ADVERTISEMENT

Cal's offensive premise and 3 point shooting

Is that all we took was 5 threes against Wisconsin? Yikes.
Yeah I like pounding the ball inside but when you have the shooters the 15 team had you should see a minimum of 15 threes go up because honestly if they clang some of those I like our chances of getting the rebound. I don't like our chances of getting a rebound after a missed hook shot. Our guts never seemed to get those in the UW game.
 
Originally posted by kyjeff1:
Wow, I thought I was going to get trashed for posting this thread but it looks like there are many that agree with me.
I saw some that said that Cal was trying to play to this strengths but we had really good shooters and outside shooting COULD have been one of MANY strengths. Also, if we showed we were a good shooting team and showed that we WILL fire away if left open wouldn't that open things up in the paint and allow our bigs to get easier buckets? Our guys were having to work way too hard to get two points.
There were some games where Booker barely moved the bet because he was so on but all he ever got was 4 or 5 shots.
However, this is just one negative thing, I think Cal does some amazing things from the bench and coaches his way out of a lot of really tough situations. There's no other coach I would want to run this program.
You are right. It has taken a couple weeks for people to come to.this realization, but thank goodness logic is starting to win out.
You.did.have a few homers troll in at the end of the thread though.
Cal is the greatest coach there is right now for his age, but there is so much more he can learn as a floor general.
Hopefully his philosophy has room to adapt in the immediate future.
 
Originally posted by 3rex:
Yea I pretty much agree OP.

My opinion is that Cal's directive to Booker to take it to the hole & stop settling for threes contributed to his cooling off from 3 range later in the season.

We recruit Booker as a knock down shooter...he comes in & does just that, and we tell him to drive more.

makes no sense really.
Even if that were true, it would actually make sense. When Calipari recruits players, he promises to prepare them for the NBA. A spot up shooter generally has less of a future in the NBA than a more versatile, well rounded player who can put the ball on the floor and score multiple ways. Teaching Booker to become a more versatile offensive player isn't all that Calipari did for him. Calipari made Booker a more fundamentally sound defender too. But you have no evidence that Booker cooled off because he was taught to put the ball on the floor. All shooters go through hot and cold spells. There have been a lot of great shooters at Kentucky, but I can only remember a few who were consistent over a whole season and none of them were freshmen.
 
Our best offensive lineup was one with Towns, Lyles, and a combination of three guards on the floor. Probably Ulis, Andrew, and Booker, honestly.

However, our three best players were Towns, WCS, and Lyles.

So, play our three best overall players together and the spacing is not as good. One of the bigs is little threat to score, other than a lob or break. That's what Cal was dealing with.

Play that best offensive lineup extended minutes vs. Wisconsin, and Wisconsin always has a mismatch on the offensive end. Either Kaminsky, Decker, or Hayes is covered by someone who can't guard them, whether you switch or not. Ulis also runs the risk of getting exploited by bigger guards.

Against Wisconsin, our defense had locked in and was getting the job done. The last several minutes, all Wisconsin could muster was a drive by Decker, a free basket, a nice step back jumper by Decker, and a few cheap free throws.

Basketball is a matchup game. We could have played the lineups differently, but then we are likely trading baskets with the most offensively efficient team of the past several years. Then maybe we lose a game in the high 70s, but hit a few more threes.

Cal chose to go with defense, and trust his guys to make a few plays down the stretch to hold Wisconsin off. Didn't work, for the first time in a long time.

The three pointer is a powerful weapon, and yes, the ways it's being used is evolving. But basketball has always been an inside out game. You force the defense out of position and then punish them by knocking down a three.

When you do it this way, you start your defense properly, even on a miss. If the other team's defense was out of position, it will take them slightly longer to shift to offense. This prevents runouts and allows you to set your D properly. This is why you don't just shoot threes for the sake of shooting them, or chuck shots up over a set D. The reward of a possible three points is outweighed by the risk of a runout basket.

Overall, it isn't hard to see why we shot less threes this year. In order to get our best overall lineups on the floor, we sacrificed some advantages on the offensive end. All year, we overcame this by offensive rebounding at a high rate. For the season, we rebounded around 38% of our misses. Against Wisconsin, that number was 22%.
 
