after 26 games what we have with this team. Both strengths and weaknesses.

At this point the question is, whether there's still time to tweak out the deficiencies and fine tune the strengths we have for a strong finish. Obviously, some of it falls on the players and some on the coaching staff. I played this game a bit (through JC), but I never coached it. So at this point I'm a bit empty on specifically what we can do to get better moving forward. Kind of curious what the rest of you think, and welcome some comments on the subject.

Just as a sidenote, OD mentioned that we seemed okay last night using Grant at the end instead of Gus. Now I'm not here to suggest that we abandon using Gus altogether moving forward, but to OD's point,we did fine with Grant as our "center." Maybe during Daws rest time there may be some more occasions where we use Grant as our big man, depending on the matchups.

Anyway, what ideas do you folks have for this team to finish this thing at the optimal end?

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

after 26 games what we have with this team. Both strengths and weaknesses.

At this point the question is, whether there's still time to tweak out the deficiencies and fine tune the strengths we have for a strong finish. Obviously, some of it falls on the players and some on the coaching staff. I played this game a bit (through JC), but I never coached it. So at this point I'm a bit empty on specifically what we can do to get better moving forward. Kind of curious what the rest of you think, and welcome some comments on the subject.

Just as a sidenote, OD mentioned that we seemed okay last night using Grant at the end instead of Gus. Now I'm not here to suggest that we abandon using Gus altogether moving forward, but to OD's point,we did fine with Grant as our "center." Maybe during Daws rest time there may be some more occasions where we use Grant as our big man, depending on the matchups.

Anyway, what ideas do you folks have for this team to finish this thing at the optimal end?

---

What does Larsen do better than Newell?

sluggo said:

---

To compete against the top teams the defense needs to be switchable. I want to see a lineup of Brown, Kennedy, Celestine, Tyson and Newell. A lot. No matter how many rebounds Aimaq gets his drop defense lets the opposing center be a free screener, which is a killer. This lineup would also open the lane for Tyson.

This is the lineup an NBA coach would play. Madsen likes an NBA offense, but his lineups are rigid like a college coach.

I also think playing Larson at all is a mistake when Newell is plenty big.

---

Good idea. I like it.

sluggo said:

---

To compete against the top teams the defense needs to be switchable. I want to see a lineup of Brown, Kennedy, Celestine, Tyson and Newell. A lot. No matter how many rebounds Aimaq gets his drop defense lets the opposing center be a free screener, which is a killer. This lineup would also open the lane for Tyson.

This is the lineup an NBA coach would play. Madsen likes an NBA offense, but his lineups are rigid like a college coach.

I also think playing Larson at all is a mistake when Newell is plenty big.

---

The rest of the season is going to go however well Aimaq plays the rest of the season. Aimaq does a lot of things well and puts up numbers, but he's also a huge liability on defense (which doesn't show up in the stats). As sluggo said, his perimeter defense and inability to switch causes a lot of problems on defense. It also doesn't help that, unlike most immobile big men, he's also not much of a rim protector. It's no coincidence UW stopped scoring once Aimaq fouled out.

On the whole, Aimaq is probably a plus player. But if he's not being aggressive on the offensive end or if he's not inhaling every rebound, it's pretty impossible for this team to win games since he's such a negative on the defensive end. So…this team will go as far as Aimaq takes them. If he's good offensively and with rebounds (and if he can play at least some interior D) they will win some more games.

ducky23 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

To compete against the top teams the defense needs to be switchable. I want to see a lineup of Brown, Kennedy, Celestine, Tyson and Newell. A lot. No matter how many rebounds Aimaq gets his drop defense lets the opposing center be a free screener, which is a killer. This lineup would also open the lane for Tyson.

This is the lineup an NBA coach would play. Madsen likes an NBA offense, but his lineups are rigid like a college coach.

I also think playing Larson at all is a mistake when Newell is plenty big.

---

The rest of the season is going to go however well Aimaq plays the rest of the season. Aimaq does a lot of things well and puts up numbers, but he's also a huge liability on defense (which doesn't show up in the stats). As sluggo said, his perimeter defense and inability to switch causes a lot of problems on defense. It also doesn't help that, unlike most immobile big men, he's also not much of a rim protector. It's no coincidence UW stopped scoring once Aimaq fouled out.

