Jordan Sheperd

4,230 Views | 39 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by philbert
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:09p, 1/25/22
Ok, after we've played our entire OOC schedule and the majority of the Pac12 I've now formed my read on Jordan

He is a very good player

He has strong ball-handling, plays within control, best passer on the team, can create his own shot, and scores at all 3 levels (3, mid-range, and the rim). He also has surprising hops and can play against elite teams. He shoots at 38 (field) and 32% (3) which is solid, but not great. I think his lower percentages are because he is too often asked to create a shot at the end of the clock, plus gets the team's best defenders.

Defensively he is solid. He grabs 2.7 rebounds which are reasonable given his role is not to crash the boards

I also like his attitude. He leads through his fight and aggressiveness. He doesn't back down or put his head down. He's a vet and a lead-by-example type.

He is clearly the best grad transfer we've signed

https://instagr.am/p/CZInr29Jw58

Reply Quote
6
1 edit
stu
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HoopDreams • 1:13p, 1/25/22
I'd put Grant Mullins in the same category. Grant didn't stand out as much because we had better players around him.
Reply Quote
bluehenbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:43p, 1/25/22
He seems to attract the wrong side of questionable calls by the officials. Wish I knew what was up with that.
Reply Quote
1
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:09p, 1/25/22

I was back and forth on Shepherd in November, but he has sure won me over. Plus, his skill set really matched our need, minus Bradley. Short of snagging an all-conference-level player, this was a great pick-up for the Bears.

HoopDreams, by what metric(s) are you evaluating his defense? I honestly don't have a feel for how he's doing, defensively. Solid, smooth skills on offense! By far our best backcourt player.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HoopDreams • 6:31p, 1/25/22
…..and he dropped 21 points on the #3 ranked team.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big C • 7:31p, 1/25/22
Big C said:

I was back and forth on Shepherd in November, but he has sure won me over. Plus, his skill set really matched our need, minus Bradley. Short of snagging an all-conference-level player, this was a great pick-up for the Bears.

HoopDreams, by what metric(s) are you evaluating his defense? I honestly don't have a feel for how he's doing, defensively. Solid, smooth skills on offense! By far our best backcourt player.
just the eye test

he doesn't have great lateral quickness, but he plays fundamental defense and is usually in the right place (e.g. rotations, doesn't over help, etc)
Reply Quote
1
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big C • 10:14p, 1/25/22
Big C said:

I was back and forth on Shepherd in November, but he has sure won me over. Plus, his skill set really matched our need, minus Bradley. Short of snagging an all-conference-level player, this was a great pick-up for the Bears.

HoopDreams, by what metric(s) are you evaluating his defense? I honestly don't have a feel for how he's doing, defensively. Solid, smooth skills on offense! By far our best backcourt player.


Yep. We needed someone who 1) could give us help at point, 2) someone who could make up for the loss of Bradley's scoring and 3) would come to Cal


He has really come through, he is clearly our MVP after Kelly (though I'd like to see more Alajiji and Celestine). Kudos to Fox and the staff for identifying him and bringing him to Cal.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
KoreAmBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HoopDreams • 11:56p, 1/25/22
I think his hand injury has affected his shot. Hope it's near 100% but I have no idea where that's at.
Reply Quote
3
BeachedBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:35a, 1/26/22
His confidence helps this team as well. Its contagious.
Reply Quote
2
RedlessWardrobe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:14a, 1/26/22
Agree with KoreAm. As good as he's been, its too bad he's had to play through the hand injury. And it sounds like it isn't going to significantly improve this season. Without Jordan, our offense would look worse than it does now, and it doesn't look too good right now.
Reply Quote
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KoreAmBear • 12:25p, 1/26/22
KoreAmBear said:
I think his hand injury has affected his shot. Hope it's near 100% but I have no idea where that's at.
I heard he reinjured it in practice before AZ game, so yeah, not going to be 100% this year
Reply Quote
drizzlybear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HoopDreams • 3:39p, 1/26/22
Totally agree. Iirc, he scored 20+ in the first game. So, right from the get-go, he caught attention as potentially a different transfer cat than we've previously from Fox.

Early on I referred to him as "Bradley-light". But Shepherd has, IMO, satisfied the scoring hole left by Bradley's departure. I still think he is physically a little on the light side for his position (especially when compared to Bradley), but it hasn't stopped him from attacking the rim aggressively.

