02-05-2014, 09:06 PM
Starting the game late for good reasons and there is not link to the game?Â
MBB thread
Starting the game late for good reasons and there is not link to the game?Â
02-05-2014, 10:09 PM
"To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression." ~ James Madison
"To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression." ~ James Madison
02-05-2014, 10:29 PM
(02-05-2014, 10:09 PM)Kathy link Wrote:Well ... we won, 80-69.
Box score: http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=400506143
Well I'll be damned. First really good win since Oregon. We really needed that.
BC
(02-05-2014, 10:09 PM)Kathy link Wrote:Well ... we won, 80-69.
Box score: http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=400506143
Well I'll be damned. First really good win since Oregon. We really needed that.
BC
02-05-2014, 10:42 PM
I watched the first half, and then had to take care of personal business. Stanford was up by, I think, 18 points and was looking awesome, and then Cal started to chip away as Stanford lost its early aggressiveness. Cal hit a three-pointer at the buzzer to get within six, and I was convinced that this was going to be one of the more painful come-from-ahead-losses of the Johnny Dawkins era. Somehow, the good guys pulled away in the second half.
Our next two games are on the road against the Washington schools, then home against USC. I want to win all three before UCLA comes to Maples on 2/22.
Our next two games are on the road against the Washington schools, then home against USC. I want to win all three before UCLA comes to Maples on 2/22.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
I watched the first half, and then had to take care of personal business. Stanford was up by, I think, 18 points and was looking awesome, and then Cal started to chip away as Stanford lost its early aggressiveness. Cal hit a three-pointer at the buzzer to get within six, and I was convinced that this was going to be one of the more painful come-from-ahead-losses of the Johnny Dawkins era. Somehow, the good guys pulled away in the second half.
Our next two games are on the road against the Washington schools, then home against USC. I want to win all three before UCLA comes to Maples on 2/22.
Our next two games are on the road against the Washington schools, then home against USC. I want to win all three before UCLA comes to Maples on 2/22.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
02-06-2014, 12:11 AM
By the way, don't look now, but Cal has lost four out of five (of course the one win was a brobdingnagian one). Both teams are now 6-4 in conference, and there are 7 teams at either 6-3, 6-4, or 5-4 in conference. Talk about parity (or mediocrity, depending on your perspective). Arizona is in, UCLA is likely in, and the rest still have work to do. The game at Washington is hu... [nm, that word is verboten here].
BC
BC
By the way, don't look now, but Cal has lost four out of five (of course the one win was a brobdingnagian one). Both teams are now 6-4 in conference, and there are 7 teams at either 6-3, 6-4, or 5-4 in conference. Talk about parity (or mediocrity, depending on your perspective). Arizona is in, UCLA is likely in, and the rest still have work to do. The game at Washington is hu... [nm, that word is verboten here].
BC
BC
I watched last night, and the game was...okay. On the down side, we blew that 18 point lead. Also, our defensive rebounding was bad--Kal collected almost half of their missed shots.Â
But on the plus side, we held steady in the second half, never let the lead get below 5, and hit clutch shots every time Kal threatened. The biggest factor in the game was our 28-35 FT shooting. If we'd shot 50% on FTs, like we did at home against Kal, we might have lost.
(Oh, also on the down side was the usual bizarre and meandering color commentary of Bill Walton. My wife was half-watching the game with me, and every so often she would hear something about John Fogerty, the importance of wearing jeans, the Grateful Dead, or whatever other random stuff came out of Walton's mouth, look up from her computer and say "what did he just say?" I told her that it was just Walton being Walton.)
We're in the 30s in most RPI-type rankings now. If we can stay there, we should be a lock for the Tourney. I think a sweep on the Washington road trip is crucial. Three weeks from now, we could be looking at 3 straight losses between UCLA at home and the Arizona road trip. It would be really nice to bank enough wins to make an above-.500 finish in the P12 likely.
But on the plus side, we held steady in the second half, never let the lead get below 5, and hit clutch shots every time Kal threatened. The biggest factor in the game was our 28-35 FT shooting. If we'd shot 50% on FTs, like we did at home against Kal, we might have lost.
(Oh, also on the down side was the usual bizarre and meandering color commentary of Bill Walton. My wife was half-watching the game with me, and every so often she would hear something about John Fogerty, the importance of wearing jeans, the Grateful Dead, or whatever other random stuff came out of Walton's mouth, look up from her computer and say "what did he just say?" I told her that it was just Walton being Walton.)
We're in the 30s in most RPI-type rankings now. If we can stay there, we should be a lock for the Tourney. I think a sweep on the Washington road trip is crucial. Three weeks from now, we could be looking at 3 straight losses between UCLA at home and the Arizona road trip. It would be really nice to bank enough wins to make an above-.500 finish in the P12 likely.
I watched last night, and the game was...okay. On the down side, we blew that 18 point lead. Also, our defensive rebounding was bad--Kal collected almost half of their missed shots.Â
But on the plus side, we held steady in the second half, never let the lead get below 5, and hit clutch shots every time Kal threatened. The biggest factor in the game was our 28-35 FT shooting. If we'd shot 50% on FTs, like we did at home against Kal, we might have lost.
(Oh, also on the down side was the usual bizarre and meandering color commentary of Bill Walton. My wife was half-watching the game with me, and every so often she would hear something about John Fogerty, the importance of wearing jeans, the Grateful Dead, or whatever other random stuff came out of Walton's mouth, look up from her computer and say "what did he just say?" I told her that it was just Walton being Walton.)
We're in the 30s in most RPI-type rankings now. If we can stay there, we should be a lock for the Tourney. I think a sweep on the Washington road trip is crucial. Three weeks from now, we could be looking at 3 straight losses between UCLA at home and the Arizona road trip. It would be really nice to bank enough wins to make an above-.500 finish in the P12 likely.
But on the plus side, we held steady in the second half, never let the lead get below 5, and hit clutch shots every time Kal threatened. The biggest factor in the game was our 28-35 FT shooting. If we'd shot 50% on FTs, like we did at home against Kal, we might have lost.
(Oh, also on the down side was the usual bizarre and meandering color commentary of Bill Walton. My wife was half-watching the game with me, and every so often she would hear something about John Fogerty, the importance of wearing jeans, the Grateful Dead, or whatever other random stuff came out of Walton's mouth, look up from her computer and say "what did he just say?" I told her that it was just Walton being Walton.)
We're in the 30s in most RPI-type rankings now. If we can stay there, we should be a lock for the Tourney. I think a sweep on the Washington road trip is crucial. Three weeks from now, we could be looking at 3 straight losses between UCLA at home and the Arizona road trip. It would be really nice to bank enough wins to make an above-.500 finish in the P12 likely.
02-06-2014, 09:12 AM
Wow... with friends like the posters on this board (G*d forbid "the other one"), this team sure doesn't need any enemies! How about we actually celebrate a dominant win on the road against our (higher rated) arch rival?!?Â
Kathy: is "Well ... we won, 80-69" (with a link to the box score) really all you have to say?
Burger: "we blew that 18 point lead" is your first comment? I don't think I've ever seen a basketball game in which the score-gap only got larger throughout an entire game (to the contrary, most coaches and analysts would suggest that most games feature multiple "runs" by both teams, during which leads narrow, widen, or leads even change); but your thought process starts with evaluating our performance relative to its absolute apex? An 11 point win wasn't enough? Gotta maintain your widest margin into perpetuity?
Look, I'm not about to suggest that Dawkins = Montgomery, but the inconvenient truth is that our "terrible / must-be-fired-immediately" coach now has a 6-7 career record (with, on average, indisputably inferior talent entering those 13 games) against "the greatest coach ever" [hyperbole is mine, and intentional].
All I'm saying is that rooting against your team, no matter what you think of the coach, really ain't that cool.
Congratulations, team - Go Stanford!!!
Kathy: is "Well ... we won, 80-69" (with a link to the box score) really all you have to say?
Burger: "we blew that 18 point lead" is your first comment? I don't think I've ever seen a basketball game in which the score-gap only got larger throughout an entire game (to the contrary, most coaches and analysts would suggest that most games feature multiple "runs" by both teams, during which leads narrow, widen, or leads even change); but your thought process starts with evaluating our performance relative to its absolute apex? An 11 point win wasn't enough? Gotta maintain your widest margin into perpetuity?
Look, I'm not about to suggest that Dawkins = Montgomery, but the inconvenient truth is that our "terrible / must-be-fired-immediately" coach now has a 6-7 career record (with, on average, indisputably inferior talent entering those 13 games) against "the greatest coach ever" [hyperbole is mine, and intentional].
All I'm saying is that rooting against your team, no matter what you think of the coach, really ain't that cool.
Congratulations, team - Go Stanford!!!
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. - John Stuart Mill
Wow... with friends like the posters on this board (G*d forbid "the other one"), this team sure doesn't need any enemies! How about we actually celebrate a dominant win on the road against our (higher rated) arch rival?!?Â
Kathy: is "Well ... we won, 80-69" (with a link to the box score) really all you have to say?
Burger: "we blew that 18 point lead" is your first comment? I don't think I've ever seen a basketball game in which the score-gap only got larger throughout an entire game (to the contrary, most coaches and analysts would suggest that most games feature multiple "runs" by both teams, during which leads narrow, widen, or leads even change); but your thought process starts with evaluating our performance relative to its absolute apex? An 11 point win wasn't enough? Gotta maintain your widest margin into perpetuity?
Look, I'm not about to suggest that Dawkins = Montgomery, but the inconvenient truth is that our "terrible / must-be-fired-immediately" coach now has a 6-7 career record (with, on average, indisputably inferior talent entering those 13 games) against "the greatest coach ever" [hyperbole is mine, and intentional].
All I'm saying is that rooting against your team, no matter what you think of the coach, really ain't that cool.
Congratulations, team - Go Stanford!!!
Kathy: is "Well ... we won, 80-69" (with a link to the box score) really all you have to say?
Burger: "we blew that 18 point lead" is your first comment? I don't think I've ever seen a basketball game in which the score-gap only got larger throughout an entire game (to the contrary, most coaches and analysts would suggest that most games feature multiple "runs" by both teams, during which leads narrow, widen, or leads even change); but your thought process starts with evaluating our performance relative to its absolute apex? An 11 point win wasn't enough? Gotta maintain your widest margin into perpetuity?
Look, I'm not about to suggest that Dawkins = Montgomery, but the inconvenient truth is that our "terrible / must-be-fired-immediately" coach now has a 6-7 career record (with, on average, indisputably inferior talent entering those 13 games) against "the greatest coach ever" [hyperbole is mine, and intentional].
All I'm saying is that rooting against your team, no matter what you think of the coach, really ain't that cool.
Congratulations, team - Go Stanford!!!
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. - John Stuart Mill
02-06-2014, 10:36 AM
LuckE, I don't think anyone here is rooting against the team (or Dawkins, though I could be wrong about that). I think they/we are just a little afraid to get invested in the team, given the performance (or under-performance to the talent) over the past five years. :(
LuckE, I don't think anyone here is rooting against the team (or Dawkins, though I could be wrong about that). I think they/we are just a little afraid to get invested in the team, given the performance (or under-performance to the talent) over the past five years. :(
02-06-2014, 10:38 AM
In between his rambling about various bands and concert venues, Bill Walton repeatedly pointed out that Cal's offense usually consisted of four players standing around watching one player dribble, and that the standing around was also in evidence on the defensive end. Not very often in the recent history of this series that the team that looked unprepared and poorly coached was wearing blue and gold.
In between his rambling about various bands and concert venues, Bill Walton repeatedly pointed out that Cal's offense usually consisted of four players standing around watching one player dribble, and that the standing around was also in evidence on the defensive end. Not very often in the recent history of this series that the team that looked unprepared and poorly coached was wearing blue and gold.
02-06-2014, 10:59 AM
(02-06-2014, 10:38 AM)Renaissance Man link Wrote:Not very often in the recent history of this series that the team that looked unprepared and poorly coached was wearing blue and gold.
Well, that team in the blue and gold, which clearly enjoys such superior coaching, lost by 10 at Maples and 13 (in another laugher, much like last night's) at Haas just last season! I'll defer to those who may be able to demonstrate otherwise, but with the exception of this year's recruiting class (which obviously can't help us yet) and perhaps the 2010 class (which was only slightly more highly rated that K.al's at the time) I can't see when Dawkins has ever gotten more talent to work with than Montgomery (at K.al)? In fact, Trent left him almost nothing, save Landry Fields & Josh Owens, to start with! Maybe this means that Montgomery is "just as bad"?
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. - John Stuart Mill
(02-06-2014, 10:38 AM)Renaissance Man link Wrote:Not very often in the recent history of this series that the team that looked unprepared and poorly coached was wearing blue and gold.
Well, that team in the blue and gold, which clearly enjoys such superior coaching, lost by 10 at Maples and 13 (in another laugher, much like last night's) at Haas just last season! I'll defer to those who may be able to demonstrate otherwise, but with the exception of this year's recruiting class (which obviously can't help us yet) and perhaps the 2010 class (which was only slightly more highly rated that K.al's at the time) I can't see when Dawkins has ever gotten more talent to work with than Montgomery (at K.al)? In fact, Trent left him almost nothing, save Landry Fields & Josh Owens, to start with! Maybe this means that Montgomery is "just as bad"?
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. - John Stuart Mill
02-06-2014, 11:24 AM
(02-06-2014, 09:12 AM)LuckE2Bhere link Wrote:Kathy: is "Well ... we won, 80-69" (with a link to the box score) really all you have to say?
I didn't see the game, LuckE. I saw that no one had answered 2 for 2028's question, so I posted the only information I could find, a box score from ESPN. GoStanford wasn't even updating at that point.
I have never rooted against a Stanford sports team, and I doubt any other CARDboarders are doing so, either. Take it easy ... we're always happy about a Stanford win (bonus joy when it's a victory over the weenies).Â
"To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression." ~ James Madison
(02-06-2014, 09:12 AM)LuckE2Bhere link Wrote:Kathy: is "Well ... we won, 80-69" (with a link to the box score) really all you have to say?
I didn't see the game, LuckE. I saw that no one had answered 2 for 2028's question, so I posted the only information I could find, a box score from ESPN. GoStanford wasn't even updating at that point.
I have never rooted against a Stanford sports team, and I doubt any other CARDboarders are doing so, either. Take it easy ... we're always happy about a Stanford win (bonus joy when it's a victory over the weenies).Â
"To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression." ~ James Madison
StanFan88
Unregistered
Unregistered
02-06-2014, 11:48 AM
(02-06-2014, 09:12 AM)LuckE2Bhere link Wrote:Wow... with friends like the posters on this board (G*d forbid "the other one"), this team sure doesn't need any enemies! How about we actually celebrate a dominant win on the road against our (higher rated) arch rival?!?Â
A very good win, just as the win against ASU over the weekend was also a quality win.
But two good games doesn't make a season, and given the past five seasons I'm going to be a skeptic of this program until proven wrong over a longer stretch of time. This team could just as easily sweep next week at UW/WSU as it could get swept. Depends on whether the team that beat ASU & Kal shows up or the one that made 1 basket in the final 11 mins against AZ.
When they get to 11 conference wins (not including the conf tournament) I will be more optimistic.
(02-06-2014, 09:12 AM)LuckE2Bhere link Wrote:Wow... with friends like the posters on this board (G*d forbid "the other one"), this team sure doesn't need any enemies! How about we actually celebrate a dominant win on the road against our (higher rated) arch rival?!?Â
A very good win, just as the win against ASU over the weekend was also a quality win.
But two good games doesn't make a season, and given the past five seasons I'm going to be a skeptic of this program until proven wrong over a longer stretch of time. This team could just as easily sweep next week at UW/WSU as it could get swept. Depends on whether the team that beat ASU & Kal shows up or the one that made 1 basket in the final 11 mins against AZ.
When they get to 11 conference wins (not including the conf tournament) I will be more optimistic.
02-06-2014, 11:55 AM
(02-06-2014, 09:12 AM)LuckE2Bhere link Wrote:?Burger: "we blew that 18 point lead" is your first comment? I don't think I've ever seen a basketball game in which the score-gap only got larger throughout an entire game (to the contrary, most coaches and analysts would suggest that most games feature multiple "runs" by both teams, during which leads narrow, widen, or leads even change); but your thought process starts with evaluating our performance relative to its absolute apex? An 11 point win wasn't enough? Gotta maintain your widest margin into perpetuity?Huh, I guess you missed the part where I praised the team for maintaining the lead and went on the use the phrase "lock for the Tourney" to refer to Stanford (assuming we keep playing well, of course). I hate being taken out of context.
(02-06-2014, 09:12 AM)LuckE2Bhere link Wrote:?Burger: "we blew that 18 point lead" is your first comment? I don't think I've ever seen a basketball game in which the score-gap only got larger throughout an entire game (to the contrary, most coaches and analysts would suggest that most games feature multiple "runs" by both teams, during which leads narrow, widen, or leads even change); but your thought process starts with evaluating our performance relative to its absolute apex? An 11 point win wasn't enough? Gotta maintain your widest margin into perpetuity?Huh, I guess you missed the part where I praised the team for maintaining the lead and went on the use the phrase "lock for the Tourney" to refer to Stanford (assuming we keep playing well, of course). I hate being taken out of context.
02-06-2014, 12:19 PM
(02-06-2014, 09:12 AM)LuckE2Bhere link Wrote:Wow... with friends like the posters on this board (G*d forbid "the other one"), this team sure doesn't need any enemies! How about we actually celebrate a dominant win on the road against our (higher rated) arch rival?!?Â
Kathy: is "Well ... we won, 80-69" (with a link to the box score) really all you have to say?
Burger: "we blew that 18 point lead" is your first comment? I don't think I've ever seen a basketball game in which the score-gap only got larger throughout an entire game (to the contrary, most coaches and analysts would suggest that most games feature multiple "runs" by both teams, during which leads narrow, widen, or leads even change); but your thought process starts with evaluating our performance relative to its absolute apex? An 11 point win wasn't enough? Gotta maintain your widest margin into perpetuity?
Look, I'm not about to suggest that Dawkins = Montgomery, but the inconvenient truth is that our "terrible / must-be-fired-immediately" coach now has a 6-7 career record (with, on average, indisputably inferior talent entering those 13 games) against "the greatest coach ever" [hyperbole is mine, and intentional].
All I'm saying is that rooting against your team, no matter what you think of the coach, really ain't that cool.
Congratulations, team - Go Stanford!!!
Let's just say that the game engenders cautious optimism, with an emphasis on cautious. But for what it is worth, I don't think comparisons between Stanford and Cal on talent leave us on the short end of the stick. My impression is that most often Dawkins has out recruited Monty; in fact, even before this year I would have called recruiting one of Dawkins' strong points.
BC
(02-06-2014, 09:12 AM)LuckE2Bhere link Wrote:Wow... with friends like the posters on this board (G*d forbid "the other one"), this team sure doesn't need any enemies! How about we actually celebrate a dominant win on the road against our (higher rated) arch rival?!?Â
Kathy: is "Well ... we won, 80-69" (with a link to the box score) really all you have to say?
Burger: "we blew that 18 point lead" is your first comment? I don't think I've ever seen a basketball game in which the score-gap only got larger throughout an entire game (to the contrary, most coaches and analysts would suggest that most games feature multiple "runs" by both teams, during which leads narrow, widen, or leads even change); but your thought process starts with evaluating our performance relative to its absolute apex? An 11 point win wasn't enough? Gotta maintain your widest margin into perpetuity?
Look, I'm not about to suggest that Dawkins = Montgomery, but the inconvenient truth is that our "terrible / must-be-fired-immediately" coach now has a 6-7 career record (with, on average, indisputably inferior talent entering those 13 games) against "the greatest coach ever" [hyperbole is mine, and intentional].
All I'm saying is that rooting against your team, no matter what you think of the coach, really ain't that cool.
Congratulations, team - Go Stanford!!!
Let's just say that the game engenders cautious optimism, with an emphasis on cautious. But for what it is worth, I don't think comparisons between Stanford and Cal on talent leave us on the short end of the stick. My impression is that most often Dawkins has out recruited Monty; in fact, even before this year I would have called recruiting one of Dawkins' strong points.
BC
02-06-2014, 12:24 PM
Saw the second half but wasn't able to pay close attention due to some family distractions. I was impressed that Stanford responded each time Cal made a run. Unlike some of the other games I've seen, the team didn't seem lost and executed well down the stretch. I'm hopeful they can continue that type of performance the rest of the way. It will be really exciting if this team lives up to its potential. I've decided to not spend much time worrying about the coaching situation. My barely informed opinion is that Dawkins is not the right coach to lead Stanford to being a highly competitive team but I'm not going to let that ruin my happiness when these players have success.Â
Cal's team, on the other hand, looked frustrated and out of sorts everytime Stanford responded. They didn't seem to have the heart to fight back because they believed they should easily beat Stanford at home. Also, even though the Stanford job wasn't open at the time and I try not to begrudge Montgomery taking the Cal job, I now want him to fail in order to shut up all my Cal friends who get extra enjoyment out of any success they have with our old coach. Screw them.Â
Cheers,
Pete F.Â
Cal's team, on the other hand, looked frustrated and out of sorts everytime Stanford responded. They didn't seem to have the heart to fight back because they believed they should easily beat Stanford at home. Also, even though the Stanford job wasn't open at the time and I try not to begrudge Montgomery taking the Cal job, I now want him to fail in order to shut up all my Cal friends who get extra enjoyment out of any success they have with our old coach. Screw them.Â
Cheers,
Pete F.Â
Saw the second half but wasn't able to pay close attention due to some family distractions. I was impressed that Stanford responded each time Cal made a run. Unlike some of the other games I've seen, the team didn't seem lost and executed well down the stretch. I'm hopeful they can continue that type of performance the rest of the way. It will be really exciting if this team lives up to its potential. I've decided to not spend much time worrying about the coaching situation. My barely informed opinion is that Dawkins is not the right coach to lead Stanford to being a highly competitive team but I'm not going to let that ruin my happiness when these players have success.Â
Cal's team, on the other hand, looked frustrated and out of sorts everytime Stanford responded. They didn't seem to have the heart to fight back because they believed they should easily beat Stanford at home. Also, even though the Stanford job wasn't open at the time and I try not to begrudge Montgomery taking the Cal job, I now want him to fail in order to shut up all my Cal friends who get extra enjoyment out of any success they have with our old coach. Screw them.Â
Cheers,
Pete F.Â
Cal's team, on the other hand, looked frustrated and out of sorts everytime Stanford responded. They didn't seem to have the heart to fight back because they believed they should easily beat Stanford at home. Also, even though the Stanford job wasn't open at the time and I try not to begrudge Montgomery taking the Cal job, I now want him to fail in order to shut up all my Cal friends who get extra enjoyment out of any success they have with our old coach. Screw them.Â
Cheers,
Pete F.Â
02-06-2014, 01:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2014, 03:05 PM by Viking_Guy.)
Actually was at the game. The crowd had little to no impact, as Stanford took an early lead and kept it; it got down to 6 at halftime and 5 several times early in the second half, but as others mentioned, Stanford seemed to find a response. Often at the free throw line, which inevitably deadens a crowd.
One thing not to underestimate: the officiating and its impact. Stanford spent a whole lot of time at the line, even before the fouling fest that Monty tried at the end of the game. The big beneficiary was Dwight Powell, who had a so-so game in almost every other phase except at the line. He's one of the most frustrating players I've ever watched at Stanford: a 6'10" player who wants to play like a 6'4" shooting guard. Falls away from contact a lot of the time, and tries to finish 3-4 feet away from the rim instead of at it. Shot 5-17 from the field last night, and the majority of those shots were within 5 feet of the basket. Countless running hook shots from 3 feet banging off the back iron. Makes up for it with a whole lot of physical ability, though I wish he had better hands - he gets stripped too easily (last night, saw Cobb strip him by brushing down on the front of a ball Powell had solidly in both hands).
Let me put it this way: listening to John Platz during the ASU game, he talked about how Powell had improved and was getting to the line because he realized he should be driving into contact more often. To which my response was, it took him until his senior year to recognize that?
Chasson Randle is really good, but still has a tendency to make silly mistakes - turning the ball over on a five-second call that allowed da Bares the second three-pointer that closed the first half lead from 12 to 6 in a matter of 40 seconds, an occasional silly foul that takes him out of the game (his fourth last night sat him down for 2-3 minutes that could have been crucial). And I've always loved Josh Huestis' game. And Robbie Lemons is giving more as a walk-on than could've been expected.
But last night was really more about the dysfunction of the opposition - it wasn't just the turnovers, it was that they turned the ball over on breakaways that would've pulled them closer in the early second half. Or the missed front end of 1 and 1s. Or the complete turn away from getting the ball to Kravish in the low post, where he absolutely destroyed Powell in the first few possessions of the game. And it didn't help that they had a lot of open shots spin out, especially as Stanford was holding them off in the early second half.
The most glaring issue was da Bares' gameplan and execution - you beat Stanford by driving, forcing rotation and help defense to collapse in and then kicking the ball out to take advantage of a scrambling defense. C.al would drive in, but then try to make interior passes through a crowded paint, and when they kicked out, the first option always seemed to be to drive inside again. Late in the game, they scored again and again by spreading the floor and running a simple pick play at the top of the lane for Matthis (edit: sorry, Wallace), but it was too little and too late.
I guess cautiously optimistic is a good way to be right now - but cautious optimism is not a very high bar for a team starting 3 seniors and 2 juniors. If they can win 2 of their final 4 on the road and 3 of 4 at home, I think they'll be on the right side of the bubble.
VG
One thing not to underestimate: the officiating and its impact. Stanford spent a whole lot of time at the line, even before the fouling fest that Monty tried at the end of the game. The big beneficiary was Dwight Powell, who had a so-so game in almost every other phase except at the line. He's one of the most frustrating players I've ever watched at Stanford: a 6'10" player who wants to play like a 6'4" shooting guard. Falls away from contact a lot of the time, and tries to finish 3-4 feet away from the rim instead of at it. Shot 5-17 from the field last night, and the majority of those shots were within 5 feet of the basket. Countless running hook shots from 3 feet banging off the back iron. Makes up for it with a whole lot of physical ability, though I wish he had better hands - he gets stripped too easily (last night, saw Cobb strip him by brushing down on the front of a ball Powell had solidly in both hands).
Let me put it this way: listening to John Platz during the ASU game, he talked about how Powell had improved and was getting to the line because he realized he should be driving into contact more often. To which my response was, it took him until his senior year to recognize that?
Chasson Randle is really good, but still has a tendency to make silly mistakes - turning the ball over on a five-second call that allowed da Bares the second three-pointer that closed the first half lead from 12 to 6 in a matter of 40 seconds, an occasional silly foul that takes him out of the game (his fourth last night sat him down for 2-3 minutes that could have been crucial). And I've always loved Josh Huestis' game. And Robbie Lemons is giving more as a walk-on than could've been expected.
But last night was really more about the dysfunction of the opposition - it wasn't just the turnovers, it was that they turned the ball over on breakaways that would've pulled them closer in the early second half. Or the missed front end of 1 and 1s. Or the complete turn away from getting the ball to Kravish in the low post, where he absolutely destroyed Powell in the first few possessions of the game. And it didn't help that they had a lot of open shots spin out, especially as Stanford was holding them off in the early second half.
The most glaring issue was da Bares' gameplan and execution - you beat Stanford by driving, forcing rotation and help defense to collapse in and then kicking the ball out to take advantage of a scrambling defense. C.al would drive in, but then try to make interior passes through a crowded paint, and when they kicked out, the first option always seemed to be to drive inside again. Late in the game, they scored again and again by spreading the floor and running a simple pick play at the top of the lane for Matthis (edit: sorry, Wallace), but it was too little and too late.
I guess cautiously optimistic is a good way to be right now - but cautious optimism is not a very high bar for a team starting 3 seniors and 2 juniors. If they can win 2 of their final 4 on the road and 3 of 4 at home, I think they'll be on the right side of the bubble.
VG
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2014, 03:05 PM by Viking_Guy.)
Actually was at the game. The crowd had little to no impact, as Stanford took an early lead and kept it; it got down to 6 at halftime and 5 several times early in the second half, but as others mentioned, Stanford seemed to find a response. Often at the free throw line, which inevitably deadens a crowd.
One thing not to underestimate: the officiating and its impact. Stanford spent a whole lot of time at the line, even before the fouling fest that Monty tried at the end of the game. The big beneficiary was Dwight Powell, who had a so-so game in almost every other phase except at the line. He's one of the most frustrating players I've ever watched at Stanford: a 6'10" player who wants to play like a 6'4" shooting guard. Falls away from contact a lot of the time, and tries to finish 3-4 feet away from the rim instead of at it. Shot 5-17 from the field last night, and the majority of those shots were within 5 feet of the basket. Countless running hook shots from 3 feet banging off the back iron. Makes up for it with a whole lot of physical ability, though I wish he had better hands - he gets stripped too easily (last night, saw Cobb strip him by brushing down on the front of a ball Powell had solidly in both hands).
Let me put it this way: listening to John Platz during the ASU game, he talked about how Powell had improved and was getting to the line because he realized he should be driving into contact more often. To which my response was, it took him until his senior year to recognize that?
Chasson Randle is really good, but still has a tendency to make silly mistakes - turning the ball over on a five-second call that allowed da Bares the second three-pointer that closed the first half lead from 12 to 6 in a matter of 40 seconds, an occasional silly foul that takes him out of the game (his fourth last night sat him down for 2-3 minutes that could have been crucial). And I've always loved Josh Huestis' game. And Robbie Lemons is giving more as a walk-on than could've been expected.
But last night was really more about the dysfunction of the opposition - it wasn't just the turnovers, it was that they turned the ball over on breakaways that would've pulled them closer in the early second half. Or the missed front end of 1 and 1s. Or the complete turn away from getting the ball to Kravish in the low post, where he absolutely destroyed Powell in the first few possessions of the game. And it didn't help that they had a lot of open shots spin out, especially as Stanford was holding them off in the early second half.
The most glaring issue was da Bares' gameplan and execution - you beat Stanford by driving, forcing rotation and help defense to collapse in and then kicking the ball out to take advantage of a scrambling defense. C.al would drive in, but then try to make interior passes through a crowded paint, and when they kicked out, the first option always seemed to be to drive inside again. Late in the game, they scored again and again by spreading the floor and running a simple pick play at the top of the lane for Matthis (edit: sorry, Wallace), but it was too little and too late.
I guess cautiously optimistic is a good way to be right now - but cautious optimism is not a very high bar for a team starting 3 seniors and 2 juniors. If they can win 2 of their final 4 on the road and 3 of 4 at home, I think they'll be on the right side of the bubble.
VG
One thing not to underestimate: the officiating and its impact. Stanford spent a whole lot of time at the line, even before the fouling fest that Monty tried at the end of the game. The big beneficiary was Dwight Powell, who had a so-so game in almost every other phase except at the line. He's one of the most frustrating players I've ever watched at Stanford: a 6'10" player who wants to play like a 6'4" shooting guard. Falls away from contact a lot of the time, and tries to finish 3-4 feet away from the rim instead of at it. Shot 5-17 from the field last night, and the majority of those shots were within 5 feet of the basket. Countless running hook shots from 3 feet banging off the back iron. Makes up for it with a whole lot of physical ability, though I wish he had better hands - he gets stripped too easily (last night, saw Cobb strip him by brushing down on the front of a ball Powell had solidly in both hands).
Let me put it this way: listening to John Platz during the ASU game, he talked about how Powell had improved and was getting to the line because he realized he should be driving into contact more often. To which my response was, it took him until his senior year to recognize that?
Chasson Randle is really good, but still has a tendency to make silly mistakes - turning the ball over on a five-second call that allowed da Bares the second three-pointer that closed the first half lead from 12 to 6 in a matter of 40 seconds, an occasional silly foul that takes him out of the game (his fourth last night sat him down for 2-3 minutes that could have been crucial). And I've always loved Josh Huestis' game. And Robbie Lemons is giving more as a walk-on than could've been expected.
But last night was really more about the dysfunction of the opposition - it wasn't just the turnovers, it was that they turned the ball over on breakaways that would've pulled them closer in the early second half. Or the missed front end of 1 and 1s. Or the complete turn away from getting the ball to Kravish in the low post, where he absolutely destroyed Powell in the first few possessions of the game. And it didn't help that they had a lot of open shots spin out, especially as Stanford was holding them off in the early second half.
The most glaring issue was da Bares' gameplan and execution - you beat Stanford by driving, forcing rotation and help defense to collapse in and then kicking the ball out to take advantage of a scrambling defense. C.al would drive in, but then try to make interior passes through a crowded paint, and when they kicked out, the first option always seemed to be to drive inside again. Late in the game, they scored again and again by spreading the floor and running a simple pick play at the top of the lane for Matthis (edit: sorry, Wallace), but it was too little and too late.
I guess cautiously optimistic is a good way to be right now - but cautious optimism is not a very high bar for a team starting 3 seniors and 2 juniors. If they can win 2 of their final 4 on the road and 3 of 4 at home, I think they'll be on the right side of the bubble.
VG
02-06-2014, 01:56 PM
So, are you implying that we didn't deserve those free throws, VG (not to put words in your mouth - just trying to clarify)? The TV announcers certainly didn't seem to feel that K.al was getting shafted by the officials (at home). In fact, if Stanford doesn't get a million ticky-tack fouls called against us in the later portion of the first half against Arizona, we would have been the team to knock them out of the Undefeated #1 slot (even with all of those layups falling out of the bucket at the end of the game)! Personally, I thought K.al was hacking away last night, and deserved almost every foul called on them... plus a few more (Randle was the one who got called for a couple of really cheap ones).
In any case, while I will respectfully disagree with Boston Card's assertion that Monty @ K.al has had less talent to work with than JD (though I would agree that JD has done a better job recruiting... overcoming greater obstacles, etc.), I do understand where you guys are coming from on this thread. To some extent, I apologize to Burger, if he feels that his comment was "taken out of context" (of course, it was just one excerpted quotation, as I thought to be self-evident from the formatting). In fact, I thought your post was very balanced, Burger. I guess my disappointment was in logging onto this board and finding only mixed enthusiasm for what was a great win in a pretty-darn-decent season (agreed... not the best-case scenario... but you simply can't expect everything to go your way in every sport every year!).Â
This is our team, and they're playing pretty well, IMHO (without Bright, Brown, Sanders and Allen)! We're just a couple of in-and-out misses away from having beaten an undefeated #1 and Michigan (on the road) too. Maybe that does reflect badly on JD's half-court schematics (though, again, K.al-Monty is arguably "just as bad" or worse, if that's the standard)? Maybe Huestis and Anthony Brown should have developed further at this point (though the coaches seem to have done a fantastic job with Nastic this year and Randle has improved materially as well)? The fact of the matter is that not all players ultimately "reach their full potential", as evidenced by a statistic I saw recently, indicating that 56% of 5-star football recruits never get drafted by the NFL.
I guess I'm just hoping we can all just enjoy a good win when we get one, and maybe not be so Bootleg-y in viewing the glass from a half-empty perspective quite so often. We are "fans", right?!? And with regards to coaching, "the grass is always greener" (and I simply don't believe that Monty is nearly as good now as he was pre-Warriors).
In any case, while I will respectfully disagree with Boston Card's assertion that Monty @ K.al has had less talent to work with than JD (though I would agree that JD has done a better job recruiting... overcoming greater obstacles, etc.), I do understand where you guys are coming from on this thread. To some extent, I apologize to Burger, if he feels that his comment was "taken out of context" (of course, it was just one excerpted quotation, as I thought to be self-evident from the formatting). In fact, I thought your post was very balanced, Burger. I guess my disappointment was in logging onto this board and finding only mixed enthusiasm for what was a great win in a pretty-darn-decent season (agreed... not the best-case scenario... but you simply can't expect everything to go your way in every sport every year!).Â
This is our team, and they're playing pretty well, IMHO (without Bright, Brown, Sanders and Allen)! We're just a couple of in-and-out misses away from having beaten an undefeated #1 and Michigan (on the road) too. Maybe that does reflect badly on JD's half-court schematics (though, again, K.al-Monty is arguably "just as bad" or worse, if that's the standard)? Maybe Huestis and Anthony Brown should have developed further at this point (though the coaches seem to have done a fantastic job with Nastic this year and Randle has improved materially as well)? The fact of the matter is that not all players ultimately "reach their full potential", as evidenced by a statistic I saw recently, indicating that 56% of 5-star football recruits never get drafted by the NFL.
I guess I'm just hoping we can all just enjoy a good win when we get one, and maybe not be so Bootleg-y in viewing the glass from a half-empty perspective quite so often. We are "fans", right?!? And with regards to coaching, "the grass is always greener" (and I simply don't believe that Monty is nearly as good now as he was pre-Warriors).
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. - John Stuart Mill
So, are you implying that we didn't deserve those free throws, VG (not to put words in your mouth - just trying to clarify)? The TV announcers certainly didn't seem to feel that K.al was getting shafted by the officials (at home). In fact, if Stanford doesn't get a million ticky-tack fouls called against us in the later portion of the first half against Arizona, we would have been the team to knock them out of the Undefeated #1 slot (even with all of those layups falling out of the bucket at the end of the game)! Personally, I thought K.al was hacking away last night, and deserved almost every foul called on them... plus a few more (Randle was the one who got called for a couple of really cheap ones).
In any case, while I will respectfully disagree with Boston Card's assertion that Monty @ K.al has had less talent to work with than JD (though I would agree that JD has done a better job recruiting... overcoming greater obstacles, etc.), I do understand where you guys are coming from on this thread. To some extent, I apologize to Burger, if he feels that his comment was "taken out of context" (of course, it was just one excerpted quotation, as I thought to be self-evident from the formatting). In fact, I thought your post was very balanced, Burger. I guess my disappointment was in logging onto this board and finding only mixed enthusiasm for what was a great win in a pretty-darn-decent season (agreed... not the best-case scenario... but you simply can't expect everything to go your way in every sport every year!).Â
This is our team, and they're playing pretty well, IMHO (without Bright, Brown, Sanders and Allen)! We're just a couple of in-and-out misses away from having beaten an undefeated #1 and Michigan (on the road) too. Maybe that does reflect badly on JD's half-court schematics (though, again, K.al-Monty is arguably "just as bad" or worse, if that's the standard)? Maybe Huestis and Anthony Brown should have developed further at this point (though the coaches seem to have done a fantastic job with Nastic this year and Randle has improved materially as well)? The fact of the matter is that not all players ultimately "reach their full potential", as evidenced by a statistic I saw recently, indicating that 56% of 5-star football recruits never get drafted by the NFL.
I guess I'm just hoping we can all just enjoy a good win when we get one, and maybe not be so Bootleg-y in viewing the glass from a half-empty perspective quite so often. We are "fans", right?!? And with regards to coaching, "the grass is always greener" (and I simply don't believe that Monty is nearly as good now as he was pre-Warriors).
In any case, while I will respectfully disagree with Boston Card's assertion that Monty @ K.al has had less talent to work with than JD (though I would agree that JD has done a better job recruiting... overcoming greater obstacles, etc.), I do understand where you guys are coming from on this thread. To some extent, I apologize to Burger, if he feels that his comment was "taken out of context" (of course, it was just one excerpted quotation, as I thought to be self-evident from the formatting). In fact, I thought your post was very balanced, Burger. I guess my disappointment was in logging onto this board and finding only mixed enthusiasm for what was a great win in a pretty-darn-decent season (agreed... not the best-case scenario... but you simply can't expect everything to go your way in every sport every year!).Â
This is our team, and they're playing pretty well, IMHO (without Bright, Brown, Sanders and Allen)! We're just a couple of in-and-out misses away from having beaten an undefeated #1 and Michigan (on the road) too. Maybe that does reflect badly on JD's half-court schematics (though, again, K.al-Monty is arguably "just as bad" or worse, if that's the standard)? Maybe Huestis and Anthony Brown should have developed further at this point (though the coaches seem to have done a fantastic job with Nastic this year and Randle has improved materially as well)? The fact of the matter is that not all players ultimately "reach their full potential", as evidenced by a statistic I saw recently, indicating that 56% of 5-star football recruits never get drafted by the NFL.
I guess I'm just hoping we can all just enjoy a good win when we get one, and maybe not be so Bootleg-y in viewing the glass from a half-empty perspective quite so often. We are "fans", right?!? And with regards to coaching, "the grass is always greener" (and I simply don't believe that Monty is nearly as good now as he was pre-Warriors).
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. - John Stuart Mill
02-06-2014, 02:53 PM
LuckE--
Nope, just saying that oftentimes officiating hinges on what's called and what isn't. Last night, what was being called were the "impeding" calls - the clutching and grabbing sort of stuff that is this season's point of emphasis. What wasn't being called as often was body contact, and Stanford used that to its advantage defensively. More precisely, body contact in a crowded lane - it's what I have said in the past about officials, they are more reluctant to call fouls when it's a "scrum" of players in contact than the same amount of contact in a 1 v 1 situation. Powell went to the line several times on forays to the hoop that drew less body contact than some unwhistled plays under C.al's basket. It's telling that last night, against an athletic, guard-oriented team, Nastic wasn't in foul trouble. Whether that was improved footwork by him and better team defense or the choices of the officials, or what point between those two poles, is open to interpretation.
As for the Arizona game, it was a great effort - especially defensively. But that game really turned on Stanford's offensive ineptitude in the last 10 minutes, and that in turn to me hinged on a change in offensive style in that period - Stanford went to more of a spread offense, running the clock down until they had to take last second drives or long shots, and generally looking like they were trying to "see the game out" with a big lead instead of the 2-4 point lead they had at the time. They did the same thing last night, but they actually had the big lead to work with. But it did allow a team that was playing really poorly to try to get back into the game (especially as it put NO pressure on C.al's frontline, who were all in foul trouble - there was little to no post offense in the last five minutes).
I agree, the talent level between the two teams is not all that disparate - but Monty has a less experienced lineup. Heck, Stanford's probably got the most experienced starting lineup in the country. And I guess that's where my higher expectations come from - along with a pretty high level of apprehension about next season. 7 of Stanford's top 8 players are all in their fourth year or more in the program. And the freshman and sophomores aren't getting any experience, either due to injury or lack of playing time (I really thought we could see some of Verhoeven last night, instead of the cameo at the end).
All in all, I'm enjoying watching them, although they can be tremendously frustrating. But I guess it's a matter of expectations - I went to Stanford with Monty as coach, and watched teams outperform their talent level over and over again. Watching him and C.al last night, I think they have talent, but it doesn't match up well with the kind of system he had success with at Stanford - much more freelance and 1v1. He may have changed his game in response to his talent, or they may not be running his system and responding to his coaching - his relationship with Cobbs reminded me a bit of the way he used to occasionally butt heads with Brevin Knight.
Turning it around, LuckE, what type of season's results would meet your expectations?
VG
Nope, just saying that oftentimes officiating hinges on what's called and what isn't. Last night, what was being called were the "impeding" calls - the clutching and grabbing sort of stuff that is this season's point of emphasis. What wasn't being called as often was body contact, and Stanford used that to its advantage defensively. More precisely, body contact in a crowded lane - it's what I have said in the past about officials, they are more reluctant to call fouls when it's a "scrum" of players in contact than the same amount of contact in a 1 v 1 situation. Powell went to the line several times on forays to the hoop that drew less body contact than some unwhistled plays under C.al's basket. It's telling that last night, against an athletic, guard-oriented team, Nastic wasn't in foul trouble. Whether that was improved footwork by him and better team defense or the choices of the officials, or what point between those two poles, is open to interpretation.
As for the Arizona game, it was a great effort - especially defensively. But that game really turned on Stanford's offensive ineptitude in the last 10 minutes, and that in turn to me hinged on a change in offensive style in that period - Stanford went to more of a spread offense, running the clock down until they had to take last second drives or long shots, and generally looking like they were trying to "see the game out" with a big lead instead of the 2-4 point lead they had at the time. They did the same thing last night, but they actually had the big lead to work with. But it did allow a team that was playing really poorly to try to get back into the game (especially as it put NO pressure on C.al's frontline, who were all in foul trouble - there was little to no post offense in the last five minutes).
I agree, the talent level between the two teams is not all that disparate - but Monty has a less experienced lineup. Heck, Stanford's probably got the most experienced starting lineup in the country. And I guess that's where my higher expectations come from - along with a pretty high level of apprehension about next season. 7 of Stanford's top 8 players are all in their fourth year or more in the program. And the freshman and sophomores aren't getting any experience, either due to injury or lack of playing time (I really thought we could see some of Verhoeven last night, instead of the cameo at the end).
All in all, I'm enjoying watching them, although they can be tremendously frustrating. But I guess it's a matter of expectations - I went to Stanford with Monty as coach, and watched teams outperform their talent level over and over again. Watching him and C.al last night, I think they have talent, but it doesn't match up well with the kind of system he had success with at Stanford - much more freelance and 1v1. He may have changed his game in response to his talent, or they may not be running his system and responding to his coaching - his relationship with Cobbs reminded me a bit of the way he used to occasionally butt heads with Brevin Knight.
Turning it around, LuckE, what type of season's results would meet your expectations?
VG
LuckE--
Nope, just saying that oftentimes officiating hinges on what's called and what isn't. Last night, what was being called were the "impeding" calls - the clutching and grabbing sort of stuff that is this season's point of emphasis. What wasn't being called as often was body contact, and Stanford used that to its advantage defensively. More precisely, body contact in a crowded lane - it's what I have said in the past about officials, they are more reluctant to call fouls when it's a "scrum" of players in contact than the same amount of contact in a 1 v 1 situation. Powell went to the line several times on forays to the hoop that drew less body contact than some unwhistled plays under C.al's basket. It's telling that last night, against an athletic, guard-oriented team, Nastic wasn't in foul trouble. Whether that was improved footwork by him and better team defense or the choices of the officials, or what point between those two poles, is open to interpretation.
As for the Arizona game, it was a great effort - especially defensively. But that game really turned on Stanford's offensive ineptitude in the last 10 minutes, and that in turn to me hinged on a change in offensive style in that period - Stanford went to more of a spread offense, running the clock down until they had to take last second drives or long shots, and generally looking like they were trying to "see the game out" with a big lead instead of the 2-4 point lead they had at the time. They did the same thing last night, but they actually had the big lead to work with. But it did allow a team that was playing really poorly to try to get back into the game (especially as it put NO pressure on C.al's frontline, who were all in foul trouble - there was little to no post offense in the last five minutes).
I agree, the talent level between the two teams is not all that disparate - but Monty has a less experienced lineup. Heck, Stanford's probably got the most experienced starting lineup in the country. And I guess that's where my higher expectations come from - along with a pretty high level of apprehension about next season. 7 of Stanford's top 8 players are all in their fourth year or more in the program. And the freshman and sophomores aren't getting any experience, either due to injury or lack of playing time (I really thought we could see some of Verhoeven last night, instead of the cameo at the end).
All in all, I'm enjoying watching them, although they can be tremendously frustrating. But I guess it's a matter of expectations - I went to Stanford with Monty as coach, and watched teams outperform their talent level over and over again. Watching him and C.al last night, I think they have talent, but it doesn't match up well with the kind of system he had success with at Stanford - much more freelance and 1v1. He may have changed his game in response to his talent, or they may not be running his system and responding to his coaching - his relationship with Cobbs reminded me a bit of the way he used to occasionally butt heads with Brevin Knight.
Turning it around, LuckE, what type of season's results would meet your expectations?
VG
Nope, just saying that oftentimes officiating hinges on what's called and what isn't. Last night, what was being called were the "impeding" calls - the clutching and grabbing sort of stuff that is this season's point of emphasis. What wasn't being called as often was body contact, and Stanford used that to its advantage defensively. More precisely, body contact in a crowded lane - it's what I have said in the past about officials, they are more reluctant to call fouls when it's a "scrum" of players in contact than the same amount of contact in a 1 v 1 situation. Powell went to the line several times on forays to the hoop that drew less body contact than some unwhistled plays under C.al's basket. It's telling that last night, against an athletic, guard-oriented team, Nastic wasn't in foul trouble. Whether that was improved footwork by him and better team defense or the choices of the officials, or what point between those two poles, is open to interpretation.
As for the Arizona game, it was a great effort - especially defensively. But that game really turned on Stanford's offensive ineptitude in the last 10 minutes, and that in turn to me hinged on a change in offensive style in that period - Stanford went to more of a spread offense, running the clock down until they had to take last second drives or long shots, and generally looking like they were trying to "see the game out" with a big lead instead of the 2-4 point lead they had at the time. They did the same thing last night, but they actually had the big lead to work with. But it did allow a team that was playing really poorly to try to get back into the game (especially as it put NO pressure on C.al's frontline, who were all in foul trouble - there was little to no post offense in the last five minutes).
I agree, the talent level between the two teams is not all that disparate - but Monty has a less experienced lineup. Heck, Stanford's probably got the most experienced starting lineup in the country. And I guess that's where my higher expectations come from - along with a pretty high level of apprehension about next season. 7 of Stanford's top 8 players are all in their fourth year or more in the program. And the freshman and sophomores aren't getting any experience, either due to injury or lack of playing time (I really thought we could see some of Verhoeven last night, instead of the cameo at the end).
All in all, I'm enjoying watching them, although they can be tremendously frustrating. But I guess it's a matter of expectations - I went to Stanford with Monty as coach, and watched teams outperform their talent level over and over again. Watching him and C.al last night, I think they have talent, but it doesn't match up well with the kind of system he had success with at Stanford - much more freelance and 1v1. He may have changed his game in response to his talent, or they may not be running his system and responding to his coaching - his relationship with Cobbs reminded me a bit of the way he used to occasionally butt heads with Brevin Knight.
Turning it around, LuckE, what type of season's results would meet your expectations?
VG
02-06-2014, 03:25 PM
Fair enough... and I think your final question to me nailed it: our results to date have approximated my expectations (given that 4 players are out of what should have been our 2 Deep).Â
I was sorely disappointed by our (defensive) performance in the BYU game (though I figured we'd blow one "should win" pre-conference game), thrilled with our (defensive) performance against Arizona and our win over UConn, and saw at least a "moral victory" in how close the Michigan game was. Last night's win effectively offset my disappointment in our poor showing against K.al at home, and while I was disappointed in our play down in LA and at Oregon State, we came away from both road trips with splits, which is all I could have realistically expected in a "base case" scenario (and we held court at home, easily beating both Washington teams). So quite honestly, I'm not sure who would have reasonably assumed that we'd have more than 1 or 2 more wins at this point?!?
That said, have our results met my hopes? Of course not... I hope we win every game!
I was sorely disappointed by our (defensive) performance in the BYU game (though I figured we'd blow one "should win" pre-conference game), thrilled with our (defensive) performance against Arizona and our win over UConn, and saw at least a "moral victory" in how close the Michigan game was. Last night's win effectively offset my disappointment in our poor showing against K.al at home, and while I was disappointed in our play down in LA and at Oregon State, we came away from both road trips with splits, which is all I could have realistically expected in a "base case" scenario (and we held court at home, easily beating both Washington teams). So quite honestly, I'm not sure who would have reasonably assumed that we'd have more than 1 or 2 more wins at this point?!?
That said, have our results met my hopes? Of course not... I hope we win every game!
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. - John Stuart Mill
Fair enough... and I think your final question to me nailed it: our results to date have approximated my expectations (given that 4 players are out of what should have been our 2 Deep).Â
I was sorely disappointed by our (defensive) performance in the BYU game (though I figured we'd blow one "should win" pre-conference game), thrilled with our (defensive) performance against Arizona and our win over UConn, and saw at least a "moral victory" in how close the Michigan game was. Last night's win effectively offset my disappointment in our poor showing against K.al at home, and while I was disappointed in our play down in LA and at Oregon State, we came away from both road trips with splits, which is all I could have realistically expected in a "base case" scenario (and we held court at home, easily beating both Washington teams). So quite honestly, I'm not sure who would have reasonably assumed that we'd have more than 1 or 2 more wins at this point?!?
That said, have our results met my hopes? Of course not... I hope we win every game!
I was sorely disappointed by our (defensive) performance in the BYU game (though I figured we'd blow one "should win" pre-conference game), thrilled with our (defensive) performance against Arizona and our win over UConn, and saw at least a "moral victory" in how close the Michigan game was. Last night's win effectively offset my disappointment in our poor showing against K.al at home, and while I was disappointed in our play down in LA and at Oregon State, we came away from both road trips with splits, which is all I could have realistically expected in a "base case" scenario (and we held court at home, easily beating both Washington teams). So quite honestly, I'm not sure who would have reasonably assumed that we'd have more than 1 or 2 more wins at this point?!?
That said, have our results met my hopes? Of course not... I hope we win every game!
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. - John Stuart Mill
02-06-2014, 05:06 PM
ESPN's Joe Lunardi has bracketed Stanford as a #9 seed, with a first-round matchup versus #8 (of course) North Carolina. The winner in this ever-so-hypothetical-if-the-season-ended-today-prognostication would get #1 Wichita State--or the play-in winner of Murray State/Southern U.--in the second round.
Lunardi has six Pac-12 teams in the tourney with Oregon the first team out.
Lunardi has six Pac-12 teams in the tourney with Oregon the first team out.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
ESPN's Joe Lunardi has bracketed Stanford as a #9 seed, with a first-round matchup versus #8 (of course) North Carolina. The winner in this ever-so-hypothetical-if-the-season-ended-today-prognostication would get #1 Wichita State--or the play-in winner of Murray State/Southern U.--in the second round.
Lunardi has six Pac-12 teams in the tourney with Oregon the first team out.
Lunardi has six Pac-12 teams in the tourney with Oregon the first team out.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »