We will never be a really good team. This season the Pac-12 was not as great as thought and we were only decent (we had a nice combination of incoming talent combined with experience). Next year, we do have guys coming back that can compete but in terms of being a legit threat to make a decent run (not even talking final four here), I don't think Cuanzo can take us there. For those who followed his tenure at tennessee know that his ability to coach is what it is.

Crickets....

Maybe if you could bother to spell his name right people would take you more seriously.

Sorry ed. CUONZO.

bigcocoon007;842670274 said:

---

We will never be a really good team. This season the Pac-12 was not as great as thought and we were only decent (we had a nice combination of incoming talent combined with experience). Next year, we do have guys coming back that can compete but in terms of being a legit threat to make a decent run (not even talking final four here), I don't think Cuanzo can take us there. For those who followed his tenure at tennessee know that his ability to coach is what it is.

---

There are over 350 Division 1 teams playing basketball, that's over 350 coaches. Only four coaches can make it to the final four. If you expect Cal to be there more than once in ten years, you should be rooting for Kansas, Duke, NC, Mich. State and how far did they get this year. You should be a fan of the ACC, not the Pac12.

bigcocoon007;842670274 said:

---

We will never be a really good team. This season the Pac-12 was not as great as thought and we were only decent (we had a nice combination of incoming talent combined with experience). Next year, we do have guys coming back that can compete but in terms of being a legit threat to make a decent run (not even talking final four here), I don't think Cuanzo can take us there. For those who followed his tenure at tennessee know that his ability to coach is what it is.

---

He coached the defense to be quite good - for stretches of weeks at a time, even dominant (17th in adjusted defensive efficiency per KenPom). I guess defense doesn't count. As for the offense, it was not "pretty", but was actually decently efficient. (66th in adjusted offensive efficeincy per KenPom).

But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good narrative.

We were a depleted and likely distracted team by the time we tipped off on Friday. You can call that an excuse, but it's the truth. Frankly, one win would have been a great achievement, given the circumstances.

The real issue is a desperate fanbase who hasn't seen a run beyond the first weekend in over 20 years. They finally saw a glimmer of hope, and when it didn't happen they threw a fit. Lots of other schools with much better pedigrees lose in the first round every single year. Let's hope we can get to a point where an opening round loss doesn't feel like the end of the program.

tsubamoto2001;842670297 said:

---

Not a bad post, but one issue is that I wouldn't call the 66th rated (we were near 50th before the Tournament) offense on KenPom "decently efficient". We were near the middle of our conference. Call it nitpicking, but the offense generally performed below the level of the team's talent and prevented Cal from being what it could have been. I don't think it's all on Cuonzo (we shot 65% from the FT line, which is frankly, horrid, and hurt our efficiency a lot, considering we were one of the best teams at getting to the line).

---

Here is my take on the whole "offense stunk" meme

A) redo all the stats assuming Wallace shoots even 75% from the line. Again, at some point Martin can't go out and shoot them FOR ty. [And least we get an immediate SFCBEAR post about 1958....you know who improved their stroke over the course of the season? Kam. It really does suggest they were getting practice/coaching on it - just some mental blocks got in the way.] Once you make that adjustment I am betting it looks a LOT better given the sheer number of FTs that Wallace shot

B) I have a long post about the pieces in the offense not really fitting that well together. I know some disagree. C'est la vi.

C) Some of our worst "offense stinks" games were those when Rabb and Brown would get into early foul trouble and those were in the first half of the season. Once they started how to stay on the court we looked much better.

It's not the stats, we simply did not play well for several games. We played well and lost in OT at Virginia. However, we didn't play up to par in the majority of all road games including the neutral court non-conference games we had.

Cuonzo's far from a finished product and isn't perfect, but it's ridiculous either to dismiss him or anoint him at this point. Fair to point out Bears left six winnable games (SDSU, UR, @ UVa, @ LSJU, @ 'Zona, and Utah) on the table this season. UH loss wasn't great, but very few teams win in the Dance without two starters. On the plus side, by being 14th on the S curve, Bears were in the top 4% of all D-1 teams. Generated the most positive buzz about Cal in decades.

