Didn't look tonight like the coach Mike Williams hired has lost his team. Rather, it looked like the players recruited by the coach Mike Williams hired were busting their collective ass for the coach.

Will this game lead to some hoops epiphany? Probably not. We could be tearing our collective hair out again after the next game, but this was a good win.

This is overly psychological, but it seems to me that in this AAU-inspired age, players tend to assume, when they win, that they won because they individually bested the players on the other side. But in two of the three wins this year (tonight and Hampton) we won because we moved the ball, and our team collectively outplayed the other team. The challenge is to convince these kids to keep focused on that moving forward. Perhaps playing Anticevich helps that, since maybe they don't have the same me focus in Australian basketball. I don't know.

I would say that we've probably seen the last of Roman Davis in other than a garbage-time role. He just doesn't have the ability, from what I've seen, and it makes more sense to play the younger guys who are going to be the heart of the team going forward.

My one beef with Wyking is staying with the zone, because I think playing man-to-man is probably better from the standpoint of teaching defensive fundamentals, which this team appears to need. If you're going to give up 80-plus per game anyway, I'd rather do it in a defense that teaches some skills.

I still think it's possible that Jones gets axed, if they only win two conference games again. Of course, if they play the way they did tonight, they'll win more than two. This game showed the other end of the spectrum as far as what could be achieved with this group.

Impressive win versus an SDS team that was clearly more athletic, taller with more length and more experienced. Our staff which has been maligned extensively, deserves credit for having the team prepared and the players played with tremendous effort and made consistent good reads, taking what the defense gave them.
The ball was shared well, Grant gave the team an needed lift and Austin played a very heady game. Sueling was excellent at both ends of the court.
This team will struggle in league as we still have just 7 players who are Pac12 ready and 2 players who need more conditioning/strength. Hopefully people on this board will remain objective and understand that this team faces difficult challenges due to limited depth and the result will be situations where the team's leaders (Austin, Sueling and Kelly generally and McNeil on occasion) will inevitably wear down at times. Having to constantly chase down players defensively with limited backups will take its toll. However tonight was an impressive effort.
Hopefully fans will come out to support this team and program. Go Bears.

yes we do have some young talent. a win at fresno ot even a near win will rekindle my enthusiasm

dear 4th generation-----good post----where have you been??????

As Monty said, Anticevich looked like he was a starter and knew what he was doing. He was communicating and directing others. Was screening (something we rarely do), being a presence in the middle of the zone on offense, getting put backs and knocking down mid range shots. Glad he stepped up. He also played solid D, kept his feet and grabbed some boards. We looked like a different team with him in there.

I thing Wyking feels the zone is necessary when Vanover is in the game. He simply has too much trouble handling bigs down low, and that's why we opened in a zone. When Kelly and McNeil got in early foul trouble he figured he might as well stay with it for the first half.

If I recall correctly, we used man defense the entire 2nd half.

KoreAmBear said:

---

As Monty said, Anticevich looked like he was a starter and knew what he was doing. He was communicating and directing others. Was screening (something we rarely do), being a presence in the middle of the zone on offense, getting put backs and knocking down mid range shots. Glad he stepped up. He also played solid D, kept his feet and grabbed some boards. We looked like a different team with him in there.

---

Having guys who actually understand the game on the floor is an underrated plus.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

I thing Wyking feels the zone is necessary when Vanover is in the game. He simply has too much trouble handling bigs down low, and that's why we opened in a zone. When Kelly and McNeil got in early foul trouble he figured he might as well stay with it for the first half.

If I recall correctly, we used man defense the entire 2nd half.

---

Seems to me that with some decent instruction Vanover should be able to use his length and his decent mobility to compensate for lack of strength on post-ups, whereas our zone play sucks and always has.

bluesaxe said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

I thing Wyking feels the zone is necessary when Vanover is in the game. He simply has too much trouble handling bigs down low, and that's why we opened in a zone. When Kelly and McNeil got in early foul trouble he figured he might as well stay with it for the first half.

If I recall correctly, we used man defense the entire 2nd half.

---

Seems to me that with some decent instruction Vanover should be able to use his length and his decent mobility to compensate for lack of strength on post-ups, whereas our zone play sucks and always has.

---

True, but as I posted elsewhere, in a conversation with Jay John, he pointed out that at this stage of his development, Vanover cannot guard the post one-on-one, and wold foul out in 10 minutes in man defense. The zone is necessary to protect him. One option, of course, is to limit his minutes, but he does offer something that no one else does given his height and shot. Plus, we do want him to develop. I suspect that by the end of the season his man defense will improve, although it's going to take an off season before he develops the needed strength.

Both Anticevich and Vanover give us a dimension we've not had in awhile, a big man who can pass out of the high post and also can make the jumper from the circle if his man drops off under the basket. That approach can compensate a bit for not having back-to-the-basket ability a bit. It'll be interesting to see if we can build on last night's effort.

Jeff82 said:

---

Both Anticevich and Vanover give us a dimension we've not had in awhile, a big man who can pass out of the high post and also can make the jumper from the circle if his man drops off under the basket. That approach can compensate a bit for not having back-to-the-basket ability a bit. It'll be interesting to see if we can build on last night's effort.

---

True. Right now, Connor's main weakness is on defense.

Don't put too much stock into beating SDSU, they got their a**es handed to them by USD the other night (who might be trending up slightly after nearly a decade of silence). It's amazing how one crappy opponent can make you look better...it doesn't mean Cal didn't play well, but in the overall weighting of this Cal team, the trend is still not good. Maybe they had a CTJ moment after the USF game and this is the start of the upswing? I'd say we'll know more by the end of 2018.

sandiegobears said:

---

Don't put too much stock into beating SDSU, they got their a**es handed to them by USD the other night (who might be trending up slightly after nearly a decade of silence). It's amazing how one crappy opponent can make you look better...it doesn't mean Cal didn't play well, but in the overall weighting of this Cal team, the trend is still not good. Maybe they had a CTJ moment after the USF game and this is the start of the upswing? I'd say we'll know more by the end of 2018.

---

Yes, one good game does not mean we arrived, just like one (or two) bad games doesn't mean we are trash

Results are highly dependent on opponent and matchups

But there were lots of positives last night including incredible shooting, poise, and the fans showing up

At least they looked like a coherent basketball team last night. They've basically accomplished that IMHO, in two of the seven games played thus far. That percentage has to go up significantly for Jones to keep his job. If they play with this effort in every game, they'll win more than 2 in conference, I"m sure.

Wasn't able to make game but crowd seemed loud on tv and i even saw students in the student section! Was it the best showing of the season so far?

I enjoyed reading all the comments in this thread. I was unable to see the game as I had two funerals to go to Saturday which finished late and with all that was going on, I forgot there was a game, and didn't record it.

I read the box score and I'd agree with everyone who urged caution about getting overly optimistic based on one game. In the box, I noticed that SDSU outshot Cal from the floor, percentage wise, and the difference in the game was Cal made one more three than SDSU and Cal had more free throw attempts and made five more free throws. With both teams shooting so well, and both teams getting a good number of assists, it must have been an entertaining game to watch. Cal actually outrebounded a taller team 27-26, and they did it without Kelly for the most part. The low rebounding total reflects the relatively high scoring game and high percentage shooting. The downside is Cal is still continuing to give up 80+ points, even though SDSU had to shoot the lights out to do it, and Cal themselves scored almost 90 points to win this thing. Cal, according to the box score, played their best game of the season offensively, and the odds of them playing that well night after night, or against tougher defenses is not high. They need to keep teams to 70 points or lower to have a realistic chance of winning many games, because I don't see them able to score 90 whenever they need to. But then I never saw the game, so I sure could be wrong. Something lit a fire under these kids to begin to play good offensive ball, apparently getting a lot of good looks. Maybe it was WJ or the staff or the kids themselves, but I hope it continues.

The Bears also had a season high 18 assists, played pretty good defense . . . and fewer TO's than usual.

joe amos yaks said:

---

The Bears also had a season high 18 assists, played pretty good defense . . . and fewer TO's than usual.

---

When the other team shot over 50% from the field in general and from the 3 point line, your defense wasn't pretty good.

I think the San Diego media got it right. Basically, SDSU let a struggling team steal a win because SDSU was sloppy and couldnt close out either half.

But Hey, a win is a win and Saturday night was fun.

I'm sorry you didn't see the game, SFCity (also sorry to hear about the funerals) would have loved to chat about it. By far the most impressive part was Austin's 9 assists v. 0 turnovers. You win a lot of games that way. The defense was sporadically good, but mostly poor. The big problem was that in zone (which the ran with Vanover in the game), SDSU would overload then penetrate and someone would fail to rotate to the weakside wing who was alone at the 3-point line. Or as Jay John put it: freshman often can't count. It is clear that the defense is a work in progress. but they really moved the ball well; I hope the result will inspire them to play with that unselfishness going forward. Although the defense is clearly weak, they did get stops when they needed to at the end of the game, so that's something.

UrsaMajor said:

---

I'm sorry you didn't see the game, SFCity (also sorry to hear about the funerals) would have loved to chat about it. By far the most impressive part was Austin's 9 assists v. 0 turnovers. You win a lot of games that way. The defense was sporadically good, but mostly poor. The big problem was that in zone (which the ran with Vanover in the game), SDSU would overload then penetrate and someone would fail to rotate to the weakside wing who was alone at the 3-point line. Or as Jay John put it: freshman often can't count. It is clear that the defense is a work in progress. but they really moved the ball well; I hope the result will inspire them to play with that unselfishness going forward. Although the defense is clearly weak, they did get stops when they needed to at the end of the game, so that's something.

---

Monty kept harping on "over-helping" by both Cal and SDSU's defenses. Left wide open 3 looks on both sides.

Why has Jones taken so long to see the benefits of changes in the lineup? How can Cal play so much better (at least trying to do the right stuff) against SD, than they were against USF (playing with no clue)?

Yogi Bear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

The Bears also had a season high 18 assists, played pretty good defense . . . and fewer TO's than usual.

---

When the other team shot over 50% from the field in general and from the 3 point line, your defense wasn't pretty good.

---

I agree, but it was good to see the Bears' intensity and energy and make some good plays and critical shots against a reasonably good (and young) SDStu team.

bearchamp said:

---

Why has Jones taken so long to see the benefits of changes in the lineup? How can Cal play so much better (at least trying to do the right stuff) against SD, than they were against USF (playing with no clue)?

---

Part of it may be that USF is a better team and better coached than SDSU is at present. It is easier to run offense against defenses that aren't so good. SDSU's coach was very unhappy with SDSU's defense in the Cal game.

SFCityBear said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Why has Jones taken so long to see the benefits of changes in the lineup? How can Cal play so much better (at least trying to do the right stuff) against SD, than they were against USF (playing with no clue)?

---

Part of it may be that USF is a better team and better coached than SDSU is at present. It is easier to run offense against defenses that aren't so good. SDSU's coach was very unhappy with SDSU's defense in the Cal game.

---

You're right, of course, SFCity. However, what was most encouraging to me was the fact that when we went down 8 and then again 7 late, they never reverted back to "hero" ball, but stuck with the offense and found the open man. The key basket by Bradley came off a perfect drive and dish by Austin after some motion. He saw that if he got in the lane, there was one man who needed to commit to him leaving Bradley open, and he made the correct pass. Let's hope they can stick with it when the face better defenses and not let frustration get the better of them.

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Why has Jones taken so long to see the benefits of changes in the lineup? How can Cal play so much better (at least trying to do the right stuff) against SD, than they were against USF (playing with no clue)?

---

Part of it may be that USF is a better team and better coached than SDSU is at present. It is easier to run offense against defenses that aren't so good. SDSU's coach was very unhappy with SDSU's defense in the Cal game.

---

You're right, of course, SFCity. However, what was most encouraging to me was the fact that when we went down 8 and then again 7 late, they never reverted back to "hero" ball, but stuck with the offense and found the open man. The key basket by Bradley came off a perfect drive and dish by Austin after some motion. He saw that if he got in the lane, there was one man who needed to commit to him leaving Bradley open, and he made the correct pass. Let's hope they can stick with it when the face better defenses and not let frustration get the better of them.

---

Plus we've looked much worse than that against bad teams too. I mean the Santa Clara game wasn't a piece of art. So the SDSU game was encouraging. Best half court offense I've seen under Wyking. I hope we build off it and that it's not an outlier win like it was last year.

You bring up an important point about the team not reverting back to hero ball when the score started creeping in their favor. I was prepared for the worst.

KenBurnski said:

---

You bring up an important point about the team not reverting back to hero ball when the score started creeping in their favor. I was prepared for the worst.

---

It was interesting when we were down like 7 or 8 right before we made that run prior to halftime, Monty was saying we were playing well on offense. It did not feel like the typical here comes the run to effectively end the game situation. Something was a little different about that game. There was some energy and urgency. Maybe they fed off a surprisingly well-attended and rejuvenated crowd (compared to the USF crowd and energy). And yes, like Big C said, this should be the new norm.

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Why has Jones taken so long to see the benefits of changes in the lineup? How can Cal play so much better (at least trying to do the right stuff) against SD, than they were against USF (playing with no clue)?

---

Part of it may be that USF is a better team and better coached than SDSU is at present. It is easier to run offense against defenses that aren't so good. SDSU's coach was very unhappy with SDSU's defense in the Cal game.

---

You're right, of course, SFCity. However, what was most encouraging to me was the fact that when we went down 8 and then again 7 late, they never reverted back to "hero" ball, but stuck with the offense and found the open man. The key basket by Bradley came off a perfect drive and dish by Austin after some motion. He saw that if he got in the lane, there was one man who needed to commit to him leaving Bradley open, and he made the correct pass. Let's hope they can stick with it when the face better defenses and not let frustration get the better of them.

---

I read it, but I wish I'd seen it.