ncbears said:
All I know is that the men's basketball team will win more games than the football team.
It's reporting vs. commentary, and right, the Daily Cal probably isn't going to do as much of the latter, but they have had columnists writing about "losing" and "poor coaching" et. al. To the extent that the Times column fired up influential alums, sure, but I am not a big believer in the AD responded to a specific column. And how many programs have the sustained success that a local paper is going to be up in arms anyway? What, like 10, 12?socaltownie said:I think the frustration is that we just don't see the kind of outrage that you see in other programs. Part of that is that often that outrage is voiced by media figures who "channel" fan outrage.mbBear said:BS. "Positive minded ones" are the ones who come here as fans, wanting positive results, hoping for the best, praying for a miracle. Why waste time on anything else? Because opinions here matter sooo much?Dgoldnbaer said:
All of you positive minded ones consider mediocrity a success. Sad. Same perspective as the AD.
I love the folks who think that a post here somehow translates to on court performance. Ridiculous.
You don't get to be Cal Fan of the Day because you get the biggest rip in on Fox or the program...
And I think some of this is that Cal fans, or at least many of them, have limited experience in how things are in other parts of the country. Clay is not coaching USC football, in part, because after the debacle the main lead sports columnist for the LA times called for his head (not the first time).
Now Cal is never going to have a Bill P. But it is telling that the Daily Cal has, to my recollection, never put on the front of their paper, "FIRE X NOW!". They would at many other campus papers - much less the general daily that covered Cal Sports. And part of the reason is that the DC and others know there is no real audience for that kind of fire and brimstone. There is among Trojan fans.
PS. The funny this is that when the comical DOES cover cal sports it is for things like the idiot hoops harassments story - one that was piled on by some blogger that I really do believe had a crush on the complainant. Where was the ****ing outrage of sonny's team being a joke on defense?
And that is a tragedy. Almost forgotten now are the two national titles for the University of San Francisco, led by Coach Phil Woolpert, and players like Bill Russell and KC Jones, and their 60 game consecutive game win streak, the longest in NCAA history before John Wooden' s UCLA teams set the current record.HearstMining said:USF has kind of had their brand stolen. If you'd said USF 20-30 years ago, everybody knew you meant the Dons. Now I think anybody outside the Bay Area would assume you were talking about University of South Florida.BearSD said:AFAIK, USD athletics has always used "USD" and "San Diego" interchangeably. Here's a link to a 2001 basketball team photo in which the front of the jersey says "San Diego".Chapman_is_Gone said:
What a joke... the University of San Diego has apparently rebranded and is trying to call itself "San Diego." As a San Diego native, I can honestly tell you that I have NEVER heard that school called "San Diego" by anyone local. Everyone calls it "USD."
Frankly, it bugs me, as that small (and inconsequential) Roman Catholic school in no way represents San Diego. If any school does represent San Diego, today it would probably be SDSU. Hopefully UCSD can advance far enough athletically to represent the city some day, as it is obviously a better academic school than SDSU.
For that matter, USF athletics uses "USF" and "San Francisco" interchangeably. Here's an example of that.
It's true that locals say "USD" and not "San Diego", but I wouldn't call the branding foolish because of that. There are many schools and teams that use branding that doesn't really gain traction with the general public.Chapman_is_Gone said:
Point taken. However, my main point was that nobody local calls them "San Diego." I mean NOBODY. They can call themselves whatever they want, but it makes them look foolish, IMO.
1. Bradley was a very good player for us. Because he was so talented, both players and coach tried get the ball in his hands all the time. This is both good and bad. Teams with one player trying to carry the whole team are seldom if ever successful. (ie Wilt Chamberlain). 2020 was Bradley's best year. Some of his numbers have dropped over 3 years. His 3pt percentage has dropped considerably. Last year he was injured, never fully recovered, and that affected the team. Bradley plays recklessly, trying to run faster, jump higher, hit harder, play above 100%. When players extend themselves in that way, they leave themselves open to injury. Jumping as high as they possible can, for example, can cause a player to not be aware of where or how he lands, and sometimes he lands on another player's foot or turns an ankle (or lands on his head, like Bowser) If Bradley were to remain at Cal, you don't know which Bradley you would get, the great 2020 Bradley, or the 2021 injured Bradley. If he had remained healthy last year, Cal wins more games than they did, can't you agree?concernedparent said:SFCityBear said:
We should be giving more weight to Fox's first team, 2019-2020, a team which had 14 wins, and 7 wins in conference. If you look at that roster, it sure appears to me that this year we have a better roster. We are more talented, better, deeper, and more experience... What that team had that this one does not have is basically a sophomore Matt Bradley, a senior point guard in Austin, and Kareem South.
Somehow this is a more talented and better team even though it's missing an All-Pac 12 player in Bradley, and a solid point guard who would be the best player on this year's team in Austin. They should hire you to market next year's football team too.
SFCityBear said:1. Bradley was a very good player for us. Because he was so talented, both players and coach tried get the ball in his hands all the time. This is both good and bad. Teams with one player trying to carry the whole team are seldom if ever successful. (ie Wilt Chamberlain). 2020 was Bradley's best year. Some of his numbers have dropped over 3 years. His 3pt percentage has dropped considerably. Last year he was injured, never fully recovered, and that affected the team. Bradley plays recklessly, trying to run faster, jump higher, hit harder, play above 100%. When players extend themselves in that way, they leave themselves open to injury. Jumping as high as they possible can, for example, can cause a player to not be aware of where or how he lands, and sometimes he lands on another player's foot or turns an ankle (or lands on his head, like Bowser) If Bradley were to remain at Cal, you don't know which Bradley you would get, the great 2020 Bradley, or the 2021 injured Bradley. If he had remained healthy last year, Cal wins more games than they did, can't you agree?concernedparent said:SFCityBear said:
We should be giving more weight to Fox's first team, 2019-2020, a team which had 14 wins, and 7 wins in conference. If you look at that roster, it sure appears to me that this year we have a better roster. We are more talented, better, deeper, and more experience... What that team had that this one does not have is basically a sophomore Matt Bradley, a senior point guard in Austin, and Kareem South.
Somehow this is a more talented and better team even though it's missing an All-Pac 12 player in Bradley, and a solid point guard who would be the best player on this year's team in Austin. They should hire you to market next year's football team too.
2. Austin. I never considered Austin to be a PAC12 caliber starting PG. He was very similar to Sam Singer. Both players could penetrate and finish at the rim, and neither one could make a 3. Austin could make free throws, and Singer could play very good defense. Austin did not play acceptable defense until his last few games of his last year. He would not be best player on this year's roster. Anticevich, Kelly, or maybe Brown is the best player among the veterans. Celestine might get votes. Austin might not even be the best point guard this year. We now have Brown, two years older than he was, who is much faster, and a much better defender than Austin. Brown averaged 3.1 assists, last season, Austin 2.5 in 2020. Brown's ATO ratio was 1.6, Austin 1.1. Austin can't make a 3, Brown does make threes, even if they aren't pretty. Austin can penetrate and finish or dish, Brown penetrates but needs to learn to finish, or dish. He does not anticipate the big man smothering him or the double team, and gets tied up or loses the ball.
Then there is Hyder. He has the perfect size for a PG, and has good vision and leadership. He can make the short jumper, but his threes are as bad as Austin's. He will be a better rebounder. He did not arrive on the campus until he was cleared to play, had no practice, and had to play right away. He got injured, had a procedure, and came back and got injured again, I think. Finally, there is Roberson, whom Fox is very high on, as having multiple skills and gets involved in every play. How can you say Austin would be the best player on this team, when you haven't seen the four freshmen play a single minute?
Let's look at my reasons for saying we have a better roster in 2022 than 2020, a team that won 14 games, shall we?
PG: In 2020, we had Austin, backed up by Brown, a freshman. In 2022, we have Brown, 2 years older, backed up by Hyder, Roberson, and maybe Shepherd.
SG: In 2020, we had South, backed up by Bradley moving to SG, or Klonaras (20 games, 0.7 ppg), and JHD (13 games) South's performance collapsed in the conference season. JHD plays great D, but can't shoot a lick. Klonaras is not PAC12 level. In 2022, we will probably start Shepherd, who can score and is a good passer, from what I've seen and heard, except that he can't shoot threes. Celestine can, so maybe he plays there. Foreman is a good 3 point shooter, and if they can get him open, maybe he plays there. These are good options which we did not have in 2020 when we won 14.
SF: In 2020 Bradley was the man. Gordon backed him up (9 games, 9 minutes per game). Kuany played some. So when Bradley was playing guard or taking a rest on the bench, we had almost nothing. In 2022, we have Alajiki (very athletic mystery man, who is said to be able to nail the 3), a strong athletic Anyanwu, the athletic Bowser, or Celestine, who can shoot the 3. Plus Kuany.
PF: In 2020, Anticevich made a huge leap in minutes, and in shooting percentage from 2019. Who predicted that? He was backed up by Kuany or Kelly. In 2022, Cal will have essentially the same players manning the PF spot, all two years older than they were in 2020. Kuany had much progress over the summer, apparently. Anticevich will be healthy. He needs to learn to take the ball to the rim. We have a few players who need that. Brown, Hyder, Celestine. Could we hire Cuonzo to come for a few days and give a clinic?
C: In 2020 Cal had Kelly or Lars, backed up by Thorpe. It will be the same this season, except again, all the players are two years older. Kelly is adequate, even if he does not improve. I expect some improvement from the others.
