I've wondered why Lars has come in for so much criticism in two years, when I heard comparatively very little criticism of Rooks and Okoroh in past seasons. I think we all can see what Lars can do, what his strong points are and what his weaknesses are. As a sophomore, Lars compares favorably to Kam Rooks and Kingsley Okoroh in their sophomore years, and both Rooks and KO did improve to where they became more serviceable centers for in their final two years. The statistics are what we might expect, but there are a few surprises.

My impression of Lars is that he has slow reflexes, slow feet, but is very fast to get back down the floor on defense, much faster than Rooks and KO were. His does not jump as high as I'd like to see, and he does not anticipate rebounds well. He does not hold onto the ball well, especially in traffic or when he gets a pass poorly thrown to him. He has not learned to block shots. Still, he has a dependable shot, that soft hook or throw shot on the move. Neither Rooks or KO ever developed a dependable shot, certainly none at all in the first two years. Lars needs to learn a jump shot. He needs to learn to make more free throws. I think he can improve his rebounding with more coaching and experience, along with improving his shot blocking. He does bother shooters in the lane with his height, but he needs to anticipate better how to bother shots, and not get caught leaving his feet so often. He is playing harder now, diving for loose balls, etc. I think he can improve offensively. He runs pick and roll well, but seldom gets a pass from the ball handler, who will usually shoot the ball himself. It will take time for ball handlers to trust him, and feed him some of the time. For that he needs to snatch that ball and hold onto it, so he doesn't lose it. For that he needs more aggressiveness, and stronger hands and forearm muscles. I'm looking forward to seeing his progress next season, after a summer of practice, which will be his first summer, as all players missed out on summer last year.


Here are their sophomore year statistics:

Minutes per game: Rooks 17, Lars 12.8, KO 10.8
FG%: KO 61%, Lars 60%, Rooks 57%
FT%: Rooks 57%, Lars 50%, KO 35%

Per 40 minutes:

Field Goals: Lars 3.4, Rooks 3.3, KO 2.4
Rebounds: Rooks 11.2, Lars 8.8, KO 7.0
Assists: Rooks 0.8, KO 0.7, Lars 0.6
Steals: Lars 0.7, KO 0.5, Rooks 0.4
Blocks: KO 3.9, Rooks 1.9, Lars 1.2
Turnovers: Rooks 1.3, KO 2.3, Lars 2.8
Personal Fouls: Lars 5.1, Rooks 6.0, KO 7.3
Points: Lars 9.3, Rooks 8.5, KO 5.5

Okoroh was a good shot blocker and rim protector. Rooks could kind of create his own shot down low. I don't know why Thiemann gets minutes except in certain match ups.

Sort of hard to interpret those stats, when each player had different schedule, teammates, coaches, etc. If they were on the same team, it may be more indicative. Basketball experience wise (i.e. how long the had been playing against similar competition), I think Rooks was ahead of Lars who was ahead of Kingsley, when they each arrived at Cal.

When I first saw Kingsley at a midnight madness type event - he could barely dribble the ball up the court at a walking pace. He definitely showed the most improvement over his Cal career.

Nice work, SFCity.

Lars definitely showed incremental improvement this season (over last). With a solid off-season, I think he can take another step forward, to where he might actually be a decent player on a decent team. I even think this might be one of our most likely paths forward. Well, that and some improvement in the Brown/Hyder PG tandem.

Regarding Rooks and Okoroh, my only disagreement would be that Rooks, to my recollection, actually did catch a lot of criticism. Anybody know what he's up to? Rooks is a very large man. I distinctly remember him standing next to Okoroh in warm-ups and being obviously taller... a good inch, despite him listed at 7-0 and KO being listed at 7-1.

concernedparent said:

---

Okoroh was a good shot blocker and rim protector. Rooks could kind of create his own shot down low. I don't know why Thiemann gets minutes except in certain match ups.

---

I don't believe either Rooks or Okoroh could do the things very well that you mentioned when they were sophomores, but did improve to where they could. over the last two years. It takes most players a couple of years before they begin to reach their potential.

