bowers and celestine. can they shoot 3's ??? are they any good ??? advise, thanks

calgo430 said:

---

bowers and celestine. can they shoot 3's ??? are they any good ??? advise, thanks

---

Just from what I can find on the internet, Celestine shot 44% from 3. Bowser doesn't seem to be really a shooter.

Okay. Welcome Celestine. Now please Fox find us a point guard.

OaktownBear said:

---

calgo430 said:

---

bowers and celestine. can they shoot 3's ??? are they any good ??? advise, thanks

---

Just from what I can find on the internet, Celestine shot 44% from 3. Bowser doesn't seem to be really a shooter.

---

Disagree about Bowser. In this video () he makes multiple threes and shows excellent shooting form. He is number #24.

Sluggo

Power conference recruiting has and is changing. With transfers and player mobility, coaching staffs will likely be recruiting for classes of six or seven vs classes of three or four. Furthermore, since player transfers can be out of synch with HS recruting - it doesn't seem pragmatic to recruit for need so much (although those will always exist). Therefore, I expect this class to be much larger than replacing Austin and South.

To compete in the P12, your 12 man roster ideally would have a blend of ball handlers, long wings and posts ALL of whom can shoot, defend and rebound. Most of P12 and top WCC programs have already figured that out. Our roster has not reflected this in a while

We currently have one player that fits the shoot, defend, rebound mold in Bradley (maybe Gordon if healthy). So there is room to recruit many different types of players, but all of them should be able to shoot, defend and rebound.

sluggo said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calgo430 said:

---

bowers and celestine. can they shoot 3's ??? are they any good ??? advise, thanks

---

Just from what I can find on the internet, Celestine shot 44% from 3. Bowser doesn't seem to be really a shooter.

---

Disagree about Bowser. In this video () he makes multiple threes and shows excellent shooting form. He is number #24.

Sluggo

---

"excellent form?"

Well he shoots better than I do but he brings it WAY too low and then essentially does a push shot that is SLOOOOWWWWW. That will get swatted back at him repeatedly. So he will need a LOT of work and, like so much of this roster, will require teammates to help him get open looks as opposed to what every other PAc-12 team can do - have 1 or 2 guys with the individual talent to make their own shot....something even Furd had.

Honestly this program will NOT get better until its "fans" start to look at the roster with a critical eye. I am sure a great kid. Would never get offered by upper half teams in the conference.

BeachedBear said:

---

Power conference recruiting has and is changing. With transfers and player mobility, coaching staffs will likely be recruiting for classes of six or seven vs classes of three or four. Furthermore, since player transfers can be out of synch with HS recruting - it doesn't seem pragmatic to recruit for need so much (although those will always exist). Therefore, I expect this class to be much larger than replacing Austin and South.

To compete in the P12, your 12 man roster ideally would have a blend of ball handlers, long wings and posts ALL of whom can shoot, defend and rebound. Most of P12 and top WCC programs have already figured that out. Our roster has not reflected this in a while

We currently have one player that fits the shoot, defend, rebound mold in Bradley (maybe Gordon if healthy). So there is room to recruit many different types of players, but all of them should be able to shoot, defend and rebound.

---

This. You really need to have at least one rotation that can legitimately play 4 or 5 out. THis year's version....not so much.

The sad part is that Cal is not a great place for the transfer market - or at least hasn't been in recent memory. We DEFINITELY are challenged in the grad transfer market.

More on Bowser from a recent tournament in San Diego. Form doesn't look bad to me, and also shows some athleticism. At 6'6", if/when he gains 15 lbs through effective S/C, he'll be an impactful player in the PAC 12.

socaltownie said:

---

sluggo said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calgo430 said:

---

dadfafadabowers and celestine. can they shoot 3's ??? are they any good ??? advise, thanks

---

Just from what I can find on the internet, Celestine shot 44% from 3. Bowser doesn't seem to be really a shooter.

---

Disagree about Bowser. In this video
he makes multiple threes and shows excellent shooting form. He is number #24.

Sluggo

---

"excellent form?"

Well he shoots better than I do but he brings it WAY too low and then essentially does a push shot that is SLOOOOWWWWW. That will get swatted back at him repeatedly. So he will need a LOT of work and, like so much of this roster, will require teammates to help him get open looks as opposed to what every other PAc-12 team can do - have 1 or 2 guys with the individual talent to make their own shot....something even Furd had.

Honestly this program will NOT get better until its "fans" start to look at the roster with a critical eye. I am sure a great kid. Would never get offered by upper half teams in the conference.

