UCLA Basketball Roundup: UCLA Beats Stanford Playing Against Type
by DCBruins on Feb 10, 2012 5:47 AM PST
in Basketball
Email
Print
UCLA won the kind of game it would have lost earlier in the year in the Pac-12. Josh Smith was limited by foul trouble. The Bruins who have been very good taking care of the ball this year made a lot of turnovers. The Cardinal made a number of runs against the Bruins. But that is just it: UCLA had answers last night to most of their problems and won the game.
First, at times this season when Lazeric Jones was taking the most shots for UCLA that was a bad thing. The last two times Zeek shot 15 or more times in a game was UCLA's lost weekend in Oregon. Also, the last Stanford game will be remembered when Zeek tried to force the game winner and was blocked. Last night Zeek played very well and within himself for a near complete game:
UCLA had a score to settle against Stanford, having endured a one-point loss on the road that ended with Lazeric Jones' potential game-winning shot getting blocked at the buzzer.
Jones was the catalyst in the Bruins' 72-61 victory Thursday night, with 21 points, six assists and six steals.
"We were upset that we got that loss," he said. "We really fought and stayed in it up there. Not only did we want this game, the fans were out there supporting us and wanted this game."
While Zeek was the leader, it was a team effort. Unlike most of this season, UCLA started the game well. But more importantly, for the second straight game UCLA held onto the lead (emphasis mine):
The Bruins (14-10, 7-5 Pac-12) got out to a massive lead early and then held on for dear life, blowing open a 25-9 lead in the first 11 minutes of the game and then fending off every Cardinal parry for the rest of the game.
While the Cardinal (16-8, 6-6) did respond with a good rally to put itself back into the game by cutting the deficit to 56-53 with just 4:45 left in the game, it was never able to grab a lead and fully swing the momentum back its way.
Senior guard Lazeric Jones led the way for UCLA with 21 points, while Travis Wear added 13 and Jerime Anderson contributed 12. Altogether, the Bruins improved to 11-3 at home and notched their fourth victory in their last five games. . . .
The Bruins turned in the eleven-point margin of victory due to some late fouling by the Cardinal, and with the loss, Stanford has now lost two games in a row and five of its last six after it was tied for first back in mid-January.
CBH loves defense and hates zone. CBH was effusive in his praise of the Bruins defense last night. In the first game he felt the Bruins had to play zone, this time he felt they were good enough in their man-to-man to not need zone. I am not sure if this is good long term as it seems likely they will need zone again.
UCLA (14-10, 7-5 Pac-12) had six steals in the game's first nine minutes and Stanford (16-8, 6-6) committed 13 turnovers in the first half, finishing with 22 for the game. The Bruins also added 11 blocks, including three each by Anthony Stover and Travis Wear.
"Our defense has improved," UCLA coach Ben Howland said. "You think about how our defense was the first time we played them the first time - we had to go to zone because we couldn't stop them."
Added Wear: "We were rotating - the bigs did a great job of rotating and getting blocked shots. We tried to wall up. It was a tightly called game so we were just trying to wall up."
But against Stanford this was enough:
The Cardinal finished with as many turnovers, 22, as field goals. UCLA had a season-high 15 steals and 11 blocked shots.
But the game was not perfect. UCLA also played against type in a bad way:
Yet what could have a much-needed breather was filled with hyperventilation-type moments throughout the second half. UCLA turned over the ball 19 times.
In addition to the unusual turnover problem (UCLA is the best in the PAC-12 at not turning the ball over), UCLA "good" free throw shooters continue to struggle:
The Bruins made only 17-of-27 free throws for 63 percent and hit only 9-of-16 in the final 1:52. Luckily their lead was big enough to hold on, but in a tighter game it would have been a major problem as it has been in other games.
UCLA is shooting 65.9 percent from the line for the season and has lost at least three games because of poor free-throw shooting. Travis Wear, the team's leading free-throw shooter at 84.3 percent coming into the game, made only 3-of-6. Jones, an 81 percent shooter last season, missed a pair of free throws in the waning minutes.
So UCLA had a nice home win where they showed they could withstand another teams runs and win with Josh being a non-factor. However, Stanford is a team coming apart. Cal is not. The Cal game is a game the Bruins will have to play at a higher level and may be their toughest left this year. It will go to test how improved the defense really is. While this team is definitely better than the first time they played Stanford, how much better will be determined when they play Cal Saturday.