He's been a great add and, dare I say, a feather in Fox's recruiting cap (albeit a cap otherwise sparse on feathers).
Reply Quote
1
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to drizzlybear • 5:47p, 1/26/22
drizzlybear said:
Totally agree. Iirc, he scored 20+ in the first game. So, right from the get-go, he caught attention as potentially a different transfer cat than we've previously from Fox.

Early on I referred to him as "Bradley-light". But Shepherd has, IMO, satisfied the scoring hole left by Bradley's departure. I still think he is physically a little on the light side for his position (especially when compared to Bradley), but it hasn't stopped him from attacking the rim aggressively.

He's been a great add and, dare I say, a feather in Fox's recruiting cap (albeit a cap otherwise sparse on feathers).


I'd say Celestine, Alajiki and Shepherd are three feathers in his cap.
Reply Quote
drizzlybear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calumnus • 6:19p, 1/26/22
calumnus said:
drizzlybear said:
Totally agree. Iirc, he scored 20+ in the first game. So, right from the get-go, he caught attention as potentially a different transfer cat than we've previously from Fox.

Early on I referred to him as "Bradley-light". But Shepherd has, IMO, satisfied the scoring hole left by Bradley's departure. I still think he is physically a little on the light side for his position (especially when compared to Bradley), but it hasn't stopped him from attacking the rim aggressively.

He's been a great add and, dare I say, a feather in Fox's recruiting cap (albeit a cap otherwise sparse on feathers).


I'd say Celestine, Alajiki and Shepherd are three feathers in his cap.

Agree, which is why I said "sparse", not "bereft".

Also, while I've liked Celestine from the get-go, I was frankly expecting more from him this year, though I understand he's had some injury issue(s) that might be holding him back this season. I'm hoping he'll take a big step forward next year (12+ shots per game), and they'll probably need him to.

Alajiki has been good, for a true freshman. But he still has the look of a role player, 3-and-D type (though I love his energy and toughness).
Reply Quote
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to drizzlybear • 7:10p, 1/26/22
drizzlybear said:
Totally agree. Iirc, he scored 20+ in the first game. So, right from the get-go, he caught attention as potentially a different transfer cat than we've previously from Fox.

Early on I referred to him as "Bradley-light". But Shepherd has, IMO, satisfied the scoring hole left by Bradley's departure. I still think he is physically a little on the light side for his position (especially when compared to Bradley), but it hasn't stopped him from attacking the rim aggressively.

He's been a great add and, dare I say, a feather in Fox's recruiting cap (albeit a cap otherwise sparse on feathers).
Sheperd is a different kinda player than Bradley

Bradley uses his strength to get to the basket, where Sheperd uses finesse

A downside of Bradley's game was he would too often put his head down and straight line it to the basket, picking up charges along the way. He also was only an adequate passer so the team was easier to defend when the ball was in his hands

In contrast, Sheperd uses an array of hesitation moves, passing on the move, and finesse finishes around the basket making the team tougher to defend when the ball is in his hands.

Bradley is the better rebounder and probably overall defender

I'd say Bradley is the better athlete, and he's certainly stronger, but Sheperd is a little longer, and has surprising hops so it's close to a wash

Both are fierce competitors

Sheperd appears to have better leadership

Overall, I do think Bradley is the better player, but Sheperd is maybe more what this team needs for various reasons, including a good locker room
Reply Quote
2
drizzlybear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HoopDreams • 9:45p, 1/26/22
HoopDreams said:
drizzlybear said:
Totally agree. Iirc, he scored 20+ in the first game. So, right from the get-go, he caught attention as potentially a different transfer cat than we've previously from Fox.

Early on I referred to him as "Bradley-light". But Shepherd has, IMO, satisfied the scoring hole left by Bradley's departure. I still think he is physically a little on the light side for his position (especially when compared to Bradley), but it hasn't stopped him from attacking the rim aggressively.

He's been a great add and, dare I say, a feather in Fox's recruiting cap (albeit a cap otherwise sparse on feathers).
Sheperd is a different kinda player than Bradley

Bradley uses his strength to get to the basket, where Sheperd uses finesse

A downside of Bradley's game was he would too often put his head down and straight line it to the basket, picking up charges along the way. He also was only an adequate passer so the team was easier to defend when the ball was in his hands

In contrast, Sheperd uses an array of hesitation moves, passing on the move, and finesse finishes around the basket making the team tougher to defend when the ball is in his hands.

Bradley is the better rebounder and probably overall defender

I'd say Bradley is the better athlete, and he's certainly stronger, but Sheperd is a little longer, and has surprising hops so it's close to a wash

Both are fierce competitors

Sheperd appears to have better leadership

Overall, I do think Bradley is the better player, but Sheperd is maybe more what this team needs for various reasons, including a good locker room

Yeah, Bradley light.
Reply Quote
2
BearGreg
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:12a, 1/27/22
Staff
Shepherd's been a strong contributor.

The biggest difference between him and Bradley is their shooting.

Shepherd's a career 42% from the field, 31% from three, and 75% from the FT line

Bradley's #'s are 44%, 39% and 85% respectively

Matt played with a competitive fire, fearlessness, and crunch time confidence that's rare to see. His personality reminds me of Jerome Randle in that respect.

Reply Quote Next Staff
1 edit
drizzlybear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:42a, 1/27/22
One thing I'd like to see us all agree on is the correct spelling of his name.
Reply Quote
1
BearGreg
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to drizzlybear • 8:10a, 1/27/22
Staff
drizzlybear said:
One thing I'd like to see us all agree on is the correct spelling of his name.


In my defense, I'm more than a bit jet lagged
Reply Quote Next Staff
RedlessWardrobe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:14a, 1/27/22
Comparison a bit apples/oranges. Shepherd is a more like a 1/2 while Bradley is more like a 2/3. Both really good players but I actually think based on the makeup of this team, Shepherd is slightly more needed. Would have been great to have them both.
Reply Quote
1
4thGenCal
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGreg • 9:23a, 1/27/22
BearGreg said:
Shepherd's been a strong contributor.

The biggest difference between him and Bradley is their shooting.

Shepherd's a career 42% from the field, 31% from three, and 75% from the FT line

Bradley's #'s are 44%, 39% and 85% respectively

Matt played with a competitive fire, fearlessness, and crunch time confidence that's rare to see. His personality reminds me of Jerome Randle in that respect.

Spot on, Shepard's has been a good pick up, but anyway the overall comparison is made, Matt has the edge. Some of the players from last year's team literally did not want to guard him in practice (not Joel who loved the challenge) because they were afraid of his physicality. Matt is the slightly better (needs to improve though his off ball defense) defender, better shooter, can create better with the ball and has the much better post season pro potential. Several coaches were shocked at Cal losing its best player by far from last year's team. The locker room impact was over blown, though Matt did things that he regretted. The overwhelming # of players on the roster would have welcomed Matt back. Yet the staff spun things differently as a bit of a cya.
Reply Quote
1
Civil Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4thGenCal • 12:23p, 1/27/22
4thGenCal said:
BearGreg said:
Shepherd's been a strong contributor.

The biggest difference between him and Bradley is their shooting.

Shepherd's a career 42% from the field, 31% from three, and 75% from the FT line

Bradley's #'s are 44%, 39% and 85% respectively

Matt played with a competitive fire, fearlessness, and crunch time confidence that's rare to see. His personality reminds me of Jerome Randle in that respect.

Spot on, Shepard's has been a good pick up, but anyway the overall comparison is made, Matt has the edge. Some of the players from last year's team literally did not want to guard him in practice (not Joel who loved the challenge) because they were afraid of his physicality. Matt is the slightly better (needs to improve though his off ball defense) defender, better shooter, can create better with the ball and has the much better post season pro potential. Several coaches were shocked at Cal losing its best player by far from last year's team. The locker room impact was over blown, though Matt did things that he regretted. The overwhelming # of players on the roster would have welcomed Matt back. Yet the staff spun things differently as a bit of a cya.
4GC, I appreciate your insights as you are obviously closer to the team than most of us, but I am a bit confused here. Who did the staff spin that to? I ask because I never read any type of public statement, and the only comments that I came across that didn't suggest the Staff was 100% culpable were, I believe, from you.
Reply Quote
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:01p, 1/27/22
let me clarify my original post

Matt Bradley is the better player by a substantial margin

He was our 'franchise player' and I hate he transferred out, especially since this could have been the year to prove that an experienced team of 3 stars, plus one super star could be the Cal formula for success

Sheperd is also very good player, and a different player
(Also, I'm comparing a 5th senior Sheperd to a junior Bradley)

Bradley is the far better player
Reply Quote
drizzlybear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:41p, 1/27/22
Bradley-light

Shepherd fills much of what Bradley did/was, but not quite all, including literally physically lighter. But still a very good find by Fox and an excellent add to the team who has merged seamlessly. And, to HD's point, has continued to show more, especially athletically, as the season has gone on. I hated that MB left, but I've been very, very pleased with the addition of Shepherd. I wish we had him for more than one season.
Reply Quote
2
sluggo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:30p, 1/27/22
I just like the many different ways his name is spelled.

Overall, I think he is a nice addition, with strengths in most dimensions. But he does not shoot well enough to be a real star. If he had Bradley's shooting numbers, he might be considered for all conference. Except Bradley's shooting numbers have gotten worse every year, which is something to ponder.


Reply Quote
BearGreg
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sluggo • 3:16p, 1/27/22
Staff
sluggo said:
I just like the many different ways his name is spelled.

Overall, I think he is a nice addition, with strengths in most dimensions. But he does not shoot well enough to be a real star. If he had Bradley's shooting numbers, he might be considered for all conference. Except Bradley's shooting numbers have gotten worse every year, which is something to ponder.


I believe you meant to say his three-point shooting has declined every year? Matt's overall FG percentage has risen over his career.

Reply Quote
sluggo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGreg • 3:21p, 1/27/22
BearGreg said:
sluggo said:
I just like the many different ways his name is spelled.

Overall, I think he is a nice addition, with strengths in most dimensions. But he does not shoot well enough to be a real star. If he had Bradley's shooting numbers, he might be considered for all conference. Except Bradley's shooting numbers have gotten worse every year, which is something to ponder.


I believe you meant to say his three-point shooting has declined every year? Matt's overall FG percentage has risen over his career.

Correct. 47 to 38 to 36 to 33 this year. After the first year it might be expected to come down as usage went up. Last year I thought he was out of shape. Hard to know what is going on this year.
Reply Quote
SFCityBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calumnus • 1:47p, 1/28/22
calumnus said:
drizzlybear said:
Totally agree. Iirc, he scored 20+ in the first game. So, right from the get-go, he caught attention as potentially a different transfer cat than we've previously from Fox.

Early on I referred to him as "Bradley-light". But Shepherd has, IMO, satisfied the scoring hole left by Bradley's departure. I still think he is physically a little on the light side for his position (especially when compared to Bradley), but it hasn't stopped him from attacking the rim aggressively.

He's been a great add and, dare I say, a feather in Fox's recruiting cap (albeit a cap otherwise sparse on feathers).


I'd say Celestine, Alajiki and Shepherd are three feathers in his cap.
I am starting to like Roberson. Nice finish at the rim, and also a nice assist in the last game. I'd like to see him get some more minutes.
SFCityBear
Reply Quote
1 edit
concernedparent
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:25p, 1/28/22
I'm less high on Shepherd. High volume, low efficiency guy. In his defense, he's being asked to do too much because of the lack of offensive talent around him. Decent player for sure, but would be a rotation sparkplug on a competitive team, not the main offensive option.
Reply Quote
1
4thGenCal
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Civil Bear • 7:42p, 1/28/22
Civil Bear said:
4thGenCal said:
BearGreg said:
Shepherd's been a strong contributor.

The biggest difference between him and Bradley is their shooting.

Shepherd's a career 42% from the field, 31% from three, and 75% from the FT line

Bradley's #'s are 44%, 39% and 85% respectively

Matt played with a competitive fire, fearlessness, and crunch time confidence that's rare to see. His personality reminds me of Jerome Randle in that respect.

Spot on, Shepard's has been a good pick up, but anyway the overall comparison is made, Matt has the edge. Some of the players from last year's team literally did not want to guard him in practice (not Joel who loved the challenge) because they were afraid of his physicality. Matt is the slightly better (needs to improve though his off ball defense) defender, better shooter, can create better with the ball and has the much better post season pro potential. Several coaches were shocked at Cal losing its best player by far from last year's team. The locker room impact was over blown, though Matt did things that he regretted. The overwhelming # of players on the roster would have welcomed Matt back. Yet the staff spun things differently as a bit of a cya.
4GC, I appreciate your insights as you are obviously closer to the team than most of us, but I am a bit confused here. Who did the staff spin that to? I ask because I never read any type of public statement, and the only comments that I came across that didn't suggest the Staff was 100% culpable were, I believe, from you.
When there was a gathering for some donor's before the season, an assistant coach said when asked, did the staff re recruit Matt, the response was that no players came to the staff to support Matt and state that they wanted him back. Which 1) was incorrect as several players (majority of roster) stated privately they wanted him to return 2) was a cya for why MB left and that he (the coach) expected the team to be better this season, without Matt. Clearly not the case as Matt would have made this year's team better. Then the coach backtracked some by saying "if we had the level headed Matt and not the antics, yes we would be better with him". As stated before, Matt was certainly not blameless, but the HC and staff are paid handsomely to put together the best possible roster to ensure the best opportunity to win, and losing your best player and only pro prospect, has proven to be a gut punch. And furthermore MB is a high quality student athlete, totally focused on basketball, the results of the team meant more to him than others on the roster and that really irked him(ie attitude after a loss). Wyking Jones was shocked at the friction with Matt and some staff and said that he never experienced any problems with him. WJ literally said "Matt was my guy".
Reply Quote
4
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4thGenCal • 7:50p, 1/28/22
4thGenCal said:
Civil Bear said:
4thGenCal said:
BearGreg said:
Shepherd's been a strong contributor.

The biggest difference between him and Bradley is their shooting.

Shepherd's a career 42% from the field, 31% from three, and 75% from the FT line

Bradley's #'s are 44%, 39% and 85% respectively

Matt played with a competitive fire, fearlessness, and crunch time confidence that's rare to see. His personality reminds me of Jerome Randle in that respect.

Spot on, Shepard's has been a good pick up, but anyway the overall comparison is made, Matt has the edge. Some of the players from last year's team literally did not want to guard him in practice (not Joel who loved the challenge) because they were afraid of his physicality. Matt is the slightly better (needs to improve though his off ball defense) defender, better shooter, can create better with the ball and has the much better post season pro potential. Several coaches were shocked at Cal losing its best player by far from last year's team. The locker room impact was over blown, though Matt did things that he regretted. The overwhelming # of players on the roster would have welcomed Matt back. Yet the staff spun things differently as a bit of a cya.
4GC, I appreciate your insights as you are obviously closer to the team than most of us, but I am a bit confused here. Who did the staff spin that to? I ask because I never read any type of public statement, and the only comments that I came across that didn't suggest the Staff was 100% culpable were, I believe, from you.
When there was a gathering for some donor's before the season, an assistant coach said when asked, did the staff re recruit Matt, the response was that no players came to the staff to support Matt and state that they wanted him back. Which 1) was incorrect as several players (majority of roster) stated privately they wanted him to return 2) was a cya for why MB left and that he (the coach) expected the team to be better this season, without Matt. Clearly not the case as Matt would have made this year's team better. Then the coach backtracked some by saying "if we had the level headed Matt and not the antics, yes we would be better with him". As stated before, Matt was certainly not blameless, but the HC and staff are paid handsomely to put together the best possible roster to ensure the best opportunity to win, and losing your best player and only pro prospect, has proven to be a gut punch. And furthermore MB is a high quality student athlete, totally focused on basketball, the results of the team meant more to him than others on the roster and that really irked him(ie attitude after a loss). Wyking Jones was shocked at the friction with Matt and some staff and said that he never experienced any problems with him. WJ literally said "Matt was my guy".
I've said many times before, the coach needs to keep his franchise player and make it work

Matt is a very competitive guy with a fire that I'm sure upset coaches and probably players from time to time, but he's also a good guy

this team could have been substantially better with him. No doubt in my mind
Reply Quote
3
drizzlybear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4thGenCal • 12:55p, 1/29/22
4thGenCal said:
Civil Bear said:
4thGenCal said:
BearGreg said:
Shepherd's been a strong contributor.

The biggest difference between him and Bradley is their shooting.

Shepherd's a career 42% from the field, 31% from three, and 75% from the FT line

Bradley's #'s are 44%, 39% and 85% respectively

Matt played with a competitive fire, fearlessness, and crunch time confidence that's rare to see. His personality reminds me of Jerome Randle in that respect.

Spot on, Shepard's has been a good pick up, but anyway the overall comparison is made, Matt has the edge. Some of the players from last year's team literally did not want to guard him in practice (not Joel who loved the challenge) because they were afraid of his physicality. Matt is the slightly better (needs to improve though his off ball defense) defender, better shooter, can create better with the ball and has the much better post season pro potential. Several coaches were shocked at Cal losing its best player by far from last year's team. The locker room impact was over blown, though Matt did things that he regretted. The overwhelming # of players on the roster would have welcomed Matt back. Yet the staff spun things differently as a bit of a cya.
4GC, I appreciate your insights as you are obviously closer to the team than most of us, but I am a bit confused here. Who did the staff spin that to? I ask because I never read any type of public statement, and the only comments that I came across that didn't suggest the Staff was 100% culpable were, I believe, from you.
When there was a gathering for some donor's before the season, an assistant coach said when asked, did the staff re recruit Matt, the response was that no players came to the staff to support Matt and state that they wanted him back. Which 1) was incorrect as several players (majority of roster) stated privately they wanted him to return 2) was a cya for why MB left and that he (the coach) expected the team to be better this season, without Matt. Clearly not the case as Matt would have made this year's team better. Then the coach backtracked some by saying "if we had the level headed Matt and not the antics, yes we would be better with him". As stated before, Matt was certainly not blameless, but the HC and staff are paid handsomely to put together the best possible roster to ensure the best opportunity to win, and losing your best player and only pro prospect, has proven to be a gut punch. And furthermore MB is a high quality student athlete, totally focused on basketball, the results of the team meant more to him than others on the roster and that really irked him(ie attitude after a loss). Wyking Jones was shocked at the friction with Matt and some staff and said that he never experienced any problems with him. WJ literally said "Matt was my guy".

So appreciate your insights. Thank you. Any chance you can elaborate or give an indication on what is meant by his "antics" or "attitude after a loss"? Those characterizations are broad enough to include legitimate reasons for not wanting him back or things that should never have warranted not re-recruiting him.

I am a HUGE fan of MB (I'm occasionally watching sdsu games) and would've loved for him to have stayed at Cal. At the end of last year I felt they could've been a bubble NCAA tournament team this season, patterned somewhat after (but not as good as) Cal's '96/'97 Sweet16 team with one elite scorer and a number of effective role players that played good defense/rebounding.

I thought MB left primarily to get a good chance at ncaa tournament while he could. I'd be bummed to hear it was because of friction with the coaches, unless his "antics" really were a detriment to the team's overall ability to move forward together.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
4thGenCal
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to drizzlybear • 4:08p, 1/29/22
drizzlybear said:
4thGenCal said:
Civil Bear said:
4thGenCal said:
BearGreg said:
Shepherd's been a strong contributor.

The biggest difference between him and Bradley is their shooting.

Shepherd's a career 42% from the field, 31% from three, and 75% from the FT line

Bradley's #'s are 44%, 39% and 85% respectively

Matt played with a competitive fire, fearlessness, and crunch time confidence that's rare to see. His personality reminds me of Jerome Randle in that respect.

Spot on, Shepard's has been a good pick up, but anyway the overall comparison is made, Matt has the edge. Some of the players from last year's team literally did not want to guard him in practice (not Joel who loved the challenge) because they were afraid of his physicality. Matt is the slightly better (needs to improve though his off ball defense) defender, better shooter, can create better with the ball and has the much better post season pro potential. Several coaches were shocked at Cal losing its best player by far from last year's team. The locker room impact was over blown, though Matt did things that he regretted. The overwhelming # of players on the roster would have welcomed Matt back. Yet the staff spun things differently as a bit of a cya.
4GC, I appreciate your insights as you are obviously closer to the team than most of us, but I am a bit confused here. Who did the staff spin that to? I ask because I never read any type of public statement, and the only comments that I came across that didn't suggest the Staff was 100% culpable were, I believe, from you.
When there was a gathering for some donor's before the season, an assistant coach said when asked, did the staff re recruit Matt, the response was that no players came to the staff to support Matt and state that they wanted him back. Which 1) was incorrect as several players (majority of roster) stated privately they wanted him to return 2) was a cya for why MB left and that he (the coach) expected the team to be better this season, without Matt. Clearly not the case as Matt would have made this year's team better. Then the coach backtracked some by saying "if we had the level headed Matt and not the antics, yes we would be better with him". As stated before, Matt was certainly not blameless, but the HC and staff are paid handsomely to put together the best possible roster to ensure the best opportunity to win, and losing your best player and only pro prospect, has proven to be a gut punch. And furthermore MB is a high quality student athlete, totally focused on basketball, the results of the team meant more to him than others on the roster and that really irked him(ie attitude after a loss). Wyking Jones was shocked at the friction with Matt and some staff and said that he never experienced any problems with him. WJ literally said "Matt was my guy".

So appreciate your insights. Thank you. Any chance you can elaborate or give an indication on what is meant by his "antics" or "attitude after a loss"? Those characterizations are broad enough to include legitimate reasons for not wanting him back or things that should never have warranted not re-recruiting him.

I am a HUGE fan of MB (I'm occasionally watching sdsu games) and would've loved for him to have stayed at Cal. At the end of last year I felt they could've been a bubble NCAA tournament team this season, patterned somewhat after (but not as good as) Cal's '96/'97 Sweet16 team with one elite scorer and a number of effective role players that played good defense/rebounding.

I thought MB left primarily to get a good chance at ncaa tournament while he could. I'd be bummed to hear it was because of friction with the coaches, unless his "antics" really were a detriment to the team's overall ability to move forward together.
Thank you and what I can say is that Matt did cuss out an assistant coach, got kicked out of practice a couple of times for altercations with a teammate and emotionally lost his temper at halftime of one game (felt his teammates were not competing to their best efforts). I am a reference for him related to his move to SDS and think extremely highly of him - straight arrow, church going, fully committed to being the best player he can be and was on track to graduate from Cal and had a chance to become the All Time Leading scorer at Cal. He also via his Dad recommendation, put his name in the portal after 2 months earlier telling Coach Fox that he was returning(they were not told prior to the entry in the portal). Objectively some immature and disruptive actions. MB I believe was strongly considering returning (that is what he told me) but he wanted the HC to show him that he was truly wanted back and specifically he/staff would commit to getting him better in terms of leadership and his defense. Matt knew he did some immature actions and did appologize for them. MB wanted to stay to get his degree and continue to attend his church in Oakland. The losing/not playing in MM was wearing on him no question, but what really bugged him, was his perception that several teammates did not take losing as badly as he did (Ie joking around after a loss). My opinion is that if the staff/HC, had flown down to meet face to face with Matt and his Dad and laid out a plan going forward to improve Matt's shortcomings and really talked "real" meaning "we want you and we will do this, to ensure we meet the goals you have" Matt would have stayed. He wanted to hear he was truly wanted. (thin skin maybe, but its in his sweet disposition off the court). However the approach that the staff took, was basically " we will leave your spot open and we welcome you back, but its got to be your decision to come back". Total gut punch to the prospects of a top half conf finish, post season play opportunities, the majority of the fan base and to a few of the players (though they respected his decision and have not held it against him.
Reply Quote
4
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4thGenCal • 7:17p, 1/29/22
Absolutely should had met him and their father down south.

That is just coaching malpractice

And those things that Matt did were not crossing a line. He is just a fierce competitor in the heat of battle

If anything him calling out his teammates is more effective than their coach doing it




4thGenCal said:
drizzlybear said:
4thGenCal said:
Civil Bear said:
4thGenCal said:
BearGreg said:
Shepherd's been a strong contributor.

The biggest difference between him and Bradley is their shooting.

Shepherd's a career 42% from the field, 31% from three, and 75% from the FT line

Bradley's #'s are 44%, 39% and 85% respectively

Matt played with a competitive fire, fearlessness, and crunch time confidence that's rare to see. His personality reminds me of Jerome Randle in that respect.

