Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Post Reply
1 of 1
The Official Everyone is too Chickensh@t to Start a Game Thread, Thread
2,457 Views |
32 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by drizzlybear
You are not alone.
Start Slowly and taper off
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Considering it is a double digit deficit now, I think that moment has arrived. Sigh
Start Slowly and taper off
Once Oregon stopped turning the ball over and started hitting threes we had no answer.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Cal plays 8 guys. Limited basketball talent/athleticism. They continue to play hard + with enthusiasm. A nightmare of a season...
After the first 10 minutes our defense hasn't done much. Offense looks normal. Not a winning recipe.
We're down 78 to 49, but I think we can come back and win this one.
How much more time will we need to pull this one out?
Start Slowly and taper off
Well, we dropped 50 on them. Gotta play harder on defense.
Broke 50!
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Sounds like you played the Oregon football team.stu said:
Well, we dropped 50 on them. Gotta play harder on defense.
stu said:
Well, we dropped 50 on them. Gotta play harder on defense.
"I'm really disappointed in our defense" MF
all 3 three of their 7 foot centers were better than our 7 foot center (and 6-9 center)
They out rebounded us by a gazillion
Oregon used to be athletic, talented but small
Now they are athletic, talented and huge
Sam had a good game
They out rebounded us by a gazillion
Oregon used to be athletic, talented but small
Now they are athletic, talented and huge
Sam had a good game
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Big C's Believe It or Not:
Until this post (45 minutes after the game), the Bears had scored exactly three times as many points as there were posts on this game thread! In just under four years, Knowlton and Fox have managed to wring the life out of us.
No Cal player got more than 3 rebounds. Overall Oregon 45, Cal 21 on the boards.HoopDreams said:
all 3 three of their 7 foot centers were better than our 7 foot center (and 6-9 center)
They out rebounded us by a gazillion
Oregon used to be athletic, talented but small
Now they are athletic, talented and huge
Sam had a good game
Moral victory? Anyone?
Bearister, you are special
stu said:No Cal player got more than 3 rebounds. Overall Oregon 45, Cal 21 on the boards.HoopDreams said:
all 3 three of their 7 foot centers were better than our 7 foot center (and 6-9 center)
They out rebounded us by a gazillion
Oregon used to be athletic, talented but small
Now they are athletic, talented and huge
Sam had a good game
Very disparate shooting percentages played a role in that. I think I heard the announcer say Oregon was still at 68% FG well into H2. That's a huge problem in itself, but it will skew the rebounding numbers.
Oregon's 3 big destroyed us (offense, defense and rebounding)
It was truly horrific
End of storry
It was truly horrific
End of storry
drizzlybear said:stu said:No Cal player got more than 3 rebounds. Overall Oregon 45, Cal 21 on the boards.HoopDreams said:
all 3 three of their 7 foot centers were better than our 7 foot center (and 6-9 center)
They out rebounded us by a gazillion
Oregon used to be athletic, talented but small
Now they are athletic, talented and huge
Sam had a good game
Very disparate shooting percentages played a role in that. I think I heard the announcer say Oregon was still at 68% FG well into H2. That's a huge problem in itself, but it will skew the rebounding numbers.
Thanks to the same 3 posters this game thread has gone on to a second page. We can do better
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
HoopDreams said:
Oregon's 3 big destroyed us (offense, defense and rebounding)
It was truly horrific
End of storrydrizzlybear said:stu said:No Cal player got more than 3 rebounds. Overall Oregon 45, Cal 21 on the boards.HoopDreams said:
all 3 three of their 7 foot centers were better than our 7 foot center (and 6-9 center)
They out rebounded us by a gazillion
Oregon used to be athletic, talented but small
Now they are athletic, talented and huge
Sam had a good game
Very disparate shooting percentages played a role in that. I think I heard the announcer say Oregon was still at 68% FG well into H2. That's a huge problem in itself, but it will skew the rebounding numbers.
Pardon me if i start the story again, but their whole team dominated our whole team (Cuisnard in addition to the bigs). But my comment wasn't an assessment of the game, it was a response to the prior post about the rebounding disparity. A FG % that disparate will have a skewing effect on the rebounding numbers.
cal83dls79 said:
Thanks to the same 3 posters this game thread has gone on to a second page. We can do better
I agree shooting percentages can skew rebounding numbers. But Oregon had 15 offensive rebounds on 28 missed shots and we had 6 offensive rebounds on 35 missed shots.drizzlybear said:
Pardon me if i start the story again, but their whole team dominated our whole team (Cuisnard in addition to the bigs). But my comment wasn't an assessment of the game, it was a response to the prior post about the rebounding disparity. A FG % that disparate will have a skewing effect on the rebounding numbers.
True
Regardless of stats we lost game due the total thrashing in the post offensively, defensively and rebounding
Regardless of stats we lost game due the total thrashing in the post offensively, defensively and rebounding
stu said:I agree shooting percentages can skew rebounding numbers. But Oregon had 15 offensive rebounds on 28 missed shots and we had 6 offensive rebounds on 35 missed shots.drizzlybear said:
Pardon me if i start the story again, but their whole team dominated our whole team (Cuisnard in addition to the bigs). But my comment wasn't an assessment of the game, it was a response to the prior post about the rebounding disparity. A FG % that disparate will have a skewing effect on the rebounding numbers.