The Bruins, 14-10 overall and 7-5 in conference play, can get one Saturday against a California team that methodically disassembled UCLA, 85-69, on Dec. 31, leaving the Bruins with an extra New Year's resolution: Play better defense. . . .
"We're looking forward to playing this team and showing more than we did the last time," Stover said.
I am sure they will, I hope it is enough to win. Go Bruins!
79 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Observations...
Howland made two great defensive adjustments against Stanford. UCLA switched the high ball screens and crowded shooters. Bright was forced to drive and finish, versus drive and find. Loved the energy of Stover, he affected the game with his effort and length.
The Bruins had their usual spell of bad offense – lazy post entry passes, not finishing strong at the rim, missing wide open looks badly – but they overcame that, and some spotty FT shooting to get a win. The defense provided some easy offense and got the team some confidence on both ends.
Saturday versus Cal, the game will come down to controlling the backboards. Without Soloman Cal is forced to rebound by committee – the Bears are really thin up front. UCLA should continually feed the post, drawing fouls, slowing tempo and forcing Cal to double – freeing our shooters for clean looks.
Montgomery will play Kravish at the elbow and force UCLA to defend him with a Wear. If Smith defends Kravish he will get involved in pick and rolls and be ineffective. If Smith defends Kamp, he will be iso’d and driven. Stover is a big key on Staurday – his ability to alter shots is huge, especially when Gutierrez penetrates to score.
The game figures to be close. Cal limits their mistakes and makes their free throws, but they rely heavily on Crabbe’s ability to stretch defenses (He’s attempted almost as many threes as the entire Cal roster combined). He’ll likely be matched up with Lamb, but I’ve noticed that he’s bothered by quickness more than length. I like the way the Bruins guards play at home, they come up big and in big spots when wearing the home whites.
Prediction: UCLA 74, California 69
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
I know...
I’m the eternal optimist and have a hard time criticizing our guys. It’s a big issue that has cost us games and will again if it’s not improved.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Yeah, we won!
But the last 15 minute meltdown “almost” happended. Actually, it did, but we had a miraculous recovery in the last 3 minutes. Before we congratulate Jones/Anderson too much, there was a turnover on virtually every play for 10 minutes.
CBH did something right at the last timeout, but its’ hard for me to get over the 3 guard lineup when at least two of them blow. And I would have gone to zone when Josh got the 4th foul.
Good win, but
we commited too many fouls and turn-overs. I like Stover being the only sub for Josh, no one else. Stover stabilizes our defense, even though he is not a scoring threat. Josh needs to learn how not to make silly fouls like lowering the shoulder or backing up to the defenders. I like the energy our team showed last night.
we didn't commit too many fouls
refs last night were especially bad..whistling on pretty much every touch and phantom foul in existence. Both teams were in the bonus in the first half with 7 minutes to go. An overall extremely frustrating experience.
bubble watch
With last night’s win, we have a higher ranking (43) from ken pomeroy than all four of the “last four in” on the espn bracketology page. I’m not sayin’, but I’m just sayin’…
by South Campus is for Lovers on Feb 10, 2012 9:12 AM PST reply actions
That's a seperate issue
While it may be that we are more likely to beat other teams that end up making the field on a neutral court, which is what KenPom’s numbers suggest, it does not in any way factor into your tournament selection profile. Unfortunately for us, it’s all about the “resume”, which is more linked with the RPI and before the Stanford game, we were 116th. Any suggestion of a “bubble watch” before that number gets into the 70’s or 60’s is way premature.
RPI, other matrix
The NCAA uses over twenty sets of statistical data, yes, RPI is perhaps graded heavier than others, but it’s just a tool they use to seperate teams. SOS, road performances (even close losses) are weighted as well. There is a lot of season left. UCLA has to beat Cal, Arizona and Washington – basically run the table – if it wants to sniff the bubble.
The lack of stellar OOC wins for the conference, hurts the league when it comes to getting the “middle” teams in the tourney. All the talk of the Pac-12 getting 1 team is bluster. Take a look around the country, there aren’t that many good teams. Pac-12 is looking like a three bid league – lower seeds for sure, but three seems reasonable.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Which is pretty much what I said
I’m a big proponent of what KenPom is doing and I think it’s interesting and often insightful. But putting his rankings and bubble in the same conversation makes no sense. I know what they use RPI for. The fact that they use it and that only teams within a certain range of rankings can legitimately be called bubble teams is the issue.
