socaltownie said:

---

<snip>

The problem is that these problems DO NOT GO AWAY next year. Arguably they get worse. We are so screwed. I guess a three year Death Watch Hottie thread is called for cause that is what we are looking at before the next reload.

Why in the f'ing world did we hire a guy like fox?

---

Not just that we hired a guy like Fox but that we're in essence paying DOUBLE for him thanks to Wyking's buy out. Malfeascance all around.

PtownBear1 said:

---

So our OOC is complete and the win-loss column looks about the same as the two years under WJ. So is this team still looking better than under WJ? Early on it seemed like a solid yes, but things seemed to have quickly gone downhill. Genuine question as I've barely watched any of the last several games.

---

For reference, our Sagarin is 197 with a recent of 218. We ended last year at 214 with a recent of 182.

socaltownie said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

So our OOC is complete and the win-loss column looks about the same as the two years under WJ. So is this team still looking better than under WJ? Early on it seemed like a solid yes, but things seemed to have quickly gone downhill. Genuine question as I've barely watched any of the last several games.

---

Against low lever foes they looked better because those teams did not have matchups that they could exploit and didn't have defenders to take certain things away. As we have seen better teams the Glaring MULTI=YEAR problems because clear.....

1) Lars can not defend decent bigs.
2) Kelly can not defend stretch fours who can drive. If he goes out to defend them they drive by him and put fouls on him. If he doesn't get out....."THREE!!!!"
3) Paris is Paris. But worse Brown can't shoot without a total rebuild. So the Point guard of the future is not really going to be at pac-12 levels
4) We don't have a wing who can score against decent competition other than Bradley. Grant seems like a good kid but can't drive on competition and is too slow on the release so needs a ton of screening to get open and our bigs are not great at setting screens.

The problem is that these problems DO NOT GO AWAY next year. Arguably they get worse. We are so screwed. I guess a three year Death Watch Hottie thread is called for cause that is what we are looking at before the next reload.

Why in the f'ing world did we hire a guy like fox?

---

The thing is, it isn't that complicated. We have lost to the top 7 teams on our schedule according to Sagarin and beat the bottom six. Same way our football team has been able to pass on the statistically worst pass defenses and not on anyone else.

I know many don't like to use statistics and like to use the "eye test", and I'm not saying that metrics like Sagarin are the end all and be all, but it is amazing how looking better using an eye test is almost always explained by the competition and how many people just ignore that factor even when it is clear. "I know we played the 300th best team, but we just LOOKED better".

Right now, we've beaten one team - California Baptist - that is ranked higher in Sagarin than any Pac-12 team. (UCLA and WSU). Those two teams are the only ones that appear in the ballpark of us being able to win.

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

. . .

I know many don't like to use statistics and like to use the "eye test", and I'm not saying that metrics like Sagarin are the end all and be all, but it is amazing how looking better using an eye test is almost always explained by the competition and how many people just ignore that factor even when it is clear. "I know we played the 300th best team, but we just LOOKED better".

. . .

---

There has been a lot of talk of Ceiling and Floor wrt FOX. I'm forming the opinion that both his Floor and his Ceiling are lower than expected.

---

That is where I am unless the recruits coming in are amazingly wondrous late bloomers. But not expecting that.

at this point I think the path to relevance lies with Wilcox. Get the program to the next step. Start selling out CMS. Get $$ for the department. Get $$ for a bb coach who is an up and comer.

socaltownie said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

. . .

I know many don't like to use statistics and like to use the "eye test", and I'm not saying that metrics like Sagarin are the end all and be all, but it is amazing how looking better using an eye test is almost always explained by the competition and how many people just ignore that factor even when it is clear. "I know we played the 300th best team, but we just LOOKED better".

. . .

---

There has been a lot of talk of Ceiling and Floor wrt FOX. I'm forming the opinion that both his Floor and his Ceiling are lower than expected.

---

That is where I am unless the recruits coming in are amazingly wondrous late bloomers. But not expecting that.

at this point I think the path to relevance lies with Wilcox. Get the program to the next step. Start selling out CMS. Get $$ for the department. Get $$ for a bb coach who is an up and comer.

---

Agreed. But I also want to see progress in Bball during that period. It will also help attract better candidates.

socaltownie said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

. . .

