tucker is trying to do to much
SMU Game Thread
3,524 Views |
73 Replies |
Last: 4 days ago by BeachedBear
Big Dog said:
what a waste of our last TO
I have not been impressed with Madsen's in bounds plays coming off of time outs all year.
Both offensively but just as importantly when they're on defense. Cal is victimized routinely by the opposition on simple inbounds plays under the basket.
He needs to upgrade that part of his coaching.
and blockskc1121 said:
the turnovers (steals) and dunks...
perhaps Monty will come back and run a clinic?Alkiadt said:Big Dog said:
what a waste of our last TO
I have not been impressed with Madsen's in bounds plays coming off of time outs all year.
Both offensively but just as importantly when they're on defense. Cal is victimized routinely by the opposition on simple inbounds plays under the basket.
He needs to upgrade that part of his coaching.
Lol did someone mention flopping? Nice sell of the elbow hook, shame we couldn't convert into points though...
Amazing that we're still in touching distance, without our 2 top players and shooting 4/21 from 3 to this point in the game.
16 points 10 rebounds for Rytis.
If you believe in forever
Then life is just a one-night stand
If there's a rock and roll heaven
Well you know they've got a hell of a band
Then life is just a one-night stand
If there's a rock and roll heaven
Well you know they've got a hell of a band
Rytis having a great game
unfortunately he's the only one
unfortunately he's the only one
Outrebounded 40-31, a lot of them looked like hustle plays.
Cal covers by .5 and pays. Slainte!
*I texted Andy: "Don't you dare shoot that f@uckin' ball! Dribble it out."
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
two clear bad calls against Cal (calling ball off of Rytis twice when neither touched him)
two clear missed calls on two Cal walks
Refs did a good job in this game
two clear missed calls on two Cal walks
Refs did a good job in this game
5 for 25 on threes. 14 for 21 on free throws. This game was winnable.
Exactly. SMU only scored 76. This one was winnable.JimSox said:
5 for 25 on threes. 14 for 21 on free throws. This game was winnable.
Sissoko and Andrej are so important
Cal just does not have enough shooters. The questions about low assist numbers seemed to get in their head tonite as it seemed like the Bears were constantly looking to pass and deferred shot after shot.tequila4kapp said:Exactly. SMU only scored 76. This one was winnable.JimSox said:
5 for 25 on threes. 14 for 21 on free throws. This game was winnable.
Still, I think missing Sissoko was the biggest factor in the loss.
ncbears said:Cal just does not have enough shooters. The questions about low assist numbers seemed to get in their head tonite as it seemed like the Bears were constantly looking to pass and deferred shot after shot.tequila4kapp said:Exactly. SMU only scored 76. This one was winnable.JimSox said:
5 for 25 on threes. 14 for 21 on free throws. This game was winnable.
Still, I think missing Sissoko was the biggest factor in the loss.
Is he sick or injured?
Bring back It’s It’s to Haas Pavillion!
concussion protocol
Commentators said Sissoko was out for "concussion protocol" apparently from the Miami game. Recall he left the game but returned later to the game. I don't know much about concussions, so I speculate he was cleared to go back to the game, but symptoms showed up later.oskidunker said:ncbears said:Cal just does not have enough shooters. The questions about low assist numbers seemed to get in their head tonite as it seemed like the Bears were constantly looking to pass and deferred shot after shot.tequila4kapp said:Exactly. SMU only scored 76. This one was winnable.JimSox said:
5 for 25 on threes. 14 for 21 on free throws. This game was winnable.
Still, I think missing Sissoko was the biggest factor in the loss.
Is he sick or injured?
We're 11-10 right now with 10 more games to go. The goal should be to go 6-4 in those next 10 games assuming Mady and Andrej are back.
Mady is a warrior out there who alters a lot of shots and gives you a good presence down low. Andrej makes the game a lot easier for his teammates - teams key on him leaving Wilkinson and other players with more opportunities to score
Mady is a warrior out there who alters a lot of shots and gives you a good presence down low. Andrej makes the game a lot easier for his teammates - teams key on him leaving Wilkinson and other players with more opportunities to score
They basically get nothing from Blacksher, Campbell and Tucker which is very rough, especially when our 5 is understood to be a nominal scorer. Tough to win if 40-60% of your lineup isn't really a scoring threat.ncbears said:Cal just does not have enough shooters. The questions about low assist numbers seemed to get in their head tonite as it seemed like the Bears were constantly looking to pass and deferred shot after shot.tequila4kapp said:Exactly. SMU only scored 76. This one was winnable.JimSox said:
5 for 25 on threes. 14 for 21 on free throws. This game was winnable.
Still, I think missing Sissoko was the biggest factor in the loss.
Tucker has no ceiling and a very low floor. I don't know what happened to him
Campbell kept passing everytime he was open.ncbears said:Cal just does not have enough shooters. The questions about low assist numbers seemed to get in their head tonite as it seemed like the Bears were constantly looking to pass and deferred shot after shot.tequila4kapp said:Exactly. SMU only scored 76. This one was winnable.JimSox said:
5 for 25 on threes. 14 for 21 on free throws. This game was winnable.
Still, I think missing Sissoko was the biggest factor in the loss.
he's a good passer, but was trying to do too much today. not sure why he got 18 minutes (most of any non-starter). Probably because we were running all game and needed another guard and ball handler to keep that pace (Wilkinson cramped at the end)Johnfox said:
Tucker has no ceiling and a very low floor. I don't know what happened to him
surprised Ola-Joseph didn't play more ... only 14 minutes
Proud of the way the Bears played tonight as they fought hard and played until the end. That said, Cal is not a great shooting team and the game was made even more difficult with our best shooter Stojakovic & our best inside player (Sissoko) both out tonight. People forget we are playing without Omot as well who would have been a difference maker for this team tonight.
Hope Maddy & Andrej can make it back for Saturday's game at home against Syracuse. That's a game we really need to win.
Go Bears!
Hope Maddy & Andrej can make it back for Saturday's game at home against Syracuse. That's a game we really need to win.
Go Bears!
SMU seemed to shoot about as badly as we did, at least in the second half.
Beat the Orangemen! Revenge for the loss in the Ncaas in San Jose. Seems like yesterday.
Bring back It’s It’s to Haas Pavillion!
Joined:
Jul 13, 2008
Posts:
54,797
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Big C said:
SMU seemed to shoot about as badly as we did, at least in the second half.
Yet they still held that 8-10 point lead. Very frustrating.
So when they passed the ball, in their head they were thinking about the questions concerning low assist numbers? The psycho analyzing always amazes me! Bottom line watching the game, SMU was extremely quick defensively when rotating to the ball and in most cases Cal simply didn't have enough time to get a decent release off. At the other end of the court it was the opposite. Difference in the game.ncbears said:Cal just does not have enough shooters. The questions about low assist numbers seemed to get in their head tonite as it seemed like the Bears were constantly looking to pass and deferred shot after shot.tequila4kapp said:Exactly. SMU only scored 76. This one was winnable.JimSox said:
5 for 25 on threes. 14 for 21 on free throws. This game was winnable.
Still, I think missing Sissoko was the biggest factor in the loss.
Game downhill when they sent in their tight end. We had no answer for his strength combined with finishing ability.
Regarding Campbell and Tucker: they get open for a reason, they can't shoot.
It always amazes me how our performance seems to improve dramatically when we play teams that suck and how our performance seems to degrade when we play quality opponents. I have no idea how to explain that correlation. It is almost like if you ranked the teams on our schedule from best to worst you'd find that we have played poorly and lost to the best 10 teams on our schedule and played well and beaten the 11 worst. It is amazing that our offense can run so proficiently in beating one of the worst teams in the country in overtime at home and then it breaks down when we play a much better team. I join the board in cheering on the awesome progress we display when we play the weaker teams, but I also join the board in utter dismay when we regress when playing stronger opponents. I just wish someone could explain the correlation because I'm dumbfounded and befuddled.RedlessWardrobe said:So when they passed the ball, in their head they were thinking about the questions concerning low assist numbers? The psycho analyzing always amazes me! Bottom line watching the game, SMU was extremely quick defensively when rotating to the ball and in most cases Cal simply didn't have enough time to get a decent release off. At the other end of the court it was the opposite. Difference in the game.ncbears said:Cal just does not have enough shooters. The questions about low assist numbers seemed to get in their head tonite as it seemed like the Bears were constantly looking to pass and deferred shot after shot.tequila4kapp said:Exactly. SMU only scored 76. This one was winnable.JimSox said:
5 for 25 on threes. 14 for 21 on free throws. This game was winnable.
Still, I think missing Sissoko was the biggest factor in the loss.