Thiemann has gotten a lot of criticism for losing balls, dropping passes, all deserved, but Rooks and Okoroh dropped plenty of passes and lost balls, especially in their first two years. They both improved later, not losing the ball so much. I think Lars will continue to improve in this area, but has farther to go learning to hold on to balls than KO or Rooks did, IMO. I was particularly impressed with him last night. Cal started the ball game, interestingly enough, with nearly ever player on the floor losing the ball on an unforced error, drooping the ball, losing control of a pass, etc,, except for Lars, who made no turnovers at all in any of his minutes on the floor. He dropped no passes, lost no rebounds, played very aggressively, ran across half the court to try and save a rebound from going to Stanford. He made a sweet hook shot, and made few mistakes. He played as good as he could, based on where he is as just a sophomore, and he chose the right game to have his best game. I remain hopeful.

thx for the stats SF. very interesting.

in my recollection, all three of them did not have enough lower body strength in their earlier years. this translated to many things, including not being able to move laterally quickly, and often looking like a redwood tree about to fall over when they leaned or were off balance.

the way to beat all three is for a more mobile player would draw them out from under the basket and drive on them

they would usually trail the break by a large distance

however by their 4th year they got stronger and shot a high percentage, although only scoring 4-6 pts per game. I recall their FT shooting was in the 50s and ended their forth year about 60%

I remember neither had great hands, but I think Lars is significantly worse.

The thing that stood out to me the most was King's shot blocking. He was the most athletic of the 3 and he was a legit rim protector.

My hope for Lars is he gets stronger so will be able to defend better and finish through contact better.

He's rebounded better this year (and he makes fewer dumb fouls), but I hope with more strength and experience, can reach the 5 rebound mark by his junior or senior year.

Not sure he will ever be able to catch the ball well, but like anything can get marginally better

There is a very simple answer. Many Cal fans were hoping and expecting that Lars would be better than both Rooks and Okoroh.

Rooks and Okoroh developed into useful (and much improved) players. But they are not the target for the type of players Cal is hoping to bring in as a freshman recruit.

Who else are we missing? Kravish? Sampson? Thurman?

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Who else are we missing? Kravish? Sampson? Thurman?

---

I'd say Kravish was really a forward and he came in WAY more capable than Rooks, Okoroh, or Thiemann.

SFCityBear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

Okoroh was a good shot blocker and rim protector. Rooks could kind of create his own shot down low. I don't know why Thiemann gets minutes except in certain match ups.

---

I don't believe either Rooks or Okoroh could do the things very well that you mentioned when they were sophomores, but did improve to where they could. over the last two years. It takes most players a couple of years before they begin to reach their potential.

Thiemann has gotten a lot of criticism for losing balls, dropping passes, all deserved, but Rooks and Okoroh dropped plenty of passes and lost balls, especially in their first two years. They both improved later, not losing the ball so much. I think Lars will continue to improve in this area, but has farther to go learning to hold on to balls than KO or Rooks did, IMO. I was particularly impressed with him last night. Cal started the ball game, interestingly enough, with nearly ever player on the floor losing the ball on an unforced error, drooping the ball, losing control of a pass, etc,, except for Lars, who made no turnovers at all in any of his minutes on the floor. He dropped no passes, lost no rebounds, played very aggressively, ran across half the court to try and save a rebound from going to Stanford. He made a sweet hook shot, and made few mistakes. He played as good as he could, based on where he is as just a sophomore, and he chose the right game to have his best game. I remain hopeful.

---

Yes they could. Look at Okoroh's block numbers. Rooks had pretty good hands for a 7 footer and had a big body that couldn't be moved around. He was just slower than a work day and couldn't jump over a phone book.

Big C said:

---

Nice work, SFCity.

Lars definitely showed incremental improvement this season (over last). With a solid off-season, I think he can take another step forward, to where he might actually be a decent player on a decent team. I even think this might be one of our most likely paths forward. Well, that and some improvement in the Brown/Hyder PG tandem.

Regarding Rooks and Okoroh, my only disagreement would be that Rooks, to my recollection, actually did catch a lot of criticism. Anybody know what he's up to? Rooks is a very large man. I distinctly remember him standing next to Okoroh in warm-ups and being obviously taller... a good inch, despite him listed at 7-0 and KO being listed at 7-1.