I agree, basketball is an inside out game but, in my opinion, we had 4 good to great three point shooters on our team but we never saw what they could truly do. They were never unleashed.
I'm not saying Cal should allow 30 threes per game but I am saying they should have shot 20 per game with the shooters we had. I think it was a huge coaching mistake all season that didn't rear it's ugly head until the end when we ran into, like I said earlier, one of the 3 or 4 teams that can beat you. Our guys just overpowered everyone else because they could.
We knew the offense was questionable all season, we labored to score when refs didn't call fouls but had we used the three point shot as a true weapon nobody could beat them and our bigs would have scored more ppg due to the spread out defenses.
Yeah it's real easy from my recliner chair I know but I don't think I'm being out of line with this train of thinking. I just don't think we ever saw what this team could truly be once conference play started. And don't bring up the wva game, we were just an awful matchup for them.
 
Yes teams must shoot more than 5 three pt shots in modern basketball. Cats were way to conservative in Final Four and it bit them
 
Originally posted by kyjeff1:
I agree, basketball is an inside out game but, in my opinion, we had 4 good to great three point shooters on our team but we never saw what they could truly do. They were never unleashed.
I'm not saying Cal should allow 30 threes per game but I am saying they should have shot 20 per game with the shooters we had. I think it was a huge coaching mistake all season that didn't rear it's ugly head until the end when we ran into, like I said earlier, one of the 3 or 4 teams that can beat you. Our guys just overpowered everyone else because they could.
We knew the offense was questionable all season, we labored to score when refs didn't call fouls but had we used the three point shot as a true weapon nobody could beat them and our bigs would have scored more ppg due to the spread out defenses.
Yeah it's real easy from my recliner chair I know but I don't think I'm being out of line with this train of thinking. I just don't think we ever saw what this team could truly be once conference play started. And don't bring up the wva game, we were just an awful matchup for them.
Could those 4 guys be on the floor at the same time?

No, so how about 3? Yes, but then what happens to the defense? Do we hit more threes and score more points, but also give up more at the defensive end?

Yes, probably. So do we still go 38-0 or lose a couple of higher scoring games?

Those four good three point shooter look like 3 second round picks and 1 first round pick. Good players, but it's not like we could have trotted out Klay Thompson and Steph Curry.

I'll go back to what I said earlier - our three best overall players were Towns, WCS, and Lyles. Play those three guys together, and our 3 point shooting will suffer.

All year long, we played tremendous defense and crashed the glass to overcome our shooting deficiencies. Yes, we could have played differently. But there would have necessarily been a tradeoff that could have been better or worse.

Cal's main premise is this - stop the other team from hitting threes and you greatly reduce the risk of being upset in a one and done tournament format. For the season, we did this better than anyone, holding teams to 27%. Wisconsin shot 41%.

So all year we played a big lineup and rebounded well on offense. Wisconsin held us off the offensive boards. All year, we played defense to stop the three. Wisconsin hit a high percentage from three.

You could argue that Cal should have known this was going to happen. He could have played 3 guards more and gotten into a shootout. But we did what we did all year, and were still up 2 with 2:41 to play when Wisconsin was given a free basket.

Listen, I'm as sorry we lost as anybody. Sometimes that's just the way it goes. We could have done some things differently, but what we did all year actually worked pretty well.
 
Calipari is a great recruiter and motivator but I have never been impressed with his skills as a bench coach. I am sure that having the players only one years limits what he can do as a bench coach but IMO a better job could be done. IMO UK is way too one dimensional on both offense and defense. This is OK when you have over powering talent but becomes a problem when the talent evens up.

I am trying to remember. I think Calipari has 7 final fours, 5 at UK and only one NC. Contrast this with Krzyzshitski who I think is the best bench coach in college basketball who has 12 final fours and 5 NCs. It is when that you get deep into the NCAA tournament that bench coaching matters most. The great bench coaches seal the deal. I hate making this post because I hate Duke and Ratface but facts are facts.
 
Originally posted by C1180:

Calipari is a great recruiter and motivator but I have never been impressed with his skills as a bench coach. I am sure that having the players only one years limits what he can do as a bench coach but IMO a better job could be done. IMO UK is way too one dimensional on both offense and defense. This is OK when you have over powering talent but becomes a problem when the talent evens up.

