Given what WJ has to work with, they looked fluid, well-coached; decent movement, plays that worked, etc.

Also they are playing hard - don't know what he can do with true talent but this team looked so much better coached than a Braun team, esp. on offense.

I understand that comparison is damning w/feint praise, but it is really hard to measure his coaching abilities until he has better/superior players.

I'd give him another year.

Yes, I agree. I'd give him another year too.

You must be kidding. The offense did not look good. Wsu is terrible.they had three players out. We still left three shooters wide open. BODY OF WORK NOT TWO GAMES.

If Kent was smart enough to switch to a zone earlier it would've been a completely different game.

So yeah, let's not get too carried away

Wsu looked great in Arizona. I think if they get the three players back and Frank doesnt tank, they can win some games in the tournament

The decision to hire (or not to hire) a new coach is not up to Thornton. It is up to the donors and I doubt they are going to give him the money. Without donor backing he can probably hire a new equipment manager. It is also not up to BI or Rivals.

Who is Thornton?

oskidunker said:

---

Wsu looked great in Arizona. I think if they get the three players back and Frank doesnt tank, they can win some games in the tournament

---

Frank played the entire game. All 40 mins. (Elleby player 38 mins). So probably understandable if he ran out of gas.

Another brilliant move by Kent (yes I know they were short handed, but there are ways to get your best players a couple min blows here and there)

ducky23 said:

---

If Kent was smart enough to switch to a zone earlier it would've been a completely different game.

So yeah, let's not get too carried away

---

same could be said with a handful CAL's loses. If Jones and ......... would have been a different game.
Fact is, the game happened as it did.

oskidunker said:

---

Who is Thornton?

---

Sean Thornton

You play the game with the players that are available to you. If you win, you win, If you lose, you lose. It counts as one game. They don't put an asterik after the win or loss because someone was out. IF the loss of a player or two cripples you, build a deeper roster,

oskidunker said:

---

You must be kidding. The offense did not look good. Wsu is terrible.they had three players out. We still left three shooters wide open. BODY OF WORK NOT TWO GAMES.

---

yeah, the offense did not look good overall for the game, but we still shot 47%.

at one point we were shooting 55%, but then went into a couple cold spells where we couldn't even get a good shot. Still there were other times that we just couldn't put the ball in the basket. Remember that one play where we got 3 offensive rebounds, and yet still couldn't score, plus the 3 missed dunks/layups by Justice? Without those we would have been above 50% shooting.

Those plays just happen. Frustrating, yes, but they happen

Defensively, I don't agree that we left 3 shooters wide open. Roberts and Elleby hit a lot of threes, but they were all contested (unlike the last game with them or the first game last year). One thing I noticed about Elleby is he is a tall player, who elevates high and shoots it. Hard for our much smaller guards to defend that shot. Roberts is just a pure shooter.

But what the Bears did do was move the ball well. We had 11 turnovers. WSU had 20 turnovers, of which 13 were steals. Don't really want to criticize Dyson because he had a good game today, but the ball is just too sticky in his hands. He needs to get it out of his hands, or drive. Not catch the ball and stare down his defender for 2 seconds before doing something with the ball. But overall, I thought the ball movement was better. For example, the inside passes to slashing Paris for two easy layups, and the 5 Bradley assists.

I'm not arguing with your basic conclusion. No comment on that. I'm just debating your view that the offense looked terrible and that we left shooters wide open.

HoopDreams said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

You must be kidding. The offense did not look good. Wsu is terrible.they had three players out. We still left three shooters wide open. BODY OF WORK NOT TWO GAMES.

---

Defensively, I don't agree that we left 3 shooters wide open. Roberts and Elleby hit a lot of threes, but they were all contested (unlike the last game with them or the first game last year). One thing I noticed about Elleby is he is a tall player, who elevates high and shoots it. Hard for our much smaller guards to defend that shot. Roberts is just a pure shooter.

---

this

caltagjohnson said:

---

The decision to hire (or not to hire) a new coach is not up to Thornton. It is up to the donors and I doubt they are going to give him the money. Without donor backing he can probably hire a new equipment manager. It is also not up to BI or Rivals.

---

Don't know about Thornton or if anyone really cares what he thinks. Knowlton will make the decision about firing the existing coach and hiring a new one, if necessary.

My comments about coaching acumen are within the following context:

1. No bench.

2. Point guard who cannot shoot (including free throws) and is at best a work in progress in dishing. Cannot finish @ the rim.

3. A center with potential but right now is a non force rebounding, inside offensive skills. Even w/him we are small, small.

4. A decent 2 guard; good potential with Bradley and Seuing good @ times, but loses focus too often.

None are game changers and over-all skill level is at bottom of pac 12.

Yes it is impossible to ignore a 2 win Pac 12 record, but it is really difficult w/the above talent level to objectively access WJ's explicit and implicit coaching skills

3146gabby said:

---

My comments about coaching acumen are within the following context:

1. No bench.

2. Point guard who cannot shoot (including free throws) and is at best a work in progress in dishing. Cannot finish @ the rim.

3. A center with potential but right now is a non force rebounding, inside offensive skills. Even w/him we are small, small.

4. A decent 2 guard; good potential with Bradley and Seuing good @ times, but loses focus too often.

None are game changers and over-all skill level is at bottom of pac 12.

Yes it is impossible to ignore a 2 win Pac 12 record, but it is really difficult w/the above talent level to objectively access WJ's explicit and implicit coaching skills

---

And we are very young. No seniors for Senior Night. Only 2 Juniors on scholarship, Paris Austin and Roman Davis.

Oh God lets keep Jones. He will be another Pete Newell! I am so excited

There are 2-3 keys to a good/excellent BB team and in this order:

1A talent
1B coahcing
2. Desire, hard work etc.

1B wo/1A goes only so far and not too far at that.

At the core of this year's woes is the above-mentioned lack of talent. There is not one star, one close-to-being-a-star, not one Jorge...and no amount of coaching can create that necessary talent level. As it is WJ has done a remarkable job in keeping this team together and motivated. While we all want wins, for me what these young students are learning about challenges, commitment, the whole is greater than the individual parts is not insignificant.

We won't know WJ's coaching acumen until he has decent talent and at least for now I am not blaming him for the empty larder - Cuonzo hurt this program in so many ways.

OK. I think that is fair but then (at it is bit of a chicken and egg) when do you hold WJ accountable for attracting talent (or, as well, Knowleton who may need to lobby for ending the Jeff Tedford era recruiting restrictions). Year three? Four? Five? Or are you going to argue that they ARE talented but young....and thus we should see significant breakthrough (BTW - that was the argument last year to this) with more experience in year 3? At what point do you declare "put up or shut up".

That is my retort to the pumpers. What are you benchmarks for next year?; because after next you HAVE to either add years to his contract or cut your losses.

Good question. Benchmarks in more objective spheres are important, perhaps less so in subjective areas. Pretty easy to see if the operation to fix a broken bone worked; not so easy to determine whether years of therapy fixed the psyche.

Perhaps a stretch analogy but coaching BB seems closer to therapy than orthopedic surgery.....

Next year: same players, assume they will be better although whatever ceiling this modest crop of players has, is not going to rise much. Next year's recruits appear to be more talented, but we shall see.

Would you take more wins, but no apparent improvement in play or an upward trend, reflecting more talent/coaching but perhaps only a modest improvement in #/wins?

3146gabby said:

---

Good question. Benchmarks in more objective spheres are important, perhaps less so in subjective areas. Pretty easy to see if the operation to fix a broken bone worked; not so easy to determine whether years of therapy fixed the psyche.

Perhaps a stretch analogy but coaching BB seems closer to therapy than orthopedic surgery.....

Next year: same players, assume they will be better although whatever ceiling this modest crop of players has, is not going to rise much. Next year's recruits appear to be more talented, but we shall see.

Would you take more wins, but no apparent improvement in play or an upward trend, reflecting more talent/coaching but perhaps only a modest improvement in #/wins?

---

No. Cause I think that if you are looking at 13-14 wins you have answered the questions. You really can't continue to dig while sitting in a hole.

As posted on another thread - Anteaters are now 25-5. Montana is 21-7. I find it nearly laughable that ANYONE could say with a straight face that they wouldn't IMMEDIATELY trade Jones and a second round pick and a player to be named later for EITER Travis or Turner. My fear is that the ship has left the station - and both of them will be hot commodities on the market this year and likely not options for our cheap AD.

At the WSU game, they honored the 1999 NIT Champions:
Did that team have that much more talent than the current Bears? Or perhaps coaching had something to do with getting wins out of that roster.
1998-1999 Roster

That team had no home court. It did have the self-proclaimed second best player in Chicago in Geno Carlisle.
It was a team of JC and D1 transfers, one blossoming sophomore in Lampley, and players who would become vital parts later on, but not that year. Yes, the team had seniors - but seniors who had played together only one year.

(Wow, did Kilgore really average 14 points a game? I don't recall that at all!)

The team shot 31% on threes; 43% overall; could barely rebound (ranked 302 in total rebounds) but didn't turn the ball over much.

3146gabby said:

---

trying to apply that here and with the aforementioned lack of talent, I don't think the fire/don't fire WJ is an easy call.

---

Although the above is a blatant understatement, it is also the most accurate and rational thing I have read on these boards in months.

socaltownie said:

---

3146gabby said:

---

Good question. Benchmarks in more objective spheres are important, perhaps less so in subjective areas. Pretty easy to see if the operation to fix a broken bone worked; not so easy to determine whether years of therapy fixed the psyche.

Perhaps a stretch analogy but coaching BB seems closer to therapy than orthopedic surgery.....

Next year: same players, assume they will be better although whatever ceiling this modest crop of players has, is not going to rise much. Next year's recruits appear to be more talented, but we shall see.

Would you take more wins, but no apparent improvement in play or an upward trend, reflecting more talent/coaching but perhaps only a modest improvement in #/wins?

---

No. Cause I think that if you are looking at 13-14 wins you have answered the questions. You really can't continue to dig while sitting in a hole.

As posted on another thread - Anteaters are now 25-5. Montana is 21-7. I find it nearly laughable that ANYONE could say with a straight face that they wouldn't IMMEDIATELY trade Jones and a second round pick and a player to be named later for EITER Travis or Turner. My fear is that the ship has left the station - and both of them will be hot commodities on the market this year and likely not options for our cheap AD.

---

How do you know he is cheap?

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

3146gabby said:

---

Good question. Benchmarks in more objective spheres are important, perhaps less so in subjective areas. Pretty easy to see if the operation to fix a broken bone worked; not so easy to determine whether years of therapy fixed the psyche.

Perhaps a stretch analogy but coaching BB seems closer to therapy than orthopedic surgery.....

Next year: same players, assume they will be better although whatever ceiling this modest crop of players has, is not going to rise much. Next year's recruits appear to be more talented, but we shall see.

Would you take more wins, but no apparent improvement in play or an upward trend, reflecting more talent/coaching but perhaps only a modest improvement in #/wins?

---

No. Cause I think that if you are looking at 13-14 wins you have answered the questions. You really can't continue to dig while sitting in a hole.

As posted on another thread - Anteaters are now 25-5. Montana is 21-7. I find it nearly laughable that ANYONE could say with a straight face that they wouldn't IMMEDIATELY trade Jones and a second round pick and a player to be named later for EITER Travis or Turner. My fear is that the ship has left the station - and both of them will be hot commodities on the market this year and likely not options for our cheap AD.

---

How do you know he is cheap?

---

Good point. I tend to set my expectations low for Cal so when they are met I am not disappointed ;-)

Just to show you how fickle the fortunes of college basketball can be: When the Bears were in their death spiral I participated in throwing coach's names into the ring. I advocated for USF's Kyle Smith. After a 3 game losing streak, now the Dons are circling the airport dumping fuel, just as the Bears yanked on the joystick and avoided clipping the top of El Capitan.

this current CAL team doesn't even have enough healthy scholarship players for a 5 on 5 scrimmage. Next year we lose no one of consequence ( just Davis maybe ) and gain three players who should all be able to contribute. From what I have read, CAL is in strong position for a number of top recruits; Marcus Bailey, Dalen Terry, etc. I'm in the camp of one more year for Jones to show improvement.

graguna said:

---

this current CAL team doesn't even have enough healthy scholarship players for a 5 on 5 scrimmage. Next year we lose no one of consequence ( just Davis maybe ) and gain three players who should all be able to contribute. From what I have read, CAL is in strong position for a number of top recruits; Marcus Bailey, Dalen Terry, etc. I'm in the camp of one more year for Jones to show improvement.

---

What is your benchmark. How many games does he need to win next year? Pumpers need to do that - as that is clearly what AD K will be thinking.

socaltownie said:

---

graguna said:

---

this current CAL team doesn't even have enough healthy scholarship players for a 5 on 5 scrimmage. Next year we lose no one of consequence ( just Davis maybe ) and gain three players who should all be able to contribute. From what I have read, CAL is in strong position for a number of top recruits; Marcus Bailey, Dalen Terry, etc. I'm in the camp of one more year for Jones to show improvement.

---

What is your benchmark. How many games does he need to win next year? Pumpers need to do that - as that is clearly what AD K will be thinking.

---

9-9 in Pac 12 and overall winning record next year. Year after NCAA tournament team.

graguna said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

graguna said:

---

this current CAL team doesn't even have enough healthy scholarship players for a 5 on 5 scrimmage. Next year we lose no one of consequence ( just Davis maybe ) and gain three players who should all be able to contribute. From what I have read, CAL is in strong position for a number of top recruits; Marcus Bailey, Dalen Terry, etc. I'm in the camp of one more year for Jones to show improvement.

---

What is your benchmark. How many games does he need to win next year? Pumpers need to do that - as that is clearly what AD K will be thinking.

---

9-9 in Pac 12 and overall winning record next year. Year after NCAA tournament team.

---

+1

9-9 etc. not with current talent level even assuming growth. Sorry to repeat but we have no true/effective point guard and center, no bench (back up point guard?) and possibly solid, but not 'stars' at any other position.

3146gabby said:

---

9-9 etc. not with current talent level even assuming growth. Sorry to repeat but we have no true/effective point guard and center, no bench (back up point guard?) and possibly solid, but not 'stars' at any other position.

---

point guard: we have a good freshman point guard coming in and Austin will improve some as will Bradley

Center: Vanover has progressed from next to nothing to a solid contributor in year one. I expect continued upward trajectory for him. Thorp will be a decent freshman.

I'd rather have a well balanced team of 3 and low 4 star guys rather than a bunch of 1 and done stars. Jaylen was a 5 star. Was he really that great as a freshman?

agree regarding 2-3 year players rather than one and down. we will see what the talent level is next year.

It will be interesting to see particularly how Austin and Anover grow and whether they can really become significant Div. 1 players....