The Outcome Reflected the Effort

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 10, 2008 4:40 PM PST Comment 25 comments

The fact that UCLA was even in the game late was evidence that we have superior talent and for the most part, are a superior team. However, having superior talent only means you're wasting it if you're not going to work and today, UCLA didn't work. While we were reaching for balls, they were diving for them. While we were waiting for rebounds, they were jumping for them. While we were jogging down court, they were running. Every point the Huskies got they deserved and every sprint Howland makes the Bruins run for this, they'll deserve it.

The most disappointing part of the game though was DC. Bad games happen and players have off days where they're just a step slow, but there is no excuse for having such a lack of effort. On at least 4 occasions, DC was jogging down court while Dentmon ran and Dentmon ended up either scoring or assisting those 4 times. DC was also caught watching what was going on and essentially leaving the Bruins to play 5 on 4. The worst of these was when Aboya and Shipp doubled on the baseline while DC stood and watched. When they got the ball out of the double and started in transition, DC started jogging down while Dentmon sprinted. Dentmon got the ball and hit the jumper. I usually give our players a lot of leeway, but DC was an embarrassment to the four letters on the front of his uniform today. He needs to apologize to his teammates for the disgusting effort he put forward today.

This is a team with a senior, redshirt junior, 3 juniors and 2 sophomores in our 8 man rotation. This isn't a young team and they're running out of excuses for these games. While teams like Kansas, Duke and Memphis keep on winning, we're blowing games like this and USC. We came into this game only 1 game up in the Pac 10 so it's not as if we're just playing out the season. These games matter and we can't keep chalking these games up to "wake up calls." We were missing Luc today and no doubt it hurt, but missing a player isn't an excuse to stop working.

Update [2008-2-11 0:30:13 by ryebreadraz]: I did a terrible job articulating my point in my final paragraph so I have deleted because the way it came across was an insult to the program Howland has rebuilt. However, the points in the preceding paragraphs still hold true.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

0 recs | Comment 25 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Reactionary and Emotional

It's almost like you've never seen a Lavin team. I'm as disappointed as everyone else by the lack of effort, but your extrapolations don't make much sense if you took in more than 1 of Lavin's regular season games. This game is what Lavin's wins looked like. His losses were a whole different level of despair.

by Tydides on Feb 10, 2008 4:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I saw plenty of Lavin

and we're a better team than the Lavin teams so it looked a bit better, but the effort wasn't any better and the same things that plagued the Lavin teams, plagued us today. When you underachieve, how badly you underachieve doesn't matter much. Either way you're failing.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 10, 2008 5:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You didn't see enough then

To say that in its entirety, this team is "no better than a Lavin team" is absurd. Your definition of underachieving is not a given either as it is a function of your arbitrary expectations. Nor is the assertion that the "degree" of underachieving doesn't matter, since that too is a matter of expectation. Lavin and KD were fired in part for their lack of achievement, but also in part because we had little reason to expect more.

I don't disagree at all with the fact that DC seemed to mail it in, which is extremely disappointing, but the things you are talking about would have been true of our big wins as well; mental toughness and all that which were on full display at Oregon. Therefore, I have to chalk this up as a reactionary take.

by Tydides on Feb 10, 2008 5:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed*

by Nestor on Feb 10, 2008 6:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I specifically mention

that TODAY'S game reminded me of the Lavin years and that right now we are underachieving. Lavin's teams got out rebounded and out hustled regularly and they were constant underachievers. I think part of this is that you're overblowing the incompetence of the Lavin teams. Until the last season, they weren't terrible. They went to sweet 16's and elite 8's. They weren't good enough to represent UCLA, but they'd love that kind of performance at Oregon or Washington. Today we lacked effort and this season have had brain lapses that decent team's have upon occasion, but great teams don't.

I also mention that we have a month left before the postseason and that we have to prove we're not going to be an underachieving squad. Top flight teams don't have so many games where the effort isn't there or have complete lack of focus. We have time to turn this around and I think we will, but we have a long ways to go to get back to where we need to be.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 10, 2008 7:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Your post

Still shows you don't have a good memory of what took place during Lavin era. If a Lavin coached team went into Seattle w/o its best defensive player and key contributor such as Roll, it would have gotten blown out by 30 pts (and it did several times during his tenure).

