Agree with all that. I'm just not sure Fox is any better.HoopDreams said:
I think it's great that a cryptic post I made on my phone turned into an interesting debate (despite the fact I confused my point from the get go). Still better then endless having the same discussions over and over...
in terms of which game was better, you could look at it a million ways. I didn't go into deep analytics or study the time and score as it unfolded
my simple view is every year I look at stanford and think on paper that they will have a successful year, and every year they underperform, and at best are on the bubble.
Same this year. They have 1 great win in OOC that will get them in, but again they have underperformed expectations considering they have the conference POY and 2nd highest freshmen recruit. They have length, skill and shooting across their lineup, plus experience and depth.
Who couldn't win with that lineup?
Well my answer is Haase. He recruits extremely well (mostly because it's stanford) but under performs on game planning and in game coaching
How else do you explain his under performing every year?
Cal vs Stanford (2.0)
8,363 Views |
97 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by calumnus
Civil Bear said:Agree with all that. I'm just not sure Fox is any better.HoopDreams said:
I think it's great that a cryptic post I made on my phone turned into an interesting debate (despite the fact I confused my point from the get go). Still better then endless having the same discussions over and over...
in terms of which game was better, you could look at it a million ways. I didn't go into deep analytics or study the time and score as it unfolded
my simple view is every year I look at stanford and think on paper that they will have a successful year, and every year they underperform, and at best are on the bubble.
Same this year. They have 1 great win in OOC that will get them in, but again they have underperformed expectations considering they have the conference POY and 2nd highest freshmen recruit. They have length, skill and shooting across their lineup, plus experience and depth.
Who couldn't win with that lineup?
Well my answer is Haase. He recruits extremely well (mostly because it's stanford) but under performs on game planning and in game coaching
How else do you explain his under performing every year?
My response had nothing to do with any of the rest of Stanford's season. I understood the claim to be that the second game would show who the better coach was and that after the second game the conclusion based in that game was clearly Fox. I don't see that. I don't watch Stanford so I make no judgment on the job Haase has otherwise done
HoopDreams said:
I think it's great that a cryptic post I made on my phone turned into an interesting debate (despite the fact I confused my point from the get go). Still better then endless having the same discussions over and over...
in terms of which game was better, you could look at it a million ways. I didn't go into deep analytics or study the time and score as it unfolded
my simple view is every year I look at stanford and think on paper that they will have a successful year, and every year they underperform, and at best are on the bubble.
Same this year. They have 1 great win in OOC that will get them in, but again they have underperformed expectations considering they have the conference POY and 2nd highest freshmen recruit. They have length, skill and shooting across their lineup, plus experience and depth.
Who couldn't win with that lineup?
Well my answer is Haase. He recruits extremely well (mostly because it's stanford) but under performs on game planning and in game coaching
How else do you explain his under performing every year?
He is not a good coach. He is a poor communicator and motivator. His teams tend to play worse as the season goes on. He recruits well at Stanford but Is consistently a mid-level conference team (42-43) in conference. In 9 years of coaching (UAB and Stanford) he has one NCAA appearance and two trips to the NIT.
However, I am pretty sure that is what Knowlton is hoping for from Fox.
I think what mattered most in both games is that Stanford just has more talented players than Cal does. The talent differential between the two teams overwhelmed coaching as the deciding factor.HoopDreams said:
To clarify, I meant to say Fox is the better GAME coach.
(sorry for the confusion...I thought I said that in my original post)
the teams 3 days ago were the same as yesterday (actually Stanford added one of their best players for the second game)
recruiting, developing, and the things you listed did not change in 3 days
therefore what mattered is who can develop a better game plan in 3 days, and coach the team on the court for that second game
That is true, and that is a problem
Golden One said:I think what mattered most in both games is that Stanford just has more talented players than Cal does. The talent differential between the two teams overwhelmed coaching as the deciding factor.HoopDreams said:
To clarify, I meant to say Fox is the better GAME coach.
