I agree with the Bears fouling, but they fouled too early into each possession. Let more time run off the clock.


Why was Wallace out there in a free throw shooting contest? I realize for his ball handling skills, but... not in that situation.


That last minute had me kinda pissed at Monty.


Otherwise, great game!

dimitrig;842103033 said:

---

I agree with the Bears fouling, but they fouled too early into each possession. Let more time run off the clock.


Why was Wallace out there in a free throw shooting contest? I realize for his ball handling skills, but... not in that situation.


That last minute had me kinda pissed at Monty.


Otherwise, great game!

---

Yeah, I hated winning too.

Yah it sucks having our best free throw shooters in the line. Terrible strategy.

dimitrig;842103033 said:

---

I agree with the Bears fouling, but they fouled too early into each possession. Let more time run off the clock.

That last minute had me kinda pissed at Monty.

Otherwise, great game!

---

If you wait any longer, you run the risk of fouling in the act of shooting a 3. That was called on a half-court shot last week. Have you not seen enough evidence of waiting longer turning into losses?

With any FT performance from our guards resembling normalcy for them, Monty watches his team coast to an upset win in the last minute.

I just called the Dave Rice fan club, and they have room for you.

in those situations is clearing the foul line when we are shooting free throws.

I know you don't want _any_ chance of a foul, but there are players on the team who know how not to foul, namely, Crabbe and Kravish, and maybe Wallace. They should be on the lane to contest the rebound, at least a little. I would agree that putting Solomon or Thurman is too risky, but the others, not so much.

It wasn't so much that unlv got the rebound(s), it was that there was no pressure at all and they got the ball into the front court immediately. At least force them to make a back court pass and some dribbling to burn more time.

If our rebounders keep the ball alive even a little bit, it slows down the whole possession.

dimitrig;842103033 said:

---

I agree with the Bears fouling, but they fouled too early into each possession. Let more time run off the clock.


Why was Wallace out there in a free throw shooting contest? I realize for his ball handling skills, but... not in that situation.


That last minute had me kinda pissed at Monty.


Otherwise, great game!

---

Maybe Monty foolishly thought that the Bears would score at least 50% of their FT's since they had been hitting 70-80% up to that point.

As for the fouling, obviously Monty wanted no possibility that the UNLV players would not be fouled in the act of shooting the 3.

But the UNLV coach made a mistake in the final second by not having his FT shooter not deliberately miss the second FT. By making the second FT he left Cal with a 1 point lead and the need to foul. I was afraid the shooter would deliberately miss the second FT leaving Cal with a 2 pt lead; then go for the rebound. This would have left UNLV with the ball and just a few feet from a tie-game.

But thank God, UNLV made the second FT leaving Cal with a 1 pt lead and forcing UNLV to foul again.

TheBears;842103055 said:

---

If you wait any longer, you run the risk of fouling in the act of shooting a 3. That was called on a half-court shot last week. Have you not seen enough evidence of waiting longer turning into losses?

---

No, I haven't. How often does that happen? (Half-court heave goes in with a foul?)


The longer the game extends, the more chance the team trying to catch up has. Let 3 or 5 seconds run off the clock instead of 1.5. I think Monty's strategy almost caught up to him. Yes, it was because of our foul shooting, but it wasn't like UNLV was shooting well.


Still unhappy about Wallace out there, too.

The color guys on ESPN explained it very well. There is a MUCH greater chance of fouling while the guy is in the act if you wait for them to get it across half court/is moving at full speed. The ONE thing you don't want is to let the refs look at something as being "in the act" (or even worse, from behind without a play on the rock when you could get an intentional). I like the strategy because cobbs and crabbe are usually $ from the line.

One other monty prop from a monty hater ;-)

Does anyone remember fearing the inbound play under Ben Braun? I have finally kicked that habit - took only 5 years ;-)

dimitrig;842103351 said:

---

No, I haven't. How often does that happen? (Half-court heave goes in with a foul?)



The longer the game extends, the more chance the team trying to catch up has. Let 3 or 5 seconds run off the clock instead of 1.5. I think Monty's strategy almost caught up to him. Yes, it was because of our foul shooting, but it wasn't like UNLV was shooting well.

[Still unhappy about Wallace out there, too.

---

The likelyhood of a 4 point play isn't what you worry about; you worry about 3 free throws on a fouled 3 point attempt, a tie and overtime, where you likely lose due to momentum.Geez...last week against Utah Monty didn't ask the team to foul, and admitted he likely should have. That alone is a big step for a coach of Monty's tenure and generation (where you just don't foul in that situation)....give him some credit for playing it the way he did against UNLV.

And Wallace has been a very strong player for a freshman, and his defense and rebounding have been great. He was a high scorer in HS in Bakersfield, but obviously needs to work on becoming a better shooter.

stanfurdbites;842103054 said:

---

Yah it sucks having our best free throw shooters in the line. Terrible strategy.

---

The main reason the game was close at the end was that our best free throw shooters missed most of their free throws down the stretch.

SFCityBear;842103389 said:

---

The main reason the game was close at the end was that our best free throw shooters missed most of their free throws down the stretch.

---

Cal fans, in the habit of suffering, were not to be spared, even in this great victory. Hence, Crabbe and Cobbs at the line were unwittingly carrying out higher orders.

Go Bears!

Generally speaking, absent the free throws, we played well down the stretch especially on the defensive end. The one thing that gave me discomfort happened just under the 3 minute mark when things started to get tight and Solomon took at jab-step 15 footer. That made me cringe. At that point in the game, the only guys who should be shooting are Crabbe and Cobbs (exceptions made for Therminator dunks, of course).

there is also the risk of the FT shooter hitting two free throws, and then missing the last one (intentionally or not) and UNLV grabbing the free throw. That happened in closing minutes of Utah game.

I don't want the shooter any where near getting into a shooting position, even if it's an NBA three. Certainly they are TRYING to get fouled and could flop.

Same thing goes for putting shooters at the line. I think you pull the team off the line so they have everything in front of them to maximize their defense (it's not just about avoiding a foul).

If you've coached any basketball you'd learn that anything can and DOES happen. It's by nature, a VERY unpredictable game.

DrDanger;842103368 said:

---

The likelyhood of a 4 point play isn't what you worry about; you worry about 3 free throws on a fouled 3 point attempt, a tie and overtime, where you likely lose due to momentum.Geez...last week against Utah Monty didn't ask the team to foul, and admitted he likely should have. That alone is a big step for a coach of Monty's tenure and generation (where you just don't foul in that situation)....give him some credit for playing it the way he did against UNLV.

And Wallace has been a very strong player for a freshman, and his defense and rebounding have been great. He was a high scorer in HS in Bakersfield, but obviously needs to work on becoming a better shooter.

---

I believe you should either
1) commit the foul way before they can get into active shooting, and hopefully you can retain the lead in a FT contest, or
2) play tight defense around the perimeter, and force a miss in a difficult 3-point attempt and win the game (or give up a 2-point shot, which is essentially same as strategy 1).

Whatever you decide to do, please do not hesitate. Bad things happen when you are half-assed about it,

Yes, the crunch time game management was Tedfordian.

Will take the win though!

south bender;842103392 said:

---

Cal fans, in the habit of suffering, were not to be spared, even in this great victory. Hence, Crabbe and Cobbs at the line were unwittingly carrying out higher orders.

Go Bears!

---

I have no quarrel with the strategy. A win is a win. There's nothing wrong with a close game. Afterwards, even Montgomery referred to the missed free throws down the stretch. As HoopDreams has said, "Anything can and does happen".

Let us hope that for Crabbe and Cobbs, this was just a little case of the jitters at the end of a big game, and now that they have this game under their belt, they can settle down in upcoming games, and make their free throws as they usually do. The offense needs every point it can get.

Right, you can't get too cute with it....I thought about the "too quick/more time running off" issue, but if a player can square up and anticipate the foul, you are screwed.

Still, a little ball pressure would do wonders. So would making them fight for the rebound. And not letting UNLV roll the ball to half court every time starting with 5 minutes left.

SmellinRoses;842103417 said:

---

Yes, the crunch time game management was Tedfordian.

Will take the win though!

---

I totally disagree with the management theme.
If we shoot our regular FT percentage we win by 8-10 points and it's not even close.

Monty was great in his strategy. Not b/c it worked (which it did), but b/c it was the right strategy.

IT WAS JUST THE LAST GAME that Monty played it wrong. You always foul up by 3 with less than 10 seconds left. And fouling before half court is smart. Much less chance of a player doing something stupid or even more likely, the refs making a dumb call.

Charles and Kenny Smith explained it well after the telecast (saw it when I got back).

Player makes a 3 = one good thing has to happen

Player makes 1st free throw, team gets rebound on missed 2nd free throw, converts shot = 3-4 good things happening

What is more likely?

CrimsonBear;842103495 said:

---

Monty was great in his strategy. Not b/c it worked (which it did), but b/c it was the right strategy.

IT WAS JUST THE LAST GAME that Monty played it wrong. You always foul up by 3 with less than 10 seconds left. And fouling before half court is smart. Much less chance of a player doing something stupid or even more likely, the refs making a dumb call.

Charles and Kenny Smith explained it well after the telecast (saw it when I got back).

Player makes a 3 = one good thing has to happen

Player makes 1st free throw, team gets rebound on missed 2nd free throw, converts shot = 3-4 good things happening

What is more likely?

---

I am not arguing the strategy of fouling. I just think the fouls came too quickly. If a guy is going to heave the ball at the basket and get three free throws he can do so no matter where you foul him. The reality is that they should have pressured the ball and let them advance closer to half court before fouling. There was no point in extending the game by fouling immediately after inbounds. I have watched enough basketball to know that turning the game into a free throw shooting contest hurts the team with the lead by extending the game. If you are going to do that, then at least let some time run off, because the clock was UNLV's enemy.

dimitrig;842103551 said:

---

I am not arguing the strategy of fouling. I just think the fouls came too quickly. If a guy is going to heave the ball at the basket and get three free throws he can do so no matter where you foul him. The reality is that they should have pressured the ball and let them advance closer to half court before fouling. There was no point in extending the game by fouling immediately after inbounds. I have watched enough basketball to know that turning the game into a free throw shooting contest hurts the team with the lead by extending the game. If you are going to do that, then at least let some time run off, because the clock was UNLV's enemy.

---

If you apply too much pressure, you risk a missed assignment on defense, and have the other guy shoot a wide open three.

DrDanger;842103487 said:

---

I totally disagree with the management theme.
If we shoot our regular FT percentage we win by 8-10 points and it's not even close.

---

Actually didn't have a problem with it except for fouling in the back court - just wanted to deploy the adjective Tedfordian...

tuckerbear1;842103470 said:

---

Still, a little ball pressure would do wonders. So would making them fight for the rebound. And not letting UNLV roll the ball to half court every time starting with 5 minutes left.

---

OMG, the "rolling the ball" tactic is so played out... We need to have somebody furtively hang back a bit and then go after one of those.

(Hopefully, we will be ahead of Syracuse, so as to have that opportunity!)

SmellinRoses;842103564 said:

---

Actually didn't have a problem with it except for fouling in the back court - just wanted to deploy the adjective Tedfordian...

---

Well fouling right away (even in the back court) is definitely very conservative, but it's not without advantages. What we saying is that the only thing we need to do to retain the lead is to make free throws. That's as simple as it gets.

If you wanna get cute and foul at the last second, or wait for a few more seconds, the risk is that every second poses the potential for a defensive breakdown, and allowing the other guy to actually shoot an open three. Or a brain fart by your defender and give the other guy an and-1.

Fouling right away takes all other variables out of the equation, so the only thing you need to do is to make the damn free throw!

LethalFang;842103568 said:

---

Well fouling right away (even in the back court) is definitely very conservative, but it's not without advantages. What we saying is that the only thing we need to do to retain the lead is to make free throws. That's as simple as it gets.

If you wanna get cute and foul at the last second, or wait for a few more seconds, the risk is that every second poses the potential for a defensive breakdown, and allowing the other guy to actually shoot an open three. Or a brain fart by your defender and give the other guy an and-1.

Fouling right away takes all other variables out of the equation, so the only thing you need to do is to make the damn free throw!

---

Yes, this is what Greg Anthony said in the post-game about fouling in the back court - he agrees with you. Makes sense.

Doesn't matter if it goes in. It is three free throws and a tie game if it happens. This hindsight nitpickIng is ridiculous. Your players are supposed to be able to hit free throws.

yeah, it's a discussion board, and what we're doing is discussing.

I think your point is that we should have waited for the ball handler to advance a a little further and therefore use up more clock.

I agree we want to use up as much clock as possible in that situation, but it takes less than 5 seconds for a D1 athlete to run the entire court for a layup. That means the UNLV player could have run from the spot Wallace fouled him, to the NBA 3 range in approximately 0.5 seconds, which I would argue is too far (too risky for Cal).

Therefore you're talking about burning 0.3 seconds more time off the clock if Wallace waited to foul him. AND that would assume that Wallace COULD foul him when he wanted to. UNLV missed fouling Cobbs at the end when they tried to foul him. You can't always control exactly what happens, and you certainly can't (as a coach) tell a player to do something, and expect they will execute the instruction perfectly.

I think you take the foul when you can, and that's what Monty told Wallace (by the way, he almost [U]wasn't[/U] successful in fouling him. The ref could have NOT whistled the foul, as Wallace was barely able to foul him)

dimitrig;842103551 said:

---

I am not arguing the strategy of fouling. I just think the fouls came too quickly. If a guy is going to heave the ball at the basket and get three free throws he can do so no matter where you foul him. The reality is that they should have pressured the ball and let them advance closer to half court before fouling. There was no point in extending the game by fouling immediately after inbounds. I have watched enough basketball to know that turning the game into a free throw shooting contest hurts the team with the lead by extending the game. If you are going to do that, then at least let some time run off, because the clock was UNLV's enemy.

---

bluesaxe;842103580 said:

---

Doesn't matter if it goes in. It is three free throws and a tie game if it happens. This hindsight nitpickIng is ridiculous. Your players are supposed to be able to hit free throws.

---

I was critical during the game, not after. If Cal had lost people would be saying how stupid it was. Cal won so it is genius, right? I am saying I think the way Cal played it was a good way to lose the game by giving UNLV life right down to the last possession since a three there or three free throws after a bonehead foul would have sent the game to OT. Cal fouled too quickly. Maybe others disagree. That's fine, but I was not happy about that coaching decision win or loss.

dimitrig;842103712 said:

---

I was critical during the game, not after. If Cal had lost people would be saying how stupid it was. Cal won so it is genius, right? I am saying I think the way Cal played it was a good way to lose the game by giving UNLV life right down to the last possession since a three there or three free throws after a bonehead foul would have sent the game to OT. Cal fouled too quickly. Maybe others disagree. That's fine, but I was not happy about that coaching decision win or loss.

---

"Make them use up some clock before fouling" is a smart order. The problem is that it will require more precise execution and smart judgement by the players under pressure.

"Fouling when you can" takes that part of requirement out of the equation. The only requirement is to make the free throws, so it minimizes the number of ways the players can choke away the game .

We also wanted to avoid an intentional foul.

What more is to be said?

Dimitrig did not like Monty's strategy, even though it worked (just barely), and others did or had doubts.

Let's beat Syracuse! How about some scouting reports on their guys by the posters who have seen them play some?

Go Bears!

I thought ,other than having Wallace out there, Montys strategy won the game. For the most part his best free throw shooters on the line and they didn't come through.

At the Pac 12 championships, Montgomery did not foul the Utah guard when we were up 3 with about 4 secs to go. He buried a difficult 3 well beyond the 3 point line. We were all screaming to foul him before he could shoot it, but that was not done. Historically Montgomery doesn't want to foul, in this case it cost us the game. I can understand why he took the foul. The results were ugly, but we won and we would have won going away if we would have made free throws.