---

Once, leaving RSF, Rooks kindly held the door open for me. As I exited past him, his utter massiveness was strikingly accentuated by the framing of the doorway. He was one giant man.

concernedparent said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

Okoroh was a good shot blocker and rim protector. Rooks could kind of create his own shot down low. I don't know why Thiemann gets minutes except in certain match ups.

---

I don't believe either Rooks or Okoroh could do the things very well that you mentioned when they were sophomores, but did improve to where they could. over the last two years. It takes most players a couple of years before they begin to reach their potential.

Thiemann has gotten a lot of criticism for losing balls, dropping passes, all deserved, but Rooks and Okoroh dropped plenty of passes and lost balls, especially in their first two years. They both improved later, not losing the ball so much. I think Lars will continue to improve in this area, but has farther to go learning to hold on to balls than KO or Rooks did, IMO. I was particularly impressed with him last night. Cal started the ball game, interestingly enough, with nearly ever player on the floor losing the ball on an unforced error, drooping the ball, losing control of a pass, etc,, except for Lars, who made no turnovers at all in any of his minutes on the floor. He dropped no passes, lost no rebounds, played very aggressively, ran across half the court to try and save a rebound from going to Stanford. He made a sweet hook shot, and made few mistakes. He played as good as he could, based on where he is as just a sophomore, and he chose the right game to have his best game. I remain hopeful.

---

Yes they could. Look at Okoroh's block numbers. Rooks had pretty good hands for a 7 footer and had a big body that couldn't be moved around. He was just slower than a work day and couldn't jump over a phone book.

---

KO was a better shot blocker than Lars, I'll give your that. As sophomores, both KO and Rooks dropped more passes and rebounds than I ever saw anyone do at Cal, up to that point. Thiemann has been a little worse at losing balls, but not much. To be fair to all three of them, they all had trouble handling poorly thrown passes, which I've seen way too many of from Cal guards over the years. And if you will notice, his turnovers are way down as this season progressed. As a frosh and soph, neither Rooks or KO could create a shot, and both had a whale of trouble trying to make a simple 2-footer with no defender nearby, let alone slam one down. Lars can already do that. I think you are remembering KO and Rooks as upperclassmen, when they got double the minutes they were getting as sophs, and had improved in most areas.

Statistically, KO was one of Cal's best shot blockers ever. He had long arms and could jump. He was coordinated and could move (he grew up playing soccer). He was just new to the game of basketball and it showed especially on offense., but he was decent defender. SF says he dropped rebounds. Not in my memory, his issue was anticipating rebounds, he did not have good instincts due to being new to the game, so often he was not in good position, but if the ball came near him he got it and secured it. He is playing professionally in Europe.

Rooks was the opposite. He is the son of an NBA player. He grew around basketball and knows the game. On offense he knew what he wanted to do if he had the ball in his hands. He just had slow feet and could not jump.

If you could take the best of Rooks and KO together, you'd have a great player.

Lars is kind of the worst of both. He is not a good athlete and he is new to the game. However, he is effective on defense and statistically more valuable than most realize. He is a 7 footer and just his presence effects the game. If we just used him like Monty used Thurman: rebound,, get put backs, protect the rim, set picks, and catch and dunk if left wide open under the basket, then he would be a big positive.

Above all, we should not be trying to force the ball into him in the post when he is defended. That makes zero sense. Zero. How anyone can call Fox a good Xs and Os coach when that goes on all season is baffling. It is not really Lars' fault, it is just dumb basketball.

Above all, we should not be trying to force the ball into him in the post when he is defended. That makes zero sense. Zero. How anyone can call Fox a good Xs and Os coach when that goes on all season is baffling. It is not really Lars' fault, it is just dumb basketball.

I think Fox hopes that with repetition his hands will get better. He is slow. He wont get faster.

oskidunker said:

---

Above all, we should not be trying to force the ball into him in the post when he is defended. That makes zero sense. Zero. How anyone can call Fox a good Xs and Os coach when that goes on all season is baffling. It is not really Lars' fault, it is just dumb basketball.

I think Fox hopes that with repetition his hands will get better. He is slow. He wont get faster.

---

You can work on that in practice once Lars has developed a good drop step, sky hook or other high percentage offensive move.

