot figure out what to do when they have to go to plan B, C, or further. It’s like they have to be told not to pass into a half court trap. What I don’t get is why they’re so bad at figuring things out. I’m only tenuously supporting Howland at this point, but I don’t for a second believe he’s NOT trying to coach them. How on earth do they make these kinds of mistakes? How did so many mentally soft players end up on this team at the same time?
On more thing
Fatigue HAS to play a huge part in it. No way you can expect the Wears, Zeek, and Anderson to play 30+ a game without eventually paying the price. Not rotating them out enough means their legs and minds are that much worse for the wear in the final 10 minutes of a game.
But why Howland won’t rotate Powell, Stover, and Lane (and I strongly suspect Jordan Adams will get this trreatment too next year) is a mystery that will likely lead to his firing.
Good Point
I mentioning the guards above but Travis can’t play 35 minutes a game without being fatigued
Well Coached in the fundamentals
Let’s take all three points but dividing them by halves.
1. Coachable. The first half the offense was a thing of beauty. Offense running well and defense limiting them to 22% shooting. The Wears had 11 rebounds and were playing well.
2. Well-coached. UCLA was up 13 at half, because the game planned work
3. Enough Talent. See above.
Problem. Let’s put it this way: the Wears would TRY to run through a brick wall if asked. And asking David to play three is that equivalent. He will try and fail. Not his fault. Also asking Travis to play 35 minutes, means that he will not be good at the end of the game, 6 rebound first half none second half.
The Wears
Particularly appreciate your comments about the Wears. They took some heat here early on and I think they’ve done quite well and display the effort and maturity we need; despite not always being used the right way and not being the most talented defensively. Howland was lucky they came back into play via transfer which, ironically, highlights his recruiting failures vs his ability to attract talent.
Hail to the Hills of Westwood.
by Mr. Hilgard on Jan 22, 2012 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
What they took heat for early on is fair
In some ways they still suffer from the same things I hated about their game. The impression that they’ve never seen a bad shot they didn’t like still comes back from time to time, but it’s nowhere near what it was early in the year, and so I can live with it. They still sometimes show little to no interest in defensive rebounding, which is frustrating because they’re good offensive rebounders so you know they are capable of it. The difference, if I may speculate, is that you often get to shoot after grabbing an OReb. Those are things that they can correct, and they can and should get heat for it.
What they can’t change is how their coach uses them, nor can they help not being put in a position to succeed. Each Wear, despite playing the majority of the second half as the primary bigs, had one defensive rebound each in that frame while the Ducks racked up 10 offensive rebounds. Their fault? Not necessarily. Oregon made it a team effort to crash the boards and we needed another interior presence to relieve that pressure on them. Smith clearly wasn’t cutting it. If only we had another center who was playing well in the first half to sub in who could fill that role…
Agree
I was hard on the Wears earlier in the year,but I am over that now. They are trying and I think they are getting better, I think. Their rebounding is better, but they still are hugely out of position most of the time, and they are playing more like 4s most of the time, rather than a 2 or a 3, which is crucial. They still play “soft”, but are much better than the beginning of the year. If Howland can’t seem to understand how to play them, makes them play a 3, plays them both with Smith (making a slow team utterly lethargic), then I am at a loss.
This is a team of role players (barring Powell, who I think can play with anyone). CBH just can’t decide anyone’s role. Just as damning is that these SHOULDN’T be role players. These are talented guys who are not developing, and I am not optimistic that CBH can develop them.
I think when the Wears get tired
Their defensive rebounding and D goes first. Those things don’t come natural for them and they need to work on it. But they are working on it.
This is a good point
Lack of energy leading to a return to bad habits. Definitely plausible, if not extremely likely.
Respectful Request for Clarification
DC- I really enjoy your analyses, and the info you provide on our basketball program.
When I read the Peter Yoon comments, I interpreted “well-coached” as meaning was Howland doing a good job as coach, to which the overwhelming response has to be no.
Now I see that there is another way to interpret the comment- at the level of coaching one on one. My evidence in trying to assess that criterion would be how the individual players perform from one year to the next.
