KoreAmBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

KenBurnski said:

---

If we are going to recruit people that can't compete on the floor it would be nice if they could at least remain academically eligible. What a putrid program.

---

The stench seems to be waining, of late.

---

We are going to be the smallest Big 5 conference team. Wyking has found himself in a deep ditch to get out of.

---

A small team with poor outside shooting? Yikes!

---

Where is this coming from? I thought Vanover was 7'-3". And Anticevich and Kelly are not midgets. The other position where we are small is point guard, with Austin being a bit undersized. So every team in the Big 5 conferences is bigger? I doubt it.

And I did hear Wyking Jones say we will shoot the ball a lot better this season, or something like that. Even without improved shooting from the veterans, the addition of Gordon, Bradley, Kelly et al, it sure looks like the shooting will be better. I also envision with a real point guard, who should be able to set his teammates up, and teammates who will look more often to get open, there should be more easy buckets, which will raise the team shooting percentage.

I'm not overly optimistic, as I have questions about the coaching, the rebounding, and the defense. But the offense should be a little better.

---

You are having Vanover a true freshman big man that we have no idea whether he can play D-1 to play substantial minutes. In an ideal world he would not be a major part of the rotation right away. But we have to because we whiffed on all big men besides him. There was a reason we wanted them.

---

While I don't disagree with you, you and I don't decide who plays. WJ does the deciding. I was responding to a post which said the "team" is "small". Team means everyone on the roster. The poster mentioned nothing about who would play and who would not. The poster said nothing about the quality of any of the players, only their height. He said they were small. The team, in my opinion, is not small, until we see who the coach puts on the floor in real games. The average height of a team in D1 is 6'-5". Cal's roster averages 6'- 5-1/2". Cal's 10-man roster, excluding all walk-ons, averages 6'-6" tall. Cal averages more in height than the average D1 team. Again, in my opinion, if the team's players average less than 6-5 in height, then the team is a small one.

Here are the D1 average heights by position, with Cal players:

Point guard: average 6-1. (Austin 6-0, McNeil, 6-3, Orender 6-0)

Shooting guard: average 6-3. (McNeill 6-3, Bradley 6-4, JHD 6-5, Zhao 6-4, Serge 6-4)

Small forward: average 6-5. (Sueing 6-7, Gordon 6-7, Bradley 6-4, Erving 6-5)

Power Forward: average 6-7. (Kelly 6-8, Anticevich 6-8, Sueing 6-7, Davis 6-7, Welle 6-7

Center: average 6-9. (Anticevich 6-8, Kelly 6-8, Vanover 7-3)

These are D1 averages. P5 average heights will be slightly higher. In any case, Cal is not small. Even when Cal will go small, the front line will likely be 6-8, 6-7, and 6-7.

On paper, Cal is taller than the D1 average at Shooting Guard, Small Forward and Power Forward. The only positions where Cal is shorter than the D1 average are Center and Point Guard. And if Vanover is included at Center, then Cal's center on average, is taller than the average D1 center. Where Cal is small is on the far end of the bench, where the walk-ons sit. Orender is small for a point, Erving small for a forward, and the tallest walk-on is Welle at 6-7.

---

Yah well (no pun intended) we'll see. It's also that you list all those guys at PF and they are not traditional PFs who bang. I have to see how Kelly plays. We may be "small" more in the way we play. And it's basically two of the same guys from the PF pool that also play center except for Vanover who is a true freshman. I hope it works out.

---

Me too.

Go Bears!

If Roman were a guard he would've been "encouraged" to transfer years ago.

URSABEAR:
Well said, SFCity; although I'd add that you should NOT talk up Cal to the potential recruit himself, since that's an NCAA violation

ME:
The NCAA can't figure out if shoe companies are giving players families hundreds of thousands of dolllars, and you think they are going to care if a season ticket holder talks up the program.
Give me a break.
It's all one big mess.
I'm not sure I even care anymore.


Ya wanna know why I quit on the NFL?
Because the teams just kept moving around. They didn't care about the fans. It was just a money making endeavor.
You wanna know what the NCAA sports of basketball and football are? Same. They don't care about the rules.

calumnus said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

KenBurnski said:

---

If we are going to recruit people that can't compete on the floor it would be nice if they could at least remain academically eligible. What a putrid program.

---

The stench seems to be waining, of late.

---

We are going to be the smallest Big 5 conference team. Wyking has found himself in a deep ditch to get out of.

---

A small team with poor outside shooting? Yikes!

---

I don't know about that. McNeil, Sueing, and JH-D all looked like they shot the ball well for Frosh, Vanover, who admittedly will have limited minutes shoots well for a big, and GA and Kelly are supposed to be decent shooters. Bradley, Gordon and Austin can ball, but I'm less sure about their outside shooting form their tape. But I don't see this as a poor shooting team. They have a lot to prove on defense however.

There is an elephant in the room and most everybody is ignoring it.

The Real Problem Is:

THE GUY MIKE WILLIAMS HIRED AS MBB "coach".

Inexperienced, unqualified and incompetent are not qualities of a successful head coach in a Power 5 team.

It is time to acknowledge the elephant in the room.

Until there is a change on the top, the problems in MBB will continue.

GO Bears!

wifeisafurd said:

---

...and JH-D all looked like they shot the ball well for Frosh,

---

concordtom said:

---

URSABEAR:
Well said, SFCity; although I'd add that you should NOT talk up Cal to the potential recruit himself, since that's an NCAA violation

ME:
The NCAA can't figure out if shoe companies are giving players families hundreds of thousands of dolllars, and you think they are going to care if a season ticket holder talks up the program.
Give me a break.
It's all one big mess.
I'm not sure I even care anymore.


Ya wanna know why I quit on the NFL?
Because the teams just kept moving around. They didn't care about the fans. It was just a money making endeavor.
You wanna know what the NCAA sports of basketball and football are? Same. They don't care about the rules.

---

Oh. I'm confident that every employee of the NCAA is aware of what is going on, and has been for decades. But you're right - they don't want to rock the boat. These are de facto minor-leagues for the NBA and NFL, without any cost to them. They certainly aren't going to do anything. These are also time-slot fillers for ESPN and other TV networks. They aren't going to do anything. The NCAA was formed to organize tournaments and later evolved into coordinating an ever growing TV revenue stream which has overgrown their original intent - so they're not going to do more than the minimum to keep membership happy. And membership (the colleges), some are making big bucks and the rest seem to be happy to take significant money to perform on stage. Not sure they are going to do much, either.

Really only one constituency that can do anything and that is fans and donors. But we're all addicted to it. Common fans' financial input is relatively insignificant. Big donors are a different matter. Do you think they will band together and make a statement? I doubt it.

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

KenBurnski said:

---

If we are going to recruit people that can't compete on the floor it would be nice if they could at least remain academically eligible. What a putrid program.

---

The stench seems to be waining, of late.

---

We are going to be the smallest Big 5 conference team. Wyking has found himself in a deep ditch to get out of.

---

A small team with poor outside shooting? Yikes!

---

I don't know about that. McNeil, Sueing, and JH-D all looked like they shot the ball well for Frosh, Vanover, who admittedly will have limited minutes shoots well for a big, and GA and Kelly are supposed to be decent shooters. Bradley, Gordon and Austin can ball, but I'm less sure about their outside shooting form their tape. But I don't see this as a poor shooting team. They have a lot to prove on defense however.

---

I agree with the general statement that Cal should be a better shooting team this season, because we are replacing some players who did not shoot very well with new players. The only incoming player who has a D1 track record is Paris Austin. He will be replacing Don Coleman in the starting lineup, and while Coleman was a poor shot, the evidence does not indicate Austin will a great deal better shot. Still we are losing other poor shots like Okoroh, Hamilton, etc.

I would also caution on using anything you see on a recruit's mixtape as evidence of good shooting, except to show what his form looks like. These tapes are made by cherry-picking a recruit's best moments in high school. I can remember the tape I saw of Omondi Amoke when he was being recruited. It showed a player who looked versatile, who could play inside or outside, lead a fast break on the dribble, and make three pointers. He arrived at Cal, and when we got to see him to play, he turned out to be able to play only inside, and the only shots he made with accuracy were put-backs, tip-ins, and dunks. He couldn't make a 10-footer, or a free throw, let alone a three. It must have taken dozens of takes with a camera to capture him making a three for the recruiting video. Actual game footage tape is more realistic than cherry-picked mixtapes.

