I think we have some really good players. Potential to finish in the upper half of the conference.

oskidunker said:

---

I think we have some really good players. Potential to finish in the upper half of the conference.

---

...under the right circumstances.

I think there's some material there. I don't foresee any future CPOY's, but guys that could complement elite talent (should we find a way to get it to come here). Since I haven't watched since the very beginning of the year, I don't feel like I have the slightest inkling of what Jacobi Gordon might be able to do or whether he'll ever come all of the way back from his Achilles injury. I think all of Bradley, McNeill, Vanover, Kelly, and Sueing have talent that might come to fruition under a real coach. I am not high on Austin or Dyson at all.

I think we need better talent and a real coach with vision and salesmanship.

i think bradley has potential.

Like the effort from Sueing, McNeil, Bradley, Kelly, and Conover. For what its worth, there is no place else to go but up. However, it seems to me the whole team plays very hard and doesn't quit, even when down 30.

Go Bears!!

Players that will be top tier PAC 12 players: Sueing, McNeill Bradley;
Potential to be top tier: Jacoby Gordon;
Important role players: Austin, Vanover, Kelly, and Anticevich;
Role players: Roman Davis and JHD

We don't have any stiffs in the above group and by the time some of the players I rank lower on the scale are Seniors they may have improved to Top Tier level.

If vanover puts on some some serious muscle/weight and learns how to protect the rim, he could be a POY candidate by his senior year.

Height and shooting ability is a rare combination.

ducky23 said:

---

If vanover puts on some some serious muscle/weight and learns how to protect the rim, he could be a POY candidate by his senior year.

Height and shooting ability is a rare combination.

---

You may well be right but I never see him moving with the grace of a Moses Brown.

Austin: I'm a little mystified. Is this what he does on offense, or is he doing what the coaches tell him to do on offense? Jumper looks worse now than it did in December. Has had some good games and some where he was a non-factor. This is his 4th year out of high school. I don't know what to think.

Sueing: Was supposed to be our best player and is. I'd like to see more consistent desire and intensity at both ends of the court (though it is there at times). I'd like him to think of himself as more of a "glue guy". Less dribbling. Streaky from beyond the arc, but I'd like to see him keep shooting those, when in rhythm.

McNeill: Drives to the basket better this year. A 3 pt shot from him as as good a shot as we're gonna get, so I'd tell him to not ever hesitate. Too many games where he isn't close to double-digit scoring. Too many games where he gets less than 3 assists. Seems to lack hoops savvy. I'd love to see him up his assist and rebound totals. Gets steals, but I'm thinking his defense isn't "sound".

Anticevich: Bulkier than last year. Now, can he improve his lateral quickness and footwork? If he keeps improving, he could keep getting minutes.

Harris-Dyson: I think his hand injury hurt his offensive production early and then it seemed to spread to his head. Looked better LAST February. Another mystery man.

Gordon: Yet another mystery man. I have no idea if it's the injury, or if he just can't play, but I guess he deserves the benefit of the doubt. We'll see next year.

Bradley: I love having this guy on the team and I hope he wants to stay and drag us to victories in the years to come. At his weight, I wish he were two inches taller. Something tells me he's only 6-2. Maybe he'd be better off playing with ten pounds less, if he can keep his strength up and increase his quickness. His block of that big guy earlier in the year was probably my favorite play in a dismal season. Pissed me off that he caught **** here for drawing the T. He's not a great passer, but we seem to do about as well when he's at pg, as we do with Austin. Like to see him improve his asst/TO.

Kelly: Yet another mystery man. What does that say about this year? (rhetorical question) I'm not seeing much joy from him lately. Maybe because he has the ability to score and NOBODY PASSES HIM THE BALL. Look at his form when he shoots: textbook. Still, he has a ways to go. Interior defense is lacking. Needs to develop his explosive strength to counter the fact that he's only 6-6. (There, I said it.)

Vanover: No mystery. Could become pretty good. I hope he likes it here and wants to stay. Physically, he is noticeably better now than he was a year ago... and that's impressive. If he stays healthy and is able to keep working, he will get better every year and I mean BETTER.

Anticevich is interesting. His defense has improved dramatically. He had a bunch of great close outs last game and he moves his feet really well considering his physical limitations.

It's clear he's doing his best to improve. But it's questionable how high his ceiling actually is

bearister said:

---

Players that will be top tier PAC 12 players: Sueing, McNeill Bradley;

---

What do you mean by top tier? First team all conference?

Maybe for Bradley and Sueing. i don't think so for McNeill.

Quote:

---

Important role players: Austin, Vanover, Kelly, and Anticevich

---

I give Kelly and Vanover a chance to be as good as those in the first group. They have something to build on.

BearGreg said:

---

And how do you project their future potential?

---

I think it is unfair to project. Why? Nnamdi Asomugha.

How many of you saw an All Pro corner on the 2001 Cal football team?

Do I see a Nnamdi Asomugha on this team? No. But I didn't see one then either.

OaktownBear said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

And how do you project their future potential?

---

I think it is unfair to project. Why? Nnamdi Asomugha.

How many of you saw an All Pro corner on the 2001 Cal football team?

Do I see a Nnamdi Asomugha on this team? No. But I didn't see one then either.

---

Or as a basketball example, that Sean Marks would have such a lengthy NBA career?

There's a good core. I believe Bradley is special. He had some spare time he last year of
high school, so he tried track and field. He didn't go for something "easy" like the shot or
the discuss. he ran the 100 and 200 meters. In a small sample he did just OK. But the
fact that he ran at all...with virtually no chance of coming close to winning....speaks volumes.
Some to keep in mind......he credits WJ for sticking with him during recruitment.

Even with 3 good recruits coming in next year, the team lacks a 6'9 or taller guy
who hits the boards on the .

I had Matz Stockman crayoned in as our starting center.....for about 20 minutes.(not that
he'd play so minutes a game. It seemed like we only had him for about 20 minutes.
He's not playing much lately. He's a legit 7 feet but is pretty slow.....would have
helped, but

Vanover has shown heart...and can shoot as advertised,,,a stretch 5??
Gordon has heart...by just trying to play. He might have a good ceiling, if he ever recovers.
Suing is a SF playing PF....I guess.
McNeil is streaky, but I'll take him.
Grant A. tries and hopefully is improving on D
WIth Kelly I'm beginning to feel like I did with Bowers being benched...nuff said.
JHD..I guess he's starting because of his D??????? Statistically he's down
in most categories. Maybe his hand-injury has been a real problem/

PG is a problem. Maybe Joel Brown will surprise

Apparently Roman Davis (seems like he's been here 10 years) is not going to be
back.

Yogi Bear said:

---

bearister said:

---

Players that will be top tier PAC 12 players: Sueing, McNeill Bradley;

---

What do you mean by top tier? First team all conference?

Maybe for Bradley and Sueing. i don't think so for McNeill.

Quote:

---

Important role players: Austin, Vanover, Kelly, and Anticevich

---

I give Kelly and Vanover a chance to be as good as those in the first group. They have something to build on.

---

Let's say 180 players in the league. You have to give me more elastic than that for Top Tier. I'm thinking the type of player that comes into a gym anywhere in the league and the opposing fans say, "Yeah, that guy is a baller." Yes, I rank McNeill behind Sueing and Bradley but Darius does not have their confidence yet. He is capable of having some very big games. I'm big on Grant because he is fundamentally sound. He can pass, shoot, get boards and I think he is improving defensively. He needs more confidence too.

I guess you can say that its reasonable to expect progress from everyone, especially the underclassmen.

On the offensive side of the ball, it feels like Bradley, McNeill and Anticevich play with more purpose than the rest, like their instinctive movements and reactions are a bit more advanced than the others. In addition they just happen to be our best straight on shooters (yes more dependable than Vanover). Just basing all of this on the eye test.
Conclusion: Maximum minutes possible for Bradley and McNeill, and more minutes for Anticevich. That's what I'd like to see.

bradley not afraid to shoot a three or drive to the basket. i like what i see. mcneill looks good sometimes

OaktownBear said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

And how do you project their future potential?

---

I think it is unfair to project. Why? Nnamdi Asomugha.

How many of you saw an All Pro corner on the 2001 Cal football team?

Do I see a Nnamdi Asomugha on this team? No. But I didn't see one then either.

---

Seems like this happens in football way more than basketball.

Scott Fujita, Thomas Decoud, Chris Conte -- come to mind as pretty good but not spectacular players who surprisingly went on to have good pro careers.

KoreAmBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

And how do you project their future potential?

---

I think it is unfair to project. Why? Nnamdi Asomugha.

How many of you saw an All Pro corner on the 2001 Cal football team?

Do I see a Nnamdi Asomugha on this team? No. But I didn't see one then either.

---

Seems like this happens in football way more than basketball.

Scott Fujita, Thomas Decoud, Chris Conte -- come to mind as pretty good but not spectacular players who surprisingly went on to have good pro careers.

---

Michael Stewart, Francisco Elton, dom McGuire

KoreAmBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

And how do you project their future potential?

---

I think it is unfair to project. Why? Nnamdi Asomugha.

How many of you saw an All Pro corner on the 2001 Cal football team?

Do I see a Nnamdi Asomugha on this team? No. But I didn't see one then either.

---

Seems like this happens in football way more than basketball.

Scott Fujita, Thomas Decoud, Chris Conte -- come to mind as pretty good but not spectacular players who surprisingly went on to have good pro careers.

---

I don't want to get too tied up in whether there is all star ability. I really meant that Holmoe's last team was mostly viewed at the time as severely lacking in talent. Now the popular sentiment is Tedford inherited a lot of talent. Being in a losing situation can mask ability that is there. I doubt that the next Lebron is on our team, but it wouldn't be surprising if some of them are better than they appear

OaktownBear said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

And how do you project their future potential?

---

I think it is unfair to project. Why? Nnamdi Asomugha.

How many of you saw an All Pro corner on the 2001 Cal football team?

Do I see a Nnamdi Asomugha on this team? No. But I didn't see one then either.

---

I get what you're saying, OTB, but it's not like we can really influence anything with our speculations. If we overestimate or underestimate a player's progression, isn't that a commentary on our ability to project rather than the player's outcome? Besides, the alternative to looking at the future for the team is looking at the present and that's just no fun at all.

Projections-by-amateurs: It's a lot of what we do!

Big C said:

---

Projections-by-amateurs: It's a lot of what we do!

---

We can't all be professional talent assessors like the ones at every PAC 10 school that took a pass on Damien Lillard and the ones at every every PAC 10 school other than Washington State that passed on Klay Thompson.

ducky23 said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

And how do you project their future potential?

---

I think it is unfair to project. Why? Nnamdi Asomugha.

How many of you saw an All Pro corner on the 2001 Cal football team?

Do I see a Nnamdi Asomugha on this team? No. But I didn't see one then either.

---

Seems like this happens in football way more than basketball.

Scott Fujita, Thomas Decoud, Chris Conte -- come to mind as pretty good but not spectacular players who surprisingly went on to have good pro careers.

---

Michael Stewart, Francisco Elton, dom McGuire

---

Not too surprised by Stewart, I don't think his potential was maximized in college. Dom McGuire was a good player, but just not prepared or engaged with college - it was a distraction for him. Great example of college is not right for everyone. He didn't want to be in college, so FSU was better fit than Cal (but he left FSU early as well, right?)

For me, Elson was the biggest surprise on your excellent list. Just goes to show that you can't coach height. He was a good 7 foot athlete, with little basketball IQ in college in a program that didn't really develop or utilize him that well. Always room for 7 foot athletes, somewhere in the NBA.

Big C said:

---

Projections-by-amateurs: It's a lot of what we do!

---

forecasting: draw a straight line through the last two data points and extend to infinity.

Vanover vs Kingsley vs Marcus Lee
Compare and contrast.

calgo430 said:

---

i think bradley has potential.

---

Agree with this.

met_man said:

---

calgo430 said:

---

i think bradley has potential.

---

Agree with this.

---

Agreed. But he's also a bit of a tweener similar to joe shipp.

Both great shooters. But need better handles to really reach their full potential.

By his senior year, shipp got a lot better at driving and finishing (especially in transition). If Bradley could develop a little more quickness and be able to finish consistently, he could be deadly.

I will be very disappointed in my abilities as an amateur talent evaluator if Matt Bradley's career stats at Cal do not surpass those of Joe Shipp. I was a huge Shipp fan.

Joe averaged: 13 PPG; 4 RB and 1.5 AST
Joe as a Freshman: 9 PPG; 3 RB and 1 AST

Bradley so far: 10.6 PPG; 3.4 RB and 2.1 AST

Against Arizona State Matt had 23 points and 10 rebounds. Only Leon Powe bettered that line as a freshman and he only did it once.

He shoots 47% from the arc. Joe's career average from arc was 34%.

The train has already pulled out of the station with regard to the question of whether he has potential.

Matt Bradley will be an elite player for Cal. He is a much better player than Joe was.

bearister said:

---

I will be very disappointed in my abilities as an amateur talent evaluator if Matt Bradley's career stats at Cal do not surpass those of Joe Shipp. I was a huge Shipp fan.

Joe averaged: 13 PPG; 4 RB and 1.5 AST
Bradley so far: 10.6 PPG; 3.4 RB and 2.1 AST

Matt Bradley will be an elite player for Cal.

---

Shipp might've been runner-up for conference POY, his senior year (I forget who won).

I love Bradley on the team, but I think he lacks the length to be one of the top few players in the conference. If he was 2" taller, with a little more lateral quickness, he'd be NBA bound. I admired the way he stepped in at PG and did okay. Just one of my favorite Cal players!

concordtom said:

---

Vanover vs Kingsley vs Marcus Lee
Compare and contrast.

---

Kingsley never had a very high ceiling, but we sure could've used him this season.. Lee, though a much better player, was too inconsistent and seemed to lack hoops savvy, but he's gonna be a serious winner in the game of life.

I'm super-excited about watching Vanover develop. Each off-season, it'll be like "Can't wait to see how much Vanover's progressed!!" Hoping he can avoid the type of injuries that derailed Kam Rooks.

i know we never want to base coaching decisions on player-retention, but should either Bradley or Vanover leave, either because we keep WJ or because we don't, I'll be really disappointed.

Big C said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Vanover vs Kingsley vs Marcus Lee
Compare and contrast.

---

Kingsley never had a very high ceiling, but we sure could've used him this season.. Lee, though a much better player, was too inconsistent and seemed to lack hoops savvy, but he's gonna be a serious winner in the game of life.

I'm super-excited about watching Vanover develop. Each off-season, it'll be like "Can't wait to see how much Vanover's progressed!!" Hoping he can avoid the type of injuries that derailed Kam Rooks.

i know we never want to base coaching decisions on player-retention, but should either Bradley or Vanover leave, either because we keep WJ or because we don't, I'll be really disappointed.

---

Should WJ be retained, only one player would consider transferring (not a key player). Players like the staff and chemistry has been surprisingly strong, despite the very trying season.

Big C said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Vanover vs Kingsley vs Marcus Lee
Compare and contrast.

---

Kingsley never had a very high ceiling, but we sure could've used him this season.. Lee, though a much better player, was too inconsistent and seemed to lack hoops savvy, but he's gonna be a serious winner in the game of life.

I'm super-excited about watching Vanover develop. Each off-season, it'll be like "Can't wait to see how much Vanover's progressed!!" Hoping he can avoid the type of injuries that derailed Kam Rooks.

i know we never want to base coaching decisions on player-retention, but should either Bradley or Vanover leave, either because we keep WJ or because we don't, I'll be really disappointed.

---

i like Vanovers ceiling way more than King by far. King was just a big blob and he never seemed to gain control of his body. His foot speed was what held him back. Vanover has braids and sports the man bun on ocasion to keep the opponent off guard.

I like this squad. In the model where you keep guys for 4 years and have balanced classes, we are still 2 years away. Still, there are enough pieces here to be hopeful.