Please do not insult our program again by invoking comparisons to Lavin. Thanks.

by Nestor on Feb 10, 2008 7:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You obviously don't get the point

I'm trying to make. I do have a very good memory of the Lavin years and that's not the issue. I obviously didn't articulate my point well. Either way the effort today was abysmal and this isn't the first time it's happened so that is definitely something to be concerned about.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 10, 2008 8:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think

I got the gist of your point the first time. You were mostly right. However, the reference to Lavin for a Howland team is just not kosher. :)

I think we are mostly in agreement here.

by Nestor on Feb 11, 2008 6:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Lavin's teams...

1997- Only Lavin's first year and still only two years removed from a national championship (with many players left over). 3 conference losses 2 seed, Elite Eight
1998- Still a few players left from '95 (Henderson, Bailey) plus Baron Davis. 6 conference losses 6 seed, Sweet Sixteen
1999- Led by Baron Davis and a group of talented freshmen. 6 conference losses 5 seed, First Round
2000- Led by Earl Watson, Jason Kapono, and several sophomores. 8 conference losses 6 seed, Sweet Sixteen
2001- Almost everyone returns from the previous year. 4 conference losses 4 seed, Sweet Sixteen
2002- Led by Kapono, Knight, Barnes and Gadzuric. 7 conference losses 8 seed, Sweet Sixteen
2003- Total Disaster. 13 conference losses N/A

He did make it to four Sweet Sixteens and an Elite Eight, but that ONE Elite Eight was in his first year, with Harrick's players.

Of his four Sweet Sixteens, only one didn't require an upset to get there. It's a nice accomplishment, but in those three years it did not represent the quality of the team - they were merely decent.

This team still has only two conference losses, which is better than any Lavin team ever did. The loss today came after a 5 game winning streak, including two huge wins against the Arizona schools. Yes, the team did not seem to try today, but when you say "right now" you imply that the team hasn't given a full effort for several games, and that is simply not true.

Now if you meant that the effort today was similar to a Lavin team, you'd be right. But that would be a fairly meaningless point. Anytime we lose to a less talented team, the performance could be compared to one of Lavin's teams. Just about every conference loss we get will be to a less talented team, and we're bound to lose some every now and then.

Lavin should only be brought up when referring to a long-term trend. A few isolated bad games do not deserve that comparison.

by SuperBruinMan on Feb 10, 2008 9:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thank You

The way it was written implied that this team hadn't proven anything and this one loss was an example of how they were similar to Lavin's teams. This is, of course, ridiculous and untrue. Great response.

by Tydides on Feb 10, 2008 9:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I've admitted

that I did a terrible job getting my point across. Upon reading it again I completely understand why you got on my ass.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 10, 2008 9:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No Problem

I understand what you mean now. It's hard for all of us to swallow, and I don't think any of us are qualified to fully dissect this abomination anyway.

by Tydides on Feb 10, 2008 9:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Reactionary and Emotional

I agree with Tydides completely. There are some serious drama queens here! This was a talented, athletic Washington team playing with their hair on fire! This was NOT Cal-State Northridge or Northern Arizona, and we didn't lose by 50 (or was it 60?) points. Those with a more reality-based memory of the Lavin era know exactly what I'm talking about.

Disappointing? Yes. Embarrassing? Not at all.

Yes, it did appear that the Bruins were outhustled but don't forget the fact that they just weren't shooting the ball well. It seemed as if the Bruins were getting open looks but the shots just weren't falling for them today.

Having played competitive sports, I can tell you that sometimes, it's not necessarily a lack of desire--you just reach down for something extra and, for some reason, it just isn't there. Also, remember that this is just one game. I seem to recall that the 1994-95 NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP team had a very disappointing loss on the road to Oregon in which it seemed like the effort wasn't there.

The current Bruins have consistently played with passion and desire--I don't believe it's time to start questioning anyone's character.

by dibruin on Feb 10, 2008 7:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

How much of it could be

due to several players eyeing the NBA. With visions of becoming instant millionaires, is it possible to focus on the matter at hand, college game after college game?

by bluegold on Feb 10, 2008 5:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Don't forget

that DC is still coming back from the dreaded "flu-like symptoms." I know he had the good game against WSU, but really it was only a good half of a game. This kid usually plays hard all the time, I don't remember ever seeing him loaf at all against any opponent unless there is something wrong with him physically. I have never seen him get schooled like this and it seems far more likely that the slowness and general lack of effort you noticed is due to the lingering flu-like symptoms rather than a serious lack of effort.