I am trying to remember. I think Calipari has 7 final fours, 5 at UK and only one NC. Contrast this with Krzyzshitski who I think is the best bench coach in college basketball who has 12 final fours and 5 NCs. It is when that you get deep into the NCAA tournament that bench coaching matters most. The great bench coaches seal the deal. I hate making this post because I hate Duke and Ratface but facts are facts.
Well, the truth is what it is. If Cal weren't so stubborn, he could adapt. I feel we gave at least two titles away because of this. Maybe three, if you count 2011.

With the elite athletes he gets every year, there is so much he could do to have an offense that almost couldn't be stopped...especially this year. This team should have averaged 80 pts a game.
 
Originally posted by C1180:

Calipari is a great recruiter and motivator but I have never been impressed with his skills as a bench coach. I am sure that having the players only one years limits what he can do as a bench coach but IMO a better job could be done. IMO UK is way too one dimensional on both offense and defense. This is OK when you have over powering talent but becomes a problem when the talent evens up.

I am trying to remember. I think Calipari has 7 final fours, 5 at UK and only one NC. Contrast this with Krzyzshitski who I think is the best bench coach in college basketball who has 12 final fours and 5 NCs. It is when that you get deep into the NCAA tournament that bench coaching matters most. The great bench coaches seal the deal. I hate making this post because I hate Duke and Ratface but facts are facts.
Cal has been to 6 Final Fours, with 1 title.

In 1996 he played Us. Was he supposed to win that one?

In 2008 he lost a finals game to Kansas. They sort of blew that one. But I was thinking that was because Cal wouldn't coach free throws. Can't remember.

2011, we made a great run as a 4 seed, but got "upset" by UCONN. I would argue that Cal did a phenomenal job as a bench coach vs. OSU and UNC to get us to that point.

2012 Champs.

2014. Pretty good coaching job to get us through the gauntlet of WSU, UL, UM, and UW. Upset again by UCONN.

2015. Upset by Wisconsin.


How bout Coach K? Final Fours in 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990 with no title. Was he a poor bench coach then?

Back to back in 1991-1992. If Laettner misses that shot, is K a bad coach? He would have taken one of the best teams of all time and lost to a team less talented at 4 positions.

Through 2009, K had 3 championships in 10 FF appearances. Did he only become a great bench coach since 2010?

K had no FFs from 1995-98 (4 years). From 2005-09 (5 years). From 2011-2014 (4 years). How was his bench coaching during those droughts? Or was it poor recruiting? Or a bad back?

Hey, K is a great coach, but so is Cal. You can make the numbers dance to believe whatever you want to believe.
 
Originally posted by Chuckinden:

Well, the truth is what it is. If Cal weren't so stubborn, he could adapt. I feel we gave at least two titles away because of this. Maybe three, if you count 2011.

With the elite athletes he gets every year, there is so much he could do to have an offense that almost couldn't be stopped...especially this year. This team should have averaged 80 pts a game.

See, this is the main thing that frustrates me on the season.

We seriously had the personnel to have the best offense & defense in CBB. I truly believe that. Basically become the Golden St. Warriors of CBB.


- Push the pace.

- Run a 4-out offense with tons of side to side ball screens. ENCOURAGE KAT to shoot 3s & leave only WCS in the lane.

- Don't play Lyles 1 minute at SF. Turn him into a full-time stretch four. Involve him in a ton of Pick-N-Pops, his bread & butter.

- Have Booker or Ulis in the starting lineup. Have Ulis run everything when he's in the game and stop having him off-ball for stretches.

- Marcus Lee likely gets DNPs. Thats a cold move, but he brought nothing.

- Actually run some stuff to free up Aaron & DB for 3s, and not the typical pin-downs for long 2s.


Yeah,I sound like a Monday morning QB. IDGAF. This is how basketball should be run nowadays,and we should have had a similar system. Its not rocket science, but then again, Cal seems to prefer his 1950 version of basketball.
 
Good post Aike. K has been at Duke for 35 yrs. As you point out, he struck out in his first 4 FFs, and has other multi-year stretches with no FFs. The point about what if Laettner's shot didn't go in is another good one. This game is sort of like golf being a game of inches. Little things are often the difference between a coach being great, good, or average. Cal has put us in position to win 5 times in 6 yrs. Sometimes you just get unlucky.

Of course there are things he could have/should have done, which may have worked, but every coach is better in hindsight. Not many other coaches, if any, could have amassed the talent he has at UK, or got them as far, especially in 2011 and 2014. Hurts like hell that we haven't won more than 1 in those years, but all you can ask for is to be in the position to win it. No coach can guarantee the outcome.
 
Originally posted by C1180:

Calipari is a great recruiter and motivator but I have never been impressed with his skills as a bench coach. I am sure that having the players only one years limits what he can do as a bench coach but IMO a better job could be done. IMO UK is way too one dimensional on both offense and defense. This is OK when you have over powering talent but becomes a problem when the talent evens up.

I am trying to remember. I think Calipari has 7 final fours, 5 at UK and only one NC. Contrast this with Krzyzshitski who I think is the best bench coach in college basketball who has 12 final fours and 5 NCs. It is when that you get deep into the NCAA tournament that bench coaching matters most. The great bench coaches seal the deal. I hate making this post because I hate Duke and Ratface but facts are facts.
You clearly know nothing about basketball if that is your opinion. I mean nothing.
 
Chuckinden and FivestarRecruit hit the nail on the head..The key word in their posts, STUBBORN.
 
An example of that stubborn, in my opinion, is refusing to employ a full court press, or play that type game because, well, we just don't believe in it...despite having 2 platoons, 10 deep, of players to do so.

The best coaches adapt what they "do" to their personnel that season.
 
Fivestar I somewhat agree except for one thing...how do you divvy up the minutes?

What you are saying is that 5 bigs split 80 minutes. One of your solutions is to DNP Lee, which Cal practically did at times. Even if Lee doesn't play, that's 20 mins per for the other four.

The way you are talking about playing, either Dakari or WCS would be your 5 on offense at all times. This essentially leaves Towns and Lyles splitting minutes. If you disagree with this, explain how you will get Towns, WCS, and Lyles on the floor at the same time while simultaneously playing Lyles zero minutes at the three?

I love a lineup with Towns, Lyles, Ulis, and two of the three remaining guards. But I also know that team gives up some things on defense. Would they gain enough on offense to make up for reducing the minutes of our best defensive player?


Cal tried to get our best players on the floor together as much as possible. This created enough mismatches and advantages to runout to a 38-0 record. Admittedly, it wasn't always the most exciting brand of basketball.

Wisconsin negated our offensive rebounding advantage. They shot far better from outside than most of our opponents all year. They also caught some nice breaks late.

Would playing a different style have delivered a win over Wisconsin? I honestly think it would have yielded a higher scoring game, but not necessarily a better result for the good guys.

I don't think Cal is nearly as inflexible with style as some believe. I believe he caters to his personnel, and also feels an obligation to put his players on the court for max exposure. I also suspect that we will play differently next year. Not because Cal has an epiphany, but because personnel will dictate it.
 
Hilarious that so many people complaining about cals arrogance are voicing their opinions in such incredibly stubborn ways. How that irony is lost on them, not sure.

We won 38 straight games. Stop acting like Cal is an outdated oaf and you're the second coming of Rupp.
 
It's a message board roundball...get over yourself. Cal won't have a breakdown over comments on a msg board.

No one here is under any illusion that he reads this stuff, or that they are the next Rupp.
 
Booker bricked wide open 3's again and again the 2nd half of the season, shooting 1/5 or 1/6 several times. If not for Cal telling him to drive and not settle for 3's he would have not played hardly at all come NCAA Tourney time. I'm not sure how 3 rex can blame Cal for Booker bricking 4-5 wide open 3's (which he was getting plenty of in SEC play) on Coach Cal telling him to drive some so he could vary his game and actually contribute on offense some (since he sure as hell did not on D later in the year), but then again it is 3 Rex. It is Cal's fault Booker missed wide open 3's, which he shot tons of.
laugh.r191677.gif
 
I didn't say it was "Cal's fault," but I can say it contributed, in my opinion, just as easily as you can act like yours about it actually helping Booker is the gospel. Laugh all you want.
 
I'm glad we have him, thank God for him especially after the drunken cowboy and Tubby. I just feel as if he coaches not to lose instead of coaching to win. This team should've averaged 85 plus, pressed teams all over the floor, and wore them down. Too many late in the shot clock possessions. Feel like he's stubborn and needs to run more quick hitters.
 
