The game thread posted here was very accurate. Posters' comments for the most part was spot on, way more analytical than emotional.

Bottom line, an excellent USC team posseses the very strengths designed to exploit a good Cal team's weakness, namely interior defense and at times lateral quickness.

On top of everything, a guy we really could have used last night - Sam, was unable to play. Sounds like he won't be playing Saturday either, bummer.

I noticed for a couple of minutes last night that Andre and Lars played simultaneously, and for a couple of minutes at least it appeared to settle things down. I'm not a coach, just a guy who has watched basketball for a real long time, and in my opinion when we play the trojans again it might be beneficial for a 5 minute run to see a lineup with Andre, Lars, Sam, Joel, and maybe Jordan to balance things out on the offensive end. This would be my choice as the best lineup to give us a chance to shut these guys down, and it most likely still won't happen because these guys were really good.

Hopefully in some way we match up better with UCLA. The USC matchup last night was a nightmare.

Socal, I understand your pushback. Yes talent is the main thing. If there's such a thing, I was just commenting that specifically USC's "brand of talent", players that are really good at turning the corner while driving, is the type that will expose our team's weakness more obviously. Yes, USC has players that are both physically gifted, and can also shoot the basketball. But I would think that in some occasions this current Cal team has a better chance against a team who is less athletic, even if they possess high basketball skills. Hope my statements make a little sense.

I was at the game last night and what struck me is that USC has no offensive plan. Like SCT said, it's all based on individual talent. I don't think they even set screens. They iso and crash the boards and... it works. Boogie, Drew and Mobley made it look so easy at times.

I hope I don't change the narrative of your thread Redless, I always admire how you keep them on target.

I think Cal's talent deficit is really at the 1 and 2 position. Celestine, when he is on like last night, Grant A. and Kelly make a solid 3-5, with support from KK (who should be the backup 4/5 instead of Lars T., not a 3) and Alajiki. Shepherd shot better than usual last night, but he is just okay, and Brown has some clear strengths but his absolute inability to score is limiting. And the backups at 1 and 2 should never be on the floor, if we can be honest. And there is no one on the bench who is better and no recruits for next year. Fox's recruiting has been bizarre. I know he has missed on some smaller players, but he needs to cast a wider net.

BC Calfan said:

---

I was at the game last night and what struck me is that USC has no offensive plan. Like SCT said, it's all based on individual talent. I don't think they even set screens. They iso and crash the boards and... it works. Boogie, Drew and Mobley made it look so easy at times.

I hope I don't change the narrative of your thread Redless, I always admire how you keep them on target.

---

Appreciate that. And probably what appeared to be no offensive plan is really attributed to SoCal's comment, that the talent disparity was so great that an "offensive plan" almost wasn't even necessary.
The fact is, after the ASU game many of here commented that the Sun Devils appeared to have "no offensive plan" as well, when the reality is - as SoCal mentioned, the talent level that USC had, as compared to the talent level of ASU, which was MULTIPLE notches below. And a 40 point score swing reflects that.

socaltownie said:

---

I want to push back on one thing - yes. The match up was a nightmare. There will be other "nightmare" match ups that expose other weaknesses.

WHat the game should have shown EVERYONE that watched who is objective is the talent gap. They are SO much better and even when we played decent defense they could individually take our guys and make tough shots. People say "well their shots were falling". Yes. Because they can MAKE THEM and create them often enough.

Look, I get pinning (not saying the OP) for the days of yore when little hickory high could run the picket fence because they were so well coached. And I DO believe that Fox is a decent teacher. But what we say there last night is that if you want to WIN D1 high level basketball you NEED NBA like talent. A recent article On BI tried to show readers that as well. This is the issue - not that Fox is a "bad teacher" but that unless/until recruiting improves we are going to suck.

And lets underscore one other thing for the chicken and egg crowd. Until less than 5 years ago it wasn't like USC was winning or that the Galen Center was packed. Hell, I am not sure it STILL is packed (I need to go up but honestly I don't find this team that fun to watch). It takes recruiting....and likely the kind of charisma that can allow a skinny balding guy with generally bad teeth to score a super model for a wife. Go Andy Go.

---

So pretty much agree with all of this and appreciate SCT deconstructing the coaching aspects a bit to keep us away from the polarizing good coach/bad coach trap we all fall into. I would add a couple things:

1. General feel post-game is that Cal generally executed a well designed game plan. One of the best performances so far, but not enough against this USC team. This is probably our ceiling.

1b. As the P12 is sorting itself out - this ceiling could mean a mid conference finish for Cal this year, but they can't afford many mistakes. That's good IMHO.

2. I thought this was one of USC better coached games. Defensively, more cohesive than past few years. Yes, a lot of ISO offense, but with their horses - why not?, And the teammates recognized and executed it well.

3. USC may not have as many superstars as past seasons (like Evan M), but from 1-8 in the rotation, they are better balanced than I've ever seen a USC team. They are VERY GOOD.

