Back from the game
- Patrick Christopher was virtually unchallenged on most of his made baskets. He was either left alone after a defensive breakdown or loose ball, or just plain wide open after a designed screen.
- This team has some serious rebounding issues. The biggest difference between the mid-majors we stomped on and the Pac-10 so far is that we can't handle bigger, more athletic players on the boards.
- Don't blame Taylor Rochestie for this one. There was a stretch in the second half where he basically said, "Screw it, I'm taking over the offense". And you know what? He did. Problem is that all he was doing was trading baskets with Christopher.
- This was a one man show. Neither team had anyone in the same stratosphere as Patrick Christopher tonight. For someone who looks like the poor man's LeBron - right down to the beard and jersey number - he certainly played like it. I don't mean that as a slight.
- The offense looked inept in stretches once again. What happened to the extra pass? What happened to catching and shooting? This team really is allergic to points - they hesitate on open shots in rhythm but will then put it on the floor and take a worse shot closer to the basket.
- I'm in denial. We just can't be this bad. There's no way. This team is getting closer and closer to putting 40 minutes together against a major conference opponent, and for some reason we just can't pull it out. That has to change as the season goes on. Right?
- It was nice to see Abe Lodwick play. It was not nice to see him fail to get a shot attempt.
- If you're going to burn Mike Harthun and Nick Witherill's redshirts, at least play them once in a while.
- This team looked at its best with a mix of young and old on the floor. I'm tired of the upperclassman (and Klay) only lineup. It's time to integrate. Marcus Capers, DeAngelo Casto et. al can play. Give them a chance.
- This was the first time tonight that I saw a real fire in this team. They know the season is slipping away. Taylor Rochestie did his best to try and fire the crowd up and keep the team in it. But this time, our normally reliable defense cost us just as much down the stretch as the offense did.
- This was just like the old days - a half-filled arena*, a frustrating loss, and getting outcoached by Mike Montgomery. The more things change...

*But notice how I didn't say half-empty arena. Always the optimist.
0 recs |
30 comments
Comments
Has school not started yet?
I’m gonna be pissed if the fans stop coming. I sat in that building for almost every game, through Leif Nelson, Nick Graham, J Locklear, all those scrubs.
by Jo-Jo on
Jan 8, 2009 9:51 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Very few students tonight
I expect more against Stanford, but not much more. Maybe 10K total with fans on the other side. Bye bye bandwagon.
by Grady. on
Jan 8, 2009 11:00 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
In all fairness...
flooding/avalanches/snow has prevented anyone from crossing the mountains. I don’t even know if I’ll have students in class on Monday!
Grady, after Taylor hit those 3’s to put us within a few wasn’t it awesome how Beasley just came alive for a split second?
…then we let them get the alley-oop and then an uncontested lay-up on the next possession. I wish we could have ridden that momentum a little bit.
Also, I think a lot of our fans at the game mis-judge Caleb’s range. Seems lots around me were yelling for him to shoot when he was beyond the arc, and he thought about it for sure. But one of his nicest shots of the night was when he took one step inside the line and hit a sweet mid-range shot.
Here’s to Taylor hitting some 3’s vs. the trees.
Favorite sign from last year: Stanford has a tree…we have a FORREST!
by MLips on
Jan 8, 2009 11:21 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm not there, so it's tough for me to say
Do you really feel like the people who came from outside Pullman had a bandwagon mentality? Seems weird for Coug fans.
by Nuss on
Jan 9, 2009 8:01 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Maybe
at least when talking about the students. With each loss we lose more and more students who think they have something better to do then watch out team play hoops. But I dont’ think winter break games are the most accurate judgement of that. With a lot of our with 6 of our 7 home games on tv I expect less to show up to…which was the case last year when we were ranked 4th in the nation.
by MLips on
Jan 9, 2009 8:20 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Students have always been like that
I was there when we had Mark Hendrickson and the rest of the crew vying for an NCAA berth. That place was loud and rocking. Not what it’s been now with the Zzu Cru, but it was still pretty packed and loud. I joined the pep band just so I could have a front-row seat without having to stand in line. (Back then, the pep band was on the sidelines.)
Within four years, as the losses mounted, you could literally walk in 10 minutes before tip-off for a fourth-row seat. I remember showing up for a game against Arizona, who was like a top 10 team, and there being a few hundred students. That’s just the way it goes. I never really understood it, since the alternative on a Thursday night in Pullman can’t possibly be better than watching a Pac-10 basketball game essentially for free, but that’s the way it is.
by Nuss on
Jan 9, 2009 9:04 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, I remember being able to sit with your feet on the hardwood
Which was cool except that you had to look through the cheerleaders to see the action.
by Jo-Jo on
Jan 9, 2009 10:52 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
announced atendance in the high 7000's if i remember correctly
and no, school starts monday, so hopefully students are there saturday.
by BigWood on
Jan 8, 2009 10:13 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Be nice, Nuss
I think this is the first time all century that Cal’s actually exceeded expectations in basketball
by Grady. on
Jan 8, 2009 11:02 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Jason Kidd says otherwise.
Oh wait the century began in 2001. Ok you’re right!
In other words, Go Bears!
by royrules22 on
Jan 9, 2009 2:38 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Give them some credit
They actually played better tonight. This might have been Rotchestie’s best game of the year. I wish I could have seen it to know for sure. He will have his hands full again with Johnson on Saturday who actually looked improved tonight against the pups. Klay Thompson was more aggressive but might have difficulty putting a full games together this year.
It sounds like my “sleeper” Koprivica didn’t hurt the team tonight. Glad to hear he is still trying to play with some confidence. Baynes, wow. Going 2-9 just isn’t going to cut it for this team.
WSU didn’t just lose offensive production from Weaver, Cowgill, and Low. Their defense is missed as well. In time the defense will get back up to that level. Casto is so raw at the moment but will improve as he time goes on. Capers play more under control but he doesn’t have the polish and ability to shoot yet. He’s somewhat of a liability on the offensive end for more than bit minutes. Watson needs to get stronger but probably has more skill than Casto although maybe not quite the athlete. Xavier Thames is thought of as a pretty good athlete as is Brock Motom.
We all were hoping to not drop too far but the base of talent is on the roster. Things haven’t played out like you would have hoped for some of players. They thought Boeke would make an impact last year and his back has kept him from playing for basically a full year. Daven Harmeling just isn’t right and Koprivica hasn’t made it back to his freshman form.
As we all know we don’t have that kind of “margin for error” in the program at the moment. It’s frustrating to watch this group struggle but lets hope they continue to improve through the season.
by BornCoug on
Jan 9, 2009 2:16 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
"Margin for error" is a good way to put it
That team the last two years wasn’t perfect, but it had the ability to overcome breakdowns. For all the talk about the defense, it was a great offense that won them a lot of games — especially early last year. To be a good team, you’ve got to be able to overcome suspect stretches of defense with at least passable offense. This team just can’t do that.
by Nuss on
Jan 9, 2009 8:09 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think they can, but I would agree that they DON'T
by Jo-Jo on
Jan 9, 2009 8:17 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't know that they can
Who is going to give you that come-back-from-any-deficit scoring punch? Who’s going to shoot you back into a game?
by Nuss on
Jan 9, 2009 9:05 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
My comment was directed towards
“you’ve got to be able to overcome suspect stretches of defense with at least passable offense.”
I think they can by winning that battle on the front end. They get into deficits by not overcoming suspect stretches of defense with at least a passable offense. Which is to say that if they had a passible offense, which I believe they “could”, then they wouldn’t have to battle back and shoot themselves back into a game.
The standard so far has been to start the game by holding their opponent to single digits for the fist 10 minutes of play, while not taking advantage of it on the offensive end. Instead of going into the locker room with a 6-10 point lead, which should be achievable with the defensive effort that they start the game with, they go in 4 points down and commence to crap themselves by panicing on offense in the second half.
I agree that they don’t have the player you are talking about, but when have they ever really had that player? Low and Weaver were great but it wasn’t like they ever single handedly shot the Gougs back-from-any-deficit by themselves. Sure it would be nice to have a guy like that, but honestly, the Cougs don’t have that kind of system let alone that player. You can only let so many opportunities pass you by before they add up to a loss. And many of the game winning opportunies that they’ve let pass them by have been on the offensive end in the first 10 minutes of ball games. It’s easy to look at the second half meltdowns, and late game turnovers, but the poor offense in the early portion of the game puts them in a bad position that leads to those meltdowns.
by Jo-Jo on
Jan 9, 2009 11:05 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I disagree with the first part of that last part
Low did it twice last year alone, against Boise State and Baylor, and did it against Oregon the year before. And you could always count on Weaver for a big bucket last year, even if it got late in the shot clock. You’ve seen that missing on both counts this year.
by Nuss on
Jan 9, 2009 11:10 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Okay
But there is a difference between keeping a team in a game and single handedly shooting a team back into a game. I might be wrong but I seem to remember that Oregon game being pretty close and back and forth all night.
Sure those guys could fill it up, and Weaver could be counted on for a basket, but you were talking about come backs. And you’ve said yourself that “this team is not built to come from behind,” and that is a system thing, and they never have been since the Bennetts got to Pullman.
So, don’t put yourself in that position and it doesn’t really matter, right?
by Jo-Jo on
Jan 9, 2009 11:15 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Honestly, why can't we run Harmeling
through a ton of screens and let him castoff. I just can’t figure out what is going on. I mean we are down by12-15 to the Dawgs and Harmeling is still sitting on the bench. I am sorry that guy has proven that he is a premier 3-pt shooter. Sure he is a cold spell, but force him to shoot, tell him to shoot, do whatever necessary.
It’s a crime that Casto isn’t starting. I think he has enough offensive skills to eliminate some double teams and quickness for oops and slip screens.
by ptowncoug3012 on
Jan 9, 2009 11:27 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
He's too slow and too big to run through a bunch of screens
Would you ask Caleb Forrest to do that? They’re basically the same size, believe it or not.
by Nuss on
Jan 9, 2009 11:36 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It is a crime that Casto isn't getting more minutes
I can understand him not starting, but there is no reason why he shouldn’t be seeing 20 minutes a game.
by Jo-Jo on
Jan 9, 2009 11:43 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I just wonder what Tony's seeing that we're not seeing with Casto
There must be something we’re not noticing, because all I see is hustle and the best athlete on the team.
by Nuss on
Jan 9, 2009 12:01 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And that might be the issue
In the end it comes down to results, but Tony’s a teacher, and teachers are interested in process as much as anything, because they believe good process produces better results in the long run.
by Nuss on
Jan 9, 2009 12:53 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Dangit, Nuss! You're so damn smart!
Good point, but if they are handling the minutes well, how much more development could be fit into the “process” by giving them 10-15 instead of 5-10 minutes per game? In theory, they would be that much farther along in the process come next season.
I have just always felt that if you’re gonna lose anyway, lose with the young ones on the floor.
by Jo-Jo on
Jan 9, 2009 1:37 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm not disagreeing at all
It’s just that sometimes coaches — especially college coaches — have a really tough time balancing that process vs. results. The Bennetts don’t take shortcuts, and if there’s something really flawed with Casto’s “process,” then you’re just not going to see him for the minutes we all want.
I really hope that’s not the case.
by Nuss on
Jan 9, 2009 2:44 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs






