Bears vs Cougs Game Thread

8,282 Views | 119 Replies | Last: 10 mo ago by stu
KenBurnski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tyson is just so dang fun to watch. Happy for the boys to grab a win on the heels of the Thursday gut punch.
Johnfox
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gotta admit, every time we go down 7+ under 3 minutes to go, it feels like we're able to win it. The team's got absolute resilience. Jaylon Tyson is playing out of his mind!
sonofabear51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Great win Bears!! Showed a lot of character after Thursdays heartbreaker.
Start Slowly and taper off
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Awesome win, against a quality team!

Great progress shown, kudos to the players and coaches alike.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OneKeg said:

Why was Aimaq out there on defense with 4.2 seconds left, up by 3. Don't you want to put in Brown instead? Defend the 3, give up the 2.

(Or you know, foul).
experience

that why I would have put Celestine in the last play vs UW (instead of Brown)
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Tyson with an array of scores/shots

Johnfox
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We need to pack Haas against Stanford. Student tickets are free. It's a gold out. The team deserves an opportunity to showcase what they can do to a sellout crowd.
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OneKeg said:

Why was Aimaq out there on defense with 4.2 seconds left, up by 3. Don't you want to put in Brown instead? Defend the 3, give up the 2.

(Or you know, foul).
Exactly! Also Larson for Cone to get better length. Nobody inside the 3-point line.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

OneKeg said:

Why was Aimaq out there on defense with 4.2 seconds left, up by 3. Don't you want to put in Brown instead? Defend the 3, give up the 2.

(Or you know, foul).
Exactly! Also Larson for Cone to get better length. Nobody inside the 3-point line.
Larson not used defend outside shot
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams said:

stu said:

OneKeg said:

Why was Aimaq out there on defense with 4.2 seconds left, up by 3. Don't you want to put in Brown instead? Defend the 3, give up the 2.

(Or you know, foul).
Exactly! Also Larson for Cone to get better length. Nobody inside the 3-point line.
Larson not used defend outside shot
Why not? He can move his feet and has long arms.
baytobreakers
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Were the student tickets only free Thursday vs UW (and also Stanford)? Big student drop off today.
JimSox
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

OneKeg said:

Why was Aimaq out there on defense with 4.2 seconds left, up by 3. Don't you want to put in Brown instead? Defend the 3, give up the 2.

(Or you know, foul).
Exactly! Also Larson for Cone to get better length. Nobody inside the 3-point line.


I thought Cone played good defense on Rice today. Except shoulda fouled him before that last three. But all in all a good defensive effort.
Great win!
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

HoopDreams said:

stu said:

OneKeg said:

Why was Aimaq out there on defense with 4.2 seconds left, up by 3. Don't you want to put in Brown instead? Defend the 3, give up the 2.

(Or you know, foul).
Exactly! Also Larson for Cone to get better length. Nobody inside the 3-point line.
Larson not used defend outside shot
Why not? He can move his feet and has long arms.
A guard should be able to lose a 6-10 guy most of the time

Length is only one factor with perimeter defense

Larson also has less experience switching getting around screens, perimeter defense decision making, spacing, stunting, etc
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams said:

stu said:

HoopDreams said:

stu said:

OneKeg said:

Why was Aimaq out there on defense with 4.2 seconds left, up by 3. Don't you want to put in Brown instead? Defend the 3, give up the 2.

(Or you know, foul).
Exactly! Also Larson for Cone to get better length. Nobody inside the 3-point line.
Larson not used defend outside shot
Why not? He can move his feet and has long arms.
A guard should be able to lose a 6-10 guy most of the time

Length is only one factor with perimeter defense

Larson also has less experience switching getting around screens, perimeter defense decision making, spacing, stunting, etc
When the guard can't drive inside the 3-point line the 6-10 guy won't have to worry about that.