The Bench: These are players who hardly ever play in games, but due to the many injuries in basketball are essential players for the rotation players to compete against in practice. In 2020, Cal went with a 10 man rotation, with 8 players getting significant minutes. The bench players were Jules Erving, Orender, and David Serge (formerly the team manager, and I guess desperation caused Fox to give him a uniform actually he did look decent in one appearance I saw). In 2022, Cal is likely to have more than 10 in the rotation, with maybe 10 getting significant minutes. The bench will be Klonaras, Welle, and Alters. Welle is a significant improvement over 2020, because he is a forward, an option Fox did not have in 2020.
So you want me to write about Cal football? You must be kidding. I've already put everyone to sleep here, and basketball has only 5 players on the floor, and at most 20 on a team. Football has 22 on the field, and what, 100 on the team? I do need a job. The shut down is driving me nuts, but I don't want to drive the Bear Insider out of business.
Thanks for a thorough assessment SFCITYBEAR - though Austin's play in Conf was key to the Bear's improvement for the 2nd half of the season. This year's team will be better than the past 2 season's under Coach Fox - primarily due to the time(over the summer and now) the staff has had to condition/devote individual skill development focus with the majority of the players and the increased athleticism the new players bring. The increased depth greatly helps team practice, as the first team positions are pushed more and thus will be closer to simulating game experience. Celestine and Hyder are physically much closer to 100% and several players are noticeably stronger. Will be interesting to see how this team stacks up to a very good conference.
Thanks for that analysis, I hope you're correct. I don't see a lot of Pac-12 level talent other than possibly Celestine, but I haven't seen the four newcomers. I think we'll find out if experience and cohesion can make up for any talent deficit. Also FWIW we'll have only two players (Anticevich and Kelly) who were here before Fox arrived.SFCityBear said:
...
Perhaps the Conference has gotten stronger overall since 2019-2020, but honestly the roster looks so much more talented and athletic overall, that I can see no reason, other than a whole lot of key injuries, why Cal can't be as good as Fox's 2019-2020 team. Without looking at the strength of the schedule, I'd say Cal wins or exceeds 14 games overall, and has 7 wins in Conference.
4thGenCal said:SFCityBear said:1. Bradley was a very good player for us. Because he was so talented, both players and coach tried get the ball in his hands all the time. This is both good and bad. Teams with one player trying to carry the whole team are seldom if ever successful. (ie Wilt Chamberlain). 2020 was Bradley's best year. Some of his numbers have dropped over 3 years. His 3pt percentage has dropped considerably. Last year he was injured, never fully recovered, and that affected the team. Bradley plays recklessly, trying to run faster, jump higher, hit harder, play above 100%. When players extend themselves in that way, they leave themselves open to injury. Jumping as high as they possible can, for example, can cause a player to not be aware of where or how he lands, and sometimes he lands on another player's foot or turns an ankle (or lands on his head, like Bowser) If Bradley were to remain at Cal, you don't know which Bradley you would get, the great 2020 Bradley, or the 2021 injured Bradley. If he had remained healthy last year, Cal wins more games than they did, can't you agree?concernedparent said:SFCityBear said:
We should be giving more weight to Fox's first team, 2019-2020, a team which had 14 wins, and 7 wins in conference. If you look at that roster, it sure appears to me that this year we have a better roster. We are more talented, better, deeper, and more experience... What that team had that this one does not have is basically a sophomore Matt Bradley, a senior point guard in Austin, and Kareem South.
Somehow this is a more talented and better team even though it's missing an All-Pac 12 player in Bradley, and a solid point guard who would be the best player on this year's team in Austin. They should hire you to market next year's football team too.
2. Austin. I never considered Austin to be a PAC12 caliber starting PG. He was very similar to Sam Singer. Both players could penetrate and finish at the rim, and neither one could make a 3. Austin could make free throws, and Singer could play very good defense. Austin did not play acceptable defense until his last few games of his last year. He would not be best player on this year's roster. Anticevich, Kelly, or maybe Brown is the best player among the veterans. Celestine might get votes. Austin might not even be the best point guard this year. We now have Brown, two years older than he was, who is much faster, and a much better defender than Austin. Brown averaged 3.1 assists, last season, Austin 2.5 in 2020. Brown's ATO ratio was 1.6, Austin 1.1. Austin can't make a 3, Brown does make threes, even if they aren't pretty. Austin can penetrate and finish or dish, Brown penetrates but needs to learn to finish, or dish. He does not anticipate the big man smothering him or the double team, and gets tied up or loses the ball.
Then there is Hyder. He has the perfect size for a PG, and has good vision and leadership. He can make the short jumper, but his threes are as bad as Austin's. He will be a better rebounder. He did not arrive on the campus until he was cleared to play, had no practice, and had to play right away. He got injured, had a procedure, and came back and got injured again, I think. Finally, there is Roberson, whom Fox is very high on, as having multiple skills and gets involved in every play. How can you say Austin would be the best player on this team, when you haven't seen the four freshmen play a single minute?
Let's look at my reasons for saying we have a better roster in 2022 than 2020, a team that won 14 games, shall we?
PG: In 2020, we had Austin, backed up by Brown, a freshman. In 2022, we have Brown, 2 years older, backed up by Hyder, Roberson, and maybe Shepherd.
SG: In 2020, we had South, backed up by Bradley moving to SG, or Klonaras (20 games, 0.7 ppg), and JHD (13 games) South's performance collapsed in the conference season. JHD plays great D, but can't shoot a lick. Klonaras is not PAC12 level. In 2022, we will probably start Shepherd, who can score and is a good passer, from what I've seen and heard, except that he can't shoot threes. Celestine can, so maybe he plays there. Foreman is a good 3 point shooter, and if they can get him open, maybe he plays there. These are good options which we did not have in 2020 when we won 14.
SF: In 2020 Bradley was the man. Gordon backed him up (9 games, 9 minutes per game). Kuany played some. So when Bradley was playing guard or taking a rest on the bench, we had almost nothing. In 2022, we have Alajiki (very athletic mystery man, who is said to be able to nail the 3), a strong athletic Anyanwu, the athletic Bowser, or Celestine, who can shoot the 3. Plus Kuany.
PF: In 2020, Anticevich made a huge leap in minutes, and in shooting percentage from 2019. Who predicted that? He was backed up by Kuany or Kelly. In 2022, Cal will have essentially the same players manning the PF spot, all two years older than they were in 2020. Kuany had much progress over the summer, apparently. Anticevich will be healthy. He needs to learn to take the ball to the rim. We have a few players who need that. Brown, Hyder, Celestine. Could we hire Cuonzo to come for a few days and give a clinic?
C: In 2020 Cal had Kelly or Lars, backed up by Thorpe. It will be the same this season, except again, all the players are two years older. Kelly is adequate, even if he does not improve. I expect some improvement from the others.
The Bench: These are players who hardly ever play in games, but due to the many injuries in basketball are essential players for the rotation players to compete against in practice. In 2020, Cal went with a 10 man rotation, with 8 players getting significant minutes. The bench players were Jules Erving, Orender, and David Serge (formerly the team manager, and I guess desperation caused Fox to give him a uniform actually he did look decent in one appearance I saw). In 2022, Cal is likely to have more than 10 in the rotation, with maybe 10 getting significant minutes. The bench will be Klonaras, Welle, and Alters. Welle is a significant improvement over 2020, because he is a forward, an option Fox did not have in 2020.
So you want me to write about Cal football? You must be kidding. I've already put everyone to sleep here, and basketball has only 5 players on the floor, and at most 20 on a team. Football has 22 on the field, and what, 100 on the team? I do need a job. The shut down is driving me nuts, but I don't want to drive the Bear Insider out of business.
Thanks for a thorough assessment SFCITYBEAR - though Austin's play in Conf was key to the Bear's improvement for the 2nd half of the season. This year's team will be better than the past 2 season's under Coach Fox - primarily due to the time(over the summer and now) the staff has had to condition/devote individual skill development focus with the majority of the players and the increased athleticism the new players bring. The increased depth greatly helps team practice, as the first team positions are pushed more and thus will be closer to simulating game experience. Celestine and Hyder are physically much closer to 100% and several players are noticeably stronger. Will be interesting to see how this team stacks up to a very good conference.
I wasn't asked but I'll offer an opinion anyway ...calumnus said:
SF and 4th Gen, what is your guess as to the starting 5 and main rotation? Fox has pretty much stuck with a 7 man rotation both years, who is your guess would be those 7? Or do you think Fox will play a deeper rotation this year?
4thGenCal said:SFCityBear said:1. Bradley was a very good player for us. Because he was so talented, both players and coach tried get the ball in his hands all the time. This is both good and bad. Teams with one player trying to carry the whole team are seldom if ever successful. (ie Wilt Chamberlain). 2020 was Bradley's best year. Some of his numbers have dropped over 3 years. His 3pt percentage has dropped considerably. Last year he was injured, never fully recovered, and that affected the team. Bradley plays recklessly, trying to run faster, jump higher, hit harder, play above 100%. When players extend themselves in that way, they leave themselves open to injury. Jumping as high as they possible can, for example, can cause a player to not be aware of where or how he lands, and sometimes he lands on another player's foot or turns an ankle (or lands on his head, like Bowser) If Bradley were to remain at Cal, you don't know which Bradley you would get, the great 2020 Bradley, or the 2021 injured Bradley. If he had remained healthy last year, Cal wins more games than they did, can't you agree?concernedparent said:SFCityBear said:
We should be giving more weight to Fox's first team, 2019-2020, a team which had 14 wins, and 7 wins in conference. If you look at that roster, it sure appears to me that this year we have a better roster. We are more talented, better, deeper, and more experience... What that team had that this one does not have is basically a sophomore Matt Bradley, a senior point guard in Austin, and Kareem South.