...or, with his deficiencies, why was he recruited by Cal is what should be questioned. Desperation?

puget sound cal fan said:

---

...or, with his deficiencies, why was he recruited by Cal is what should be questioned. Desperation?

---

He is seven feet tall. 7 foot tall players also have much longer arms than shorter players, and most high school recruits coming in have never played against a 7-footer. It is a real challenge to play against almost anyone that big. Young recruits are not ready to face 7 footers,and not ready for the speed of the college game. Even with his deficiencies, Lars bothers players with more talent trying to shoot in close.

So yes, it was desperation, because Fox inherited a team with no center, no seven footer, and he had a short season to recruit where probably most of the 7-footers were already committed to other schools.Fox also needed shooters, and a point guard. So if he was going to get desperate and recruit a project, it was probably better to recruit a center than it would be to take a player at a different position. Remember Cuonzo recruited Okoroh as a project. And giving Chauca a scholarship was pure desperation. There just isn't much to pick from with so little time to recruit in the first year.

"And giving Chauca a scholarship was pure desperation. "

Isn't there going to be a Hallmark Channel movie about his life?

SFCityBear said:

---

puget sound cal fan said:

---

...or, with his deficiencies, why was he recruited by Cal is what should be questioned. Desperation?

---

He is seven feet tall. 7 foot tall players also have much longer arms than shorter players, and most high school recruits coming in have never played against a 7-footer. It is a real challenge to play against almost anyone that big. Young recruits are not ready to face 7 footers,and not ready for the speed of the college game. Even with his deficiencies, Lars bothers players with more talent trying to shoot in close.

So yes, it was desperation, because Fox inherited a team with no center, no seven footer, and he had a short season to recruit where probably most of the 7-footers were already committed to other schools.Fox also needed shooters, and a point guard. So if he was going to get desperate and recruit a project, it was probably better to recruit a center than it would be to take a player at a different position. Remember Cuonzo recruited Okoroh as a project. And giving Chauca a scholarship was pure desperation. There just isn't much to pick from with so little time to recruit in the first year.

---

Thieman appears to have very short arms from what I have seen. Plays shorter than his height. Has improved but at this point in his development I don't see him even reaching Ryan Jamison performance.

SFCityBear said:

---

puget sound cal fan said:

---

...or, with his deficiencies, why was he recruited by Cal is what should be questioned. Desperation?

---

He is seven feet tall. 7 foot tall players also have much longer arms than shorter players, and most high school recruits coming in have never played against a 7-footer. It is a real challenge to play against almost anyone that big. Young recruits are not ready to face 7 footers,and not ready for the speed of the college game. Even with his deficiencies, Lars bothers players with more talent trying to shoot in close.

So yes, it was desperation, because Fox inherited a team with no center, no seven footer, and he had a short season to recruit where probably most of the 7-footers were already committed to other schools.Fox also needed shooters, and a point guard. So if he was going to get desperate and recruit a project, it was probably better to recruit a center than it would be to take a player at a different position. Remember Cuonzo recruited Okoroh as a project. And giving Chauca a scholarship was pure desperation. There just isn't much to pick from with so little time to recruit in the first year.

---

The first order of buisiness as a new coach is rerecruiting the existing players. Cuonzo did not lose anyone. Cobbs and Solomon, our starting PG and C were graduating and needed to be replaced.
Bringing in Chauca reminded me of Brandon Smith, a recruited walk-on, getting a scholarship. And yes, Okoroh was a big man project which is clearly Lars is too, but KO had better athleticism. Cuonzo also brought in Tarwater as a grad transfer from Cornell. The key is that in his first class after that, his first full cycle at Cal, he brought in two of the top 5 players in the country: Brown and Rabb.

Fox failed to retain much of the talent he inherited. Then he tried to cobble together a first class, but with a lot more scholarships to fill because he did so poorly with the first (thankfully Bradley, GA and Austin stayed). It is the next two classes that needed to move the needle. I like our players and always root for them. Celestine seems like a player. I like the guys coming in, but they are all lower ranked for a reason. I can see Fox assembling a team like he had in Georgia, athletic, low skill, tough defense, plodding tempo....

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

puget sound cal fan said:

---

...or, with his deficiencies, why was he recruited by Cal is what should be questioned. Desperation?

---

He is seven feet tall. 7 foot tall players also have much longer arms than shorter players, and most high school recruits coming in have never played against a 7-footer. It is a real challenge to play against almost anyone that big. Young recruits are not ready to face 7 footers,and not ready for the speed of the college game. Even with his deficiencies, Lars bothers players with more talent trying to shoot in close.

So yes, it was desperation, because Fox inherited a team with no center, no seven footer, and he had a short season to recruit where probably most of the 7-footers were already committed to other schools.Fox also needed shooters, and a point guard. So if he was going to get desperate and recruit a project, it was probably better to recruit a center than it would be to take a player at a different position. Remember Cuonzo recruited Okoroh as a project. And giving Chauca a scholarship was pure desperation. There just isn't much to pick from with so little time to recruit in the first year.

---

The first order of buisiness as a new coach is rerecruiting the existing players. Cuonzo did not lose anyone. Cobbs and Solomon, our starting PG and C were graduating and needed to be replaced.
Bringing in Chauca reminded me of Brandon Smith, a recruited walk-on, getting a scholarship. And yes, Okoroh was a big man project which is clearly Lars is too, but KO had better athleticism. Cuonzo also brought in Tarwater as a grad transfer from Cornell. The key is that in his first class after that, his first full cycle at Cal, he brought in two of the top 5 players in the country: Brown and Rabb.

Fox failed to retain much of the talent he inherited. Then he tried to cobble together a first class, but with a lot more scholarships to fill because he did so poorly with the first (thankfully Bradley, GA and Austin stayed). It is the next two classes that needed to move the needle. I like our players and always root for them. Celestine seems like a player. I like the guys coming in, but they are all lower ranked for a reason. I can see Fox assembling a team like he had in Georgia, athletic, low skill, tough defense, plodding tempo....

---

As you said, Martin's first class was poor. King was a legit rim protector, and incrementally got better defensively. Tarwater was what he was (I'll always remember him for game winner vs UCLA), and Chauca got ate up vs Hawaii when he finally got his shot.

Martin brought 2 five stars to Cal, and his team was loaded. He was great at installing a tough man-to-man defense and getting the players to buy into it. Great leader of men and I liked having him as coach. But he underutilized the firepower on that team. Wallace and Brown were elite slashers, Ivan was a year a way from dominating inside, but we never got him the ball, utilized him as a passer or mid-range shooter. Our two elite 3 point shooters were an after thought. We should have ran more actions through our shooters, which would have opened up our offense and made everything else work. Instead defenses just clogged the paint to stop Brown and Wallace.

Martin's recruiting was a failure even though he signed two five stars, because he swung for the fences too often on players who were not going to make it at Cal. Although to be fair, he did sign Charlie Moore, Marcus Lee, Mullins and Baker.

HoopDreams said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

puget sound cal fan said:

---

...or, with his deficiencies, why was he recruited by Cal is what should be questioned. Desperation?

---

He is seven feet tall. 7 foot tall players also have much longer arms than shorter players, and most high school recruits coming in have never played against a 7-footer. It is a real challenge to play against almost anyone that big. Young recruits are not ready to face 7 footers,and not ready for the speed of the college game. Even with his deficiencies, Lars bothers players with more talent trying to shoot in close.

So yes, it was desperation, because Fox inherited a team with no center, no seven footer, and he had a short season to recruit where probably most of the 7-footers were already committed to other schools.Fox also needed shooters, and a point guard. So if he was going to get desperate and recruit a project, it was probably better to recruit a center than it would be to take a player at a different position. Remember Cuonzo recruited Okoroh as a project. And giving Chauca a scholarship was pure desperation. There just isn't much to pick from with so little time to recruit in the first year.

---

The first order of buisiness as a new coach is rerecruiting the existing players. Cuonzo did not lose anyone. Cobbs and Solomon, our starting PG and C were graduating and needed to be replaced.
Bringing in Chauca reminded me of Brandon Smith, a recruited walk-on, getting a scholarship. And yes, Okoroh was a big man project which is clearly Lars is too, but KO had better athleticism. Cuonzo also brought in Tarwater as a grad transfer from Cornell. The key is that in his first class after that, his first full cycle at Cal, he brought in two of the top 5 players in the country: Brown and Rabb.

