Since my last post some really good points have been made about a few coaches since Braun. I still found the basketball more entertaining during Braun's tenure than any of those who followed. Im kind of curious how far back the other posters in this thread have watched Cal basketball. Is Braun in your consideration set?

I go back to Herrerias. I enjoyed games under almost all of the coaches since that time (1960s) but some of Edwards' and Kuchen's teams were hard to watch.

Civil Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Cuonzo Martin (era):

Joy: I thought he was good man and rep'd Cal well. The sense of larger community engagement was probably the best since Kidd era. I liked his some of his recruiting and 'why not Cal' attitude. His teams played with joy and the Haas was rocking (which is probably the most important thing for me).

Disappointments: Biggest issue was the lack of offensive/defensive balance. This seemed fixable, but also seemed like he was stubborn about it. Second issue was recruiting inconsistency. Rabb & Brown were so exciting. Chauca - not so much. Lastly, the final NIT game left such a bad taste in my mouth - that type of behavior should never occur.

---

I realize Martin had success and I certainly watched/attended games during his time at Cal. However, not sure I truly enjoyed it. The offense was ugly and player development seemed non-existent. Having played the 4/5 position, the way Rabb was used was criminal - never put him in position to succeed and it drove me nuts! Felt so bad for that kid and it cost him his chance in the NBA. Then the erratic recruiting approach - home run with Rabb and Brown, but generally strike outs everywhere else. The loss to Hawaii was inexcusable even with all the off-court distractions and then the way he bolted (contrast that with Madsen this week), I wasn't sad to see him go.

I went to school during the Kidd years, so that was clearly the most fun. Second place would be the Montgomery years - his teams were fun to watch. They played fundamentally sound, smart basketball, had great offensive sets, and in-game/halftime adjustments were usually spot on. He did have the occasional stinkers, but generally enjoyable to watch.

---

The strikeouts I believe, outside of Swanson, were caused by Martin recruiting players that the Cal administration would not admit.

---

Not really. The most glaring was when he passed on incoming Ahmaad Rorie for 2 other higher-rated pg's he thought he could get, only to end up swinging and missing on both and ending up with Brandon Chauca.

---

I don't know if you know this or not but Rorie's godfather is Travis DeCuire....when DeCuire didn't get the job the writing was on the wall....I don't think Martin had a shot at Rorie with the connection to DeCuire....

Civil Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Cuonzo Martin (era):

Joy: I thought he was good man and rep'd Cal well. The sense of larger community engagement was probably the best since Kidd era. I liked his some of his recruiting and 'why not Cal' attitude. His teams played with joy and the Haas was rocking (which is probably the most important thing for me).

Disappointments: Biggest issue was the lack of offensive/defensive balance. This seemed fixable, but also seemed like he was stubborn about it. Second issue was recruiting inconsistency. Rabb & Brown were so exciting. Chauca - not so much. Lastly, the final NIT game left such a bad taste in my mouth - that type of behavior should never occur.

---

I realize Martin had success and I certainly watched/attended games during his time at Cal. However, not sure I truly enjoyed it. The offense was ugly and player development seemed non-existent. Having played the 4/5 position, the way Rabb was used was criminal - never put him in position to succeed and it drove me nuts! Felt so bad for that kid and it cost him his chance in the NBA. Then the erratic recruiting approach - home run with Rabb and Brown, but generally strike outs everywhere else. The loss to Hawaii was inexcusable even with all the off-court distractions and then the way he bolted (contrast that with Madsen this week), I wasn't sad to see him go.

I went to school during the Kidd years, so that was clearly the most fun. Second place would be the Montgomery years - his teams were fun to watch. They played fundamentally sound, smart basketball, had great offensive sets, and in-game/halftime adjustments were usually spot on. He did have the occasional stinkers, but generally enjoyable to watch.

---

The strikeouts I believe, outside of Swanson, were caused by Martin recruiting players that the Cal administration would not admit.

---

Not really. The most glaring was when he passed on incoming Ahmaad Rorie for 2 other higher-rated pg's he thought he could get, only to end up swinging and missing on both and ending up with Brandon Chauca.

