Big C said:

---

sluggo said:

---

Big C said:

---

stu said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

so I think last year's class and this year's class emphasized length

---

I'd say these guys are long for guards but not for small forwards. And some of them will be playing small forward, if not power forward.

---

I get it: positionless basketball, small ball, blah blah blah, but has it come to this, where we have two consecutive recruiting classes of "emphasizing length" and none of the guys are over 6-7?

---

It is a weird thing to worry about. Cal has three sophomores (assuming they are staying) at the 4 and 5 positions to go with two seniors. They have bodies. Now have added longer players at the wings. Of all their problems, of which there are many, size is not one of them.

---

I admit to worrying about weird things now and then... like all the times last season in which we were just ABUSED inside, playing Kelly and Anticevich as our bigs (and Kelly defends better than he used to as an underclassman).

---

Kelly is now our best player and with Anticevich they are our two highest returning scorers, so they are definitely starting even if they are not fantastic man-man defenders. I'd think they would be better in a zone, or with more help defense. They will never get quicker.

And if you think our interior defense was bad, look at our perimeter defense: our opponents shot .374 from Three, putting us at #327 in 3Pt defense nationwide! One of the very worst in the country. Part of that was Bradley and Betley who were also not great man-man defenders on the perimeter.

One of the lowest scoring teams in the country (#310) and one of the teams that gave up the highest percentage from Three. Now take away that team's best player? At least our 3pt defense should improve.

Big C said:

---

sluggo said:

---

Big C said:

---

stu said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

so I think last year's class and this year's class emphasized length

---

I'd say these guys are long for guards but not for small forwards. And some of them will be playing small forward, if not power forward.

---

I get it: positionless basketball, small ball, blah blah blah, but has it come to this, where we have two consecutive recruiting classes of "emphasizing length" and none of the guys are over 6-7?

---

It is a weird thing to worry about. Cal has three sophomores (assuming they are staying) at the 4 and 5 positions to go with two seniors. They have bodies. Now have added longer players at the wings. Of all their problems, of which there are many, size is not one of them.

---

I admit to worrying about weird things now and then... like all the times last season in which we were just ABUSED inside, playing Kelly and Anticevich as our bigs (and Kelly defends better than he used to as an underclassman).

---

Those are quality issues, not size issues. And there are tradeoffs between the skills of different players. But overall team size is not the issue and the team will be getting bigger going forward based on the younger players on the roster.

sluggo said:

---

Those are quality issues, not size issues. And there are tradeoffs between the skills of different players.

---

I can't separate the size and quality issues. I see a size issue if C and PF are Kelly and Anticevich or a quality issue if C and PF are Thiemann and Kuany. Either way we haven't recruited any big, quality interior players in the last few years.

Quote:

---

But overall team size is not the issue and the team will be getting bigger going forward based on the younger players on the roster.

---

Our guards and wings will be bigger unless we recruit some tiny 2022s. But our post players will be smaller unless we recruit some big 2022s. If we don't we might be playing only guards and wings.

HearstMining said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

It would be nice if the others were more ready to play right away, but they are actually less ready.

---

The question is assuming Kelly, Anticevich, Celestine and Brown in the starting lineup, who is the 5th starter replacing Bradley? Who is your best guess?

---

My guess is Shepherd. I think he will beat out Hyder, who would be another option. It would be geat if Kuany has improved enough to start as he has a lot more upside than the other two. Bowser looks the part but last year could not shoot.

---

You could be right but I'll be disappointed if that's the case. These grad transfers are great if it's the one player that really makes makes your team a contender for the conference championship but otherwise they just suck up playing time from your longer term prospects. I hope that Hyder improves with a summer of practice, weight training, and the knowledge that he'll actually play this upcoming season (I understand he got jerked around last year with the NCAA ruling on his transfer).

---

Grad transfers from lower level competition haven't seemed to help Cal much. Can you name any grad transfer at Cal who was great? The best one I can remember is Grant Mullins who was a big contributor to team success. If we can't get one as good as he was, I'd rather take a low ranked recruit or bank the schollie and wait 'til the next recruiting period.

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

Big C said:

---

stu said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

so I think last year's class and this year's class emphasized length

---

I'd say these guys are long for guards but not for small forwards. And some of them will be playing small forward, if not power forward.

---

I get it: positionless basketball, small ball, blah blah blah, but has it come to this, where we have two consecutive recruiting classes of "emphasizing length" and none of the guys are over 6-7?

---

It is a weird thing to worry about. Cal has three sophomores (assuming they are staying) at the 4 and 5 positions to go with two seniors. They have bodies. Now have added longer players at the wings. Of all their problems, of which there are many, size is not one of them.

---

Agreed. We have 5 players that are 6-8 or over for the 4/5 positions. Then we have 7 players that are 6-6 or 6-7 with one that plays center in HS. That is a lot of length. Size and quantity is not the issue.

The following year we will only lose Anticevich for sure.

