"I was actually really surprised," Boatwright said. "I haven't been that open in a long time."

oskidunker said:

---

"I was actually really surprised," Boatwright said. "I haven't been that open in a long time."

---

Coaching

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

"I was actually really surprised," Boatwright said. "I haven't been that open in a long time."

---

Coaching

---

Or lack thereof.

So the answer to crap leadership/mentorship is physical assault? I don't think so. The problem here isn't smirky opposing players pointing out your team's deficiencies. The problem here is your team's deficiencies, and specifically its dreadfully unqualified coaching staff.

Big C said:

---

It pained me to see that clown laughing and smirking his way through the second half. I'm probably not being a very good sport, but I would've liked to have seen Bradly knock him on his ass

---

+1

Northside91 said:

---

So the answer to crap leadership/mentorship is physical assault? I don't think so. The problem here isn't smirky opposing players pointing out your team's deficiencies. The problem here is your team's deficiencies, and specifically its dreadfully unqualified coaching staff.

---

Your disapproval of the Cal coaching staff (which at this point, I share) is obscuring the issue at hand; an opponent who is acting like a jerk. The Cal team can't do anything about their own coaching staff, but they could make a point that they won't stand for being mocked.

I'm sure Big C didn't mean for Bradley literally slug Boatwright, but there are numerous ways to make a physical point on the court: running the guy into a screen, a well-placed hip when going for a rebound, even driving right into the defender and drawing an offensive foul. I suspect we've all done it in a game and no, it's not physical assault.

Big C said:

---

It pained me to see that clown laughing and smirking his way through the second half. I'm probably not being a very good sport, but I would've liked to have seen Bradly knock him on his ass.

---

I don't see why you say he was a clown. He was BY FAR the most impressive, enjoyable aspect of the, um, experience, last night. I was telling my friend I felt like a Knicks fan in Madison Square Garden, who watching their awful product once again, can at least see and respect an opponent's briliance.

I was actually pissed at their coach for taking him out with more than four minutes left.

Yeah, if he stays healthy Bennie will play for some NBA team. Until playoffs time, Bennie will regularly get some open looks for his trey.

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

It pained me to see that clown laughing and smirking his way through the second half. I'm probably not being a very good sport, but I would've liked to have seen Bradly knock him on his ass.

---

I don't see why you say he was a clown. He was BY FAR the most impressive, enjoyable aspect of the, um, experience, last night. I was telling my friend I felt like a Knicks fan in Madison Square Garden, who watching their awful product once again, can at least see and respect an opponent's briliance.

I was actually pissed at their coach for taking him out with more than four minutes left.

---

Boatwright was awesome from beyond the arc yesterday, I'll give him that. I didn't care for his smirking and looking at our bench, though. Seeing an $C player gloat on our home court was definitely NOT enjoyable for me.

And to another poster, no, I would not want one of our players to physically assault an opponent, but maybe just flirt with the borderline between a "good, hard foul" and a flagrant foul. And that was just my emotion taking over, in the heat of the moment.

Anyway, our two best match-ups against Boatwright were either Sueing or JHD. We should've had one of those guys on him. one-on-one, with specific instructions to not give him uncontested shots from out there.

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

It pained me to see that clown laughing and smirking his way through the second half. I'm probably not being a very good sport, but I would've liked to have seen Bradly knock him on his ass.

---

I don't see why you say he was a clown. He was BY FAR the most impressive, enjoyable aspect of the, um, experience, last night. I was telling my friend I felt like a Knicks fan in Madison Square Garden, who watching their awful product once again, can at least see and respect an opponent's briliance.

I was actually pissed at their coach for taking him out with more than four minutes left.

---

It is hard to watch another player on the opposing team enjoy themselves at your team's expense. However, dominating an opponent is enjoyable. There's a difference between visible enjoyment and trash talking, etc. Can't expect players not to enjoy themselves

Agree.i enjoy watching good shooting.

Big C said:

---

Anyway, our two best match-ups against Boatwright were either Sueing or JHD. We should've had one of those guys on him. one-on-one, with specific instructions to not give him uncontested shots from out there.

---

Agree. I would have had someone stay with him and not even get the ball.

Of course easier said than done. He was often guarded by a guard and just shot over them. One of the reasons for that is SC would get the switch for that purpose.

To counter, we should have stopped switching and instead, fight through (over) the screen.

This would have left others open, and then we would have been more vulnerable to their drives and to Ravo like the first game. Thornton and Ravo killed us in the first game, but were held down in this second game.

But we were mostly in zone, which we have improved on, but despite what some think, a zone can be 'busted' by a good 3 point shooting team, and that is what usc is when Benny is hot

I would have tried man defense and really tried to stick with it, I would have even tried Davis on Benny in a man. He has the size to guard him on the perimeter and at least bother him when SC adjusted and sent Benny into the paint

at least to give them a different look because obviously our zone got busted

HoopDreams said:

---

Thornton and Ravo killed us in the first game, but were held down in this second game.

---

I wouldn't say exactly "held down". Rakocevic got 12 points and 11 rebounds in 22 minutes, Thornton got 7 assists and 0 turnovers in 23 minutes. But I get your point, we couldn't defend everyone.

Midgley would have never let him get those shots off.

Civil Bear said:

---

Midgley would have never let him get those shots off.

---

Sarcasm? If not, I'll take the odds of a 6'10 jump shooter from the arc over a 6'3 defender.

Big C said:

---

It pained me to see that clown laughing and smirking his way through the second half. I'm probably not being a very good sport, but I would've liked to have seen Bradly knock him on his ass.

---

Boatwright was laughing because it was the worst defense he's ever experienced. The kid recognizes how comical the whole thing is. WJ & company have unfortunately earned that laughter.

Bear19 said:

---

Big C said:

---

It pained me to see that clown laughing and smirking his way through the second half. I'm probably not being a very good sport, but I would've liked to have seen Bradly knock him on his ass.

---

Boatwright was laughing because it was the worst defense he's ever experienced. The kid recognizes how comical the whole thing is. WJ & company have unfortunately earned that laughter.

---

You might be right, but it doesn't change the way I feel about the situation. If anything, it would make me more frustrated, which I would usually deal with by lashing out (perhaps irrationally) at the rival player in question. It'd be nice if all the Cal players could use this as incident as motivation in the future.

Eff Bennie Boatwright and all the U$C Trojans... and let me take this opportunity to throw in the Stanfurd Cardinal, just for good measure!

Big C said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Big C said:

---

It pained me to see that clown laughing and smirking his way through the second half. I'm probably not being a very good sport, but I would've liked to have seen Bradly knock him on his ass.

---

Boatwright was laughing because it was the worst defense he's ever experienced. The kid recognizes how comical the whole thing is. WJ & company have unfortunately earned that laughter.

---

You might be right, but it doesn't change the way I feel about the situation. If anything, it would make me more frustrated, which I would usually deal with by lashing out (perhaps irrationally) at the rival player in question. It'd be nice if all the Cal players could use this as incident as motivation in the future.

Eff Bennie Boatwright and all the U$C Trojans... and let me take this opportunity to throw in the Stanfurd Cardinal, just for good measure!

---

case in point, WSU big also went off on Cal, but didn't do so with any disrespect to cal

Northside91 said:

---

So the answer to crap leadership/mentorship is physical assault? I don't think so. The problem here isn't smirky opposing players pointing out your team's deficiencies. The problem here is your team's deficiencies, and specifically its dreadfully unqualified coaching staff.

---

What exactly would you have the coaching staff do? We play zone, and that means we leave long range shooters open and look bad doing it. If we play man, we leave the rim and the area close to it unprotected, and we look bad doing it. You can play a combination of the two, like a box and one, or something, or switch defenses from zone to man from time to time. Do you think that that would fool the experienced USC coach and his experienced USC players?

Coach Don Nelson said over and over, "Basketball is all about matchups." We do not match up well with USC. They are all taller and much more experienced. They are seniors and juniors mostly. One freshman plays for them. Three play for us. We are short, very short, up front, with the exception of Vanover. Our bigs can't jump over a telephone book (credit helltopay1 for that one, except that many of the kids playing for us today have never seen a telephone book). Oh, sure, Roman Davis is considered a big on this team, and he can jump, except he is not yet good enough to play basketball at PAC12 level, which is not a high level. He would not start for any PAC12 team, IMO, and not make the roster of most of them, also IMO. And some here want to send him out to guard 6-10 Boatwright? I suppose it was worth a shot.

USC has what 7 or 8 top 100 ranked recruits? We have one. It takes several years to accumulate that many recruits. You can pin the blame on Jones for losing some of our games this season, but against loaded teams like USC, he could do nothing that would have changed the outcome, short of suiting up himself, and unless he was as good as Wilt Chamberlain, Cal still loses to loaded teams like USC. We just don't have the horses. It is sad, but true. I like all these players. In two years, these players probably all will be better defensively, and we can talk again about the coaching.

I think if Jones had committed to playing man defense all season, and spent all the time usually spent on teaching defense in practice only on man defense, Cal would be a little better defensive team today. You did not find Cuonzo playing much zone defense, or Montgomery playing zone defense, even though many fans on the Bear Insider were pleading for them to do so. They stuck with man, and their defenses eventually were good defenses. There is a lesson in this for us and for Wyking Jones. Pete Newell knew all about zone defenses (mostly how to break them down), but his teams never played zone. And in today's game with all the players working hard on their 3-point skills, it is suicide to spend much time playing zone, unless your opponent is one of the teams who doesn't shoot them well. Unfortunately for Cal, it is suicide playing man as well, because they have no players who can consistently keep opponents from getting to the basket. They are just young, and not skilled yet. That takes time, no matter how much you all and coach Jones want to rush things.

No comment. I'm done.

SFCityBear said:

---

And some here want to send him out to guard 6-10 Boatwright?

---

not sure about some. I am the only one on the board who thought that was at least something to try, rather than see boatright pop 3s over our guards all night


I said:
...I would have even tried Davis on Benny in a man. He has the size to guard him on the perimeter and at least bother him when SC adjusted and sent Benny into the paint

SFCityBear said:

---

I think if Jones had committed to playing man defense all season, and spent all the time usually spent on teaching defense in practice only on man defense, Cal would be a little better defensive team today. You did not find Cuonzo playing much zone defense, or Montgomery playing zone defense, even though many fans on the Bear Insider were pleading for them to do so. They stuck with man, and their defenses eventually were good defenses.

---

again, I'm the guilty party on that one. I don't remember a lot of other posters advocating we mix in zone defenses when Monty and Martin coached.

However, I do not like zone defenses as a primary defense. I like it as a change up that works when the other teams are on a roll, and against some teams or line ups that can't shoot.

I don't remember any zone during Martin's seasons, but Monty did start mixing it in. I knew he didn't like it, but in one interview, I remember him saying as much, but admitting that against some teams it works pretty well.

I admired a lot about Monty, and one of those things was that he adjusted his schemes to his players and didn't get stuck in a particular thing just because he never did it. He instead was an elite basketball mind that could adjust based on the circumstances. The fact that he started to mix in zones after many years of being strictly a man defense coach impressed me.

Big C said:

---

Eff Bennie Boatwright and all the U$C Trojans... and let me take this opportunity to throw in the Stanfurd Cardinal, just for good measure!

---

I think you are a loyal Cal alum who desperately wants the Bears to somehow get things turned around, even though everything you observe says that will never happen. You don't want to get angry at WJ, and certainly not the players, but the anger & frustration keeps building up. So Boatwright becomes a person upon whom to vent. I understand. His behavior didn't strike me as being nearly as egregious as it did you. Actually, since Monty & the other announcer kept saying how ineffective the defense scheme was, I sort of found it funny as well that the Bears kept at it so long in the face of such terrible results.

HoopDreams said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

I think if Jones had committed to playing man defense all season, and spent all the time usually spent on teaching defense in practice only on man defense, Cal would be a little better defensive team today. You did not find Cuonzo playing much zone defense, or Montgomery playing zone defense, even though many fans on the Bear Insider were pleading for them to do so. They stuck with man, and their defenses eventually were good defenses.

---

again, I'm the guilty party on that one. I don't remember a lot of other posters advocating we mix in zone defenses when Monty and Martin coached.

However, I do not like zone defenses as a primary defense. I like it as a change up that works when the other teams are on a roll, and against some teams or line ups that can't shoot.

I don't remember any zone during Martin's seasons, but Monty did start mixing it in. I knew he didn't like it, but in one interview, I remember him saying as much, but admitting that against some teams it works pretty well.

I admired a lot about Monty, and one of those things was that he adjusted his schemes to his players and didn't get stuck in a particular thing just because he never did it. He instead was an elite basketball mind that could adjust based on the circumstances. The fact that he started to mix in zones after many years of being strictly a man defense coach impressed me.

---

That's fine, HoopDreams. I'm guilty of exaggerating to make a point. I thank you for your corrections and additions. I always respect what you have to say. We're good here.

next year ( if everyone stays) expect to see much more man defenses because Cal will have more depth. Old adage: If you have thge horses, play man. if not, play zone. also, I was expecting to see a real difference between Coleman and Austin: They are more similar than different. Austin woulds rather drive than eat or sleep and he is not a good perimeter shooter. His local ties made him a easy recruit, but either Ford or Ferrari would have been a much better bet. I'm sorry if that seems harsh. I'm sure he's a great kid.

helltopay1 said:

---

next year ( if everyone stays) expect to see much more man defenses because Cal will have more depth. Old adage: If you have thge horses, play man. if not, play zone. also, I was expecting to see a real difference between Coleman and Austin: They are more similar than different. Austin woulds rather drive than eat or sleep and he is not a good perimeter shooter. His local ties made him a easy recruit, but either Ford or Ferrari would have been a much better bet. I'm sorry if that seems harsh. I'm sure he's a great kid.

---

The reason to play zone (and I'm including match-up zone here) is if you have players who can be easily exploited in one on one match-ups, a very short or slow PG, or a slow 7 foot center that is your rim protector that an offense can simply draw away from the basket by having the guy he is defending move outside the key (especially if he can shoot).

Obviously if you have good 1-1 matchups, man is great, even preferable, but there is a reason zone used to be illegal in the NBA, it is really good for neutralizing superior talent.

Cal has often had unusual rosters so in the interest of getting our best talent on the court I have often advocated zone (like when I wanted Braun to go big and play Anderson, Hardin, Boykin, Christopher, Randle (with Wilkes and Kamp off the bench). Takes advantage of our height and protects Randle. Make the OTHER team figure out how to defend YOU. That is a relented lineup. I think we might not have finished in 2nd to last place.

The biggest mistake coaches seem to make is thinking zone has to be 2-3 or 2-1-2, zones that were designed to provide interior defense, usually against bigger teams. In the 3 point era, you have to defend the three point line. A good defense cannot give up easy baskets and that is layups, dunks and open 3s. Getting opponents to take low percentage shots is almost better than trying to deny any shot at all for the entire shot clock.

Here's my philosophy on basketball defense. Not too long ago, zone defense was pretty rare. Syracuse was the obvious exception, but other than them, not many were playing zone almost exclusively. I think it is very hard to rely on zone defense as a base defense, because to make it matchup-proof requires really good athletes, and really good length. Recruiting long, athletic players able to make it work as a base defense, who also have the offense skills to make the offense potent, are really sought after, and it is hard to recruit enough of them. A name program like Syracuse could make it work, but it is hard.

The big reason so many other coaches are hesitant to use zone (and Monty and Cuonzo were in this category) is that there is a tendency to be passive in the zone, and there is less individual responsibility. Strong proponents of man defense like the accountability, and the pressure it puts on all five guys to up their effort.

One of the reasons Syracuse was so successful with their zone is that since teams didn't see it very often, many teams had little experience attacking a zone, and often looked confused or clueless as to how to beat it. It is because of that fact that teams started to realize that mixing zone defense in with man defense was a good thing, and against certain teams that lacked reliable outside shooting (or the coaching chops to design an effective way to attack the zone), it could be very successful. As HoopsDreams points out, I think Monty realized that late in his career, and started to use it effectively against certain teams. I think in the last few years, you were leaving some opportunities on the table is you didn't at least have zone defense in your tool box to use occasionally when an opponent proved unable to solve it.

So over the last few years, you've seen a lot of teams not only mixing zone in occasionally, but becoming primarily zone teams. So one result of this change is that teams have had to adapt, and I think you are starting to see fewer teams unable to deal with zone. Teams are practicing zone offense more, as it is no longer rare to have to face a zone defense in the game.

So now, I think it is important to have both types of defense in your tool box, and teams need to mix-and-match defense based on the opponent. It is fine to have zone be your base defense, but if you are playing against an opponent with the shooters and scheme to attack it successfully, I think you have to be prepared to switch to man-to-man. I think it is going to be really hard to be just one or the other, and as I said, if you are, I believe you will be leaving opportunities on the table to shut down opponents by not playing both types of defense.

Good stuff LOUMFSG2. Lot of good points in here. You're definitely right that a lot more teams are mixing in zone even though it may not be their primary defense like Syracuse. Some of it seems to be match-up driven but also depth-driven and foul situation-driven. Coach K used to never play zone and in the last few years, he's played a lot of it. A lot of other traditionally man coaches are doing the same thing.

I've heard coaches mention two things driving this increase that I think make sense. For one thing, you have the emergence of a lot more tall shooters than there used to be. If you have a big rim protector, it's essy for a tall shooter (like Boatwright) to drag him out in a man defense exposing the lane to cutters and drivers. With a zone, you can still park that guy in the key.

And secondly, I've heard coaches say the new freedom of movement changes in officiating a few years ago and the clamping down on hand-checking on the perimeter have made man less appealing from a foul standpoint.

I still think we can do a better job defending the three in the zone. We haven't been very good at closing out on shooters as the USC game showed. Even though the UVA packline defense is man, it's packed in tight and is supposed to exposed by good three point shooting teams and yet it rarely happens because they're so good at anticipating ball movement and closing out shooters.

Bear19 said:

---

Big C said:

---

Eff Bennie Boatwright and all the U$C Trojans... and let me take this opportunity to throw in the Stanfurd Cardinal, just for good measure!

---

I think you are a loyal Cal alum who desperately wants the Bears to somehow get things turned around, even though everything you observe says that will never happen. You don't want to get angry at WJ, and certainly not the players, but the anger & frustration keeps building up. So Boatwright becomes a person upon whom to vent. I understand. His behavior didn't strike me as being nearly as egregious as it did you. Actually, since Monty & the other announcer kept saying how ineffective the defense scheme was, I sort of found it funny as well that the Bears kept at it so long in the face of such terrible results.

---

You know me like you're my Daddy! Truth be told, yes, that's me in a nutshell these days, with two qualifications:

1. I don't WANT to get angry at WJ and the players, but I do anyway.
2. I've NEVER been two keen about opponents gloating on our home court, especially if they're from rival teams. Bad form.

I sure WISH I could get dirt-cheap psychiatric help from Dr. Lucy Van Pelt!

Seriously, don't worry about me (not that anyone actually was). This is just a hobby. I got two lil' kids. I'm about to turn off BI and turn in for the night. On my way, I'll take a minute to watch my 6 yr old daughter sleep. I guarantee that I won't have any nightmares or lost sleep over Cal Basketball.

HearstMining said:

---

Northside91 said:

---

So the answer to crap leadership/mentorship is physical assault? I don't think so. The problem here isn't smirky opposing players pointing out your team's deficiencies. The problem here is your team's deficiencies, and specifically its dreadfully unqualified coaching staff.

---

Your disapproval of the Cal coaching staff (which at this point, I share) is obscuring the issue at hand; an opponent who is acting like a jerk. The Cal team can't do anything about their own coaching staff, but they could make a point that they won't stand for being mocked.

I'm sure Big C didn't mean for Bradley literally slug Boatwright, but there are numerous ways to make a physical point on the court: running the guy into a screen, a well-placed hip when going for a rebound, even driving right into the defender and drawing an offensive foul. I suspect we've all done it in a game and no, it's not physical assault.

---

i agree, good lord. Who was the last Cal basketball player to get under the opponents skin? Jorge? Justin? Duck? Midge? The fact someone has to defend tough physical play especially after that kids gloating (and yes disrespect) is part of the participation trophy culture we live in.

I am reading all of this trying to picture us in man to man.

At least at this stage, Connor cannot play D. At all.
Everyone could shoot over Austin. Well most anyway. And you cant hide Austin when you are trying to hide Connor. Might work when kelly is in, but most teams are much taller than us as we all know.

As many noted, we just dont have a lot of horses.

superbear99 said:

---

I am reading all of this trying to picture us in man to man.

At least at this stage, Connor cannot play D. At all.
Everyone could shoot over Austin. Well most anyway. And you cant hide Austin when you are trying to hide Connor. Might work when kelly is in, but most teams are much taller than us as we all know.

As many noted, we just dont have a lot of horses.

---

understatement candidate for the year award goes to....suspense ...

Patty Hurst was cute in the 70,s

oskidunker said:

---

Patty Hurst was cute in the 70,s

---

indeed she was, just ask Steven Weed. We named a closet after him(where he was figured to be tied up or cowering). Professor Slottman came up with the name of "the priests" as we would have him over for dinner many times(being catholic and all). He was great for Cal Sports. I went back to cal one day, to a game and popped into Henry's and the bartender informed that he had passed. I was devastated. Drank heavily in his memory. Did not run into Sean Marks that night. Could have been the Bakersfield NIT night.
Shout out to Cal, Harvard, BC and # 7 bus line Prof Slottman. He made cal tolerable and he connected with students that were lost souls