I know many don't like to use statistics and like to use the "eye test", and I'm not saying that metrics like Sagarin are the end all and be all, but it is amazing how looking better using an eye test is almost always explained by the competition and how many people just ignore that factor even when it is clear. "I know we played the 300th best team, but we just LOOKED better".

. . .

---

There has been a lot of talk of Ceiling and Floor wrt FOX. I'm forming the opinion that both his Floor and his Ceiling are lower than expected.

---

That is where I am unless the recruits coming in are amazingly wondrous late bloomers. But not expecting that.

at this point I think the path to relevance lies with Wilcox. Get the program to the next step. Start selling out CMS. Get $$ for the department. Get $$ for a bb coach who is an up and comer.

---

Disagree. We could have hired an up and comer for $1.6M. We chose not to do that in order to go the "safe" route.

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

. . .

I know many don't like to use statistics and like to use the "eye test", and I'm not saying that metrics like Sagarin are the end all and be all, but it is amazing how looking better using an eye test is almost always explained by the competition and how many people just ignore that factor even when it is clear. "I know we played the 300th best team, but we just LOOKED better".

. . .

---

I think you are mis-representing what the eye-test means. Or perhaps, you are reflecting what others on this board are mis-representing as the eye test. The eye-test is subjective (much like beauty is in the eye of the beholder). The same things (poor rebounding, missed D asisgnment, no inside presence) can be seen against all levels of competition. Both in terms of eye-test and statistics. They simply impact the results much more against better competition. Organization, Effort, Substitution patterns, Clock management are all eye-test factors that could probably be demonstrated with a video analysis, but don't show up in results. Most importantly, something like effort improving from 80% to 95% (if that were able to be measured) would 'appear' to be improved, but still result in the same negative output.

For me, there are a number of things that look better about this team (BeachedBear's eye test) than under Jones. Enough to form an opinion that Fox is more capable than Jones. However, I don't think Fox is the type or caliber of coach to take this group of players and achieve instant results. I think a significant number of posters felt this way, however.

I think its a little early to form an opinion on whether Fox will ever be able to compete at Cal. For Jones it was pretty evident at the end of year one, but at this point in his tenure (end of first OOC season) there was some hope left with Jones. I'm guessing we will collectively have a better sense of Fox at the end of this season as well.

As for the collective talent of this group - not trying to be negative - but we just are not well balanced, deep or talented. Similar to last two seasons. There are differences, but not significant ones IMHO. What FOX is doing with this group is also not that impressive, but slightly better than what Jones was doing.

As for those that pump Jones success at the end of last season - they seem to be disregarding the impact that the teams we beat were likely looking past Cal and may not have given Cal their best shot.

There has been a lot of talk of Ceiling and Floor wrt FOX. I'm forming the opinion that both his Floor and his Ceiling are lower than expected.

---

No, actually, I think we agree on what eye test is. Maybe where we disagree is my confidence that many here have the "eye" to distinguish, including myself. If you play a team that is bad at blocking out on the boards, and you have more success blocking out on the boards, is it really that easy to tell that you sucked at it just as bad as always, just the other team sucked more?

I agree that your factors might not show short term dividends in the win loss column, but they should be showing results in Sagarin or similar ratings. I don't see that it is easy to improve in all those phases without at minimum losing by fewer points against the same level of competition. I think this season is a good example. We played 4 really crappy opponents at the beginning of the season and people were talking about how much better we were and some invoked eye test. We are 2-7 since and suddenly we are worse? Sagarin indicates that we are basically the same team playing at the same level (though it has dropped some) and that the schedule explains everything. I submit that if we rearranged the schedule in time, our results would be the same.

I would say something similar is happening in football with our passing game. Bottom line is, whether it's Garbers or Modster or the OL is healthy, or the receivers are healthy, we have passed well against horrific pass defenses and badly against everyone else. And in that case, my own "eye test" agrees that our pass offense looks better, but then there is that USC game which is the one mediocre pass defense we have played in a group of terrible pass defenses.

Regarding your statement about the talent of the group and what Fox is doing with them, I agree with your assessment. What I don't understand from some is being satisfied with looking somewhat better coached than last year. Wouldn't it be a conservative statement to say there are 300 teams that are better coached than Cal was last year? I don't see that as a standard to set.

I don't agree with your point about the end of last year. Washington State was not looking passed anyone. Colorado was in postseason. More importantly, Cal was established as a dreadful team early on. I don't see any more reason they'd be overlooked at that point in the season. Were they overlooked? Probably. More than earlier? I doubt it. Not saying they were good, but I think 4 games in a row is a good enough trend to say they were improved.

I'll say this again. My main issue is those that do not seem to want any standard at all this year. I recognize the difficult job Fox walked into. I'm not saying we should be going to a tournament this year. I am saying you can tell when things are moving in a positive direction. This team needs to show some improvement. We need to keep our key players from transferring. I know some people don't like talking about odds of recruits at a certain level succeeding, but I'll say again, our best recruit is our best player and neither the freshmen or the next class are rated close to him. That needs to change and if it doesn't it is fair of detractors to say the talent level is not likely to get us to the next level as a team. He absolutely may surprise me. My issue is that there are others that have set zero standard. It is not possible for him to do anything to surprise them in the negative because they are literally expecting nothing from him.

I didn't expect us to be as bad as we are, but Fox should be thanking his lucky stars that it's Year 1. What bothers me somewhat (let's face it...I ain't really that bothered because the last 2 seasons sapped any type of energy I had regarding this program) is the lack of progressive improvement.

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

I didn't expect us to be as bad as we are, but Fox should be thanking his lucky stars that it's Year 1. What bothers me somewhat (let's face it...I ain't really that bothered because the last 2 seasons sapped any type of energy I had regarding this program) is the lack of progressive improvement.

---

I don't know what's a reasonable time in which to expect visible improvement. In March or April I'll compare this season to Jones' two seasons but even then I'll have to allow the possibility Fox's second season could be significantly better than his first. One thing I'm pretty sure of is if I'm unhappy it won't influence the AD.

Memo to Coach Fox: Offense will come and go but you can play good defense every game. Tighten up that f'ing D!

stu said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

I didn't expect us to be as bad as we are, but Fox should be thanking his lucky stars that it's Year 1. What bothers me somewhat (let's face it...I ain't really that bothered because the last 2 seasons sapped any type of energy I had regarding this program) is the lack of progressive improvement.

---

I don't know what's a reasonable time in which to expect visible improvement. In March or April I'll compare this season to Jones' two seasons but even then I'll have to allow the possibility Fox's second season could be significantly better than his first. One thing I'm pretty sure of is if I'm unhappy it won't influence the AD.

---

And if not the second, why not the third? Or fourth?

As I said. No standard.

Cyrus B. Goode said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I'll say this again. My main issue is those that do not seem to want any standard at all this year. I recognize the difficult job Fox walked into. I'm not saying we should be going to a tournament this year. I am saying you can tell when things are moving in a positive direction. This team needs to show some improvement. We need to keep our key players from transferring. I know some people don't like talking about odds of recruits at a certain level succeeding, but I'll say again, our best recruit is our best player and neither the freshmen or the next class are rated close to him. That needs to change and if it doesn't it is fair of detractors to say the talent level is not likely to get us to the next level as a team. He absolutely may surprise me. My issue is that there are others that have set zero standard. It is not possible for him to do anything to surprise them in the negative because they are literally expecting nothing from him.

---

My simple response is this. Did Steve Kerr get really dumb in a year or did he lose nearly all of his top talent to injury or departure?

Subsequent to Fox's hire, three players transferred. Those slots have been filled, but not by guys that are as good as the ones who left. Therefore, there is a serious talent shortage on this year's team.

Additionally, the first recruiting class looks uninspiring, to say the least right now.

I do want to see improvement from the existing players, whatever their talent level, but we probably won't know how extensive that was until the end of the year.

---

Cyrus....the lack of good recruiting was my main concern with Fox from the start.....If he can't recruit higher level talent, Cal will never win enough to satisfy me...as Oaktown has said over and over, if you don't have the higher ranked players, you're not going to sustain any satisfactory level of performance....Maybe this is why Fox seems to have hit his ceiling....He hasn't shown the ability to recruit high level talent consistently anywhere he has been.....

bearmanpg said:

---

Cyrus....the lack of good recruiting was my main concern with Fox from the start.....If he can't recruit higher level talent, Cal will never win enough to satisfy me...as Oaktown has said over and over, if you don't have the higher ranked players, you're not going to sustain any satisfactory level of performance....Maybe this is why Fox seems to have hit his ceiling....He hasn't shown the ability to recruit high level talent consistently anywhere he has been.....

---

I am a little concerned that when he did recruit a 5 star player in Caldwell-Pope (who almost fell into his lap) the team still wasn't that good, going 15-17 both of the years he played including his second year when he was SEC Player of the Year. I like that Fox is a standup guy, but that in itself won't get it done against known cheaters like Miller at Arizona.

OaktownBear said:

---

stu said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

I didn't expect us to be as bad as we are, but Fox should be thanking his lucky stars that it's Year 1. What bothers me somewhat (let's face it...I ain't really that bothered because the last 2 seasons sapped any type of energy I had regarding this program) is the lack of progressive improvement.

---

I don't know what's a reasonable time in which to expect visible improvement. In March or April I'll compare this season to Jones' two seasons but even then I'll have to allow the possibility Fox's second season could be significantly better than his first. One thing I'm pretty sure of is if I'm unhappy it won't influence the AD.

---

And if not the second, why not the third? Or fourth?

As I said. No standard.

---

Good point. So here are my standards:

First, I would not have hired Jones because I thought he was unqualified and that we could do better. Second, I would not have hired Fox because I think he is a bad fit with Berkeley. But we did hire both.

I think in general a coach taking on a rebuilding job should get 3 years to get the program heading in the right direction. It takes some time to recruit without cheating and to develop the less-heralded players who might be available.

However I want to see signs of progress, which can take so many forms I'll just present a few possible scenarios:

1) We win 0 to 3 conference games (i.e. no improvement), suffer significant player losses, and recruit no promising players in the spring. To me this would represent recurring disaster and I'd want the coach gone immediately.

2) We win 0 to 3 conference games but suffer no significant player losses and recruit 1 or 2 promising players in the spring. To me this would represent a glimmer of hope and I'd grudgingly put up with the coach for another year.

3) We win more than 3 conference games, suffer no significant player losses, recruit 1 or 2 promising players in the spring, and secure verbal commitments from 2 or more promising players for the fall. To me this would represent real progress and I'd be happy to keep the coach for another year.

After year 2 I would expect more, say 6 or more conference wins and recruiting equal to the middle of the PAC-12.

I'm sure reality won't match any of my scenarios but they might say something about my personal standards.

I see bad players playing badly .

TheFiatLux said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

<snip>

The problem is that these problems DO NOT GO AWAY next year. Arguably they get worse. We are so screwed. I guess a three year Death Watch Hottie thread is called for cause that is what we are looking at before the next reload.

Why in the f'ing world did we hire a guy like fox?

---

Not just that we hired a guy like Fox but that we're in essence paying DOUBLE for him thanks to Wyking's buy out. Malfeascance all around.

---

C'mon guys, when the search firm said "this is your guy", what would you have had Knowlton do?

Big C said:

---

C'mon guys, when the search firm said "this is your guy", what would you have had Knowlton do?

---

I wonder if anyone at the "search firm" had ever set foot on the Cal campus.

Hey, what with this area being such a nice plave to visit, I wouldn't be at ALL surprised if they came out here... maybe more than once. And their whole trip came INCLUDED in the Gold Level price!

Seriously, how can a consultant provide personalized customer service without experiencing first-hand a dinner at Chez Panisse? Sure, some may scoff, but that's the way the world works: If Fox doesn't know what the area has to offer, maybe he doesn't even want to be on our short list! The search firm is looking for coaches for us, but they're also looking for good schools for the guys in their "stable".

Big C said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

<snip>

The problem is that these problems DO NOT GO AWAY next year. Arguably they get worse. We are so screwed. I guess a three year Death Watch Hottie thread is called for cause that is what we are looking at before the next reload.

Why in the f'ing world did we hire a guy like fox?

---

Not just that we hired a guy like Fox but that we're in essence paying DOUBLE for him thanks to Wyking's buy out. Malfeascance all around.

---

C'mon guys, when the search firm said "this is your guy", what would you have had Knowlton do?

---

Get an AD who doesn't need other people to tell him who to hire?

Joker said:

---

Big C said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

<snip>

The problem is that these problems DO NOT GO AWAY next year. Arguably they get worse. We are so screwed. I guess a three year Death Watch Hottie thread is called for cause that is what we are looking at before the next reload.

Why in the f'ing world did we hire a guy like fox?

---

Not just that we hired a guy like Fox but that we're in essence paying DOUBLE for him thanks to Wyking's buy out. Malfeascance all around.

---

C'mon guys, when the search firm said "this is your guy", what would you have had Knowlton do?

---

Get an AD who doesn't need other people to tell him who to hire?

---

Your asking for the moon!

bearister said:

---

Memo to Coach Fox: Offense will come and go but you can play good defense every game. Tighten up that f'ing D!

---

I may be a victim of false advertising, but Fox came in a good defensive coach. Can't he coach "effort"?
I get that inexperienced guys are going to screw up....Well, coach them up.

We have at least two players (JHD and J. Brown ) who play aggressive D but can't shoot worth a damn....for now anyway. I'm for playing JHD more.....there are basically zero wings who have substantially more offensive skills than he does. As far Brown....he, apparently has no offensive skills right now. It's not like Paris does...in all reality. I'd like to be more optimistic but we're are totally screwed at PG. We aren't waiting for our REAL PG to come of the injured list.t So go with the really young guy who can be a disrupter. on D.

bearup said:

---

bearister said:

---

Memo to Coach Fox: Offense will come and go but you can play good defense every game. Tighten up that f'ing D!

---

I may be a victim of false advertising, but Fox came in a good defensive coach. Can't he coach "effort"?
I get that inexperienced guys are going to screw up....Well, coach them up.

We have at least two players (JHD and J. Brown ) who play aggressive D but can't shoot worth a damn....for now anyway. I'm for playing JHD more.....there are basically zero wings who have substantially more offensive skills than he does. As far Brown....he, apparently has no offensive skills right now. It's not like Paris does...in all reality. I'd like to be more optimistic but we're are totally screwed at PG. We aren't waiting for our REAL PG to come of the injured list.t So go with the really young guy who can be a disrupter. on D.

---

Do you count guards as wings or are wings just small forwards?

Joker said:

---

Do you count guards as wings or are wings just small forwards?

---

Good point.

Under normal circumstances, I'd say...both.

But CAL is not "normal" right now. My bad, I considered Bradley and South as givens...and sometimes South shows up and sometimes he fades into the background. Another grad-transfer like Grant Mullins would help He was consistent. Also, both he and, apparently South, know the value of an MPH

That leaves who? Off the top Cobi (could have been good but it looks like his injury was too much), and Klonaras (I, dumbly, thought he had an upside). Actually maybe he does. Something we may take for granted about international players is that their English is up to game-speed...if you go back to the first interview with Lars, it's quite clear his English was not there....yet. Uh, Erving? Damned if I know....but I'll go with NOT.

So, I'd play JHD.

bearup said:

---

Joker said:

---

Do you count guards as wings or are wings just small forwards?

---

Good point.

Under normal circumstances, I'd say...both.

But CAL is not "normal" right now. My bad, I considered Bradley and South as givens...and sometimes South shows up and sometimes he fades into the background. Another grad-transfer like Grant Mullins would help He was consistent. Also, both he and, apparently South, know the value of an MPH

Thay leaves who? Off the top Cobi (could have been good but it looks like his injury was too much), and Klonaras (I, dumbly, thought he had an upside). Actually maybe he does. Something we may take for granted about international players is that their English is up to game-speed...if you go back to the first interview with Lars, it's quite clear his English was not there....yet. Uh, Erving? Damned if I know....but I'll go with NOT.

So, I'd play JHD.

Please give feedback.

---

I would give Brown, Bradley, South, Grant, and Kelly the bulk of the minutes (28-30)

I would sub in JHD here and there for defensive purposes if there was a particular player that I wanted to focus on in one on one defense. Otherwise, his inability to shoot shrinks the floor to much. At minimum, you cannot play him without two of Bradley, South, and Grant out there because there have to be *some* shooters with him.

I would run constant pick and roll/pick and pops with the PG and Grant/Kelly. Either have them pop out to an open space for a jumper or roll to the hoop depending on what the defense is doing. Weak side should screen for each other to get an open look at the top of the key or cut to the hoop if there's an opening. Team is terrible at setting and using screens effectively offensively right now. Tell Brown that he either has to take an open mid-range or go all the way to the basket if they don't switch or fight through the screen to get to him, otherwise,reverse the ball immediately.

Play Thorpe, Klonaras, and Kuany in small stints every game just to get them a little game action. The number of wins doesn't matter this year.

Play Austin in small doses to rest Brown, but give 65% of the PG minutes to Brown. He needs the development and Paris is done developing.

Joker said:

---

bearup said:

---

Joker said:

---

Do you count guards as wings or are wings just small forwards?

---

Good point.

Under normal circumstances, I'd say...both.

But CAL is not "normal" right now. My bad, I considered Bradley and South as givens...and sometimes South shows up and sometimes he fades into the background. Another grad-transfer like Grant Mullins would help He was consistent. Also, both he and, apparently South, know the value of an MPH

Thay leaves who? Off the top Cobi (could have been good but it looks like his injury was too much), and Klonaras (I, dumbly, thought he had an upside). Actually maybe he does. Something we may take for granted about international players is that their English is up to game-speed...if you go back to the first interview with Lars, it's quite clear his English was not there....yet. Uh, Erving? Damned if I know....but I'll go with NOT.

So, I'd play JHD.

Please give feedback.

---

I would give Brown, Bradley, South, Grant, and Kelly the bulk of the minutes (28-30)

I would sub in JHD here and there for defensive purposes if there was a particular player that I wanted to focus on in one on one defense. Otherwise, his inability to shoot shrinks the floor to much. At minimum, you cannot play him without two of Bradley, South, and Grant out there because there have to be *some* shooters with him.

I would run constant pick and roll/pick and pops with the PG and Grant/Kelly. Either have them pop out to an open space for a jumper or roll to the hoop depending on what the defense is doing. Weak side should screen for each other to get an open look at the top of the key or cut to the hoop if there's an opening. Team is terrible at setting and using screens effectively offensively right now. Tell Brown that he either has to take an open mid-range or go all the way to the basket if they don't switch or fight through the screen to get to him, otherwise,reverse the ball immediately.

Play Thorpe, Klonaras, and Kuany in small stints every game just to get them a little game action. The number of wins doesn't matter this year.

Play Austin in small doses to rest Brown, but give 65% of the PG minutes to Brown. He needs the development and Paris is done developing.

---

*JHD might deserve more time: sometimes our shooters can't shoot
we're losing in a rather predictable manner which isn't going to get better
why not go with a more helter-skelter approach once in a while? (we're 297th
in producing TOs)

On lack of screens: what factors contribute to that? I get coaching and experience (we are 13 games in though).

stu said:

---

I don't know what's a reasonable time in which to expect visible improvement.

---

Seems lots of posters were all too willing to note visible improvement when the team won a couple of games.

Civil Bear said:

---

stu said:

---

I don't know what's a reasonable time in which to expect visible improvement.

---

Seems lots of posters were all too willing to note visible improvement when the team won a couple of games.

---

There was visable improvement. However, while life is not linear, the opportunity to watch the Bears play against better talent helped underscore the limitations on their games.....for example, it being not obvious that Lars had no lateral speed on defense until you actually SAW guys driving on him.

Then it was also possible to step back and see the holes on the roster and THEN realize (best Scooby voice of "Roh Roh" that we had no help coming in precisely where we need it - a PG who can shoot, a wing who can spot up and get off a shot against Pac12 defenders, a guy who can protect the rim). That is why I am down - not that they do not look better than Jones's coached teams (they do) but that they are so deficient from an overall perspective it is VERY hard to see them getting above 500 next year.

socaltownie said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

stu said:

---

I don't know what's a reasonable time in which to expect visible improvement.

---

Seems lots of posters were all too willing to note visible improvement when the team won a couple of games.

---

There was visable improvement. However, while life is not linear, the opportunity to watch the Bears play against better talent helped underscore the limitations on their games.....for example, it being not obvious that Lars had no lateral speed on defense until you actually SAW guys driving on him.

Then it was also possible to step back and see the holes on the roster and THEN realize (best Scooby voice of "Roh Roh" that we had no help coming in precisely where we need it - a PG who can shoot, a wing who can spot up and get off a shot against Pac12 defenders, a guy who can protect the rim). That is why I am down - not that they do not look better than Jones's coached teams (they do) but that they are so deficient from an overall perspective it is VERY hard to see them getting above 500 next year.

---

Often I am reluctant to go where SCT does in his criticisms. However, this time I cannot argue with his concluding that an overall .500 next year is highly unlikely for the team.

Unless the conference is weaker next year than it has ever been.

At the same time I think his dismissal of Lars is extreme. A player with more savvy than Lars has right now can defend ok. Lars may get there in time.

socaltownie said:

---

That is why I am down - not that they do not look better than Jones's coached teams (they do) but that they are so deficient from an overall perspective it is VERY hard to see them getting above 500 next year.

---

Is that 500 win percentage or attendance?

socaltownie said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

stu said:

---

I don't know what's a reasonable time in which to expect visible improvement.

---

Seems lots of posters were all too willing to note visible improvement when the team won a couple of games.

---

There was visable improvement. However, while life is not linear, the opportunity to watch the Bears play against better talent helped underscore the limitations on their games.....for example, it being not obvious that Lars had no lateral speed on defense until you actually SAW guys driving on him.

Then it was also possible to step back and see the holes on the roster and THEN realize (best Scooby voice of "Roh Roh" that we had no help coming in precisely where we need it - a PG who can shoot, a wing who can spot up and get off a shot against Pac12 defenders, a guy who can protect the rim). That is why I am down - not that they do not look better than Jones's coached teams (they do) but that they are so deficient from an overall perspective it is VERY hard to see them getting above 500 next year.

---

Was there visible improvement over the SDSU game last year? That is the issue with just looking at a few games. Looking at the whole nonconference season, I don't see visible improvement.

As for this year's "improvement", our Sagarin has been slowly and consistently dropping from the beginning of the year. Not by a lot but it is. Not a sign of improvement compared to the rest.

OaktownBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

stu said:

---

I don't know what's a reasonable time in which to expect visible improvement.

---

Seems lots of posters were all too willing to note visible improvement when the team won a couple of games.

---

There was visable improvement. However, while life is not linear, the opportunity to watch the Bears play against better talent helped underscore the limitations on their games.....for example, it being not obvious that Lars had no lateral speed on defense until you actually SAW guys driving on him.

Then it was also possible to step back and see the holes on the roster and THEN realize (best Scooby voice of "Roh Roh" that we had no help coming in precisely where we need it - a PG who can shoot, a wing who can spot up and get off a shot against Pac12 defenders, a guy who can protect the rim). That is why I am down - not that they do not look better than Jones's coached teams (they do) but that they are so deficient from an overall perspective it is VERY hard to see them getting above 500 next year.

---

Was there visible improvement over the SDSU game last year? That is the issue with just looking at a few games. Looking at the whole nonconference season, I don't see visible improvement.

As for this year's "improvement", our Sagarin has been slowly and consistently dropping from the beginning of the year. Not by a lot but it is. Not a sign of improvement compared to the rest.

---

I have seen better understanding of the pick and roll, an ability to break the press through fundamental basketball and more attention to basic stuff like blocking out weakside. Trust me....these are BABYSTEPS. But at least I am not throwing stuff at my TV when Jone's teams repeatedly ran the rock into the corner when bringing it up and then getting double teamed. I remember that happening AT LEAST 6 times in the preseason last year.

south bender said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

stu said:

---

I don't know what's a reasonable time in which to expect visible improvement.

---

Seems lots of posters were all too willing to note visible improvement when the team won a couple of games.

---

There was visable improvement. However, while life is not linear, the opportunity to watch the Bears play against better talent helped underscore the limitations on their games.....for example, it being not obvious that Lars had no lateral speed on defense until you actually SAW guys driving on him.

Then it was also possible to step back and see the holes on the roster and THEN realize (best Scooby voice of "Roh Roh" that we had no help coming in precisely where we need it - a PG who can shoot, a wing who can spot up and get off a shot against Pac12 defenders, a guy who can protect the rim). That is why I am down - not that they do not look better than Jones's coached teams (they do) but that they are so deficient from an overall perspective it is VERY hard to see them getting above 500 next year.

---

Often I am reluctant to go where SCT does in his criticisms. However, this time I cannot argue with his concluding that an overall .500 next year is highly unlikely for the team.

Unless the conference is weaker next year than it has ever been.

At the same time I think his dismissal of Lars is extreme. A player with more savvy than Lars has right now can defend ok. Lars may get there in time.

---

There was a narrative on this board, a couple of months ago, that Kuany, with his "electric athleticism" and Thorpe, with his "NBA body", were going to contribute a helluva lot more than they have so far. Then, throw in the preseason hype about Lars actually being pretty good. Hopefully, they can do something for us next year. That is, unless they leave because they aren't getting any playing time.

Cyrus B. Goode said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I'll say this again. My main issue is those that do not seem to want any standard at all this year. I recognize the difficult job Fox walked into. I'm not saying we should be going to a tournament this year. I am saying you can tell when things are moving in a positive direction. This team needs to show some improvement. We need to keep our key players from transferring. I know some people don't like talking about odds of recruits at a certain level succeeding, but I'll say again, our best recruit is our best player and neither the freshmen or the next class are rated close to him. That needs to change and if it doesn't it is fair of detractors to say the talent level is not likely to get us to the next level as a team. He absolutely may surprise me. My issue is that there are others that have set zero standard. It is not possible for him to do anything to surprise them in the negative because they are literally expecting nothing from him.

---

My simple response is this. Did Steve Kerr get really dumb in a year or did he lose nearly all of his top talent to injury or departure?

Subsequent to Fox's hire, three players transferred. Those slots have been filled, but not by guys that are as good as the ones who left. Therefore, there is a serious talent shortage on this year's team.

Additionally, the first recruiting class looks uninspiring, to say the least right now.

I do want to see improvement from the existing players, whatever their talent level, but we probably won't know how extensive that was until the end of the year.

---

I don't agree, mostly. First of all, isn't it unfair to any coach to be held to a standard that freshman recruits should be as good as the players who transferred, who are all one or two years more experienced than incoming freshmen? Only Kareem South is an experienced player, among the incoming recruits.

Secondly, what do you mean by the word" slots?" If you mean slots in the rotation, well, from what little I have seen, South looks like a better all-around player than McNeill, whom he is replacing, Bradley is a better all-around player than Sueing, and a much better outside shot than Sueing, and Anticevich is a better player than Vanover, in most ways, except shot blocking. If you are talking about slots in a roster, again I would say South is better than McNeill, and I would say that Thiemann and Vanover are at least even, for their freshman non-conference schedules. Thiemann and Vanover scored about the same level,with Thiemann a post player and Vanover a perimeter shooter. Thiemann has the better frame for basketball, and I believe has more potential. They both score and rebound at a similar level, and I would give Thiemann a slight edge on defense. Vanover was an open invitation for any opponent to score. He could stop no one If he can't devleop a D1 body, I have less hope for him to improve much. I think the team misses Sueing's consistent scoring, but he improved little in 2 years. He has no right hand. He can not drive right, dribble right, shoot right, pass right. He could have helped this team in the short but not long term.

If Joel Brown is one you were thinking of, his defense is pretty good. He is athletic and has very good speed. He just can't shoot well. And he does not seem to distribute well. Very raw, and who knows if he can improve. This is unfortunate, because Austin is performing at a level well below his play last season. He has been injured, and also seems to be having trouble adjusting to Fox's offense. The ideal thing would have had him as good as he was last year, so he could play major minutes, and bring Brown along slowly, but the reality is they both are playing, neither one very well.

The place where we lack sufficient depth is the forward spots, and Kuany and Thorpe may still be recovering from injuries, and have missed games and lots of practice time, so it could be hard predicting how well they can play or whether they can improve, and when.

Anyone who makes three threes in a game has the potential to be a decent shooter. I dont care how they went in. .