---

The recent hardships of our progam really help illustrate just how important PG play is in the NCAA. DItto what we have seen in the tournament.

socaltownie said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Cuonzo Martin (era):

Joy: I thought he was good man and rep'd Cal well. The sense of larger community engagement was probably the best since Kidd era. I liked his some of his recruiting and 'why not Cal' attitude. His teams played with joy and the Haas was rocking (which is probably the most important thing for me).

Disappointments: Biggest issue was the lack of offensive/defensive balance. This seemed fixable, but also seemed like he was stubborn about it. Second issue was recruiting inconsistency. Rabb & Brown were so exciting. Chauca - not so much. Lastly, the final NIT game left such a bad taste in my mouth - that type of behavior should never occur.

---

I realize Martin had success and I certainly watched/attended games during his time at Cal. However, not sure I truly enjoyed it. The offense was ugly and player development seemed non-existent. Having played the 4/5 position, the way Rabb was used was criminal - never put him in position to succeed and it drove me nuts! Felt so bad for that kid and it cost him his chance in the NBA. Then the erratic recruiting approach - home run with Rabb and Brown, but generally strike outs everywhere else. The loss to Hawaii was inexcusable even with all the off-court distractions and then the way he bolted (contrast that with Madsen this week), I wasn't sad to see him go.

I went to school during the Kidd years, so that was clearly the most fun. Second place would be the Montgomery years - his teams were fun to watch. They played fundamentally sound, smart basketball, had great offensive sets, and in-game/halftime adjustments were usually spot on. He did have the occasional stinkers, but generally enjoyable to watch.

---

The strikeouts I believe, outside of Swanson, were caused by Martin recruiting players that the Cal administration would not admit.

---

Not really. The most glaring was when he passed on incoming Ahmaad Rorie for 2 other higher-rated pg's he thought he could get, only to end up swinging and missing on both and ending up with Brandon Chauca.

---

The recent hardships of our progam really help illustrate just how important PG play is in the NCAA. DItto what we have seen in the tournament.

---

I've been thinking about this too. When was the last good (P12 caliber) PG, Cal has had (and not an out of position player, who just happens to be best on the team). Charlie Moore and Justin Cobbs come to mind. Who am I forgetting?

Tyrone Wallace may have been best at PG. Not a good enough shooter for SG and kinda thin for SF.

BeachedBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Cuonzo Martin (era):

Joy: I thought he was good man and rep'd Cal well. The sense of larger community engagement was probably the best since Kidd era. I liked his some of his recruiting and 'why not Cal' attitude. His teams played with joy and the Haas was rocking (which is probably the most important thing for me).

Disappointments: Biggest issue was the lack of offensive/defensive balance. This seemed fixable, but also seemed like he was stubborn about it. Second issue was recruiting inconsistency. Rabb & Brown were so exciting. Chauca - not so much. Lastly, the final NIT game left such a bad taste in my mouth - that type of behavior should never occur.

---

I realize Martin had success and I certainly watched/attended games during his time at Cal. However, not sure I truly enjoyed it. The offense was ugly and player development seemed non-existent. Having played the 4/5 position, the way Rabb was used was criminal - never put him in position to succeed and it drove me nuts! Felt so bad for that kid and it cost him his chance in the NBA. Then the erratic recruiting approach - home run with Rabb and Brown, but generally strike outs everywhere else. The loss to Hawaii was inexcusable even with all the off-court distractions and then the way he bolted (contrast that with Madsen this week), I wasn't sad to see him go.

I went to school during the Kidd years, so that was clearly the most fun. Second place would be the Montgomery years - his teams were fun to watch. They played fundamentally sound, smart basketball, had great offensive sets, and in-game/halftime adjustments were usually spot on. He did have the occasional stinkers, but generally enjoyable to watch.

---

The strikeouts I believe, outside of Swanson, were caused by Martin recruiting players that the Cal administration would not admit.

---

Not really. The most glaring was when he passed on incoming Ahmaad Rorie for 2 other higher-rated pg's he thought he could get, only to end up swinging and missing on both and ending up with Brandon Chauca.

---

The recent hardships of our progam really help illustrate just how important PG play is in the NCAA. DItto what we have seen in the tournament.

---

I've been thinking about this too. When was the last good (P12 caliber) PG, Cal has had (and not an out of position player, who just happens to be best on the team). Charlie Moore and Justin Cobbs come to mind. Who am I forgetting?

