Holmoephobic said:

---

That was not a charge, he wasn't set at all

---

I didn't think so either. Certainly not clear enough to overturn.

We are going to lose. mark needs to go ballistic and get the T. This is being called RIDICULOUS

Thank God we got Bates out of there, another good play by Blacksher-Petraitis

I'm not sure where "we're going to lose" comes from, down by 3 with 2:53 left. Go Bears!

We should be fouling Marshall every time he touches the ball.

I saw no contact by Petraitis on that last "air foul".

Timeout when there are no timeouts. Hmmmm

Cal88 said:

---

Some say Missour-ee, others say Missou-rah…

---

"They got something in this part of the country they call the Missou-rah boat ride"

bearister said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Some say Missour-ee, others say Missou-rah…

---

"They got something in this part of the country they call the Missou-rah boat ride"

---

98-93. Gave up 63 in the second half. Goodness

Tough loss......................................................

Yeah, better get used to no help from the refs with upcoming ACC road games. Mizzou hit a lot of shots but we continue to give up a lot of lay ups and dunks playing man defense. Positive was Wilkinson continued to show he can score against a quality opponent.

This team should not be this bad defensively based on height and athleticism alone. We are too deep into the season for players to look this lost on defense. No communication, no understanding of when to switch on a hedge. I'm watching LSU vs Florida State and both teams are far more disciplined on defense.

Also, Mizzou shot 66% from the field. Truly unacceptable. If the truth is the players have that much trouble staying in front of their man (which I don't believe to be the case), then switch to a zone. Better than giving up layups, dunks, and wide open 8-10 footers.

Holmoephobic said:

---

Also, Mizzou shot 66% from the field. Truly unacceptable. If the truth is the players have that much trouble staying in front of their man (which I don't believe to be the case), then switch to a zone. Better than giving up layups, dunks, and wide open 8-10 footers.

---

- short backcourt
- basically no power forward
- new roster, still learning to work together (it's still early)

The team can use what happened in the second half tonight as a teaching tool.

Holmoephobic said:

---

Also, Mizzou shot 66% from the field. Truly unacceptable. If the truth is the players have that much trouble staying in front of their man (which I don't believe to be the case), then switch to a zone. Better than giving up layups, dunks, and wide open 8-10 footers.

---

You know, I wondered about that. When I heard that Mizzou made only three threes all game I figured we should be playing a lot of zone. But I wasn't paying enough attention to our defense to see whether we did that. I recorded the game, and if I can stomach re-watching a loss I think I'll take a look and find out.

socaltownie said:

---

Love Madsen's charisma and attitude. But we are seeing some of the same flaws as last year

---

This was always the wildcard, can he actually coach? Jury is still out. A well-coached team wins last night's game. Hopefully the team, and the coaching staff, learn and improve as the season progresses.

socaltownie said:

---

Our zone isn't very good. The Guards are really weak and slow up top and then there were HUGE gaps on the baseline. Mizzu took it apart.

Love Madsen's charisma and attitude. But we are seeing some of the same flaws as last year - some of the attention to detail (tough love?) is missing. Those closer to the program would know but on the TV it looks like an NBA huddle. No yelling, information exchange but I wonder with younger players, unlike the show, you gotta be negative. Having hands down when you are short in a zone is doesn't work.

---

Similiar to last year, and as the season continued our defense did get slightly better. I'm hoping this year we have a chance for the improvement to be more significant because we have better athletes and more depth. But we're definitely going to need it. I also have to say that Mizzou's athleticism and inside shooting skills were quite impressive. Normally I would classify this game as a decent loss, but blowing an 18 point lead makes it hard to swallow.

socaltownie said:

---

Love Madsen's charisma and attitude. But we are seeing some of the same flaws as last year - some of the attention to detail (tough love?) is missing. Those closer to the program would know but on the TV it looks like an NBA huddle. No yelling, information exchange but I wonder with younger players, unlike the show, you gotta be negative. Having hands down when you are short in a zone is doesn't work.

---

There needs to be more accountability but there's more than one way to get through to 19 year olds. After all, Mark Fox and Wyking were huge yellers.

I think it's also a problem with personnel. Our guards are small and besides Wilkinson, not that athletic. JOJ, Omot, Stojakovic, and Mahoney came in more as offensive players. A great teacher can get them to improve quickly, but it's always hard starting from a lower level of defensive polish.

^ To your point, this is a game in which we really missed DJ.

JimSox said:

---

Holmoephobic said:

---

Also, Mizzou shot 66% from the field. Truly unacceptable. If the truth is the players have that much trouble staying in front of their man (which I don't believe to be the case), then switch to a zone. Better than giving up layups, dunks, and wide open 8-10 footers.

---

You know, I wondered about that. When I heard that Mizzou made only three threes all game I figured we should be playing a lot of zone. But I wasn't paying enough attention to our defense to see whether we did that. I recorded the game, and if I can stomach re-watching a loss I think I'll take a look and find out.

---

Watched the first half. Cal went to a zone on exactly one possession. Mizou made two threes in the half. Meaning they made only one in the second half 63-point debacle. Gotta see if I have the courage to watch that!

JimSox said:

---

JimSox said:

---

Holmoephobic said:

---

Also, Mizzou shot 66% from the field. Truly unacceptable. If the truth is the players have that much trouble staying in front of their man (which I don't believe to be the case), then switch to a zone. Better than giving up layups, dunks, and wide open 8-10 footers.

---

You know, I wondered about that. When I heard that Mizzou made only three threes all game I figured we should be playing a lot of zone. But I wasn't paying enough attention to our defense to see whether we did that. I recorded the game, and if I can stomach re-watching a loss I think I'll take a look and find out.

---

Watched the first half. Cal went to a zone on exactly one possession. Mizou made two threes in the half. Meaning they made only one in the second half 63-point debacle. Gotta see if I have the courage to watch that!

---

Okay, to put this issue to rest, yes Cal did go to a zone in the second half. A particularly ineffective one. For the first six minutes or so of the half when Missouri was on its big run, I really couldn't tell what the hell defense we were playing. A lot of transition running around after steals or missed Cal shots. On Mizzou's fourth possession we were definitely in a zone. Then at about 13:30 we went to it consistently. A kind of an ol zone, with lots of penetration on drives (I thought you were never supposed to try to drive thru a zone) with no one collapsing on the ball. The TV color commentator noted that our guards, who are small, also didn't have their arms up on defense. At 12:30 Mizzou made their only three of the half. Then Wilkinson fouled a three point shooter for three free throws. But mostly it was guys seeming to cover air, especially our centers, and inability to prevent penetration. Couldn't deal with screens. At about 7:00 with Cal down two, I gave up. Couldn't stomach re-watching the rest.
All in all, big trouble if we can't play man and can't play zone. I'll be there tomorrow to see if we do any better against Stanford.