tequila4kapp said:
SFCityBear said:
NYCGOBEARS said:
socaliganbear said:
Who's next?
McCullough and Winston?
And let's not forget Anticevich.
Think about it. When you have this many players who either started or played more minutes in the early season and then got sent to the bench or were given far less or even no minutes of playing time, what does that say about a coach's ability to judge who his best players are?
Coach Jones needs to take the off season and concentrate on getting his learning curve on to a fast track, or he is toast. When you elevate a player to the position of "our go-to guy" on offense, and early on he is producing 30 point games, and in conference, the player gets benched for the rest of the season, playing less minutes, that is a blow to the player's ego. It was to his great credit that Coleman did not sulk and played hard, unlike many players might have done. Deschon Winston started the season at point guard with McNeill hurt, but when McNeill took over Winston not only went to the bench, he almost disappeared. Anticevich and McCullogh played minutes early, and Anticevich looked pretty good in spots. Both seldom played after that, with the exception of Anticievich hitting a key three to help beat Stanford. If McCullogh, Winston, and Anticevich were older players, I'm sure their egos would be bruised, but as freshman, they probably did not expect to play much. Still no player likes to move from good minutes to nearly no minutes. Jones needs to learn to evaluate his players better, and handle them better if he wants to keep them.
Or maybe it means people lost the right to have minutes and coach held them accountable. Or maybe it means other people passed those guys as the season went on. There are a million things it could be.
It seems like there's a sentiment to always see the glass half empty with this staff. It may well have been way worse if the staff blindly stuck with the initial guys who got minutes
Your first sentence is correct, obviously, but it is up to both coach and player if the player continues to sit on the bench or he earns another chance at minutes. The situation this year, in my opinion, needed to remain fluid, because Cal had so few experienced players, and it would have been judicious not to shrink the rotation to basically six players plus Hamilton. The season was not going to be a winning season, and in that case, the youngest players on the bench might have benefited from some more minutes. I liked to see Hamilton play after years of wallowing on the bench, but clearly Hamilton was not the future of the Cal program. My concern was not with winning games, but in how we played the game. It was hard to look good, let alone win games with such a small rotation. All you needed was one player to get in foul trouble, and the team got in trouble. And Lee was often in foul trouble. I never said Jones made the wrong decision to bench a player, but some of those players disappeared, never to get a meaningful minute after that. You don't want to impact a player's confidence so early in his career. Cal was going nowhere, so why not give Winston, Anticevich and McCullogh a few more minutes, so they feel more a part of the team? What purpose does it serve not to? I did not say Cal should have stuck with the initial starters. Only that if you bench someone, just give him a small reward of minutes if he earns them. If the only players who earn minutes on a lightly talented team like this full of youngsters are the starting 5 plus one or two, it is not healthy for team morale.
As for Jones, he is being paid a million dollars a year or more, As the head coach, he more than anyone else is responsible for the product he puts on the floor. Did you think Cal got a million dollars worth of product this season? Yes, I know he won't begin being be responsible for the talent he has to work with until next season, when all of the players, except Davis, will be his own recruits. But he has already lost his best scorer, best free throw shooter, best passer, and one of his best defenders, who is now transferring. He's lost him perhaps because he and Coleman could not get on the same page, or he could not find a way to use Coleman, or Coleman could not adjust to Jones' system, or Coleman could not get along with Jones, or something else. Maybe they never could click. Players who transfer are usually not the team's best player, or one of the best, which Coleman is. In any case, the coach is the one usually held responsible for how his team plays. He needs to be held accountable, just as he holds his players accountable, doesn't he? I hope with all my heart we don't lose any more players. In DC's case, it may just be personality differences. If another player leaves, we may be having more of a problem than just one player's desires.