What we are missing is shooters, scorers, playmakers.

---

And defenders. Most of all, we need better defenders. And if our coach is not up to the task of coaching offense, like many fans feel, then we need smart, unselfish players who can figure out for themselves how to play well together without him.

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

As I posted in the other thread, Anyanwu only made second team all western league. The western league my have improved since I played (mostly sat) in it, but it is not a ringing endorsement for his season. I agree that he is the strongest recruit, but I do not agree that the class is strong. I would be happy to be proved wrong.

---

Cal's class is ranked 8th in the PAC-12, but 10th in average stars. 9 PAC-12 schools have a 4 or 5 star player coming in. Fox has yet to land a single one. If you include transfers the picture is even more bleak.

The news about Anyanwu is good, not because he is dominating San Diego HS talent inside, which a lot of 6-7 athletic guys can do, but because it sounds like he is recovered from his auto accident.

With Kelly and Anticevich coming back, plus Thorpe and Lars as backups, where we really need help is at small forward, replacing Bradley. Roberson or Alajiki may be better suited to the position if they are better shooters. Rooting for all of them.

---

If you start both Kelly and Anticevich, two power forward types, one of them will always be playing out of position, and with either one of them, Cal has very little rim protection, and on offense, neither one of them can take it strong to the basket. The team really needs a true center. Lars or maybe Thorpe needs make a big leap (bad pun) forward this season. This team really needs a two guard who can shoot, and a point guard who averages more than 3 assists, or we need the two guards together to average 6-7 assists. Or a lot more snappy passing for assists from everyone, so we play more like a team. If one of the recruits is good enough to play small forward, then Celestine can be the off guard. He is the best playmaker we have in terms of knowing how and when to make an assist, but he is no point guard. Brown made some strides last season, but really needs to improve his decision making. And the whole team needs to learn to screen and how to move without the ball to get open. I will now go and tear my hair out.

SFCityBear said:

---

And the whole team needs to learn to screen and how to move without the ball to get open. I will now go and tear my hair out.

---

I tried that 50 years ago. I still have no hair and it didn't help the team.

SFCityBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

It would be nice if the others were more ready to play right away, but they are actually less ready.

---

The question is assuming Kelly, Anticevich, Celestine and Brown in the starting lineup, who is the 5th starter replacing Bradley? Who is your best guess?

---

My guess is Shepherd. I think he will beat out Hyder, who would be another option. It would be geat if Kuany has improved enough to start as he has a lot more upside than the other two. Bowser looks the part but last year could not shoot.

---

You could be right but I'll be disappointed if that's the case. These grad transfers are great if it's the one player that really makes makes your team a contender for the conference championship but otherwise they just suck up playing time from your longer term prospects. I hope that Hyder improves with a summer of practice, weight training, and the knowledge that he'll actually play this upcoming season (I understand he got jerked around last year with the NCAA ruling on his transfer).

---

Grad transfers from lower level competition haven't seemed to help Cal much. Can you name any grad transfer at Cal who was great? The best one I can remember is Grant Mullins who was a big contributor to team success. If we can't get one as good as he was, I'd rather take a low ranked recruit or bank the schollie and wait 'til the next recruiting period.

---

Nope, I sure can't name a grad transfer who had much impact. That was the point of my statement. We agree here! I'll suggest a third option, a JC transfer. Others who probably know more than I have commented that JCs are not as good a resource as they once were, but at least you won't have a four-year commitment if they don't work out. There must be the occasional guy who grows four inches during his freshman year at JC and suddenly becomes a viable candidate for major college play.

SFCityBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

It would be nice if the others were more ready to play right away, but they are actually less ready.

---

The question is assuming Kelly, Anticevich, Celestine and Brown in the starting lineup, who is the 5th starter replacing Bradley? Who is your best guess?

---

My guess is Shepherd. I think he will beat out Hyder, who would be another option. It would be geat if Kuany has improved enough to start as he has a lot more upside than the other two. Bowser looks the part but last year could not shoot.

---

You could be right but I'll be disappointed if that's the case. These grad transfers are great if it's the one player that really makes makes your team a contender for the conference championship but otherwise they just suck up playing time from your longer term prospects. I hope that Hyder improves with a summer of practice, weight training, and the knowledge that he'll actually play this upcoming season (I understand he got jerked around last year with the NCAA ruling on his transfer).

---

Grad transfers from lower level competition haven't seemed to help Cal much. Can you name any grad transfer at Cal who was great? The best one I can remember is Grant Mullins who was a big contributor to team success. If we can't get one as good as he was, I'd rather take a low ranked recruit or bank the schollie and wait 'til the next recruiting period.

---

Taking low ranked recruits that will eat up a scholarship for 4 years (unless you really think you found an overlooked player) can kill your program. A transfer is a much better bet. If you can't bring a good player in via transfer, a 1 year grad transfer at least gives you the scholarship back to recruit with the next year. The other option is to reward a walk-on with a one year scholarship. Doing so regularly can make your school a compelling option for academically oriented kids. However, it is not a good look when grad transfers get your most minutes and shots and your HS recruits barely break into the rotation.