The only disagreement I have with the post is regarding the shooting of JHD. He does not shoot well at all. I'm sure he has worked on his shot. He is young and has 3 years to improve, but based on last season, I'd say he still has to prove he can do more than just hit the rim.

The other factor is the kind of shots Cal will take. Will we take better shots than last season? When you have a coach like a Mike Montgomery, who is designing ways to get each player open for shots in spots on the floor that he likes to shoot from, rather than rely on players creating many of their own shots, like Cal did last season, then your shooting percentage can be higher. So the coaching under Jones still has much to prove in this regard. The good thing is we are told we will have a real point guard in Austin, so that should create better looks for our shooters and may help raise the shooting percentage over what it was when we did not have a true traditional point guard.

Yogi Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

...and JH-D all looked like they shot the ball well for Frosh,

---

---

Heh, no kidding.

Civil Bear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

...and JH-D all looked like they shot the ball well for Frosh,

---

---

Heh, no kidding.

---

That's one hope I have in JHD. He seems to be a guy that desires badly to get better. If he has a mid-range game, he would automatically become a great weapon for us, since the D is already strong.

KoreAmBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

...and JH-D all looked like they shot the ball well for Frosh,

---

---

Heh, no kidding.

---

That's one hope I have in JHD. He seems to be a guy that desires badly to get better. If he has a mid-range game, he would automatically become a great weapon for us, since the D is already strong.

---

I like him too. I think that would be the place to start, the mid-range shot. If he can start making 10 footers, then progress to free throws and then longer mid range shots, and finally try making them from the three point line. The problem with kids today probably is they are so excited to make threes that they don't concentrate much on making twos. I think touch is developed by beginning with short shots where you don't have to use much strength to reach the basket, develop good form, and then as you get stronger try moving farther out Than is how we all did it, or how we used to do it before the three was invented and completely changed the game.

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

...and JH-D all looked like they shot the ball well for Frosh,

---

---

Heh, no kidding.

---

That's one hope I have in JHD. He seems to be a guy that desires badly to get better. If he has a mid-range game, he would automatically become a great weapon for us, since the D is already strong.

---

I like him too. I think that would be the place to start, the mid-range shot. If he can start making 10 footers, then progress to free throws and then longer mid range shots, and finally try making them from the three point line. The problem with kids today probably is they are so excited to make threes that they don't concentrate much on making twos. I think touch is developed by beginning with short shots where you don't have to use much strength to reach the basket, develop good form, and then as you get stronger try moving farther out Than is how we all did it, or how we used to do it before the three was invented and completely changed the game.

---

Solid thinking, SFCity. Unfortunately, you see kids under 10 trying to chuck it from 3-point land before they can even get the ball to the basket, developing all the wrong habits. If McNeill, Sueing, and one other can be reliable 3-point threats, JHD only needs to have a mid-range game to be valuable on offense. The 3 would be nice, but not essential.

BTW, apropos of more or less nothing, I recall a famous coach (but, of course, I don't recall which one) say that the best big men were those who had a late growth spurt. That's because they grew up playing guard and developed ball skills before they transitioned to the post.

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

...and JH-D all looked like they shot the ball well for Frosh,

---

---

Heh, no kidding.

---

That's one hope I have in JHD. He seems to be a guy that desires badly to get better. If he has a mid-range game, he would automatically become a great weapon for us, since the D is already strong.

---

I like him too. I think that would be the place to start, the mid-range shot. If he can start making 10 footers, then progress to free throws and then longer mid range shots, and finally try making them from the three point line. The problem with kids today probably is they are so excited to make threes that they don't concentrate much on making twos. I think touch is developed by beginning with short shots where you don't have to use much strength to reach the basket, develop good form, and then as you get stronger try moving farther out Than is how we all did it, or how we used to do it before the three was invented and completely changed the game.

---

Solid thinking, SFCity. Unfortunately, you see kids under 10 trying to chuck it from 3-point land before they can even get the ball to the basket, developing all the wrong habits. If McNeill, Sueing, and one other can be reliable 3-point threats, JHD only needs to have a mid-range game to be valuable on offense. The 3 would be nice, but not essential.

BTW, apropos of more or less nothing, I recall a famous coach (but, of course, I don't recall which one) say that the best big men were those who had a late growth spurt. That's because they grew up playing guard and developed ball skills before they transitioned to the post.

---

I think it was Larry Bird who said not long ago that he was dismayed when he'd go to a gym and saw all the young kids trying to shoot threes.

As to late growth spurts, it works both ways. Kids with early growth spurts usually played center on their grade-school teams and developed back to the basket post skills. As they stopped growing and transitioned to playing forward or guard, they often would drive inside and get their back to the basket so they could use their post skills, not to mention their rebounding skils. Many coaches would run plays to post these guards up against their shorter defenders. Steve Gray was a kid I grew up with. He was 6'-4" in the 8th or 9th grade, so he played center on all his teams, and dominated. He stopped growing at 6'-5", and in college at St Marys he played a wing and was named All-American. But in the NBA he had to play guard, and he was too short and did not have the ball handling skills or outside shooting skills to play guard, and the Warriors cut him. And how about MagicJohnson? Remember when Kareem was injured for a game in the NBA finals with Philadelphia? Magic played center, and scored 42 points, mostly with his "baby sky hook" leading the Lakers to a championship? Johnson did have an early growth spurt, and was 6-9 as a high school senior, but I can't help but think he was probably the tallest kid on his grade school and junior high teams and and I'm guessing he was playing center. That baby sky hook he used didn't look like a sky hook to me, where Kareem turned and faced more toward the basket when he shot it. Magic Johnson's hook looked more like a traditional back-to-the-basket hook shot where the shooter is facing perpendicular or 90 degrees to the basket when the ball is released.

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

...and JH-D all looked like they shot the ball well for Frosh,

---

---

Heh, no kidding.

---

That's one hope I have in JHD. He seems to be a guy that desires badly to get better. If he has a mid-range game, he would automatically become a great weapon for us, since the D is already strong.

---

I like him too. I think that would be the place to start, the mid-range shot. If he can start making 10 footers, then progress to free throws and then longer mid range shots, and finally try making them from the three point line. The problem with kids today probably is they are so excited to make threes that they don't concentrate much on making twos. I think touch is developed by beginning with short shots where you don't have to use much strength to reach the basket, develop good form, and then as you get stronger try moving farther out Than is how we all did it, or how we used to do it before the three was invented and completely changed the game.

---

Solid thinking, SFCity. Unfortunately, you see kids under 10 trying to chuck it from 3-point land before they can even get the ball to the basket, developing all the wrong habits. If McNeill, Sueing, and one other can be reliable 3-point threats, JHD only needs to have a mid-range game to be valuable on offense. The 3 would be nice, but not essential.

BTW, apropos of more or less nothing, I recall a famous coach (but, of course, I don't recall which one) say that the best big men were those who had a late growth spurt. That's because they grew up playing guard and developed ball skills before they transitioned to the post.

---

The coach who said that might've been a Cal coach because it also gave him a recruiting advantage: He could get in the recruit's door when he was still a 6-5 eleventh grader.

(Mainly, what I'm trying to do here is get a thread entitled "Roman Davis" up to 50 posts!)

Big C said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

...and JH-D all looked like they shot the ball well for Frosh,

---

---

Heh, no kidding.

---

That's one hope I have in JHD. He seems to be a guy that desires badly to get better. If he has a mid-range game, he would automatically become a great weapon for us, since the D is already strong.

---

I like him too. I think that would be the place to start, the mid-range shot. If he can start making 10 footers, then progress to free throws and then longer mid range shots, and finally try making them from the three point line. The problem with kids today probably is they are so excited to make threes that they don't concentrate much on making twos. I think touch is developed by beginning with short shots where you don't have to use much strength to reach the basket, develop good form, and then as you get stronger try moving farther out Than is how we all did it, or how we used to do it before the three was invented and completely changed the game.

---

Solid thinking, SFCity. Unfortunately, you see kids under 10 trying to chuck it from 3-point land before they can even get the ball to the basket, developing all the wrong habits. If McNeill, Sueing, and one other can be reliable 3-point threats, JHD only needs to have a mid-range game to be valuable on offense. The 3 would be nice, but not essential.

BTW, apropos of more or less nothing, I recall a famous coach (but, of course, I don't recall which one) say that the best big men were those who had a late growth spurt. That's because they grew up playing guard and developed ball skills before they transitioned to the post.