He definitely coached not to lose in the Wisconsin game, going to a "prevent offense" with 5 minutes to go and an overwhelming 4 point lead.
 
Originally posted by Aike:
Fivestar I somewhat agree except for one thing...how do you divvy up the minutes?

What you are saying is that 5 bigs split 80 minutes. One of your solutions is to DNP Lee, which Cal practically did at times. Even if Lee doesn't play, that's 20 mins per for the other four.

The way you are talking about playing, either Dakari or WCS would be your 5 on offense at all times. This essentially leaves Towns and Lyles splitting minutes. If you disagree with this, explain how you will get Towns, WCS, and Lyles on the floor at the same time while simultaneously playing Lyles zero minutes at the three?

I love a lineup with Towns, Lyles, Ulis, and two of the three remaining guards. But I also know that team gives up some things on defense. Would they gain enough on offense to make up for reducing the minutes of our best defensive player?


Cal tried to get our best players on the floor together as much as possible. This created enough mismatches and advantages to runout to a 38-0 record. Admittedly, it wasn't always the most exciting brand of basketball.

Wisconsin negated our offensive rebounding advantage. They shot far better from outside than most of our opponents all year. They also caught some nice breaks late.

Would playing a different style have delivered a win over Wisconsin? I honestly think it would have yielded a higher scoring game, but not necessarily a better result for the good guys.

I don't think Cal is nearly as inflexible with style as some believe. I believe he caters to his personnel, and also feels an obligation to put his players on the court for max exposure. I also suspect that we will play differently next year. Not because Cal has an epiphany, but because personnel will dictate it.

Dakari minutes would be very limited. Unless foul trouble/injuries, i'd hesitate giving him serious run.

KAT would split time at PF/C. Lyles& KAT downlow can even create an 5-out opportunity, which would maximize the floors pacing while also providing rim protection on the other end of the floor.

Just endless amount of possibilities. A different, updated style would undoubtedly won us the title…with relative ease.
 
One thing I know for certain . When you have shooters you have ALOT better spacing on offense . A slasher mixed in makes a VERY difficult team to guard . I would rather have shooters with an athlete or two mixed in than athletes with a shooter or two mixed in .
 
Originally posted by 3rex:
He definitely coached not to lose in the Wisconsin game, going to a "prevent offense" with 5 minutes to go and an overwhelming 4 point lead.
I think that is a fair statement. Wisconsin was reeling and he didn't step on their throats. But every coach including Coach K has had moments like that.
 
Originally posted by 5iveStarRecruit:

Originally posted by Aike:
Fivestar I somewhat agree except for one thing...how do you divvy up the minutes?

What you are saying is that 5 bigs split 80 minutes. One of your solutions is to DNP Lee, which Cal practically did at times. Even if Lee doesn't play, that's 20 mins per for the other four.

The way you are talking about playing, either Dakari or WCS would be your 5 on offense at all times. This essentially leaves Towns and Lyles splitting minutes. If you disagree with this, explain how you will get Towns, WCS, and Lyles on the floor at the same time while simultaneously playing Lyles zero minutes at the three?

I love a lineup with Towns, Lyles, Ulis, and two of the three remaining guards. But I also know that team gives up some things on defense. Would they gain enough on offense to make up for reducing the minutes of our best defensive player?


Cal tried to get our best players on the floor together as much as possible. This created enough mismatches and advantages to runout to a 38-0 record. Admittedly, it wasn't always the most exciting brand of basketball.

Wisconsin negated our offensive rebounding advantage. They shot far better from outside than most of our opponents all year. They also caught some nice breaks late.

Would playing a different style have delivered a win over Wisconsin? I honestly think it would have yielded a higher scoring game, but not necessarily a better result for the good guys.

I don't think Cal is nearly as inflexible with style as some believe. I believe he caters to his personnel, and also feels an obligation to put his players on the court for max exposure. I also suspect that we will play differently next year. Not because Cal has an epiphany, but because personnel will dictate it.

Dakari minutes would be very limited. Unless foul trouble/injuries, i'd hesitate giving him serious run.