Fox failed to retain much of the talent he inherited. Then he tried to cobble together a first class, but with a lot more scholarships to fill because he did so poorly with the first (thankfully Bradley, GA and Austin stayed). It is the next two classes that needed to move the needle. I like our players and always root for them. Celestine seems like a player. I like the guys coming in, but they are all lower ranked for a reason. I can see Fox assembling a team like he had in Georgia, athletic, low skill, tough defense, plodding tempo....

---

As you said, Martin's first class was poor. King was a legit rim protector, and incrementally got better defensively. Tarwater was what he was (I'll always remember him for game winner vs UCLA), and Chauca got ate up vs Hawaii when he finally got his shot.

Martin brought 2 five stars to Cal, and his team was loaded. He was great at installing a tough man-to-man defense and getting the players to buy into it. Great leader of men and I liked having him as coach. But he underutilized the firepower on that team. Wallace and Brown were elite slashers, Ivan was a year a way from dominating inside, but we never got him the ball, utilized him as a passer or mid-range shooter. Our two elite 3 point shooters were an after thought. We should have ran more actions through our shooters, which would have opened up our offense and made everything else work. Instead defenses just clogged the paint to stop Brown and Wallace.

Martin's recruiting was a failure even though he signed two five stars, because he swung for the fences too often on players who were not going to make it at Cal. Although to be fair, he did sign Charlie Moore, Marcus Lee, Mullins and Baker.

---

Agree that Martin's offense was a mess. So many weapons, so little clue what to do with them. Still won a lot of games. Undefeated at home and a #4 seed... people act like that was ages ago.

"Swung for the fences too often on players who were not going to make it at Cal" I've seen this said on this board before, who were these players?

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

puget sound cal fan said:

---

...or, with his deficiencies, why was he recruited by Cal is what should be questioned. Desperation?

---

He is seven feet tall. 7 foot tall players also have much longer arms than shorter players, and most high school recruits coming in have never played against a 7-footer. It is a real challenge to play against almost anyone that big. Young recruits are not ready to face 7 footers,and not ready for the speed of the college game. Even with his deficiencies, Lars bothers players with more talent trying to shoot in close.

So yes, it was desperation, because Fox inherited a team with no center, no seven footer, and he had a short season to recruit where probably most of the 7-footers were already committed to other schools.Fox also needed shooters, and a point guard. So if he was going to get desperate and recruit a project, it was probably better to recruit a center than it would be to take a player at a different position. Remember Cuonzo recruited Okoroh as a project. And giving Chauca a scholarship was pure desperation. There just isn't much to pick from with so little time to recruit in the first year.

---

The first order of buisiness as a new coach is rerecruiting the existing players. Cuonzo did not lose anyone. Cobbs and Solomon, our starting PG and C were graduating and needed to be replaced.
Bringing in Chauca reminded me of Brandon Smith, a recruited walk-on, getting a scholarship. And yes, Okoroh was a big man project which is clearly Lars is too, but KO had better athleticism. Cuonzo also brought in Tarwater as a grad transfer from Cornell. The key is that in his first class after that, his first full cycle at Cal, he brought in two of the top 5 players in the country: Brown and Rabb.

Fox failed to retain much of the talent he inherited. Then he tried to cobble together a first class, but with a lot more scholarships to fill because he did so poorly with the first (thankfully Bradley, GA and Austin stayed). It is the next two classes that needed to move the needle. I like our players and always root for them. Celestine seems like a player. I like the guys coming in, but they are all lower ranked for a reason. I can see Fox assembling a team like he had in Georgia, athletic, low skill, tough defense, plodding tempo....

---

As you said, Martin's first class was poor. King was a legit rim protector, and incrementally got better defensively. Tarwater was what he was (I'll always remember him for game winner vs UCLA), and Chauca got ate up vs Hawaii when he finally got his shot.

Martin brought 2 five stars to Cal, and his team was loaded. He was great at installing a tough man-to-man defense and getting the players to buy into it. Great leader of men and I liked having him as coach. But he underutilized the firepower on that team. Wallace and Brown were elite slashers, Ivan was a year a way from dominating inside, but we never got him the ball, utilized him as a passer or mid-range shooter. Our two elite 3 point shooters were an after thought. We should have ran more actions through our shooters, which would have opened up our offense and made everything else work. Instead defenses just clogged the paint to stop Brown and Wallace.

Martin's recruiting was a failure even though he signed two five stars, because he swung for the fences too often on players who were not going to make it at Cal. Although to be fair, he did sign Charlie Moore, Marcus Lee, Mullins and Baker.

---

Agree that Martin's offense was a mess. So many weapons, so little clue what to do with them. Still won a lot of games. Undefeated at home and a #4 seed... people act like that was ages ago.

"Swung for the fences too often on players who were not going to make it at Cal" I've seen this said on this board before, who were these players?

---

Damion Dillard who had a suspect past (fights, etc in HS) and the shooting guard (someone else probably remembers his name) who went to another school, transferred and had a pretty good career (at a Texas school I think)

And then Coleman

But there were others

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Above all, we should not be trying to force the ball into him in the post when he is defended. That makes zero sense. Zero. How anyone can call Fox a good Xs and Os coach when that goes on all season is baffling. It is not really Lars' fault, it is just dumb basketball.

I think Fox hopes that with repetition his hands will get better. He is slow. He wont get faster.

---

You can work on that in practice once Lars has developed a good drop step, sky hook or other high percentage offensive move.

---

Not to denigrate Lars in this case, but I only know of one player who had a sky hook, and we know who that was. I've heard that Kareem offered to teach the sky hook to other players, but I don't know if anybody else ever shot it. Truely a thing of beauty.

HoopDreams said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

puget sound cal fan said:

---

...or, with his deficiencies, why was he recruited by Cal is what should be questioned. Desperation?

---

He is seven feet tall. 7 foot tall players also have much longer arms than shorter players, and most high school recruits coming in have never played against a 7-footer. It is a real challenge to play against almost anyone that big. Young recruits are not ready to face 7 footers,and not ready for the speed of the college game. Even with his deficiencies, Lars bothers players with more talent trying to shoot in close.

So yes, it was desperation, because Fox inherited a team with no center, no seven footer, and he had a short season to recruit where probably most of the 7-footers were already committed to other schools.Fox also needed shooters, and a point guard. So if he was going to get desperate and recruit a project, it was probably better to recruit a center than it would be to take a player at a different position. Remember Cuonzo recruited Okoroh as a project. And giving Chauca a scholarship was pure desperation. There just isn't much to pick from with so little time to recruit in the first year.

---

The first order of buisiness as a new coach is rerecruiting the existing players. Cuonzo did not lose anyone. Cobbs and Solomon, our starting PG and C were graduating and needed to be replaced.
Bringing in Chauca reminded me of Brandon Smith, a recruited walk-on, getting a scholarship. And yes, Okoroh was a big man project which is clearly Lars is too, but KO had better athleticism. Cuonzo also brought in Tarwater as a grad transfer from Cornell. The key is that in his first class after that, his first full cycle at Cal, he brought in two of the top 5 players in the country: Brown and Rabb.

Fox failed to retain much of the talent he inherited. Then he tried to cobble together a first class, but with a lot more scholarships to fill because he did so poorly with the first (thankfully Bradley, GA and Austin stayed). It is the next two classes that needed to move the needle. I like our players and always root for them. Celestine seems like a player. I like the guys coming in, but they are all lower ranked for a reason. I can see Fox assembling a team like he had in Georgia, athletic, low skill, tough defense, plodding tempo....

---

As you said, Martin's first class was poor. King was a legit rim protector, and incrementally got better defensively. Tarwater was what he was (I'll always remember him for game winner vs UCLA), and Chauca got ate up vs Hawaii when he finally got his shot.

Martin brought 2 five stars to Cal, and his team was loaded. He was great at installing a tough man-to-man defense and getting the players to buy into it. Great leader of men and I liked having him as coach. But he underutilized the firepower on that team. Wallace and Brown were elite slashers, Ivan was a year a way from dominating inside, but we never got him the ball, utilized him as a passer or mid-range shooter. Our two elite 3 point shooters were an after thought. We should have ran more actions through our shooters, which would have opened up our offense and made everything else work. Instead defenses just clogged the paint to stop Brown and Wallace.