---

The coach who said that might've been a Cal coach because it also gave him a recruiting advantage: He could get in the recruit's door when he was still a 6-5 eleventh grader.

(Mainly, what I'm trying to do here is get a thread entitled "Roman Davis" up to 50 posts!)

---

Roman sits a ways down the bench on the basketball team and now is in a hole on the academic side. He needs all the help we can give him.

Go Roman!

Go Bears!

Does this make it 50?!

BeachedBear said:

---

Does this make it 50?!

---

Yes, but it turns out the 48th poster wins the 1.6 billion dollars. Who was that?

Big C said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Does this make it 50?!

---

Yes, but it turns out the 48th poster wins the 1.6 billion dollars. Who was that?

---

That was you of course. Now that it is public information, prepare to be deluged with sharks trying to sell you life insurance, swamp land in Florida, and all manner of bad investments.

So glad this board is anonymous! For the half dozen or so people on BI who know me, heck, I can give them $100,000 a month to keep quiet. It would be like last year's me giving them a nickel a month.

The California Basketball Practice Facility, brought to you by "Big C", is going to be sweet, I assure you..

Big C said:

---

So glad this board is anonymous! For the half dozen or so people on BI who know me, heck, I can give them $100,000 a month to keep quiet. It would be like last year's me giving them a nickel a month.

The California Basketball Practice Facility, brought to you by "Big C", is going to be sweet, I assure you..

---

Go Bears!

And we thank you for your support.

Go Roman Davis.

Civil Bear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

...and JH-D all looked like they shot the ball well for Frosh,

---

---

Heh, no kidding.

---

What Ute say?

Big C said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Does this make it 50?!

---

Yes, but it turns out the 48th poster wins the 1.6 billion dollars. Who was that?

---

some SC troll.

SFCityBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

KenBurnski said:

---

If we are going to recruit people that can't compete on the floor it would be nice if they could at least remain academically eligible. What a putrid program.

---

The stench seems to be waining, of late.

---

We are going to be the smallest Big 5 conference team. Wyking has found himself in a deep ditch to get out of.

---

A small team with poor outside shooting? Yikes!

---

I don't know about that. McNeil, Sueing, and JH-D all looked like they shot the ball well for Frosh, Vanover, who admittedly will have limited minutes shoots well for a big, and GA and Kelly are supposed to be decent shooters. Bradley, Gordon and Austin can ball, but I'm less sure about their outside shooting form their tape. But I don't see this as a poor shooting team. They have a lot to prove on defense however.

---

I agree with the general statement that Cal should be a better shooting team this season, because we are replacing some players who did not shoot very well with new players. The only incoming player who has a D1 track record is Paris Austin. He will be replacing Don Coleman in the starting lineup, and while Coleman was a poor shot, the evidence does not indicate Austin will a great deal better shot. Still we are losing other poor shots like Okoroh, Hamilton, etc.

I would also caution on using anything you see on a recruit's mixtape as evidence of good shooting, except to show what his form looks like. These tapes are made by cherry-picking a recruit's best moments in high school. I can remember the tape I saw of Omondi Amoke when he was being recruited. It showed a player who looked versatile, who could play inside or outside, lead a fast break on the dribble, and make three pointers. He arrived at Cal, and when we got to see him to play, he turned out to be able to play only inside, and the only shots he made with accuracy were put-backs, tip-ins, and dunks. He couldn't make a 10-footer, or a free throw, let alone a three. It must have taken dozens of takes with a camera to capture him making a three for the recruiting video. Actual game footage tape is more realistic than cherry-picked mixtapes.

The only disagreement I have with the post is regarding the shooting of JHD. He does not shoot well at all. I'm sure he has worked on his shot. He is young and has 3 years to improve, but based on last season, I'd say he still has to prove he can do more than just hit the rim.

The other factor is the kind of shots Cal will take. Will we take better shots than last season? When you have a coach like a Mike Montgomery, who is designing ways to get each player open for shots in spots on the floor that he likes to shoot from, rather than rely on players creating many of their own shots, like Cal did last season, then your shooting percentage can be higher. So the coaching under Jones still has much to prove in this regard. The good thing is we are told we will have a real point guard in Austin, so that should create better looks for our shooters and may help raise the shooting percentage over what it was when we did not have a true traditional point guard.

---

I agree with a lot of what you said. But JHD had the highest shooting percentage of any retuning player (second only to put-back artist Lee last year), and by quite a lot. Maybe I just saw his good games, but he has a decent mid-range shot. Your last paragraph says a lot. Shot selection last year was sub-optimal.

All lay ups. No threes. Few if any twos.

wifeisafurd said:

---

I agree with a lot of what you said. But JHD had the highest shooting percentage of any retuning player (second only to put-back artist Lee last year), and by quite a lot. Maybe I just saw his good games, but he has a decent mid-range shot. Your last paragraph says a lot. Shot selection last year was sub-optimal.

---

What did you think of his 3pt and free-throw percentages?

wifeisafurd said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

KenBurnski said:

---

If we are going to recruit people that can't compete on the floor it would be nice if they could at least remain academically eligible. What a putrid program.

---

The stench seems to be waining, of late.

---

We are going to be the smallest Big 5 conference team. Wyking has found himself in a deep ditch to get out of.

---

A small team with poor outside shooting? Yikes!

---

I don't know about that. McNeil, Sueing, and JH-D all looked like they shot the ball well for Frosh, Vanover, who admittedly will have limited minutes shoots well for a big, and GA and Kelly are supposed to be decent shooters. Bradley, Gordon and Austin can ball, but I'm less sure about their outside shooting form their tape. But I don't see this as a poor shooting team. They have a lot to prove on defense however.

---

I agree with the general statement that Cal should be a better shooting team this season, because we are replacing some players who did not shoot very well with new players. The only incoming player who has a D1 track record is Paris Austin. He will be replacing Don Coleman in the starting lineup, and while Coleman was a poor shot, the evidence does not indicate Austin will a great deal better shot. Still we are losing other poor shots like Okoroh, Hamilton, etc.

I would also caution on using anything you see on a recruit's mixtape as evidence of good shooting, except to show what his form looks like. These tapes are made by cherry-picking a recruit's best moments in high school. I can remember the tape I saw of Omondi Amoke when he was being recruited. It showed a player who looked versatile, who could play inside or outside, lead a fast break on the dribble, and make three pointers. He arrived at Cal, and when we got to see him to play, he turned out to be able to play only inside, and the only shots he made with accuracy were put-backs, tip-ins, and dunks. He couldn't make a 10-footer, or a free throw, let alone a three. It must have taken dozens of takes with a camera to capture him making a three for the recruiting video. Actual game footage tape is more realistic than cherry-picked mixtapes.

The only disagreement I have with the post is regarding the shooting of JHD. He does not shoot well at all. I'm sure he has worked on his shot. He is young and has 3 years to improve, but based on last season, I'd say he still has to prove he can do more than just hit the rim.

The other factor is the kind of shots Cal will take. Will we take better shots than last season? When you have a coach like a Mike Montgomery, who is designing ways to get each player open for shots in spots on the floor that he likes to shoot from, rather than rely on players creating many of their own shots, like Cal did last season, then your shooting percentage can be higher. So the coaching under Jones still has much to prove in this regard. The good thing is we are told we will have a real point guard in Austin, so that should create better looks for our shooters and may help raise the shooting percentage over what it was when we did not have a true traditional point guard.

---

I agree with a lot of what you said. But JHD had the highest shooting percentage of any retuning player (second only to put-back artist Lee last year), and by quite a lot. Maybe I just saw his good games, but he has a decent mid-range shot. Your last paragraph says a lot. Shot selection last year was sub-optimal.

---

I read your post with disbelief, so I checked, and you are right. That only supports the conclusion made by many that Cal was a poor-shooting team last season. I didn't watch a lot last year after Maui. I watched some of every game, but often tuned out in the 2nd half. So I guess I missed most of his mid-range baskets, because I can only remember maybe 2 or 3.

A free throw, at 13'-9", is a typical mid-range shot, except that there is not defender, and I think it can tell you something about what a player's mid-range accuracy might be like. JHD shot free throws worse than anyone who played significant minutes. Only Roman Davis shot free throws at a worse percentage.

The three-point line is 20'-9", and JHD went 0-13 from that range.

I stick by what I wrote. He didn't pass the eye test for me, shooting the ball. I like him defensively, and I like his rebounding. His passing was OK, handle not top rate. He did have some layups and other short shots blocked more than I would like. I'd like to take those baby steps. He needs to develop some more ways to shoot off the drive, the floater, the teardrop, the pull-up jumper, all that from 5-10 feet out. A guy who drives a lot is going to get fouled a lot, and he needs to make his free throws. His FT% is awful for a shooting guard, down there in Ty Wallace country.

If he can show he can get better at FTs, then he can try working on getting better at mid-range shots. Maybe by year 3 or 4 or later, he will even be reliable from 3 point range. Last year his repertoire of shots was very limited. I'm very interested to see what he has been working on since April.

SFCity:

This discussion goes back to one we had last year--what qualifies as a shot when talking about shooting percentage? FWIW, I don't consider lay-ups or dunks "shots" when discussing shooters. DeAndre Jordan has the highest percentage in NBA history at 67%, but I don't think he's much of a "shooter." Similarly, Shaq had a career percentage of 58%, or about 10 percentage points higher than Steph Curry; anyone want to suggest that Shaq is a better shooter than Curry?

I'm with you regarding JHD. A good finisher at the rim, but not yet a shooter (or, more accurately, wasn't a shooter last year).

As the Roman Davis thread rolls along towards "mini-monster" status, here's a hypothetical:

Would you rather have Juhwan Harris-Dyson go 0-13 on threes again this year, or 10-50? (You don't get to choose the 10 he makes and those are the only two possibilities.)

Big C said:

---

As the Roman Davis thread rolls along towards "mini-monster" status, here's a hypothetical:

Would you rather have Juhwan Harris-Dyson go 0-13 on threes again this year, or 10-50? (You don't get to choose the 10 he makes and those are the only two possibilities.)

---

That would depend on the rest of his game. If his mid-range and driving are both significantly improved, then for sure I'd prefer the 0-13 (meaning fewer than 1/2 threes taken/game). If the rest of his offensive game isn't better, it probably doesn't matter.

Last year Cal was 349th out of 351 college teams in both 3pt % and 3pt FGs made.

I don't care what Larry Bird says. The 3 pt shot is critical in the college game. Especially for a program like Cal where we may not get the best athletes but shooting can be a tremendous equalizer. We need to 1) get looks for our best 3 pt shooter(s) and 2) make 3 pt shooting a priority in recruiting.

Big C said:

---

As the Roman Davis thread rolls along towards "mini-monster" status, here's a hypothetical:

Would you rather have Juhwan Harris-Dyson go 0-13 on threes again this year, or 10-50? (You don't get to choose the 10 he makes and those are the only two possibilities.)

---

If I am WJ, first I'd like to see if he can make any threes in scrimmages at practice. If he is able to make one out of every 3 in scrimmages, then I'd let him take one three in the first half of a game. If he makes it, I'd let him take one in the 2nd half. If it turns out he makes more in a game than he does in practice, then I would give him the green light until he fails. If he doesn't make many or any of these, then I would have him keep working on threes by himself until he can make more in practice, and then give him another chance to make one or two in a game. It would be nice if he could make threes, but not imperative. He can be valuable just playing D and rebounding. We have others who can make threes, don't we?

If Roman wants a shot at playing prime time minutes for a DI team against P5 and mid majors this is it

This team needs his athleticism, defense and rebounding (assuming he can provide those things at a reasonable level)

Scoring would be a plus

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I agree with a lot of what you said. But JHD had the highest shooting percentage of any retuning player (second only to put-back artist Lee last year), and by quite a lot. Maybe I just saw his good games, but he has a decent mid-range shot. Your last paragraph says a lot. Shot selection last year was sub-optimal.

---

What did you think of his 3pt and free-throw percentages?

---

I wondered why he even jacked-up the 3 shots. Maybe end of half?

I saw him in the Furd game and he knocked down a few ten footers. Admittedly I didn't watch much last year in an effort to not turn my stomach.

JHD was by far my favorite player to watch last year, but not for his shooting ability. Played balls to the walls every minute he was on the floor and showed great instincts. The closest thing we have had to Jorge since Jorge. Tended to make some mistakes and turnovers from rushing things, so once the game slows down for him a bit he will make big strides. If he ever finds an outside shot he will be a star.