Pretty clear that he's not Brad Stevens, but also don't think you can entirely write him off yet either. Solid coach with considerable upside. Amazing that LSJU has floundered so much post-Monty, but they were patient enough to give him time. Not suggesting that Cuonzo be given an Alford or Hewitt contract, but he needs a bump and a couple more years. If he gets pushed out now, Cal will have a tough time recovering. Bailing on his own accord would be problematic too as would firing him after next season. Even if people are totally down on Cuonzo at least three more seasons is the best play for Cal.

bigcocoon007;842670302 said:

---

It's not the stats, we simply did not play well for several games. We played well and lost in OT at Virginia. However, we didn't play up to par in the majority of all road games including the neutral court non-conference games we had.

---

The one that sticks in craw was Richmond. That said, what were our three point shooters in that game?

The Utah loss in pac-12 tournament I think was a failure in game planning/scouting.....but that said if we played them Doubling Poetl every time and he actually made the kick outs and they hit their open threes we would be bitching about THAT. We really should have won that game - not just the failure to stop the tying score but the bad bounce that resulted in Bird drawing the foul on the possession before.

grandmastapoop;842670290 said:

---

As for the offense, it was not "pretty", but was actually decently efficient. (66th in adjusted offensive efficeincy per KenPom).

But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good narrative.

---

Would you say a 66th rated offense was adequate for the talent level on the floor?

In the last 55 years, Cal has had 5 teams win 23 games. Braun did it twice ('97 & '02). Braun won more games early and then faded. Montgomery did it twice. Montgomery was never a long term answer due to age.

In the last 55 years Cal has only once won all the home games (18-0).

Coach Martin appears to be an excellent defensive coach and a slightly above average offensive coach. He is young. He seems to have an excellent relationship with the players. We were all disappointed in the NCAA loss, the injuries and in Coach Yann. I still feel better about the basketball program than I have in decades.

grandmastapoop;842670290 said:

---

He coached the defense to be quite good - for stretches of weeks at a time, even dominant (17th in adjusted defensive efficiency per KenPom). I guess defense doesn't count. As for the offense, it was not "pretty", but was actually decently efficient. (66th in adjusted offensive efficeincy per KenPom).

But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good narrative.

We were a depleted and likely distracted team by the time we tipped off on Friday. You can call that an excuse, but it's the truth. Frankly, one win would have been a great achievement, given the circumstances.

The real issue is a desperate fanbase who hasn't seen a run beyond the first weekend in over 20 years. They finally saw a glimmer of hope, and when it didn't happen they threw a fit. Lots of other schools with much better pedigrees lose in the first round every single year. Let's hope we can get to a point where an opening round loss doesn't feel like the end of the program.

---

I have to agree with this post. I don't know if Cuonzo will get us there. Honestly, my biggest concern is recruiting post Rabb/Brown. I think that will come around, but we need to do better next cycle. I think we are hurt in recruiting also by not knowing Rabb and Brown's situation.

As for coaching on the floor, yeah, why doesn't anyone talk about defense? We were excellent. Defense isn't sexy, but it wins games and as far as I can see we have one of the best coaches on that side of things.

It annoys me the characterization of the offense. There is definite room for improvement. But it doesn't stink by any stretch. And the arguments that it does always seem to go to "I don't care about stats, I know what I'm looking at".

I think people were not realistic at all about how good this team was likely to be right out of the gate. There were always going to be growing pains. By the end of the year, this team was very good and I think met expectations. Of course the tourney was disappointing, but did that have anything to do with the coaching or the health of the program? It was obviously due to the injuries. We would have trounced Hawaii if we just had Bird - how many kickouts did Rabb pass to a wide open shooter on the outside who couldn't shoot. No question with Wallace and Rabb we are into the second round with an excellent shot to beat Maryland. Sometimes shyte happens. I can't believe that days later people can't get over it and see that what happened at the end of the year was simply bad luck.