---

I think I have been plenty critical over the years. If I wanted to be harsh about Bowser I could say that he does not look particularly strong or quick. If the standard is Theo Robertson/Allen Crabbe, then his form needs work. If rather it is every other Cal recruit of the last 30 years, his form is excellent.

More than players who can create their own shots Cal needs a competent coach who can help their players get good shots. Fox was known not to run good offenses, and he is living up to his reputation.

Sluggo

We need Theos and Alans. They are the players that will make Cal a better program.

And I completely agree about coaching.

sluggo said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

sluggo said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calgo430 said:

---

dadfafadabowers and celestine. can they shoot 3's ??? are they any good ??? advise, thanks

---

Just from what I can find on the internet, Celestine shot 44% from 3. Bowser doesn't seem to be really a shooter.

---

Disagree about Bowser. In this video
he makes multiple threes and shows excellent shooting form. He is number #24.

Sluggo

---

"excellent form?"

Well he shoots better than I do but he brings it WAY too low and then essentially does a push shot that is SLOOOOWWWWW. That will get swatted back at him repeatedly. So he will need a LOT of work and, like so much of this roster, will require teammates to help him get open looks as opposed to what every other PAc-12 team can do - have 1 or 2 guys with the individual talent to make their own shot....something even Furd had.

Honestly this program will NOT get better until its "fans" start to look at the roster with a critical eye. I am sure a great kid. Would never get offered by upper half teams in the conference.

---

I think I have been plenty critical over the years. If I wanted to be harsh about Bowser I could say that he does not look particularly strong or quick. If the standard is Theo Robertson/Allen Crabbe, then his form needs work. If rather it is every other Cal recruit of the last 30 years, his form is excellent.

More than players who can create their own shots Cal needs a competent coach who can help their players get good shots. Fox was known not to run good offenses, and he is living up to his reputation.

Sluggo

---

Do you think it is too early to bring in an assistant who can coach offense, like a Gary Colson? Right now our offense is total chaos, with players trying wildly to create their own shots, and not looking for an open man, and turning the ball over at a high rate. Cal had 17 buckets on a paltry 3 assists, while Stanford had 25 buckets on 14 assists which is very good. 3 assists for an entire basketball game is pathetic.

SFCityBear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

sluggo said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calgo430 said:

---

dadfafadabowers and celestine. can they shoot 3's ??? are they any good ??? advise, thanks

---

Just from what I can find on the internet, Celestine shot 44% from 3. Bowser doesn't seem to be really a shooter.

---

Disagree about Bowser. In this video
he makes multiple threes and shows excellent shooting form. He is number #24.

Sluggo

---

"excellent form?"

Well he shoots better than I do but he brings it WAY too low and then essentially does a push shot that is SLOOOOWWWWW. That will get swatted back at him repeatedly. So he will need a LOT of work and, like so much of this roster, will require teammates to help him get open looks as opposed to what every other PAc-12 team can do - have 1 or 2 guys with the individual talent to make their own shot....something even Furd had.

Honestly this program will NOT get better until its "fans" start to look at the roster with a critical eye. I am sure a great kid. Would never get offered by upper half teams in the conference.

---

I think I have been plenty critical over the years. If I wanted to be harsh about Bowser I could say that he does not look particularly strong or quick. If the standard is Theo Robertson/Allen Crabbe, then his form needs work. If rather it is every other Cal recruit of the last 30 years, his form is excellent.

More than players who can create their own shots Cal needs a competent coach who can help their players get good shots. Fox was known not to run good offenses, and he is living up to his reputation.

Sluggo

---

Do you think it is too early to bring in an assistant who can coach offense, like a Gary Colson? Right now our offense is total chaos, with players trying wildly to create their own shots, and not looking for an open man, and turning the ball over at a high rate. Cal had 17 buckets on a paltry 3 assists, while Stanford had 25 buckets on 14 assists which is very good. 3 assists for an entire basketball game is pathetic.

---

I don't think it is coaching or at least not coaching vs. just a complete lack of talent. There were PLENTY of times our point guard is open. We just don't have a point guard who can shoot the three.

parentswerebears said:

---

We need Theos and Alans. They are the players that will make Cal a better program.

And I completely agree about coaching.

---

I agree with you, but I think what we need first is is point guard to run the offense. We have no captain, no one who takes charge out there on the floor. Austin was not great last year, but he was much better than he is this year. What happened? Is he still hampered by injury?

The only player out there with the confidence to run offense might be Bradley, except to him right now, taking over means creating his own shots and scoring himself. If he has any sort of an opening, He will take it, and if he is well defended, or ice cold like last night, that will not win any games for us.

SFCityBear said:

---

Do you think it is too early to bring in an assistant who can coach offense, like a Gary Colson? Right now our offense is total chaos, with players trying wildly to create their own shots, and not looking for an open man, and turning the ball over at a high rate. Cal had 17 buckets on a paltry 3 assists, while Stanford had 25 buckets on 14 assists which is very good. 3 assists for an entire basketball game is pathetic.

---

Other than when Cal brought in Colson, I can't think of this ever happening. It is a nice dream. That Cal repeatedly hires such bad coaches is exasperating.

I am not concerned with offensive stats. I would like to see purposeful activity and action away from the ball so that when Cal inevitably gets better talent, they will succeed. I don't see that. I do see much too much dribbling.

Sluggo

Correction, BB. A full roster is 13, not 12.

he looked a lot better in his second video

were they taken in different years?

anyway, he's got length, bounce and some athleticism. We need both.

Is he a good shooter? Unclear.
Can he slash? Unclear, but handle looks loose. I'd say he's not a slasher.

However, overall he looks a lot better than Winston, and I'm sure he'll fill out. Did you see Jabari Bird as a senior in HS?

UrsaMajor said:

---

Correction, BB. A full roster is 13, not 12.

---

That is the full limit of scholarship players. The full roster also includes walk-ons and there doesn't seem to be a limit on how many of those a team can have.

SFCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Correction, BB. A full roster is 13, not 12.

---

That is the full limit of scholarship players. The full roster also includes walk-ons and there doesn't seem to be a limit on how many of those a team can have.

---

Correct, SFCity. I was referring to the scholarship roster. Should have been clearer.

sluggo said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Do you think it is too early to bring in an assistant who can coach offense, like a Gary Colson? Right now our offense is total chaos, with players trying wildly to create their own shots, and not looking for an open man, and turning the ball over at a high rate. Cal had 17 buckets on a paltry 3 assists, while Stanford had 25 buckets on 14 assists which is very good. 3 assists for an entire basketball game is pathetic.

---

Other than when Cal brought in Colson, I can't think of this ever happening. It is a nice dream. That Cal repeatedly hires such bad coaches is exasperating.

I am not concerned with offensive stats. I would like to see purposeful activity and action away from the ball so that when Cal inevitably gets better talent, they will succeed. I don't see that. I do see much too much dribbling.

Sluggo

---

I am at least as exasperated as you are about the quality of the coaches we hire. The reasons there can be too much dribbling, is the dribbler is trying to create an opening for himself against a good defense, or his teammates are not open, or his coach has not told him not to dribble so much. If the dribbler's teammates are not open, then the defense is beating them to spots and not permitting them to get open, or they are not moving enough to get open. This can all be happening if there is no plan, few plays, or the players are not executing. Much of this is on the coach, his responsibility, and much of it can be due to the attitude of the players.

I look at stats a lot, because they can tell us things we might miss just watching the game, or they might support or disprove the opinion I formed while watching the game. We have the double whammy - we look bad, and we have bad stats, and that equals beaucoup losses.

The problem at the moment is that we are getting worse, not improving at the moment. 3 assists is our low mark for the season. We average 9 assists per game which ranks us #345 in the country out of 350 D1 teams, so when you only get 3 assists in a game, that is really awful, and you are almost guaranteed not to win any games like that. 3 assists means we are not finding players for open shots, we are not penetrating and dishing. I mean Jason Kidd already had 3 assists by himself while lacing up his sneakers in the locker room before a game. We have a point guard, Austin, who was barely adequate last season, with 4 assists per game, and this season he is averaging less than 2 per game. Brown, our supposed hope for the future, also averages less than 2 assists. We had 12 assists against St Marys, and looked decent in that game. In the next game against BC, we had 10. Against Harvard, we had 6, and against Stanford, we had only 3. Is this a trend? And why is Austin playing worse than last season. I suspect Fox's offense is either hard to learn, or hardly even exists, like Cuonzo's offense. Hand the ball to the players and tell'em, "Go play."

If you want them to stop dribbling, you have to tell them to move more, work hard to get open. You have to run pick and rolls, and other simple 2-man plays. Tell them not to play hero ball and shoot whenever they get the ball. That is what it looks like out there, nervous chaos and hero ball. And I would slow the pace, because the fast pace is causing many of the turnovers. We make 14 TOs per game. 18 against Stanford. If the players are not all-stars, then a slower pace is better. And not just in transistion. We run our half-court sets too fast also, IMO. I know slower basketball is ugly for many fans here, but do we want to play better and maybe win some games or look pretty losing? Right now, we are doing neither.

the ball is way to sticky in multiple players' hands

overall, this is not a good passing team

SFCityBear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Do you think it is too early to bring in an assistant who can coach offense, like a Gary Colson? Right now our offense is total chaos, with players trying wildly to create their own shots, and not looking for an open man, and turning the ball over at a high rate. Cal had 17 buckets on a paltry 3 assists, while Stanford had 25 buckets on 14 assists which is very good. 3 assists for an entire basketball game is pathetic.

---

Other than when Cal brought in Colson, I can't think of this ever happening. It is a nice dream. That Cal repeatedly hires such bad coaches is exasperating.

I am not concerned with offensive stats. I would like to see purposeful activity and action away from the ball so that when Cal inevitably gets better talent, they will succeed. I don't see that. I do see much too much dribbling.

Sluggo

---

I am at least as exasperated as you are about the quality of the coaches we hire. The reasons there can be too much dribbling, is the dribbler is trying to create an opening for himself against a good defense, or his teammates are not open, or his coach has not told him not to dribble so much. If the dribbler's teammates are not open, then the defense is beating them to spots and not permitting them to get open, or they are not moving enough to get open. This can all be happening if there is no plan, few plays, or the players are not executing. Much of this is on the coach, his responsibility, and much of it can be due to the attitude of the players.

I look at stats a lot, because they can tell us things we might miss just watching the game, or they might support or disprove the opinion I formed while watching the game. We have the double whammy - we look bad, and we have bad stats, and that equals beaucoup losses.

The problem at the moment is that we are getting worse, not improving at the moment. 3 assists is our low mark for the season. We average 9 assists per game which ranks us #345 in the country out of 350 D1 teams, so when you only get 3 assists in a game, that is really awful, and you are almost guaranteed not to win any games like that. 3 assists means we are not finding players for open shots, we are not penetrating and dishing. I mean Jason Kidd already had 3 assists by himself while lacing up his sneakers in the locker room before a game. We have a point guard, Austin, who was barely adequate last season, with 4 assists per game, and this season he is averaging less than 2 per game. Brown, our supposed hope for the future, also averages less than 2 assists. We had 12 assists against St Marys, and looked decent in that game. In the next game against BC, we had 10. Against Harvard, we had 6, and against Stanford, we had only 3. Is this a trend? And why is Austin playing worse than last season. I suspect Fox's offense is either hard to learn, or hardly even exists, like Cuonzo's offense. Hand the ball to the players and tell'em, "Go play."

If you want them to stop dribbling, you have to tell them to move more, work hard to get open. You have to run pick and rolls, and other simple 2-man plays. Tell them not to play hero ball and shoot whenever they get the ball. That is what it looks like out there, nervous chaos and hero ball. And I would slow the pace, because the fast pace is causing many of the turnovers. We make 14 TOs per game. 18 against Stanford. If the players are not all-stars, then a slower pace is better. And not just in transistion. We run our half-court sets too fast also, IMO. I know slower basketball is ugly for many fans here, but do we want to play better and maybe win some games or look pretty losing? Right now, we are doing neither.

---

Random question: Does anyone think in the 2 days he spent debating who to hire that Knowlton looked at any film of the coaching candidates' teams in action. You got a search firm. I'd tell them I want video of the candidates' three best and worst games of the last two years.

By the way, I'm sure the answer is no.

Personally, if I'm an athletic director I don't give a damn how well a coach shmoozed me in the interview

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Do you think it is too early to bring in an assistant who can coach offense, like a Gary Colson? Right now our offense is total chaos, with players trying wildly to create their own shots, and not looking for an open man, and turning the ball over at a high rate. Cal had 17 buckets on a paltry 3 assists, while Stanford had 25 buckets on 14 assists which is very good. 3 assists for an entire basketball game is pathetic.

---

Other than when Cal brought in Colson, I can't think of this ever happening. It is a nice dream. That Cal repeatedly hires such bad coaches is exasperating.

I am not concerned with offensive stats. I would like to see purposeful activity and action away from the ball so that when Cal inevitably gets better talent, they will succeed. I don't see that. I do see much too much dribbling.

Sluggo

---

I am at least as exasperated as you are about the quality of the coaches we hire. The reasons there can be too much dribbling, is the dribbler is trying to create an opening for himself against a good defense, or his teammates are not open, or his coach has not told him not to dribble so much. If the dribbler's teammates are not open, then the defense is beating them to spots and not permitting them to get open, or they are not moving enough to get open. This can all be happening if there is no plan, few plays, or the players are not executing. Much of this is on the coach, his responsibility, and much of it can be due to the attitude of the players.

I look at stats a lot, because they can tell us things we might miss just watching the game, or they might support or disprove the opinion I formed while watching the game. We have the double whammy - we look bad, and we have bad stats, and that equals beaucoup losses.

The problem at the moment is that we are getting worse, not improving at the moment. 3 assists is our low mark for the season. We average 9 assists per game which ranks us #345 in the country out of 350 D1 teams, so when you only get 3 assists in a game, that is really awful, and you are almost guaranteed not to win any games like that. 3 assists means we are not finding players for open shots, we are not penetrating and dishing. I mean Jason Kidd already had 3 assists by himself while lacing up his sneakers in the locker room before a game. We have a point guard, Austin, who was barely adequate last season, with 4 assists per game, and this season he is averaging less than 2 per game. Brown, our supposed hope for the future, also averages less than 2 assists. We had 12 assists against St Marys, and looked decent in that game. In the next game against BC, we had 10. Against Harvard, we had 6, and against Stanford, we had only 3. Is this a trend? And why is Austin playing worse than last season. I suspect Fox's offense is either hard to learn, or hardly even exists, like Cuonzo's offense. Hand the ball to the players and tell'em, "Go play."

If you want them to stop dribbling, you have to tell them to move more, work hard to get open. You have to run pick and rolls, and other simple 2-man plays. Tell them not to play hero ball and shoot whenever they get the ball. That is what it looks like out there, nervous chaos and hero ball. And I would slow the pace, because the fast pace is causing many of the turnovers. We make 14 TOs per game. 18 against Stanford. If the players are not all-stars, then a slower pace is better. And not just in transistion. We run our half-court sets too fast also, IMO. I know slower basketball is ugly for many fans here, but do we want to play better and maybe win some games or look pretty losing? Right now, we are doing neither.

---

Random question: Does anyone think in the 2 days he spent debating who to hire that Knowlton looked at any film of the coaching candidates' teams in action. You got a search firm. I'd tell them I want video of the candidates' three best and worst games of the last two years.

By the way, I'm sure the answer is no.

Personally, if I'm an athletic director I don't give a damn how well a coach shmoozed me in the interview

---

What makes me crazy is that I am sure that the answer is no. But if you are so incompetent that you would not want to watch video, you can get your basketball crazy intern (me thirty years ago) to watch for you. I could have told you Fox was a no go. Better yet, you have a couple of friends in the basketball business who can give you unbiased advice.

I have watched Cal basketball since the Campanelli era. If we exclude recruiting, there has only been one above average coach (Montgomery) and six (Campy, Bozeman, Braun, Martin, Jones, Fox) below average coaches. It is not so damn hard. Go to a program that has good player development and in-game coaching and take the top assistant. They don't charge much because they want a head coaching gig and you get someone who is good at basketball coaching. Maybe I should start a search firm.

Sluggo

I don't follow Furd hoops but how did they turn it around so quick? By getting a couple of Mickey D AA types like Davis? Our outlook could be completely different if Fox and his staff could just 2 elite ballers or some stud Aussie. I thought the staff he assembled could recruit.

KoreAmBear said:

---

I don't follow Furd hoops but how did they turn it around so quick? By getting a couple of Mickey D AA types like Davis? Our outlook could be completely different if Fox and his staff could just 2 elite ballers or some stud Aussie. I thought the staff he assembled could recruit.

---

stanford has recruited pretty well and actually under performed

but yeah, Davis is a difference maker, and is the guy they always give the ball to in close games near the end

usually he can get to the basket and score, but recently he's also shot it pretty well, like he did vs Cal

bottom line get a really good scorer who can create. one james harden prospect would be good for all cal bball fans.

KoreAmBear said:

---

I don't follow Furd hoops but how did they turn it around so quick? By getting a couple of Mickey D AA types like Davis? Our outlook could be completely different if Fox and his staff could just 2 elite ballers or some stud Aussie. I thought the staff he assembled could recruit.

---

I'm not so sure Stanford has turned anything around. Who has Stanford beaten? No one of note, as yet. They have played only one ranked team,, #3 Kansas, and lost to them by 16. Last season, Stanford played #2 Kansas and lost by 6 in overtime. Even Cal has played a tougher pre-conference schedule. Last season, Stanford played a much tougher pre-conference season, losing to #7 North Carolina by 18, losing to #25 Wisconsin by 16, and losing to #2 Kansas by 6 in OT. In conference, Stanford played #25 Washington and lost by 16 and by 1 in two games.

Last year, Stanford had FOUR top 100 recruits on their roster. With Okpala leaving, this year they have only THREE top 100 recruits. They did not land any more top 100 recruits, according to sports-reference.com. Even coach Haase said that this year's team is not as talented as his previous teams. Could it be that losing Okpala, one of his "elite ballers", made Haase a better coach and Stanford a better looking team, because they play more together now, (if this one game is any indication).

Last season, Cal lost to Stanford by 3, and then Cal beat them by 5. Maybe it is Cal who has not improved, and maybe gotten worse. I think it is too early to say Stanford has turned anything around, just because they beat a Cal team with many new players and a new coach, all really struggling to get on the same page.. Let's wait and see how Stanford does in conference.

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

I don't follow Furd hoops but how did they turn it around so quick? By getting a couple of Mickey D AA types like Davis? Our outlook could be completely different if Fox and his staff could just 2 elite ballers or some stud Aussie. I thought the staff he assembled could recruit.

---

I'm not so sure Stanford has turned anything around. Who has Stanford beaten? No one of note, as yet. They have played only one ranked team,, #3 Kansas, and lost to them by 16. Last season, Stanford played #2 Kansas and lost by 6 in overtime. Even Cal has played a tougher pre-conference schedule. Last season, Stanford played a much tougher pre-conference season, losing to #7 North Carolina by 18, losing to #25 Wisconsin by 16, and losing to #2 Kansas by 6 in OT. In conference, Stanford played #25 Washington and lost by 16 and by 1 in two games.

Last year, Stanford had FOUR top 100 recruits on their roster. With Okpala leaving, this year they have only THREE top 100 recruits. They did not land any more top 100 recruits, according to sports-reference.com. Even coach Haase said that this year's team is not as talented as his previous teams. Could it be that losing Okpala, one of his "elite ballers", made Haase a better coach and Stanford a better looking team, because they play more together now, (if this one game is any indication).

Last season, Cal lost to Stanford by 3, and then Cal beat them by 5. Maybe it is Cal who has not improved, and maybe gotten worse. I think it is too early to say Stanford has turned anything around, just because they beat a Cal team with many new players and a new coach, all really struggling to get on the same page.. Let's wait and see how Stanford does in conference.

---

fair enough

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

I don't follow Furd hoops but how did they turn it around so quick? By getting a couple of Mickey D AA types like Davis? Our outlook could be completely different if Fox and his staff could just 2 elite ballers or some stud Aussie. I thought the staff he assembled could recruit.

---

I'm not so sure Stanford has turned anything around. Who has Stanford beaten? No one of note, as yet. They have played only one ranked team,, #3 Kansas, and lost to them by 16.

---

I guess you overlooked Butler, who beat Stanford by 1 on a neutral court, and is ranked as high as #3.....Stanford SOS is 99th.....but they have beaten everyone else that has taken the court with them....

bearmanpg said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

I don't follow Furd hoops but how did they turn it around so quick? By getting a couple of Mickey D AA types like Davis? Our outlook could be completely different if Fox and his staff could just 2 elite ballers or some stud Aussie. I thought the staff he assembled could recruit.

---

I'm not so sure Stanford has turned anything around. Who has Stanford beaten? No one of note, as yet. They have played only one ranked team,, #3 Kansas, and lost to them by 16.

---

I guess you overlooked Butler, who beat Stanford by 1 on a neutral court, and is ranked as high as #3.....Stanford SOS is 99th.....but they have beaten everyone else that has taken the court with them....

---

Thanks for this, but no, I didn't overlook Butler. I did wonder how good they are, and still do. Butler was unranked in the AP Top 25 at the time they played Stanford. They have won a lot of games so far, but the only AP-ranked team Butler has played so far was #11 Baylor, and Baylor beat Butler by one point. Butler is now ranked #11 themselves by AP.

I also wondered about how good Oklahoma is. Stanford beat them and Oklahoma has a lot of wins, but also has not been ranked in the AP Top 25 yet. Oklahoma has not played a single team in the AP top 25.

All that being said, early season rankings and evaluations are just that - early season, when most teams have played maybe one or two ranked teams at most, and many teams haven't played any. Rankings are more accurate as the season goes along. Same thing for SOS and RPI. Most teams load up their pre-conference schedules with weaker teams to pad the RPI.

OaktownBear said:

---

Random question: Does anyone think in the 2 days he spent debating who to hire that Knowlton looked at any film of the coaching candidates' teams in action. You got a search firm. I'd tell them I want video of the candidates' three best and worst games of the last two years.

By the way, I'm sure the answer is no.

Personally, if I'm an athletic director I don't give a damn how well a coach shmoozed me in the interview

---

If the interview doesn't produce a plan for improvement that includes the actual players available, the actual limitations there might be in year one and year two, potential assistants, and the type of team envisioned along with a recruiting plan to get there I doubt I'd even get to video. Pass that test and I'd look at video and want to talk to knowledgeable people who are familiar with the coach but not friends with the coach to assess strengths and weaknesses. But then, a good AD has networked his ass off and come up with potential candidates before a search firm even gets into the process.

calgo430 said:

---

bottom line get a really good scorer who can create. one james harden prospect would be good for all cal bball fans.

---

Please use a different example. I hate that guy's game.

sluggo said:

---

What makes me crazy is that I am sure that the answer is no. But if you are so incompetent that you would not want to watch video, you can get your basketball crazy intern (me thirty years ago) to watch for you. I could have told you Fox was a no go. Better yet, you have a couple of friends in the basketball business who can give you unbiased advice.

I have watched Cal basketball since the Campanelli era. If we exclude recruiting, there has only been one above average coach (Montgomery) and six (Campy, Bozeman, Braun, Martin, Jones, Fox) below average coaches. It is not so damn hard. Go to a program that has good player development and in-game coaching and take the top assistant. They don't charge much because they want a head coaching gig and you get someone who is good at basketball coaching. Maybe I should start a search firm.

Sluggo

---

Don't take this as approving the current process, but I've watched Cal basketball since Dick Edwards and Cal did exactly what you suggest when they hired Dick Kuchen. Results were not better. OK, maybe his rep was more in recruiting than player development, but it's not that simple.

bluesaxe said:

---

sluggo said:

---

What makes me crazy is that I am sure that the answer is no. But if you are so incompetent that you would not want to watch video, you can get your basketball crazy intern (me thirty years ago) to watch for you. I could have told you Fox was a no go. Better yet, you have a couple of friends in the basketball business who can give you unbiased advice.

I have watched Cal basketball since the Campanelli era. If we exclude recruiting, there has only been one above average coach (Montgomery) and six (Campy, Bozeman, Braun, Martin, Jones, Fox) below average coaches. It is not so damn hard. Go to a program that has good player development and in-game coaching and take the top assistant. They don't charge much because they want a head coaching gig and you get someone who is good at basketball coaching. Maybe I should start a search firm.

Sluggo

---

Don't take this as approving the current process, but I've watched Cal basketball since Dick Edwards and Cal did exactly what you suggest when they hired Dick Kuchen. Results were not better. OK, maybe his rep was more in recruiting than player development, but it's not that simple.

---

I agree. I think I remember Kuchen being highly regarded as an assistant at Notre Dame at working with big men, and also regarded as an excellent teacher of the motion offense. Unfortunately, it didn't translate into success at Cal.

sluggo said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Do you think it is too early to bring in an assistant who can coach offense, like a Gary Colson? Right now our offense is total chaos, with players trying wildly to create their own shots, and not looking for an open man, and turning the ball over at a high rate. Cal had 17 buckets on a paltry 3 assists, while Stanford had 25 buckets on 14 assists which is very good. 3 assists for an entire basketball game is pathetic.

---

Other than when Cal brought in Colson, I can't think of this ever happening. It is a nice dream. That Cal repeatedly hires such bad coaches is exasperating.

I am not concerned with offensive stats. I would like to see purposeful activity and action away from the ball so that when Cal inevitably gets better talent, they will succeed. I don't see that. I do see much too much dribbling.

Sluggo

---

I am at least as exasperated as you are about the quality of the coaches we hire. The reasons there can be too much dribbling, is the dribbler is trying to create an opening for himself against a good defense, or his teammates are not open, or his coach has not told him not to dribble so much. If the dribbler's teammates are not open, then the defense is beating them to spots and not permitting them to get open, or they are not moving enough to get open. This can all be happening if there is no plan, few plays, or the players are not executing. Much of this is on the coach, his responsibility, and much of it can be due to the attitude of the players.

I look at stats a lot, because they can tell us things we might miss just watching the game, or they might support or disprove the opinion I formed while watching the game. We have the double whammy - we look bad, and we have bad stats, and that equals beaucoup losses.

The problem at the moment is that we are getting worse, not improving at the moment. 3 assists is our low mark for the season. We average 9 assists per game which ranks us #345 in the country out of 350 D1 teams, so when you only get 3 assists in a game, that is really awful, and you are almost guaranteed not to win any games like that. 3 assists means we are not finding players for open shots, we are not penetrating and dishing. I mean Jason Kidd already had 3 assists by himself while lacing up his sneakers in the locker room before a game. We have a point guard, Austin, who was barely adequate last season, with 4 assists per game, and this season he is averaging less than 2 per game. Brown, our supposed hope for the future, also averages less than 2 assists. We had 12 assists against St Marys, and looked decent in that game. In the next game against BC, we had 10. Against Harvard, we had 6, and against Stanford, we had only 3. Is this a trend? And why is Austin playing worse than last season. I suspect Fox's offense is either hard to learn, or hardly even exists, like Cuonzo's offense. Hand the ball to the players and tell'em, "Go play."

If you want them to stop dribbling, you have to tell them to move more, work hard to get open. You have to run pick and rolls, and other simple 2-man plays. Tell them not to play hero ball and shoot whenever they get the ball. That is what it looks like out there, nervous chaos and hero ball. And I would slow the pace, because the fast pace is causing many of the turnovers. We make 14 TOs per game. 18 against Stanford. If the players are not all-stars, then a slower pace is better. And not just in transistion. We run our half-court sets too fast also, IMO. I know slower basketball is ugly for many fans here, but do we want to play better and maybe win some games or look pretty losing? Right now, we are doing neither.

---

Random question: Does anyone think in the 2 days he spent debating who to hire that Knowlton looked at any film of the coaching candidates' teams in action. You got a search firm. I'd tell them I want video of the candidates' three best and worst games of the last two years.

By the way, I'm sure the answer is no.

Personally, if I'm an athletic director I don't give a damn how well a coach shmoozed me in the interview

---

What makes me crazy is that I am sure that the answer is no. But if you are so incompetent that you would not want to watch video, you can get your basketball crazy intern (me thirty years ago) to watch for you. I could have told you Fox was a no go. Better yet, you have a couple of friends in the basketball business who can give you unbiased advice.

I have watched Cal basketball since the Campanelli era. If we exclude recruiting, there has only been one above average coach (Montgomery) and six (Campy, Bozeman, Braun, Martin, Jones, Fox) below average coaches. It is not so damn hard. Go to a program that has good player development and in-game coaching and take the top assistant. They don't charge much because they want a head coaching gig and you get someone who is good at basketball coaching. Maybe I should start a search firm.

Sluggo

---

Even if you exclude recruiting, I would say that both Campanelli and Braun were above average coaches. They had their deficiencies, but they had winning records, Campanelli at both James Madison and Cal, and Braun at Eastern Michigan and Cal, with only his years at Rice having an overall losing record at that school, and much of that was due to departure of several players, if i remember right. By excluding recruiting, and calling Campanelli and Braun below average coaches, I think you are implying the reason for their success was the star players they recruited. I don't remember seeing Campanelli's or Braun's teams using their star players to play a lot of one on one basketball, unlike the Cal teams of Bozeman (after Kidd), Martin, and Jones, all of whom I would agree are below average coaches, unable to win much without great recruits (and maybe Jones could not win with great recruits). I'd consider Campanelli a very good defensive coach, and weak offensively, Braun pretty good at both, not as good as Montgomery at either, but still above average.

I agree with Bluesaxe. And I think we have gone the route of hiring a good assistant for our head coach, too many times, and it has not worked. Bluesaxe mentioned Kuchen, but before him, Cal hired Rene Herrerias, an outstanding high school coach, outstanding player, and outstanding assistant coach, who was the best advance scout on the planet, and studied in-game coaching under one of the all-time masters in Pete Newell, and Rene turned out to be about average as a head coach. I think I would prefer you consider head coaches with your search firm, coaches with a head-coaching track record.

It may not be relevant to modern times, but two of the three best basketball coaches Cal has ever had, Nibs Price and Pete Newell, never were assistant coaches. They were hired directly. Price out of high school, and Newell was hired by USF straight out of the Navy. The third coach, Montgomery, had been an assistant at various small schools. The last was Montana, and he was promoted to head coach, and a few years later hired by Stanford.

As for Fox, I would not be calling him a below average coach. He sure was not below average at Nevada, where he had year after year success with few great recruits. The rap on him has been his failure to recruit at Georgia as well as everyone wished for. And 13 games at Cal, without normal time to recruit, without great talent, and a very young team is not yet enough of a track record here to condemn him to below average status as a head coach. Cut him some slack and give him another year or two. He will likely get that much time anyway, no matter what the fans say. Again, it may not be relevant, but Newell had loads of talent on the roster of his first season at Cal, and he had the worst record in Cal history at the time, and followed that season with an average season and then 4 great seasons. Baking a good cake takes a little time.