Spot on, Shepard's has been a good pick up, but anyway the overall comparison is made, Matt has the edge. Some of the players from last year's team literally did not want to guard him in practice (not Joel who loved the challenge) because they were afraid of his physicality. Matt is the slightly better (needs to improve though his off ball defense) defender, better shooter, can create better with the ball and has the much better post season pro potential. Several coaches were shocked at Cal losing its best player by far from last year's team. The locker room impact was over blown, though Matt did things that he regretted. The overwhelming # of players on the roster would have welcomed Matt back. Yet the staff spun things differently as a bit of a cya.
4GC, I appreciate your insights as you are obviously closer to the team than most of us, but I am a bit confused here. Who did the staff spin that to? I ask because I never read any type of public statement, and the only comments that I came across that didn't suggest the Staff was 100% culpable were, I believe, from you.
When there was a gathering for some donor's before the season, an assistant coach said when asked, did the staff re recruit Matt, the response was that no players came to the staff to support Matt and state that they wanted him back. Which 1) was incorrect as several players (majority of roster) stated privately they wanted him to return 2) was a cya for why MB left and that he (the coach) expected the team to be better this season, without Matt. Clearly not the case as Matt would have made this year's team better. Then the coach backtracked some by saying "if we had the level headed Matt and not the antics, yes we would be better with him". As stated before, Matt was certainly not blameless, but the HC and staff are paid handsomely to put together the best possible roster to ensure the best opportunity to win, and losing your best player and only pro prospect, has proven to be a gut punch. And furthermore MB is a high quality student athlete, totally focused on basketball, the results of the team meant more to him than others on the roster and that really irked him(ie attitude after a loss). Wyking Jones was shocked at the friction with Matt and some staff and said that he never experienced any problems with him. WJ literally said "Matt was my guy".

So appreciate your insights. Thank you. Any chance you can elaborate or give an indication on what is meant by his "antics" or "attitude after a loss"? Those characterizations are broad enough to include legitimate reasons for not wanting him back or things that should never have warranted not re-recruiting him.

I am a HUGE fan of MB (I'm occasionally watching sdsu games) and would've loved for him to have stayed at Cal. At the end of last year I felt they could've been a bubble NCAA tournament team this season, patterned somewhat after (but not as good as) Cal's '96/'97 Sweet16 team with one elite scorer and a number of effective role players that played good defense/rebounding.

I thought MB left primarily to get a good chance at ncaa tournament while he could. I'd be bummed to hear it was because of friction with the coaches, unless his "antics" really were a detriment to the team's overall ability to move forward together.
Thank you and what I can say is that Matt did cuss out an assistant coach, got kicked out of practice a couple of times for altercations with a teammate and emotionally lost his temper at halftime of one game (felt his teammates were not competing to their best efforts). I am a reference for him related to his move to SDS and think extremely highly of him - straight arrow, church going, fully committed to being the best player he can be and was on track to graduate from Cal and had a chance to become the All Time Leading scorer at Cal. He also via his Dad recommendation, put his name in the portal after 2 months earlier telling Coach Fox that he was returning(they were not told prior to the entry in the portal). Objectively some immature and disruptive actions. MB I believe was strongly considering returning (that is what he told me) but he wanted the HC to show him that he was truly wanted back and specifically he/staff would commit to getting him better in terms of leadership and his defense. Matt knew he did some immature actions and did appologize for them. MB wanted to stay to get his degree and continue to attend his church in Oakland. The losing/not playing in MM was wearing on him no question, but what really bugged him, was his perception that several teammates did not take losing as badly as he did (Ie joking around after a loss). My opinion is that if the staff/HC, had flown down to meet face to face with Matt and his Dad and laid out a plan going forward to improve Matt's shortcomings and really talked "real" meaning "we want you and we will do this, to ensure we meet the goals you have" Matt would have stayed. He wanted to hear he was truly wanted. (thin skin maybe, but its in his sweet disposition off the court). However the approach that the staff took, was basically " we will leave your spot open and we welcome you back, but its got to be your decision to come back". Total gut punch to the prospects of a top half conf finish, post season play opportunities, the majority of the fan base and to a few of the players (though they respected his decision and have not held it against him.
Reply Quote
2
drizzlybear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:12p, 2/5/22
Thanks again so much for the insights. I disagree with HoopDreams that cussing out a coach does not cross a line; it very clearly does. That doesn't mean it's an irreconcilable violation, but there's no way that cussing out coaches can be on the correct side of the line.

That said, I do agree that getting on teammates when it's for the right reasons (even if not done in the most constructive fashion) does not cross a line, especially when done by a senior leader who carries a major load, like MB.

Again, i am a HUGE fan of MB, but requiring the coaches to come to him to demonstrate their want for him feels a little diva-ish, or requiring the kissing of the ring. My own personal reaction to that is negative, and I could see myself taking the approach you describe Fox taking.

Overall, it seems like a really unfortunate situation. Seems like he wanted to be back, and they wanted him back. Seems like not too big of a chasm to have been been bridged some way. Unfortunate.

Thanks again for sharing your insights.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Page 1 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.