BearlyCareAnymore said:
SFCityBear said:
calumnus said:
SFCityBear said:
calumnus said:
SFCityBear said:
concernedparent said:
4thGenCal said:
calumnus said:
Looking at Wrenn Robinson videos, he is a great shooter with good length (6'2" 6'5 wingspan). Top JC player (PG on championship team), had full eligibility out of HS (St. Ignatius) so was able to be added in season and is only a sophomore.
He has looked great in limited minutes, IMO he needs to start getting ALOT of minutes and if his excellent play continues start supplanting Brown, but also backing up Askew.
Totally agree but Fox has said that Wrenn "is under sized"! ridiculous because though He is really just 6'1" in shoes (stood next to him)He is physically strong and has good handles and a nice smooth shot. Fox did say that He will be a contributing player for the next 2 seasons. Its almost as though bringing in a walk on via Paris Austin recommendation, is an affront to the staff and they are only playing him if absolutely necessary. Wrenn has confidence and has bball savvy, hope he gets more minutes.
Fox also did Paris Austin dirty. His obsession with defensive potential over actual basketball skill is why we're the worst offense in the P5. The 1 is the least consequential spot on defense. You need someone who can run an offense or make something happen.
I think Mike Montgomery and a host of other coaches would disagree with you on this. Monty often talked about how important it is to stop the ball at point of attack, which is typically the point guard's responsibility. He had it with Jorge, and with Cobbs. Jason Kidd could interrupt an entire offense, with his defense of opposing guards trying to penetrate Cal's defense. The weakness of the 2016 team, other than depth, was at point guard. Wallace was a very good player, essential to the team's success, but he was not great at stopping the ball at point of attack.
You do have a good point with the current roster, because the worst part about this team is the offense. We could score 10-12 more points per game with a decent point guard, and that would be enough to give us a chance to win some games. So we need someone who can run a team right now, not a top defender at point guard. Right now, the only player on this team who has had proven point guard success, both passing and scoring (albeit at a lower college level than the PAC12) is Clayton, and he sits on the bench, injured. He hasn't played a single minute yet.
Wrenn Robinson (the topic of this thread) won a championship at SFCC last year. Great 3 pt shooter, good shooter off the dribble and good on ball defender. He should not be dismissed just because he came to Cal as a walk-on.
Where did I dismiss Robinson? I've never seen Robinson play, and have no idea whether he can play point and run a team at PAC12 or P5 level, and no one here knows that for sure either, because he has not yet done it for an appreciable number of games. Most of what I have read about here is about his shooting. We don't need shooters, we need scorers. There is a difference. I wrote about Coleman, about whom I know very little, except his stats, because he has played several seasons in Division 1. If Robinson can do the job of running the team at point, I'm behind him 100%. If we only had a point guard, that would free up Askew to operate and focus on getting open, because he and Lars are the team's only dependable scorers. We haven't had a skilled point guard since I can't remember when.
You say you didn't dismiss him, then you proceed to dismiss him? But "dismiss" was too strong for your original post, I should have said "when evaluating the roster, don't sleep on Robinson, the subject of this thread."
He averaged 25 points a game with his AAU team. He is a MUCH better scorer than Brown. He is more than a catch and shoot guy, he can score off the dribble and has a nice step back three. Plays good defense too from what I've seen. Most importantly he would better compliment Askew and make him more effective as a scorer, since currently Brown's guy can sag off him and provide help defense on Askew when he drives.
This is a favorite tactic. Accuse a poster of something he never said or implied, even making something up, in order to discredit the poster instead of answering his initial post. Politicians do this for a living.
Actually, I really liked your post other than the opening personal shot at me. I l liked it because it was something positive, something to give us as glimmer of hope. You spend countless hours of dreaming up new ways to trash the Cal coach, and you have helped convince the few fans left in our forum to follow suit. It has been a long time since you have said anything positive or encouraging about a current Cal player. I remember you begrudgingly admit that Lars had improved some, but other than that I remember you trashing Fox's record of recruiting, going all the way back to Nevada, on almost a daily basis, while at the same time stating that you support the Cal players. How can you say that a player is not a good recruit, and at the same time turn around and say you support the player? Isn't that hypocrisy?
In any case, it seems as though my post may have caused you to come out in full support of Robinson, touting his previous record, and his skills, and how he might be able to help this team score more if he were given more minutes. I loved it, and I'd like you to do more of it.
With that being said, I too, am interested in seeing what this young man can do, believe it or not. But we need to get real for a moment, too. You touted his high school numbers, 26 points a game in high school and AAU, which is also high school, although at a slightly higher level. Division 1 rosters are full of kids who had great high school records. Usually, it is the best of the best in high school who make a splash in D1/P5, and usually not right away. Robinson has had a year in Junior College ball at CCSF, and it was a good year, and he was a big factor in CCSF's championship run. You may not have noticed, but the Robinson had a big dropoff in scoring during his junior college year, averaging less than 10 points a game at CCSF. Players have to prove themselves at each level, and Robinson will have to prove himself at Cal. Was Robinson participating in practice since Cal's 3rd game? If so, then Fox has a pretty good idea of what Robinson can do against players like Brown and Askew by now. Askew has a good deal of size over Robinson, and Brown as a defender is a load for any guard he faces. It will be good experience for Robinson to go against those two veterans in practice, and by now Fox should have a pretty good idea of what Robinson can do. And hopefully Robinson is progressing individually and as a member of the team. I was also very hopeful about Clayton, because he had 5 years in Division 1, with good success, but that was in a relatively weaker conference. Clayton, as well as Robinson, would have to prove himself at D1, P5 conference level, no small task.
So I have a proposition for you: If my writing something that annoys you will lead you to writing something positive about a Cal player, then what I can do is post some slow-pitch softballs that you can hit out of the park, and in exchange would you write more good encouraging thoughts about Cal players? The daily drumbeat of criticism, right or not, is really depressing.
Actually, I think what he did in the past is give an honest assessment of Fox's crappy record and total lack of qualifications for this job and you stuck you fingers in your ears and screamed "I can't hear you!"
The results of the Fox regime were entirely predictable, made obvious by the fact that many predicted it.
The mistake that many make is thinking that hiring a coach with mediocre past results gives you a high floor and low ceiling. This has been proven false countless times, Walt Harris, Ty Willingham, and Mark Fox are just a few examples. And actually Braun after he left here. Most guys have windows. You have that many years of mediocrity and the window closes and the crash is ready to follow.
I would have thought that the generation that complains of snowflakes and participation trophies would have been against blowing sunshine up people's butts about the skill levels of players. Fox's recruiting sucks. If the players don't like honesty, prove everyone wrong by playing better. You don't support them by patting them on the head, handing them an orange slice and telling them they are wonderful.
From what I can see you have essentially accused calumnus of stating two opinions that have been proven one million percent correct. I would call them prophetic but it didn't take no prophet to nail those predictions.
I have no objection to firing Mark Fox. What I object to is smearing a Cal coach for almost 4 years now with distortion of his history prior to coming to Cal, among other things. All this to prove he is right about his prediction. With his prediction and $5 he can get a cup of coffee somewhere in Berkeley.
Mark Fox's record at Georgia was not "crappy". "Crappy" means "bad" or "terrible". Fox's record at Cal has been "crappy". Maybe you got the two records mixed up. Later on in your post, twice you called Fox's record at Georgia "mediocre". "Mediocre" means "average", which is what it was (actually slightly above average). That was correct. Here is the actual record of Mark Fox as head coach of Georgia, from sports-reference.com, not the description which was given to you by calumnus:
Overerall record, wins and losses: 163-133, a .551 win percentage, which is a little above average. SEC Conference record, wins and losses: 77-79, a .494 win percentage, very slightly below average. If he had won one of the games he lost, he would have had a .500 percentage, which by definition is "average". A basketball game is sometimes lost on one bad call, or one missed shot.
Wins: 163 (3rd all-time among 25 Georgia head coaches.)
Games: 296 (4th all-time at Georgia)
NCAA Appearances: 2 (tied for 2nd all-time at Georgia)
Career Won-Loss Percentage: .551 (4th all-time among 14 coaches who have coached 100 games, and 7th all-time among 11 coaches who have coached 4 years or more)
Certainly, Fox's record at Georgia was not "crappy. Fox was successful at Georgia, up to a point. Georgia had hired a famous coach, Jim Harrick, in 1999, and he coached 4 decent seasons until his son, an assistant, was caught in some NCAA infractions. Georgia fired Herrick. Dennis Felton was hired to replace Herrick, and Felton went on to have an abysmal record, a .480 overall winning percentage, and a pretty bad .310 record in the SEC over six seasons. Then Georgia hired Mark Fox to reverse the trend, to make Georgia better. Under Fox Georgia became an average program, but a winning program again. It took time to dig Georgia out of the hole. Fox's career at Georgia can be seen as two distinct periods. The first 4 years were not pretty, as Fox had only one winning season. His win percentage was .508, and .424 in the SEC. The next 5 seasons were different, with a .576 win percentage, and .544 in the SEC. I'll bet you didn't know Fox's last 5 seasons at Georgia were all winning seasons, did you? 5 in a row.
Georgia fired Mark Fox, and hired Tom Crean, who had a record that Cal fans, including me, were impressed. Crean had managed to rebuild both Marquette and Indiana, and was known as a fine recruiter and a sharp coach. Mark Fox left Crean two top 100 recruits, along with Nicholas Claxton who would leave for the NBA after a year with Crean, but Crean's first team went 11-21. In his second season, Crean landed Anthony Edwards, the #4 recruit in the nation, along with three other top 100 prospects. That team went 16-16. By Crean's 3rd season, he still had 4 top 100 players, but his team was only 14-12. The following year, all his top 100 players had departed, but Crean was able to land one, Jabri Abdur-Rahim. Even so, Crean's team finished 6-26. Georgia then fired Tom Crean. He finished with a 4 year record of .385 winning percentage, .208 in the SEC. Fox's first 4 years at Georgia: .508 winning percentage, .424 in conference. I guess Crean missed your "window" altogether, going from very good to failure. Not everyone has a window. Some coaches stay mediocre forever. And some go through your window and get better, I'd guess. The Georgia record shows that Fox had a much better record at Georgia than Felton, the coach he succeeded, and Crean, the coach who succeeded Fox at Georgia.
Calumnus has his own definition of failure, and he has high standards when it comes to some coaches. It includes every aspect of a coach's pedigree, where the coach played his basketball, learned his ball, where he coached, what his offense is, his defense, how he acts on the court, whether he yells at players or referees, what his gestures and facial expressions are, and what his practice philosophy is like, how well he can recruit, how well he can develop his players, what his press conferences are like. He has been more thoroughly hard on Mark Fox, than on any other modern Cal coach. But shouldn't a coach be fired for cause, not for his past history at previous schools? Predictions like this are worthless, unless you can get the ear of the AD and convince him to take action.
I hope I'm wrong, but perhaps both Georgia and now Cal are very tough places to build a winning program.
SFCityBear