Somehow this is a more talented and better team even though it's missing an All-Pac 12 player in Bradley, and a solid point guard who would be the best player on this year's team in Austin. They should hire you to market next year's football team too.
2. Austin. I never considered Austin to be a PAC12 caliber starting PG. He was very similar to Sam Singer. Both players could penetrate and finish at the rim, and neither one could make a 3. Austin could make free throws, and Singer could play very good defense. Austin did not play acceptable defense until his last few games of his last year. He would not be best player on this year's roster. Anticevich, Kelly, or maybe Brown is the best player among the veterans. Celestine might get votes. Austin might not even be the best point guard this year. We now have Brown, two years older than he was, who is much faster, and a much better defender than Austin. Brown averaged 3.1 assists, last season, Austin 2.5 in 2020. Brown's ATO ratio was 1.6, Austin 1.1. Austin can't make a 3, Brown does make threes, even if they aren't pretty. Austin can penetrate and finish or dish, Brown penetrates but needs to learn to finish, or dish. He does not anticipate the big man smothering him or the double team, and gets tied up or loses the ball.
Then there is Hyder. He has the perfect size for a PG, and has good vision and leadership. He can make the short jumper, but his threes are as bad as Austin's. He will be a better rebounder. He did not arrive on the campus until he was cleared to play, had no practice, and had to play right away. He got injured, had a procedure, and came back and got injured again, I think. Finally, there is Roberson, whom Fox is very high on, as having multiple skills and gets involved in every play. How can you say Austin would be the best player on this team, when you haven't seen the four freshmen play a single minute?
Let's look at my reasons for saying we have a better roster in 2022 than 2020, a team that won 14 games, shall we?
PG: In 2020, we had Austin, backed up by Brown, a freshman. In 2022, we have Brown, 2 years older, backed up by Hyder, Roberson, and maybe Shepherd.
SG: In 2020, we had South, backed up by Bradley moving to SG, or Klonaras (20 games, 0.7 ppg), and JHD (13 games) South's performance collapsed in the conference season. JHD plays great D, but can't shoot a lick. Klonaras is not PAC12 level. In 2022, we will probably start Shepherd, who can score and is a good passer, from what I've seen and heard, except that he can't shoot threes. Celestine can, so maybe he plays there. Foreman is a good 3 point shooter, and if they can get him open, maybe he plays there. These are good options which we did not have in 2020 when we won 14.
SF: In 2020 Bradley was the man. Gordon backed him up (9 games, 9 minutes per game). Kuany played some. So when Bradley was playing guard or taking a rest on the bench, we had almost nothing. In 2022, we have Alajiki (very athletic mystery man, who is said to be able to nail the 3), a strong athletic Anyanwu, the athletic Bowser, or Celestine, who can shoot the 3. Plus Kuany.
PF: In 2020, Anticevich made a huge leap in minutes, and in shooting percentage from 2019. Who predicted that? He was backed up by Kuany or Kelly. In 2022, Cal will have essentially the same players manning the PF spot, all two years older than they were in 2020. Kuany had much progress over the summer, apparently. Anticevich will be healthy. He needs to learn to take the ball to the rim. We have a few players who need that. Brown, Hyder, Celestine. Could we hire Cuonzo to come for a few days and give a clinic?
C: In 2020 Cal had Kelly or Lars, backed up by Thorpe. It will be the same this season, except again, all the players are two years older. Kelly is adequate, even if he does not improve. I expect some improvement from the others.
The Bench: These are players who hardly ever play in games, but due to the many injuries in basketball are essential players for the rotation players to compete against in practice. In 2020, Cal went with a 10 man rotation, with 8 players getting significant minutes. The bench players were Jules Erving, Orender, and David Serge (formerly the team manager, and I guess desperation caused Fox to give him a uniform actually he did look decent in one appearance I saw). In 2022, Cal is likely to have more than 10 in the rotation, with maybe 10 getting significant minutes. The bench will be Klonaras, Welle, and Alters. Welle is a significant improvement over 2020, because he is a forward, an option Fox did not have in 2020.
So you want me to write about Cal football? You must be kidding. I've already put everyone to sleep here, and basketball has only 5 players on the floor, and at most 20 on a team. Football has 22 on the field, and what, 100 on the team? I do need a job. The shut down is driving me nuts, but I don't want to drive the Bear Insider out of business.
Thanks for a thorough assessment SFCITYBEAR - though Austin's play in Conf was key to the Bear's improvement for the 2nd half of the season. This year's team will be better than the past 2 season's under Coach Fox - primarily due to the time(over the summer and now) the staff has had to condition/devote individual skill development focus with the majority of the players and the increased athleticism the new players bring. The increased depth greatly helps team practice, as the first team positions are pushed more and thus will be closer to simulating game experience. Celestine and Hyder are physically much closer to 100% and several players are noticeably stronger. Will be interesting to see how this team stacks up to a very good conference.
Dyson did not play in 2020
Definitely will play 10 guys+- in preseason to allow for competition and to see which units/combinations are the most effective. Assuming health/injury free (big if with Hyder's foot) expect to see the conference play have Brown, Shepard, Celestine, Grant, Kelly play the majority minutes. Foreman, Thielman Kuany, Hyder, Roberson likely 10-17 min range. With Bowser, Thorpe behind the first guys off the bench.Other 2 freshman are athletic, but likely will not see much conf play due to inexperience and awareness of defensive responsibilities. So deeper rotation very likely, to keep guys fresh and also because the 2nd unit is fairly solid without a noticeable drop off. My guess is that once conf play starts Fox will have his 9 man rotation in place.calumnus said:4thGenCal said:SFCityBear said:1. Bradley was a very good player for us. Because he was so talented, both players and coach tried get the ball in his hands all the time. This is both good and bad. Teams with one player trying to carry the whole team are seldom if ever successful. (ie Wilt Chamberlain). 2020 was Bradley's best year. Some of his numbers have dropped over 3 years. His 3pt percentage has dropped considerably. Last year he was injured, never fully recovered, and that affected the team. Bradley plays recklessly, trying to run faster, jump higher, hit harder, play above 100%. When players extend themselves in that way, they leave themselves open to injury. Jumping as high as they possible can, for example, can cause a player to not be aware of where or how he lands, and sometimes he lands on another player's foot or turns an ankle (or lands on his head, like Bowser) If Bradley were to remain at Cal, you don't know which Bradley you would get, the great 2020 Bradley, or the 2021 injured Bradley. If he had remained healthy last year, Cal wins more games than they did, can't you agree?concernedparent said:SFCityBear said:
We should be giving more weight to Fox's first team, 2019-2020, a team which had 14 wins, and 7 wins in conference. If you look at that roster, it sure appears to me that this year we have a better roster. We are more talented, better, deeper, and more experience... What that team had that this one does not have is basically a sophomore Matt Bradley, a senior point guard in Austin, and Kareem South.
Somehow this is a more talented and better team even though it's missing an All-Pac 12 player in Bradley, and a solid point guard who would be the best player on this year's team in Austin. They should hire you to market next year's football team too.
2. Austin. I never considered Austin to be a PAC12 caliber starting PG. He was very similar to Sam Singer. Both players could penetrate and finish at the rim, and neither one could make a 3. Austin could make free throws, and Singer could play very good defense. Austin did not play acceptable defense until his last few games of his last year. He would not be best player on this year's roster. Anticevich, Kelly, or maybe Brown is the best player among the veterans. Celestine might get votes. Austin might not even be the best point guard this year. We now have Brown, two years older than he was, who is much faster, and a much better defender than Austin. Brown averaged 3.1 assists, last season, Austin 2.5 in 2020. Brown's ATO ratio was 1.6, Austin 1.1. Austin can't make a 3, Brown does make threes, even if they aren't pretty. Austin can penetrate and finish or dish, Brown penetrates but needs to learn to finish, or dish. He does not anticipate the big man smothering him or the double team, and gets tied up or loses the ball.
Then there is Hyder. He has the perfect size for a PG, and has good vision and leadership. He can make the short jumper, but his threes are as bad as Austin's. He will be a better rebounder. He did not arrive on the campus until he was cleared to play, had no practice, and had to play right away. He got injured, had a procedure, and came back and got injured again, I think. Finally, there is Roberson, whom Fox is very high on, as having multiple skills and gets involved in every play. How can you say Austin would be the best player on this team, when you haven't seen the four freshmen play a single minute?
Let's look at my reasons for saying we have a better roster in 2022 than 2020, a team that won 14 games, shall we?
PG: In 2020, we had Austin, backed up by Brown, a freshman. In 2022, we have Brown, 2 years older, backed up by Hyder, Roberson, and maybe Shepherd.
SG: In 2020, we had South, backed up by Bradley moving to SG, or Klonaras (20 games, 0.7 ppg), and JHD (13 games) South's performance collapsed in the conference season. JHD plays great D, but can't shoot a lick. Klonaras is not PAC12 level. In 2022, we will probably start Shepherd, who can score and is a good passer, from what I've seen and heard, except that he can't shoot threes. Celestine can, so maybe he plays there. Foreman is a good 3 point shooter, and if they can get him open, maybe he plays there. These are good options which we did not have in 2020 when we won 14.