Civil Bear;842670308 said:

---

Would you say a 66th rated offense was adequate for the talent level on the floor?

---

Again, We had great talent but

A) The simple term is that we lacked that glue guy

B) The longer truth is that I don't think our guys games were THAT complimentary. Rabb is going to be a dominant 4 when he has a soft handed 5 to pass to when help down low comes. Brown is going to be an AMAZING slasher when he has 3 shooters on the floor and can get you spread out. Wallace is going to be a very good PG when he has a 4 or 5 who can "pick and popp" when he comes off the high ball screen. Bird and Mathews are going to be fantastic when they are paired with a 4/5 who can establish on their own down low/get the kick out/get the ball resersal from the kick out.

Those things were lacking. I can completely get how we were less than the sum of our parts and it not being really a Martin thing (or fixable by anyone with just a few weeks to work with Brown and Ivan). That is why I honestly believe that if they stay we will be better next year....because the guys have learned the defensive system at this point and then you would get a year to really work on the parts of their games where they need them (ivan to get his pick and popp game down and build bulk; Brown to learn how to stop and hit floaters/jab steps/etc; Mathews and Bird to continue to work on driving when teams close out hard on them).

OaktownBear;842670313 said:

---

I have to agree with this post. I don't know if Cuonzo will get us there. Honestly, my biggest concern is recruiting post Rabb/Brown. I think that will come around, but we need to do better next cycle. I think we are hurt in recruiting also by not knowing Rabb and Brown's situation.

---

Completely agree. I really think that we need to look at a full body of work (4 years). I am worried that this year's class is not dominant. But I know the big one is the following year and what he does with the Frosh he WILL be bringing in to replace Sam, Bird, Wallace, Domingo (I think that is it). One would really like to see a good group of recruits as well as development from them over the course of the year.

Guess? We will bubble next year. I am hoping we get on the right side of that because consecutive invitations are important for this program. A grad transfer capable of contributing would be such a boon.

What impressed me possibly even more than Cuonzo landing Rabb/Brown was landing Wyking Jones. When was the last time an ace assistant from a power house came to join a Cal coach's staff in a sport that matters? Cuonzo is obviously well regarded in the industry and a big reason why I think he would be successful here. Being the CEO is all about who works for you and how you manage them. Even Huffnagel was a great hiring coup albeit one that ended in shame.

Even more so than in the past, at this point I have to ask the O/P, "Who do you think we could get as coach that's better?" We were all up in arms when it looked like Monty's replacement would be the head coach at Richmond. If Cuonzo leaves, we're back to that same level of hire. Remember, the coach still has to deal with the grade point restrictions on recruiting, the lack of a dedicated practice gym, the hot-and-cold fan support, etc., etc. Yes, the end of the season was disappointing, but the program trajectory, assuming Martin is not left twisting in the wind by this investigation, is entirely different and higher than it was before he was hired.

Jeff82;842670321 said:

---

Even more so than in the past, at this point I have to ask the O/P, "Who do you think we could get as coach that's better?" We were all up in arms when it looked like Monty's replacement would be the head coach at Richmond. If Cuonzo leaves, we're back to that same level of hire. Remember, the coach still has to deal with the grade point restrictions on recruiting, the lack of a dedicated practice gym, the hot-and-cold fan support, etc., etc. Yes, the end of the season was disappointing, but the program trajectory, assuming Martin is not left twisting in the wind by this investigation, is entirely different and higher than it was before he was hired.

---

Ding Ding Ding. Jeff wins the internet today. Thanks for trying

That is the biggest issue. Remember, we were actually talking about Josh the kicker 2 years ago and alumni support for him.

Jeff82;842670321 said:

---

Even more so than in the past, at this point I have to ask the O/P, "Who do you think we could get as coach that's better?" We were all up in arms when it looked like Monty's replacement would be the head coach at Richmond. If Cuonzo leaves, we're back to that same level of hire. Remember, the coach still has to deal with the grade point restrictions on recruiting, the lack of a dedicated practice gym, the hot-and-cold fan support, etc., etc. Yes, the end of the season was disappointing, but the program trajectory, assuming Martin is not left twisting in the wind by this investigation, is entirely different and higher than it was before he was hired.

---

This is very true. UCLA had to settle for Steve Alford. For a number of reasons, recruiting a new coach is not an easy proposition.

socaltownie;842670315 said:

---

Again, We had great talent but

A) The simple term is that we lacked that glue guy

B) The longer truth is that I don't think our guys games were THAT complimentary. Rabb is going to be a dominant 4 when he has a soft handed 5 to pass to when help down low comes. Brown is going to be an AMAZING slasher when he has 3 shooters on the floor and can get you spread out. Wallace is going to be a very good PG when he has a 4 or 5 who can "pick and popp" when he comes off the high ball screen. Bird and Mathews are going to be fantastic when they are paired with a 4/5 who can establish on their own down low/get the kick out/get the ball resersal from the kick out.

Those things were lacking. I can completely get how we were less than the sum of our parts and it not being really a Martin thing (or fixable by anyone with just a few weeks to work with Brown and Ivan). That is why I honestly believe that if they stay we will be better next year....because the guys have learned the defensive system at this point and then you would get a year to really work on the parts of their games where they need them (ivan to get his pick and popp game down and build bulk; Brown to learn how to stop and hit floaters/jab steps/etc; Mathews and Bird to continue to work on driving when teams close out hard on them).

---

I don't want to come off as anti Martin because I really hope he stays, but your excuse B) is on his shoulders. A good offensive coach will devise a system around its strengths. Martin isn't there yet. Maybe he will be soon, but he doesn't exactly come off as a flexible type of guy.

Civil Bear;842670325 said:

---

I don't want to come off as anti Martin because I really hope he stayes, but your excuse B) is on his shoulders. A good offensive coach will devise a system around its strengths. Martin isn't there yet. Maybe he will be soon, but he doesn't exactly come off as a flexible type of guy.

---

I know that is a common criticism when you get into that but I am not sure. I have wracked my brain thinking about how _I_ would have tried to make these guys more effective in the half court and kinda came up snake eyes. In 20/20 hindsight maybe let Ivan struggle a bit with his shot and keep running pick and pops? We might have won a couple of more in conference - but we might have lost a couple of more in the preseason till he found the stroke and got comfortable with hitting that shot. And I am not sure that is the answer EITHER because it assumes you can get that shot down in a few weeks of intense practice.

SCT:

The problem, in my view, is that some fans have the belief that college basketball players are infinitely malleable lumps of clay to be molded in the image of their all-powerful coach. Surprisingly, this turns out not to be true! Ty Wallace's poor free throw shooting is not the result of Martin's inability to coach free throw shooting. I thought the end of the Hawai'i game was emblematic. We made a run and some posters attribute the failure to continue that run on Cuonzo's insertion of Brown into the game. In my viewing of the game it was because Hawai'i made the adjustment of clogging the lane and basically leaving Domingo and Moute a Bidias completely unguarded. Why didn't Cuonzo adjust to the adjustment? He did; the next several plays were kick-outs, but Roger and Stephen can't hit a shot. Surprise, surprise, that's not Martin's fault.

BTW, congrats on the shout-out in the Comical this AM.

UrsaMajor;842670328 said:

---

SCT:

The problem, in my view, is that some fans have the belief that college basketball players are infinitely malleable lumps of clay to be molded in the image of their all-powerful coach. Surprisingly, this turns out not to be true! Ty Wallace's poor free throw shooting is not the result of Martin's inability to coach free throw shooting. I thought the end of the Hawai'i game was emblematic. We made a run and some posters attribute the failure to continue that run on Cuonzo's insertion of Brown into the game. In my viewing of the game it was because Hawai'i made the adjustment of clogging the lane and basically leaving Domingo and Moute a Bidias completely unguarded. Why didn't Cuonzo adjust to the adjustment? He did; the next several plays were kick-outs, but Roger and Stephen can't hit a shot. Surprise, surprise, that's not Martin's fault.