(sorry for the confusion...I thought I said that in my original post)
the teams 3 days ago were the same as yesterday (actually Stanford added one of their best players for the second game)
recruiting, developing, and the things you listed did not change in 3 days
therefore what mattered is who can develop a better game plan in 3 days, and coach the team on the court for that second game
OaktownBear said:People are far too reactive to every player performance in every game. Grant had a great week and it is like he arrived. Then he has a poor week and everyone is disappointed. Brown has a bad game and we need to find a new point guard. Then he has a good game.drizzlybear said:
Hyder played better tonight. So did Brown. Very nice to see the free throws going down (6-7?).
Fact is that until guys are consistently good starters, their games are going to be up and down. And, much of it has to do with matchups. Brown will develop and will be our solid if unspectacular PG next year. If Grant comes back, I'd expect him to be what he is, on average a solid player who has some really good days and really bad days and mostly has really normal days.
You're misreading my comment. I'm not making any broad pronouncements of my general opinion of these players. On the contrary, I'm noting that IN THIS GAME, both players did things (for the better) that were diversions from their general performance this season (with Briwn it was specific to his free throw shooting).
Don't put words in my post. I'm not up and down with any of the guys you've mentioned. I've always liked GA's solid and sneaky effective, but not great, game, whether goes 5-5 or 0-for. Conversely, so far I've been unimpressed with Hyder since Day 1 (especially relative to the high expectations expressed on this board when he wasn't eligible). It's precisely because I've been critical of him (more so and earlier than most on this board, except most of my comments were on the BI board before they moved the discussion here), that I feel some obligation to note when he plays better. And my note was specific to "this game". I'm not changing my opinion of him unless he shows consistent improvement.
Similar with Brown. I've been calling for more time for Brown all season. I'm encouraged by him, though I think there are critical aspects of PG play that he might never be good at. But he's our best option at this point and I'd like to see him get as much run as possible, especially in this misbegotten season. Again, the fact that he hit free throws tonight is remarkable for him, so I remarked on it. I didn't say it changed my view of him. Stop condescending so much.
HoopDreams said:
I think it's great that a cryptic post I made on my phone turned into an interesting debate (despite the fact I confused my point from the get go). Still better then endless having the same discussions over and over...
in terms of which game was better, you could look at it a million ways. I didn't go into deep analytics or study the time and score as it unfolded
my simple view is every year I look at stanford and think on paper that they will have a successful year, and every year they underperform, and at best are on the bubble.
Same this year. They have 1 great win in OOC that will get them in, but again they have underperformed expectations considering they have the conference POY and 2nd highest freshmen recruit. They have length, skill and shooting across their lineup, plus experience and depth.
Who couldn't win with that lineup?
Well my answer is Haase. He recruits extremely well (mostly because it's stanford) but under performs on game planning and in game coaching
How else do you explain his under performing every year?
I can't speak for other seasons, but it seems like they've had a lot of adversity to deal with this season, and yet are playing as well, or better, as any team in the conference over the past few weeks. And that's despite being without several key players. Seems like things are going pretty well for the furd right now (as much as I hate to admit that).
Golden One said:I think what mattered most in both games is that Stanford just has more talented players than Cal does. The talent differential between the two teams overwhelmed coaching as the deciding factor.HoopDreams said:
To clarify, I meant to say Fox is the better GAME coach.
(sorry for the confusion...I thought I said that in my original post)
the teams 3 days ago were the same as yesterday (actually Stanford added one of their best players for the second game)
recruiting, developing, and the things you listed did not change in 3 days
therefore what mattered is who can develop a better game plan in 3 days, and coach the team on the court for that second game
That's my take as well.