Same with screens, if all the defenders are 6-5 or taller just switch. Nobody is going to roll to the basket. You can play a 5-0 zone.
barsad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We can nitpick all we want about the last seconds, the guy made a buzzer beater, it happens. The DIFFERENCE between those last seconds and Thursday's last seconds was Aimaq following some coaching on the Cal inbound play before the buzzer beater.
Instead of receiving an inbound, bricking a 1:1 and watching Cal lose at the buzzer (Thursday), he ran away from the inbound, ensuring that Cone gets the ball and hits two for the 3-point lead. Yes, we had to go to OT, but the Jaylon Show took care of business (30 points!)
Go Bears! Let's hope this gives some newfound confidence to the squad.
On Larsen, I would like to see him split time with Aimaq (10 min each, with flexibility for matchups). The kid does a lot of things better than Fardaws, some not better, but why not give him a chance to show it and improve?
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Madsen said something interesting postgame. Apparently he told his guys to foul if there was a clear foul to be had. But that he left it up to the players to make their own decision.

bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Usually I don't post things from opponent's boards, but this one was an all timer
-

mikalalas
Hall Of Fame

1. Cal who has had TRASHY, PATHETIC, EMBARRASSING LOSSES TO TRASH TEAMS, of course has one of it's better games of season vs WSU.

2. Yeah WSU was having a bad game, some bad coaching decisions, but the following CRAP made it even WORSE.

3. 1 27% from 3 Cal player hit a 3, and another 30% from 3 Cal player hit a 3. That's 6 points.

4. Cal player hit a extremely super deep DESPERATION MIRACLE HEAVE BANKED 3, that's 9 points.

5. Cal hit a CIRCUS 2 point shot, that's 11 points.

6. Cal hit a bad banked 2, that's 13 points.

7. Refs made, had 1,2,3 bad missed calls, fouls. 1 of which WSU player was driving, GOT ABSOLUTELY HACKED, MUGGED by 3 Cal players. Even announcers said that. Smith almost got a technical over it. Cal went down and got a 3, for a 5 point swing on the missed foul call. That's 5 more points + 4 more points from the other 2 refs missing not calling fouls, so thats 9 total more points.

8. WSU missed about 6,7,8 freethrows, for 7 more points.

9. WSU had about 5 to 7 to 9 shots where the ball was about 67% of the way in, made and miraculously popped out. If WSU makes at least 2 of those, that 4 more points.

10. That's 6 points from point 3 + 3 points from point 4 + 2 points from point 5 + 2 points from point 6 + 9 points from point 7 + 7 points from point 8 + 4 more points from point 9. That's 33 more points WSU either could have had, should have had, or been down by less points etc.

The point is, if not for all that BS, CRAP, WSU WOULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE WON EASILY, AND THAT CRAP HAPPENING MADE THE GAME HARDER THEN IT HAD TO BE.

It's bad enough that WSU was having a bad game, and some bad coaching, but that BS, CRAP, had to happen to make the bad game, bad coaching, etc, even worse and turn the game into a loss.

And despite the bad game, bad coaching, WSU only had 9,10 turnovers all game. Played hard. Played mostly ok defense, most of time, despite the occasional defensive letdown, and mostly rebounded ok, except for the occasional rebounding letdown.

About the only thing WSU did bad, beside the bad game, bad coaching, was the abysmal Freethrow shooting, and the bad shooting.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

Usually I don't post things from opponent's boards, but this one was an all timer

We continue to get no credit when we win. No recognition that we have good players and this is not last years team.Every team concludes they beat themselves. What a miracle it would be
if we won the pac12 tournament.

I guess Stanford is getting ready to beat themselves be cause it wont be anything we do, right?
-

mikalalas
Hall Of Fame

1. Cal who has had TRASHY, PATHETIC, EMBARRASSING LOSSES TO TRASH TEAMS, of course has one of it's better games of season vs WSU.

2. Yeah WSU was having a bad game, some bad coaching decisions, but the following CRAP made it even WORSE.

3. 1 27% from 3 Cal player hit a 3, and another 30% from 3 Cal player hit a 3. That's 6 points.