4. As much as Cal came up short, this is the type of home game, that they could have pulled an upset if they just had 1 or 2 top level talents. We just don't have those anymore.

sluggo said:

---

I think Cal's talent deficit is really at the 1 and 2 position. Celestine, when he is on like last night, Grant A. and Kelly make a solid 3-5, with support from KK (who should be the backup 4/5 instead of Lars T., not a 3) and Alajiki. Shepherd shot better than usual last night, but he is just okay, and Brown has some clear strengths but his absolute inability to score is limiting. And the backups at 1 and 2 should never be on the floor, if we can be honest. And there is no one on the bench who is better and no recruits for next year. Fox's recruiting has been bizarre. I know he has missed on some smaller players, but he needs to cast a wider net.

---

Totally agree. Hopefully Brown and Hyder will continue to improve over the next season and a half. Fox needs to recruit some guards (not swingmen, we got enough of those) with some basketball skills. I doubt that is news to him. I'm sure he wanted Mahaney and the other guard that committed elsewhere shortly after Mahaney.

In the meantime, Shepherd is proving to be a nice little pickup, what with the loss of Bradley.

BeachedBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I want to push back on one thing - yes. The match up was a nightmare. There will be other "nightmare" match ups that expose other weaknesses.

WHat the game should have shown EVERYONE that watched who is objective is the talent gap. They are SO much better and even when we played decent defense they could individually take our guys and make tough shots. People say "well their shots were falling". Yes. Because they can MAKE THEM and create them often enough.

Look, I get pinning (not saying the OP) for the days of yore when little hickory high could run the picket fence because they were so well coached. And I DO believe that Fox is a decent teacher. But what we say there last night is that if you want to WIN D1 high level basketball you NEED NBA like talent. A recent article On BI tried to show readers that as well. This is the issue - not that Fox is a "bad teacher" but that unless/until recruiting improves we are going to suck.

And lets underscore one other thing for the chicken and egg crowd. Until less than 5 years ago it wasn't like USC was winning or that the Galen Center was packed. Hell, I am not sure it STILL is packed (I need to go up but honestly I don't find this team that fun to watch). It takes recruiting....and likely the kind of charisma that can allow a skinny balding guy with generally bad teeth to score a super model for a wife. Go Andy Go.

---

So pretty much agree with all of this and appreciate SCT deconstructing the coaching aspects a bit to keep us away from the polarizing good coach/bad coach trap we all fall into. I would add a couple things:

1. General feel post-game is that Cal generally executed a well designed game plan. One of the best performances so far, but not enough against this USC team. This is probably our ceiling.

1b. As the P12 is sorting itself out - this ceiling could mean a mid conference finish for Cal this year, but they can't afford many mistakes. That's good IMHO.

2. I thought this was one of USC better coached games. Defensively, more cohesive than past few years. Yes, a lot of ISO offense, but with their horses - why not?, And the teammates recognized and executed it well.

3. USC may not have as many superstars as past seasons (like Evan M), but from 1-8 in the rotation, they are better balanced than I've ever seen a USC team. They are VERY GOOD.

4. As much as Cal came up short, this is the type of home game, that they could have pulled an upset if they just had 1 or 2 top level talents. We just don't have those anymore.

---

Good comments in the thread. The stretch goal this season is #4, so far so good. There was nothing in the loss last night that indicates that is out of reach, with the possible exception of Alajiki's injury. Hopefully we get him back at full strength soon. I think, like Celestine last year, he offers our best shot at having some upside (with Brown upping his scoring being the other).

I wondered if a zone defense might have stopped the Usc lay ups. They played it a little but not much.

sluggo said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I want to push back on one thing - yes. The match up was a nightmare. There will be other "nightmare" match ups that expose other weaknesses.

WHat the game should have shown EVERYONE that watched who is objective is the talent gap. They are SO much better and even when we played decent defense they could individually take our guys and make tough shots. People say "well their shots were falling". Yes. Because they can MAKE THEM and create them often enough.

Look, I get pinning (not saying the OP) for the days of yore when little hickory high could run the picket fence because they were so well coached. And I DO believe that Fox is a decent teacher. But what we say there last night is that if you want to WIN D1 high level basketball you NEED NBA like talent. A recent article On BI tried to show readers that as well. This is the issue - not that Fox is a "bad teacher" but that unless/until recruiting improves we are going to suck.

And lets underscore one other thing for the chicken and egg crowd. Until less than 5 years ago it wasn't like USC was winning or that the Galen Center was packed. Hell, I am not sure it STILL is packed (I need to go up but honestly I don't find this team that fun to watch). It takes recruiting....and likely the kind of charisma that can allow a skinny balding guy with generally bad teeth to score a super model for a wife. Go Andy Go.

---

So pretty much agree with all of this and appreciate SCT deconstructing the coaching aspects a bit to keep us away from the polarizing good coach/bad coach trap we all fall into. I would add a couple things:

1. General feel post-game is that Cal generally executed a well designed game plan. One of the best performances so far, but not enough against this USC team. This is probably our ceiling.

1b. As the P12 is sorting itself out - this ceiling could mean a mid conference finish for Cal this year, but they can't afford many mistakes. That's good IMHO.

2. I thought this was one of USC better coached games. Defensively, more cohesive than past few years. Yes, a lot of ISO offense, but with their horses - why not?, And the teammates recognized and executed it well.

3. USC may not have as many superstars as past seasons (like Evan M), but from 1-8 in the rotation, they are better balanced than I've ever seen a USC team. They are VERY GOOD.

4. As much as Cal came up short, this is the type of home game, that they could have pulled an upset if they just had 1 or 2 top level talents. We just don't have those anymore.

---

I think they could have pulled an upset if USC had an off night, and at the same time Cal had an on night, and I think both teams pretty much played to their level. Can't blame coaching or effort, this is where Cal is with its talent. Which is way, way better than I thought going into the season. They will beat a lot of teams if they can match last night's effort and avoid injuries.

---

FWIW, USC thought they had an off night and that they were sluggish and rusty in the first half after the long layoff.

oskidunker said:

---

I wondered if a zone defense might have stopped the Usc lay ups. They played it a little but not much.

---

I always wonder that, given our front line (other than Kuany) and especially against teams like USC. Interesting that we tried it at all (I only saw the highlights). How did we do? Was that when Lars was on the floor?

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I want to push back on one thing - yes. The match up was a nightmare. There will be other "nightmare" match ups that expose other weaknesses.

WHat the game should have shown EVERYONE that watched who is objective is the talent gap. They are SO much better and even when we played decent defense they could individually take our guys and make tough shots. People say "well their shots were falling". Yes. Because they can MAKE THEM and create them often enough.

Look, I get pinning (not saying the OP) for the days of yore when little hickory high could run the picket fence because they were so well coached. And I DO believe that Fox is a decent teacher. But what we say there last night is that if you want to WIN D1 high level basketball you NEED NBA like talent. A recent article On BI tried to show readers that as well. This is the issue - not that Fox is a "bad teacher" but that unless/until recruiting improves we are going to suck.

And lets underscore one other thing for the chicken and egg crowd. Until less than 5 years ago it wasn't like USC was winning or that the Galen Center was packed. Hell, I am not sure it STILL is packed (I need to go up but honestly I don't find this team that fun to watch). It takes recruiting....and likely the kind of charisma that can allow a skinny balding guy with generally bad teeth to score a super model for a wife. Go Andy Go.

---

So pretty much agree with all of this and appreciate SCT deconstructing the coaching aspects a bit to keep us away from the polarizing good coach/bad coach trap we all fall into. I would add a couple things:

1. General feel post-game is that Cal generally executed a well designed game plan. One of the best performances so far, but not enough against this USC team. This is probably our ceiling.

1b. As the P12 is sorting itself out - this ceiling could mean a mid conference finish for Cal this year, but they can't afford many mistakes. That's good IMHO.

2. I thought this was one of USC better coached games. Defensively, more cohesive than past few years. Yes, a lot of ISO offense, but with their horses - why not?, And the teammates recognized and executed it well.

3. USC may not have as many superstars as past seasons (like Evan M), but from 1-8 in the rotation, they are better balanced than I've ever seen a USC team. They are VERY GOOD.

4. As much as Cal came up short, this is the type of home game, that they could have pulled an upset if they just had 1 or 2 top level talents. We just don't have those anymore.

---

I think they could have pulled an upset if USC had an off night, and at the same time Cal had an on night, and I think both teams pretty much played to their level. Can't blame coaching or effort, this is where Cal is with its talent. Which is way, way better than I thought going into the season. They will beat a lot of teams if they can match last night's effort and avoid injuries.

---

FWIW, USC thought they had an off night and that they were sluggish and rusty in the first half after the long layoff.

---

Not a great first half but a very good second half so it averaged out to me. Same for Cal, except they got a little worse over time.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

I noticed for a couple of minutes last night that Andre and Lars played simultaneously, and for a couple of minutes at least it appeared to settle things down. I'm not a coach, just a guy who has watched basketball for a real long time, and in my opinion when we play the trojans again it might be beneficial for a 5 minute run to see a lineup with Andre, Lars, Sam, Joel, and maybe Jordan to balance things out on the offensive end. This would be my choice as the best lineup to give us a chance to shut these guys down, and it most likely still won't happen because these guys were really good.

---

I'm not a coach either, but that won't stop me from chiming in here. I also didn't see the game last night - too late for this Bear on the East Coast, so I am partly taking this not from having seen the USC game yet. I did tape it and will probably watch tonight.