And that's my take as well
But I was trying to iso the game plan/game day factor only
By the way, I think coach K is a better game plan /game coach than Fox. That doesn't bode well for our rematch with Utah (although that game was farther back and we won't have to deal with altitude)
But I was trying to iso the game plan/game day factor only
By the way, I think coach K is a better game plan /game coach than Fox. That doesn't bode well for our rematch with Utah (although that game was farther back and we won't have to deal with altitude)
drizzlybear said:Golden One said:I think what mattered most in both games is that Stanford just has more talented players than Cal does. The talent differential between the two teams overwhelmed coaching as the deciding factor.HoopDreams said:
To clarify, I meant to say Fox is the better GAME coach.
(sorry for the confusion...I thought I said that in my original post)
the teams 3 days ago were the same as yesterday (actually Stanford added one of their best players for the second game)
recruiting, developing, and the things you listed did not change in 3 days
therefore what mattered is who can develop a better game plan in 3 days, and coach the team on the court for that second game
That's my take as well.
drizzlybear said:OaktownBear said:People are far too reactive to every player performance in every game. Grant had a great week and it is like he arrived. Then he has a poor week and everyone is disappointed. Brown has a bad game and we need to find a new point guard. Then he has a good game.drizzlybear said:
Hyder played better tonight. So did Brown. Very nice to see the free throws going down (6-7?).
Fact is that until guys are consistently good starters, their games are going to be up and down. And, much of it has to do with matchups. Brown will develop and will be our solid if unspectacular PG next year. If Grant comes back, I'd expect him to be what he is, on average a solid player who has some really good days and really bad days and mostly has really normal days.
You're misreading my comment. I'm not making any broad pronouncements of my general opinion of these players. On the contrary, I'm noting that IN THIS GAME, both players did things (for the better) that were diversions from their general performance this season (with Briwn it was specific to his free throw shooting).
Don't put words in my post. I'm not up and down with any of the guys you've mentioned. I've always liked GA's solid and sneaky effective, but not great, game, whether goes 5-5 or 0-for. Conversely, so far I've been unimpressed with Hyder since Day 1 (especially relative to the high expectations expressed on this board when he wasn't eligible). It's precisely because I've been critical of him (more so and earlier than most on this board, except most of my comments were on the BI board before they moved the discussion here), that I feel some obligation to note when he plays better. And my note was specific to "this game". I'm not changing my opinion of him unless he shows consistent improvement.
Similar with Brown. I've been calling for more time for Brown all season. I'm encouraged by him, though I think there are critical aspects of PG play that he might never be good at. But he's our best option at this point and I'd like to see him get as much run as possible, especially in this misbegotten season. Again, the fact that he hit free throws tonight is remarkable for him, so I remarked on it. I didn't say it changed my view of him. Stop condescending so much.
I'm sorry. It was not my intent to say you were doing that. That was why I quoted you and then addressed people generally. I quoted you because of your point that Brown had bounced back after a tough game. I agree and that demonstrated that last week's commentary on this board was overreacting
Thank you for that. Sorry I got touchy about it.
I would say both coaches are mediocre for P5 level. That means I hope Haase has a long tenure at Furd. Haase has had more time at the Farm than Fox and I feel he had less of a mess to dig out of, but I think comparisons between the two are valid for many reasons (rivalry, proximity, recruiting, academics,etc).calumnus said:HoopDreams said:
I think it's great that a cryptic post I made on my phone turned into an interesting debate (despite the fact I confused my point from the get go). Still better then endless having the same discussions over and over...
in terms of which game was better, you could look at it a million ways. I didn't go into deep analytics or study the time and score as it unfolded
my simple view is every year I look at stanford and think on paper that they will have a successful year, and every year they underperform, and at best are on the bubble.
Same this year. They have 1 great win in OOC that will get them in, but again they have underperformed expectations considering they have the conference POY and 2nd highest freshmen recruit. They have length, skill and shooting across their lineup, plus experience and depth.
Who couldn't win with that lineup?
Well my answer is Haase. He recruits extremely well (mostly because it's stanford) but under performs on game planning and in game coaching
How else do you explain his under performing every year?
He is not a good coach. He is a poor communicator and motivator. His teams tend to play worse as the season goes on. He recruits well at Stanford but Is consistently a mid-level conference team (42-43) in conference. In 9 years of coaching (UAB and Stanford) he has one NCAA appearance and two trips to the NIT.
However, I am pretty sure that is what Knowlton is hoping for from Fox.
Fox is the coach, so argueably knows better than I do, but I don't exactly think Da Silva is the second coming of Carl Malone. My impression from watching parts of a few games is:NathanAllen said:Fox spoke a bit about this in the post-game presser. Essentially said until the roster gets bigger, there's not much they can do and they need to be almost perfect in effort and execution to compete. Also mentioned that the team was better on defense last year with the same guys, so it doesn't necessarily take more size on the roster.Big C said:OaktownBear said:HoopDreams said:
i said we will see who the better coach is since they just played each other
Fox > Haase
Sigh
Hey, 76-70... we were competitive!
Kidding, obviously. Lately, I'm seeing a team that is getting killed by other teams' length. Some teams can compensate for that in other areas, but we cannot, as we have no other areas in which we excel.
He mentioned this a bit, but Cal doesn't have someone that can matchup with the stretch-forwards many other Pac-12 teams have. Fox did say Kelly, Thorpe, and Thiemann don't have the speed to match players like Da Silva and Anticevich and Kuany don't have the size to match guys like Da Silva.
- Da Silva is a polished player: has a good inside and midrange game, and good footwork.
- He's not a three-point threat - rarely shoots it. So, is he really a "stretch-forward"?
- Average strength and quickness - not an astonishing physical specimen
Fox is essentially saying that he can't teach his players to compensate for a slight (not major) physical mismatch when playing defense. That's a concern.
HearstMining said:
Fox is essentially saying that he can't teach his players to compensate for a slight (not major) physical mismatch when playing defense. That's a concern.
Curious who are the coaches with similar talent that have been able to compensate for that slight mismatch.
Joined:
Feb 26, 2019
Posts:
1,408
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Da Silva could be the P12 Player of the Year. He leads the conference in scoring and is top-five in rebounding and field goal percentage. I'm not saying he gets it, but at this point in the season, he's squarely in the running for it. He's one of the most efficient players in the conference. (Kenpom only puts Evan Mobley ahead of him in overall efficiency.)HearstMining said:Fox is the coach, so argueably knows better than I do, but I don't exactly think Da Silva is the second coming of Carl Malone. My impression from watching parts of a few games is:NathanAllen said:Fox spoke a bit about this in the post-game presser. Essentially said until the roster gets bigger, there's not much they can do and they need to be almost perfect in effort and execution to compete. Also mentioned that the team was better on defense last year with the same guys, so it doesn't necessarily take more size on the roster.Big C said:OaktownBear said:HoopDreams said:
i said we will see who the better coach is since they just played each other
Fox > Haase
Sigh
Hey, 76-70... we were competitive!
Kidding, obviously. Lately, I'm seeing a team that is getting killed by other teams' length. Some teams can compensate for that in other areas, but we cannot, as we have no other areas in which we excel.
He mentioned this a bit, but Cal doesn't have someone that can matchup with the stretch-forwards many other Pac-12 teams have. Fox did say Kelly, Thorpe, and Thiemann don't have the speed to match players like Da Silva and Anticevich and Kuany don't have the size to match guys like Da Silva.
- Da Silva is a polished player: has a good inside and midrange game, and good footwork.
- He's not a three-point threat - rarely shoots it. So, is he really a "stretch-forward"?
- Average strength and quickness - not an astonishing physical specimen
Fox is essentially saying that he can't teach his players to compensate for a slight (not major) physical mismatch when playing defense. That's a concern.
I think you're misinterpreting what Fox said and over-simplifying it, but that's my fault for paraphrasing him and not putting his entire quote in the post.
Here's what he actually said from our recap on the game:
"We have no one that matches up with him on our roster," Fox said. "He's long and he's quick and I think he uses his quickness and speed really more so when I think he played more as a power player."
Fox said Da Silva is too fast for Cal's traditional post players in Andre Kelly, Lars Thiemann and D.J. Thorpe and too big for Grant Anticevich and Kuany Kuany.
"We made an attempt to take him off his spot a bit, maybe take away some angles," Fox continued. "But we really didn't do a good job."
I'll let you interpret that how you like, but wanted to make sure you have the entire quote I was referring to instead of just my commentary.
As for the "stretch-four," Da Silva is shooting 33.3% on 36 three-point attempts this year. Not a huge amount, but enough to keep a defense honest. He took more attempts than anyone else for Stanford in the second game between Stanford and Cal. But he also can stretch the defense by facing up his defender and driving around him. He did this quite a bit in the first game in Berkeley. It wasn't always pretty, but he usually got around whomever Cal had defending him.
I'm not sure how you define stretch-four, but my loose definition is any player who is in the traditional power forward position but has the ability to stretch a defense or guard on the perimeter. My opinion is Da Silva does both of those things and plays more away from the hoop than a traditional post-up forward.
Thanks, Nathan, for the additional detail in Fox's quote. So, the players are just not capable of executing Fox's scheme. I'll accept his comment at face value. I don't complain about the effort on this team, except that if Kelly had made more effort get in shape during the offseason, he'd be further along now. And if, on the front line, our big guys are too slow and our fast guys are too small, I hope the plan is to get them graduated and out the door in four years because I don't see any of them with massive untapped potential. Then we can recruit some new guys and at least hope to get lucky like we have (admittedly at a different position) with Matt Bradley.
I didn't see most of the game so I don't know how much of the time Kuany was guarding Da Silva. Kuany doesn't seem to have a lot of strength but looks like he's long and quick enough. If he can't resist getting pushed around perhaps he could work on denying the ball or taking charges.
Joined:
Feb 26, 2019
Posts:
1,408
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
I took it at face value as well. It's pretty clear Cal has issues when it plays teams with long, athletic frontcourts. But a lot of teams do. There's a reason guys like Evan Mobley and Oscar da Silva are leading the league in a lot of statistical categories they're tough to defend.HearstMining said:
Thanks, Nathan, for the additional detail in Fox's quote. So, the players are just not capable of executing Fox's scheme. I'll accept his comment at face value. I don't complain about the effort on this team, except that if Kelly had made more effort get in shape during the offseason, he'd be further along now. And if, on the front line, our big guys are too slow and our fast guys are too small, I hope the plan is to get them graduated and out the door in four years because I don't see any of them with massive untapped potential. Then we can recruit some new guys and at least hope to get lucky like we have (admittedly at a different position) with Matt Bradley.
But I also think it's fair to be critical of Fox. The defense has taken a step back this year compared to last year. Teams are shooting 4.2% better for two-point shots against the Bears compared to last year with the exact same frontcourt. You could argue Cal's perimeter defense is weaker (it is), which is leading to teams getting higher-percentage shots. But Cal also has one of the lowest block rates in the country (No. 310). Sure, maybe the big guys had less time to condition and early practices were disrupted due to COVID, but at this point, there isn't a program in the country that hasn't had some sort of disruption. Cal has actually had a very smooth season in that regard.
The other thing that is fair to be critical about, as you point to, is the roster. Fox clearly knows he needs some improvement on the interior. It's unlikely Kelly grows an extra couple of inches in the off-season. Maybe Thiemann improves his agility/footwork a bit. But Cal needs some help in the frontcourt and so far, Fox hasn't been able to address that in his recruiting.
I like that he's done a good job of bringing in a bunch of guys that go from 6-5 to 6-7. Big guards and wings are good. I like the idea of Anyanwu, but he is also a bit undersized. And so far all of the bigger guys I've seen Cal tied to for this class don't look like immediate contributors. But I'm no scout. We'll see what happens in 2022 or if Fox is able to find anything in the grad transfer/transfer market at the end of this season.