4. Cal player hit a extremely super deep DESPERATION MIRACLE HEAVE BANKED 3, that's 9 points.

5. Cal hit a CIRCUS 2 point shot, that's 11 points.

6. Cal hit a bad banked 2, that's 13 points.

7. Refs made, had 1,2,3 bad missed calls, fouls. 1 of which WSU player was driving, GOT ABSOLUTELY HACKED, MUGGED by 3 Cal players. Even announcers said that. Smith almost got a technical over it. Cal went down and got a 3, for a 5 point swing on the missed foul call. That's 5 more points + 4 more points from the other 2 refs missing not calling fouls, so thats 9 total more points.

8. WSU missed about 6,7,8 freethrows, for 7 more points.

9. WSU had about 5 to 7 to 9 shots where the ball was about 67% of the way in, made and miraculously popped out. If WSU makes at least 2 of those, that 4 more points.

10. That's 6 points from point 3 + 3 points from point 4 + 2 points from point 5 + 2 points from point 6 + 9 points from point 7 + 7 points from point 8 + 4 more points from point 9. That's 33 more points WSU either could have had, should have had, or been down by less points etc.

The point is, if not for all that BS, CRAP, WSU WOULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE WON EASILY, AND THAT CRAP HAPPENING MADE THE GAME HARDER THEN IT HAD TO BE.

It's bad enough that WSU was having a bad game, and some bad coaching, but that BS, CRAP, had to happen to make the bad game, bad coaching, etc, even worse and turn the game into a loss.

And despite the bad game, bad coaching, WSU only had 9,10 turnovers all game. Played hard. Played mostly ok defense, most of time, despite the occasional defensive letdown, and mostly rebounded ok, except for the occasional rebounding letdown.

About the only thing WSU did bad, beside the bad game, bad coaching, was the abysmal Freethrow shooting, and the bad shooting.
Go Bears!
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oskidunker said:

ducky23 said:

Usually I don't post things from opponent's boards, but this one was an all timer

We continue to get no credit when we win. No recognition that we have good players and this is not last years team.Every team concludes they beat themselves. What a miracle it would be
if we won the pac12 tournament.

I guess Stanford is getting ready to beat themselves be cause it wont be anything we do, right?
-

mikalalas
Hall Of Fame

1. Cal who has had TRASHY, PATHETIC, EMBARRASSING LOSSES TO TRASH TEAMS, of course has one of it's better games of season vs WSU.

2. Yeah WSU was having a bad game, some bad coaching decisions, but the following CRAP made it even WORSE.

3. 1 27% from 3 Cal player hit a 3, and another 30% from 3 Cal player hit a 3. That's 6 points.

4. Cal player hit a extremely super deep DESPERATION MIRACLE HEAVE BANKED 3, that's 9 points.

5. Cal hit a CIRCUS 2 point shot, that's 11 points.

6. Cal hit a bad banked 2, that's 13 points.

7. Refs made, had 1,2,3 bad missed calls, fouls. 1 of which WSU player was driving, GOT ABSOLUTELY HACKED, MUGGED by 3 Cal players. Even announcers said that. Smith almost got a technical over it. Cal went down and got a 3, for a 5 point swing on the missed foul call. That's 5 more points + 4 more points from the other 2 refs missing not calling fouls, so thats 9 total more points.

8. WSU missed about 6,7,8 freethrows, for 7 more points.

9. WSU had about 5 to 7 to 9 shots where the ball was about 67% of the way in, made and miraculously popped out. If WSU makes at least 2 of those, that 4 more points.

10. That's 6 points from point 3 + 3 points from point 4 + 2 points from point 5 + 2 points from point 6 + 9 points from point 7 + 7 points from point 8 + 4 more points from point 9. That's 33 more points WSU either could have had, should have had, or been down by less points etc.

The point is, if not for all that BS, CRAP, WSU WOULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE WON EASILY, AND THAT CRAP HAPPENING MADE THE GAME HARDER THEN IT HAD TO BE.

It's bad enough that WSU was having a bad game, and some bad coaching, but that BS, CRAP, had to happen to make the bad game, bad coaching, etc, even worse and turn the game into a loss.