So, I'll ask this as a question rather than a retort.

Do you think we have the players away from the basket to keep the other team honest when Andre and Lars are both in the game down low?

Joel has the highest 3pt% of the group mentioned above, but he doesn't take enough shots for me to think he could keep his shooting about 30% on volume. Jordan is a sub 30% 3pt shooter on volume. Sam actually seems to have a good long range shot and percentage with enough volume so far to make me more comfortable with this abilities, but I also read that he was out last night and is injured.

I think you would minimally need Grant in the line up at nearly 40% 3pt shooting. Nobody else has the volume and percentage to be trusted at their current success rate.

My uneducated guess is that as soon as you put Andre and Lars in the game the defense will simply just collapse and dare us to beat them by the long ball. Better teams will actually have the athletes to probably not only take the inside/outside game away but also make it difficult on the outside shooters by providing some pressure on most shots.

How in the world did wsu almost beat these guys?

CALiforniALUM said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

I noticed for a couple of minutes last night that Andre and Lars played simultaneously, and for a couple of minutes at least it appeared to settle things down. I'm not a coach, just a guy who has watched basketball for a real long time, and in my opinion when we play the trojans again it might be beneficial for a 5 minute run to see a lineup with Andre, Lars, Sam, Joel, and maybe Jordan to balance things out on the offensive end. This would be my choice as the best lineup to give us a chance to shut these guys down, and it most likely still won't happen because these guys were really good.

---

I'm not a coach either, but that won't stop me from chiming in here. I also didn't see the game last night - too late for this Bear on the East Coast, so I am partly taking this not from having seen the USC game yet. I did tape it and will probably watch tonight.

So, I'll ask this as a question rather than a retort.

Do you think we have the players away from the basket to keep the other team honest when Andre and Lars are both in the game down low?

Joel has the highest 3pt% of the group mentioned above, but he doesn't take enough shots for me to think he could keep his shooting about 30% on volume. Jordan is a sub 30% 3pt shooter on volume. Sam actually seems to have a good long range shot and percentage with enough volume so far to make me more comfortable with this abilities, but I also read that he was out last night and is injured.

I think you would minimally need Grant in the line up at nearly 40% 3pt shooting. Nobody else has the volume and percentage to be trusted at their current success rate.

My uneducated guess is that as soon as you put Andre and Lars in the game the defense will simply just collapse and dare us to beat them by the long ball. Better teams will actually have the athletes to probably not only take the inside/outside game away but also make it difficult on the outside shooters by providing some pressure on most shots.

---

Cal's offense is built around spacing. Playing both together screws up spacing. I don't want to see them together. I do want to see Kelly + Kuany and Grant A. + Kuany.

Hyder is probably still recovering from his foot injury so can't move as well and it limits his explosiveness

But right now his confidence is gone

He needs a few positive plays, and maybe restore it a little

But loss of confidence on the court is a big problem

HoopDreams said:

---

Hyder is probably still recovering from his foot injury so can't move as well and it limits his explosiveness

But right now his confidence is gone

He needs a few positive plays, and maybe restore it a little

But loss of confidence on the court is a big problem

---

This isn't in reply to you but I'm the one who called Hyder's TO a lazy pass. Call it whatever you want, but Hyder's passes at the top are a problem. I think the fundamental issue is that he is playing out of position. He just isn't a point guard. I give him props for trying but he simply doesn't handle the ball well enough to be a point guard and his decision making is tentative. He also doesn't shoot it well enough to be a shooting guard. Maybe it is his injury but I just don't see him as a P5 player. He is definitely lacking confidence.

To make our team better we need to recruit over some of the guys we have. Period. Kuany is athletic but he has 1 more year and I'm not sure he will make such a huge leap that it is worth keeping him for one more year, though I'm guessing we will. The offensive foul he committed when SC was making its run was indicative of his limited game. He doesn't have a pull up J or the ability to change directions quickly with the ball as part of his arsenal so he was committed to going straight to the rim once he went by his guy, leading to the charge. Will he develop a pull up J and other parts of his offensive game? Perhaps. But again, he only has one year left.

Same limitations with Lars. He has played well in spurts. We can live with it against slower and weaker competition but he is overmatched in quickness against the better teams/players. That will not change much in the year he has left.

Don't know with Klonaras as he hasn't played much but since this is his third season and he has yet to play meaningful minutes, I'm guessing he just isn't P5 material.

Haven't seen enough of Thorpe. He had one move with a baby hook at the end of last year that gave me hope but since he is out, who knows?

Bowser looked promising in the limited minutes he played but needs to get stronger.

With Anyanwu and Roberson, it is too early to say. Anyanwu certainly has the body. Roberson has some strength work to do and looked tenative when he did play.

Would love to keep Kelly and would love to add 2 guards who can handle the ball and score. But to do that, we need guys to leave.