---

Jorge and of course Kidd.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Cuonzo Martin (era):

Joy: I thought he was good man and rep'd Cal well. The sense of larger community engagement was probably the best since Kidd era. I liked his some of his recruiting and 'why not Cal' attitude. His teams played with joy and the Haas was rocking (which is probably the most important thing for me).

Disappointments: Biggest issue was the lack of offensive/defensive balance. This seemed fixable, but also seemed like he was stubborn about it. Second issue was recruiting inconsistency. Rabb & Brown were so exciting. Chauca - not so much. Lastly, the final NIT game left such a bad taste in my mouth - that type of behavior should never occur.

---

I realize Martin had success and I certainly watched/attended games during his time at Cal. However, not sure I truly enjoyed it. The offense was ugly and player development seemed non-existent. Having played the 4/5 position, the way Rabb was used was criminal - never put him in position to succeed and it drove me nuts! Felt so bad for that kid and it cost him his chance in the NBA. Then the erratic recruiting approach - home run with Rabb and Brown, but generally strike outs everywhere else. The loss to Hawaii was inexcusable even with all the off-court distractions and then the way he bolted (contrast that with Madsen this week), I wasn't sad to see him go.

I went to school during the Kidd years, so that was clearly the most fun. Second place would be the Montgomery years - his teams were fun to watch. They played fundamentally sound, smart basketball, had great offensive sets, and in-game/halftime adjustments were usually spot on. He did have the occasional stinkers, but generally enjoyable to watch.

---

The strikeouts I believe, outside of Swanson, were caused by Martin recruiting players that the Cal administration would not admit.

---

Not really. The most glaring was when he passed on incoming Ahmaad Rorie for 2 other higher-rated pg's he thought he could get, only to end up swinging and missing on both and ending up with Brandon Chauca.

---

The recent hardships of our progam really help illustrate just how important PG play is in the NCAA. DItto what we have seen in the tournament.

---

I've been thinking about this too. When was the last good (P12 caliber) PG, Cal has had (and not an out of position player, who just happens to be best on the team). Charlie Moore and Justin Cobbs come to mind. Who am I forgetting?

---

Jorge and of course Kidd.

---

Both of them were before Cobbs (I recall that Cobbs transferred in and allowed Jorge to move over to the 2 (for a dynamic backcourt - although JG did bring the ball up alot - evidence for the power of having TWO starting PGs). Wallace came between Cobbs and Moore, but I felt he was better as a 2 or 3, focusing more on his D. Maybe it was Cuonzo's scheme, but Wallace didn't strike me as a PG that made others better - like Moore did for one season. Wallace just seemed the best available at the time. Then it was Austin and Brown - I enjoyed both of them as players, but not really P12 level Point guards - that was the point I was reaffirming from SCT about the importance of GOOD pg play.

I had forgotten about Paris Austin. I think he was more than a solid Pac-12 PG in the last half of his senior season. Not so much as a junior.

100% Monty, but if he'd been a stinker I would have picked Braun. I didn't really follow prior to Bozeman and he wouldn't have made the list.

bearmanpg said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Cuonzo Martin (era):

Joy: I thought he was good man and rep'd Cal well. The sense of larger community engagement was probably the best since Kidd era. I liked his some of his recruiting and 'why not Cal' attitude. His teams played with joy and the Haas was rocking (which is probably the most important thing for me).

Disappointments: Biggest issue was the lack of offensive/defensive balance. This seemed fixable, but also seemed like he was stubborn about it. Second issue was recruiting inconsistency. Rabb & Brown were so exciting. Chauca - not so much. Lastly, the final NIT game left such a bad taste in my mouth - that type of behavior should never occur.

---

I realize Martin had success and I certainly watched/attended games during his time at Cal. However, not sure I truly enjoyed it. The offense was ugly and player development seemed non-existent. Having played the 4/5 position, the way Rabb was used was criminal - never put him in position to succeed and it drove me nuts! Felt so bad for that kid and it cost him his chance in the NBA. Then the erratic recruiting approach - home run with Rabb and Brown, but generally strike outs everywhere else. The loss to Hawaii was inexcusable even with all the off-court distractions and then the way he bolted (contrast that with Madsen this week), I wasn't sad to see him go.