BTW, congrats on the shout-out in the Comical this AM.

---

Bingo. It is eye opening when you realize that coaches get "only" 20 hours a week with kids (does anyone know if games count?) It is sorta funny when you realize that counting games my 10 year old gets 9 hours of rugby a week. Especially with Frosh there is only so much you can do. And as you said, Roger and Domingo's shot wasn't falling in Hawaii....and you can hardly blame them given the limited minutes they had had since February 1.

Civil Bear;842670325 said:

---

I don't want to come off as anti Martin because I really hope he stays, but your excuse B) is on his shoulders. A good offensive coach will devise a system around its strengths. Martin isn't there yet. Maybe he will be soon, but he doesn't exactly come off as a flexible type of guy.

---

My take is that his practice time, focus and energy were heavily focused on defense at the expense of offense. There are a few good reasons why, but in hindsight more offensive focus may have been warranted. Some of the SPECULATIVE (I wasn't at practice) reasons to focus on defense:

1.....Better mechanism for teamwork than offense - since the both ends of the bench can give 100% all the time during practice.
2.....Simpler to leverage size/speed/athleticism of this roster
3.....Pick an adage, but most agree that it is better to rely on defense than offense over the long haul
4.....Defer to coaches that this group was better suited to a defensive-centric effort
5.....Defer to coaches again - sometimes the players just don't execute what is taught in practice. That may have been part of the problem.
6.....Personal favorite - based on last season and beginning of this season - there was much more room for improvement defensively.
7.....Not sure all will agree with me on this one, but in my experience defense carries over year-to-year better than offense which usually needs to be redesigned each year based on the roster. Could be setting the table for the future.

Priorities matter.....

Definitely hope Cuonzo, Rabb, and Jaylen all return, but next season will give us all a good idea of what Cuonzo's ceiling is. Hope 2015 would be his floor, but needs to do better next season with a second season of Jaylen and Rabb. Means over/under is a 4 seed in the Dance, PAC semis, and third in regular season. Can't beat 18-0 at Haas. Without Rabb and Jaylen, needs to be better than 2015-Dance or NIT.

ThesePretzels;842670324 said:

---

This is very true. UCLA had to settle for Steve Alford. For a number of reasons, recruiting a new coach is not an easy proposition.

---

I don't think settle is the right word. UCLA's top target in their search was Brad Stevens, who turned them down. Shaka Smart, for some ridiculous reasons (one rumor is that some donors did not like that he was an Obama supporter), was not considered.

Alford was a late suggestion by Assistant AD Mark Harlan, an Arizona alum, who is now the AD at South Florida. Simply put, Alford was a panic hire by AD Dan Guerrero. Guerrero had requested to speak to Wichita State head coach Gregg Marshall when they were in town for the Sweet 16 at Staples, but Marshall told the UCLA folks that he wouldn't speak with them until his season was over. Alford had agreed to a 10-year contract extension with New Mexico that was to take effect in a few days. Rather wait for Marshall or simply wait to hire a good coach like Oregon did when they took a long time in their search and came up with Dana Altman, Guerrero wanted to get it over with and hire Alford before his new contract and the buyout that came with it was to take effect.

I personally believe Cal can hire a desireable coach, but what I'm wary of is the AD's ability to do it. I have have no feel for Mike Williams' basketball acumen and his judgment for hiring coaches. With that in mind, Cuonzo seems like a solid option.

Instead of talking about talent level, maybe ask that about the specific players on the floor. I'd say I thought it could have been somewhat better, but wasn't ever going to be great given the fact that we had overlapping strengths and definite weaknesses in that group. I'd like to see a bench coach with more offensive creativity, but not to the expense of the defense.

Civil Bear;842670308 said:

---

Would you say a 66th rated offense was adequate for the talent level on the floor?

---

These are good points, and the fact is defense carried us once the players bought into it. I don't think this team could have won as many games just trying to outscore the other team. I think people forget the limits to practice time in college and the fact that some of these guys had a steep learning curve to get to where they did get.