KAT would split time at PF/C. Lyles& KAT downlow can even create an 5-out opportunity, which would maximize the floors pacing while also providing rim protection on the other end of the floor.

Just endless amount of possibilities. A different, updated style would undoubtedly won us the title…with relative ease.
You could do that. Sit Dakari and Lee and let WCS, Towns, and Lyles get 26 minutes per night. Good luck recruiting any talented depth though.

Dakari is most likely a second round pick and a sophomore. Guys like that won't come to sit the bench. We rolled the dice like that a couple of times and people (rightly, imo) complained about depth. Hard to have it both ways.

You are once again going back to that KAT/Lyles combo, which I agree is a nice offensive unit. But for my money, KAT is not nearly the defender without WCS beside him. Not to mention, KAT struggle with foul trouble consistently. To keep that lineup on the floor, KAT would have to play like Okafor and avoid fouls.

Which brings us back to defense. IMO, you go completely off the rails with comments like this: "A different, updated style would undoubtedly won us the title..with relative ease."

Oh really? And Cal is so dumb, stubborn, stuck in the mud that he couldn't see that...but you can? Message board messiah that you are. If only Cal could get with the times, we could have won with relative ease. This is simply idiotic. Championships are hard to win.

Play the way you want to play, and the team would not have been as good defensively. Teams with big, strong guards routinely attacked Ulis. Booker struggled on D. Towns fouled too much.

I am completely comfortable with you being willing to accept the tradeoff. Maybe more offense/less D would have turned out fine.

But when you make statements about the ease with which we would have won the title had Cal only done things your way, it makes it impossible to take you seriously.
 
Sometimes I wonder if our depth was our downfall.

How would we have finished if the Twins, Johnson, and Poythress would have left last year with Randle and Young?

Our team would have been:

Starters
G Ulis
G Booker
F Lyles
F WCS- back because of the injury,
C Towns

Key Reserves
F Lee
G Hawkins
F Willis

And we might have added another player or two.

We would not have had such lofty expectations, but that team likely does just as well or comes close. No pressure of an undefeated season. Feature KAT and Lyles inside with Ulis and Booker providing shooting.

Only downside is we would not have Poythress back next season (which is still an option).
 
Originally posted by yoshukai:
One thing I know for certain . When you have shooters you have ALOT better spacing on offense . A slasher mixed in makes a VERY difficult team to guard . I would rather have shooters with an athlete or two mixed in than athletes with a shooter or two mixed in .
Sincerely,

Mike Brey, John Beilein and Greg Marshall
 
Aike, why does Cal have to have 3 guards on the floor to take more outside shots? I don't get that. At season's end our two best shooters were Ulis and Andrew in my opinion. Not only that but Lyles was a dead nuts shooter from just inside the arch. I don't see a problem with that lineup on either end of the floor and since Booker was in the game getting abdolutely abused on defense he might as well shoot some threes.
 
Because we either played 3 guards this year or a PF (Lyles) at the three. With Lyles at the 3, it was much tougher to space the floor and get good looks from three. It's much easier for defenses to cover 2 perimeter players than 3.

You can't just chuck threes for the sake of shooting them. You need to get them in the flow of the offense. Much easier to do that if 3 shooters are on the floor at once. Even easier if there are 4.
 
I'm not saying we should just chucking threes, all I'm saying is we needed to make defenses respect our outside shooting so they don't just sag and clog the lane. It's not some impossible feat because most other programs are doing it. How did duke* do it? We had our guys standing there holding the ball trying to feed the post while everyone stood there. There is very little movement in our halfcourt sets. Our shooters should be fighting to get open and take the open shot. Our shooters were very good and I just think Cal should have used their abilities more to open up the paint.
 
Originally posted by Aike:
Because we either played 3 guards this year or a PF (Lyles) at the three. With Lyles at the 3, it was much tougher to space the floor and get good looks from three. It's much easier for defenses to cover 2 perimeter players than 3.

You can't just chuck threes for the sake of shooting them. You need to get them in the flow of the offense. Much easier to do that if 3 shooters are on the floor at once. Even easier if there are 4.


Exactly.