On the whole, Aimaq is probably a plus player. But if he's not being aggressive on the offensive end or if he's not inhaling every rebound, it's pretty impossible for this team to win games since he's such a negative on the defensive end. So…this team will go as far as Aimaq takes them. If he's good offensively and with rebounds (and if he can play at least some interior D) they will win some more games.

---

I think both need to play.Newell cant put up the offensive numbers Aimak does, although defense is worse. Perhaps when we are being abused the middle, we take him out.Madsen is too committed to him to due that, then play zone

Smart guys who know hoop in this thread…and thus the thread has earned its own theme music:

is this before or after the Johnny Nash version?

And back to the topic, the Grant Newell backup theory seems to have support. One of the possible negatives would be that under this strategy only seven players are sharing the minutes. But it can be argued that right now Grant's minutes can be stepped up without it really affecting him. It could also be supplemented by giving Rodney a couple of extra each half and playing just a bit smaller. Its certainly an idea worth considering.
More on this or anything else?

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

is this before or after the Johnny Nash version?

---

Don't mean to HiJack the thread but Johnny Nash wrote the original. Ironically, Bob Marley wrote for Johnny Nash early in his career, including this one: stir it up johnny nash youtube

Not sure why I'm one of the few here who think Aimaq is a very good player and don't want to play him less, at least until we get Okofor back

When Larson is in teams go straight at him. He's a valuable role player but unless Aimaq needs a break or is in foul trouble he shouldn't be playing more than he is.

As for Grant, he maybe a better option than Larson so depending on matchups he might take more of his minutes, but he's often defending on the wing and not sure who else we've got besides Brown. Grant also needs to get stronger so he can defend and rebound better.

Also, don't forget Daws passing and he's the only post who can run the Pick & Roll which is the heart of our offense

At least coach agrees with me on Daws PT

sluggo said:

---

To compete against the top teams the defense needs to be switchable. I want to see a lineup of Brown, Kennedy, Celestine, Tyson and Newell. A lot. No matter how many rebounds Aimaq gets his drop defense lets the opposing center be a free screener, which is a killer. This lineup would also open the lane for Tyson.

This is the lineup an NBA coach would play. Madsen likes an NBA offense, but his lineups are rigid like a college coach.

I also think playing Larson at all is a mistake when Newell is plenty big.

---

Again HD, unless I really misinterpreted what I read, Okafor is not coming back this year.

HoopDreams said:

---

Not sure why I'm one of the few here who think Aimaq is a very good player and want to play him less, at least until we get Okofor back

When Larson is in teams go straight at him. He's a valuable role player but unless Aimaq needs a break or is in foul trouble he shouldn't be playing more than he is.

As for Grant, he maybe a better option than Larson so depending on matchups he might take more of his minutes, but he's often defending on the wing and not sure who else we've got besides Brown. Grant also needs to get stronger so he can defend and rebound better.

Also, don't forget Daws passing and he's the only post who can run the Pick & Roll which is the heart of our offense

At least coach agrees with me on Daws PT

---

It has already been shown that Cal cannot defend the top of the conference teams with Aimaq. See last week against WSU and the two games against Arizona. Something different has to be tried. Or they can just go down meekly as I expect.

Of course Aimaq has to play because the team only goes seven deep. But a lineup taking out the two worst defenders, Aimaq and Cone, is at least worth a long look.

I think Aimaq is not a good passer. And his only move is a right handed hook, which the good coaches take away because he has no counter move and no lift. He also has a nice push shot that can be countered by crowding him.

Tyson plus anyone can run pick and roll.

HoopDreams said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Not sure why I'm one of the few here who think Aimaq is a very good player and want to play him less, at least until we get Okofor back

When Larson is in teams go straight at him. He's a valuable role player but unless Aimaq needs a break or is in foul trouble he shouldn't be playing more than he is.

As for Grant, he maybe a better option than Larson so depending on matchups he might take more of his minutes, but he's often defending on the wing and not sure who else we've got besides Brown. Grant also needs to get stronger so he can defend and rebound better.

Also, don't forget Daws passing and he's the only post who can run the Pick & Roll which is the heart of our offense

At least coach agrees with me on Daws PT

---

It has already been shown that Cal cannot defend the top of the conference teams with Aimaq. See last week against WSU and the two games against Arizona. Something different has to be tried. Or they can just go down meekly as I expect.

Of course Aimaq has to play because the team only goes seven deep. But a lineup taking out the two worst defenders, Aimaq and Cone, is at least worth a long look.