Joined:
Feb 26, 2019
Posts:
1,408
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Kuany played a total of three minutes in both games against Stanford. Over the past six games since his injury, he's averaged about four minutes a game. You're right that Kuany has the length and quickness to guard a guy like Da Silva. But at this point, he doesn't seem to have Fox's trust. And from what I've watched, I don't blame Fox. There's a very clear potential role for Kuany on this roster but so far, he hasn't been able to fill it. Kuany played his best ball at the end of last season, maybe he does the same this year.stu said:
I didn't see most of the game so I don't know how much of the time Kuany was guarding Da Silva. Kuany doesn't seem to have a lot of strength but looks like he's long and quick enough. If he can't resist getting pushed around perhaps he could work on denying the ball or taking charges.
College basketball is full of examples where post players have come out of nowhere to become impact players in their junior year. If Lars could strengthen his hands he could be one of those guys. KK could potentially make that leap as well.
NathanAllen said:I took it at face value as well. It's pretty clear Cal has issues when it plays teams with long, athletic frontcourts. But a lot of teams do. There's a reason guys like Evan Mobley and Oscar da Silva are leading the league in a lot of statistical categories they're tough to defend.HearstMining said:
Thanks, Nathan, for the additional detail in Fox's quote. So, the players are just not capable of executing Fox's scheme. I'll accept his comment at face value. I don't complain about the effort on this team, except that if Kelly had made more effort get in shape during the offseason, he'd be further along now. And if, on the front line, our big guys are too slow and our fast guys are too small, I hope the plan is to get them graduated and out the door in four years because I don't see any of them with massive untapped potential. Then we can recruit some new guys and at least hope to get lucky like we have (admittedly at a different position) with Matt Bradley.
But I also think it's fair to be critical of Fox. The defense has taken a step back this year compared to last year. Teams are shooting 4.2% better for two-point shots against the Bears compared to last year with the exact same frontcourt. You could argue Cal's perimeter defense is weaker (it is), which is leading to teams getting higher-percentage shots. But Cal also has one of the lowest block rates in the country (No. 310). Sure, maybe the big guys had less time to condition and early practices were disrupted due to COVID, but at this point, there isn't a program in the country that hasn't had some sort of disruption. Cal has actually had a very smooth season in that regard.
The other thing that is fair to be critical about, as you point to, is the roster. Fox clearly knows he needs some improvement on the interior. It's unlikely Kelly grows an extra couple of inches in the off-season. Maybe Thiemann improves his agility/footwork a bit. But Cal needs some help in the frontcourt and so far, Fox hasn't been able to address that in his recruiting.
I like that he's done a good job of bringing in a bunch of guys that go from 6-5 to 6-7. Big guards and wings are good. I like the idea of Anyanwu, but he is also a bit undersized. And so far all of the bigger guys I've seen Cal tied to for this class don't look like immediate contributors. But I'm no scout. We'll see what happens in 2022 or if Fox is able to find anything in the grad transfer/transfer market at the end of this season.
Typically, international recruits commit late. right? I think it would be safe to say that Asst. Coach Harriman is scouring the international scene for a decent player that is 6-9+.
Otherwise, our best hope might be that Thiemann takes a pretty big step forward next season. (Not impossible, at all, but "how big a step" is the question.)
Big C said:
Typically, international recruits commit late. right? I think it would be safe to say that Asst. Coach Harriman is scouring the international scene for a decent player that is 6-9+.
Otherwise, our best hope might be that Thiemann takes a pretty big step forward next season. (Not impossible, at all, but "how big a step" is the question.)
It may be big but it's not likely to be quick.
Theiman has bad hands. Every time they throw him the ball, I cringe.stu said:Big C said:
Typically, international recruits commit late. right? I think it would be safe to say that Asst. Coach Harriman is scouring the international scene for a decent player that is 6-9+.
Otherwise, our best hope might be that Thiemann takes a pretty big step forward next season. (Not impossible, at all, but "how big a step" is the question.)
It may be big but it's not likely to be quick.
Go Bears!
oskidunker said:Theiman has bad hands. Every time they throw him the ball, I cringe.stu said:Big C said:
Typically, international recruits commit late. right? I think it would be safe to say that Asst. Coach Harriman is scouring the international scene for a decent player that is 6-9+.
Otherwise, our best hope might be that Thiemann takes a pretty big step forward next season. (Not impossible, at all, but "how big a step" is the question.)
It may be big but it's not likely to be quick.
He should only be thrown the ball if he is wide open under the basket for a dunk. Otherwise his job is setting picks for Bradley, rebounding and defending the basket. Koreambear said it best, think Thiemannator.
Joined:
Feb 26, 2019
Posts:
1,408
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
I'm not sure what the typical timeline is for international recruits as I've never really followed it that closely. Someone else might know.Big C said:NathanAllen said:I took it at face value as well. It's pretty clear Cal has issues when it plays teams with long, athletic frontcourts. But a lot of teams do. There's a reason guys like Evan Mobley and Oscar da Silva are leading the league in a lot of statistical categories they're tough to defend.HearstMining said:
Thanks, Nathan, for the additional detail in Fox's quote. So, the players are just not capable of executing Fox's scheme. I'll accept his comment at face value. I don't complain about the effort on this team, except that if Kelly had made more effort get in shape during the offseason, he'd be further along now. And if, on the front line, our big guys are too slow and our fast guys are too small, I hope the plan is to get them graduated and out the door in four years because I don't see any of them with massive untapped potential. Then we can recruit some new guys and at least hope to get lucky like we have (admittedly at a different position) with Matt Bradley.
But I also think it's fair to be critical of Fox. The defense has taken a step back this year compared to last year. Teams are shooting 4.2% better for two-point shots against the Bears compared to last year with the exact same frontcourt. You could argue Cal's perimeter defense is weaker (it is), which is leading to teams getting higher-percentage shots. But Cal also has one of the lowest block rates in the country (No. 310). Sure, maybe the big guys had less time to condition and early practices were disrupted due to COVID, but at this point, there isn't a program in the country that hasn't had some sort of disruption. Cal has actually had a very smooth season in that regard.
The other thing that is fair to be critical about, as you point to, is the roster. Fox clearly knows he needs some improvement on the interior. It's unlikely Kelly grows an extra couple of inches in the off-season. Maybe Thiemann improves his agility/footwork a bit. But Cal needs some help in the frontcourt and so far, Fox hasn't been able to address that in his recruiting.
I like that he's done a good job of bringing in a bunch of guys that go from 6-5 to 6-7. Big guards and wings are good. I like the idea of Anyanwu, but he is also a bit undersized. And so far all of the bigger guys I've seen Cal tied to for this class don't look like immediate contributors. But I'm no scout. We'll see what happens in 2022 or if Fox is able to find anything in the grad transfer/transfer market at the end of this season.
Typically, international recruits commit late. right? I think it would be safe to say that Asst. Coach Harriman is scouring the international scene for a decent player that is 6-9+.
Otherwise, our best hope might be that Thiemann takes a pretty big step forward next season. (Not impossible, at all, but "how big a step" is the question.)
Generally, I think you're right and forwards/centers take more time to develop/adjust to the college game than guards.
Civil Bear said:HearstMining said:
Fox is essentially saying that he can't teach his players to compensate for a slight (not major) physical mismatch when playing defense. That's a concern.
Curious who are the coaches with similar talent that have been able to compensate for that slight mismatch.
Hurley at ASU and Krystkowiak at Utah
Hurley?calumnus said:Civil Bear said:HearstMining said:
Fox is essentially saying that he can't teach his players to compensate for a slight (not major) physical mismatch when playing defense. That's a concern.
Curious who are the coaches with similar talent that have been able to compensate for that slight mismatch.
Hurley at ASU and Krystkowiak at Utah
agree on Coach K
Stanford's Jerod Haase
Why it should be hot: No program in the conference has defined mediocrity better than Stanford over Haase's tenure. The Cardinal's conference record in his first four seasons: 6-12, 11-7, 8-10 and 9-9. That's 34-38, just a tick under .500. Stanford has recruited well, but the offense is consistently erratic and the atmosphere at once-rowdy Maples Pavilion is what you would expect to find in a bookstore.
Why it's not: Because Haase has produced the best coaching job of his Stanford tenure this season, with the Cardinal contending for an NCAA berth (wins over Alabama, UCLA and Arizona) despite the prolonged absence of several starters. Also, because athletic director Bernard Muir, who hired Haase, seemingly will be inclined to give his coach the benefit of the doubt. And, finally, don't forget that Muir announced the elimination of 11 sports last summer because of budget woes. While the terms of Haase's buyout are private, the act of changing basketball coaches in the wake of a financially-driven decision on 11 sports feels politically fraught.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/02/08/pac-12-basketball-coaches-hot-seat-assessment-as-the-stretch-run-arrives-is-anyone-getting-fired-this-spring-probably-not/?utm_email=4441C516F471C589E4B10523B0&g2i_eui=wwv3%2ba39%2b0QP73BsfC%2b%2fvg%3d%3d&g2i_source=newsletter&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mercurynews.com%2f2021%2f02%2f08%2fpac-12-basketball-coaches-hot-seat-assessment-as-the-stretch-run-arrives-is-anyone-getting-fired-this-spring-probably-not%2f&utm_campaign=bang-mult-nl-pac-12-hotline-nl
Why it should be hot: No program in the conference has defined mediocrity better than Stanford over Haase's tenure. The Cardinal's conference record in his first four seasons: 6-12, 11-7, 8-10 and 9-9. That's 34-38, just a tick under .500. Stanford has recruited well, but the offense is consistently erratic and the atmosphere at once-rowdy Maples Pavilion is what you would expect to find in a bookstore.
Why it's not: Because Haase has produced the best coaching job of his Stanford tenure this season, with the Cardinal contending for an NCAA berth (wins over Alabama, UCLA and Arizona) despite the prolonged absence of several starters. Also, because athletic director Bernard Muir, who hired Haase, seemingly will be inclined to give his coach the benefit of the doubt. And, finally, don't forget that Muir announced the elimination of 11 sports last summer because of budget woes. While the terms of Haase's buyout are private, the act of changing basketball coaches in the wake of a financially-driven decision on 11 sports feels politically fraught.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/02/08/pac-12-basketball-coaches-hot-seat-assessment-as-the-stretch-run-arrives-is-anyone-getting-fired-this-spring-probably-not/?utm_email=4441C516F471C589E4B10523B0&g2i_eui=wwv3%2ba39%2b0QP73BsfC%2b%2fvg%3d%3d&g2i_source=newsletter&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mercurynews.com%2f2021%2f02%2f08%2fpac-12-basketball-coaches-hot-seat-assessment-as-the-stretch-run-arrives-is-anyone-getting-fired-this-spring-probably-not%2f&utm_campaign=bang-mult-nl-pac-12-hotline-nl
HoopDreams said:Hurley?calumnus said:Civil Bear said:HearstMining said:
Fox is essentially saying that he can't teach his players to compensate for a slight (not major) physical mismatch when playing defense. That's a concern.
Curious who are the coaches with similar talent that have been able to compensate for that slight mismatch.
Hurley at ASU and Krystkowiak at Utah
agree on Coach K
ASU has lesser talent on the front line but beat Stanford by executing a great defensive game plan.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Hammer Mercyhurst, 81-55.
by Jim McGill
Ultimate Insider Podcast E100: Stanford Wrap-up, SMU Preview
by Mike Pawlawski
From the Other Sideline: Cal vs SMU Preview
by Jim McGill
Cal Takes Down Arizona
by Cal Athletics
Cal Football Weekly Tuesday Presser
by Jim McGill