And despite the bad game, bad coaching, WSU only had 9,10 turnovers all game. Played hard. Played mostly ok defense, most of time, despite the occasional defensive letdown, and mostly rebounded ok, except for the occasional rebounding letdown.

About the only thing WSU did bad, beside the bad game, bad coaching, was the abysmal Freethrow shooting, and the bad shooting.


We continue to get no credit when we win. No recognition that we have good players and this is not last years team.Every team concludes they beat themselves. What a miracle it would be
if we won the pac12 tournament.

I guess Stanford is getting ready to beat themselves be cause it wont be anything we do, right?
Go Bears!
Big Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oskidunker said:

oskidunker said:

ducky23 said:

Usually I don't post things from opponent's boards, but this one was an all timer

We continue to get no credit when we win. No recognition that we have good players and this is not last years team.Every team concludes they beat themselves. What a miracle it would be
if we won the pac12 tournament.

I guess Stanford is getting ready to beat themselves be cause it wont be anything we do, right?
-

mikalalas
Hall Of Fame

1. Cal who has had TRASHY, PATHETIC, EMBARRASSING LOSSES TO TRASH TEAMS, of course has one of it's better games of season vs WSU.

2. Yeah WSU was having a bad game, some bad coaching decisions, but the following CRAP made it even WORSE.

3. 1 27% from 3 Cal player hit a 3, and another 30% from 3 Cal player hit a 3. That's 6 points.

4. Cal player hit a extremely super deep DESPERATION MIRACLE HEAVE BANKED 3, that's 9 points.

5. Cal hit a CIRCUS 2 point shot, that's 11 points.

6. Cal hit a bad banked 2, that's 13 points.

7. Refs made, had 1,2,3 bad missed calls, fouls. 1 of which WSU player was driving, GOT ABSOLUTELY HACKED, MUGGED by 3 Cal players. Even announcers said that. Smith almost got a technical over it. Cal went down and got a 3, for a 5 point swing on the missed foul call. That's 5 more points + 4 more points from the other 2 refs missing not calling fouls, so thats 9 total more points.

8. WSU missed about 6,7,8 freethrows, for 7 more points.

9. WSU had about 5 to 7 to 9 shots where the ball was about 67% of the way in, made and miraculously popped out. If WSU makes at least 2 of those, that 4 more points.

10. That's 6 points from point 3 + 3 points from point 4 + 2 points from point 5 + 2 points from point 6 + 9 points from point 7 + 7 points from point 8 + 4 more points from point 9. That's 33 more points WSU either could have had, should have had, or been down by less points etc.

The point is, if not for all that BS, CRAP, WSU WOULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE WON EASILY, AND THAT CRAP HAPPENING MADE THE GAME HARDER THEN IT HAD TO BE.

It's bad enough that WSU was having a bad game, and some bad coaching, but that BS, CRAP, had to happen to make the bad game, bad coaching, etc, even worse and turn the game into a loss.

And despite the bad game, bad coaching, WSU only had 9,10 turnovers all game. Played hard. Played mostly ok defense, most of time, despite the occasional defensive letdown, and mostly rebounded ok, except for the occasional rebounding letdown.

About the only thing WSU did bad, beside the bad game, bad coaching, was the abysmal Freethrow shooting, and the bad shooting.


We continue to get no credit when we win. No recognition that we have good players and this is not last years team.Every team concludes they beat themselves. What a miracle it would be
if we won the pac12 tournament.

I guess Stanford is getting ready to beat themselves be cause it wont be anything we do, right?

Bad calls are life in teh Pac. When WSU was making its move to go up 7, they called a foul on Tyson, but upon slow mo, it was clear that Tyson never even brushed the shooter; it was all air.

but not to worry Cal fans, the ACC refs are second worst of the Power 5
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oskidunker said:

ducky23 said:

Usually I don't post things from opponent's boards, but this one was an all timer

We continue to get no credit when we win. No recognition that we have good players and this is not last years team.Every team concludes they beat themselves. What a miracle it would be
if we won the pac12 tournament.

I guess Stanford is getting ready to beat themselves be cause it wont be anything we do, right?
-

mikalalas
Hall Of Fame

1. Cal who has had TRASHY, PATHETIC, EMBARRASSING LOSSES TO TRASH TEAMS, of course has one of it's better games of season vs WSU.

2. Yeah WSU was having a bad game, some bad coaching decisions, but the following CRAP made it even WORSE.

3. 1 27% from 3 Cal player hit a 3, and another 30% from 3 Cal player hit a 3. That's 6 points.

4. Cal player hit a extremely super deep DESPERATION MIRACLE HEAVE BANKED 3, that's 9 points.

5. Cal hit a CIRCUS 2 point shot, that's 11 points.

6. Cal hit a bad banked 2, that's 13 points.

7. Refs made, had 1,2,3 bad missed calls, fouls. 1 of which WSU player was driving, GOT ABSOLUTELY HACKED, MUGGED by 3 Cal players. Even announcers said that. Smith almost got a technical over it. Cal went down and got a 3, for a 5 point swing on the missed foul call. That's 5 more points + 4 more points from the other 2 refs missing not calling fouls, so thats 9 total more points.

8. WSU missed about 6,7,8 freethrows, for 7 more points.

9. WSU had about 5 to 7 to 9 shots where the ball was about 67% of the way in, made and miraculously popped out. If WSU makes at least 2 of those, that 4 more points.

10. That's 6 points from point 3 + 3 points from point 4 + 2 points from point 5 + 2 points from point 6 + 9 points from point 7 + 7 points from point 8 + 4 more points from point 9. That's 33 more points WSU either could have had, should have had, or been down by less points etc.

The point is, if not for all that BS, CRAP, WSU WOULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE WON EASILY, AND THAT CRAP HAPPENING MADE THE GAME HARDER THEN IT HAD TO BE.

It's bad enough that WSU was having a bad game, and some bad coaching, but that BS, CRAP, had to happen to make the bad game, bad coaching, etc, even worse and turn the game into a loss.

And despite the bad game, bad coaching, WSU only had 9,10 turnovers all game. Played hard. Played mostly ok defense, most of time, despite the occasional defensive letdown, and mostly rebounded ok, except for the occasional rebounding letdown.

About the only thing WSU did bad, beside the bad game, bad coaching, was the abysmal Freethrow shooting, and the bad shooting.



Whatweb site is thisvfrom? I could not find a wspu web site with much activity.
Go Bears!
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oskidunker said:

oskidunker said:

ducky23 said:

Usually I don't post things from opponent's boards, but this one was an all timer

We continue to get no credit when we win. No recognition that we have good players and this is not last years team.Every team concludes they beat themselves. What a miracle it would be
if we won the pac12 tournament.

I guess Stanford is getting ready to beat themselves be cause it wont be anything we do, right?
-

mikalalas
Hall Of Fame

1. Cal who has had TRASHY, PATHETIC, EMBARRASSING LOSSES TO TRASH TEAMS, of course has one of it's better games of season vs WSU.

2. Yeah WSU was having a bad game, some bad coaching decisions, but the following CRAP made it even WORSE.

3. 1 27% from 3 Cal player hit a 3, and another 30% from 3 Cal player hit a 3. That's 6 points.

4. Cal player hit a extremely super deep DESPERATION MIRACLE HEAVE BANKED 3, that's 9 points.

5. Cal hit a CIRCUS 2 point shot, that's 11 points.

6. Cal hit a bad banked 2, that's 13 points.

7. Refs made, had 1,2,3 bad missed calls, fouls. 1 of which WSU player was driving, GOT ABSOLUTELY HACKED, MUGGED by 3 Cal players. Even announcers said that. Smith almost got a technical over it. Cal went down and got a 3, for a 5 point swing on the missed foul call. That's 5 more points + 4 more points from the other 2 refs missing not calling fouls, so thats 9 total more points.