I went to school during the Kidd years, so that was clearly the most fun. Second place would be the Montgomery years - his teams were fun to watch. They played fundamentally sound, smart basketball, had great offensive sets, and in-game/halftime adjustments were usually spot on. He did have the occasional stinkers, but generally enjoyable to watch.

---

The strikeouts I believe, outside of Swanson, were caused by Martin recruiting players that the Cal administration would not admit.

---

Not really. The most glaring was when he passed on incoming Ahmaad Rorie for 2 other higher-rated pg's he thought he could get, only to end up swinging and missing on both and ending up with Brandon Chauca.

---

I don't know if you know this or not but Rorie's godfather is Travis DeCuire....when DeCuire didn't get the job the writing was on the wall....I don't think Martin had a shot at Rorie with the connection to DeCuire....

---

Could be, but I remember at the time rumblings that Martin wanted his first choice instead. Of course, that very well could have been BS.

HKBear97! said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Cuonzo Martin (era):

Joy: I thought he was good man and rep'd Cal well. The sense of larger community engagement was probably the best since Kidd era. I liked his some of his recruiting and 'why not Cal' attitude. His teams played with joy and the Haas was rocking (which is probably the most important thing for me).

Disappointments: Biggest issue was the lack of offensive/defensive balance. This seemed fixable, but also seemed like he was stubborn about it. Second issue was recruiting inconsistency. Rabb & Brown were so exciting. Chauca - not so much. Lastly, the final NIT game left such a bad taste in my mouth - that type of behavior should never occur.

---

I realize Martin had success and I certainly watched/attended games during his time at Cal. However, not sure I truly enjoyed it. The offense was ugly and player development seemed non-existent. Having played the 4/5 position, the way Rabb was used was criminal - never put him in position to succeed and it drove me nuts! Felt so bad for that kid and it cost him his chance in the NBA. Then the erratic recruiting approach - home run with Rabb and Brown, but generally strike outs everywhere else. The loss to Hawaii was inexcusable even with all the off-court distractions and then the way he bolted (contrast that with Madsen this week), I wasn't sad to see him go.

I went to school during the Kidd years, so that was clearly the most fun. Second place would be the Montgomery years - his teams were fun to watch. They played fundamentally sound, smart basketball, had great offensive sets, and in-game/halftime adjustments were usually spot on. He did have the occasional stinkers, but generally enjoyable to watch.

---

This is my view of things, nearly exactly.

The Kidd years were so phenomenal.

calumnus said:

---

The question was not "Who is your favorite Cal coach?" But "Who was the last Cal coach that made you happy?"

Now there are different ways to interpret that:
1 Happy when hired?
2. Happy at any point in time?
3. Happy with overall?
4. Completely happy with, had zero issues with?

I think #4 is an impossible standard except maybe SF's memories of Newell. He is, at least in legend, a nearly perfect coach. Let stress get to him too much, retired far too soon, but a legend.

But for me, the LAST coach that satisfies 1.2 and 3 is Martin.

I think some people were happy with Fox year one. Some people were happy with Wyking keeping the team together, finally figuring out who should be starting and winning the last three.

If the standard is #3, some people have to go back to Montgomery.

---

I said nothing about Newell making me happy because he was the best overall coach I had seen. There you go again, restating my position in your own words, and then arguing against it. Isn't that making up a straw man? All Bear Insiders are smart enough to understand what we write without your interpreting it. My hard drive has so many of your straw men to respond to, that I may never finish replying to them.

I'll simplify it for you. In my world, "happiness" is experiencing something real, something I know will last and will stand the test of time. Happy for me was when I arrived at Cal as a freshman, Pete Newell's last year as a coach at Cal. Nearly all the games were played on Friday and Saturday nights at 8PM. I lived at Putnam Hall. At 6PM, I would go down to the dining room to have dinner. Then it was back up to my room for an hour of study. At 7:30, there would be a knock at my door, and Doty the Flea (we all had nicknames back then) would arrive to pick me up, and we walked down to Harmon Gym, and got some seats on the corner of the Cal rooting section with about 2500 other student rooters.

We all knew before the game which team was going to win. The only question would be how many points would Cal win by. The Bears were defending NCAA champions, even though Cal had lost through graduation 3 of 5 starters and 5 out of the 9 man rotation from that team. This team was even better than Cal's NCAA Championship team. They had only two losses all season. They played 2 games back to back vs USC in LA. After that first loss to USC, Newell did the unusual thing for him: He replaced staring point guard Jerry Mann with Bobby Wendell. The next night, with Wendell starting, Cal beat the same USC team by 15 points, and Cal would not lose again until the NCAA Final, as Wendell remained the starting point guard.

For the most part, it was not boring basketball. Cal beat SoCal fast-break teams like Wooden's UCLA and more traditional slower paced teams like Bay Area teams. They beat great offensive teams and great defensive teams, by bending teams to their will, forcing them out of their game and into Cal's game.

So "Happy" meant for me, seldom having to worry about the outcome of games, but to be thoroughly content watching all these teams come into Harmon, like lambs to the slaughter. We could enjoy the intricacies of skilled players complementing each other, and cooperating to bring down great athletes and great teams of the day.

The games took less than an hour, and by 9:15 or so, I was back in my room, studying.

Today, the game is much longer, and more exciting for the moment perhaps, and it is a 3-4 hour affair by the time I get home. They are sometimes exhilarating, but seldom satisfying. The happiness I feel after a game today does not stay with me as long. No Cal coach has given me that feeling since Newell. Some other Cal coaches have had their moments for me, but the last to make me truly happy in the moment was Pete.

BeachedBear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Cuonzo Martin (era):

Joy: I thought he was good man and rep'd Cal well. The sense of larger community engagement was probably the best since Kidd era. I liked his some of his recruiting and 'why not Cal' attitude. His teams played with joy and the Haas was rocking (which is probably the most important thing for me).

Disappointments: Biggest issue was the lack of offensive/defensive balance. This seemed fixable, but also seemed like he was stubborn about it. Second issue was recruiting inconsistency. Rabb & Brown were so exciting. Chauca - not so much. Lastly, the final NIT game left such a bad taste in my mouth - that type of behavior should never occur.

---

I realize Martin had success and I certainly watched/attended games during his time at Cal. However, not sure I truly enjoyed it. The offense was ugly and player development seemed non-existent. Having played the 4/5 position, the way Rabb was used was criminal - never put him in position to succeed and it drove me nuts! Felt so bad for that kid and it cost him his chance in the NBA. Then the erratic recruiting approach - home run with Rabb and Brown, but generally strike outs everywhere else. The loss to Hawaii was inexcusable even with all the off-court distractions and then the way he bolted (contrast that with Madsen this week), I wasn't sad to see him go.

I went to school during the Kidd years, so that was clearly the most fun. Second place would be the Montgomery years - his teams were fun to watch. They played fundamentally sound, smart basketball, had great offensive sets, and in-game/halftime adjustments were usually spot on. He did have the occasional stinkers, but generally enjoyable to watch.

---

The strikeouts I believe, outside of Swanson, were caused by Martin recruiting players that the Cal administration would not admit.

---

Not really. The most glaring was when he passed on incoming Ahmaad Rorie for 2 other higher-rated pg's he thought he could get, only to end up swinging and missing on both and ending up with Brandon Chauca.

---

The recent hardships of our progam really help illustrate just how important PG play is in the NCAA. DItto what we have seen in the tournament.

---

I've been thinking about this too. When was the last good (P12 caliber) PG, Cal has had (and not an out of position player, who just happens to be best on the team). Charlie Moore and Justin Cobbs come to mind. Who am I forgetting?

---

Jorge and of course Kidd.

---

Both of them were before Cobbs (I recall that Cobbs transferred in and allowed Jorge to move over to the 2 (for a dynamic backcourt - although JG did bring the ball up alot - evidence for the power of having TWO starting PGs). Wallace came between Cobbs and Moore, but I felt he was better as a 2 or 3, focusing more on his D. Maybe it was Cuonzo's scheme, but Wallace didn't strike me as a PG that made others better - like Moore did for one season. Wallace just seemed the best available at the time. Then it was Austin and Brown - I enjoyed both of them as players, but not really P12 level Point guards - that was the point I was reaffirming from SCT about the importance of GOOD pg play.

---

Wallace made All-Pac first team as a junior and honorable mention while being injured for some of his senior year. He was the starting point guard those years, regardless of whatever definition of point guard you want to use. Paris Austin is underrated and unquestionably better than Brown. He would've gotten minutes at a lot of Pac 12 schools.

Here goes. Sacrilege: Ty Wallace, Jorge Gutierrez, and Jaylen Brown were three sturdy Golden Bears and among our greatest players…..and I just didn't dig their games. I sure dig Jaylen's pro game. It isn't remotely related to his college game.

If I were to give a general criticism, I frequently disagreed with their shot selection and thought they forced shots, or took low percentage shots for their skill set when they should have passed. I'm sure their stats provide no supporting evidence for me. I just remember dropping f bombs when they shot clangers.

I was very happy with Montgomery.

concernedparent said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Cuonzo Martin (era):

Joy: I thought he was good man and rep'd Cal well. The sense of larger community engagement was probably the best since Kidd era. I liked his some of his recruiting and 'why not Cal' attitude. His teams played with joy and the Haas was rocking (which is probably the most important thing for me).

Disappointments: Biggest issue was the lack of offensive/defensive balance. This seemed fixable, but also seemed like he was stubborn about it. Second issue was recruiting inconsistency. Rabb & Brown were so exciting. Chauca - not so much. Lastly, the final NIT game left such a bad taste in my mouth - that type of behavior should never occur.

---

I realize Martin had success and I certainly watched/attended games during his time at Cal. However, not sure I truly enjoyed it. The offense was ugly and player development seemed non-existent. Having played the 4/5 position, the way Rabb was used was criminal - never put him in position to succeed and it drove me nuts! Felt so bad for that kid and it cost him his chance in the NBA. Then the erratic recruiting approach - home run with Rabb and Brown, but generally strike outs everywhere else. The loss to Hawaii was inexcusable even with all the off-court distractions and then the way he bolted (contrast that with Madsen this week), I wasn't sad to see him go.

I went to school during the Kidd years, so that was clearly the most fun. Second place would be the Montgomery years - his teams were fun to watch. They played fundamentally sound, smart basketball, had great offensive sets, and in-game/halftime adjustments were usually spot on. He did have the occasional stinkers, but generally enjoyable to watch.

---

The strikeouts I believe, outside of Swanson, were caused by Martin recruiting players that the Cal administration would not admit.

---

Not really. The most glaring was when he passed on incoming Ahmaad Rorie for 2 other higher-rated pg's he thought he could get, only to end up swinging and missing on both and ending up with Brandon Chauca.

---

The recent hardships of our progam really help illustrate just how important PG play is in the NCAA. DItto what we have seen in the tournament.

---

I've been thinking about this too. When was the last good (P12 caliber) PG, Cal has had (and not an out of position player, who just happens to be best on the team). Charlie Moore and Justin Cobbs come to mind. Who am I forgetting?

---

Jorge and of course Kidd.

---

Both of them were before Cobbs (I recall that Cobbs transferred in and allowed Jorge to move over to the 2 (for a dynamic backcourt - although JG did bring the ball up alot - evidence for the power of having TWO starting PGs). Wallace came between Cobbs and Moore, but I felt he was better as a 2 or 3, focusing more on his D. Maybe it was Cuonzo's scheme, but Wallace didn't strike me as a PG that made others better - like Moore did for one season. Wallace just seemed the best available at the time. Then it was Austin and Brown - I enjoyed both of them as players, but not really P12 level Point guards - that was the point I was reaffirming from SCT about the importance of GOOD pg play.

---

Wallace made All-Pac first team as a junior and honorable mention while being injured for some of his senior year. He was the starting point guard those years, regardless of whatever definition of point guard you want to use. Paris Austin is underrated and unquestionably better than Brown. He would've gotten minutes at a lot of Pac 12 schools.

---

You're right. I'm wrong. I have no idea what came over me.

calumnus said:

---

I was happy with Cuonzo, loved the way he represented and sold Cal, loved the players on that team and loved going undefeated at Haas with big crowds and our highest seed in school history. Did not like the way he was treated. Love having a prominent Cal alumnus in the NBA.

---

Cuonzo Martin had a great and inspiring personal story, and I guess I expected better from him as a coach. By the time Cuonzo was hired at Cal, college basketball in general had become a rougher sport, going from a contact sport to a collision sport, and Cuonzo's primary offensive philosophy was "Take it to the rim", urging players to be more physical, more aggressive than their opponents, whether that be in games or scrimmages, apparently. Instead of trying to develop the talents of his roster and feature those talents, he tried to force players who were not gifted with skills or body type capable of sustaining many collisions, forcing them to take it to the rim. Trying to force Jordan Mathews, a great clutch perimeter shooter, to "take it to the rim", it only exposed Mathew's weaknesses in handling the ball, and his inablity to score inside. I first saw Jabari Bird in high school and in the SF Pro Am, and was really impressed with his abilities in the mid range game, including knifing and gliding between defenders in the paint. He had a dozen moves and shots to score from 5 or 6 feet out, and if he got the opening, he would go all the way and dunk it. He was not a good three point shot as a frosh. He proved to be a fragile athlete, getting injured every season at Cal, I believe. But Cuonzo took away his midrange game, forcing him to "take it to the rim, or shoot a three" changed Jabari's game entirely. Cuozo's disdain for the mid range shot really ruined Jabari. He did learn to be more aggressive, and he learned to be a much better three point shooter. But I also think with this newly found aggressiveness on the court, it may have made Jabari change his personal behavior, to the point where he tried to beat up his girlfriend. How did both Wallace and Jabari get injured before the Hawaii loss? I'd bet the barn that they both got injured in practice or from practice, by practicing too hard.

Why would a coach tell players who are not good free throw shooters to try and get to the line? Why would he tell players who can't shoot threes, like Jaylen Brown, Wallace, Domingo and Singer to shoot them, or allow them to even take them? One per game should be the limit, until they start making them.

You have railed at great length against authoritarian coaches, even accusing Mark Fox of being an authoritarian coach. You said he forced players "almost to vomit" (without naming a source, only writing "somebody told me") and that he forced players to play tough defense in practice, thereby resulting in injuries. Where is your evidence that practicing tough defense causes injuries? I don't think players even play tough D anymore, because the rules today don't allow it. They play help D. I think far more players get hurt trying too hard on offense, than get hurt trying to play "tough D". Modern players get injured more, because they are so athletic and will try to play faster, jump higher, collide harder than players of the past. I think they all try to play at 110% or more, while John Havlicek said he tried to play at 85%. And he seldom was injured had a lot longer career than most.


I also am at odds with those who think Cuonzo was a great recruiter, just because he signed Rabb and Brown. I have argued before that chasing the blue chip player is only effective if you can land a steady stream of them every year. They are one and done, or two and done, and after they are gone, then what do you do? You must get more of them. Getting one or two might help for that one season, but then what? I think it is far better to focus on landing the recruits with 4-stars and better 3-stars (or no stars, but good players, like Hawaii had) not 5 stars. They are more likely to stay in college longer, and their egos are more likely to accept coaching like you know, "sharing the ball". I would not start recruiting 5-stars until I already had a viable winning program built on 4-stars and 3-stars, as the final piece or pieces to become a top level program.

calbear80 said:

---

I liked Monty as our MBB Coach.

Go Bears!

---

Same here. He was our best half-court offense coach. With Braun I remembered us constantly passing the ball around the perimeter before putting up the 3.

Bearprof said:

---

Some of you guys are crazy. Martin, really? Braun, for that matter? Montgomery could and did coach the pants off of those guys, and his teams execution was generally fantastic to watch, if you actually appreciate basketball. I would almost certainly have appreciated Newell, too, had I been around to see it.

Braun could not coach offense, at all, and only did as well as he did because he recruited well and was a solid defensive coach. He seemed like a nice guy but his interviews were so cliched that it was agonizing to listen to him. Martin wasted Jaylen Brown. It is hard for me to believe he couldn't, with a little effort, have taught Jaylen not to get a charge on every other drive to the basket. Jaylen has proven to be pretty coachable, subsequently. Etc.

---

A lot of those fouls were Pac 12 Refs being Pac 12 Refs. They never saw a foul they didn't like. Jumping sideways right in front of a driving Brown all of a sudden became a defensive position in which to take a charge. It was laughable. Flop city.

In terms of product, Martin. I enjoyed the pants off that undefeated at home season, despite the post season. After that, not so much. Does that mean I was happier with him than anyone else, no. But that was the last time I was happy with the coach.

Madsen

So far, yes. But I want to see success on court before I'm sold.