I think Aimaq is not a good passer. And his only move is a right handed hook, which the good coaches take away because he has no counter move and no lift. He also has a nice push shot that can be countered by crowding him.

Tyson plus anyone can run pick and roll.

---

sorry, just don't agree with any of this, but that's ok

---

You think a third matchup with Arizona would be any different playing the same way?

Play Zone

HoopDreams said:

---

Not sure why I'm one of the few here who think Aimaq is a very good player and don't want to play him less, at least until we get Okofor back

When Larson is in teams go straight at him. He's a valuable role player but unless Aimaq needs a break or is in foul trouble he shouldn't be playing more than he is.

As for Grant, he maybe a better option than Larson so depending on matchups he might take more of his minutes, but he's often defending on the wing and not sure who else we've got besides Brown. Grant also needs to get stronger so he can defend and rebound better.

Also, don't forget Daws passing and he's the only post who can run the Pick & Roll which is the heart of our offense

At least coach agrees with me on Daws PT

sluggo said:

---

To compete against the top teams the defense needs to be switchable. I want to see a lineup of Brown, Kennedy, Celestine, Tyson and Newell. A lot. No matter how many rebounds Aimaq gets his drop defense lets the opposing center be a free screener, which is a killer. This lineup would also open the lane for Tyson.

This is the lineup an NBA coach would play. Madsen likes an NBA offense, but his lineups are rigid like a college coach.

I also think playing Larson at all is a mistake when Newell is plenty big.

---

---

I think aimaq is fairly controversial on these boards cause he's such an unbalanced player. He does certain things very well and other things not very well at all. So when he's not doing his good things well, he's a huge liability (which angers the aimaq detractors). But when he does his good things well, his defenders go 'see another 15 and 15 game'. With all things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

It's not a perfect analogy, but he's very similar to how many warriors fans see Klay now. When he's shooting well, he's a plus player, but when he's not, he's a gigantic liability since he does so many things below average.

The difference is that the warriors have a number of wings who can replace Klay. Cal has no one else. So they just need to hope that aimaq does enough good things to offset his deficiencies.

If we get Arizona again we will have to have our best 3-pt performance of the season. It's doable. Trying to beat them in the paint is futile, with ANY of our big men.

oskidunker said:

---

Play Zone

---

.

This would be my answer as well….theoretically.

Again, theoretically, playing a zone would allow cal to limit the amount aimaq has to play perimeter defense. It also in theory reduces dribble penetration and PnRs that attack Aimaq. So this should solve all problems right?

I haven't seen the metrics (but I'm sure the coaching staff has) but I'm sure it'll say that our zone defense is even worse than our man defense. If this weren't the case, we'd be playing zone more often.

ducky23 said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Not sure why I'm one of the few here who think Aimaq is a very good player and don't want to play him less, at least until we get Okofor back

When Larson is in teams go straight at him. He's a valuable role player but unless Aimaq needs a break or is in foul trouble he shouldn't be playing more than he is.

As for Grant, he maybe a better option than Larson so depending on matchups he might take more of his minutes, but he's often defending on the wing and not sure who else we've got besides Brown. Grant also needs to get stronger so he can defend and rebound better.

Also, don't forget Daws passing and he's the only post who can run the Pick & Roll which is the heart of our offense

At least coach agrees with me on Daws PT

sluggo said:

---

To compete against the top teams the defense needs to be switchable. I want to see a lineup of Brown, Kennedy, Celestine, Tyson and Newell. A lot. No matter how many rebounds Aimaq gets his drop defense lets the opposing center be a free screener, which is a killer. This lineup would also open the lane for Tyson.

This is the lineup an NBA coach would play. Madsen likes an NBA offense, but his lineups are rigid like a college coach.

I also think playing Larson at all is a mistake when Newell is plenty big.

---

---

I think aimaq is fairly controversial on these boards cause he's such an unbalanced player. He does certain things very well and other things not very well at all. So when he's not doing his good things well, he's a huge liability (which angers the aimaq detractors). But when he does his good things well, his defenders go 'see another 15 and 15 game'. With all things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

It's not a perfect analogy, but he's very similar to how many warriors fans see Klay now. When he's shooting well, he's a plus player, but when he's not, he's a gigantic liability since he does so many things below average.

The difference is that the warriors have a number of wings who can replace Klay. Cal has no one else. So they just need to hope that aimaq does enough good things to offset his deficiencies.

---

I agree with most of this. Aimaq brings many things to the table (shooting, interior defense, defensive rebounding). He also takes things off the table. Against weaker teams I think he is a plus, but I do not think he is a plus against stronger teams.

He has to play at least 20 minutes due to lack of depth. But I think they may have stumbled upon something at the end of the UW game when he fouled out. I would like to see him in a reduced role, that is all.

I don't think the team has tried my basically five wings lineup. They would front big guys and rely on quickness to help overcome their lack of height. We know what the current starting five can do, so there is literally nothing to lose.

ducky23 said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Play Zone

---

.

This would be my answer as well….theoretically.

Again, theoretically, playing a zone would allow cal to limit the amount aimaq has to play perimeter defense. It also in theory reduces dribble penetration and PnRs that attack Aimaq. So this should solve all problems right?

I haven't seen the metrics (but I'm sure the coaching staff has) but I'm sure it'll say that our zone defense is even worse than our man defense. If this weren't the case, we'd be playing zone more often.

---

I love zone. I think most teams should play zone most of the time. But zone require more mobility, not less, so I don't think it solves the problem. Teams can overload a side and get easy 3s.

Madsen has mixed in zone. I don't remember any zone during the three UVU games that I watched last year, so I appreciate this flexibility. In my head zone has been less effective than man, but zone like man has gotten better over the year. I have no stats to back this up.

.

we are one/a few seasons away from Lars, Kelly and King/Rooks (solid centers, with Kelly in the good category) but we aren't happy with Daws?

I hope we get a top center for next year

I'm just hoping for a player who can defend and rebound, even if he is a liability on offense, as I think finding someone as good as Daws will be very tough. Larson and Okofor are not sufficient for the ACC.

HoopDreams said:

---

we are one/a few seasons away from Lars, Kelly and King/Rooks (solid centers, with Kelly in the good category) but we aren't happy with Daws?

I hope we get a top center for next year

I'm just hoping for a player who can defend and rebound, even if he is a liability on offense, as I think finding someone as good as Daws will be very tough. Larson and Okofor are not sufficient for the ACC.

---

I'd categorize Okoroh, Rooks, and Thiemann as solid mid-major centers. Kelly was much better.

I agree about rebounding and defense, for me putbacks will be sufficient offense. However if the guy can hit an open free throw or three his defender won't be able to sit under the basket.

sluggo:

"...He has to play at least 20 minutes due to lack of depth. But I think they may have stumbled upon something at the end of the UW game when he fouled out. I would like to see him in a reduced role, that is all.

I don't think the team has tried my basically five wings lineup. They would front big guys and rely on quickness to help overcome their lack of height. We know what the current starting five can do, so there is literally nothing to lose."

RW: I agree that it would be worth it to try a little more "small ball" but to think of Daws playing "at least 20 minutes" might be a little drastic. (I understand, "at least" doesn't mean "only".) Despite some specific flaws, he still has to be considered better than average. He's currently average 32.2 minutes per game, maybe knocking off 2 to 3 minutes per half would give us a chance to try the five wings lineup a bit more and at the same time help Daws stamina wise.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Again HD, unless I really misinterpreted what I read, Okafor is not coming back this year.

---

I understood that too, but then I read a post recently somewhere that said he is still trying to come back. Maybe he's already burned his redshirt, not sure.

HoopDreams said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Again HD, unless I really misinterpreted what I read, Okafor is not coming back this year.

---

I understood that too, but then I read a post recently somewhere that said he is still trying to come back. Maybe he's already burned his redshirt, not sure.

---

They were trying to get him a medical redshirt not sure what happened. If denied, maybe we see him but after being gone so long not sure what help it would be as opposed to just playing Newell.

HoopDreams said:

---

we are one/a few seasons away from Lars, Kelly and King/Rooks (solid centers, with Kelly in the good category) but we aren't happy with Daws?

I hope we get a top center for next year

I'm just hoping for a player who can defend and rebound, even if he is a liability on offense, as I think finding someone as good as Daws will be very tough. Larson and Okofor are not sufficient for the ACC.

---

I agree with you HD on all your Daws posts....

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

sorry, just don't agree with any of this, but that's ok

---

You think a third matchup with Arizona would be any different playing the same way?

---

We can play it differently, they will just beat us a different way. We do not have what they have, on the bench or on the floor. Sometimes you just have to roll with what you've got and pray for a miracle.

bearmanpg said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

we are one/a few seasons away from Lars, Kelly and King/Rooks (solid centers, with Kelly in the good category) but we aren't happy with Daws?

I hope we get a top center for next year

I'm just hoping for a player who can defend and rebound, even if he is a liability on offense, as I think finding someone as good as Daws will be very tough. Larson and Okofor are not sufficient for the ACC.

---

I agree with you HD on all your Daws posts....

---

Me too. Daws isn't the greatest defender, but Larson, I love the way he scraps, but he's worse. Newell has started to scrap more, too, since the beginning of the season, but he hasn't been a very good defender either. Nor was Okafor, before he went down.

Shopping list for the off-season. That's what it has become now, literally, a shopping list.

Go!Bears said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

sorry, just don't agree with any of this, but that's ok

---

You think a third matchup with Arizona would be any different playing the same way?

---

We can play it differently, they will just beat us a different way. We do not have what they have, on the bench or on the floor. Sometimes you just have to roll with what you've got and pray for a miracle.

---

Maybe so. But if nothing else, it is more fun to lose using a different approach than the tried and tried losing approach.

HoopDreams said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Again HD, unless I really misinterpreted what I read, Okafor is not coming back this year.

---

I understood that too, but then I read a post recently somewhere that said he is still trying to come back. Maybe he's already burned his redshirt, not sure.

---

I spoke with ND briefly after the UW game. He said he was trying to come back and that he needed to get some type of clearance (I don't know what he was referring to), which he expected to get soon. I told him I had thought maybe there had been a decision to redshirt him. He said something along the lines that that's where things were headed but now he says the team needs him, even if for just a little while.

That's what he told me. Who knows if he was just telling me what he thought a fan would want to hear, but that's what he said. Make of it what you want.

I'm squarely in the pro-Fardaws camp.

Edit: re NDO, I should be clear that he appeared to be eager to get back on the court.

It's kind of comical how we spend so much time on this site trying to figure out issues like the current ND situation, when in reality even the players' themselves don't even know.

I still don't understand why there even is a pro-Daws or anti-Daws camp for a player who spent one season here and has only five games left to play with no postseason impact. But I'll save my breath on why Daws' many liabilities that others mention above (add his turnover susceptibility) make him at best an OK center. Commence enraged Daws-boosters backlash.
Instead I spent some time on the Newell-Larson comparison. Here are the career stats:
Newell
Career Stats
GP MIN FG% 3P% FT% REB AST BLK STL PF TO PTS
2023-24
26 21.6 41.9 30.4 58.8 3.4 0.5 0.1 0.5 2.2 1.0 5.8
2022-23
31 26.8 39.7 26.9 63.6 3.9 0.7 0.2 0.9 1.9 1.1 8.0

Larson
Career Stats
GP MIN FG% 3P% FT% REB AST BLK STL PF TO PTS
2023-24
23 7.4 47.8 44.4 66.7 1.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 1.9 0.2 1.7

Obviously a small sample size for Larson, but in his favor what stands out for me are the better shooting and free throw numbers, and he has one inch more height (5 lbs lighter at 215) than Newell. Hard to compare the other things without equalizing minutes/game and weighting the other stats.
Most important thing is to just let both players have a shot without the inevitable fan pre-judgment we see so often here, let them show what they've got in summer/fall practices, compete with each other, and hope for the best. They could even platoon the center position, maybe one will be better on offense, another on defense.

Did someone really claim above that Rooks, Okoreh and Lars were "solid mid-major" centers (I guess playing in the wrong conference?) Call them nice guys, call them well-intentioned, but they (like many who came before them) were not up to the standard of skills you need to play in March Madness. So let's stop saying "good enough for Cal" and start expecting "good enough for a March Madness berth."

barsad said:

---

Did someone really claim above that Rooks, Okoreh and Lars were "solid mid-major" centers (I guess playing in the wrong conference?) Call them nice guys, call them well-intentioned, but they (like many who came before them) were not up to the standard of skills you need to play in March Madness. So let's stop saying "good enough for Cal" and start expecting "good enough for a March Madness berth."

---

I did. By "solid mid-major" I meant a player who is part of the rotation on an average mid-major team, not a player who would lead his team to the NCAA Tournament.

And yes, I think all three were not up to Pac-12 standards.