I Just Don't Get It

3,538 Views | 30 Replies | Last: 12 mo ago by upsetof86
RedlessWardrobe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:22a, 11/23/23
I'm guessing Madsen wants to "play fast" but the turnovers are atrocious in the last two games. I don't attend practices, I'm not a psychiatrist (or psychologist - I always get those two mixed up), but if one didn't know better you would believe that Madsen isn't even addressing the issue to these guys.

And sometimes, like from the halfway point of the second half to the three minute remaining mark, the defense just DISAPPEARS, like the team takes some time off. And I've noticed that during these sequences of lacking defense I have yet to see Madsen call a timeout if the issue is fatigue (either physically or mentally) in order to reset.

I know I'm probably overrating the talent of our players, and this may be a bit premature but watching these games I'm having flashbacks to the late sixties team of CJ, Ridgle, Chenier, Truitt, Coughran, "coached" by Jim Padgett. Really talented basketball players, and back then just like now, playing with absolutely NO structure. It's brutal.
Reply Quote
5
socaltownie
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 RedlessWardrobe • 8:45a, 11/23/23
RedlessWardrobe said:
I'm guessing Madsen wants to "play fast" but the turnovers are atrocious in the last two games. I don't attend practices, I'm not a psychiatrist (or psychologist - I always get those two mixed up), but if one didn't know better you would believe that Madsen isn't even addressing the issue to these guys.

And sometimes, like from the halfway point of the second half to the three minute remaining mark, the defense just DISAPPEARS, like the team takes some time off. And I've noticed that during these sequences of lacking defense I have yet to see Madsen call a timeout if the issue is fatigue (either physically or mentally) in order to reset.

I know I'm probably overrating the talent of our players, and this may be a bit premature but watching these games I'm having flashbacks to the late sixties team of CJ, Ridgle, Chenier, Truitt, Coughran, "coached" by Jim Padgett. Really talented basketball players, and back then just like now, playing with absolutely NO structure. It's brutal.
sadly maybe we are finding out that he sorta lacks coaching experience. ;-(
Reply Quote
RedlessWardrobe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:48a, 11/23/23
Didn't he just finish coaching mulitple years at Utah Valley? Again, I just don't get it.
Reply Quote
3
westcoastdude
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:54a, 11/23/23
I think we might be underestimating the amount of time it takes a team to learn how to play at a fast pace. I know losing these games is frustrating, but I think Madsen needs some time to get the team to execute his system properly.
Reply Quote
11
GoOskie
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 westcoastdude • 9:04a, 11/23/23
westcoastdude said:
I think we might be underestimating the amount of time it takes a team to learn how to play at a fast pace. I know losing these games is frustrating, but I think Madsen needs some time to get the team to execute his system properly.
Exactly. It's ridiculous to think this would've been turned around in a year.
Reply Quote
4
oskidunker
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 GoOskie • 9:15a, 11/23/23
GoOskie said:
westcoastdude said:
I think we might be underestimating the amount of time it takes a team to learn how to play at a fast pace. I know losing these games is frustrating, but I think Madsen needs some time to get the team to execute his system properly.
Exactly. It's ridiculous to think this would've been turned around in a year.


We are close
Go Bears!
Reply Quote
2
graguna
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:20a, 11/23/23
CAL is losing games by 3 points that last year we would be losing by 23, 3 of our best players are out, we have 7-8 new players ( more than half the team ) and a new coaching staff.

I wasn't upset when Tyson's ball rimmed out last night so much as I felt sorry for Madsen and the team.
And I really wanted Fardaws to be rewarded with a win after what he's had to endure.

I'm confident things will improve.
Reply Quote
20
BC Calfan
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 graguna • 9:47a, 11/23/23
graguna said:
CAL is losing games by 3 points that last year we would be losing by 23, 3 of our best players are out, we have 7-8 new players ( more than half the team ) and a new coaching staff.

I wasn't upset when Tyson's ball rimmed out last night so much as I felt sorry for Madsen and the team.
And I really wanted Fardaws to be rewarded with a win after what he's had to endure.

I'm confident things will improve.


Exactly my feelings, thanks for this post. We are down 3 high rotation players one of which is our PG. Kennedy might be our 3rd best player. Losing to mediocre teams sucks but we have to exercise some patience here.
Reply Quote
8
JimSox
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 BC Calfan • 10:01a, 11/23/23
BC Calfan said:
graguna said:
CAL is losing games by 3 points that last year we would be losing by 23, 3 of our best players are out, we have 7-8 new players ( more than half the team ) and a new coaching staff.

I wasn't upset when Tyson's ball rimmed out last night so much as I felt sorry for Madsen and the team.
And I really wanted Fardaws to be rewarded with a win after what he's had to endure.

I'm confident things will improve.


Exactly my feelings, thanks for this post. We are down 3 high rotation players one of which is our PG. Kennedy might be our 3rd best player. Losing to mediocre teams sucks but we have to exercise some patience here.


Yeah, but shouldn't we be playing a little defense?
Reply Quote
6
ncbears
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:22a, 11/23/23
Cal fans are a most forgiving group - appropriate for Thanksgiving.
Reply Quote
1
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 ncbears • 10:26a, 11/23/23
Or, like myself, old enough to have a little patience.
Reply Quote
4
PtownBear1
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 ncbears • 10:50a, 11/23/23
ncbears said:
Cal fans are a most forgiving group - appropriate for Thanksgiving.


At least there's a compelling case for why we suck so bad with 3 of our top 6 players out, a brand new coaching staff, and a bunch of new players.

Meanwhile, the remaining football fans continue to make excuses for Wilcox seven years into his failed tenure.
Reply Quote
4
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 RedlessWardrobe • 11:01a, 11/23/23
A mini assessment:

So far after 6 games, there is not much offensive flow (even with Askew and Celestine), but we are still in games because of the talent, largely due to 1 v 1 action.

Our defense is an immense work in progress that Mad Dog will have to address first. There is plenty of room for growth there.

I am most concerned about Newell and what has happened to his confidence. He looked strong out of the gate, then seemed to have hit a snag where he is unsure of himself. Good to see him make a couple of shots in the second half. I think when he is back playing with confidence, he will be a great weapon for us.

Fardaws is dominant physically and will get you a double-double every game (I think we need to not underestimate that). However, he needs to see his limitations when taking things off the dribble and trying to do too much.

Tyson is clearly our best player and his numbers play out. He did everything but get the bucket for us on the last play v. Tulane. He also doesn't have to force the issue as much, as we do have some scorers. So no need to hero ball (although he has the talent to do so effectively at times).

I am intrigued by Larson who could be a bit of an X factor for us. The silver lining of Newell struggling is that Larson got some reps, and I don't think he is going to be buried in the rotation anymore.

Cone -- I don't think you are going to change him at this point. He is who he is. High volume, jumps out of the gym, takes and makes off balanced shots, but also misses many too. As long as this numbers and percentages bear out, and he makes plays when we need it, I'm fine with it.

Pav is all heart, is a good passer, and has some decent takes to the basket, but right now he's a borderline D1 type player and has no outside shot. Hopefully he develops a shot and continues to just be a guy that provides some solid minutes.

Rodney Brown played his best game v. UTEP. You can definitely see the talent there and with some time in the weight room and experience, by like junior year I think he'll be a force.

I agree that Madsen is the guy. He has brought in some talent. And they way he handled the Fardaws situation was near-perfect. However, I do think he built this roster to win this year as Fardaws, Kennedy and Cone don't have any more eligibility left. So as he is trying to rebuild this program, he will take a hit in losing some of his best players. We do have a good core coming back though. And with the portal, it seems like you can rebuild every season. Mad Dog will continue to have equity which may be scaled back if we continue to stack Ls. That's why I was hoping we would scrap out some wins somehow v. UTEP and Tulane. We almost did.

In any case, despite the turnovers and matador defense at times, the basketball is entertaining, we have multiple options on offense, and I love Mad Dog's energy. We are going to have to be extremely patient the next four games, as they could easily be losses. We are staring at 2-8 to start. Maybe we start clicking v. the Aztecs but I doubt playing the national title runner up where their fans will take over the gym to make it incredibly hostile is the setting to do that. Hopefully the cavalry comes back soon and our play is elevated. Let's just look for incremental progress.
Reply Quote
19
oskiswifeshusband
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:14a, 11/23/23
Investments take time to pay dividends
Reply Quote
1
RedlessWardrobe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:22a, 11/23/23
I realize when I started this thread that I was griping excessively. And I'm in agreement here with almost all the responses. We have new players, we have injuries, we need to believe in Madsen. So much of me feels the same way.

But the last two games. 21 and 20 turnovers, respectively. Thats one turnover every 2 minutes. And we lost both of these games by 3 points. Eliminate just 20% of that and we probably win both games.

