RedlessWardrobe said:
SFCityBear said:
RedlessWardrobe said:
Civil Bear said:
RedlessWardrobe said:
SFCityBear said:
tthompson993 said:
Hi Fellow Bears, I must be really old but at one time Kevin Johnson was the second best point guard in the NBA behind Magic Johnson. He always outscored John Stockton when they met and often out assisted him as well. The only player on this list better than KJ is Jason Kidd if you are including both college and pro. Yet I don't see him included in anyone's list. Like I said, I must be really old and I was very big Phil Chenier and Charlie Johnson fans but KJ was just better than either of them.
I don't disagree that Kevin Johnson was a great individual player, and team player.
Then there is this:
NBA Championship Rings:
Charles Johnson 2 (Starting guard for the 1975 Warriors and the 1978 Bullets)
Jason Kidd 1 Dallas Mavs
Phil Chenier 1 (Injured his back halfway through the Bullets 1978 season, did not play in the playoffs, but was voted to receive a ring by his team)
Kevin Johnson 0
I remember that Chenier once said at Cal that Charles Johnson taught him much about how to play defense. CJ could shoot well, but never scored a lot, not taking many shots. He didn't bag a ton of assists. He started and played more because of his defense than anything, and often guarded much taller players than himself.
SFCity, as usual you know I respect your opinions. But I wish to point out that I would have loved to put KJ on my list, the $15 budget didn't allow me to put any $5 player on it.
Secondly, while I appreciate your comments about CJ and Phil, I find your comparison that KJ had 0 championship rings completely irrelevant. To this day I contend the "ring" argument is one of the most overrated arguments in sports. What would be our opinion of say - Dan Marino, Ted Williams, Elgin Baylor?
Also like to say that it took a Michael Jordan team to beat KJ's in the NBA finals. There was about a 3 year span when I remember that nobody, I mean NOBODY could stop KJ off the dribble. He is truly one of the great Golden Bears.
Huh?
I didn't mean LITERALLY $15. I just meant for the sake of selecting a well rounded starting five by position, I couldn't dig into the $5 category. Just my opinion.
That is an interesting take. I hadn't thought of it that way. Good post. What teams can you think of which had a well rounded rounded starting five?
If you're talking about Cal teams, you've already mentioned it. The team with CJ,Chenier,Ridgle,Coughran, and Truitt was the best complete starting five Cal ever put out there. Disappointing result.
This only reinforces my point, which I made earlier in the thread, and many more times on the Bear Insider, and that is that the team's coach is so damn important. A coach has to have a system that his players feel comfortable in, he has to be a wizard in strategy and tactics, he must be a great teacher, believable, and he has to be able to foster chemistry. A great coach gives the team a chance for real success. Without one, success is not often attained.
Cal has had many coaches since Newell who had good success recruiting, Campanelli (Did he sign Kidd, or was it assistant Bozeman who signed Kidd?) Bozeman, Braun, Martin. Others like Herrerias, Edwards, Kuchen had some good recruits, just not enough of them. None of those coaches was able to win what Newell had won. 4 conference titles, 4 Elite 8s, 2 Final Fours, 2 trips to the championship game, and one national title, all in just 6 years. So when people tell us that all it takes to win is 5 star recruits, it just isn't true. Coach K, Roy Williams, Bob Knight, Calipari, all those guys can coach. We better believe that.
In my freshman year, I went to a lot of Newell's practices. Everything was organized. All the drills were run by his assistants. Then they broke off into groups of two or three players and worked on two-man plays and three man plays, the bases of basketball at that time. Newell would take one or two players and teach them in a quiet voice the basics of footwork on offense and especially defense. Once or twice a week, there might be a scrimmage. His practices were a combination of a lot of very tiring, hard work, and a lot of listening to his instructions. In my sophomore year, I went to Jim Padgett's practices. They were very lax, lazy, and disorganized. Padgett smoked cigarettes constantly during practice. (Newell smoked too, but never at practice or games.) Padgett was an easygoing guy, and let the players scrimmage a lot. There were almost no set plays, none that I remember, and little individual instruction, maybe because those players were so talented, that they didn't need it. I went to maybe two Padgett practices and never returned. There was nothing much to learn.
Before we dismiss the 1971 team as disappointing, which they were, they did accomplish quite a bit, actually. First of all, modern fans often decry the fact that Cal coaches don't do a good job of recruiting local players. Even Pete Newell did not do a good job of recruiting local players. Most of his players were from southern California or the central valley. The 1971 team was primarily recruited by Padgett (himself a very good high school player at Mt. Shasta). Ansley Truitt of San Francisco, Phil Chenier of Berkeley, Charlie Johnson of Redwood City, and John Coughran of Piedmont. That is four of the best players in the Bay Area. Only Jackie Ridgle was from out of the Bay Area, and he was the best player in his class in Arkansas. The only prominent players from the Bay Area which Cal did not get during those recruiting years for the 1971 team which I can remember are Nate Williams of McClymonds and Bob Portman of St. Ignatius.
Those were the days where Cal had to win the conference championship outright to be invited to the NCAA tournament, just like in Newell's day. Unfortunately for Cal, the two best teams (and maybe the two best coaches) in the country, UCLA and USC, were in the same conference as Cal. AP Poll #1 UCLA was coached by John Wooden, and was loaded with Sidney Wicks, Curtis Rowe, Henry Bibby, and Steve Patterson, and went 29-1, undefeated in conference and won the NCAA title. USC was ranked #3 in the AP Poll, and went 24-2, with their only two losses being to UCLA, and they were loaded as well with Paul Westphal, Dennis Layton, Ron Riley and Joe Mackey. Cal and Oregon tied for 3rd in the conference, with Cal beating Oregon 103-72 in their final meeting. Cal finished 12-6 in conference, and the losses to UCLA and USC were virtually automatic, and the scores were not close. Cal was first in the PAC8 in rebounding with 54 per game, 2nd in scoring at 84 points per game, but 2nd worst in points allowed at 80 points per game. Therein lies the reason that Cal did not compete well for the PAC8 title: Defense. USC and UCLA also scored 84 points a game, but USC allowed only 70 points per game, and UCLA only 69 points, 10 and 11 points less than Cal. Another reason was the coaching, as Jim Padgett was not of the level of John Wooden or Bob Boyd.
So the 1971 team was a good team, but was unlucky in that UCLA and USC were in the same league. They could have been a better team with better coaching, in my opinion. Defense is something you need a coach for. It requires more teaching and learning, IMO.