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

It would be nice if the others were more ready to play right away, but they are actually less ready.

---

The question is assuming Kelly, Anticevich, Celestine and Brown in the starting lineup, who is the 5th starter replacing Bradley? Who is your best guess?

---

My guess is Shepherd. I think he will beat out Hyder, who would be another option. It would be geat if Kuany has improved enough to start as he has a lot more upside than the other two. Bowser looks the part but last year could not shoot.

---

You could be right but I'll be disappointed if that's the case. These grad transfers are great if it's the one player that really makes makes your team a contender for the conference championship but otherwise they just suck up playing time from your longer term prospects. I hope that Hyder improves with a summer of practice, weight training, and the knowledge that he'll actually play this upcoming season (I understand he got jerked around last year with the NCAA ruling on his transfer).

---

Grad transfers from lower level competition haven't seemed to help Cal much. Can you name any grad transfer at Cal who was great? The best one I can remember is Grant Mullins who was a big contributor to team success. If we can't get one as good as he was, I'd rather take a low ranked recruit or bank the schollie and wait 'til the next recruiting period.

---

Taking low ranked recruits that will eat up a scholarship for 4 years (unless you really think you found an overlooked player) can kill your program. A transfer is a much better bet. If you can't bring a good player in via transfer, a 1 year grad transfer at least gives you the scholarship back to recruit with the next year. The other option is to reward a walk-on with a one year scholarship. Doing so regularly can make your school a compelling option for academically oriented kids. However, it is not a good look when grad transfers get your most minutes and shots and your HS recruits barely break into the rotation.

---

As you drop below the 20 or so top rated recruits in the nation, the accuracy or predictability of success of the rankings begins to drop significantly. They might as well not even rank players below the top 50 or 60. What this means is there are more than just a handful of the players who did not make the top 100 who will turn out to be overachievers. Low ranked players don't automatically "eat up a scholarship for 4 years". Same for unranked players. Dare I mention 2016 Hawaii, a team composed of (as I remember) one 3-star, a couple of 2 stars, and several unranked players? They cleaned Cal's clock in the NCAA. Yeah, I know, Cal had two of its best players out hurt, but they still had two 5-stars, Rabb and Brown, Mathews (4 star or 3-star, depending on which service ranked him), 4-star Domingo, 3 stars Singer, Rooks, Moute a Bidias, and 2-stars Okoroh and Chauca. In fact, Cal didn't have a single player who played in that game who was not ranked. How did Hawaii find all that low ranked talent and make a team out of them that went 28-6 and beat Cal, a short-handed team, but still formidable, based on the recruit rankings of its players?

HearstMining said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

It would be nice if the others were more ready to play right away, but they are actually less ready.

---

The question is assuming Kelly, Anticevich, Celestine and Brown in the starting lineup, who is the 5th starter replacing Bradley? Who is your best guess?

---

My guess is Shepherd. I think he will beat out Hyder, who would be another option. It would be geat if Kuany has improved enough to start as he has a lot more upside than the other two. Bowser looks the part but last year could not shoot.

---

You could be right but I'll be disappointed if that's the case. These grad transfers are great if it's the one player that really makes makes your team a contender for the conference championship but otherwise they just suck up playing time from your longer term prospects. I hope that Hyder improves with a summer of practice, weight training, and the knowledge that he'll actually play this upcoming season (I understand he got jerked around last year with the NCAA ruling on his transfer).

---

Grad transfers from lower level competition haven't seemed to help Cal much. Can you name any grad transfer at Cal who was great? The best one I can remember is Grant Mullins who was a big contributor to team success. If we can't get one as good as he was, I'd rather take a low ranked recruit or bank the schollie and wait 'til the next recruiting period.

---

Nope, I sure can't name a grad transfer who had much impact. That was the point of my statement. We agree here! I'll suggest a third option, a JC transfer. Others who probably know more than I have commented that JCs are not as good a resource as they once were, but at least you won't have a four-year commitment if they don't work out. There must be the occasional guy who grows four inches during his freshman year at JC and suddenly becomes a viable candidate for major college play.

---

I think Grant Mullins would have made Cal a lot better last season. He just came to Cal too early, and missed out on the extra year the grad transfers got due to the Covid-affected season.

I usually do agree with what you write. Remember Kadeem Allen? National JC POY, transferred to Arizona, where he was an outstanding player. Years back, Dean Garrett played 2 years at CCSF, and coach Brad Duggan called up his friend Bobby Knight and talked Knight into giving Dean a scholarship. A 6-10 center, he averaged 14 points and 9 rebounds at Indiana for 2 years. Another very good JC transfer recently was Montgomery's and Cal's very own Markhuri Sanders-Frison. It is worth a shot to look at JC players. I believe Dana Altman landed a couple of good JC players in the past. Why not us?