If they don’t improve, then they presumably are not coachable, or they are not well-coached. Otherwise we would see improvement.
I don’t follow the basketball team live, so I am at the mercy of what the cameras choose to show. But from that vantage point, it does not seem like Anderson has improved every year he has been on campus. The same goes for Jones and Smith.
LRMAM and Aboya did seem to improve every year.
So maybe Howland needs a certain starting point (particularly mental toughness), and can take it from there with great success. But without that starting point he is hard pressed to bring out the needed improvement in each player.
Would be very interested in your perspective on the year-over-year improvement topic. Thanks.
by islandbruin on Jan 22, 2012 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
Attempted Clarification
I think Howland can teach basketball and I think players have improved. On the players you named:
1. Anderson
Freshman year. I am still at a loss why Anderson played a single non-garbage time minute his Freshman year. He was awful at everything.
Sophomore year. Anderson was the worst defender CBH has had during his time here. Anderson was one of the big reasons Howland went zone only. Anderson’s idea of D was let the guy get pass you and get a poke steal. On offense he was so bad Howland benched him even though he did not have a backup and forced Lee to play point.
Junior Year. Anderson tried on D. He played fundamentally right. He went from an F to a C. His limitation was his ability. On offense, he still had problems at the Point but showed he can hit an open shot and feed the post.
Senior year. Always gives effort on D, maybe a C+/B-. He use his hands better for steals. On offense, uses his knowledge of the offense and is good at running the set offense. Anderson still has physical limitations (he is so slow for a PG) and has problems with ball pressure but he is much better.
Jones went from being the fifth option to the first. This season look at the way he started and how he is playing now. He is also improved as a defender.
Smith, has not improved at all and is much worse but generally that is the exception not the rule. But look at Reeves. Reeves his Freshman year did not pass (last year he was a good passer) and was a bad defender (Reeves had effort issues but did shut down Derrick Williams) Most players that stick with CBH improve.
I think, Howland can teach players and make them better. The problems are other things then the teaching part. Like this team near complete lack of talent. Like playing people where they should not be playing and not playing the more talented players.
Thanks
As usual, a very thoughtful response. You guys spoil all of us supporters with your insights.
by islandbruin on Jan 22, 2012 10:37 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I think it's Howland's game coaching that's killing us.
The momentum-killing timeouts, inability to adjust, wrong personnel on the floor, etc.
by Seth Chandler on Jan 23, 2012 2:14 AM PST up reply actions
Personnel Management
Howland can not do it. It is now proven. He must go. It is over.
I watched a lot of college basketball this week, including part of the Mizzou vs Baylor game to hear the announcers state the great part of the college game is that small, fast and athletic teams often beat the larger teams with bigger reputations. Howland has never recruited for athleticism and speed. He underestimates its value. He seems to recruit big, bulky guys, and values reputation more than athleticism. Once he gets his prima donnas, he then can not manage their attitudes. He has failed to build productive teams with his own recruits.
He seems to have had the desire removed from him after dealing with the early departures of Afflalo, Farmar, Luc, Love, and Holiday. It is as if he has thrown in the towel.
Enough is enough. We have never tolerated this level of ineptitude from our basketball coach in the past. We can not tolerate it now. I am done with this team for this year. My interest may return after the removal of DG and CBH. Bye for now.
Louisville, KY for UCLA class of '87
You know who is well coached?
Chace Stanback , Drew Gordon, and Mike Moser of UNLV certainly are. They have talent and are well coached. Final Four potential.
Time for Howland and DG to go.
by cyberdbk on Jan 22, 2012 7:48 AM PST via mobile reply actions
this team can only go as far as its guards will take them
unfortunately Zeke and Anderson are average at best. Zeke would be a great bench player to relieve a legitimate guard for 10 minutes a game. Anderson wouldn’t see minutes on any top ten team in the country. Both guards are below average defensively and neither are capable of running the point the way it should be. Anderson is a good 3 shooter but only if given a lot of space and time. He can’t reliably create his own shot and is not a penetrate and dish to the open man type. Powell possesses the most potential and should be receiving 20+ minutes per game. I am not sure that Gordon, Moser or even Stanback would have made a difference in this system. I watched Carlino a couple times now and I don’t think he was the answer either. Missing on Quinn Cook, who had it down to U.C.L.A. and Duke, was a big miss. Cook would be a difference, although CBH probably would have not used him appropriately. Is next years class the answer? Maybe but CBH needs to recruit additional legitimate playmakers in order to restore this program.