Spacing is going to be critical with this team, IMHO.
 
when the shot clock gets reduced here shooters in general will be at a premium. but cal is always going to take the guy who can be good defensively too. so they may not be the best "pure" shooter. lamb, young, knight, booker all have the tools to be good defenders. young took too many chances ala high school. that laziness gets out of you real fast in the pros. he'll be fine. point is i like cal's guys. counting wiltjer, bledsoe, the harrisons, ulis, willis, and davis, cal has always had someone one around that can nail shots if left open. the one exception being 13, no offense to harrow or mays. i think cal already gets the shooters.

as it stands i think we have an underrated shooting team. briscoe was looking like someone that goes 0-6 the first 30 minutes and 4-4 at money time. i absolutely loved how he physically responded to the noise. ulis takes good and once in a while needed threes like a pg should. matthews has shown improvement, as you can expect hawkins and willis have also. we add mulder, and possibly newman, ingram or brown, and i think that is more than enough shooting. you want % guys and money time guys and we could have multiples before it's all said and done. that's the thing about cal, you write off something like our shooting for next season while it's late spring and the next thing you know we could be the fun n gun team of next year. we just gotta wait and see.
 
Originally posted by jameslee32:
Originally posted by yoshukai:
One thing I know for certain . When you have shooters you have ALOT better spacing on offense . A slasher mixed in makes a VERY difficult team to guard . I would rather have shooters with an athlete or two mixed in than athletes with a shooter or two mixed in .
Sincerely,

Mike Brey, John Beilein and Greg Marshall
I think you can add coach K to this list also.
 
S&C is right and has been all year. He was one of a few that said this stuff was going to bite us in the tourney. Props for calling it and sticking to it when people argued with you.
 
Why did we never try to take advantage of Towns immense talent by running pick and rolls and pops. He was better with the mid range shot than he was in the post in high school by far. He shot 80% from the free throw line. Pulling him out some would have opened up the lane.

Why did we let the other team set the pace in the tournament? We should have ran as much as possible using our incredible depth and athleticism. We were content to let Notre Dame and Wisconsin set the pace and never tried to change it.

However, stopping the platooning was by far the worst mistake. Thats why we were so dominate early in the year. That's what made us better than the Wisconsins and Dukes. When we stopped platooning we were then on par with those teams and beatable. I continuously said when we stopped platooning our chances for a title would fall dramatically. I have always taken up for Cal about coaching but he made some mind boggling decisions late in the year.
 
Originally posted by Chuckinden:

Originally posted by C1180:

Calipari is a great recruiter and motivator but I have never been impressed with his skills as a bench coach. I am sure that having the players only one years limits what he can do as a bench coach but IMO a better job could be done. IMO UK is way too one dimensional on both offense and defense. This is OK when you have over powering talent but becomes a problem when the talent evens up.

I am trying to remember. I think Calipari has 7 final fours, 5 at UK and only one NC. Contrast this with Krzyzshitski who I think is the best bench coach in college basketball who has 12 final fours and 5 NCs. It is when that you get deep into the NCAA tournament that bench coaching matters most. The great bench coaches seal the deal. I hate making this post because I hate Duke and Ratface but facts are facts.
Well, the truth is what it is. If Cal weren't so stubborn, he could adapt. I feel we gave at least two titles away because of this. Maybe three, if you count 2011.

With the elite athletes he gets every year, there is so much he could do to have an offense that almost couldn't be stopped...especially this year. This team should have averaged 80 pts a game.
2011? Between Knight, Lamb, Miller, and Liggins the 2010-2011 squad was the best 3-point shooting team Cal has had thus far at UK? Not being able to make a free throw in the Final Four was that team's undoing, oddly enough.
 
Originally posted by kyjeff1:
I'm not saying we should just chucking threes, all I'm saying is we needed to make defenses respect our outside shooting so they don't just sag and clog the lane. It's not some impossible feat because most other programs are doing it. How did duke* do it? We had our guys standing there holding the ball trying to feed the post while everyone stood there. There is very little movement in our halfcourt sets. Our shooters should be fighting to get open and take the open shot. Our shooters were very good and I just think Cal should have used their abilities more to open up the paint.
Duke did it by surrounding Okafor with 4 guys who can shoot threes.

Most other teams did not have the personnel we had. Arizona has similar size, and actually made less threes per game than we did.

But I get it. You wish we had shot more threes. I would have been just as happy if Wisconsin had made less.
 
ADVERTISEMENT