Martin's recruiting was a failure even though he signed two five stars, because he swung for the fences too often on players who were not going to make it at Cal. Although to be fair, he did sign Charlie Moore, Marcus Lee, Mullins and Baker.

---

Agree that Martin's offense was a mess. So many weapons, so little clue what to do with them. Still won a lot of games. Undefeated at home and a #4 seed... people act like that was ages ago.

"Swung for the fences too often on players who were not going to make it at Cal" I've seen this said on this board before, who were these players?

---

Damion Dillard who had a suspect past (fights, etc in HS) and the shooting guard (someone else probably remembers his name) who went to another school, transferred and had a pretty good career (at a Texas school I think)

And then Coleman

But there were others

---

Our first target was Swanigan, who wanted to play with Rabb and Brown. He ended up at Purdue (and is now on the Kings), so we signed Dillard, Dillard decomitted so we added Roman Davis late.

The next year we landed Moore and had a visit from 5 star C Zach Colllins who ended up signing with Gonzaga and is now on the Trailblazers. So we later got Marcus Lee as a transfer from Kentucky. We signed Tyson Jolly who decommited and went to Baylor then SMU. We signed Coleman as a replacement.

I really can't fault the "swinging for the fences" on Brown, Rabb, Swanigan, Moore and Collins (and other 4 and 5 star guys). The issue was signing questionable second level guys Dillard and Jolly that resulted in our ending up with Davis and Coleman. That is where grad transfers are a better call. He connected on enough that I'd want him to keep swinging for the fences, but if you miss, sign a grad for one year to fill the hole and then swing for the fences again next year.

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Above all, we should not be trying to force the ball into him in the post when he is defended. That makes zero sense. Zero. How anyone can call Fox a good Xs and Os coach when that goes on all season is baffling. It is not really Lars' fault, it is just dumb basketball.

I think Fox hopes that with repetition his hands will get better. He is slow. He wont get faster.

---

You can work on that in practice once Lars has developed a good drop step, sky hook or other high percentage offensive move.

---

The greatest reason I see to hope for optimism about Lars is that I remember what Darrell Imhoff looked like in his early years and it wasn't a dominant, national championship-quality big man. I didn't see a lot of Cal's games this year but those I did it seemed Lars was behind the development curve. I saw little improvement in his reaction time, court awareness, anticipation, all factors, IMO, in his problems catching the ball or incurring fouls. His positives are a nice shooting touch and size and maybe he can yet develop but he's not coached by Pete Newell. I'm far less sanguine than I was after seeing him as a freshman.

The case for Lars' significant future improvement is two-fold:

1) sometimes it takes big men an extra year

2) he was incrementally better this past season (well, sort of) and that was over an off-season in which the possibilities to work on one's game were greatly hampered by COVID restrictions

Honestly, I'm guardedly optimistic that a New Lars may be one of our best shots at getting way out of the cellar next season (that and Joel Brown and Jarred Hyder growing into their roles).

Big C said:

---

The case for Lars' significant future improvement is two-fold:

1) sometimes it takes big men an extra year

2) he was incrementally better this past season (well, sort of) and that was over an off-season in which the possibilities to work on one's game were greatly hampered by COVID restrictions

Honestly, I'm guardedly optimistic that a New Lars may be one of our best shots at getting way out of the cellar next season (that and Joel Brown and Jarred Hyder growing into their roles).

---

Lars is better than he looks. Looking at the WS/40 our best players in order:
1. Kelly
2. Bradley
3. Thorpe
4. Lars
5. Celestine
6. Brown
7. GA
8. Foreman
9. Kuany
10. Klonaras
11. Betley
12. Hyder
13. Bowser

Two of the biggest (there were several) issues I had with Fox's coaching this year: 1) why give Betley the most minutes on the team and why have him take the most 3 point attempts? And 2) why force the ball into Lars when he is not ready to be a post up player?

Fox did eventually figure out this year that Kelly needs to start. I think playing more Kelly and Celestine, less Betley will help next year. Next year I am looking for a bigger role from Thorpe, or Anyanwu or Alajiki as the avenue for team improvement, rather than from Lars.

Next year we just need Lars to keep developing, because barring a big man recruit in the 2022 class, we will need him as our center as a senior two years from now.