Yes and No
I think he can get more out of the current guards by playing them less and Powell more. I really think Powell should be playing a lot of minutes for a number of reasons including:
1. I agree with your point on Anderson
2. Both Jones and Anderson would be better playing a bit less. Also Powell can create his shot which right now only Jones can do on this team.
3. Powell has a future.
Such a huge point
about Powell being able to create his own shot. I don’t think this can be understated. I don’t remember the last time we had a guard as good as Powell at this. For years I’ve watched this UCLA team thinking, “where are we going to get a basket?” Powell seems like he can find a shot even better than Afflalo and Wesbrook could when they were here IMO. It feels like Howland just has the reigns on him (I felt the same way about Holiday.)
by the blur 98 on Jan 22, 2012 10:38 AM PST up reply actions
We had a 13-point lead at halftime.
Lack of skill at the guard position is not why we lost THIS game.
by Seth Chandler on Jan 22, 2012 9:04 AM PST up reply actions
I have to disagree and I understand and respect why you did all caps for THIS game
We were hurt by the press. We were hurt by the tempo. We were hurt by the inability to make plays in the half court in the second half. Consider for a moment if there was a Farmar or Collison leading the charge. Does the same thing happen? I realize those guys won’t be showing up in a U.C.L.A. uniform for the games. As others have pointed out previously, CBH has failed at recruiting in recent years for the PG spot and that, in my opinion is killing these last few teams.
You are right
It is a matter of degree though. Lack of a strong PG hurt. If we had Farmar or Collison in this game we probably win. But there are other things within the game that could have made the difference with a JF or DC.
We were hurt by a lot of things. But we beat ourselves.
As for the press specifically, number one, that’s just fundamentals, team play and poise. Number two, as other have pointed out, Howland could have had Zeke bring the ball up instead of Anderson. Number three, Oregon scored 51 points in the second half. That’s 102 per game. The press didn’t cause that.
You could just as easily say that bad play in the post cost us the game.
by Seth Chandler on Jan 23, 2012 1:45 AM PST up reply actions
Missed Opportunity
I am appalled at the fall off from the end of last year to the current state we are in.
Halfway through the season last year, we could see that the team had started to jell. They were playing better as a team and individually. They made a tournament run, then managed two tournament games.
At this point, the sky was the limit. It was commonly accepted that if both ML and Honeycutt came back we were likely destined to go to another final four. Losing one of the two meant a less likely assured probability for a Final Four run, but a foreseeable probability none the less.
We lost both.
Then we began this season with one of the country’s hottest players in Reeves, the influx of the Wear Bros, and year two of the Josh Smith era. Even without ML and TH, the possibilities were nothing but positive. A Pac 12 top finish seemed a given and the only question was how far a tournament run was possible.
Now we find ourselves without Reeves (justifiably so) a Josh Smith who seems to have actually regressed not progressed, and missing the tournament altogether the most likely scenario.
Who does this? Can anybody remember a program that has so completely imploded from one year to the next? Because for the life of me, I cannot.
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
I thought last year was disappointing as well
We blew a number of games we should have won. The team also lacked discipline as Howland looked the other way when Nelson and Honeycutt were screwing around on defense.
Yes. He lost Nelson last year, not this year.
If Howland had disciplined those two last year, maybe Nelson would have been different. Probably not though.
i admit it, i didn't vote in the poll yet...