HearstMining said:

---

Big C said:

---

sluggo said:

---

I think Cal's talent deficit is really at the 1 and 2 position. Celestine, when he is on like last night, Grant A. and Kelly make a solid 3-5, with support from KK (who should be the backup 4/5 instead of Lars T., not a 3) and Alajiki. Shepherd shot better than usual last night, but he is just okay, and Brown has some clear strengths but his absolute inability to score is limiting. And the backups at 1 and 2 should never be on the floor, if we can be honest. And there is no one on the bench who is better and no recruits for next year. Fox's recruiting has been bizarre. I know he has missed on some smaller players, but he needs to cast a wider net.

---

Totally agree. Hopefully Brown and Hyder will continue to improve over the next season and a half. Fox needs to recruit some guards (not swingmen, we got enough of those) with some basketball skills. I doubt that is news to him. I'm sure he wanted Mahaney and the other guard that committed elsewhere shortly after Mahaney.

In the meantime, Shepherd is proving to be a nice little pickup, what with the loss of Bradley.

---

On the game thread, Hyder was criticized for a lazy pass. I'm not sure it was lazy as much as indecisive. He looked at his teammate for so long (Should I pass it? Is he open enough?) that the defender knew it was coming. I think he frequently does the same thing when he drives - he gets up in the air and then isn't sure whether to pass or shoot. I'm not excusing him - far from it. Frankly, he needs to watch Shepherd who may not be the best shooter, but is a poised and decisive player.

Overall, I really liked the team effort and isolated results although not the final outcome:

• There were moments of good defense, even by Grant who just has slow feet and doesn't get low enough. Offensively, he is making an effort to drive to the hoop - he just needs to pick his spots a little better.
• On offense, I saw a couple of weak-side screens (which may have occurred in previous games but I didn't notice them). So I give Fox credit for adding some variety to the offense.
• Kelly used to have problems with athletic defenders and I think his fitness and poise has gotten him past that. Pac12 refs appear to be allowing more contact this year and I'd like to see him take advantage of that on the offensive boards.
• Celestine is now improving game by game and that's exciting. We know what we're generally going to get from the rest of the rotation, but I think he is trending upwards.

That's my $.02

---

Agree that Celestine is trending upwards. He is very exciting!!

that was a big time finish by Sheperd...

Bears battling it out in #OurHaas 🐻🏀#GoBears x @CalMBBall pic.twitter.com/K7NS1Lxfw3

— Cal Athletics (@CalAthletics) January 7, 2022

Bear8995 said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Hyder is probably still recovering from his foot injury so can't move as well and it limits his explosiveness

But right now his confidence is gone

He needs a few positive plays, and maybe restore it a little

But loss of confidence on the court is a big problem

---

This isn't in reply to you but I'm the one who called Hyder's TO a lazy pass. Call it whatever you want, but Hyder's passes at the top are a problem. I think the fundamental issue is that he is playing out of position. He just isn't a point guard. I give him props for trying but he simply doesn't handle the ball well enough to be a point guard and his decision making is tentative. He also doesn't shoot it well enough to be a shooting guard. Maybe it is his injury but I just don't see him as a P5 player. He is definitely lacking confidence.

---

Hyder's problem is he constantly picks up his dribble way too early because he doesn't have the strength or skill to get to the spots he needs to be with the ball. It amazes me that he continues to get playing time, but apparently he is the best option to spell Brown for a few minutes a half. Yeah, Cal needs shooters, but what they desperately need right now is an extra ball handler.

sluggo said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

I noticed for a couple of minutes last night that Andre and Lars played simultaneously, and for a couple of minutes at least it appeared to settle things down. I'm not a coach, just a guy who has watched basketball for a real long time, and in my opinion when we play the trojans again it might be beneficial for a 5 minute run to see a lineup with Andre, Lars, Sam, Joel, and maybe Jordan to balance things out on the offensive end. This would be my choice as the best lineup to give us a chance to shut these guys down, and it most likely still won't happen because these guys were really good.

---

I'm not a coach either, but that won't stop me from chiming in here. I also didn't see the game last night - too late for this Bear on the East Coast, so I am partly taking this not from having seen the USC game yet. I did tape it and will probably watch tonight.

So, I'll ask this as a question rather than a retort.

Do you think we have the players away from the basket to keep the other team honest when Andre and Lars are both in the game down low?

Joel has the highest 3pt% of the group mentioned above, but he doesn't take enough shots for me to think he could keep his shooting about 30% on volume. Jordan is a sub 30% 3pt shooter on volume. Sam actually seems to have a good long range shot and percentage with enough volume so far to make me more comfortable with this abilities, but I also read that he was out last night and is injured.

I think you would minimally need Grant in the line up at nearly 40% 3pt shooting. Nobody else has the volume and percentage to be trusted at their current success rate.