SF: In 2020 Bradley was the man. Gordon backed him up (9 games, 9 minutes per game). Kuany played some. So when Bradley was playing guard or taking a rest on the bench, we had almost nothing. In 2022, we have Alajiki (very athletic mystery man, who is said to be able to nail the 3), a strong athletic Anyanwu, the athletic Bowser, or Celestine, who can shoot the 3. Plus Kuany.
PF: In 2020, Anticevich made a huge leap in minutes, and in shooting percentage from 2019. Who predicted that? He was backed up by Kuany or Kelly. In 2022, Cal will have essentially the same players manning the PF spot, all two years older than they were in 2020. Kuany had much progress over the summer, apparently. Anticevich will be healthy. He needs to learn to take the ball to the rim. We have a few players who need that. Brown, Hyder, Celestine. Could we hire Cuonzo to come for a few days and give a clinic?
C: In 2020 Cal had Kelly or Lars, backed up by Thorpe. It will be the same this season, except again, all the players are two years older. Kelly is adequate, even if he does not improve. I expect some improvement from the others.
The Bench: These are players who hardly ever play in games, but due to the many injuries in basketball are essential players for the rotation players to compete against in practice. In 2020, Cal went with a 10 man rotation, with 8 players getting significant minutes. The bench players were Jules Erving, Orender, and David Serge (formerly the team manager, and I guess desperation caused Fox to give him a uniform actually he did look decent in one appearance I saw). In 2022, Cal is likely to have more than 10 in the rotation, with maybe 10 getting significant minutes. The bench will be Klonaras, Welle, and Alters. Welle is a significant improvement over 2020, because he is a forward, an option Fox did not have in 2020.
So you want me to write about Cal football? You must be kidding. I've already put everyone to sleep here, and basketball has only 5 players on the floor, and at most 20 on a team. Football has 22 on the field, and what, 100 on the team? I do need a job. The shut down is driving me nuts, but I don't want to drive the Bear Insider out of business.
Thanks for a thorough assessment SFCITYBEAR - though Austin's play in Conf was key to the Bear's improvement for the 2nd half of the season. This year's team will be better than the past 2 season's under Coach Fox - primarily due to the time(over the summer and now) the staff has had to condition/devote individual skill development focus with the majority of the players and the increased athleticism the new players bring. The increased depth greatly helps team practice, as the first team positions are pushed more and thus will be closer to simulating game experience. Celestine and Hyder are physically much closer to 100% and several players are noticeably stronger. Will be interesting to see how this team stacks up to a very good conference.
SF and 4th Gen, what is your guess as to the starting 5 and main rotation? Fox has pretty much stuck with a 7 man rotation both years, who is your guess would be those 7? Or do you think Fox will play a deeper rotation this year?
As to Harris-Dyson, I was referring to the entire season of 2019-2020. According to sports-reference.com, he played 13 games that season, averaging 14.5 minutes per game. He played 12 games in 2019, and did play only one game in 2020, on January 2nd against Stanford. Was he injured after that? I don't remember.oskidunker said:4thGenCal said:SFCityBear said:1. Bradley was a very good player for us. Because he was so talented, both players and coach tried get the ball in his hands all the time. This is both good and bad. Teams with one player trying to carry the whole team are seldom if ever successful. (ie Wilt Chamberlain). 2020 was Bradley's best year. Some of his numbers have dropped over 3 years. His 3pt percentage has dropped considerably. Last year he was injured, never fully recovered, and that affected the team. Bradley plays recklessly, trying to run faster, jump higher, hit harder, play above 100%. When players extend themselves in that way, they leave themselves open to injury. Jumping as high as they possible can, for example, can cause a player to not be aware of where or how he lands, and sometimes he lands on another player's foot or turns an ankle (or lands on his head, like Bowser) If Bradley were to remain at Cal, you don't know which Bradley you would get, the great 2020 Bradley, or the 2021 injured Bradley. If he had remained healthy last year, Cal wins more games than they did, can't you agree?concernedparent said:SFCityBear said:
We should be giving more weight to Fox's first team, 2019-2020, a team which had 14 wins, and 7 wins in conference. If you look at that roster, it sure appears to me that this year we have a better roster. We are more talented, better, deeper, and more experience... What that team had that this one does not have is basically a sophomore Matt Bradley, a senior point guard in Austin, and Kareem South.
Somehow this is a more talented and better team even though it's missing an All-Pac 12 player in Bradley, and a solid point guard who would be the best player on this year's team in Austin. They should hire you to market next year's football team too.
2. Austin. I never considered Austin to be a PAC12 caliber starting PG. He was very similar to Sam Singer. Both players could penetrate and finish at the rim, and neither one could make a 3. Austin could make free throws, and Singer could play very good defense. Austin did not play acceptable defense until his last few games of his last year. He would not be best player on this year's roster. Anticevich, Kelly, or maybe Brown is the best player among the veterans. Celestine might get votes. Austin might not even be the best point guard this year. We now have Brown, two years older than he was, who is much faster, and a much better defender than Austin. Brown averaged 3.1 assists, last season, Austin 2.5 in 2020. Brown's ATO ratio was 1.6, Austin 1.1. Austin can't make a 3, Brown does make threes, even if they aren't pretty. Austin can penetrate and finish or dish, Brown penetrates but needs to learn to finish, or dish. He does not anticipate the big man smothering him or the double team, and gets tied up or loses the ball.
Then there is Hyder. He has the perfect size for a PG, and has good vision and leadership. He can make the short jumper, but his threes are as bad as Austin's. He will be a better rebounder. He did not arrive on the campus until he was cleared to play, had no practice, and had to play right away. He got injured, had a procedure, and came back and got injured again, I think. Finally, there is Roberson, whom Fox is very high on, as having multiple skills and gets involved in every play. How can you say Austin would be the best player on this team, when you haven't seen the four freshmen play a single minute?
Let's look at my reasons for saying we have a better roster in 2022 than 2020, a team that won 14 games, shall we?
PG: In 2020, we had Austin, backed up by Brown, a freshman. In 2022, we have Brown, 2 years older, backed up by Hyder, Roberson, and maybe Shepherd.
SG: In 2020, we had South, backed up by Bradley moving to SG, or Klonaras (20 games, 0.7 ppg), and JHD (13 games) South's performance collapsed in the conference season. JHD plays great D, but can't shoot a lick. Klonaras is not PAC12 level. In 2022, we will probably start Shepherd, who can score and is a good passer, from what I've seen and heard, except that he can't shoot threes. Celestine can, so maybe he plays there. Foreman is a good 3 point shooter, and if they can get him open, maybe he plays there. These are good options which we did not have in 2020 when we won 14.
SF: In 2020 Bradley was the man. Gordon backed him up (9 games, 9 minutes per game). Kuany played some. So when Bradley was playing guard or taking a rest on the bench, we had almost nothing. In 2022, we have Alajiki (very athletic mystery man, who is said to be able to nail the 3), a strong athletic Anyanwu, the athletic Bowser, or Celestine, who can shoot the 3. Plus Kuany.
PF: In 2020, Anticevich made a huge leap in minutes, and in shooting percentage from 2019. Who predicted that? He was backed up by Kuany or Kelly. In 2022, Cal will have essentially the same players manning the PF spot, all two years older than they were in 2020. Kuany had much progress over the summer, apparently. Anticevich will be healthy. He needs to learn to take the ball to the rim. We have a few players who need that. Brown, Hyder, Celestine. Could we hire Cuonzo to come for a few days and give a clinic?
C: In 2020 Cal had Kelly or Lars, backed up by Thorpe. It will be the same this season, except again, all the players are two years older. Kelly is adequate, even if he does not improve. I expect some improvement from the others.
The Bench: These are players who hardly ever play in games, but due to the many injuries in basketball are essential players for the rotation players to compete against in practice. In 2020, Cal went with a 10 man rotation, with 8 players getting significant minutes. The bench players were Jules Erving, Orender, and David Serge (formerly the team manager, and I guess desperation caused Fox to give him a uniform actually he did look decent in one appearance I saw). In 2022, Cal is likely to have more than 10 in the rotation, with maybe 10 getting significant minutes. The bench will be Klonaras, Welle, and Alters. Welle is a significant improvement over 2020, because he is a forward, an option Fox did not have in 2020.
So you want me to write about Cal football? You must be kidding. I've already put everyone to sleep here, and basketball has only 5 players on the floor, and at most 20 on a team. Football has 22 on the field, and what, 100 on the team? I do need a job. The shut down is driving me nuts, but I don't want to drive the Bear Insider out of business.
Thanks for a thorough assessment SFCITYBEAR - though Austin's play in Conf was key to the Bear's improvement for the 2nd half of the season. This year's team will be better than the past 2 season's under Coach Fox - primarily due to the time(over the summer and now) the staff has had to condition/devote individual skill development focus with the majority of the players and the increased athleticism the new players bring. The increased depth greatly helps team practice, as the first team positions are pushed more and thus will be closer to simulating game experience. Celestine and Hyder are physically much closer to 100% and several players are noticeably stronger. Will be interesting to see how this team stacks up to a very good conference.