BeachedBear;842670334 said:

---

My take is that his practice time, focus and energy were heavily focused on defense at the expense of offense. There are a few good reasons why, but in hindsight more offensive focus may have been warranted. Some of the SPECULATIVE (I wasn't at practice) reasons to focus on defense:

1.....Better mechanism for teamwork than offense - since the both ends of the bench can give 100% all the time during practice.
2.....Simpler to leverage size/speed/athleticism of this roster
3.....Pick an adage, but most agree that it is better to rely on defense than offense over the long haul
4.....Defer to coaches that this group was better suited to a defensive-centric effort
5.....Defer to coaches again - sometimes the players just don't execute what is taught in practice. That may have been part of the problem.
6.....Personal favorite - based on last season and beginning of this season - there was much more room for improvement defensively.
7.....Not sure all will agree with me on this one, but in my experience defense carries over year-to-year better than offense which usually needs to be redesigned each year based on the roster. Could be setting the table for the future.

Priorities matter.....

---

grandmastapoop;842670290 said:

---

He coached the defense to be quite good - for stretches of weeks at a time, even dominant (17th in adjusted defensive efficiency per KenPom). I guess defense doesn't count. As for the offense, it was not "pretty", but was actually decently efficient. (66th in adjusted offensive efficeincy per KenPom).

But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good narrative.

We were a depleted and likely distracted team by the time we tipped off on Friday. You can call that an excuse, but it's the truth. Frankly, one win would have been a great achievement, given the circumstances.

The real issue is a desperate fanbase who hasn't seen a run beyond the first weekend in over 20 years. They finally saw a glimmer of hope, and when it didn't happen they threw a fit. Lots of other schools with much better pedigrees lose in the first round every single year. Let's hope we can get to a point where an opening round loss doesn't feel like the end of the program.

---

I think his concern with the coaching is valid. I know we had stats to support some good things about the coaching (just like the entire Pac-12 had great stats), but the eye test was concerning. There were too many games against good teams away from Haas (of course it has to be away from Haas since we were undefeated there) where we could have or should have won, but didn't get it done. I have to say coaching is the #1 factor when it is a trend (it wasn't just a one-off).

That said, the positives that Cuonzo has (man of integrity, good leader, good recruiter, can coach defense) outweigh this, and that is why he has my full support.

socaltownie;842670315 said:

---

Again, We had great talent but

A) The simple term is that we lacked that glue guy

B) The longer truth is that I don't think our guys games were THAT complimentary. Rabb is going to be a dominant 4 when he has a soft handed 5 to pass to when help down low comes. Brown is going to be an AMAZING slasher when he has 3 shooters on the floor and can get you spread out. Wallace is going to be a very good PG when he has a 4 or 5 who can "pick and popp" when he comes off the high ball screen. Bird and Mathews are going to be fantastic when they are paired with a 4/5 who can establish on their own down low/get the kick out/get the ball resersal from the kick out.

Those things were lacking. I can completely get how we were less than the sum of our parts and it not being really a Martin thing (or fixable by anyone with just a few weeks to work with Brown and Ivan). That is why I honestly believe that if they stay we will be better next year....because the guys have learned the defensive system at this point and then you would get a year to really work on the parts of their games where they need them (ivan to get his pick and popp game down and build bulk; Brown to learn how to stop and hit floaters/jab steps/etc; Mathews and Bird to continue to work on driving when teams close out hard on them).

---

The "glue" guy is a true PG. Ty was not, and Singer I hate to say is more a backup PG. We really need to recruit a good floor leader, that sees the floor well but also has some offense. We haven't had one in a long time.

OaktownBear;842670313 said:

---

I have to agree with this post. I don't know if Cuonzo will get us there. Honestly, my biggest concern is recruiting post Rabb/Brown. I think that will come around, but we need to do better next cycle. I think we are hurt in recruiting also by not knowing Rabb and Brown's situation.

As for coaching on the floor, yeah, why doesn't anyone talk about defense? We were excellent. Defense isn't sexy, but it wins games and as far as I can see we have one of the best coaches on that side of things.

It annoys me the characterization of the offense. There is definite room for improvement. But it doesn't stink by any stretch. And the arguments that it does always seem to go to "I don't care about stats, I know what I'm looking at".

I think people were not realistic at all about how good this team was likely to be right out of the gate. There were always going to be growing pains. By the end of the year, this team was very good and I think met expectations. Of course the tourney was disappointing, but did that have anything to do with the coaching or the health of the program? It was obviously due to the injuries. We would have trounced Hawaii if we just had Bird - how many kickouts did Rabb pass to a wide open shooter on the outside who couldn't shoot. No question with Wallace and Rabb we are into the second round with an excellent shot to beat Maryland. Sometimes shyte happens. I can't believe that days later people can't get over it and see that what happened at the end of the year was simply bad luck.

---

It's not that the offense was necessarily bad, but the continuing theme was that it stalled at key moments. It was a disturbing trend starting with SDSU, Richmond, @UVa, @UW (even though we pulled it out), @AZ and Utah (Pac-12 tourney). I just cannot imagine a Monty team not getting it done like that time after time. Don't get me wrong, I really like Cuonzo and support him. But this is a pretty serious flaw in his coaching, to me. E.g. how do you let Jaylen constantly do the same running over the defense play after play, game after game? Maybe some new wrinkles to get him going? I think it's about this inability to make adjustments.

All good points here. We played our very best at home against Zona and at home against Oregon with Sam at the point. I thought prior to Wallace injury and after Wallace's return, Cuonzo never truly trusted Sam and Wallace (just like JB) was so reckless and careless at times.

We should have won at Virginia, at Arizona, and a few other games as well. Never felt like we were out-talented or less-experienced than the opposition..

bigcocoon007;842670369 said:

---

All good points here. We played our very best at home against Zona and at home against Oregon with Sam at the point. I thought prior to Wallace injury and after Wallace's return, Cuonzo never truly trusted Sam and Wallace (just like JB) was so reckless and careless at times.

We should have won at Virginia, at Arizona, and a few other games as well. Never felt like we were out-talented or less-experienced than the opposition..

---

I just think that Wallace with about 10 seconds left on the clock figures that he can take anyone and get to the glass. A lot of the times he is right. Sam doesn't think that so keeps looking and probing. Not sure that is coaching....you can't run out and grab the rock from a kid.

socaltownie;842670315 said:

---

Again, We had great talent but

A) The simple term is that we lacked that glue guy

---

This. This has been my contention since about December. This amplifies the realities that this team was missing some key parts as it was jelling.

Besides needing a glue guy, Cal lacked depth in the front court. Although better than the recent past, Cal needed a big body road grader 4, and/or an athletic 6'9" 4 (who would cover similar guys and provide help D for K2)and of course a true PG.

Despite these missing pieces Cal had a good season, although up and down. Given this is year two, CM deserves some time to recruit and get the program to how he wants it. Record wins at home, 23 wins...not a bad season. Yes, there are some blind spots but every coach has them...everyone screamed Monty didn't like recruiting...so then Cal gets a guy who goes out and gets two top ten recruits. I agree the offense is stagnant at times but Cal is still winning. I'll take the wins over style points on offense.

KoreAmBear;842670355 said:

---

Singer I hate to say is more a backup PG.

---

I understand why you write this.

However, I continue to believe that Sam, for reasons of insecurity (I guess), has not played to his potential. He has demonstrated on his individual offense a timidity that is baffling to me. I am sure that he knows that he himself has to be more of a threat to score, in order to be a high level point guard. However, I perceive that it is a inexplicable mental inhibition that is holding him back.

Given some of what he showed when Ty was out (not the NCAA tourney game), I am of the hope that he will have more confidence next year, presumably when he is the starter at the point and not worried about being benched by his first mistake. If so, I expect much more from Sam than he has consistently shown through his junior year, that he will become more than an adequate point guard in his final year as a Bear.