My uneducated guess is that as soon as you put Andre and Lars in the game the defense will simply just collapse and dare us to beat them by the long ball. Better teams will actually have the athletes to probably not only take the inside/outside game away but also make it difficult on the outside shooters by providing some pressure on most shots.

---

Cal's offense is built around spacing. Playing both together screws up spacing. I don't want to see them together. I do want to see Kelly + Kuany and Grant A. + Kuany.

---

I understand the concern of Andre and Lars playing together on the offensive end. But offense is only 50% of the game. I think Thursday's game pointed out that there are times when this team would benefit from having Andre and Lars in together on the defensive end. And I understand the spacing concept but again we may be able to adjust to it because its obvious that Andre has a nice touch from as far as 18 feet, maybe more.

Civil Bear said:

---

Bear8995 said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Hyder is probably still recovering from his foot injury so can't move as well and it limits his explosiveness

But right now his confidence is gone

He needs a few positive plays, and maybe restore it a little

But loss of confidence on the court is a big problem

---

This isn't in reply to you but I'm the one who called Hyder's TO a lazy pass. Call it whatever you want, but Hyder's passes at the top are a problem. I think the fundamental issue is that he is playing out of position. He just isn't a point guard. I give him props for trying but he simply doesn't handle the ball well enough to be a point guard and his decision making is tentative. He also doesn't shoot it well enough to be a shooting guard. Maybe it is his injury but I just don't see him as a P5 player. He is definitely lacking confidence.

---

Hyder's problem is he constantly picks up his dribble way too early because he doesn't have the strength or skill to get to the spots he needs to be with the ball. It amazes me that he continues to get playing time, but apparently he is the best option to spell Brown for a few minutes a half. Yeah, Cal needs shooters, but what they desperately need right now is an extra ball handler.

---

I strongly agree with this. Cal has only one good open court ball handler on the whole roster. If Brown gets hurt the whole enterprise is sunk. I hope someone from the portal can be convinced.

Bear8995 said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Hyder is probably still recovering from his foot injury so can't move as well and it limits his explosiveness

But right now his confidence is gone

He needs a few positive plays, and maybe restore it a little

But loss of confidence on the court is a big problem

---

This isn't in reply to you but I'm the one who called Hyder's TO a lazy pass. Call it whatever you want, but Hyder's passes at the top are a problem. I think the fundamental issue is that he is playing out of position. He just isn't a point guard. I give him props for trying but he simply doesn't handle the ball well enough to be a point guard and his decision making is tentative. He also doesn't shoot it well enough to be a shooting guard. Maybe it is his injury but I just don't see him as a P5 player. He is definitely lacking confidence.

To make our team better we need to recruit over some of the guys we have. Period. Kuany is athletic but he has 1 more year and I'm not sure he will make such a huge leap that it is worth keeping him for one more year, though I'm guessing we will. The offensive foul he committed when SC was making its run was indicative of his limited game. He doesn't have a pull up J or the ability to change directions quickly with the ball as part of his arsenal so he was committed to going straight to the rim once he went by his guy, leading to the charge. Will he develop a pull up J and other parts of his offensive game? Perhaps. But again, he only has one year left.

Same limitations with Lars. He has played well in spurts. We can live with it against slower and weaker competition but he is overmatched in quickness against the better teams/players. That will not change much in the year he has left.

Don't know with Klonaras as he hasn't played much but since this is his third season and he has yet to play meaningful minutes, I'm guessing he just isn't P5 material.

Haven't seen enough of Thorpe. He had one move with a baby hook at the end of last year that gave me hope but since he is out, who knows?

Bowser looked promising in the limited minutes he played but needs to get stronger.

With Anyanwu and Roberson, it is too early to say. Anyanwu certainly has the body. Roberson has some strength work to do and looked tenative when he did play.

Would love to keep Kelly and would love to add 2 guards who can handle the ball and score. But to do that, we need guys to leave.

---

I agree Cal needs better players, but I strongly disagree with recruiting over the players we have, because when we recruited them, they were undoubtedly told it was a 4-year scholarship. A public university which has the status and respect that Cal has attained should live up to its promises to students. I found it contemptible what Wyking did with McCullough and Winston.

I would be OK with recruiting over players we have, if we had told them when we were recruiting them, that this was a year-to-year scholarship, and they would have to earn their scholarship each year, with exceptions for serious injury or illness. Right now, I believe the NCAA insists that scholarships for freshmen be 4-year scholarships, and the only way to replace an ineffective player is to convince him to leave to free up a spot on the roster. Without rules, a coach might be tempted to use any sort of subterfuge or intimidation to make a player so miserable, he would want to leave, and in my mind that is not Cal, and should not be Cal. Many recruits who don't think they have an NBA future come to play for Cal, because they are good enough players to be recruited, and one of the factors they choose Cal is because of Cal's fine academic reputation. Cal will lose those recruits if they are required to earn that scholarship every year. Many of us Cal Alumni have had the experience of landing a job, and were told that one of the factors was that we had graduated from Cal. So I think that recruiting over players under the current NCAA rules is not only not the moral thing to do, it is not the practical thing to do.