As to the tournament field, we’ll probably get at least two in. We don’t deserve it, but we’ll get them. Maybe we get a third that has to play the play-in game where they’ll lose, and the other two will be seeded lower than 8. Good times.
I just need to continue to not watch.
When I watch, UCLA loses. When I don’t, we win.
I had the game on late last night E.S.T. but feel asleep in the early minutes and woke up as Donnie Mac led into a post-game commercial stating that the Bruins had won.
Thanks for the good post
I was pretty bummed about how we kept letting them back in it but I like your positive angle that we fended off multiple charges.
The two big issues for me were:
1) many of the turnovers were just sloppy, dumb mistakes…like not making a bounce pass.
2) the horrendous free throw shooting.
Both are very painful to watch and should not be happening in February.
I think the Cal game will tell us all we need to know re are we pretenders or contenders?
by RealisticBruinFan on Feb 10, 2012 9:43 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I think
both 1 and 2 happen a lot more in the second half of games, which to me points to fatigue due to the lack of depth, and Howland not using Powell enough.
I think we are neither pretenders nor contenders. We are exactly who we are, a middle of the road Pac-12 team with a shot at being a top 4 in the conference to get a first round bye in the conference tournament. Was there a single conference game where we did not have a chance to win? That’s what kills me. We had 3 losses that should have been wins. So in a sense, we are pretender non-contenders…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Powell
I believe Powell will be a very good college player one day. He needs to show something over the next couple games to earn more minutes. He’s settling for too many jumpers. He should be aggressively trying to get in the middle of defenses and looking for the and-one finish. Teams are taking away his right hand, he needs to develop his left hand and a little mid range game if he wants to be more than a open court dunker and streak shooter…Good thing he’s only a freshman and has a high ceiling. Bad news is he’s going to have a hard time finding minutes with Lamb and Adams on the team next year.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Powell sometimes rushes his shots ...
That has lot to do with the minutes he is given by the coach. If a freshman played with a sense of security that he wouldn’t be yanked after every mistake or that his mins wouldn’t be haphazard, he’d be able to play with a sense of ease, letting the game come to him. Powell and number of other freshmen haven’t been afforded that opportunity in this program for years.
He's got to earn it in practice...
He’s a physically gifted player. Probably the most explosive player the Bruins have on their roster, but it has to manifest itself on the floor. I’m all for Howland developing a deep bench and having defined roles for his players, but, frankly, Powell has given us glimpses of what he’s eventually going to be – but nothing that guarantees him more than back up minutes.
Let’s get this clear – if you have game Howland plays you as a freshman – we all know the names and history (Moser is the anamoly, he was lost as a freshman and has matured into his body). The fact that he is on the floor at all tells me Howland trusts him and can recognize his ability.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Whatever
He has to “earn it in practice” like Dragovic did back in the day. And no – it is not clear if you have game Howland plays you as a freshman. You can look up RW – who was also bottled up as a freshman when he arrived in Westwood.
Westbrook
Who was he going to play ahead of on that squad? I believe Afflalo, Farmar, LRMAM, Roll, Love, Holliday, Collison, Shipp, Gordon, Nelson, Honeycutt, Smith have all played significant minutes as freshmen. It’s well documented that Russell exploded in the summer between his freshman and sophomore season and he developed into a lead guard. The bottom line is he did get some playing time as a freshman, as is Powell.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Freshmen in Howland's System
Especially the guard/wings: Tend to be tentative, unconfident. Not given opportunities to create their own shot off the dribble drive. Examples: Westbrook, Collison, Honeycutt, Lamb, and perhaps the best example of them all Jrue Holiday (even though he gave up mid-season). Even Afflalo wasn’t given the full green light until Dijon Thompson graduated.
Howland needs to recognize talent and get the balls into the hands of the playmakers, and develop them. He needs to think of isolation/set plays that are built to each players strengths, instead of limiting their role as a freshman.
Howlands system
As much as he gets grilled over his “boring” system Howland runs pro sets. Stresses fundamentals, screening, spacing, etc. Same as 90% of coaches on the college level. If anything, he is guilty of over teaching, installing too much offense and his players are slowed by “paralysis by analysis”.