That's what they WANT you to think!BearlyCareAnymore said:
It always amazes me how our performance seems to improve dramatically when we play teams that suck and how our performance seems to degrade when we play quality opponents. I have no idea how to explain that correlation. It is almost like if you ranked the teams on our schedule from best to worst you'd find that we have played poorly and lost to the best 10 teams on our schedule and played well and beaten the 11 worst. It is amazing that our offense can run so proficiently in beating one of the worst teams in the country in overtime at home and then it breaks down when we play a much better team. I join the board in cheering on the awesome progress we display when we play the weaker teams, but I also join the board in utter dismay when we regress when playing stronger opponents. I just wish someone could explain the correlation because I'm dumbfounded and befuddled.
That means suddenly we should look like world beaters v. Syracuse on Sat. But don't tell the students that. They will hear Syracuse and they will want to go. Pack the Haas!BearlyCareAnymore said:It always amazes me how our performance seems to improve dramatically when we play teams that suck and how our performance seems to degrade when we play quality opponents. I have no idea how to explain that correlation. It is almost like if you ranked the teams on our schedule from best to worst you'd find that we have played poorly and lost to the best 10 teams on our schedule and played well and beaten the 11 worst. It is amazing that our offense can run so proficiently in beating one of the worst teams in the country in overtime at home and then it breaks down when we play a much better team. I join the board in cheering on the awesome progress we display when we play the weaker teams, but I also join the board in utter dismay when we regress when playing stronger opponents. I just wish someone could explain the correlation because I'm dumbfounded and befuddled.RedlessWardrobe said:So when they passed the ball, in their head they were thinking about the questions concerning low assist numbers? The psycho analyzing always amazes me! Bottom line watching the game, SMU was extremely quick defensively when rotating to the ball and in most cases Cal simply didn't have enough time to get a decent release off. At the other end of the court it was the opposite. Difference in the game.ncbears said:Cal just does not have enough shooters. The questions about low assist numbers seemed to get in their head tonite as it seemed like the Bears were constantly looking to pass and deferred shot after shot.tequila4kapp said:Exactly. SMU only scored 76. This one was winnable.JimSox said:
5 for 25 on threes. 14 for 21 on free throws. This game was winnable.
Still, I think missing Sissoko was the biggest factor in the loss.
What is your sense why Mad Dog allows Blacksher to continue to play big minutes, be a volume shooter and not be an assist-first PG? Remember that 2 on 1 last night. He had another guy wide open on the wing and he had his head down forcing up a shot (he did draw the foul but it was a horrible play). I don't get it.MoragaBear said:Big C said:
SMU seemed to shoot about as badly as we did, at least in the second half.
Yet they still held that 8-10 point lead. Very frustrating.
BearlyCareAnymore said:It always amazes me how our performance seems to improve dramatically when we play teams that suck and how our performance seems to degrade when we play quality opponents. I have no idea how to explain that correlation. It is almost like if you ranked the teams on our schedule from best to worst you'd find that we have played poorly and lost to the best 10 teams on our schedule and played well and beaten the 11 worst. It is amazing that our offense can run so proficiently in beating one of the worst teams in the country in overtime at home and then it breaks down when we play a much better team. I join the board in cheering on the awesome progress we display when we play the weaker teams, but I also join the board in utter dismay when we regress when playing stronger opponents. I just wish someone could explain the correlation because I'm dumbfounded and befuddled.RedlessWardrobe said:So when they passed the ball, in their head they were thinking about the questions concerning low assist numbers? The psycho analyzing always amazes me! Bottom line watching the game, SMU was extremely quick defensively when rotating to the ball and in most cases Cal simply didn't have enough time to get a decent release off. At the other end of the court it was the opposite. Difference in the game.ncbears said:Cal just does not have enough shooters. The questions about low assist numbers seemed to get in their head tonite as it seemed like the Bears were constantly looking to pass and deferred shot after shot.tequila4kapp said:Exactly. SMU only scored 76. This one was winnable.JimSox said:
5 for 25 on threes. 14 for 21 on free throws. This game was winnable.
Still, I think missing Sissoko was the biggest factor in the loss.
Not to switch the discussion to another sport or anything, but ten years ago, I was noticing this same phenomenon with our Air Raid offense in football: It seemed as though we scored less against good defenses! What I was told (here) was that it was because the Air Raid is a gimmick offense. I hope this doesn't mean that Madsen or his schemes are gimmicks!
Featured Stories
See All
Cal To Honor Al Grigsby With Pete Newell Award
by Cal Athletics
Bears Crush Panthers 84-53 to Close Out Homestand
by Jim McGill
Bears Stumble Against Syracuse
by Cal Athletics
2024 vs 2025 Program Overview - The Coaching Staff
by Bear Insider
Bears Have Big Group on Tap For Junior Day This Weekend
by Jim McGill