Mark Fox in his first recruiting season as a new coach, was faced with a near empty cupboard and 5 or more scholarships to give out. With very few weeks left to recruit and most of the good recruits already signed, he was faced with signing the ones who were still left unsigned, or not using up all his scholarships, leaving some open for the future. He was also faced with a fan base and administration who wanted to turn the program around by producing a winning team, and he took a chance on too many recruits with little or no reputation. Fox is not the first Cal coach to be faced with having to recruit a lot of players to fill a near-empty rotation, but the others faced the situation in their 2nd or 3rd year. Rene Herrerias inherited his 5 senior starters from Pete Newell, and after that first season, all graduated. Ben Braun inherited a rotation stacked with seniors, and lost most them after one year. Mike Montgomery inherited a rotation composed mostly of juniors, and they all graduated after winning the PAC10 championship, leaving Monty with having to scramble to pick up more bodies, some of them not D1 level players. It has been tough, but Cal seems to keep their less-talented recruits on the roster giving them the chance to graduate. We should do the same with this roster, and live up to our promise of giving them an education in return for having faithfully lived up to their end of the scholarship promise, busting their fannies every day in practice, and oft times getting injured in the process. Some of these players have had career-ending injuries, but Cal kept them on scholarship so they could get their degrees. Until we get new rules, I don't think we should recruit over our players.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

sluggo said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

I noticed for a couple of minutes last night that Andre and Lars played simultaneously, and for a couple of minutes at least it appeared to settle things down. I'm not a coach, just a guy who has watched basketball for a real long time, and in my opinion when we play the trojans again it might be beneficial for a 5 minute run to see a lineup with Andre, Lars, Sam, Joel, and maybe Jordan to balance things out on the offensive end. This would be my choice as the best lineup to give us a chance to shut these guys down, and it most likely still won't happen because these guys were really good.

---

I'm not a coach either, but that won't stop me from chiming in here. I also didn't see the game last night - too late for this Bear on the East Coast, so I am partly taking this not from having seen the USC game yet. I did tape it and will probably watch tonight.

So, I'll ask this as a question rather than a retort.

Do you think we have the players away from the basket to keep the other team honest when Andre and Lars are both in the game down low?

Joel has the highest 3pt% of the group mentioned above, but he doesn't take enough shots for me to think he could keep his shooting about 30% on volume. Jordan is a sub 30% 3pt shooter on volume. Sam actually seems to have a good long range shot and percentage with enough volume so far to make me more comfortable with this abilities, but I also read that he was out last night and is injured.

I think you would minimally need Grant in the line up at nearly 40% 3pt shooting. Nobody else has the volume and percentage to be trusted at their current success rate.

My uneducated guess is that as soon as you put Andre and Lars in the game the defense will simply just collapse and dare us to beat them by the long ball. Better teams will actually have the athletes to probably not only take the inside/outside game away but also make it difficult on the outside shooters by providing some pressure on most shots.

---

Cal's offense is built around spacing. Playing both together screws up spacing. I don't want to see them together. I do want to see Kelly + Kuany and Grant A. + Kuany.

---

I understand the concern of Andre and Lars playing together on the offensive end. But offense is only 50% of the game. I think Thursday's game pointed out that there are times when this team would benefit from having Andre and Lars in together on the defensive end. And I understand the spacing concept but again we may be able to adjust to it because its obvious that Andre has a nice touch from as far as 18 feet, maybe more.

---

Agreed

sluggo said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Bear8995 said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Hyder is probably still recovering from his foot injury so can't move as well and it limits his explosiveness

But right now his confidence is gone

He needs a few positive plays, and maybe restore it a little

But loss of confidence on the court is a big problem

---

This isn't in reply to you but I'm the one who called Hyder's TO a lazy pass. Call it whatever you want, but Hyder's passes at the top are a problem. I think the fundamental issue is that he is playing out of position. He just isn't a point guard. I give him props for trying but he simply doesn't handle the ball well enough to be a point guard and his decision making is tentative. He also doesn't shoot it well enough to be a shooting guard. Maybe it is his injury but I just don't see him as a P5 player. He is definitely lacking confidence.

---

Hyder's problem is he constantly picks up his dribble way too early because he doesn't have the strength or skill to get to the spots he needs to be with the ball. It amazes me that he continues to get playing time, but apparently he is the best option to spell Brown for a few minutes a half. Yeah, Cal needs shooters, but what they desperately need right now is an extra ball handler.

---

I strongly agree with this. Cal has only one good open court ball handler on the whole roster. If Brown gets hurt the whole enterprise is sunk. I hope someone from the portal can be convinced.

---

The roster management in that regard has been a little perplexing. It is not like we have had a PG leave since Paris. Braun sometimes would be the same, neglecting guards and loading up the roster with big players.