I’m just so frustrated – even moreso than I was (am) about football. I’m not ready to put myself out there yet. Maybe i’m just an indecisive boob. Maybe I’m depressed at how quickly Howland seems to have morphed from one of the best fundamental coaches in college basketball into a lost soul. Maybe I’m afraid you’ll all call me a Howler…
I’ve been a staunch supporter of Howland’s. Much moreso than i was for Neuheisel (although admittedly I was on that train for too long). I’ve always loved how Howland respected our tradition, Coach and our university. I loved that he didn’t care if his “style” was fun to watch, only that it produced wins. I loved that his players bought into his philosophy and were dedicated to the team, to their role and to winning. I lwas proud of what he accomplished and of the young athletes he developed.
Then it all changed. I’m not sure what happened along the way but it just isn’t the same. Yes, I hated how Howland catered to a certain Serbian but I never found it plausible that that alone was enough to lead to a sinking ship. Yes he’s had some major missteps in recruiting (see; Nelson, Reeves; Gordon, Drew & Holiday, Jrudas) but we’re not alone in that regard. The difference, of course, is the REAL elite programs still find a way to win.
In basketball, you’re only 1 recruit away from turning around your program. But the problem is, of course, deeper than that. Right? I agree that our 2012 recruiting class + Shabazz could be good enough to make a deep run in the tourney. i also agree that isn’t the solution we all seem to be clamoring for. Or is it? Winning makes everything taste a little better…
by DoubleTroubleBruin on Jan 22, 2012 11:04 AM PST reply actions
As crappy as the PAC-12 is this year
the FF teams of AA, KLove, JF, etc. would have a reasonable expectation of going undefeated in conference this year.
Make no mistake, in any other major conference this team could very well be winless in conference.
no way an Afflalo led team loses a game in this conference...
maybe, maaaaaaaaybe, at Cal. But probably not.
by DoubleTroubleBruin on Jan 22, 2012 11:45 AM PST up reply actions
The problem
If AA was a fresh or soph. in this Howland’s program, he’d be riding the bench behind Jones and Anderson. I am not kidding.
Do you think next year Adams and Anderson will be mired on the pine their frosh years?
Or are they highly touted enough to be exceptions?
i hate to say it
but it depends who our coach is
by DoubleTroubleBruin on Jan 22, 2012 11:56 AM PST up reply actions
Not sure about Adams
But the hype around Anderson is so huge and given Howland may not have any pg option beyond Drew, he will have no choice but to play Anderson (who may get torched a lot defensively by quicker pgs – what’s new there. sigh).
The key word there is led..
There is no lead with the last 3 Bruins teams….no PG and no leader. The main failing of Howland is getting a top PG to come to UCLA in spite of the fact that the NBA has plenty of Howland PG’s. We better get a couple more signed because Kyle Anderson may be a one and done.
by WoodenMan88 on Jan 22, 2012 11:53 AM PST up reply actions
I don't think we should be talking IF Howland should go
The real question is WHEN.
I understand we don’t want Dan in on the hire, but how much more damage can we let Howland inflict on our program.
Shouldn't let Howland go as long as DG is still the AD
that point can’t be stressed enough. Any new hires can’t, just can’t come from the current AD.
Yep
UCLA needs to fire Guerrero first and then the let the new AD make decisions on the hoops program.
Howland's Failure This Year
should be enough to get Block to fire him.
As quiet as Block is, now — he must know that the “search” to replace RN was a total failure as was the renovation of Pauley and creating our “home” floor at sc.
sjh
by Class of 66 on Jan 22, 2012 12:14 PM PST up reply actions
he doesn't seem to care at all
the only thing that may motivate him is if he, himself, were on the proverbal chopping block
by DoubleTroubleBruin on Jan 22, 2012 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
Respectfully disagree- DG should go first, but will he in Block-land?
By saying DG has to go first, this allows Block to decide the fate of our basketball program by keeping DG (which he has chosen not to change, despite all the bungling).
If DG is there through 2012, and BH thereby gets reprieve through 2013 season, and if we have another shitty year (making round of 8 for UCLA should be shitty, so imagine not making the tourney again), then what? Do we say BH stays again because DG is still there?
If DG is there through 2013, and BH thereby gets reprieve through 2014 season, and if we have another shitty year, then what? And so on.