Howland doesn’t run isolation sets. He runs motion sets. Check how many times Coach K runs isolation. Or Izzo, or Boeheim, or a ton of successful guys. It’s a team game. UCLA runs an offense predicated on ball and player movement. If guys want to run dribble drive motion they likely pick Kentucky.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
by 11 Banners on Feb 10, 2012 11:49 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The system should adjust to the players you have
Say we recruited a player like Kevin Durant or Kobe Bryant to play for UCLA. Would you not run iso or feeding him the ball in the high post?
You either build your team with players that fit your system (i.e. many pro teams build a defensive core around a key offensive core – See Lakers, 76ers when Iverson was still good) or around a transition/passing PG with bigs that can run.
Howland goes and gets guys like Shabazz and Anderson. And then runs his same system. Bad coaching.
by xXaerox on Feb 10, 2012 12:02 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Not fair
When the Bruins have had elite talent the offense has worked effeciently and the defense is stellar. The problem with the last three years is the talent level across the board is down a level.
It’s not that Howland is inflexible, he is a teacher and doesn’t believe in shortcuts. He stresses defense and attention to detail. Those aren’t bad things.
If he had a singular great player like a Kobe, he’d be forced to play within a team concept. His overall talent level would allow him to succeed in any offense. It’s not like Afflalo, Love, Farmar, Collison, Westbrook, etc couldn’t prove themselves in his system. Those guys can all ball out. Howland really needs elite guard play for his system to work like it did in the FF years.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Those guys you named
Compare their play in the NBA with their play under Howland’s system.
Yes, you could say we “won games” with the offense he put in with all that talent on our team, but I would strongly argue that talent was suppressed because players were forced to adapt to his system, not vice versa.
We're agreeing
Those players were, ultimately, prepared for the next level because they were well drilled and learned the game. Their are tons of guys with ability, but the majority of the game is played below the rim and above the shoulders.
The talent wasn’t suppressed it was developed.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
I think you're giving Howland too much credit
Does Howland develop excellent fundamentals, mostly on defense – (M2M defense, floor spacing, help defense, rebounding/boxing out) – Yes
Does Howland develop a player’s offensive toolkits – I really don’t say so
Case and point:
- Russell Westbrook started in the NBA turnover prone, with a bad jumpshot, and only driving/dunking in his arsenal (he had that at UCLA). Working with the OKC staff, he is now an elite PG with a much improved A/TO ratio, much higher FG%, and most of all winning.
- Jrue Holiday was a scrub at UCLA who didn’t know what to do with Collison as the starting PG. Howland never found a role for him, and as much as I wanted to say – overrated, he’s kinda proving me it’s more on Howland that he never succeeded in our system.
- Aaron Afflalo became much more aggressive on offense since given minutes to play at Denver. He now consistently attacks the basket off the dribble drive and is drawing fowls. We always knew he was the deadly mid range jump shooter he was at UCLA… but why couldn’t Howland develop him more?
- Malcolm Lee discovered by keeping his elbow fixed, his shot was much more accurate. Why couldn’t Howland identify this?
Do all these players still ultimately need to learn how to play in a team system? Yes. But do they need to develop their skillsets individually. YES!!! Does Howland do that… limited, because he forces them into certain roles in his system, especially in their early years.
Guys do get better
The players you’re talking about have been out of the system for 3-4 years or more. It would seems they are drafted on potential they are fulfilling it. Malcolm got better each year in college too, he will work hard and I hope he develops like the others.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
But that is just it
To Howland and his own credit Jerime Anderson is playing close to his talent level. It is credit to both of them. But that level is not all PAC 12 or even a starter on many PAC 12 teams.
That said, Powell could be an NBA player. Why not play Powell more? Look CBH gambled on David Wear at 3. The ceiling there was not very high. Wear was never going to be a great 3. Why not gamble on Powell (or Moser or Calino) who have (had) higher ceilings?
by DCBruins on Feb 10, 2012 12:39 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Talent evaluation
Anderson was generally regarded as a top 5 PG coming out of high school. He didn’t develop into that type of player, it’s tricky. There are a lot of players that don’t evolve in college, they were beastly in HS and can’t adjust to playing against players with the same ability.
Moser doesn’t have the game to play the 3 in college. He doesn’t have a fluid jumper or a smooth handle. He is a tweener. His success at UNLV is due in large part to his physical maturation and match ups. Everybody laments his not playing over Dragovic, but that is over and done.
If Powell is going to play in the NBA it will have to be as a PG. He has a long way to go to become a lead guard. I saw him play a bit in the AAU circuit and he ran point, but it was open court, no defense, very hard to evaluate if he has the goods to run a structured offense as a freshman.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
And because it's so tricky
Howland should have had backup plans in place to recruit point guards behind Anderson. That goes for all the positions, but given Howland’s recruiting negligence at that one particular position for four years now, it’s the most obvious.
And the Dragovic issue is not over. The attitude that allowed Dragovic to ruin a season and this program persists.
Well...
You can recruit and offer guys as back up plans, but ultimately they choose what situation works for them. The whole situation with Dragovic was regrettable and sad.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
And we've been over that as well
He shot for the stars and struck out. Fine. No one wins ’em all. But when he neglects and fails to build relationships with backup plans, then he is negligent, and the lack of performance is entirely on him. Remember Westbrook? Backup plan. Worked out pretty well. At least back then we had someone with some foresight.
The Anderson thing
Works for his Freshman year. After that a coach has to realize his ceiling. The thing is we have only recruited one PG since Anderson and that was a JC bandaid. (Don’t get me wrong I like Jones.)
by DCBruins on Feb 10, 2012 2:47 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Best example is Coach when Alcindor showed up.
He had never played a low post offense. Then we get Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor, Jr., and he now has a low post offense. Then back to high post with Patterson as the center. Then back to low post with Walton.
I’m starting to think the game isn’t all that complicated. Figure out who your best shooters are and then get them the ball where they want it. The best guys for rebounding go underneath and rebound. And no, I’m not a candidate to replace Coach Howland.
Yeah...That John Wooden guy
was a pretty good coach. Kinda makes everyone else look bad by comparison.
Fox, that's the best example of what made Coach Wooden "Coach"
He recruited great players and was flexible enough to adjust his system to maximize the skills of those players.
He got "some playing time"
He could have gotten lot more.
I doubt AA, JF, and DC would have gotten the same PT if they came into the program today. They’d be stuck behind Anderson, Jones and Lamb. If you want to think that’s not the case … then go ahead.
He plays younger guys
When his experienced players are injured and can’t play, or he kicks them off the team. Depth is developed on a Howland team only in the most desperate of situations, like when we made our first FF run and practically every player on that team missed significant time due to injury and we were forced to play everybody.
I was thinking back to UCLA-Kansas Elite Eight from 07
If folks have a chance to rewatch that game, check out the contributions from PAA and LMR in that game. Watch their “Ben Ball” game and think whether they would have been able to get the same amount of mins in this year’s squad … while contemplating mins for Anthony Stover. My bet both PAA and LMR would have been languishing behind the Wear Twins.
I am not sure on the specifics
I think Powell’s problem is he is seemingly only allowed to take two shots, dunk/lay up or a three. I wish he was allowed to create more. On this team only Jones creates his own shot by beating his man. Everyone else gets their points in the offense. Don’t get me wrong that is good generally. But if Howland is looking for the next AA it is not his current choice Jones but rather could be Powell.
Right now Powell is the best man to man wing defender. I really think Powell should play more now for Anderson, our worse defensive wing. Note, I am not saying Anderson should not play but rather he should play less. I think the loss on offense is more than made up by the gain on D. And maybe Powell starts playing at the next level on offense and starts looking for other shots.
by DCBruins on Feb 10, 2012 12:10 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
You would think since Howland so desperately wants to play M2M
He’d have Powell in there all the time. He’d at least take away the massive perimeter liabilities of an Anderson, or sometimes Zeek, or all the time David Wear.
Yep and if wants to play Anderson
And sacrifice Defense for offense now, then you would think he would play more zone. This is a place where he loses me.
by DCBruins on Feb 10, 2012 12:28 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
It is kind of amusing to me
Jerime keeps blowing easy layups – he keeps playing.
Jones keeps doing his Kobe impression – he keeps playing.
Powell comes in and puts up one hurried shot – get back to the bench son!
Powell
Watch Powell play defense and you’ll find that he’s a decent on ball defender but not great. He’s more comfortable guarding players that use their bodies to create space. He’s struggling with getting atop screens. Sounds like the majority of freshman in college to me. He will be a very good player. But he’s nothing close to Westbrook. Powell reminds me of former Bruin guard Montell Hatcher – same body type and explosiveness. Hatcher was a great catch and shoot guy.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Watch who he's competing against
And that argument falls apart. The players he’d be taking time from are far worse.
He is not Hatcher
He probably won’t be Westbrook either but those are the wrong comparisons. It is between him and Anderson.
by DCBruins on Feb 10, 2012 1:25 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I think you're right..
Everyone can see Powell’s potential, but are underestimating how much Anderson contributes to the team on both ends. At this point in their development Anderson is a better player. That’s my opinion.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Maybe he's not better than Powell
If Powell is given a legitimate chance to compete for meaningful minutes all season long. JF and AA played heavy minutes as freshmen, and they improved a good amount over the course of the season because of it. Maybe Powell shouldn’t get JF/AA minutes, but 17/game is low considering who’s in front of him and the heavy shift to the three guard set.
Let's take CBH's word for a second
He said playing Anderson over 30 minutes a game leads to diminishing returns. Yet there is Anderson playing over 30.
Something is wrong.
by DCBruins on Feb 10, 2012 2:52 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Anderson
Jerime is most consistent jump shooter we have. Jerime understands the offense and where everyone is supposed to be. He understands what his role is on defense and he’s very adroit at hitting guys cutting to the basket. Jerime is the team’s 2nd best post feeder (behind Lamb).
Powell will expand his role next season. When he plays well off the bench the team gets a huge lift. The team needs his energy off the bench.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
I just want to make the point
that I am very much enjoying the back and forth here.
You guys all have a lot of knowledge on hoops, which I lack for the most part. But what I am enjoying the discussion that is based on facts and observations, rather than “it’s my opinion and I don’t care if you ban me!”.
Carry on, fellas, carry on.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
It's pretty educational.
Makes me think that maybe there’s parts of this game that I’m not ever going to know. (Now cue the Jim Healy sound bit of Bobby Knight saying “I’ve forgotten more about this (bleep)ing game that you guys are ever gonna know.”)
Agree on Cal game and
I wonder if fatigue is an issue with the Free Throw problems?
by DCBruins on Feb 10, 2012 10:19 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
I was thinking that
But we shoot well from 3. I haven’t looked at a breakdown on when we take those threes, but if it’s evenly distributed throughout the game, then we shouldn’t be shooting as well as we are.
Ah Good point
I wonder if that means we are choking? Have to look into that statwise.
by DCBruins on Feb 10, 2012 11:57 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Was at the game in the student section with some of my MBA buddies...
One notable thing, their big guy Zimmermann looked like the Geico caveman to me, so I started yelling “SAVE 15% OR MORE ON CAR INSURANCE”. The undergrads in front of me had thought the same thing, and yelled out “GEICO, GEICO” everytime he touched the ball.
Last add Geico
Late in the game, Zeke was guarding a Furd player and was poked in the eye. Zeke falls to the ground. The official closest to the eye poking was blocked out of seeing the Tree player poke Zeke right square in the eye. Zeke falls to the ground and the refs really let things get out of hand and let the play continue with a player (our Zeke) writhing in pain on the floor. Ben nearly runs out to half court screaming to stop play cause Zeke looks mortally injured. By this time, the crowd is screaming for the refs’ heads for missing the call and allowing play to continue with a cardinal 5-4 advantage as Zeke is face down on the floor. Finally, the refs realize Zeke cannot play and stop the action. Now the crowd goes full on lynch mob and is calling for the heads of the refs. They missed an obvious foul and then let play proceed. Two bad calls—the 1st one (missing the eye poke) understandable and 2nd one (allowing play to continue) totally without merit.
As Zeke is helped up off the floor, the crowd continues to howl unmercifully.
And then I hear a voice yell out of the angry crowd to the refs (who by now realize they got it all wrong): “That call was so easy even a caveman could have made it.”
To whoever said that, on behalf of a grateful crowd of angry Bruins, “Thank you.”
CBH: Teach Smith how to fight for position and clear space for the entry pass!
Flat-footed and lazy will assure him of being bottled up if he recieves the ball in the post.
Anger, will assure us, he’ll run over someone and get a foul. Grow up Josh, learn the position. And pouting makes the Refs mad, causing them to call more fouls on you for it.
Turnovers: Josh won’t fight to get open, therefore lazy entry passes don’t make it in. Wow!
Realizing zone or man to man Jeremy, will stop you from trying to dribble through a crowd and lose the ball.
Powell and Stover are keys to Defense/Offensive transition, But like dad said: Howland will play the seniors" Wow!
Everytime Powell came in, we got breakaway layups. Powell will play better with time, and his reluctance to drive the lane will change too. With playing time CBH!…..Stover too….
We play like this against Cal and they will kick our butts, Again!….Coach em up Ben!
Go Bruins!
Stanford's pick and roll worked almost everytime down the stretch,
Until Stover and Wear started getting back to the slasher for a blocked shot.
Stanford got way too many PG layups in a half-court set, during the last 3 minutes.
3-gaurds actually saved our butts. But Powell didn’t play enough…Again!!!
Give Dawkins credit...
He inverted the post and allowed his bigs to attack from the corners. I believe UCLA’s defensive game plan was to make Bright a finisher. It mostly worked, save a 5 minute stretch in the 2nd half. I’m more concerned about our offense versus zone. We have terrible spacing, we don’t have a player in the hole of the zone (middle of key/free throw line extended), or attack from the baseline. I’m certain with Smith in the game Howland doesn’t want to make the double easy, but in zone they’d be more effective using Smith as the release valve guy at the free throw line and using him to pass to cutters or dive to the cup off penetration.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Problem with Smith in the middle of the zone
is that the person playing that spot needs to be a threat to hit that 10-12 foot jumper from the elbow/free throw line. That’s what draws the low defender away from the basket and creates the space for cutters. And I just don’t think that’s in Smith’s game. A Wear would be better suited for that spot.
by BillytheSid on Feb 10, 2012 12:46 PM PST up reply actions
Agree
But teams only zone us when Josh is in the game.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Lot of great commentary going back and forth.
11 banners makes some really good points as do everybody who rebutts.
So, all i’m going to say is that second half was brutal to watch. It blows me away how raw Josh Smith still is. Forget out of shape, which unbelievably he still is, but he still makes some really dumb mistakes. Sure, some of the calls where bad calls on the ref, but most were a result of poor fundamentals.
It seems our outside shooting has become better which is good. But, it looks like we still struggle to feed the post. I get that opposing teams are going to do their best to deny the post pass, but that only explains some of it. I watch us play and it seems whenever Josh Smith is in position, the ball is on the other side of the court. Then, when it gets to his side of the court, he has either moved or lost his position.
We won, and that is good. But we still look bad, and I don’t think we can beat a truly elite team Pac 12 or not.
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
+1
Agree with your analysis about Smith.
I thought coming into the year, our inside players were supposed to be our strength. The loss of Reeves, plus Smith being obese and the Wears turning out not to have much of a consistent inside presence are all disappointing in vastly different ways.
I never thought of the Wears as post players.
They are simply to thin. Which just underscores how bad things are. And why oh why is ? Wear getting time at the 5 when it should be Stover? Last year we hit our stride when CBH found a good mix of Stover and Smith.
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
We get a lot of Orlando Magic games here in Tampa
I see bits and pieces of these games when I’m channel surfing. Every time I see Dwight Howard I marvel at the guy’s muscles. Then I see our center, and I wonder if they’re of the same species. We don’t seem to have anyone on the team with the muscles of some of our opponents. Are our guys still physically immature? Or at the end of the season, does the coaching staff say “See you next November” and go do whatever they do?
Muscles are for (male) models...
Think of Kobe, MJ and especially Kareem.
And, no, I don’t believe for a second any of our coaches just say ‘have a good summer’. What college players do during the offseason says a whole lot more about them than it does about the coaches. I mean, don’t these guys know what the pros do offseason? Don’t these guys have a multitude of people telling them what they should be doing to keep in shape and honing their skills?
I’m sure role models abound. No trophies for showing up.
Sweet sixteen or better
If UCLA gets to the Big Dance they will have successfully ended their regular season and be on a roll. If that happens they will have gotten most all of the kinks out and matured. I believe, if they do that, they have a very big upside. If Josh continues to get into shape and plays tough and smart they will be a lot tougher. Then the Howland haters will have to eat crow. Go Bruins.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