8. WSU missed about 6,7,8 freethrows, for 7 more points.

9. WSU had about 5 to 7 to 9 shots where the ball was about 67% of the way in, made and miraculously popped out. If WSU makes at least 2 of those, that 4 more points.

10. That's 6 points from point 3 + 3 points from point 4 + 2 points from point 5 + 2 points from point 6 + 9 points from point 7 + 7 points from point 8 + 4 more points from point 9. That's 33 more points WSU either could have had, should have had, or been down by less points etc.

The point is, if not for all that BS, CRAP, WSU WOULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE WON EASILY, AND THAT CRAP HAPPENING MADE THE GAME HARDER THEN IT HAD TO BE.

It's bad enough that WSU was having a bad game, and some bad coaching, but that BS, CRAP, had to happen to make the bad game, bad coaching, etc, even worse and turn the game into a loss.

And despite the bad game, bad coaching, WSU only had 9,10 turnovers all game. Played hard. Played mostly ok defense, most of time, despite the occasional defensive letdown, and mostly rebounded ok, except for the occasional rebounding letdown.

About the only thing WSU did bad, beside the bad game, bad coaching, was the abysmal Freethrow shooting, and the bad shooting.



Whatweb site is thisvfrom? I could not find a wspu web site with much activity.


https://washingtonstate.forums.rivals.com/threads/road-sweep.27119/page-2
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

Usually I don't post things from opponent's boards, but this one was an all timer
-

mikalalas
Hall Of Fame

1. Cal who has had TRASHY, PATHETIC, EMBARRASSING LOSSES TO TRASH TEAMS, of course has one of it's better games of season vs WSU.

2. Yeah WSU was having a bad game, some bad coaching decisions, but the following CRAP made it even WORSE.

3. 1 27% from 3 Cal player hit a 3, and another 30% from 3 Cal player hit a 3. That's 6 points.

4. Cal player hit a extremely super deep DESPERATION MIRACLE HEAVE BANKED 3, that's 9 points.

5. Cal hit a CIRCUS 2 point shot, that's 11 points.

6. Cal hit a bad banked 2, that's 13 points.

7. Refs made, had 1,2,3 bad missed calls, fouls. 1 of which WSU player was driving, GOT ABSOLUTELY HACKED, MUGGED by 3 Cal players. Even announcers said that. Smith almost got a technical over it. Cal went down and got a 3, for a 5 point swing on the missed foul call. That's 5 more points + 4 more points from the other 2 refs missing not calling fouls, so thats 9 total more points.

8. WSU missed about 6,7,8 freethrows, for 7 more points.

9. WSU had about 5 to 7 to 9 shots where the ball was about 67% of the way in, made and miraculously popped out. If WSU makes at least 2 of those, that 4 more points.

10. That's 6 points from point 3 + 3 points from point 4 + 2 points from point 5 + 2 points from point 6 + 9 points from point 7 + 7 points from point 8 + 4 more points from point 9. That's 33 more points WSU either could have had, should have had, or been down by less points etc.

The point is, if not for all that BS, CRAP, WSU WOULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE WON EASILY, AND THAT CRAP HAPPENING MADE THE GAME HARDER THEN IT HAD TO BE.

It's bad enough that WSU was having a bad game, and some bad coaching, but that BS, CRAP, had to happen to make the bad game, bad coaching, etc, even worse and turn the game into a loss.

And despite the bad game, bad coaching, WSU only had 9,10 turnovers all game. Played hard. Played mostly ok defense, most of time, despite the occasional defensive letdown, and mostly rebounded ok, except for the occasional rebounding letdown.

About the only thing WSU did bad, beside the bad game, bad coaching, was the abysmal Freethrow shooting, and the bad shooting.
Too bad.
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looks like, unlike Thursday, we won the game at the free throw line.
Johnfox
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They were free today. Still a good amount of students showed up. Not as many as UW though.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

HoopDreams said:

stu said:

HoopDreams said:

stu said:

OneKeg said:

Why was Aimaq out there on defense with 4.2 seconds left, up by 3. Don't you want to put in Brown instead? Defend the 3, give up the 2.

(Or you know, foul).
Exactly! Also Larson for Cone to get better length. Nobody inside the 3-point line.
Larson not used defend outside shot
Why not? He can move his feet and has long arms.
A guard should be able to lose a 6-10 guy most of the time

Length is only one factor with perimeter defense

Larson also has less experience switching getting around screens, perimeter defense decision making, spacing, stunting, etc
When the guard can't drive inside the 3-point line the 6-10 guy won't have to worry about that.

Same with screens, if all the defenders are 6-5 or taller just switch. Nobody is going to roll to the basket. You can play a 5-0 zone.
it's true that they don't have to make decisions to go under over, or fight through screens. just switch everything. but I'd say the majority of coaches would defend with guards, not bigs in that situation
graguna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
only 4 turnovers!!!!! the team has made HUGE strides in that area. if CAL turned the ball over at the same rate as earlier in the year, this is a sure loss.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
barsad said:

Go Bears! Let's hope this gives some newfound confidence to the squad.
On Larsen, I would like to see him split time with Aimaq (10 min each, with flexibility for matchups). The kid does a lot of things better than Fardaws, some not better, but why not give him a chance to show it and improve?
I know that people here are down on Aimaq, and I've been critical of his defense, but overall he is the best center we've had in decades. Most recent big we've had who was better was Ivan Rabb.

Today Fardaws scored 18 points on 7-14 shooting with many on great post moves and shots. He grabbed FOURTEEN rebounds, 3 assists, and 2 steals. 4-6 FTs, 1 turnover, 1 foul.

I'm a big fan of Larson as he's a solid defender, but I would not have played him more in this game to replace Fardaws or to replace Cone on the last play.

I think this was a good win and that includes good in- game coaching from Madsen
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams said:

stu said:

HoopDreams said:

stu said:

HoopDreams said:

stu said:

OneKeg said:

Why was Aimaq out there on defense with 4.2 seconds left, up by 3. Don't you want to put in Brown instead? Defend the 3, give up the 2.

(Or you know, foul).
Exactly! Also Larson for Cone to get better length. Nobody inside the 3-point line.
Larson not used defend outside shot
Why not? He can move his feet and has long arms.
A guard should be able to lose a 6-10 guy most of the time

Length is only one factor with perimeter defense

Larson also has less experience switching getting around screens, perimeter defense decision making, spacing, stunting, etc
When the guard can't drive inside the 3-point line the 6-10 guy won't have to worry about that.

Same with screens, if all the defenders are 6-5 or taller just switch. Nobody is going to roll to the basket. You can play a 5-0 zone.
it's true that they don't have to make decisions to go under over, or fight through screens. just switch everything. but I'd say the majority of coaches would defend with guards, not bigs in that situation
That's one reason (among many) I'm not a coach.

But how about Bowser? I forgot about him since he hasn't played for a while.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Yes, Aimaq deserves more love around here. Easily our second best player. We might appreciate him more next season.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:


Yes, Aimaq deserves more love around here. Easily our second best player. We might appreciate him more next season.

oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:


Yes, Aimaq deserves more love around here. Easily our second best player. We might appreciate him more next season.


Fyi, He is a senior. No more eligibility.
Go Bears!
barsad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I give Aimaq about as much love as a middle of the pack big man should get. There's literally no one else we have to bring down a rebound, so getting double-doubles is not that impressive to me. He had a great game today, but there are times when he can't hit a 5-foot shot in the paint.
Anyway, the worth of a 6th year player who is only going to play for another six weeks is kind of irrelevant. The more important question about minutes at center is:
Is it more important for Aimaq to collect a few more double-doubles so he gets a better offer in Europe, or is it more important to develop Larsen, the center for the next three years who will be leading Cal teams that might actually break .500? Seems like an obvious choice to me.
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oskidunker said:

Big C said:


Yes, Aimaq deserves more love around here. Easily our second best player. We might appreciate him more next season.


Fyi, He is a senior. No more eligibility.

Which is why his contributions this year may be appreciated more (by some) next year.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.