good breakdown SF. When I can, I like to watch the replay because I'm a lot more objective and just see the game better. The team is clearly learning how to play the game on both ends of the floor. To me, they look like a lot of talented players who lack experience, so they don't see the court, or are one dimensional. The game hasn't slowed down for them yet.

About McNeil. I think defenses don't leave him, and our offense doesn't get him a lot of shots as we only run plays in out of bounds situations. I'd like to see a more concerted effort to run him through some actions for him to get a clean look. I also don't think he's a very good PG, both in the half court, and on breaks. He too often tries to take it all the way to the hoop against numbers, rather than pass out to an open wing shooter. And as you point out, he doesn't get a lot of assists playing from his SG position. I thought we'd have 'two PGs on the floor' but that hasn't happened. I do like his shooting however, and when he hits a couple his confidence soars.

Regarding Dyson, I totally agree. He is our best perimeter defender in ability, but fouls way too much because he constantly reaches. He does poke the ball free at least once a game, but the cost to the team is the constant fouling. He needs to defend with his feet instead of trying for the steal all the time.

I do really like Kelly. He does have more post moves because he has good feet, but because he is undersized he needs to hone his skills, including his hook as you point out.

Keep on posting about the games please!

mcneill is in a big slump. one of the problems.

Good stuff. Washington coach brought over from Syracuse 2-3 zone and tricked it out even more with agressive traps and defensive jumps. It's In between our basic zone and man to man...maybe we should give it a try. However, Washington was so long and athletic. Our shooting was pathetic and shot selection even worse. Off days happen and will pass...but you have other guys that can shoot...give them a run and pull them out if not productive.
Go Bears.

Good analysis SFCB. I agree with 90% of your issues. The one I take exception to is the criticism of McNeill. You spent much of your post criticizing the other players for poor shooting and shot selection and then claim Darius didn't shoot enough. After watching a year and a half, I feel one of Darius' strengths IS his choice of shot selection. In this particular game it appeared Washington's strategy was to pay extra attention to him, a good move because when open he is our best 3 point shooter.

And to calgo430's comment, I feel that generally when Darius goes into a "slump" its because opponents recognize that he is the one player we have that can cause a problem, so they adjust for it.

Yup...Darius is unselfish. We need to run more sets to give him enough separation to shoot as defenses are keying on him as primary shooter. He'll start filling it up again

By that measure, Wyking Jones never loses a game. In one sense, that is correct, he isn't out there on the floor for any game. If a couple of players have horrible shot selection yet put up a bunch of shots that don't fall, that is the players. If a player plays like he is asleep, well, that is on the player. If a player is a fouling machine, that is on the player. If the point guard doesn't trust the other players to do anything good if he passes the ball to them. . . oh man.

A good coach, however, won't have multiple players showing poor shot selection throughout a game. A good coach won't have players who play like they are asleep, at least not in multiple games. A good coach is going to teach players who are primarily on the floor for their defensive skills to defend without fouling or else get them off the floor. A good coach is going to get the team to play together and trust each other.

And to be fair, plenty of the UW misses were wide open 3's. UW was losing by double digits during the first half because their shots weren't falling, but a good number were open shots. Once those started falling, Cal was screwed. Cal's shots weren't falling either, but their shot selection was a lot worse than UW's. Take good shots, eventually the law of averages will work out and you will hit them. Take poor shots, the law of averages says you'll keep missing a high percentage.

The Bears lost the game, and Jones is the head coach of the Bears. For better or for worse, a college coach is also the player personnel director of the team, so the bottom line is that, in the end, the buck stops with the head coach. A lot of what you discuss isn't just some players having a bad night, shooting or otherwise. In that sense, Jones lost the game. Sure, Sueing lost the game, Austin lost the game, Bradley lost the game, etc. But as the guy in charge, Jones lost the game, too. The Bears shoot better at home, but unless they bring better shot selection back home, play like they are not asleep, trust each other, play defense without fouling, the Bears will get swept in a two game home set where they have a good shot of taking at least one, and person in charge of making that happen is the head coach.

Harris-Dyson seems to have regressed from where he was late last season. Some of his confidence may have been sapped by his hand/finger problem from November-December, I don't know. Maybe he still isn't 100%. He looks tentative out there. I could swear I saw him take/make a pull-up 15 footer earlier in the year. If he tries that more, the rest of his offensive game (such as it is) will open up a bit.

Lots of video of JHD (and others) from the off-season, working on individual strength/speed drills. That's all well and good, but these guys need to be doing something to increase their basketball savvy. Maybe watch their game against USF over and over... until some things dawn on them.

Cal8285 said:

---

The Bears lost the game, and Jones is the head coach of the Bears. For better or for worse, a college coach is also the player personnel director of the team, so the bottom line is that, in the end, the buck stops with the head coach. A lot of what you discuss isn't just some players having a bad night, shooting or otherwise. In that sense, Jones lost the game. Sure, Sueing lost the game, Austin lost the game, Bradley lost the game, etc. But as the guy in charge, Jones lost the game, too. The Bears shoot better at home, but unless they bring better shot selection back home, play like they are not asleep, trust each other, play defense without fouling, the Bears will get swept in a two game home set where they have a good shot of taking at least one, and person in charge of making that happen is the head coach.

---

Again, as a guy who wasn't anxious to pull the plug on WJ, I have to admit that Cal8285 is right on the money. When we evaluate the Cal players, its obvious that none of them are superstars. But at some point the coaching staff needs to have the ability to maximize and emphasize each player's specfic strenghts, and work on taking each player's weaknesses and finding a way to at least minimize them if it's not possible to eliminate them.

In the case of our players, especially the second year guys, this certainly doesn't look the coaches have done a good job. After all, even with all the flaws that Ben Braun had as a coach, any Cal fan can tell you that a guy like Brian Wethers made siginificant progress if you compare his senior year to his freshman year. I just don't see that happening with our current players.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

After all, even with all the flaws that Ben Braun had as a coach, any Cal fan can tell you that a guy like Brian Wethers made siginificant progress if you compare his senior year to his freshman year. I just don't see that happening with our current players.

---

That's a tough comparison when none of the current Cal players are Seniors yet.

Civil Bear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

After all, even with all the flaws that Ben Braun had as a coach, any Cal fan can tell you that a guy like Brian Wethers made siginificant progress if you compare his senior year to his freshman year. I just don't see that happening with our current players.

---

That's a tough comparison when none of the current Cal players are Seniors yet.

---

Different eras. In 2019, If a player isn't contributing from the get go, then he's not likely to become a solid contributor. All the top talent sticks around for one, maybe two years, then it's off to the professional leagues.

Cal8285 said:

---

By that measure, Wyking Jones never loses a game. In one sense, that is correct, he isn't out there on the floor for any game. If a couple of players have horrible shot selection yet put up a bunch of shots that don't fall, that is the players. If a player plays like he is asleep, well, that is on the player. If a player is a fouling machine, that is on the player. If the point guard doesn't trust the other players to do anything good if he passes the ball to them. . . oh man.

A good coach, however, won't have multiple players showing poor shot selection throughout a game. A good coach won't have players who play like they are asleep, at least not in multiple games. A good coach is going to teach players who are primarily on the floor for their defensive skills to defend without fouling or else get them off the floor. A good coach is going to get the team to play together and trust each other.

And to be fair, plenty of the UW misses were wide open 3's. UW was losing by double digits during the first half because their shots weren't falling, but a good number were open shots. Once those started falling, Cal was screwed. Cal's shots weren't falling either, but their shot selection was a lot worse than UW's. Take good shots, eventually the law of averages will work out and you will hit them. Take poor shots, the law of averages says you'll keep missing a high percentage.

The Bears lost the game, and Jones is the head coach of the Bears. For better or for worse, a college coach is also the player personnel director of the team, so the bottom line is that, in the end, the buck stops with the head coach. A lot of what you discuss isn't just some players having a bad night, shooting or otherwise. In that sense, Jones lost the game. Sure, Sueing lost the game, Austin lost the game, Bradley lost the game, etc. But as the guy in charge, Jones lost the game, too. The Bears shoot better at home, but unless they bring better shot selection back home, play like they are not asleep, trust each other, play defense without fouling, the Bears will get swept in a two game home set where they have a good shot of taking at least one, and person in charge of making that happen is the head coach.

---

Well, I didn't mean to absolve Wyking Jones of the responsibility for all things Cal basketball. He is th eone in charge as you say, but coaches in general get little praise for a team's success and all the blame when things go bad, as happens on a daily basis here on the Bear Insider Forum. Players in general, on the other hand usually get the credit when the team plays well, and are seldom blamed when the team plays bad, unless it is one play that costs a team a game. All IMO.

The point was that Cal's defense was plenty good enough that night to defeat Washington. They lost, because even though we have very good shooters, they could not make enough shots to win. A little of that perhaps is on the coach, because he does not seem to be a coach with a lot of plays in his playbook. I can't believe he is giving the players a lot of set plays and they are not listening or capable of performing them. Against the UW zone in the first half, Jones' strategy was to push the ball, get it down the floor quick enough to get a good shot before UW had a chance to set up their defense. Nothing wrong with the strategy except Cal's bench is not deep enough or talented enough to sustain that fast pace for 40 minutes. In the second half, Cal was tired , and UW's coach impressed on his defenders that they had to get back quicker, you can bet on that. Their perimeter players are all tall players with wide wingspans, and very difficult for Cal shooters to get good looks.

To continue, Cal had no offense in the half-court, except for Kelly. He did very well. The problem against the Washington zone, which is a good zone, was Cal stopped getting penetration from Austin. He is the only player who can repeatedly get penetration. Couple that with players just standing around the perimeter and not moving, and it spells disaster. Unless you know that Wyking told his players to not penetrate and not move around, then isn't it hard to blame the coach?

Again, I'm only writing about one game, because I have seen very few games. This one I saw,,and you can blame Wyking if you want, but with literally nothing to work with but freshmen and sophomores, playing against upper division players, it is hard for me to see it that way. Wyking knew that his best chance was to push the ball, and he knew that his best chance in the half-court was to get the ball to Kelly. All of that worked, but it was not enough. They ran out of gas with 12 minutes to play. Cal does not have a deep roster, and Jones is not to blame for that. He has signed a number of pretty good players. They are really young and there are not enough of them.

Civil Bear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

After all, even with all the flaws that Ben Braun had as a coach, any Cal fan can tell you that a guy like Brian Wethers made siginificant progress if you compare his senior year to his freshman year. I just don't see that happening with our current players.

---

That's a tough comparison when none of the current Cal players are Seniors yet.

---

That is absolutely true. Cal starts two sophomores, two freshmen, and a junior transfer who has only played 18 games for Cal. Soph McNeil is learning an entirely new position form last season. Sophs JHD and Anticevich seldom played last season, and JHD was ill to start last season and injured to start this one. We don't even know if he is at full strength now. Freshman Gordon is recovering from a serious injury, and Vanover is coming back from a concussion. Davis is a junior with very little experience. The point is these players are not only not seniors yet, but except for Davis not juniors who have played 3 seasons at Cal. They are mostly all players playing either their first or second season for Cal. We can certainly judge improvement, not 4 years worth. Only two players have more than a full season under their belt, Sueing and McNeill, and McNeill is playing a new position, as I said. We just can't judge a coach on individual player improvement this soon.

Bear19 said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

After all, even with all the flaws that Ben Braun had as a coach, any Cal fan can tell you that a guy like Brian Wethers made siginificant progress if you compare his senior year to his freshman year. I just don't see that happening with our current players.

---

That's a tough comparison when none of the current Cal players are Seniors yet.

---

Different eras. In 2019, If a player isn't contributing from the get go, then he's not likely to become a solid contributor. All the top talent sticks around for one, maybe two years, then it's off to the professional leagues.

---

I totally disagree, unless you are talking about Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, etc. Quite frankly there aren't that many players around who contribute as freshmen, and even fewer who leave early for the NBA, nationwide. How many Cal players have left early for the professional leagues in the last 10 years? Crabbe, Brown, Rabb. Who else? We typically don't have those players, nor do we really need them. And lots of Cal players did not contribute much as freshmen, but were really solid players as seniors. Solomon, Okoroh, Randle, Theo, Bird, Benson, and so forth.

Bear19 said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

After all, even with all the flaws that Ben Braun had as a coach, any Cal fan can tell you that a guy like Brian Wethers made siginificant progress if you compare his senior year to his freshman year. I just don't see that happening with our current players.

---

That's a tough comparison when none of the current Cal players are Seniors yet.

---

Different eras. In 2019, If a player isn't contributing from the get go, then he's not likely to become a solid contributor. All the top talent sticks around for one, maybe two years, then it's off to the professional leagues.

---

I'm not sure I understand your point. Even if the premise is correct, an equivalent talent to a senior Wethers doesn't bolt early in 2019.

Quote:

---

Harris-Dyson drives me nuts. He looks like the team's best athlete, but he is a fouling machine. Had 4 fouls in 15 minutes. He is supposed to be the team's best defender, but he fouls more per minute than anyone on the team, nearly one foul every 5 minutes on average. He won't be able to give us 30 minutes. And it seems like he complains about all the calls against him. On one foul, Wyking took him out, and he walked back to the bench joking and laughing with a teammate. What kind of attitude is that?

---

You make some good points throughout your post, but the JHD part is spot on. Last year he was injured early but kind of came on at the end. I was hoping he would breakout this year. That clearly hasn't been the case, and based on what I'm seeing, I think it's 50-50 he xfers.

having been around a lot of basketball teams, coaches, players, etc, it is always about the Wins and the Loses. Nothing else seems to matter.

I often have the feeling "he, she, I ... didn't just get dumb yesterday"

Now this does not mean anything about what I think about the various Cal coaches, past and present. More about various comments on sports boards

HoopDreams said:

---

having been around a lot of basketball teams, coaches, players, etc, it is always about the Wins and the Loses. Nothing else seems to matter.

I often have the feeling "he, she, I ... didn't just get dumb yesterday"

Now this does not mean anything about what I think about the various Cal coaches, past and present. More about various comments on sports boards

---

Nobody said it was yesterday....

TheFiatLux said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

having been around a lot of basketball teams, coaches, players, etc, it is always about the Wins and the Loses. Nothing else seems to matter.

I often have the feeling "he, she, I ... didn't just get dumb yesterday"

Now this does not mean anything about what I think about the various Cal coaches, past and present. More about various comments on sports boards

---

Nobody said it was yesterday....

---

Again, my post isn't a commentary on any cal coaches

My comment is about how many perceive coaches in general

You could be a genius when your team wins, and next season an idiot when your team loses, hence my comment about 'didn't just turn dumb yesterday'

The differences in circumstances never seem to matter much ... the only thing that seems to matter are the win/loss record

But i get it

SFCityBear said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

After all, even with all the flaws that Ben Braun had as a coach, any Cal fan can tell you that a guy like Brian Wethers made siginificant progress if you compare his senior year to his freshman year. I just don't see that happening with our current players.

---

That's a tough comparison when none of the current Cal players are Seniors yet.

---

Different eras. In 2019, If a player isn't contributing from the get go, then he's not likely to become a solid contributor. All the top talent sticks around for one, maybe two years, then it's off to the professional leagues.

---

I totally disagree, unless you are talking about Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, etc. Quite frankly there aren't that many players around who contribute as freshmen, and even fewer who leave early for the NBA, nationwide. How many Cal players have left early for the professional leagues in the last 10 years? Crabbe, Brown, Rabb. Who else? We typically don't have those players, nor do we really need them. And lots of Cal players did not contribute much as freshmen, but were really solid players as seniors. Solomon, Okoroh, Randle, Theo, Bird, Benson, and so forth.

---

Look I'm talking about "progression" more than beginning to end. After a year and a half the first logical thing to do with any player is work on minimizing weaknesses. Its after that stage that a player usually can improve.

If JHD is indeed being coached properly, then based on his performance this year - he shouldn't even be playing. But as already stated, I don't think this is really the case.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

After all, even with all the flaws that Ben Braun had as a coach, any Cal fan can tell you that a guy like Brian Wethers made siginificant progress if you compare his senior year to his freshman year. I just don't see that happening with our current players.

---

That's a tough comparison when none of the current Cal players are Seniors yet.

---

Different eras. In 2019, If a player isn't contributing from the get go, then he's not likely to become a solid contributor. All the top talent sticks around for one, maybe two years, then it's off to the professional leagues.

---

I totally disagree, unless you are talking about Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, etc. Quite frankly there aren't that many players around who contribute as freshmen, and even fewer who leave early for the NBA, nationwide. How many Cal players have left early for the professional leagues in the last 10 years? Crabbe, Brown, Rabb. Who else? We typically don't have those players, nor do we really need them. And lots of Cal players did not contribute much as freshmen, but were really solid players as seniors. Solomon, Okoroh, Randle, Theo, Bird, Benson, and so forth.

---

Look I'm talking about "progression" more than beginning to end. After a year and a half the first logical thing to do with any player is work on minimizing weaknesses. Its after that stage that a player usually can improve.

If JHD is indeed being coached properly, then based on his performance this year - he shouldn't even be playing. But as already stated, I don't think this is really the case.

---

Note that Brian Wethers and classmate Joe Shipp made big improvements (perhaps their biggest) from their junior to their senior seasons.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

After all, even with all the flaws that Ben Braun had as a coach, any Cal fan can tell you that a guy like Brian Wethers made siginificant progress if you compare his senior year to his freshman year. I just don't see that happening with our current players.

---

That's a tough comparison when none of the current Cal players are Seniors yet.

---

Different eras. In 2019, If a player isn't contributing from the get go, then he's not likely to become a solid contributor. All the top talent sticks around for one, maybe two years, then it's off to the professional leagues.

---

I totally disagree, unless you are talking about Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, etc. Quite frankly there aren't that many players around who contribute as freshmen, and even fewer who leave early for the NBA, nationwide. How many Cal players have left early for the professional leagues in the last 10 years? Crabbe, Brown, Rabb. Who else? We typically don't have those players, nor do we really need them. And lots of Cal players did not contribute much as freshmen, but were really solid players as seniors. Solomon, Okoroh, Randle, Theo, Bird, Benson, and so forth.

---

Look I'm talking about "progression" more than beginning to end. After a year and a half the first logical thing to do with any player is work on minimizing weaknesses. Its after that stage that a player usually can improve.

If JHD is indeed being coached properly, then based on his performance this year - he shouldn't even be playing. But as already stated, I don't think this is really the case.

---

Thanks for the clarification, and you make a good point. As to JHD "shouldn't even be playing," in a better world where Cal has a complete complement of players, that's maybe a good idea. But without him, realistically, you have McNeill and Bradley backing up Austin and maybe Bradly backing up McNeill, except that now Bradley is a starter. Cal is thin in the backcourt. The fact that David Serge and Jacob Orender are starting to get minutes should tell you something. In terms of managing minutes for the guards, Jones is doing the best he can with what he has. What has happened with James Zhao? Is he still hurt? I was looking forward to seeing him play a few minutes.

I thought Serge only played for 2 minutes against Washington.

oskidunker said:

---

I thought Serge only played for 2 minutes against Washington.

---

Correct. Mop up duty only.

Again my statement "JHD shouldn't even be playing" was only based on the assumption that the coaching staff was working with him thouroughly and efficiently. If they are, I'm having a hard time believing it.

Having one player who is a defensive specialist is doable. But his defense seems to be as bad as everyone else.

Man you gotta at least hit the rim on shot attempts. Try set shots. Try anything. Bring in Rick. Barry for Gods Sake.

oskidunker said:

---

Having one player who is a defensive specialist is doable. But his defense seems to be as bad as everyone else.

Man you gotta at least hit the rim on shot attempts. Try set shots. Try anything. Bring in Rick. Barry for Gods Sake.

---

Has anyone followed Rick Barry's advice? The only one I know was one of his sons who shot them very well underhanded. Rick tried helping Wilt who was one of the worst FT shooter. Wilt tried a psychiatrist for a while. He said after several sessions, the psychiatrist had become a better shooter than he (Wilt) was.

SFCityBear said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

By that measure, Wyking Jones never loses a game. In one sense, that is correct, he isn't out there on the floor for any game. If a couple of players have horrible shot selection yet put up a bunch of shots that don't fall, that is the players. If a player plays like he is asleep, well, that is on the player. If a player is a fouling machine, that is on the player. If the point guard doesn't trust the other players to do anything good if he passes the ball to them. . . oh man.

A good coach, however, won't have multiple players showing poor shot selection throughout a game. A good coach won't have players who play like they are asleep, at least not in multiple games. A good coach is going to teach players who are primarily on the floor for their defensive skills to defend without fouling or else get them off the floor. A good coach is going to get the team to play together and trust each other.

And to be fair, plenty of the UW misses were wide open 3's. UW was losing by double digits during the first half because their shots weren't falling, but a good number were open shots. Once those started falling, Cal was screwed. Cal's shots weren't falling either, but their shot selection was a lot worse than UW's. Take good shots, eventually the law of averages will work out and you will hit them. Take poor shots, the law of averages says you'll keep missing a high percentage.

The Bears lost the game, and Jones is the head coach of the Bears. For better or for worse, a college coach is also the player personnel director of the team, so the bottom line is that, in the end, the buck stops with the head coach. A lot of what you discuss isn't just some players having a bad night, shooting or otherwise. In that sense, Jones lost the game. Sure, Sueing lost the game, Austin lost the game, Bradley lost the game, etc. But as the guy in charge, Jones lost the game, too. The Bears shoot better at home, but unless they bring better shot selection back home, play like they are not asleep, trust each other, play defense without fouling, the Bears will get swept in a two game home set where they have a good shot of taking at least one, and person in charge of making that happen is the head coach.

---

Well, I didn't mean to absolve Wyking Jones of the responsibility for all things Cal basketball. He is th eone in charge as you say, but coaches in general get little praise for a team's success and all the blame when things go bad, as happens on a daily basis here on the Bear Insider Forum. Players in general, on the other hand usually get the credit when the team plays well, and are seldom blamed when the team plays bad, unless it is one play that costs a team a game. All IMO.

The point was that Cal's defense was plenty good enough that night to defeat Washington. They lost, because even though we have very good shooters, they could not make enough shots to win. A little of that perhaps is on the coach, because he does not seem to be a coach with a lot of plays in his playbook. I can't believe he is giving the players a lot of set plays and they are not listening or capable of performing them. Against the UW zone in the first half, Jones' strategy was to push the ball, get it down the floor quick enough to get a good shot before UW had a chance to set up their defense. Nothing wrong with the strategy except Cal's bench is not deep enough or talented enough to sustain that fast pace for 40 minutes. In the second half, Cal was tired , and UW's coach impressed on his defenders that they had to get back quicker, you can bet on that. Their perimeter players are all tall players with wide wingspans, and very difficult for Cal shooters to get good looks.

To continue, Cal had no offense in the half-court, except for Kelly. He did very well. The problem against the Washington zone, which is a good zone, was Cal stopped getting penetration from Austin. He is the only player who can repeatedly get penetration. Couple that with players just standing around the perimeter and not moving, and it spells disaster. Unless you know that Wyking told his players to not penetrate and not move around, then isn't it hard to blame the coach?

Again, I'm only writing about one game, because I have seen very few games. This one I saw,,and you can blame Wyking if you want, but with literally nothing to work with but freshmen and sophomores, playing against upper division players, it is hard for me to see it that way. Wyking knew that his best chance was to push the ball, and he knew that his best chance in the half-court was to get the ball to Kelly. All of that worked, but it was not enough. They ran out of gas with 12 minutes to play. Cal does not have a deep roster, and Jones is not to blame for that. He has signed a number of pretty good players. They are really young and there are not enough of them.

---

As a general rule, I think coaches get too much credit when things go well, in addition to getting too much blame when things go wrong, especially in terms of "coaching" as opposed to "recruiting." Coaching is certainly a factor, more in terms of preparation before tip-off than between tip-off and final buzzer, but either way, a factor. Players get credit and blame, but not as much as they should compared to the coach. In college basketball, of course, the coach is responsible for who the players are, which does kind of make everything come down to the coach.

You say, "Unless you know that Wyking told his players to not penetrate and not move around, then isn't it hard to blame the coach?" That actually highlights how appropriate it is to blame the coach. Why are the players not moving around? Either the coach told them to move around and they don't bother to listen to the coach, the coach told them not to move around, or the coach gave no instructions at all. In any of those three cases, isn't it appropriate to blame the coach?

As you seem to acknowledge, one of the problems against UW was that the Bears don't seem to have much in the way of halfcourt plays to run. He either doesn't have many set plays in his playbook, or he does, and they players are either not capable of performing them or are not listening. Again, in any of those cases, isn't it appropriate to blame the coach? The coach needs plays in his playbook, he needs plays the players are capable of running, and the coach needs to command enough respect that the players are listening. If any of those three is missing, the coach should get blame.

And Jones is partly to blame for the lack of a deep roster, not sure how you absolve him of any blame for that, and at least a little bit to blame for the roster not having more experience than it does.

Yes, Jones took the job with a bad hand already dealt. He has not, however, played the hand very well. In that sense, kind of like Andy Buh in 2013. The defensive talent wasn't very good and wasn't very deep, especially in the secondary, but instead of doing what he could to maximize the talent and cover up the problems, he had schemes that exposed the problems.

And the defense v UW was good enough to win during the first almost 15 minutes. The last 25+ minutes? UW scored at a 92.5 points per game pace. Yeah, yeah, had Cal played decent offense, those first 14+ minutes of defense might have been enough to win the game in spite of pretty terrible last 25+ minutes of the game. But playing terrible defense for 25+ minutes does not make for a good defensive performance.

Anyway, my main reaction was to your thread title, UW: It was not Wyking Jones that lost the game. If you want to say "it was not Wyking Jones' defensive preparation and game plan that lost the game," I won't put up a fight in spite of the terrible last 25+ minutes of defense. If you want to say, "Jones was not solely responsible for the loss," I'll go along with that, plenty of blame to spread around. You want to say, "a lousy offensive performance caused the loss more than lousy coaching," I think you have a chicken and egg problem, but OK. But the team lost the game, and Jones is the man in charge, so even if coaches often get too much blame, still, he lost the game.

SFCityBear says:

Against the UW zone in the first half, Jones' strategy was to push the ball, get it down the floor quick enough to get a good shot before UW had a chance to set up their defense. Nothing wrong with the strategy except Cal's bench is not deep enough or talented enough to sustain that fast pace for 40 minutes. In the second half,

Would it not be better to teach players how to defeat a zone than to try to beat them down the floor?

How many times during a game are you going to be able to beat a well coached zone defense team down the floor; not many times.

Jones appears to not have a half court game and seems to think he can out athletic some teams; wrong.

Coaching is strategy, a real coach is a teacher.

They didvtry to get the ball to a cutter at the foul line. Made a shot once.

What's our average attendance at now?

Yogi Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

The differences in circumstances never seem to matter much ... the only thing that seems to matter are the win/loss record

---

When you get paid million(s) of dollars to coach a team, the only thing that should matter is the wins and losses. We're not running a charity here.

---

No, but we're running an elite academic institution, so wins and losses can't be the only things that matter. We don't want coaches who cheat, even if they don't get caught. We don't want coaches who won't give a crap about the academics of players. We want coaches who can help the players develop as human beings as well as basketball players. We want coaches with integrity. We want coaches who can teach, whether or not they can recruit good players. We want coaches who can turn a diverse group into a cohesive unit. Etc.

Of course, if you have all the things that matter besides wins and losses and go 2-16 or worse every year in conference, and you should still get fired, regardless of other "circumstances." Because wins and losses do matter a lot, they just aren't the only things that matter.

And I wish I felt that Jones was a great guy who at least has all the things that matter besides wins and losses. What happened with Theo and what happened with Winston and McCullough make me question whether Jones has the stuff that matters besides wins and losses. I don't know all the facts of those situations, but still, they make me wonder. And based on what I'm seeing on the floor, I'm not sure he has good teaching ability, or the ability to turn a diverse group into a cohesive unit. But none of that really matters if he can't coach a team to better than 2-16 in conference.

Cal8285 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

The differences in circumstances never seem to matter much ... the only thing that seems to matter are the win/loss record

---

When you get paid million(s) of dollars to coach a team, the only thing that should matter is the wins and losses. We're not running a charity here.

---

No, but we're running an elite academic institution, so wins and losses can't be the only things that matter. We don't want coaches who cheat, even if they don't get caught. We don't want coaches who won't give a crap about the academics of players. We want coaches who can help the players develop as human beings as well as basketball players. We want coaches with integrity. We want coaches who can teach, whether or not they can recruit good players. We want coaches who can turn a diverse group into a cohesive unit. Etc.

Of course, if you have all the things that matter besides wins and losses and go 2-16 or worse every year in conference, and you should still get fired, regardless of other "circumstances." Because wins and losses do matter a lot, they just aren't the only things that matter.

And I wish I felt that Jones was a great guy who at least has all the things that matter besides wins and losses. What happened with Theo and what happened with Winston and McCullough make me question whether Jones has the stuff that matters besides wins and losses. I don't know all the facts of those situations, but still, they make me wonder. And based on what I'm seeing on the floor, I'm not sure he has good teaching ability, or the ability to turn a diverse group into a cohesive unit. But none of that really matters if he can't coach a team to better than 2-16 in conference.

---

This is a good description of what I'd like to see in a coach - balance. Winning matters, but it is not the only thing that SHOULD matter, as Yogi suggests. As for the getting paid millions, part of it is the marketplace, but most of it is poor negotiating (or lack thereof) on the part of Williams.

Cal8285 said:

---

quote]As a general rule, I think coaches get too much credit when things go well, in addition to getting too much blame when things go wrong, especially in terms of "coaching" as opposed to "recruiting." Coaching is certainly a factor, more in terms of preparation before tip-off than between tip-off and final buzzer, but either way, a factor. Players get credit and blame, but not as much as they should compared to the coach. In college basketball, of course, the coach is responsible for who the players are, which does kind of make everything come down to the coach.

You say, "Unless you know that Wyking told his players to not penetrate and not move around, then isn't it hard to blame the coach?" That actually highlights how appropriate it is to blame the coach. Why are the players not moving around? Either the coach told them to move around and they don't bother to listen to the coach, the coach told them not to move around, or the coach gave no instructions at all. In any of those three cases, isn't it appropriate to blame the coach?

---

The latter two, I agree are on the coach. The first is too restrictive. There are a lot of reasons that even though a player is told to do something by a coach, he might not successful doing it. He might not bother to listen, but his opponent might be a great defender like Jorge Gutierrez and not allow him to move around. The opposing coach might be a Mike Montgomery and have already figured ways to keep your players from moving around. He might commit a foul while trying to move around. He might trip or bump into someone trying to move around. He is a one-on-one player and doesn't like moving around. He wants the ball. Every basketball game ever played has a lot of plays where players are told to do something by a coach, and circumstances or the opposing playrers or coach, or the referee, prevent the play from working, not always the fault of any one player or his coach. If you don't know what the coach wanted the player to do, and you don't know whether the player tried to do it or not, and why it wasn't done, then you don't know enough to blame coach or player.

Quote:

---

As you seem to acknowledge, one of the problems against UW was that the Bears don't seem to have much in the way of halfcourt plays to run. He either doesn't have many set plays in his playbook, or he does, and they players are either not capable of performing them or are not listening. Again, in any of those cases, isn't it appropriate to blame the coach? The coach needs plays in his playbook, he needs plays the players are capable of running, and the coach needs to command enough respect that the players are listening. If any of those three is missing, the coach should get blame.

---

With all due respect, again, I think this is too simplisitic. I agree that we did not run plays in the halfcourt agains the zone. But that was primarily in the second half. We could have gotten fatigued, with all the successful pushing of the ball we did in the first half. If we have no plays for zone, or if the coach did not try to run them, it might have been to conserve energy. We have a very inexperienced and size-, talent- and number-deficient roster.

Quote:

---

And Jones is partly to blame for the lack of a deep roster, not sure how you absolve him of any blame for that, and at least a little bit to blame for the roster not having more experience than it does.

---

Jones has had one full season of recruiting to build this team. Like most second year coaches, in the first year you can recruit, but you are way behind the 8-ball, and have little chance to help yourself. Ben Braun got zero recruits for his first season. Montgomery got only Braun recruit Seely and unranked Jorge Gutierrez. Martin got Kingsley Okoroh. KO was not ready to play until his 3rd year, and Chauca never was ready. Jones actually did better recruiting in his first year than all of them. He lost Cunozo recruit Jemarl Baker, but signed Sueing, and signed McNeill and Austin. He has done a good job with his second recruiting class. He might have signed another raw freshman big like Kelly, but the one everyone wanted, Brown, rarely gets even 5 minutes in a game. He'd play more at Cal, but there is no guarantee he'd be any good.

In what world can you blame Jones for the roster not having experience? The inexperience is entirely on Cuonzo and a little on Montgomery for not planning and building roster based on talent spread among all positions and years. Rabb, Bird, Wallace and Mathews were all gone before Wyking took over, I'm not sure why Moore or Rooks left. Maybe they did not want to play for Wyking, maybe not. Wyking was left with starting Coleman and two freshman at the guard and wing positions, and the following season Lee and KO graduate, and he is left with playing a 6-7 freshman at center to replace the entire front line. There are only a handful of experienced big grad transfers who can play and 325 schools want them. Good luck.

Quote:

---

Yes, Jones took the job with a bad hand already dealt. He has not, however, played the hand very well. In that sense, kind of like Andy Buh in 2013. The defensive talent wasn't very good and wasn't very deep, especially in the secondary, but instead of doing what he could to maximize the talent and cover up the problems, he had schemes that exposed the problems.

---

I don't even understand this. Wyking Jones is playing a zone defense now. He is doing it to cover up our defensive problems. That is what a zone does, help you protect the basket when you don't have good man defenders, with the exception of the Syracuse zone and similar, where you teach it early and use it exclusively evey year. Every coach in PAC12 and beyond already knows of our defensive problems. There is nothing to cover up.

Quote:

---

And the defense v UW was good enough to win during the first almost 15 minutes. The last 25+ minutes? UW scored at a 92.5 points per game pace. Yeah, yeah, had Cal played decent offense, those first 14+ minutes of defense might have been enough to win the game in spite of pretty terrible last 25+ minutes of the game. But playing terrible defense for 25+ minutes does not make for a good defensive performance.

---

This is more hyperbole, just to come up with more reason to blame the coach. It is not true, what you said. Cal played defense for the whole game, giving up only 71 points. The first time in 9 games that Cal holds an opponent under 80 points. We averaged giving up 85 points in that stretch. If I remember,it was 27 minutes of good defense andf maybe 5-10 minutes at the end where Cal ran out of gas. If Cal gives up only 71 points the rest of the games, I guarantee you Cal wins some of those games.

Quote:

---

Anyway, my main reaction was to your thread title, UW: It was not Wyking Jones that lost the game. If you want to say "it was not Wyking Jones' defensive preparation and game plan that lost the game," I won't put up a fight in spite of the terrible last 25+ minutes of defense. If you want to say, "Jones was not solely responsible for the loss," I'll go along with that, plenty of blame to spread around. You want to say, "a lousy offensive performance caused the loss more than lousy coaching," I think you have a chicken and egg problem, but OK. But the team lost the game, and Jones is the man in charge, so even if coaches often get too much blame, still, he lost the game.

---

Cal lost that game because the Cal players could not put the ball in the hole. They shot 1-15 on threes, 30% overall, and weren't making their free throws. They often took bad shots. This is a motion offense, and players make their own shot selections. Wykiing Jones can not make their shots for them, and he can't decide for them what shots to take when they are on the fly. What he has done is teach them to play decent defense, and it should be evident to you that they have made some improvement, by holding UW to 71 points. Not great defense, but good enough to win most games, if you make your shots.

In my mind some of this season can be blamed on Wyking Jones, some of it on the players, but most of the blame sits with Cuonzo Martin. Would it have been better that an experienced successful coach have been hired? Probably. But those coaches are hard to find and expensive to pay.