HoopDreams said:
True
Regardless of stats we lost game due the total thrashing in the post offensively, defensively and reboundingstu said:I agree shooting percentages can skew rebounding numbers. But Oregon had 15 offensive rebounds on 28 missed shots and we had 6 offensive rebounds on 35 missed shots.drizzlybear said:
Pardon me if i start the story again, but their whole team dominated our whole team (Cuisnard in addition to the bigs). But my comment wasn't an assessment of the game, it was a response to the prior post about the rebounding disparity. A FG % that disparate will have a skewing effect on the rebounding numbers.
We lost in the post and we lost outside. We were 2 of 13 on Threes, they were 8 of 23. That is 18 points right there.
Tough for a team that is weak inside to also be one of the worst shooting teams in the country.
We didn't have good open looks because they had rim protectors so their players could stay on our shooters and run them off the line
The only shot they gave us was a few pull up midrange jumpers
We had to collapse on their big and try to stop slashers, giving their perimeter shooters much better looks, oftentimes wide open
Everything is connected, and in this game it started from the total massacre in the paint
The only shot they gave us was a few pull up midrange jumpers
We had to collapse on their big and try to stop slashers, giving their perimeter shooters much better looks, oftentimes wide open
Everything is connected, and in this game it started from the total massacre in the paint
calumnus said:HoopDreams said:
True
Regardless of stats we lost game due the total thrashing in the post offensively, defensively and reboundingstu said:I agree shooting percentages can skew rebounding numbers. But Oregon had 15 offensive rebounds on 28 missed shots and we had 6 offensive rebounds on 35 missed shots.drizzlybear said:
Pardon me if i start the story again, but their whole team dominated our whole team (Cuisnard in addition to the bigs). But my comment wasn't an assessment of the game, it was a response to the prior post about the rebounding disparity. A FG % that disparate will have a skewing effect on the rebounding numbers.
We lost in the post and we lost outside. We were 2 of 13 on Threes, they were 8 of 23. That is 18 points right there.
Tough for a team that is weak inside to also be one of the worst shooting teams in the country.
HoopDreams said:
We didn't have good open looks because they had rim protectors so their players could stay on our shooters and run them off the line
The only shot they gave us was a few pull up midrange jumpers
We had to collapse on their big and try to stop slashers, giving their perimeter shooters much better looks, oftentimes wide open
Everything is connected, and in this game it started from the total massacre in the paint
calumnus said:HoopDreams said:
True
Regardless of stats we lost game due the total thrashing in the post offensively, defensively and reboundingstu said:I agree shooting percentages can skew rebounding numbers. But Oregon had 15 offensive rebounds on 28 missed shots and we had 6 offensive rebounds on 35 missed shots.drizzlybear said:
Pardon me if i start the story again, but their whole team dominated our whole team (Cuisnard in addition to the bigs). But my comment wasn't an assessment of the game, it was a response to the prior post about the rebounding disparity. A FG % that disparate will have a skewing effect on the rebounding numbers.
We lost in the post and we lost outside. We were 2 of 13 on Threes, they were 8 of 23. That is 18 points right there.
Tough for a team that is weak inside to also be one of the worst shooting teams in the country.
Thanks for the insight.
HoopDreams said:
We didn't have good open looks because they had rim protectors so their players could stay on our shooters and run them off the line
The only shot they gave us was a few pull up midrange jumpers
We had to collapse on their big and try to stop slashers, giving their perimeter shooters much better looks, oftentimes wide open
Everything is connected, and in this game it started from the total massacre in the paint
calumnus said:HoopDreams said:
True
Regardless of stats we lost game due the total thrashing in the post offensively, defensively and reboundingstu said:I agree shooting percentages can skew rebounding numbers. But Oregon had 15 offensive rebounds on 28 missed shots and we had 6 offensive rebounds on 35 missed shots.drizzlybear said:
Pardon me if i start the story again, but their whole team dominated our whole team (Cuisnard in addition to the bigs). But my comment wasn't an assessment of the game, it was a response to the prior post about the rebounding disparity. A FG % that disparate will have a skewing effect on the rebounding numbers.
We lost in the post and we lost outside. We were 2 of 13 on Threes, they were 8 of 23. That is 18 points right there.
Tough for a team that is weak inside to also be one of the worst shooting teams in the country.
I think you could make that assessment simply by looking at the rosters before the game, especially when you add that Cal's lone 7-footer was still <100% recovered from sprained ankle. It would've taken a miracle for hobbled and mediocre Theimann and sub-7' freshman Okafor to contend effectively with the Ducks' remarkable personnel in the post. And yes, that leads to all kinds of other ripple effects (more kick-out 3's, for one).
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Get Great Reviews from Big Game Visitors
by Jim McGill
Bears Hammer Mercyhurst, 81-55.
by Jim McGill
Ultimate Insider Podcast E100: Stanford Wrap-up, SMU Preview
by Mike Pawlawski
From the Other Sideline: Cal vs SMU Preview
by Jim McGill
Cal Takes Down Arizona
by Cal Athletics