12 in the first game, which was not good, 10 in the second game, not much better, 15 in the 3rd game, which was awful, and now 22 of them. Brown with 5. Gordon with 4.

Anyone care to predict how many we will make against Duke? And we keep winning. in spite of TO's. Maybe we need to have a loss or two, to make us realize we won't beat good teams playing like this.

Nothing wrong with 12 turnovers in a game. Things happen. It's also possible to play an absolutely horrid game and have zero turnovers.

This particular game was horrid offensively because they couldn't (or wouldn't) take advantage of their advantage.

Well, 14 of those 22 were in the first half - so there was some improvement

SFCityBear said:

---

12 in the first game, which was not good, 10 in the second game, not much better, 15 in the 3rd game, which was awful, and now 22 of them. Brown with 5. Gordon with 4.

Anyone care to predict how many we will make against Duke? And we keep winning. in spite of TO's. Maybe we need to have a loss or two, to make us realize we won't beat good teams playing like this.

---

Doing predictive analytics on the reference database (you're quite familiar with that),
I come up with 3....but I may have to tweek the model.

Good grief. Only 7 assists !
Well, bugger-off, that's bad !

SFCityBear said:

---

12 in the first game, which was not good, 10 in the second game, not much better, 15 in the 3rd game, which was awful, and now 22 of them. Brown with 5. Gordon with 4.

Anyone care to predict how many we will make against Duke? And we keep winning. in spite of TO's. Maybe we need to have a loss or two, to make us realize we won't beat good teams playing like this.

---

FWIW, per the pregame writeup posted on this free board, Prairie View was the top turnover forcing team in the nation last year (and #7 the year before). Therefore, I predict less TO's against Duke. Any takers?

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

12 in the first game, which was not good, 10 in the second game, not much better, 15 in the 3rd game, which was awful, and now 22 of them. Brown with 5. Gordon with 4.

Anyone care to predict how many we will make against Duke? And we keep winning. in spite of TO's. Maybe we need to have a loss or two, to make us realize we won't beat good teams playing like this.

---

FWIW, per the pregame writeup posted on this free board, Prairie View was the top turnover forcing team in the nation last year (and #7 the year before). Therefore, I predict less TO's against Duke. Any takers?

---

Here!

I know that PVAMU overplays and causes many turnovers, but I was troubled by the sloppy ones, Thiemann just dropping the ball after getting a rebound, weak passes, dribbling into obvious double teams, etc. It seemed that they really didn't have much focus. I'm glad they gutted out the win, but I agree that maybe a loss might have been better as a learning experience. Interestingly, they had fewer turnovers in the 2nd half, but scored a whopping 19 points!

bearup said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

12 in the first game, which was not good, 10 in the second game, not much better, 15 in the 3rd game, which was awful, and now 22 of them. Brown with 5. Gordon with 4.

Anyone care to predict how many we will make against Duke? And we keep winning. in spite of TO's. Maybe we need to have a loss or two, to make us realize we won't beat good teams playing like this.

---

FWIW, per the pregame writeup posted on this free board, Prairie View was the top turnover forcing team in the nation last year (and #7 the year before). Therefore, I predict less TO's against Duke. Any takers?

---

Here!

---

Okay, the wager is a public Mea Culpa on the boards by the loser, without being able to actually say "Mea Culpa".

Civil Bear said:

---

bearup said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

12 in the first game, which was not good, 10 in the second game, not much better, 15 in the 3rd game, which was awful, and now 22 of them. Brown with 5. Gordon with 4.

Anyone care to predict how many we will make against Duke? And we keep winning. in spite of TO's. Maybe we need to have a loss or two, to make us realize we won't beat good teams playing like this.

---

FWIW, per the pregame writeup posted on this free board, Prairie View was the top turnover forcing team in the nation last year (and #7 the year before). Therefore, I predict less TO's against Duke. Any takers?

---

Here!

---

Okay, the wager is a public Mea Culpa on the boards by the loser, without being able to actually say "Mea Culpa".

---

You got me, CB. I got overexcited looking forward to Matt body-slamming Coach K in the middle of MSG.

OTOH many of our non-steal to's aren't forced at all.

I've been complimenting the coaching staff through three games. Last night-the team absolutely did NOT deserve to win the game. Their opponent was smaller and less talented yet they out hustled Cal and should have been rewarded. Bears showed negligible effort on the boards and commited 22 turnovers. The turnover with one second remaining in the first half may have been the worst play that i can ever remember including high school
games. The coaching staff did not appear to have the team prepared to play...I was really impressed by the effort displayed by Prairie View!

Better than Rap?

that game was as ugly as any last year mostly due to the turnovers

we had the size advantage, but could not enter a pass cleanly into the post either because of bad passes, poor hands, or poor strategy vs the over playing and scrappy PV team. I thought this was a game that Kelly could dominate, but he barely got the ball cleanly. Our other bigs were shut down in the paint.

Dyson played terribly on offense, but he wasn't the only one. Bradley ultimately saved us, but he also drove out of control a few times to poor outcomes. Gordon was ineffective and had 4 TOs.

Grant was probably the only player who I think had a good game.

how many times did a cal player cleanly rebound the ball, only to get the ball stolen or poked out?

Teams who play against a well executed press/trap defense often shake their competition when that competition is not prepared. That's what Cal looked like for much of the game

if you are an undersized team like that you need to do two things ... play scappy defense and get turnovers and shoot well

fortunately PV went through a big shooting cold spell, otherwise Cal's ugly game would have been an embarrassing home loss, but I tip my hat to PV anyway

hopefully this was a cheap lesson and they learned how to protect the ball against an aggressive defense

UrsaMajor said:

---

I know that PVAMU overplays and causes many turnovers, but I was troubled by the sloppy ones, Thiemann just dropping the ball after getting a rebound, weak passes, dribbling into obvious double teams, etc. It seemed that they really didn't have much focus. I'm glad they gutted out the win, but I agree that maybe a loss might have been better as a learning experience. Interestingly, they had fewer turnovers in the 2nd half, but scored a whopping 19 points!

---

The sloppiness is what rang with me as well. BTW - that was the smallest crowd at HAAS in quite some time (barring exhibition games). But the Bearettes were strong!!

Sit wherever you want. Hope it continues.

HoopDreams said:

---

that game was as ugly as any last year mostly due to the turnovers

we had the size advantage, but could not enter a pass cleanly into the post either because of bad passes, poor hands, or poor strategy vs the over playing and scrappy PV team. I thought this was a game that Kelly could dominate, but he barely got the ball cleanly. Our other bigs were shut down in the paint.

---

It seemed like Cal gave up even trying to pass the ball inside. Especially to Lars - I saw Lars fight for position, gain position, call for the ball - and it never was delivered. Perhaps this was coach instruction - perhaps was players thinking Lars would either not receive the ball cleanly or, even if got the ball, would travel or miss the shot or just turn it over on a move - Im not saying it was wrong to not try and feed Lars down low - just that it seemed deliberate to not feed him.

ncbears said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

that game was as ugly as any last year mostly due to the turnovers

we had the size advantage, but could not enter a pass cleanly into the post either because of bad passes, poor hands, or poor strategy vs the over playing and scrappy PV team. I thought this was a game that Kelly could dominate, but he barely got the ball cleanly. Our other bigs were shut down in the paint.

---

It seemed like Cal gave up even trying to pass the ball inside. Especially to Lars - I saw Lars fight for position, gain position, call for the ball - and it never was delivered. Perhaps this was coach instruction - perhaps was players thinking Lars would either not receive the ball cleanly or, even if got the ball, would travel or miss the shot or just turn it over on a move - Im not saying it was wrong to not try and feed Lars down low - just that it seemed deliberate to not feed him.

---

I don't think it was 'deliberate' not to pass to him in the post

It looks to me that is one of the first options on several of our motions/sets. But although he was fighting for position, PV's post defense was not making it easy on our bigs. Not only were they having a hard time getting the pass, but when they did PV always collapsed a second or third defender

HoopDreams said:

---

ncbears said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

that game was as ugly as any last year mostly due to the turnovers

we had the size advantage, but could not enter a pass cleanly into the post either because of bad passes, poor hands, or poor strategy vs the over playing and scrappy PV team. I thought this was a game that Kelly could dominate, but he barely got the ball cleanly. Our other bigs were shut down in the paint.

---

It seemed like Cal gave up even trying to pass the ball inside. Especially to Lars - I saw Lars fight for position, gain position, call for the ball - and it never was delivered. Perhaps this was coach instruction - perhaps was players thinking Lars would either not receive the ball cleanly or, even if got the ball, would travel or miss the shot or just turn it over on a move - Im not saying it was wrong to not try and feed Lars down low - just that it seemed deliberate to not feed him.

---

I don't think it was 'deliberate' not to pass to him in the post

It looks to me that is one of the first options on several of our motions/sets. But although he was fighting for position, PV's post defense was not making it easy on our bigs. Not only were they having a hard time getting the pass, but when they did PV always collapsed a second or third defender

---

This! Furthermore, Thiemann is still struggling to hold on to the ball and/or finish in game play. The few times, they try a pick and roll, Lars seems a little slow on the roll to be effective as well. Passing that leads to a turnover or missed shot, does a lot to subconsciously change the passer's decision process going forward. Kelly is doing a much better job at this early stage, IMHO.

BeachedBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

ncbears said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

that game was as ugly as any last year mostly due to the turnovers

we had the size advantage, but could not enter a pass cleanly into the post either because of bad passes, poor hands, or poor strategy vs the over playing and scrappy PV team. I thought this was a game that Kelly could dominate, but he barely got the ball cleanly. Our other bigs were shut down in the paint.

---

It seemed like Cal gave up even trying to pass the ball inside. Especially to Lars - I saw Lars fight for position, gain position, call for the ball - and it never was delivered. Perhaps this was coach instruction - perhaps was players thinking Lars would either not receive the ball cleanly or, even if got the ball, would travel or miss the shot or just turn it over on a move - Im not saying it was wrong to not try and feed Lars down low - just that it seemed deliberate to not feed him.

---

I don't think it was 'deliberate' not to pass to him in the post

It looks to me that is one of the first options on several of our motions/sets. But although he was fighting for position, PV's post defense was not making it easy on our bigs. Not only were they having a hard time getting the pass, but when they did PV always collapsed a second or third defender

---

This! Furthermore, Thiemann is still struggling to hold on to the ball and/or finish in game play. The few times, they try a pick and roll, Lars seems a little slow on the roll to be effective as well. Passing that leads to a turnover or missed shot, does a lot to subconsciously change the passer's decision process going forward. Kelly is doing a much better job at this early stage, IMHO.

---

I agree, but like Coach Fox said, "He's a freshman." Many freshmen, especially bigs, who usually take a little longer to mature physically than shorter players, can struggle in games, especially early games, and some even struggle for a year or two. Even highly ranked freshmen like Ivan Rabb and Jalen Brown struggled in their first year, especially in some early games and even at times in later games. Lars isn't a highly ranked player. He will get better. How much better is the question.

SFCityBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

ncbears said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

that game was as ugly as any last year mostly due to the turnovers

we had the size advantage, but could not enter a pass cleanly into the post either because of bad passes, poor hands, or poor strategy vs the over playing and scrappy PV team. I thought this was a game that Kelly could dominate, but he barely got the ball cleanly. Our other bigs were shut down in the paint.

---

It seemed like Cal gave up even trying to pass the ball inside. Especially to Lars - I saw Lars fight for position, gain position, call for the ball - and it never was delivered. Perhaps this was coach instruction - perhaps was players thinking Lars would either not receive the ball cleanly or, even if got the ball, would travel or miss the shot or just turn it over on a move - Im not saying it was wrong to not try and feed Lars down low - just that it seemed deliberate to not feed him.

---

I don't think it was 'deliberate' not to pass to him in the post

It looks to me that is one of the first options on several of our motions/sets. But although he was fighting for position, PV's post defense was not making it easy on our bigs. Not only were they having a hard time getting the pass, but when they did PV always collapsed a second or third defender

---

This! Furthermore, Thiemann is still struggling to hold on to the ball and/or finish in game play. The few times, they try a pick and roll, Lars seems a little slow on the roll to be effective as well. Passing that leads to a turnover or missed shot, does a lot to subconsciously change the passer's decision process going forward. Kelly is doing a much better job at this early stage, IMHO.

---

I agree, but like Coach Fox said, "He's a freshman." Many freshmen, especially bigs, who usually take a little longer to mature physically than shorter players, can struggle in games, especially early games, and some even struggle for a year or two. Even highly ranked freshmen like Ivan Rabb and Jalen Brown struggled in their first year, especially in some early games and even at times in later games. Lars isn't a highly ranked player. He will get better. How much better is the question.

---

No doubt. And no knock on Lars, overall - but you nailed it - he's a freshman. My point was to re-inforce that his lack of touches are not by design of the staff. And that lack of success, will lead other players to try a different option than pass it inside - or at least hesitate unless he is in GREAT position, vs OK position.