Dyson did not play in 2020
He left the team. Not sure if he was asked to leave.SFCityBear said:As to Harris-Dyson, I was referring to the entire season of 2019-2020. According to sports-reference.com, he played 13 games that season, averaging 14.5 minutes per game. He played 12 games in 2019, and did play only one game in 2020, on January 2nd against Stanford. Was he injured after that? I don't remember.oskidunker said:4thGenCal said:SFCityBear said:1. Bradley was a very good player for us. Because he was so talented, both players and coach tried get the ball in his hands all the time. This is both good and bad. Teams with one player trying to carry the whole team are seldom if ever successful. (ie Wilt Chamberlain). 2020 was Bradley's best year. Some of his numbers have dropped over 3 years. His 3pt percentage has dropped considerably. Last year he was injured, never fully recovered, and that affected the team. Bradley plays recklessly, trying to run faster, jump higher, hit harder, play above 100%. When players extend themselves in that way, they leave themselves open to injury. Jumping as high as they possible can, for example, can cause a player to not be aware of where or how he lands, and sometimes he lands on another player's foot or turns an ankle (or lands on his head, like Bowser) If Bradley were to remain at Cal, you don't know which Bradley you would get, the great 2020 Bradley, or the 2021 injured Bradley. If he had remained healthy last year, Cal wins more games than they did, can't you agree?concernedparent said:SFCityBear said:
We should be giving more weight to Fox's first team, 2019-2020, a team which had 14 wins, and 7 wins in conference. If you look at that roster, it sure appears to me that this year we have a better roster. We are more talented, better, deeper, and more experience... What that team had that this one does not have is basically a sophomore Matt Bradley, a senior point guard in Austin, and Kareem South.
Somehow this is a more talented and better team even though it's missing an All-Pac 12 player in Bradley, and a solid point guard who would be the best player on this year's team in Austin. They should hire you to market next year's football team too.
2. Austin. I never considered Austin to be a PAC12 caliber starting PG. He was very similar to Sam Singer. Both players could penetrate and finish at the rim, and neither one could make a 3. Austin could make free throws, and Singer could play very good defense. Austin did not play acceptable defense until his last few games of his last year. He would not be best player on this year's roster. Anticevich, Kelly, or maybe Brown is the best player among the veterans. Celestine might get votes. Austin might not even be the best point guard this year. We now have Brown, two years older than he was, who is much faster, and a much better defender than Austin. Brown averaged 3.1 assists, last season, Austin 2.5 in 2020. Brown's ATO ratio was 1.6, Austin 1.1. Austin can't make a 3, Brown does make threes, even if they aren't pretty. Austin can penetrate and finish or dish, Brown penetrates but needs to learn to finish, or dish. He does not anticipate the big man smothering him or the double team, and gets tied up or loses the ball.
Then there is Hyder. He has the perfect size for a PG, and has good vision and leadership. He can make the short jumper, but his threes are as bad as Austin's. He will be a better rebounder. He did not arrive on the campus until he was cleared to play, had no practice, and had to play right away. He got injured, had a procedure, and came back and got injured again, I think. Finally, there is Roberson, whom Fox is very high on, as having multiple skills and gets involved in every play. How can you say Austin would be the best player on this team, when you haven't seen the four freshmen play a single minute?
Let's look at my reasons for saying we have a better roster in 2022 than 2020, a team that won 14 games, shall we?
PG: In 2020, we had Austin, backed up by Brown, a freshman. In 2022, we have Brown, 2 years older, backed up by Hyder, Roberson, and maybe Shepherd.
SG: In 2020, we had South, backed up by Bradley moving to SG, or Klonaras (20 games, 0.7 ppg), and JHD (13 games) South's performance collapsed in the conference season. JHD plays great D, but can't shoot a lick. Klonaras is not PAC12 level. In 2022, we will probably start Shepherd, who can score and is a good passer, from what I've seen and heard, except that he can't shoot threes. Celestine can, so maybe he plays there. Foreman is a good 3 point shooter, and if they can get him open, maybe he plays there. These are good options which we did not have in 2020 when we won 14.
SF: In 2020 Bradley was the man. Gordon backed him up (9 games, 9 minutes per game). Kuany played some. So when Bradley was playing guard or taking a rest on the bench, we had almost nothing. In 2022, we have Alajiki (very athletic mystery man, who is said to be able to nail the 3), a strong athletic Anyanwu, the athletic Bowser, or Celestine, who can shoot the 3. Plus Kuany.
PF: In 2020, Anticevich made a huge leap in minutes, and in shooting percentage from 2019. Who predicted that? He was backed up by Kuany or Kelly. In 2022, Cal will have essentially the same players manning the PF spot, all two years older than they were in 2020. Kuany had much progress over the summer, apparently. Anticevich will be healthy. He needs to learn to take the ball to the rim. We have a few players who need that. Brown, Hyder, Celestine. Could we hire Cuonzo to come for a few days and give a clinic?
C: In 2020 Cal had Kelly or Lars, backed up by Thorpe. It will be the same this season, except again, all the players are two years older. Kelly is adequate, even if he does not improve. I expect some improvement from the others.
The Bench: These are players who hardly ever play in games, but due to the many injuries in basketball are essential players for the rotation players to compete against in practice. In 2020, Cal went with a 10 man rotation, with 8 players getting significant minutes. The bench players were Jules Erving, Orender, and David Serge (formerly the team manager, and I guess desperation caused Fox to give him a uniform actually he did look decent in one appearance I saw). In 2022, Cal is likely to have more than 10 in the rotation, with maybe 10 getting significant minutes. The bench will be Klonaras, Welle, and Alters. Welle is a significant improvement over 2020, because he is a forward, an option Fox did not have in 2020.
So you want me to write about Cal football? You must be kidding. I've already put everyone to sleep here, and basketball has only 5 players on the floor, and at most 20 on a team. Football has 22 on the field, and what, 100 on the team? I do need a job. The shut down is driving me nuts, but I don't want to drive the Bear Insider out of business.
Thanks for a thorough assessment SFCITYBEAR - though Austin's play in Conf was key to the Bear's improvement for the 2nd half of the season. This year's team will be better than the past 2 season's under Coach Fox - primarily due to the time(over the summer and now) the staff has had to condition/devote individual skill development focus with the majority of the players and the increased athleticism the new players bring. The increased depth greatly helps team practice, as the first team positions are pushed more and thus will be closer to simulating game experience. Celestine and Hyder are physically much closer to 100% and several players are noticeably stronger. Will be interesting to see how this team stacks up to a very good conference.
Dyson did not play in 2020
oskidunker said:He left the team. Not sure if he was asked to leave.SFCityBear said:As to Harris-Dyson, I was referring to the entire season of 2019-2020. According to sports-reference.com, he played 13 games that season, averaging 14.5 minutes per game. He played 12 games in 2019, and did play only one game in 2020, on January 2nd against Stanford. Was he injured after that? I don't remember.oskidunker said:4thGenCal said:SFCityBear said:1. Bradley was a very good player for us. Because he was so talented, both players and coach tried get the ball in his hands all the time. This is both good and bad. Teams with one player trying to carry the whole team are seldom if ever successful. (ie Wilt Chamberlain). 2020 was Bradley's best year. Some of his numbers have dropped over 3 years. His 3pt percentage has dropped considerably. Last year he was injured, never fully recovered, and that affected the team. Bradley plays recklessly, trying to run faster, jump higher, hit harder, play above 100%. When players extend themselves in that way, they leave themselves open to injury. Jumping as high as they possible can, for example, can cause a player to not be aware of where or how he lands, and sometimes he lands on another player's foot or turns an ankle (or lands on his head, like Bowser) If Bradley were to remain at Cal, you don't know which Bradley you would get, the great 2020 Bradley, or the 2021 injured Bradley. If he had remained healthy last year, Cal wins more games than they did, can't you agree?concernedparent said:SFCityBear said:
We should be giving more weight to Fox's first team, 2019-2020, a team which had 14 wins, and 7 wins in conference. If you look at that roster, it sure appears to me that this year we have a better roster. We are more talented, better, deeper, and more experience... What that team had that this one does not have is basically a sophomore Matt Bradley, a senior point guard in Austin, and Kareem South.
Somehow this is a more talented and better team even though it's missing an All-Pac 12 player in Bradley, and a solid point guard who would be the best player on this year's team in Austin. They should hire you to market next year's football team too.
2. Austin. I never considered Austin to be a PAC12 caliber starting PG. He was very similar to Sam Singer. Both players could penetrate and finish at the rim, and neither one could make a 3. Austin could make free throws, and Singer could play very good defense. Austin did not play acceptable defense until his last few games of his last year. He would not be best player on this year's roster. Anticevich, Kelly, or maybe Brown is the best player among the veterans. Celestine might get votes. Austin might not even be the best point guard this year. We now have Brown, two years older than he was, who is much faster, and a much better defender than Austin. Brown averaged 3.1 assists, last season, Austin 2.5 in 2020. Brown's ATO ratio was 1.6, Austin 1.1. Austin can't make a 3, Brown does make threes, even if they aren't pretty. Austin can penetrate and finish or dish, Brown penetrates but needs to learn to finish, or dish. He does not anticipate the big man smothering him or the double team, and gets tied up or loses the ball.
Then there is Hyder. He has the perfect size for a PG, and has good vision and leadership. He can make the short jumper, but his threes are as bad as Austin's. He will be a better rebounder. He did not arrive on the campus until he was cleared to play, had no practice, and had to play right away. He got injured, had a procedure, and came back and got injured again, I think. Finally, there is Roberson, whom Fox is very high on, as having multiple skills and gets involved in every play. How can you say Austin would be the best player on this team, when you haven't seen the four freshmen play a single minute?
Let's look at my reasons for saying we have a better roster in 2022 than 2020, a team that won 14 games, shall we?
PG: In 2020, we had Austin, backed up by Brown, a freshman. In 2022, we have Brown, 2 years older, backed up by Hyder, Roberson, and maybe Shepherd.
SG: In 2020, we had South, backed up by Bradley moving to SG, or Klonaras (20 games, 0.7 ppg), and JHD (13 games) South's performance collapsed in the conference season. JHD plays great D, but can't shoot a lick. Klonaras is not PAC12 level. In 2022, we will probably start Shepherd, who can score and is a good passer, from what I've seen and heard, except that he can't shoot threes. Celestine can, so maybe he plays there. Foreman is a good 3 point shooter, and if they can get him open, maybe he plays there. These are good options which we did not have in 2020 when we won 14.
SF: In 2020 Bradley was the man. Gordon backed him up (9 games, 9 minutes per game). Kuany played some. So when Bradley was playing guard or taking a rest on the bench, we had almost nothing. In 2022, we have Alajiki (very athletic mystery man, who is said to be able to nail the 3), a strong athletic Anyanwu, the athletic Bowser, or Celestine, who can shoot the 3. Plus Kuany.
PF: In 2020, Anticevich made a huge leap in minutes, and in shooting percentage from 2019. Who predicted that? He was backed up by Kuany or Kelly. In 2022, Cal will have essentially the same players manning the PF spot, all two years older than they were in 2020. Kuany had much progress over the summer, apparently. Anticevich will be healthy. He needs to learn to take the ball to the rim. We have a few players who need that. Brown, Hyder, Celestine. Could we hire Cuonzo to come for a few days and give a clinic?
C: In 2020 Cal had Kelly or Lars, backed up by Thorpe. It will be the same this season, except again, all the players are two years older. Kelly is adequate, even if he does not improve. I expect some improvement from the others.
The Bench: These are players who hardly ever play in games, but due to the many injuries in basketball are essential players for the rotation players to compete against in practice. In 2020, Cal went with a 10 man rotation, with 8 players getting significant minutes. The bench players were Jules Erving, Orender, and David Serge (formerly the team manager, and I guess desperation caused Fox to give him a uniform actually he did look decent in one appearance I saw). In 2022, Cal is likely to have more than 10 in the rotation, with maybe 10 getting significant minutes. The bench will be Klonaras, Welle, and Alters. Welle is a significant improvement over 2020, because he is a forward, an option Fox did not have in 2020.
So you want me to write about Cal football? You must be kidding. I've already put everyone to sleep here, and basketball has only 5 players on the floor, and at most 20 on a team. Football has 22 on the field, and what, 100 on the team? I do need a job. The shut down is driving me nuts, but I don't want to drive the Bear Insider out of business.
Thanks for a thorough assessment SFCITYBEAR - though Austin's play in Conf was key to the Bear's improvement for the 2nd half of the season. This year's team will be better than the past 2 season's under Coach Fox - primarily due to the time(over the summer and now) the staff has had to condition/devote individual skill development focus with the majority of the players and the increased athleticism the new players bring. The increased depth greatly helps team practice, as the first team positions are pushed more and thus will be closer to simulating game experience. Celestine and Hyder are physically much closer to 100% and several players are noticeably stronger. Will be interesting to see how this team stacks up to a very good conference.
Dyson did not play in 2020
It was academics would not have been eligible,- and kudo's to him for turning around his academics and getting his degreecalumnus said:oskidunker said:He left the team. Not sure if he was asked to leave.SFCityBear said:As to Harris-Dyson, I was referring to the entire season of 2019-2020. According to sports-reference.com, he played 13 games that season, averaging 14.5 minutes per game. He played 12 games in 2019, and did play only one game in 2020, on January 2nd against Stanford. Was he injured after that? I don't remember.oskidunker said:4thGenCal said:SFCityBear said:1. Bradley was a very good player for us. Because he was so talented, both players and coach tried get the ball in his hands all the time. This is both good and bad. Teams with one player trying to carry the whole team are seldom if ever successful. (ie Wilt Chamberlain). 2020 was Bradley's best year. Some of his numbers have dropped over 3 years. His 3pt percentage has dropped considerably. Last year he was injured, never fully recovered, and that affected the team. Bradley plays recklessly, trying to run faster, jump higher, hit harder, play above 100%. When players extend themselves in that way, they leave themselves open to injury. Jumping as high as they possible can, for example, can cause a player to not be aware of where or how he lands, and sometimes he lands on another player's foot or turns an ankle (or lands on his head, like Bowser) If Bradley were to remain at Cal, you don't know which Bradley you would get, the great 2020 Bradley, or the 2021 injured Bradley. If he had remained healthy last year, Cal wins more games than they did, can't you agree?concernedparent said:SFCityBear said:
We should be giving more weight to Fox's first team, 2019-2020, a team which had 14 wins, and 7 wins in conference. If you look at that roster, it sure appears to me that this year we have a better roster. We are more talented, better, deeper, and more experience... What that team had that this one does not have is basically a sophomore Matt Bradley, a senior point guard in Austin, and Kareem South.
Somehow this is a more talented and better team even though it's missing an All-Pac 12 player in Bradley, and a solid point guard who would be the best player on this year's team in Austin. They should hire you to market next year's football team too.
2. Austin. I never considered Austin to be a PAC12 caliber starting PG. He was very similar to Sam Singer. Both players could penetrate and finish at the rim, and neither one could make a 3. Austin could make free throws, and Singer could play very good defense. Austin did not play acceptable defense until his last few games of his last year. He would not be best player on this year's roster. Anticevich, Kelly, or maybe Brown is the best player among the veterans. Celestine might get votes. Austin might not even be the best point guard this year. We now have Brown, two years older than he was, who is much faster, and a much better defender than Austin. Brown averaged 3.1 assists, last season, Austin 2.5 in 2020. Brown's ATO ratio was 1.6, Austin 1.1. Austin can't make a 3, Brown does make threes, even if they aren't pretty. Austin can penetrate and finish or dish, Brown penetrates but needs to learn to finish, or dish. He does not anticipate the big man smothering him or the double team, and gets tied up or loses the ball.
Then there is Hyder. He has the perfect size for a PG, and has good vision and leadership. He can make the short jumper, but his threes are as bad as Austin's. He will be a better rebounder. He did not arrive on the campus until he was cleared to play, had no practice, and had to play right away. He got injured, had a procedure, and came back and got injured again, I think. Finally, there is Roberson, whom Fox is very high on, as having multiple skills and gets involved in every play. How can you say Austin would be the best player on this team, when you haven't seen the four freshmen play a single minute?
Let's look at my reasons for saying we have a better roster in 2022 than 2020, a team that won 14 games, shall we?
PG: In 2020, we had Austin, backed up by Brown, a freshman. In 2022, we have Brown, 2 years older, backed up by Hyder, Roberson, and maybe Shepherd.
SG: In 2020, we had South, backed up by Bradley moving to SG, or Klonaras (20 games, 0.7 ppg), and JHD (13 games) South's performance collapsed in the conference season. JHD plays great D, but can't shoot a lick. Klonaras is not PAC12 level. In 2022, we will probably start Shepherd, who can score and is a good passer, from what I've seen and heard, except that he can't shoot threes. Celestine can, so maybe he plays there. Foreman is a good 3 point shooter, and if they can get him open, maybe he plays there. These are good options which we did not have in 2020 when we won 14.
SF: In 2020 Bradley was the man. Gordon backed him up (9 games, 9 minutes per game). Kuany played some. So when Bradley was playing guard or taking a rest on the bench, we had almost nothing. In 2022, we have Alajiki (very athletic mystery man, who is said to be able to nail the 3), a strong athletic Anyanwu, the athletic Bowser, or Celestine, who can shoot the 3. Plus Kuany.
PF: In 2020, Anticevich made a huge leap in minutes, and in shooting percentage from 2019. Who predicted that? He was backed up by Kuany or Kelly. In 2022, Cal will have essentially the same players manning the PF spot, all two years older than they were in 2020. Kuany had much progress over the summer, apparently. Anticevich will be healthy. He needs to learn to take the ball to the rim. We have a few players who need that. Brown, Hyder, Celestine. Could we hire Cuonzo to come for a few days and give a clinic?
C: In 2020 Cal had Kelly or Lars, backed up by Thorpe. It will be the same this season, except again, all the players are two years older. Kelly is adequate, even if he does not improve. I expect some improvement from the others.
The Bench: These are players who hardly ever play in games, but due to the many injuries in basketball are essential players for the rotation players to compete against in practice. In 2020, Cal went with a 10 man rotation, with 8 players getting significant minutes. The bench players were Jules Erving, Orender, and David Serge (formerly the team manager, and I guess desperation caused Fox to give him a uniform actually he did look decent in one appearance I saw). In 2022, Cal is likely to have more than 10 in the rotation, with maybe 10 getting significant minutes. The bench will be Klonaras, Welle, and Alters. Welle is a significant improvement over 2020, because he is a forward, an option Fox did not have in 2020.
So you want me to write about Cal football? You must be kidding. I've already put everyone to sleep here, and basketball has only 5 players on the floor, and at most 20 on a team. Football has 22 on the field, and what, 100 on the team? I do need a job. The shut down is driving me nuts, but I don't want to drive the Bear Insider out of business.