Actually, I really didn't see a lack of effort on our part. What I did see was desperation-level effort on Washington's part, practically from the start, which was amplified to 11 when we failed to rev up our level of intensity to match. I saw a tired team, shooting poorly, and not playing intelligently. Lots of mental errors, usually signifying an emotionally drained and tired team. Think about this: Love had only 8 shot attempts all game and almost all of them were on offensive rebounds. We barely fed the post at all, against a man defense that we would normally carve up like a Thanksgiving turkey. And let's not forget that losing a player like Luc, despite his flaws, is a serious loss. We beat a better team than Washington when we knocked out WSU because Luc was not a necessity against the less athletic Cougars. We lost to an inferior team at Washington that unfortunately had the athletic talent to make Luc's absence far more noticeable.

There are things to be concerned about here, but we are still in good shape. We were in this game nearly until the end even though we were not as intense as Washington, shot about as badly as it is possible to shoot (and not just on 3-pointers; we missed several easy lay-ups, too), and had to suffer through somet ruly terrible officiating and the worst game from our starting PG since the West Virgina game last year. We still have a tough road game at USC, but we get Stanford at home and by then, hopefully, everyone will be back and healthy. I still see us winning the Pac-10 and that will get us at least a 2 seed in the west.

by ucladj89 on Feb 10, 2008 5:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Just one other small point of contention

How many times of the times you that you saw as a lack of effort on DC's part came in the second half, after recieving his technical foul? I know it does nothing to condone a lack of effort, but I do feel that being punished unjustly could have had a negative, and not neccessarily conscious effect on his attitude towards the game.

by melliott2 on Feb 10, 2008 6:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Not just on DC

For the rest of the team as well, decisions made by the referees may have had a negative impact on their mental performance. If they see DC get called for a technical they think is unfair, or if they notice an inordinate amount of perceived missed calls such an effect might occur. Something along the lines of an unconscious, "Well why should I try if this is going to happen anyway?"

by jaffa on Feb 10, 2008 8:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Rye is (mostly) right

Basically, the first 3 paragraphs. DC made no effort. His head was not in the game. His poor effort came before (6 first half turnovers) and after (his first make was with under 3 minutes left). Dentmon owned him, and the only two ways you can own Collison is if he's hurt or he's not trying. In this case, I believe it's the latter. If he was sick, however, I'll give him a small degree of benefit of the doubt.

He should apologize to his teammates, and he should probably spend the beginning of the USC game on the bench. It was disgraceful.

by BruinsRule on Feb 10, 2008 8:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Why should Collison apologize?

DC is the backbone of the is team. He wasn't the only Bruin who's game was off. The whole team looked off. I'll give Collison and the rest of the team the benefit of the doubt. They're going to have an off game. Unfortunately it was against a team we should have beat.

And It doesn't mean I'm not upset by the loss. We all know what's at stake. Every win is crucial, especially with Stanford playing so good right now. I want that number 1 seed, so losses like this hurt.

But I need to remember that these are college kids, going to UCLA, where they can't slack academically. They're on the road, coming off of a big win against WSU. They're facing a UW team that's been pretty bad, but played like they wanted it more. The entire team just looked tired to me. And factor in the ref's letting a ton of obvious fouls go UW's way, the loss was inevitable.

Rule, I'd say give Collison and the team the benefit of the doubt on this one. While it hurts, let's move on, regain our focus and beat SC.

by NickBruin on Feb 11, 2008 5:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

loss reflected lack of luc richard

our guys were diving after balls, just couldn't get it done.

by jjreicher on Feb 11, 2008 2:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I don't remember our guys diving after a ball

I remember 2 possessions in the last 10 minutes where Washington dove for balls we didn't though. The players admitted to being outhustled.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 11, 2008 3:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

all i'm saying is

i would bet that if you ask any player on that team "did you care during the game whether you won or lost?" the answer will be a resounding yes. it's not a lack of desire. it's just a bad day.

by jjreicher on Feb 11, 2008 4:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

The other thing I forgot to mention

is why didn't Howland play LMR more? With Washington killing us on the boards, you'd think LMR and Love together out there could put and end to that. I was trying to figure it out all game yelling at my TV, but LMR only played 7 minutes. I asked Dohn if he could ask Howland about it during the press conference tomorrow so hopefully he does, but it's something that was really bothering me yesterday.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 11, 2008 7:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs