Postgame Thread: We lost and it wasn't all his fault.
by Craig Powers on Jan 23, 2010 3:28 PM PST
Email
PrintUCLA outplayed us today. Reeves Nelson dominated us in the post no matter WHO was guarding him. Klay struggled to get good shots and gave the ball away too often. We thought the game would turn for the Cougs in the second half, but UCLA stepped up the defensive intensity and executed on offense.
Also, let's stop the Charlie bashing. I know I have been more guilty than most, but like BigWood said in the gamethread, it is getting old.
We all know he isn't that great, but he is playing. I'm sure none of us would turn down the opportunity to play significant minutes for a Pac 10 team.
It is probably our first meme, and I'm killing it right now. No more Charlie bashing! This doesn't mean you can't show disgust at a certain play while watching the game, but blaming this entire loss on Charlie is completely ridiculous. There are a lot of players who contributed.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The team was at fault
Not any one single player. To break the zone they need to actually bring it on offense and show more effort. UCLA did a great job and just lulled us to sleep today
did you know we've had the worst pac-10 player ever in consecutive seasons?
i think sometimes our fans need some levity.
irrelevant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it’ll be interesting to see who the worst pac-10 player ever is next year.
did any of these people ever see jan-michael thomas?
indeed
he was the worst player in the HISTORY of the conference last year.
just ask our fans.
Zone defenses seem to be a problem.
Looking back on what I consider to be our two most lopsided pac-ten losses (today and at ASU) I think we need to get a bit better at attacking the zone. If Coah B can work some magic and get the Cougs playing a bit better against zone defenses, I think the future is brighter than most might think.
by The Artist formerly known as 85 Coug on Jan 23, 2010 3:44 PM PST reply actions
until we fix it
we’ll likely see nothing but zones from here on out.
yep
We’ve got seven days until we venture into the den of evil.
by The Artist formerly known as 85 Coug on Jan 23, 2010 3:47 PM PST up reply actions
Wouldnt worry about that
UW will not run zone
by Brian Floyd on Jan 23, 2010 5:46 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I didn't think he would until I saw the USC game
It seemed like I remember Romar saying his team was assembled to go man all the time. I don’t know how well they can run it but they’ll probably at least throw it at us a bit.
2 for 1
The pluses of having Bone run more zone in practice isn’t just a plus for the offense. Yet again this game we pulled out our own version of the 2-3 in an effort to slow them down in the first half. While Bone has said man-to-man will continue to be our bread and butter, having the D practice more zone will hopefully help our ability to make some stops down the stretch
I wasn't so much frustrated with Enquist.
Everybody knows he’s not that good. I was frustrated that Watson didn’t see the floor until the final minute.
Of course it is not Enquist's fault
He is what he is. Look at today’s line, in 11 minutes (didn’t it seem like he played more) he had no points, two rebounds, one turnover and three fouls. It doesn’t matter who the player is, that is not going to get it done.
I go back to what I have said many times and that is Tony left this team without enough big men. There doesn’t appear to be any more coming in next year, so the coaches must see improvement coming from the existing players next year.
It is tough to find good bigmen, but if you are going to win in this league, you must find them
It’s tough, but they are out there.
I think we are on the same page
I was making the point that the roster is not filled with good big men. Bone has to play with what he has. There are limited roster spots available and Bone was hired too late to get in on any other better big men. He recruited the best out there at the time in Bjornstad, but we all know he is a project.
I am not down after this loss. There are going to be games like these.
Maybe someone can answer this question for me
Enquist is played because he is one of our only big men, and he is extremely ineffective. So my question is why not forget about worrying about height and instead go with a smaller lineup? I mean this in the most non Charlie bashing way possible, but it seems like Bone puts him out there and he just takes up space. We wouldn’t we be better off wiith another guard or forward like Lodwick or X?
You need size to answer size
With a lineup like that, the biggest guy would be Klay at 6-7 or Nik. If we’re running a 2-3 zone, we need an anchor that is big. Charlie and Casto both did a craptacular job as the anchor, but Klay and Nik wouldn’t do any better as it, either. And don’t even think about trying to man up with that small lineup. Rebounding would also be a serious issue with nobody over 6-7
It seems like
with a smaller lineup what you lost with height you would be able to make up with speed though.
Really getting tired of the Charlie criticism
He barely plays and Bone is trying to get him some minutes because we get killed down low and need some progress there. Turnovers, poor shooting, and poor defense are what’s really too blame, but people love to amplify their frustration by taking it out on the 1 TO Charlie commits. Let it go already, he’s a sophomore and doesn’t play much anyway, end of story.
by MattPD on Jan 23, 2010 5:01 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Actually, there low post game didn't kill us as much as
us failing to switch properly. Reeves had about 4 wide open dunks. I don’t give credit to low post when they are catching the ball wide open and dunking it.
I just don’t get the Watson deal. This is plain crazy. He was really starting to blossom yet basically doesn’t play. I know UCLA is bit thicker up front, but c’mon play the kid.
Grippi please inquire.
The Cougs settled
for jump shots and didn’t attack the rim or the wide open top of the key that UCLA’s zone leaves. Moore didn’t penetrate and kick- thus Klay… slightly moping most of the day was an easy cover. Two guys ran at Klay on each touch and the Cougs didn’t ever set up a two man game- or a pick and roll to exploit the dual defender theme. UCLA took advantage of the inexperience and inability of our kids to make adjustments. Passing around the perimeter and settling for jumpers will not beat a quality zone. Let’s hope they learn the lessons this one teaches…
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
Nik Must Start!!!
Lodwick was horrible today, I screamed at the tv when he passed up a wide open three off of penetration early in the game with 17 on the clock. He instead passed to Capers and we turned it over. If he is not going to shoot open shots then he has no value. He does hustle but we can get that from someone else. He is average at best on d and only plays outside the line on offense. I think starting Nik might allow us to get into a rhythm from the start. I believe Nik should be playing 32-36 minutes a game. I would rather use Watson to spell Nik at the 4. Again Abe gives us nothing if he doesn’t shoot threes and Watson can defend the 4 better and rebound better. Hopefully, we get some answers to what is going on with Watson not playing.
32 to 36 minutes?
We just had a post about resting guys. 32 to 36 is more than everyone other than Klay. There’s no way.
by Brian Floyd on Jan 23, 2010 11:02 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