People here cringe about some of the shots that Cone takes. At least it's a shot. A least it's a chance to score. I can live with that. After Monday night's game you would think that some attention would been given to the turnover stat. Okay, I'm out for now. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
Reply Quote
6
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:45a, 11/23/23
The most important thing is to have some success, keep the players confident and feeling good about themselves, the team and coaches, and change the narrative of Cal basketball

Reply Quote
Basketball 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 KoreAmBear • 3:48p, 11/23/23
KoreAmBear said:
A mini assessment:


I agree that Madsen is the guy. He has brought in some talent. And they way he handled the Fardaws situation was near-perfect. However, I do think he built this roster to win this year as Fardaws, Kennedy and Cone don't have any more eligibility left. So as he is trying to rebuild this program, he will take a hit in losing some of his best players. We do have a good core coming back though. And with the portal, it seems like you can rebuild every season. Mad Dog will continue to have equity which may be scaled back if we continue to stack Ls. That's why I was hoping we would scrap out some wins somehow v. UTEP and Tulane. We almost did.

In any case, despite the turnovers and matador defense at times, the basketball is entertaining, we have multiple options on offense, and I love Mad Dog's energy. We are going to have to be extremely patient the next four games, as they could easily be losses. We are staring at 2-8 to start. Maybe we start clicking v. the Aztecs but I doubt playing the national title runner up where their fans will take over the gym to make it incredibly hostile is the setting to do that. Hopefully the cavalry comes back soon and our play is elevated. Let's just look for incremental progress.
I agree with your post 100%.
Madsen is fun to watch on the sidelines. He is so intense and listens to his staff when they provide input. I love watching JT. When he makes a mistake/turnover or foul he quickly just smiles and moves on and focuses on the next play. He has made some great passes some of which his teammates are not expecting, thus a turnover. Kidd use to do that until the team caught on you had to be ready every second or you might get hit on the head with a pass. (Not saying he is Kidd level passing)
Reply Quote
3
hbear777
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:30p, 11/23/23
with just Askew playing, TO's are likely half and we are winning most of these games by 10.

10 turnovers vs 21= 10 more shots + more opponent fou trouble, more FT. Trips down the floor without a shot attempt are kilers.

playing 1 in 4 out is easy to defend, unless every guy on the floor is a shooting threat from 3 and a couple guys can penetrate.
Aimaq
Tyson
Celestine
Cone
Askew

which guys defender leaves him to double on Aimaq?
Reply Quote
2
annarborbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:54p, 11/23/23
I enjoy basketball the most when a team is much greater than the sum of its individual parts due to great coaching. Jury is still out.
Reply Quote
3
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 annarborbear • 7:33p, 11/23/23
annarborbear said:
I enjoy basketball the most when a team is much greater than the sum of its individual parts due to great coaching. Jury is still out.


I am good with Cal winning with whatever combination of pure talent and coaching it takes. I actually prefer rooting for great players that I will later root for In the NBA: KJ, Kidd, Murray, Shareef, Anderson, Brown or guys like Shipp and Randle that can get POY in conference. However, good coaching can help you get through lapses in talent, holes in your team and get your team winning to attract better talent.

I think what is clear is this team has some talent (Tyson especially) but it is not enough by itself and this team needs to be coached up. Can Madden do that? I agree with you, the jury is still out. However, I think he needs to show that ability to be successful at Cal.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
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 PtownBear1 • 10:02p, 11/23/23
PtownBear1 said:
ncbears said:
Cal fans are a most forgiving group - appropriate for Thanksgiving.


At least there's a compelling case for why we suck so bad with 3 of our top 6 players out, a brand new coaching staff, and a bunch of new players.

Meanwhile, the remaining football fans continue to make excuses for Wilcox seven years into his failed tenure.
Cal fans are human, and not necessarily predictably forgivable as a group. If 3 out of our top 6 players out is a compelling case for our poor play this season, then last years 3 out of 5 STARTERS should have been an even better case for forgiveness. There were other factors in both cases. Fox's failure over multiple seasons at Cal, his lack of recruiting, etc., gave us a mindset that we were doomed no matter what he did, and there would be no compassion and especially no forgiveness forthcoming from us for him, never mind that those 3 starters never played one minute together during the last entire season.

For me right now, this team is unwatchable. I recorded the last 2 games and only watched the first 10 minutes of each, and deleted the recordings. I couldn't stand it. The player some said was destined for the NBA gives Cal some size along with some skill, but he loses the ball, and plays soft defense. The team's supposed best player, Tyson, takes off on a fast break, but he gets so far ahead of his teammates, that he decides to take it to the basket against 4 defenders, who collapse on him and squash him and his shot like a bug. He too, makes too many turnovers. He calls his own number too much, and yet he is the point guard half of the time. Cone is a pretty good shot, but doesn't seem to have good shot selection skills. If Celestine returns, it will calm the team down, and maybe Kennedy is the PG we need. The possibilities are there, but it will take time and work. If it was me, I'd start by getting them to play together at a slower pace, and once they learn to play together, they can try playing faster. The other night they had 10 assists and 20 turnovers. Both numbers are unacceptable.

What I'd remind myself and everyone else is that this rotation is pretty much all players who have never played together before, and they have only 6 games under their belts. Mark Madsen has never coached a major program before, and there is tremendous pressure on him to win right away, sell tickets, and put butts in the seats. The team has some size, some athleticism, and some skills. Now they must learn to play together, get the ball to an open teammate, protect the ball, and defend. A tall order for the teams of the last 5 years, but it should be easier for this team. Give them 10 more games at least before giving up.
SFCityBear
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
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 socaltownie • 10:59p, 11/23/23
socaltownie said:
RedlessWardrobe said:
I'm guessing Madsen wants to "play fast" but the turnovers are atrocious in the last two games. I don't attend practices, I'm not a psychiatrist (or psychologist - I always get those two mixed up), but if one didn't know better you would believe that Madsen isn't even addressing the issue to these guys.

And sometimes, like from the halfway point of the second half to the three minute remaining mark, the defense just DISAPPEARS, like the team takes some time off. And I've noticed that during these sequences of lacking defense I have yet to see Madsen call a timeout if the issue is fatigue (either physically or mentally) in order to reset.

I know I'm probably overrating the talent of our players, and this may be a bit premature but watching these games I'm having flashbacks to the late sixties team of CJ, Ridgle, Chenier, Truitt, Coughran, "coached" by Jim Padgett. Really talented basketball players, and back then just like now, playing with absolutely NO structure. It's brutal.
sadly maybe we are finding out that he sorta lacks coaching experience. ;-(
Great post. I wondered myself about Madsen not calling timeouts when there were defensive lapses. I once had a coach who had played pro in the American Basketball League, before there was an NBA. Scores were much lower in those days, and he told us that if a team scored 2 buckets in a row against us, without us scoring, he would always call timeout. He didn't always do it to talk to us about our defense, but often he called timeout just to break the other team's rhythm, so they would not gather any more momentum.

As to the 1971 team of CJ, Ridgle, Chenier, Truitt, Coughran, "coached" by Jim Padgett, well, that was a team where the entire starting five was drafted and played professionally, 4 in the NBA. Chenier was NBA rookie of the year. Chenier and CJ both started for several years and both have NBA Championship rings. Truitt was probably the best center to play for Cal, CJ was an outstanding defender. They just happened to play in the era of Lew Alcindor and John Wooden, and as you mentioned, were themselves coached by Jim Padgett. Oh well. At least, Padgett was a great recruiter. He may also have had a hand in bringing Bob Presley to Cal.

Correction: Alcindor (Kareem Abdul Jabbar) graduated in 1967, so he would not have faced this team. Cal's 1971 team faced a UCLA team which included Sidney Wicks, Curtis Rowe, Henry Bibby, Steve Patterson, and was the eventual 1971 NCAA Champion, one of 7 straight UCLA NCAA championships. In 1971 Cal lost the first game to UCLA at Harmon 94-76, and lost the second game to UCLA 103-69 in Pauley Pavilion. Those were the days when only the Conference Champions and maybe some independents were invited to the NCAA, so Cal would have had to win the Conference to be invited to the NCAA Tournament, unlike today, when a conference might be able to have 5 or 6 teams invited.
SFCityBear
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
sonofabear51
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:06a, 11/24/23
I remember that team very well. Was lucky to see them play together only once, listened on the radio every game. Harmon and those guys! Hell yes! And I seem to remember a guy by the name of Harry Brown, don't remember who Cal was playing at the time, but there was an altercation, and pretty much the entire student body at mid court rose up to back Harry up. Wish I was there for that one.

GO BEARS!!
Reply Quote
RedlessWardrobe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:03a, 11/24/23
My problem with that old Cal team wasn't that they couldn't beat UCLA (at that time a dynasty machine.) My problem is that they didn't beat everyone else.
Reply Quote
Bobodeluxe
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 RedlessWardrobe • 9:36a, 11/24/23
RedlessWardrobe said:
My problem with that old Cal team wasn't that they couldn't beat UCLA (at that time a dynasty machine.) My problem is that they didn't beat everyone else.
Snort.
Reply Quote
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 RedlessWardrobe • 1:12p, 11/24/23
RedlessWardrobe said:
I'm guessing Madsen wants to "play fast" but the turnovers are atrocious in the last two games. I don't attend practices, I'm not a psychiatrist (or psychologist - I always get those two mixed up), but if one didn't know better you would believe that Madsen isn't even addressing the issue to these guys.

And sometimes, like from the halfway point of the second half to the three minute remaining mark, the defense just DISAPPEARS, like the team takes some time off. And I've noticed that during these sequences of lacking defense I have yet to see Madsen call a timeout if the issue is fatigue (either physically or mentally) in order to reset.

I know I'm probably overrating the talent of our players, and this may be a bit premature but watching these games I'm having flashbacks to the late sixties team of CJ, Ridgle, Chenier, Truitt, Coughran, "coached" by Jim Padgett. Really talented basketball players, and back then just like now, playing with absolutely NO structure. It's brutal.


Wyking made the mistake of trying to play fast before the team could play well. You play fast to: 1) take advantage of fast break opportunities and increase your shooting percentage with layups (especially if you have an athletic team with depth but not great shooters) 2) maximize the number of possessions to assure victory because you are the better team.

Mark Few plays fast mostly for reason #2, His teams score a high percentage so he pushes that advantage. Mark Fox played slow for the same reason.

Seems we don't have the guards/defense to play fast for reason #1. Maybe when we get Kennedy or when Pavlovic or Wrenn are in the game? Also mitigating any advantage of playing fast is if it increases your turnovers, if attempting to run actually reduces your points per possession. Of course if you don't push tempo you need a good half court offense. Fox burned clock then had his best player play hero ball. Right now that would be Tyson. I hope we don't resort to that permanently, especially the burn clock part, but setting Tyson up to go 1-1 is better than losing to scrubs.

What this team could really use is more players that can knock down a high percentage of threes. Fox neglected it in recruiting and so far it does not appear to have been a Madsen priority.
Reply Quote
1
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 RedlessWardrobe • 2:04p, 11/24/23
RedlessWardrobe said:
My problem with that old Cal team wasn't that they couldn't beat UCLA (at that time a dynasty machine.) My problem is that they didn't beat everyone else.
I was disappointed in the 1971 team as well, but now you have really jerked my chain, forcing me (not a hard thing to do, when it comes to Cal sports) so I now have to look up the facts.

That 1971 team was not all that bad. They did not "beat everyone else", but they damn near did that. And they were damn entertaining while they did it.

First off, UCLA was a dynasty, as you said, and that season, lost only one game, to Notre Dame on the road. However, the 2nd or 3rd ranked team in the country was USC, under Bob Boyd. USC went 24-2 that season, and their only losses were to UCLA, by 4 in the first game and by 11 in the 2nd game. Imagine having two of the top 3 teams in the country in the same conference and in the same city! And it was LA. I don't know if that has ever happened to one city before. Maybe in the 1940s, when CCNY was a powerhouse.

Cal lost 4 games to USC and UCLA combined, and Cal lost only 2 other conference games, while winning 8 conference games that season. Cal lost only 2 games in Harmon in 1971, one to UCLA and one to USC. All of the other Cal losses came on the road, 7 of them, either on an opponent's home floor, or a neutral floor. Cal finished tied for 3rd in the PAC8 with Oregon.

As to entertainment, that 1971 team was the highest scoring Cal team of all-time, at 83.9 points a game. Their defense was porous, so the games were often high scoring and went to the wire, creating great excitement for most of us. Ansley Truitt was the all-time leading rebounder in Cal history, and with Chenier CJ, and Ridgle, the Bears were racehorses on the fast break.

They opened the Conference season in Corvallis with a thriller, winning 101-100 over the Beavers. They beat Stanford, 99-74 at Harmon, and the very next night, they beat Stanford again, 100-84 at Maples Pavilion. Then Cal beat WSU 102-76, beat Oregon 103-72, and beat OSU 99-74, before taking a final trip to LA and losing both games by wide margins.

As to coaching, I always felt that the defense should have been better coached. They gave up 79.8 points per game. Offensively, I felt the problem was turnovers, and there is not a lot a coach can do about that. Finally, it used to be one of the marks of a good coach was did his team play opponents much better the second time his team faced them. In 1971, Cal played USC, Oregon, OSU, and WSU better the second time around, and played UCLA, Washington and Stanford not as well as they did in their first meeting. Padgett wasn't all bad, and I'd take him over Wyking or Fox any day of the week.
SFCityBear
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 calumnus • 2:19p, 11/24/23
I think you got this mostly right

calumnus said:
RedlessWardrobe said:
I'm guessing Madsen wants to "play fast" but the turnovers are atrocious in the last two games. I don't attend practices, I'm not a psychiatrist (or psychologist - I always get those two mixed up), but if one didn't know better you would believe that Madsen isn't even addressing the issue to these guys.

And sometimes, like from the halfway point of the second half to the three minute remaining mark, the defense just DISAPPEARS, like the team takes some time off. And I've noticed that during these sequences of lacking defense I have yet to see Madsen call a timeout if the issue is fatigue (either physically or mentally) in order to reset.

I know I'm probably overrating the talent of our players, and this may be a bit premature but watching these games I'm having flashbacks to the late sixties team of CJ, Ridgle, Chenier, Truitt, Coughran, "coached" by Jim Padgett. Really talented basketball players, and back then just like now, playing with absolutely NO structure. It's brutal.


Wyking made the mistake of trying to play fast before the team could play well. You play fast to: 1) take advantage of fast break opportunities and increase your shooting percentage with layups (especially if you have an athletic team with depth but not great shooters) 2) maximize the number of possessions to assure victory because you are the better team.

Mark Few plays fast mostly for reason #2, His teams score a high percentage so he pushes that advantage. Mark Fox played slow for the same reason.

Seems we don't have the guards/defense to play fast for reason #1. Maybe when we get Kennedy or when Pavlovic or Wrenn are in the game? Also mitigating any advantage of playing fast is if it increases your turnovers, if attempting to run actually reduces your points per possession. Of course if you don't push tempo you need a good half court offense. Fox burned clock then had his best player play hero ball. Right now that would be Tyson. I hope we don't resort to that permanently, especially the burn clock part, but setting Tyson up to go 1-1 is better than losing to scrubs.

What this team could really use is more players that can knock down a high percentage of threes. Fox neglected it in recruiting and so far it does not appear to have been a Madsen priority.
Reply Quote
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 calumnus • 3:20p, 11/24/23
calumnus said:
... What this team could really use is more players that can knock down a high percentage of threes. Fox neglected it in recruiting and so far it does not appear to have been a Madsen priority.
I think several of Madsen's transfers shot threes at or near 40% previously. Might take a while to get the players familiar with each other and the offense clicking.
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
In reply to stu • 3:57p, 11/24/23
stu said:
calumnus said:
... What this team could really use is more players that can knock down a high percentage of threes. Fox neglected it in recruiting and so far it does not appear to have been a Madsen priority.
I think several of Madsen's transfers shot threes at or near 40% previously. Might take a while to get the players familiar with each other and the offense clicking.

Seems like most of the the new guys are at least decent shooters, except for Vlad and the big guy that's redshirting. Even Larson seems to be a decent shooter. Pretty soon, we will have a decent sample size to figure out how that's going.
Reply Quote
upsetof86
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 RedlessWardrobe • 2:43p, 11/25/23
RedlessWardrobe said:
I'm guessing Madsen wants to "play fast" but the turnovers are atrocious in the last two games. I don't attend practices, I'm not a psychiatrist (or psychologist - I always get those two mixed up), but if one didn't know better you would believe that Madsen isn't even addressing the issue to these guys.

And sometimes, like from the halfway point of the second half to the three minute remaining mark, the defense just DISAPPEARS, like the team takes some time off. And I've noticed that during these sequences of lacking defense I have yet to see Madsen call a timeout if the issue is fatigue (either physically or mentally) in order to reset.

I know I'm probably overrating the talent of our players, and this may be a bit premature but watching these games I'm having flashbacks to the late sixties team of CJ, Ridgle, Chenier, Truitt, Coughran, "coached" by Jim Padgett. Really talented basketball players, and back then just like now, playing with absolutely NO structure. It's brutal.


Playing fast is a gimmick to excite the fan base. I am very concerned there is no there there.
Reply Quote
1
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.