SFCityBear said:

---

Bear8995 said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Hyder is probably still recovering from his foot injury so can't move as well and it limits his explosiveness

But right now his confidence is gone

He needs a few positive plays, and maybe restore it a little

But loss of confidence on the court is a big problem

---

This isn't in reply to you but I'm the one who called Hyder's TO a lazy pass. Call it whatever you want, but Hyder's passes at the top are a problem. I think the fundamental issue is that he is playing out of position. He just isn't a point guard. I give him props for trying but he simply doesn't handle the ball well enough to be a point guard and his decision making is tentative. He also doesn't shoot it well enough to be a shooting guard. Maybe it is his injury but I just don't see him as a P5 player. He is definitely lacking confidence.

To make our team better we need to recruit over some of the guys we have. Period. Kuany is athletic but he has 1 more year and I'm not sure he will make such a huge leap that it is worth keeping him for one more year, though I'm guessing we will. The offensive foul he committed when SC was making its run was indicative of his limited game. He doesn't have a pull up J or the ability to change directions quickly with the ball as part of his arsenal so he was committed to going straight to the rim once he went by his guy, leading to the charge. Will he develop a pull up J and other parts of his offensive game? Perhaps. But again, he only has one year left.

Same limitations with Lars. He has played well in spurts. We can live with it against slower and weaker competition but he is overmatched in quickness against the better teams/players. That will not change much in the year he has left.

Don't know with Klonaras as he hasn't played much but since this is his third season and he has yet to play meaningful minutes, I'm guessing he just isn't P5 material.

Haven't seen enough of Thorpe. He had one move with a baby hook at the end of last year that gave me hope but since he is out, who knows?

Bowser looked promising in the limited minutes he played but needs to get stronger.

With Anyanwu and Roberson, it is too early to say. Anyanwu certainly has the body. Roberson has some strength work to do and looked tenative when he did play.

Would love to keep Kelly and would love to add 2 guards who can handle the ball and score. But to do that, we need guys to leave.

---

I agree Cal needs better players, but I strongly disagree with recruiting over the players we have, because when we recruited them, they were undoubtedly told it was a 4-year scholarship. A public university which has the status and respect that Cal has attained should live up to its promises to students. I found it contemptible what Wyking did with McCullough and Winston.

I would be OK with recruiting over players we have, if we had told them when we were recruiting them, that this was a year-to-year scholarship, and they would have to earn their scholarship each year, with exceptions for serious injury or illness. Right now, I believe the NCAA insists that scholarships for freshmen be 4-year scholarships, and the only way to replace an ineffective player is to convince him to leave to free up a spot on the roster. Without rules, a coach might be tempted to use any sort of subterfuge or intimidation to make a player so miserable, he would want to leave, and in my mind that is not Cal, and should not be Cal. Many recruits who don't think they have an NBA future come to play for Cal, because they are good enough players to be recruited, and one of the factors they choose Cal is because of Cal's fine academic reputation. Cal will lose those recruits if they are required to earn that scholarship every year. Many of us Cal Alumni have had the experience of landing a job, and were told that one of the factors was that we had graduated from Cal. So I think that recruiting over players under the current NCAA rules is not only not the moral thing to do, it is not the practical thing to do.

Mark Fox in his first recruiting season as a new coach, was faced with a near empty cupboard and 5 or more scholarships to give out. With very few weeks left to recruit and most of the good recruits already signed, he was faced with signing the ones who were still left unsigned, or not using up all his scholarships, leaving some open for the future. He was also faced with a fan base and administration who wanted to turn the program around by producing a winning team, and he took a chance on too many recruits with little or no reputation. Fox is not the first Cal coach to be faced with having to recruit a lot of players to fill a near-empty rotation, but the others faced the situation in their 2nd or 3rd year. Rene Herrerias inherited his 5 senior starters from Pete Newell, and after that first season, all graduated. Ben Braun inherited a rotation stacked with seniors, and lost most them after one year. Mike Montgomery inherited a rotation composed mostly of juniors, and they all graduated after winning the PAC10 championship, leaving Monty with having to scramble to pick up more bodies, some of them not D1 level players. It has been tough, but Cal seems to keep their less-talented recruits on the roster giving them the chance to graduate. We should do the same with this roster, and live up to our promise of giving them an education in return for having faithfully lived up to their end of the scholarship promise, busting their fannies every day in practice, and oft times getting injured in the process. Some of these players have had career-ending injuries, but Cal kept them on scholarship so they could get their degrees. Until we get new rules, I don't think we should recruit over our players.

---

All PAC12 scholarships are for a guaranteed 4 years. It has been that way for several years now, perhaps 5 years if not more. I would hope that when Cal has available scholarships they attempt to recruit the best available, even if that means "recruiting over" the current roster. Doesn't mean the current kid loses his scholarship cuz that's not allowed.