Cal Falls At Stanford In Regular-Season Finale

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Sluggo, remind me what you thought early on about Okofor

I remember think he had poor team defense fundamentals but it could be coached up (like Kelly before him who also came in with the same poor defense)

---

Can't shoot, can't dribble, can't pass. Has pretty good footwork, maybe from a soccer background. Pretty good but not overwhelming athlete.

The official scouting report here was NBA level talent.

---

got it, but I don't recall many or even one who said he is a future NBA player (maybe because he came from the NBA academy, but don't remember)

As to an NBA talent, he just doesn't translate to the NBA due to his height /athleticism and lack of 3-point shooting range. You at least need to be elite at one or the other if you are missing the other

However he can be a solid college player. Might not happen next season, or at the high D1 level, but we'll see
His injury is unfortunate, as he would have gotten plenty of opportunity to prove me right or wrong this season.

HoopDreams said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Sluggo, remind me what you thought early on about Okofor

I remember think he had poor team defense fundamentals but it could be coached up (like Kelly before him who also came in with the same poor defense)

---

Can't shoot, can't dribble, can't pass. Has pretty good footwork, maybe from a soccer background. Pretty good but not overwhelming athlete.

The official scouting report here was NBA level talent.

---

got it, but I don't recall many or even one who said he is a future NBA player (maybe because he came from the NBA academy, but don't remember)

As to an NBA talent, he just doesn't translate to the NBA due to his height /athleticism and lack of 3-point shooting range. You at least need to be elite at one or the other if you are missing the other

However he can be a solid college player. Might not happen next season, or at the high D1 level, but we'll see
His injury is unfortunate, as he would have gotten plenty of opportunity to prove me right or wrong this season.

---

I remember these things because I am petty. I confirmed that my comment about NBA talent was accurate, and I said earlier who said it. Moving on.

I agree on what makes an NBA player. Not the right size or athletic enough to be a rim runner, not skilled enough to do anything else.

If he wanted to focus on screening, playing defense, and rebounding, he could be useful. He certainly would have been better than Larson or Curtis. And Madsen stubbornly, and I think foolishly, refuses to play Newell at the 5.

I didn't post the quote because it might only have been premium. But here it is: "Okafor is a bonafide NBA prospect and that's based on the perspective of the NBAs own development organization the NBA Academy which invited Okafor to play with them after his stellar performance in the U16 World Championships in 2019."

MoragaBear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Sluggo, remind me what you thought early on about Okofor

I remember think he had poor team defense fundamentals but it could be coached up (like Kelly before him who also came in with the same poor defense)

---

Can't shoot, can't dribble, can't pass. Has pretty good footwork, maybe from a soccer background. Pretty good but not overwhelming athlete.

The official scouting report here was NBA level talent.

---

I don't remember even remotely thinking NBA talent about Okafor and I don't remember Greg expressing that either.

Here's his commitment story. Despite him choosing Cal over Arizona, Baylor, Creighton, Georgetown, Georgia, and TCU, no big NBA assumptions there.

https://bearinsider.com/s/2863/bears-add-nigerian-born-pf-by-way-of-ireland-to-22-class

And in the preseason scouting report this year, nothing there either, even from fans in follow-up posts.

ND Okafor: He may give Askew a run for his money for the most improved award. He looks significantly stronger and he's clearly moving with more purpose and confidence than he did as a true freshman. A good shot blocker who's an improved positional defender. Wouldn't expect a lot of offense, though he flashes potential on pick and rolls as well as the offensive glass. The biggest gain is his physical presence on defense. He will play an important role, backing up Aimaq in the post

https://bearinsider.com/s/3767/preseason-scout-of-the-cal-mens-basketball-roster

I mean, he has an NBA body. Is that what you're remembering someone say?

---

impressive list of colleges recruiting him. I didn't remember that

according to GM of Denver Nuggets,

Quote:

---

a high level NBA executive attended a recent practice and said that there is one player on the roster who has legitimate NBA potential (as he develops) and that is ND Okafor. Clearly raw right now and barely past HS age, but the physical tools are impressive.

---

-2022

MoragaBear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

I didn't post the quote because it might only have been premium. But here it is: "Okafor is a bonafide NBA prospect and that's based on the perspective of the NBAs own development organization the NBA Academy which invited Okafor to play with them after his stellar performance in the U16 World Championships in 2019."

---

Must've missed that one but it sounds like it's based on the thoughts of NBA development people.

Okafor ending up in the NBA would require a massive amount of development. It obviously takes a lot more than an NBA body to get to the league. He's shown very little in his time at Cal beyond occasional flashes.

---

At least we can agree I did not make up what I said. I think it is using a source and believing that source, but we can disagree.

I wish he was that good. He just isn't. Source: me.

NDs stats in extremely limited minutes two years ago were pretty darned good. Maybe he was playing hurt when he was playing this year.

https://calbears.com/sports/mens-basketball/roster/nd-okafor/22513

Regardless, we need to stop relying on 6'9" guys as "centers." They're not. Aimaq's not. He's a PF guy being asked to play center and did a so-so job of it. We need 4 guys who are as good as ND to be our wings and backups. 3 more to be our PF and backups. And at least one guy legitimately over 7' to be our center. I'm still pissed about those year where a 6'8" Sanders-Frison was supposed to be our "center." Every other team has a bunch of tall athletes. We never seem to. Madsen knows what at least two tall guys can do for a team. Hope he can get them to help complement Okafor.

stu said:

---

After losing Kennedy and probably Tyson we'll also need one or two wings.

---

Shopping list (and with NIL now, it is literally that):

+ a point guard
+ 1-2 wings
+ a big

And that still leaves us a little light. Next season will hinge on how good the above players will be.

Did he break a bone? He has not played in 2 months

bearsandgiants said:

---

NDs stats in extremely limited minutes two years ago were pretty darned good. Maybe he was playing hurt when he was playing this year.

https://calbears.com/sports/mens-basketball/roster/nd-okafor/22513

Regardless, we need to stop relying on 6'9" guys as "centers." They're not. Aimaq's not. He's a PF guy being asked to play center and did a so-so job of it. We need 4 guys who are as good as ND to be our wings and backups. 3 more to be our PF and backups. And at least one guy legitimately over 7' to be our center. I'm still pissed about those year where a 6'8" Sanders-Frison was supposed to be our "center." Every other team has a bunch of tall athletes. We never seem to. Madsen knows what at least two tall guys can do for a team. Hope he can get them to help complement Okafor.

---

Instead of playing the 6'7" (as listed) MSF at center, Monty could have played 7'3 Max Zhang, 6'9" Bak Bak or the next year, a healthy 6'8 Harper Kamp, 6'10 Richard Solomon or 6'10" Robert Thurman…. I definitely wanted to see more of Zhang and freshman Solomon, but hard to argue with Monty who (unlike Braun) was willing to play a big guy just because he is a big guy.

Do you think with getting the majority of next year's players thru the portal and who we have coming back that Madsen's team will be better, equal, or worse than this year?

3Cats4CAL said:

---

Do you think with getting the majority of next year's players thru the portal and who we have coming back that Madsen's team will be better, equal, or worse than this year?

---

I think if Tyson comes back, we'll be better and make the tournament. Without Tyson, we probably still get off to a better start than this year, meaning more total wins, but we are probably the same type of team unless we land a couple superstars or Madsen really steps up his coaching game. I think we're an NIT team next year without Tyson, but am hoping I'm wrong and we outperform. Regardless, the approach of "completely reloading" every year is not sustainable. We have to bring in some HS guys or at least some junior transfers and built a bit of culture. We can't rely on 6th years as a long term strategy. It's too much of a gamble, every year.

bearsandgiants said:

---

3Cats4CAL said:

---

Do you think with getting the majority of next year's players thru the portal and who we have coming back that Madsen's team will be better, equal, or worse than this year?

---

I think if Tyson comes back, we'll be better and make the tournament. Without Tyson, we probably still get off to a better start than this year, meaning more total wins, but we are probably the same type of team unless we land a couple superstars or Madsen really steps up his coaching game. I think we're an NIT team next year without Tyson, but am hoping I'm wrong and we outperform. Regardless, the approach of "completely reloading" every year is not sustainable. We have to bring in some HS guys or at least some junior transfers and built a bit of culture. We can't rely on 6th years as a long term strategy. It's too much of a gamble, every year.

---

Beyond that, it really depends on who we get in the portal. This first year, Madsen really leaned on bringing in guys that he and his assistants had connections to at Utah Valley or Texas Tech. We won't have that this year. However, now Madsen has a resurgent program headed to the ACC and undoubtedly more NIL to work with. So will we be "better, the same, or worse than this year?" Yes.

calumnus said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

3Cats4CAL said:

---

Do you think with getting the majority of next year's players thru the portal and who we have coming back that Madsen's team will be better, equal, or worse than this year?

---

I think if Tyson comes back, we'll be better and make the tournament. Without Tyson, we probably still get off to a better start than this year, meaning more total wins, but we are probably the same type of team unless we land a couple superstars or Madsen really steps up his coaching game. I think we're an NIT team next year without Tyson, but am hoping I'm wrong and we outperform. Regardless, the approach of "completely reloading" every year is not sustainable. We have to bring in some HS guys or at least some junior transfers and built a bit of culture. We can't rely on 6th years as a long term strategy. It's too much of a gamble, every year.

---

Beyond that, it really depends on who we get in the portal. This first year, Madsen really leaned on bringing in guys that he and his assistants had connections to at Utah Valley or Texas Tech. We won't have that this year. However, now Madsen has a resurgent program headed to the ACC and undoubtedly more NIL to work with. So will we be "better, the same, or worse than this year?" Yes.

---

Absolutely the portal is crucial and agreed that Madsen leaned on relationships established to get Tyson/Daws and indirectly Cone) Madsen is being seen to potential recruits/people with recruiting influence, as turning around/improving a horrible program. Players gravitate to him for sure - genuine, trusting and motivating. For him to turn a difficult locker room culture (acceptance of losing, poor work ethic etc) around in one season is a positive. NIL is a huge struggle to raise - the "big donor's" traditionally are not NIL backers. While the program has to improve on last year's NIL raise, it is not yet where it needs to be. So that is a major concern currently. Sure hope the ardent/loyal followers of Cal basketball step up - even in small amounts - hoping for Strength in Numbers!

You know are getting slaughtered on the NIL front? Have zero r penetration to HS athletes.

Big C said:

---

3Cats4CAL said:

---

Do you think with getting the majority of next year's players thru the portal and who we have coming back that Madsen's team will be better, equal, or worse than this year?

---

Too early to make a reasonable projection. There's a randomness to who Madsen will be able to bring in... and also to how much NIL he will have to work with. I also don't have a feel as to how good RB Jr and Okafor will be next season.

I will go out on a limb and predict that we will have a better overall record, as Madsen and staff will get some of that November-December stuff figured out.

My hope is that we will be at least as good and that Madsen will back that up with some impressive freshman recruiting, as we look to the future.

---

Yes, it is too soon to tell how good we will be, since (hopefully) most of next year's starters are unknown. And while I agree that we shouldn't have as steep of a curve in team development next year, we also do not know how good we will be. Add that we will be in the ACC which has a generally higher consistency of play and tough home courts, plus it remains to be seen what kind of toll all the travel will take on the players...

We were one win short of .500 in the PAC this year. If we can equal that in the ACC next year, I will consider that a solid first year.