It all starts with Block. But it all ends with our program continuing to spiral. What a world.
I voted “ax Howland” in the poll. And my vote unfortunately was not predicated on DG’s prior departure, because I don’t trust Block to do the right thing.
Sorry for all the dark thoughts. Must still be thinking about the Niners.
by islandbruin on Jan 22, 2012 10:24 PM PST up reply actions
Putting Games Away
Have we ever had a coach, since Harrick, who could get his players to play hard, all game long, and put a team away?
Coach’s teams did. Because, he demanded that each possession be played to perfection. His players knew they could not let up and, because of their work ethic and pride in the program, they never did.
Coach didn’t “run up the score” — he just demanded that players play to their full potential — and when they did, they pulled away and stayed ahead.
The story on BN that Walton told — why stop doing something that is proving unstoppable, really says it all. The team was not about individual stat’s and touches. it was about perfect execution. And, when we did it, we pulled away and stayed ahead.
A weakness of CBH’s teams is that they cannot play a full 40 minute game. Big leads go away. Deficits are recaptured but at great expense.
This is on CBH. Somehow, our players have not gotten the message that each possession of D and O is a canvas upon which they are expected to paint a masterpiece.
sjh
Yes. Howland. In his first Final Four team.
They played hard every possession on both ends. And if they were up at halftime, the final margin would be twice as much a lot of the time.
by Seth Chandler on Jan 23, 2012 1:49 AM PST up reply actions
Of course, first and foremost
fire dan guerrero, can’t allow him to fail at hiring a head basketball coach
next, who is in the conversation to take the job at UCLA?
This season, Howland is at fault for his failure to recruit the right players. He can’t fix that over the course of a season. It is a long term problem that will persist throughout the year. We lack depth, tough players, or any sort of team chemistry. I don’t see him turning this around in any way shape or form (even if we win the pac-12 tourney and get the bid to the dance, so what? We’ll never make it past the first round). The sentiment I’m getting here is that Howland is screwed.
Solid, solid analysis.
I think 2 things could really help this team:
1. Stover minutes really help this team. Anthony is a great last line of defense to compensate for our slow-footed bigs and our guards who have so much difficulty denying penetration. Start him; I can live with some missed FTs. I really don’t feel we lose that much with Josh sitting. I’m to the point where I’d give the back-up minutes to T Wear.
2. Start Norman Powell over Tyler Lamb. Powell is much quicker on defense and is more of a threat offensively. My guess is that he would improve quickly with starter minutes. Tyler is such a poor shooter and his defense has been disappointing. You’ll miss some good plays, a few nice passes but there’s more upside in going with Norman. It might even make the difference keeping him on the team for next year.
Agree, but it should have happen a while ago
1. Stover is raw offensively but getting better. He should be receiving the majority of the backup 5 minutes. I understand late in a game the need to go Travis Wear because he can shoot FTs and is better on offense. But still Stover should be playing more.
2. Powell needs to play. I would have started him earlier for Anderson. I am worried about Lamb’s head. You can see his confidence fluctuate on offense. I don’t think it hurts Anderson to come off the bench as he did last year. Now it is a tougher call but I tend to agree with you. I worry what it would do to Lamb. At least play Powell a lot more.
MPLS you have a lot of good thoughts. Feel free to do a fanpost sometime.
Josh Smith
He is dragging down the team with his lack of effort and pathetic athleticizm. As I have said before he is not an athlete. He should be taken to the legal court for impersonating an athlete.He shouldn’t be able to play on the team until he shows in practice that he can be a basketbal player.
Time running down to the defensive end vs time running down to the offensive end
Coach Rick Adelman when taking over the Timberwolves checked tapes of games and what was going on with the Timberwolves and found that the team took one second longer to go to the defensive end as to the offensive end of the court. The players were shocked and are now getting more hustle into their game. I would be willing to bet that UCLA at the defensive end take 2 or more seconds longer than going to the offensive end except when there is full court pressure. When Josh walks down court it is more like 5 seconds more.Maybe coach should emphasize getting down court faster on both ends.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