Thanks for a thorough assessment SFCITYBEAR - though Austin's play in Conf was key to the Bear's improvement for the 2nd half of the season. This year's team will be better than the past 2 season's under Coach Fox - primarily due to the time(over the summer and now) the staff has had to condition/devote individual skill development focus with the majority of the players and the increased athleticism the new players bring. The increased depth greatly helps team practice, as the first team positions are pushed more and thus will be closer to simulating game experience. Celestine and Hyder are physically much closer to 100% and several players are noticeably stronger. Will be interesting to see how this team stacks up to a very good conference.
Dyson did not play in 2020
At the time Fox said it was "academics" but I think I saw that JHD left the team, stayed at Cal, got his degree, and earlier this year entered the portal as a grad transfer.
I have seen zero minutes of any of the newcomers, except for what are probably short recruiting videos, which are usually edited to show only certain skills or aspects of a player's individual abilities, and hardly any of his team skills, and nothing at all about how he meshes with his new teammates. So I don't feel qualified to give an opinion about the starting 5 or main rotation.calumnus said:4thGenCal said:SFCityBear said:1. Bradley was a very good player for us. Because he was so talented, both players and coach tried get the ball in his hands all the time. This is both good and bad. Teams with one player trying to carry the whole team are seldom if ever successful. (ie Wilt Chamberlain). 2020 was Bradley's best year. Some of his numbers have dropped over 3 years. His 3pt percentage has dropped considerably. Last year he was injured, never fully recovered, and that affected the team. Bradley plays recklessly, trying to run faster, jump higher, hit harder, play above 100%. When players extend themselves in that way, they leave themselves open to injury. Jumping as high as they possible can, for example, can cause a player to not be aware of where or how he lands, and sometimes he lands on another player's foot or turns an ankle (or lands on his head, like Bowser) If Bradley were to remain at Cal, you don't know which Bradley you would get, the great 2020 Bradley, or the 2021 injured Bradley. If he had remained healthy last year, Cal wins more games than they did, can't you agree?concernedparent said:SFCityBear said:
We should be giving more weight to Fox's first team, 2019-2020, a team which had 14 wins, and 7 wins in conference. If you look at that roster, it sure appears to me that this year we have a better roster. We are more talented, better, deeper, and more experience... What that team had that this one does not have is basically a sophomore Matt Bradley, a senior point guard in Austin, and Kareem South.
Somehow this is a more talented and better team even though it's missing an All-Pac 12 player in Bradley, and a solid point guard who would be the best player on this year's team in Austin. They should hire you to market next year's football team too.
2. Austin. I never considered Austin to be a PAC12 caliber starting PG. He was very similar to Sam Singer. Both players could penetrate and finish at the rim, and neither one could make a 3. Austin could make free throws, and Singer could play very good defense. Austin did not play acceptable defense until his last few games of his last year. He would not be best player on this year's roster. Anticevich, Kelly, or maybe Brown is the best player among the veterans. Celestine might get votes. Austin might not even be the best point guard this year. We now have Brown, two years older than he was, who is much faster, and a much better defender than Austin. Brown averaged 3.1 assists, last season, Austin 2.5 in 2020. Brown's ATO ratio was 1.6, Austin 1.1. Austin can't make a 3, Brown does make threes, even if they aren't pretty. Austin can penetrate and finish or dish, Brown penetrates but needs to learn to finish, or dish. He does not anticipate the big man smothering him or the double team, and gets tied up or loses the ball.
Then there is Hyder. He has the perfect size for a PG, and has good vision and leadership. He can make the short jumper, but his threes are as bad as Austin's. He will be a better rebounder. He did not arrive on the campus until he was cleared to play, had no practice, and had to play right away. He got injured, had a procedure, and came back and got injured again, I think. Finally, there is Roberson, whom Fox is very high on, as having multiple skills and gets involved in every play. How can you say Austin would be the best player on this team, when you haven't seen the four freshmen play a single minute?
Let's look at my reasons for saying we have a better roster in 2022 than 2020, a team that won 14 games, shall we?
PG: In 2020, we had Austin, backed up by Brown, a freshman. In 2022, we have Brown, 2 years older, backed up by Hyder, Roberson, and maybe Shepherd.
SG: In 2020, we had South, backed up by Bradley moving to SG, or Klonaras (20 games, 0.7 ppg), and JHD (13 games) South's performance collapsed in the conference season. JHD plays great D, but can't shoot a lick. Klonaras is not PAC12 level. In 2022, we will probably start Shepherd, who can score and is a good passer, from what I've seen and heard, except that he can't shoot threes. Celestine can, so maybe he plays there. Foreman is a good 3 point shooter, and if they can get him open, maybe he plays there. These are good options which we did not have in 2020 when we won 14.
SF: In 2020 Bradley was the man. Gordon backed him up (9 games, 9 minutes per game). Kuany played some. So when Bradley was playing guard or taking a rest on the bench, we had almost nothing. In 2022, we have Alajiki (very athletic mystery man, who is said to be able to nail the 3), a strong athletic Anyanwu, the athletic Bowser, or Celestine, who can shoot the 3. Plus Kuany.
PF: In 2020, Anticevich made a huge leap in minutes, and in shooting percentage from 2019. Who predicted that? He was backed up by Kuany or Kelly. In 2022, Cal will have essentially the same players manning the PF spot, all two years older than they were in 2020. Kuany had much progress over the summer, apparently. Anticevich will be healthy. He needs to learn to take the ball to the rim. We have a few players who need that. Brown, Hyder, Celestine. Could we hire Cuonzo to come for a few days and give a clinic?
C: In 2020 Cal had Kelly or Lars, backed up by Thorpe. It will be the same this season, except again, all the players are two years older. Kelly is adequate, even if he does not improve. I expect some improvement from the others.
The Bench: These are players who hardly ever play in games, but due to the many injuries in basketball are essential players for the rotation players to compete against in practice. In 2020, Cal went with a 10 man rotation, with 8 players getting significant minutes. The bench players were Jules Erving, Orender, and David Serge (formerly the team manager, and I guess desperation caused Fox to give him a uniform actually he did look decent in one appearance I saw). In 2022, Cal is likely to have more than 10 in the rotation, with maybe 10 getting significant minutes. The bench will be Klonaras, Welle, and Alters. Welle is a significant improvement over 2020, because he is a forward, an option Fox did not have in 2020.
So you want me to write about Cal football? You must be kidding. I've already put everyone to sleep here, and basketball has only 5 players on the floor, and at most 20 on a team. Football has 22 on the field, and what, 100 on the team? I do need a job. The shut down is driving me nuts, but I don't want to drive the Bear Insider out of business.
Thanks for a thorough assessment SFCITYBEAR - though Austin's play in Conf was key to the Bear's improvement for the 2nd half of the season. This year's team will be better than the past 2 season's under Coach Fox - primarily due to the time(over the summer and now) the staff has had to condition/devote individual skill development focus with the majority of the players and the increased athleticism the new players bring. The increased depth greatly helps team practice, as the first team positions are pushed more and thus will be closer to simulating game experience. Celestine and Hyder are physically much closer to 100% and several players are noticeably stronger. Will be interesting to see how this team stacks up to a very good conference.
SF and 4th Gen, what is your guess as to the starting 5 and main rotation? Fox has pretty much stuck with a 7 man rotation both years, who is your guess would be those 7? Or do you think Fox will play a deeper rotation this year?
SFCityBear said:I have seen zero minutes of any of the newcomers, except for what are probably short recruiting videos, which are usually edited to show only certain skills or aspects of a player's individual abilities, and hardly any of his team skills, and nothing at all about how he meshes with his new teammates. So I don't feel qualified to give an opinion about the starting 5 or main rotation.calumnus said:4thGenCal said:SFCityBear said:1. Bradley was a very good player for us. Because he was so talented, both players and coach tried get the ball in his hands all the time. This is both good and bad. Teams with one player trying to carry the whole team are seldom if ever successful. (ie Wilt Chamberlain). 2020 was Bradley's best year. Some of his numbers have dropped over 3 years. His 3pt percentage has dropped considerably. Last year he was injured, never fully recovered, and that affected the team. Bradley plays recklessly, trying to run faster, jump higher, hit harder, play above 100%. When players extend themselves in that way, they leave themselves open to injury. Jumping as high as they possible can, for example, can cause a player to not be aware of where or how he lands, and sometimes he lands on another player's foot or turns an ankle (or lands on his head, like Bowser) If Bradley were to remain at Cal, you don't know which Bradley you would get, the great 2020 Bradley, or the 2021 injured Bradley. If he had remained healthy last year, Cal wins more games than they did, can't you agree?concernedparent said:SFCityBear said:
We should be giving more weight to Fox's first team, 2019-2020, a team which had 14 wins, and 7 wins in conference. If you look at that roster, it sure appears to me that this year we have a better roster. We are more talented, better, deeper, and more experience... What that team had that this one does not have is basically a sophomore Matt Bradley, a senior point guard in Austin, and Kareem South.
Somehow this is a more talented and better team even though it's missing an All-Pac 12 player in Bradley, and a solid point guard who would be the best player on this year's team in Austin. They should hire you to market next year's football team too.
2. Austin. I never considered Austin to be a PAC12 caliber starting PG. He was very similar to Sam Singer. Both players could penetrate and finish at the rim, and neither one could make a 3. Austin could make free throws, and Singer could play very good defense. Austin did not play acceptable defense until his last few games of his last year. He would not be best player on this year's roster. Anticevich, Kelly, or maybe Brown is the best player among the veterans. Celestine might get votes. Austin might not even be the best point guard this year. We now have Brown, two years older than he was, who is much faster, and a much better defender than Austin. Brown averaged 3.1 assists, last season, Austin 2.5 in 2020. Brown's ATO ratio was 1.6, Austin 1.1. Austin can't make a 3, Brown does make threes, even if they aren't pretty. Austin can penetrate and finish or dish, Brown penetrates but needs to learn to finish, or dish. He does not anticipate the big man smothering him or the double team, and gets tied up or loses the ball.
Then there is Hyder. He has the perfect size for a PG, and has good vision and leadership. He can make the short jumper, but his threes are as bad as Austin's. He will be a better rebounder. He did not arrive on the campus until he was cleared to play, had no practice, and had to play right away. He got injured, had a procedure, and came back and got injured again, I think. Finally, there is Roberson, whom Fox is very high on, as having multiple skills and gets involved in every play. How can you say Austin would be the best player on this team, when you haven't seen the four freshmen play a single minute?
Let's look at my reasons for saying we have a better roster in 2022 than 2020, a team that won 14 games, shall we?
PG: In 2020, we had Austin, backed up by Brown, a freshman. In 2022, we have Brown, 2 years older, backed up by Hyder, Roberson, and maybe Shepherd.
SG: In 2020, we had South, backed up by Bradley moving to SG, or Klonaras (20 games, 0.7 ppg), and JHD (13 games) South's performance collapsed in the conference season. JHD plays great D, but can't shoot a lick. Klonaras is not PAC12 level. In 2022, we will probably start Shepherd, who can score and is a good passer, from what I've seen and heard, except that he can't shoot threes. Celestine can, so maybe he plays there. Foreman is a good 3 point shooter, and if they can get him open, maybe he plays there. These are good options which we did not have in 2020 when we won 14.
SF: In 2020 Bradley was the man. Gordon backed him up (9 games, 9 minutes per game). Kuany played some. So when Bradley was playing guard or taking a rest on the bench, we had almost nothing. In 2022, we have Alajiki (very athletic mystery man, who is said to be able to nail the 3), a strong athletic Anyanwu, the athletic Bowser, or Celestine, who can shoot the 3. Plus Kuany.
PF: In 2020, Anticevich made a huge leap in minutes, and in shooting percentage from 2019. Who predicted that? He was backed up by Kuany or Kelly. In 2022, Cal will have essentially the same players manning the PF spot, all two years older than they were in 2020. Kuany had much progress over the summer, apparently. Anticevich will be healthy. He needs to learn to take the ball to the rim. We have a few players who need that. Brown, Hyder, Celestine. Could we hire Cuonzo to come for a few days and give a clinic?
C: In 2020 Cal had Kelly or Lars, backed up by Thorpe. It will be the same this season, except again, all the players are two years older. Kelly is adequate, even if he does not improve. I expect some improvement from the others.
The Bench: These are players who hardly ever play in games, but due to the many injuries in basketball are essential players for the rotation players to compete against in practice. In 2020, Cal went with a 10 man rotation, with 8 players getting significant minutes. The bench players were Jules Erving, Orender, and David Serge (formerly the team manager, and I guess desperation caused Fox to give him a uniform actually he did look decent in one appearance I saw). In 2022, Cal is likely to have more than 10 in the rotation, with maybe 10 getting significant minutes. The bench will be Klonaras, Welle, and Alters. Welle is a significant improvement over 2020, because he is a forward, an option Fox did not have in 2020.
So you want me to write about Cal football? You must be kidding. I've already put everyone to sleep here, and basketball has only 5 players on the floor, and at most 20 on a team. Football has 22 on the field, and what, 100 on the team? I do need a job. The shut down is driving me nuts, but I don't want to drive the Bear Insider out of business.
Thanks for a thorough assessment SFCITYBEAR - though Austin's play in Conf was key to the Bear's improvement for the 2nd half of the season. This year's team will be better than the past 2 season's under Coach Fox - primarily due to the time(over the summer and now) the staff has had to condition/devote individual skill development focus with the majority of the players and the increased athleticism the new players bring. The increased depth greatly helps team practice, as the first team positions are pushed more and thus will be closer to simulating game experience. Celestine and Hyder are physically much closer to 100% and several players are noticeably stronger. Will be interesting to see how this team stacks up to a very good conference.
SF and 4th Gen, what is your guess as to the starting 5 and main rotation? Fox has pretty much stuck with a 7 man rotation both years, who is your guess would be those 7? Or do you think Fox will play a deeper rotation this year?
Maybe that is why everyone who has commented seems to predict an all veteran starting lineup. Of that group most often mentioned, I would say we need some volume three point shooting, good shooting. Last season we had volume three point shooting from 4 players, Betley, Foreman, Bradley, and Grant. Of those, only two,
Grant and Bradley, shot a decent percentage. Betley and Foreman were average or below average, and Betley slumped badly in the PAC12 season. This season, Celestine looks good shooting the three, shot a good percentage, but shot a very low volume. I think he would need to increase his volume by at least 3 times, while maintaining his good percentage to warrant a starting position. Or he needs to be able to drive and finish more often.
I think Kuany has not demonstrated ability shooting the three. He makes them sometimes, but can he make a good percentage, and shoot a good volume? Fox says Anyanwu can make threes, and he says that Alajiki is very good at making them. But who knows? We can be reasonably sure that Grant will continue to make a good number of threes. Brown is the only other player who can make threes. They look poor, but he made a good percentage of them. He will need to take more and keep shooting them well to warrant him being a 3-pt option.
The frontcourt is a huge weakness, but there are no options there. Anyanwu looks strong enough to play a PF, so that may improve the options there. Kelly should play there, but unless there is major improvement in Lars and Thorpe, we will start Kelly at center, undersized as to height, and I hear he reported overweight again. That could mean he is out of shape, and Lars and Thorpe will play more minutes than planned.
I've said way too much for having no opinion. Let's wait and see the team in action.
Ha and great thread to continue - a large # of posters had this team at 7-9 wins, I had them at 14 and think that is very possible (injuries aside). Have to give props to the staff for thus far preparing the team (despite clear limitations of overall team speed, rim protector, deficient back up point guard play, and limited # of 3 pt shooters). Really impressed with their defense, ability to react to mismatches offensively, and generally creating open looks tonight. Long season, but team proving that they will compete at both ends of the floor.SFCityBear said:
I just dug up this old thread, and thought it might be a good time to ask, would any of you boys like to revise your prediction of how many wins Cal will have this season?
We will win games when Dre, Grant and Jordan are all in double-digits.wifeisafurd said:
From watching the team on TV, they play decent defense, seem to rebound well, and have a choppy looking offense. If they shoot well they can win some conference games. The talent level is not close to the better Pac teams. I'm going with 14 wins, and somewhere from an 8 to 10 finish in the Pac depending on key players staying healthy.
This is one of the most optimistic predictions.joe amos yaks said:
15-15 or better.
Go Bears!
__
Look out for OSu.
4thGenCal said:Ha and great thread to continue - a large # of posters had this team at 7-9 wins, I had them at 14 and think that is very possible (injuries aside). Have to give props to the staff for thus far preparing the team (despite clear limitations of overall team speed, rim protector, deficient back up point guard play, and limited # of 3 pt shooters). Really impressed with their defense, ability to react to mismatches offensively, and generally creating open looks tonight. Long season, but team proving that they will compete at both ends of the floor.SFCityBear said:
I just dug up this old thread, and thought it might be a good time to ask, would any of you boys like to revise your prediction of how many wins Cal will have this season?
As another SD native and SDSU fan from pre-Coryell years, this summary looks accurate to me.Chapman_is_Gone said:
What a joke... the University of San Diego has apparently rebranded and is trying to call itself "San Diego." As a San Diego native, I can honestly tell you that I have NEVER heard that school called "San Diego" by anyone local. Everyone calls it "USD."
Frankly, it bugs me, as that small (and inconsequential) Roman Catholic school in no way represents San Diego. If any school does represent San Diego, today it would probably be SDSU. Hopefully UCSD can advance far enough athletically to represent the city some day, as it is obviously a better academic school than SDSU.
As someone who was wrong, I have thought about why I was so wrong. I think the big difference between what I thought I would see is that the offense is much more capable than I thought it would be. And to me that is mostly better play by the two stars, particularly Andre Kelly but also Grant A.. Kelly is shooting .675 and it does not seem like a fluke. Cal's offense is still not exactly a well-oiled machine, but they have always had reasonably good spacing. With Kelly a force down low and the good spacing, the defense is stuck between doubling Kelly and leaving someone open, or singling him and getting torched. I think Cal is very vulnerable to a good zone, but OSU did not play a good zone.4thGenCal said:Ha and great thread to continue - a large # of posters had this team at 7-9 wins, I had them at 14 and think that is very possible (injuries aside). Have to give props to the staff for thus far preparing the team (despite clear limitations of overall team speed, rim protector, deficient back up point guard play, and limited # of 3 pt shooters). Really impressed with their defense, ability to react to mismatches offensively, and generally creating open looks tonight. Long season, but team proving that they will compete at both ends of the floor.SFCityBear said:
I just dug up this old thread, and thought it might be a good time to ask, would any of you boys like to revise your prediction of how many wins Cal will have this season?
