"Playing free?"

2,851 Views | 37 Replies | Last: 23 days ago by stu
barsad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:18p, 10/11/25
These two quotes about "playing free" have been bothering me since I read them… does anyone want to translate? I'm just not sure what they're talking about. But it doesn't sound like an offensive strategy.

From ACC Press Day:
"Dai Dai Ames was next to the podium and fielded questions about the differences between his previous squads and the Bears. When asked specifically about the differing play style, Ames said "playing free"
was one of the key distinctions. He elaborated that Coach Madsen has allowed him to play his unrestricted game, a sentiment Madsen reiterated later in the day during a Field of 68 panel."

"Campbell reiterated Ames' commentary on playstyle mentioning that Madsen has allowed, "players to play free." He also touched on his affinity for the free throw line, saying that it's "the easiest shot in basketball, other than the lay up."
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Johnfox
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:28a, 10/12/25
Look at Jaylon Tyson, Andrej Stojakovic, Trey Woodbury, Jeremiah Wilkinson. All flourish under him because he's not going to make them be what they are not. He allows them to play loose and what their play style is like instead of forcing things on them like most coaches
Reply Quote
5
HearstMining
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:09a, 10/12/25
The problem is that it's called a team for a reason. Can five teenagers "play free" and still have anything resembling a team? Maybe if they're as talented as Michigan's Fab Five, but that's about it. What young player today doesn't think they should be the main scorer? Jason Kidd played free, but his definition of that was to make laser passes to teammates, go after rebounds like a power forward, and play rugged defense. If "playing free" means guys have the energy, court awareness, and talent to play like JK, I'm all for it. In fact, they can have half the talent and I'll be all for it.
Reply Quote
3
GoCal80
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:52p, 10/12/25
I Recall an interview with Jerome Randle about why he performed much better under Mike Montgomery than under Ben Braun. He said Montgomery allowed him to play freely and understood that mistakes happen, whereas Braun held him back, pulling him out of the game every time he made a mistake.
Reply Quote
5
Harky4
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:12p, 10/12/25
I see the mantra of playing free as meaning that there will be less set plays to feature identifiable studs (Andrej, Jeremiah and Jaylon), so that we play more as a team with everyone featured as the potential shot maker
Reply Quote
4
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:14p, 10/12/25
Motion offense with a coach that builds players' confidence and play through mistakes
Reply Quote
3
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 HoopDreams • 3:57p, 10/12/25
HoopDreams said:
Motion offense with a coach that builds players' confidence and play through mistakes

I think the key is play through mistakes. You can't do anything good if all you're thinking about is not doing something bad.
Reply Quote
5
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 stu • 5:26p, 10/12/25
Agree, the loss of confidence is a basketball player's bane

stu said:
HoopDreams said:
Motion offense with a coach that builds players' confidence and play through mistakes

I think the key is play through mistakes. You can't do anything good if all you're thinking about is not doing something bad.
Reply Quote
1
HearstMining
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 GoCal80 • 7:16p, 10/12/25
GoCal80 said:
I Recall an interview with Jerome Randle about why he performed much better under Mike Montgomery than under Ben Braun. He said Montgomery allowed him to play freely and understood that mistakes happen, whereas Braun held him back, pulling him out of the game every time he made a mistake.

OK, that makes sense. Braun did have a quick hook, although there were players under Montgomery who also got yanked when they screwed up. I think Randall bought in to Mike's vision of how he should play, and any errors were just that - errors, not disagreement. I always thought one of Montgomery's strengths was that he was detail-oriented but not obsessed about it. He realized the ball can take strange bounces. He just had a tough time recruiting at Cal.
Reply Quote
2
BeachedBear
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 HoopDreams • 8:21a, 10/13/25
HoopDreams said:
Motion offense with a coach that builds players' confidence and play through mistakes

This was mostly my take, but less about the design (i.e Motion) and more about coaching style (confidence and play through mistakes).

More of a reflection on prior coach, then Madsen, IMHO.

I stopped coaching years ago, but youth development had already changed from an older paradigm of ONE coach, ONE team and mostly practice to one of Various Coaches, various teams, more playing vs practice. There are Pros and Cons and arguments to be made, but the fact of the matter is that today's players came up in systems where they need to be more plug and play (read free) than molded into a specific role for a specific team. When my son played AAU, he actually played on 3 different teams on ONE Saturday (9am, 2pm, 8pm). Not unheard of.

It seems to me that there are still a number of college coaches who have not adapted their style to the new paradigm (compared to Madsen). Therefore, I can see how players would describe it as "Playing Free"
Reply Quote
3
HearstMining
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 BeachedBear • 9:37a, 10/13/25
BeachedBear said:
HoopDreams said:
Motion offense with a coach that builds players' confidence and play through mistakes

This was mostly my take, but less about the design (i.e Motion) and more about coaching style (confidence and play through mistakes).

More of a reflection on prior coach, then Madsen, IMHO.

I stopped coaching years ago, but youth development had already changed from an older paradigm of ONE coach, ONE team and mostly practice to one of Various Coaches, various teams, more playing vs practice. There are Pros and Cons and arguments to be made, but the fact of the matter is that today's players came up in systems where they need to be more plug and play (read free) than molded into a specific role for a specific team. When my son played AAU, he actually played on 3 different teams on ONE Saturday (9am, 2pm, 8pm). Not unheard of.

It seems to me that there are still a number of college coaches who have not adapted their style to the new paradigm (compared to Madsen). Therefore, I can see how players would describe it as "Playing Free"

Interesting perspective. I had not considered this. Does this approach create better or more well-rounded players with regard to skills and court-sense?
Reply Quote
1
BeachedBear
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 HearstMining • 1:40p, 10/13/25
HearstMining said:
BeachedBear said:
HoopDreams said:
Motion offense with a coach that builds players' confidence and play through mistakes

This was mostly my take, but less about the design (i.e Motion) and more about coaching style (confidence and play through mistakes).

More of a reflection on prior coach, then Madsen, IMHO.

I stopped coaching years ago, but youth development had already changed from an older paradigm of ONE coach, ONE team and mostly practice to one of Various Coaches, various teams, more playing vs practice. There are Pros and Cons and arguments to be made, but the fact of the matter is that today's players came up in systems where they need to be more plug and play (read free) than molded into a specific role for a specific team. When my son played AAU, he actually played on 3 different teams on ONE Saturday (9am, 2pm, 8pm). Not unheard of.

It seems to me that there are still a number of college coaches who have not adapted their style to the new paradigm (compared to Madsen). Therefore, I can see how players would describe it as "Playing Free"

Interesting perspective. I had not considered this. Does this approach create better or more well-rounded players with regard to skills and court-sense?

Bwahahaha - have had that discussion with many AAU and college coaches for a long time. And parents, too. Also goes along with the change in youth sports habits with focus on only 1 sport year-round vs changing sport each season. Not to mention the involvement with parent agents and even 'helicopter' parents.
Reply Quote
1
barsad
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 BeachedBear • 6:56p, 10/13/25
I'm all for some of these positives of playing free - confidence, staying loose, playing with resilience after a mistake, etc. But in this era of "what's in it for me," "show me the NIL money," and "my dad/agent just told me I have to play how I want to play," I wonder if "playing free" can also mean, I have no need for five-player positioning and passing, just give me the ball and clear the lane.
For now I'll choose to interpret it the way others are saying, as a net positive for a loose team that wants to win every night.
Reply Quote
2 edits
BeachedBear
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 barsad • 6:44a, 10/14/25
barsad said:
I'm all for some of these positives of playing free - confidence, staying loose, playing with resilience after a mistake, etc. But in this era of "what's in it for me," "show me the NIL money," and "my dad/agent just told me I have to play how I want to play," I wonder if "playing free" can also mean, I have no need for five-player positioning and passing, just give me the ball and clear the lane.
For now I'll choose to interpret it the way others are saying, as a net positive for a loose team that wants to win every night.

By and large, most players are not selfish in my experience (except a few mediocre ones). What's missing is less about the attitude and more about timing and spacing and the silent communication that comes with repetition among teammates.

But what do I know? I'm old and don't know how to spell AI.
Reply Quote
1
HKBear97!
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 BeachedBear • 9:05a, 10/14/25
BeachedBear said:
barsad said:
I'm all for some of these positives of playing free - confidence, staying loose, playing with resilience after a mistake, etc. But in this era of "what's in it for me," "show me the NIL money," and "my dad/agent just told me I have to play how I want to play," I wonder if "playing free" can also mean, I have no need for five-player positioning and passing, just give me the ball and clear the lane.
For now I'll choose to interpret it the way others are saying, as a net positive for a loose team that wants to win every night.

By and large, most players are not selfish in my experience (except a few mediocre ones). What's missing is less about the attitude and more about timing and spacing and the silent communication that comes with repetition among teammates.

But what do I know? I'm old and don't know how to spell AI.

Agree, although there were games last year I felt Stojakovic was playing "selfish" basketball.

Hopefully the play free mantra is confidence, staying loose, etc. and not the "hero" ball we witnessed last year. At times the team looked like they were "free" of any set offensive plays! By the way, did you know Cal finished 345th in assists per game last year? That's out of 355 teams. Yikes.
Reply Quote
5
BeachedBear
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 HKBear97! • 10:19a, 10/14/25
HKBear97! said:
BeachedBear said:
barsad said:
I'm all for some of these positives of playing free - confidence, staying loose, playing with resilience after a mistake, etc. But in this era of "what's in it for me," "show me the NIL money," and "my dad/agent just told me I have to play how I want to play," I wonder if "playing free" can also mean, I have no need for five-player positioning and passing, just give me the ball and clear the lane.
For now I'll choose to interpret it the way others are saying, as a net positive for a loose team that wants to win every night.

By and large, most players are not selfish in my experience (except a few mediocre ones). What's missing is less about the attitude and more about timing and spacing and the silent communication that comes with repetition among teammates.

But what do I know? I'm old and don't know how to spell AI.

Agree, although there were games last year I felt Stojakovic was playing "selfish" basketball.

Hopefully the play free mantra is confidence, staying loose, etc. and not the "hero" ball we witnessed last year. At times the team looked like they were "free" of any set offensive plays! By the way, did you know Cal finished 345th in assists per game last year? That's out of 355 teams. Yikes.

I observed the same with Stojakovich last season. As we have seen with him and others, when ONE player becomes ball dominant - it can also lull the teammates to watch more and do less. Sort of a self-fulfilling result of having a one-dimensional offense.

I'm also guessing Peja was chirping in his ear something different than what the coaches and teammates wanted. LOL
Reply Quote
3
smh
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 HKBear97! • 11:39a, 10/14/25
> By the way, did you know Cal finished 345th in assists per game last year? That's out of 355 teams. Yikes.

nope, i dint, thanks '97..
https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/stat/assists-per-game
Reply Quote
1
HearstMining
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:28p, 10/14/25
I was intrigued that Cal landed Stojakovich last year and hoped would have more impact, but I didn't get the feeling that he was selfish so I checked the stats:

Stoj played 968 minutes, took 403 shots with 129 of those being 3pt. He made 172 and 41 respectively.
Wilkinson played 877 minutes, took 397 shots with 187 being 3pt. He made 157 and 60 respectively.
Blacksher played 859 minutes, took 292 shots with 162 being 3pt. He made 102 and 55 respectively.

So much for the "selfish" label as Wilkinson actually had a higher shot/min average than Stojakovich. A bigger problem was the lack of output from other players (Petraitis, Ola-Joseph, Omot's injury). I do think the woeful team assist statistic is an inditement of the team's offensive strategy, not a bunch of selfish players.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
HearstMining
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 HearstMining • 4:49p, 10/14/25
HearstMining said:
I was intrigued that Cal landed Stojakovich last year and hoped would have more impact, but I didn't get the feeling that he was selfish so I checked the stats:

Stoj played 968 minutes, took 403 shots with 129 of those being 3pt. He made 172 and 41 respectively.
Wilkinson played 877 minutes, took 397 shots with 187 being 3pt. He made 157 and 60 respectively.
Blacksher played 859 minutes, took 292 shots with 162 being 3pt. He made 102 and 55 respectively.

So much for the "selfish" label as Wilkinson actually had a higher shot/min average than Stojakovich. A bigger problem was the lack of output from other players (Petraitis, Ola-Joseph, Omot's injury). I do think the woeful team assist statistic is an inditement of the team's offensive strategy, not a bunch of selfish players.

I'm surprised nobody caught me on the above statement. I should have said that a bigger problem was a crappy defense.
Reply Quote
4
calbearinamaze
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 HearstMining • 6:54p, 10/14/25
HearstMining said:
HearstMining said:

So much for the "selfish" label as Wilkinson actually had a higher shot/min average than Stojakovich. A bigger problem was the lack of output from other players (Petraitis, Ola-Joseph, Omot's injury). I do think the woeful team assist statistic is an inditement of the team's offensive strategy, not a bunch of selfish players.

I'm surprised nobody caught me on the above statement. I should have said that a bigger problem was a crappy defense.

A) Grouping Rytis with JOJ is way wrong. Advanced metrics put Rytis second only to Stojaovich in productivity. Plus, he played injured almost the entire year.

B) Woeful shooting (41.9%, 327th) was right there with crappy D (46.8% overall, 332nd). Three-point D was (37.6%, 356th). Maybe "crappy" is generous.

C) Having his dad hovering each home game couldn't have been easy for AS.


GO BEARS!!!
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
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:47p, 10/14/25
Andrej originally recommitted to the team (announced on IG he was returning)

then he changed his mind because 'the market changed' ... basically with all the teams trying to spend their NIL money before the cap took effect he was given an NIL offer he couldn't refuse

too bad, because with him returning, I'd have a different outlook of the upcoming season

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
6:12a, 10/15/25
Just my opinion here. To automatically correlate playing "selfish" to number of shots taken is not really valid for several reasons. For starters, your most capable scorers should always be taking more shots. And to evaluate selfishness can be much better done by the eye test of what's actually going on on the court as opposed to just looking at the numbers.
Reply Quote
4
BearlyCareAnymore
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 barsad • 11:39a, 10/15/25
barsad said:
These two quotes about "playing free" have been bothering me since I read them… does anyone want to translate? I'm just not sure what they're talking about. But it doesn't sound like an offensive strategy.

From ACC Press Day:
"Dai Dai Ames was next to the podium and fielded questions about the differences between his previous squads and the Bears. When asked specifically about the differing play style, Ames said "playing free"
was one of the key distinctions. He elaborated that Coach Madsen has allowed him to play his unrestricted game, a sentiment Madsen reiterated later in the day during a Field of 68 panel."

"Campbell reiterated Ames' commentary on playstyle mentioning that Madsen has allowed, "players to play free." He also touched on his affinity for the free throw line, saying that it's "the easiest shot in basketball, other than the lay up."

I read this post before anyone had posted and I laughed thinking. Well, obviously, it translates to "Two Baskets and a Ball. Just Play". Honestly, I thought someone else would say it.

There is a lot of rationalizing on this thread. I can't say that the offense I have seen the last two years has indicated players made to be their best basketball selves by playing free and unfettered from the constraints of dictatorial offensive coaching strategy. I think what we have seen is an offensive system that has been disorganized and relies on having more athleticism and skill than the opponent, which is rarely true for us, and that has been a mismatch for the personnel that we have had. You guys make it sound like he is unlocking their potential by being some sort of zen master. Madsen is a smart guy and I think he could coach multiple systems, but in my opinion he has chosen the wrong one.

Ames should help a lot as he is a solid PG who should easily clear the very low bar of being Madsen's best point guard at Cal. If the coach isn't going to provide organization to the offense in a bid to maximize its free-ness, the point guard better provide it, and we frankly haven't had that guy.
Reply Quote
3
HearstMining
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 • 12:53p, 10/15/25
RedlessWardrobe said:
Just my opinion here. To automatically correlate playing "selfish" to number of shots taken is not really valid for several reasons. For starters, your most capable scorers should always be taking more shots. And to evaluate selfishness can be much better done by the eye test of what's actually going on on the court as opposed to just looking at the numbers.

Well sure, it's not the complete picture, but it is one of several indicators. I agree, the eyeball test is required. It's worth mentioning that fans on this board have at various times accused a couple of other players, specifically Justin Cobbs and Matt Bradley, of being selfish when in fact they played on teams (at least their final seasons at Cal) that had few reliable scoring options. If those guys didn't score, Cal generally didn't win.
Reply Quote
BearlyCareAnymore
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 HearstMining • 1:00p, 10/15/25
HearstMining said:
RedlessWardrobe said:
Just my opinion here. To automatically correlate playing "selfish" to number of shots taken is not really valid for several reasons. For starters, your most capable scorers should always be taking more shots. And to evaluate selfishness can be much better done by the eye test of what's actually going on on the court as opposed to just looking at the numbers.

Well sure, it's not the complete picture, but it is one of several indicators. I agree, the eyeball test is required. It's worth mentioning that fans on this board have at various times accused a couple of other players, specifically Justin Cobbs and Matt Bradley, of being selfish when in fact they played on teams (at least their final seasons at Cal) that had few reliable scoring options. If those guys didn't score, Cal generally didn't win.

People used to complain of "Lampley Ball" when it was Lampley and a bunch of freshman. What I saw was a lot of games where Cal spread the ball around in the first half, it didn't work, and came out in the second half and fed Lampley all half to much greater success.
Reply Quote
3
HKBear97!
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 HearstMining • 9:27p, 10/15/25
HearstMining said:
RedlessWardrobe said:
Just my opinion here. To automatically correlate playing "selfish" to number of shots taken is not really valid for several reasons. For starters, your most capable scorers should always be taking more shots. And to evaluate selfishness can be much better done by the eye test of what's actually going on on the court as opposed to just looking at the numbers.

Well sure, it's not the complete picture, but it is one of several indicators. I agree, the eyeball test is required. It's worth mentioning that fans on this board have at various times accused a couple of other players, specifically Justin Cobbs and Matt Bradley, of being selfish when in fact they played on teams (at least their final seasons at Cal) that had few reliable scoring options. If those guys didn't score, Cal generally didn't win.

Fair point. While I can't recall Justin Cobbs, my memory of Bradley was him taking the weight on his shoulders but he tried to get others involved. I seem to recall many just stopping to watch him as the team deferred to him. With Stojakovic my memory was of teammates being open and actively looking for the ball and him not even bothering to look at them. He got better as the season progressed, but it was a bad look.
Reply Quote
4
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 HearstMining • 8:27a, 10/16/25
HearstMining said:
Well sure, it's not the complete picture, but it is one of several indicators. I agree, the eyeball test is required. It's worth mentioning that fans on this board have at various times accused a couple of other players, specifically Justin Cobbs and Matt Bradley, of being selfish when in fact they played on teams (at least their final seasons at Cal) that had few reliable scoring options. If those guys didn't score, Cal generally didn't win.

Cobbs? I wanted him to be more selfish. He was oftentimes the best player on the floor in my opinion. Felt like he could have scored 30+ whenever he wanted but he had to distribute and run the offense as PG. Man, he was a baller. One of my favorite bears.
Reply Quote
3
HearstMining
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 HKBear97! • 10:00a, 10/16/25
HKBear97! said:
HearstMining said:
RedlessWardrobe said:
Just my opinion here. To automatically correlate playing "selfish" to number of shots taken is not really valid for several reasons. For starters, your most capable scorers should always be taking more shots. And to evaluate selfishness can be much better done by the eye test of what's actually going on on the court as opposed to just looking at the numbers.

Well sure, it's not the complete picture, but it is one of several indicators. I agree, the eyeball test is required. It's worth mentioning that fans on this board have at various times accused a couple of other players, specifically Justin Cobbs and Matt Bradley, of being selfish when in fact they played on teams (at least their final seasons at Cal) that had few reliable scoring options. If those guys didn't score, Cal generally didn't win.

Fair point. While I can't recall Justin Cobbs, my memory of Bradley was him taking the weight on his shoulders but he tried to get others involved. I seem to recall many just stopping to watch him as the team deferred to him. With Stojakovic my memory was of teammates being open and actively looking for the ball and him not even bothering to look at them. He got better as the season progressed, but it was a bad look.

Agree on Bradley although for such a good shooter, he was a strangely inaccurate passer. The balls were generally catchable, but frequently high, low, behind, etc. so the receiver had to take an extra half-second to get a shot off. He played his ass off, though.
Reply Quote
2
ManBearLion123
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 • 11:49a, 10/16/25
BC Calfan said:
HearstMining said:
Well sure, it's not the complete picture, but it is one of several indicators. I agree, the eyeball test is required. It's worth mentioning that fans on this board have at various times accused a couple of other players, specifically Justin Cobbs and Matt Bradley, of being selfish when in fact they played on teams (at least their final seasons at Cal) that had few reliable scoring options. If those guys didn't score, Cal generally didn't win.

Cobbs? I wanted him to be more selfish. He was oftentimes the best player on the floor in my opinion. Felt like he could have scored 30+ whenever he wanted but he had to distribute and run the offense as PG. Man, he was a baller. One of my favorite bears.

That Cobbs game winner to beat #1 Arizona is probably my all-time favorite Cal sports memory. I still can't believe I got to witness that in person!
Reply Quote
4
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:06p, 10/16/25
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 ManBearLion123 • 10:29p, 10/16/25
ManBearLion123 said:
BC Calfan said:
HearstMining said:
Well sure, it's not the complete picture, but it is one of several indicators. I agree, the eyeball test is required. It's worth mentioning that fans on this board have at various times accused a couple of other players, specifically Justin Cobbs and Matt Bradley, of being selfish when in fact they played on teams (at least their final seasons at Cal) that had few reliable scoring options. If those guys didn't score, Cal generally didn't win.

Cobbs? I wanted him to be more selfish. He was oftentimes the best player on the floor in my opinion. Felt like he could have scored 30+ whenever he wanted but he had to distribute and run the offense as PG. Man, he was a baller. One of my favorite bears.

That Cobbs game winner to beat #1 Arizona is probably my all-time favorite Cal sports memory. I still can't believe I got to witness that in person!

That was a beauty for sure. More recently, do you remember in 2015 when Cal was trailing UCLA, 62-61, Cal's transfer from Cornell, Dwight Tarwater, hit a three from the corner with 19 seconds left, and Cal won 64-62?

That was the third game in a row that Cal won a game in the final seconds. In the previous two games, Tyrone Wallace had hit a shot at the buzzer to beat USC, and Sam Singer had hit a three with 4 seconds left to beat Washington.
Reply Quote
2
smh
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 SFCityBear • 12:48a, 10/17/25
SFCityBear said:
ManBearLion123 said:
BC Calfan said:
HearstMining said:
Well sure, it's not the complete picture, but it is one of several indicators. I agree, the eyeball test is required. It's worth mentioning that fans on this board have at various times accused a couple of other players, specifically Justin Cobbs and Matt Bradley, of being selfish when in fact they played on teams (at least their final seasons at Cal) that had few reliable scoring options. If those guys didn't score, Cal generally didn't win.

Cobbs? I wanted him to be more selfish. He was oftentimes the best player on the floor in my opinion. Felt like he could have scored 30+ whenever he wanted but he had to distribute and run the offense as PG. Man, he was a baller. One of my favorite bears.

That Cobbs game winner to beat #1 Arizona is probably my all-time favorite Cal sports memory. I still can't believe I got to witness that in person!

That was a beauty for sure. More recently, do you remember in 2015 when Cal was trailing UCLA, 62-61, Cal's transfer from Cornell, Dwight Tarwater, hit a three from the corner with 19 seconds left, and Cal won 64-62?

That was the third game in a row that Cal won a game in the final seconds. In the previous two games, Tyrone Wallace had hit a shot at the buzzer to beat USC, and Sam Singer had hit a three with 4 seconds left to beat Washington.

nope, not me, but woah, great recollection SFCB, very impressive, tnx. esp since some of us (at an age) have trouble remembering what we had for breakfast, even if it was most always OJ along side full strength Milk on WheatChex, every morning, like, for decades. #gobears
Reply Quote
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 smh • 10:53p, 10/17/25
smh said:
SFCityBear said:
ManBearLion123 said:
BC Calfan said:
HearstMining said:
Well sure, it's not the complete picture, but it is one of several indicators. I agree, the eyeball test is required. It's worth mentioning that fans on this board have at various times accused a couple of other players, specifically Justin Cobbs and Matt Bradley, of being selfish when in fact they played on teams (at least their final seasons at Cal) that had few reliable scoring options. If those guys didn't score, Cal generally didn't win.

Cobbs? I wanted him to be more selfish. He was oftentimes the best player on the floor in my opinion. Felt like he could have scored 30+ whenever he wanted but he had to distribute and run the offense as PG. Man, he was a baller. One of my favorite bears.

That Cobbs game winner to beat #1 Arizona is probably my all-time favorite Cal sports memory. I still can't believe I got to witness that in person!

That was a beauty for sure. More recently, do you remember in 2015 when Cal was trailing UCLA, 62-61, Cal's transfer from Cornell, Dwight Tarwater, hit a three from the corner with 19 seconds left, and Cal won 64-62?

That was the third game in a row that Cal won a game in the final seconds. In the previous two games, Tyrone Wallace had hit a shot at the buzzer to beat USC, and Sam Singer had hit a three with 4 seconds left to beat Washington.

nope, not me, but woah, great recollection SFCB, very impressive, tnx. esp since some of us (at an age) have trouble remembering what we had for breakfast, even if it was most always OJ along side full strength Milk on WheatChex, every morning, like, for decades. #gobears

Not me either. The only thing I did remember was the Tarwater shot. When I looked it up on the internet to see if I was correct, the article I read mentioned the streak of three straight Cal games that season when three Cal players, including Tarwater, won games with shots just before the final buzzer.

As to memory, I'm with you there. Except that I have been having this memory cramp going back maybe 40 years.

Now I have this problem with computers and phones. It seems whenever I memorize how to do something on one of these infernal devices, then the software queens come up with a new way to do it, and wipe my PC or phone clean, forcing me to learn their new method. Drives me nuts.

Reply Quote
1
BearlyCareAnymore
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 SFCityBear • 12:55a, 10/18/25
SFCityBear said:
smh said:
SFCityBear said:
ManBearLion123 said:
BC Calfan said:
HearstMining said:
Well sure, it's not the complete picture, but it is one of several indicators. I agree, the eyeball test is required. It's worth mentioning that fans on this board have at various times accused a couple of other players, specifically Justin Cobbs and Matt Bradley, of being selfish when in fact they played on teams (at least their final seasons at Cal) that had few reliable scoring options. If those guys didn't score, Cal generally didn't win.

Cobbs? I wanted him to be more selfish. He was oftentimes the best player on the floor in my opinion. Felt like he could have scored 30+ whenever he wanted but he had to distribute and run the offense as PG. Man, he was a baller. One of my favorite bears.

That Cobbs game winner to beat #1 Arizona is probably my all-time favorite Cal sports memory. I still can't believe I got to witness that in person!

That was a beauty for sure. More recently, do you remember in 2015 when Cal was trailing UCLA, 62-61, Cal's transfer from Cornell, Dwight Tarwater, hit a three from the corner with 19 seconds left, and Cal won 64-62?

That was the third game in a row that Cal won a game in the final seconds. In the previous two games, Tyrone Wallace had hit a shot at the buzzer to beat USC, and Sam Singer had hit a three with 4 seconds left to beat Washington.

nope, not me, but woah, great recollection SFCB, very impressive, tnx. esp since some of us (at an age) have trouble remembering what we had for breakfast, even if it was most always OJ along side full strength Milk on WheatChex, every morning, like, for decades. #gobears

Not me either. The only thing I did remember was the Tarwater shot. When I looked it up on the internet to see if I was correct, the article I read mentioned the streak of three straight Cal games that season when three Cal players, including Tarwater, won games with shots just before the final buzzer.

As to memory, I'm with you there. Except that I have been having this memory cramp going back maybe 40 years.

Now I have this problem with computers and phones. It seems whenever I memorize how to do something on one of these infernal devices, then the software queens come up with a new way to do it, and wipe my PC or phone clean, forcing me to learn their new method. Drives me nuts.


I remember that I used to have a good memory, but I forgot how long it's been.
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 SFCityBear • 9:56a, 10/18/25
SFCityBear said:
Now I have this problem with computers and phones. It seems whenever I memorize how to do something on one of these infernal devices, then the software queens come up with a new way to do it, and wipe my PC or phone clean, forcing me to learn their new method. Drives me nuts.
Then try UNIX - a throwback to the 1970s which is still recognizable.
Reply Quote
Page 1 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.