OT: Bryce Hopkins big man on Providence campus: leads in mins, shots taken and made, points and rebounds.

wcc31

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 18, 2002
75,875
65,661
113
Cal would be playing him at the 3 here again so not a big loss.

Cal’s team building is so lopsided. He’s always 2-3 guards short and 2-3 bigs heavy, which kills our rotation, offense and defense. Next year we could possibly have 5 centers on roster. It’s absurd.

Hopkins and Livingston are modern 4s. Playing them as 3s neuters them. Same thing he did to Lyles.
 
Apr 7, 2022
160
264
63
Cal would be playing him at the 3 here again so not a big loss.

Cal’s team building is so lopsided. He’s always 2-3 guards short and 2-3 bigs heavy, which kills our rotation, offense and defense. Next year we could possibly have 5 centers on roster. It’s absurd.

Hopkins and Livingston are modern 4s. Playing them as 3s neuters them. Same thing he did to Lyles.
That's the new style of CBB. Just look at the rating numbers beside the name and not care about if you need a player at a certain position of not. Duke has 4 forwards/centers but needs guards in the worst way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wcc31

Mike-D

All-American
Gold Member
Jul 14, 2001
30,161
38,819
113
WADD
Cal would be playing him at the 3 here again so not a big loss.

Cal’s team building is so lopsided. He’s always 2-3 guards short and 2-3 bigs heavy, which kills our rotation, offense and defense. Next year we could possibly have 5 centers on roster. It’s absurd.

Hopkins and Livingston are modern 4s. Playing them as 3s neuters them. Same thing he did to Lyles.

Cal doesn't build rosters. We used to say he just took the best recruits available, and that he was just going to out-talent everyone. Then he started with his positionless basketball garbage, and he hasn't looked back sense. He will literally put a big anywhere on the court.
 

JonathanW

All-American
Jan 3, 2003
22,831
7,051
113
Cal would be playing him at the 3 here again so not a big loss.

Cal’s team building is so lopsided. He’s always 2-3 guards short and 2-3 bigs heavy, which kills our rotation, offense and defense. Next year we could possibly have 5 centers on roster. It’s absurd.

Hopkins and Livingston are modern 4s. Playing them as 3s neuters them. Same thing he did to Lyles.
Did you not see the 38% from 3.
Him at the 3 is ok if he does that, or even 35%.

Him and Livingston are slightly on the small side of a "modern 4". Maybe not in bulk/build, but in height. Your typcial modern 4 is probably 6'8-6'9. Both are more "tweeners". And I like having tweeners on your team, because being undersized for the NBA you often get them for an extra year in college.

Had he stayed, he would have battled Livingston for PT (yeah probably at the 3). Maybe he didn't want to compete for that, maybe knowing Cal's history of preferring the 5*. I would have liked to see him stay, thought he would be better than a 5* FR (that year makes a difference). Actually, I think him and Livingston could have played together (w/ Toppin out) at the 3 & 4, both really 3.5 (tweener) guys.

Lyles was a clear 4 with some 3 skills (say a 3.75). But for "the Platoon" to work he had to be a 3. Then once Poythress (another 3.75) got hurt and "the Platoon" ended, Lyles was still stuck as a 3 because Poythress was the other guy playing the 3. Booker and Aaron did play some 3 too at that point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fox2monk

wcc31

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 18, 2002
75,875
65,661
113
Did you not see the 38% from 3.
Him at the 3 is ok if he does that, or even 35%.

Him and Livingston are slightly on the small side of a "modern 4". Maybe not in bulk/build, but in height. Your typcial modern 4 is probably 6'8-6'9. Both are more "tweeners". And I like having tweeners on your team, because being undersized for the NBA you often get them for an extra year in college.

Had he stayed, he would have battled Livingston for PT (yeah probably at the 3). Maybe he didn't want to compete for that, maybe knowing Cal's history of preferring the 5*. I would have liked to see him stay, thought he would be better than a 5* FR (that year makes a difference). Actually, I think him and Livingston could have played together (w/ Toppin out) at the 3 & 4, both really 3.5 (tweener) guys.

Lyles was a clear 4 with some 3 skills (say a 3.75). But for "the Platoon" to work he had to be a 3. Then once Poythress (another 3.75) got hurt and "the Platoon" ended, Lyles was still stuck as a 3 because Poythress was the other guy playing the 3. Booker and Aaron did play some 3 too at that point.

Nope. Pure 4.
 

Montana81

All-American
Gold Member
Aug 12, 2004
16,223
18,199
113
Their schedule has been horrible. CJ Frederick also looked like an all star when we played bad teams. Time will tell.
It has been bad. They’ve lost to every team they’ve played with a pulse too. But he’s also played really well in those games. In 3 losses to tcu, miami and st. louis hes averaging 17/7 on 60/50/85 shooting splits.

Hopkins is a stud. But he was smart to transfer. Cal wasn’t going to play him to his strengths.
 

qwesley

All-American
Feb 5, 2003
17,185
22,467
113
Did you not see the 38% from 3.
Him at the 3 is ok if he does that, or even 35%.

Him and Livingston are slightly on the small side of a "modern 4"
No they aren't. Having strength to move people off the block is just as valuable as length. Notice how Collins gets bullied? His blocks come from weak side. Both Hopkins and Livingston would thrive as face up fours where their first steps are valuable, not asking them to drive from the 3pt line. By playing them as their natural position you use their assets, by playing them on the perimeter you negate them, it is that simple. And the shooting % comment is nonsensical, he is getting more open shots because the spacing is better.
 
Last edited:

Bluegrass79

Senior
Mar 4, 2008
4,558
3,307
113
A lot easier to put up stats when you're playing Manhattan and a bunch of bullcrap like that. Of the three small forwards that we had Toppin is the best of the three and I know that to be a fact.

When I see Bryce Hopkins actually playing some competition and scoring some points then I might change my view but as of right now Toppin is better than Brooks and Hopkins.
If Jacob Toppin was playing for Providence he'd also be leading their team with better stats than Hopkins in my opinion.
obviously Hopkins wouldn't have transferred if he thought he was better than Toppin. He ain't so he's where he needs to be playing ....bullshit teams.

I have no love for people that transfer from University of Kentucky I hope you stub your toe on the way to bed mfers. .... so bad you got to have surgery and you can't play basketball for 2 years. You turned your back on the big blue and we turn the back on you.
 

qwesley

All-American
Feb 5, 2003
17,185
22,467
113
I will also sadly point out 2015 where Cal insisted on playing bigs at the 3 instead of playing much with 3 guards...Duke midseason moved Winslow from the 3 to the 4 and they took off. He was the same size if not a little smaller.
 
Last edited:

jgodek

Freshman
Jan 25, 2013
969
1,326
93
Their schedule has been horrible. CJ Frederick also looked like an all star when we played bad teams. Time will tell.
Yeah, it’s nice to see Hopkins playing well, but Providence is a bad team. Hopkins has turned it over a total of 13 times in their three losses to Miami, TCU, and St Louis (and averages 2.7 TO per game). 7 games with 3+ turnovers.

For comparison, Wheeler, who has the ball in his hands all game, is averaging 2.0 turnovers per game and gets shredded on here for some of the decisions he makes with the ball.

Hopkins would be getting eaten alive by this message board. And let’s be honest. Cal’s system would not allow Hopkins to thrive.
 
Oct 9, 2015
9,203
21,358
113
Lexington
A lot easier to put up stats when you're playing Manhattan and a bunch of bullcrap like that. Of the three small forwards that we had Toppin is the best of the three and I know that to be a fact.

When I see Bryce Hopkins actually playing some competition and scoring some points then I might change my view but as of right now Toppin is better than Brooks and Hopkins.
If Jacob Toppin was playing for Providence he'd also be leading their team with better stats than Hopkins in my opinion.
obviously Hopkins wouldn't have transferred if he thought he was better than Toppin. He ain't so he's where he needs to be playing ....bullshit teams.

I have no love for people that transfer from University of Kentucky I hope you stub your toe on the way to bed mfers. .... so bad you got to have surgery and you can't play basketball for 2 years. You turned your back on the big blue and we turn the back on you.

giphy.gif
 

KyFanInTenn

Gold Member
Jun 22, 2019
273
633
93
Cal would be playing him at the 3 here again so not a big loss.

Cal’s team building is so lopsided. He’s always 2-3 guards short and 2-3 bigs heavy, which kills our rotation, offense and defense. Next year we could possibly have 5 centers on roster. It’s absurd.

Hopkins and Livingston are modern 4s. Playing them as 3s neuters them. Same thing he did to Lyles.
Agree on Hopkins and Livingston being best used as 4s.

I think the problem the coaching staff has run into is playing those guys at that position with Oscar at the 5. I just think Oscar’s such a liability on defense that you need more length and athleticism to make up for what he isn’t on defense.

It’s very possible to have an undersized from court and still be really good defensively (Reid/PJ in 18-19), but those guys have to be really smart and connected to what you want to do. Oscar’s just not on the same level as those guys, but does makes up for some of it with his rebounding.

Really like Hopkins game and think he would have helped out a ton as he gives you another shot creator/skilled guy in the lineup. Not surprised he’s doing well, just not sure about the fit defensively with Oscar.

Do think Livingston eventually slides to the 4 too if Toppin keeps being unsure and passive of himself.
 

JwUKFan11

Junior
Nov 11, 2011
3,978
6,401
113
It has been bad. They’ve lost to every team they’ve played with a pulse too. But he’s also played really well in those games. In 3 losses to tcu, miami and st. louis hes averaging 17/7 on 60/50/85 shooting splits.

Hopkins is a stud. But he was smart to transfer. Cal wasn’t going to play him to his strengths.
He’s a good college player on a bad team, not a stud. As another poster pointed out he’s averaging more turnovers then Wheeler who probably has the ball in his hands at least twice as much and Hopkins is doing that while playing against lesser competition. There basically has been no player that transferred that in the last 12 years that really proved Us wrong, some did ok but nothing amazing. Juzang who I loved is probably the exception. While some that I thought could transfer stayed and improved (Quickly, Richards, etc)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chitown Terry

EliteBlue

All-American
Mar 27, 2009
10,553
12,138
113
Cal doesn't build rosters. We used to say he just took the best recruits available, and that he was just going to out-talent everyone. Then he started with his positionless basketball garbage, and he hasn't looked back sense. He will literally put a big anywhere on the court.
Crazy thing is “positionless” could actually work if it was small ball centric…. The GSW are essentially a “positionless” basketball team w small ball Draymond that’s capable of handling the ball to drive and can knock down wide open shots respectably enough.

You just can’t play “positionless” with a roster of 4s and 5s that lack ‘all around fundamental game’ plus 1 complete guard and 1 “go stand in the corner” shooter

If you want to be positionless it has to be a roster full of SKILLED 6’3- 6’8 PG-PFs at the 1-4 at minimum and then you can have a max of 1 true big man as a shot blocker or rebound machine
 
Jun 17, 2020
106
179
43

Crazy to think he wasn't a better option then Brooks or Toppin last year. A skilled powerful 4 man is what we needed. I see the same thing happening with Adou Thiero if Cal doesn't get his head out of his ass and quit putting guys like Collins out there. I'll be the first to admit I really though Collins was going to be something special but I'm not to proud to say I dropped the ball on that evaluation. He looks like he doesn't know what is going on out there.
 

wcc31

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 18, 2002
75,875
65,661
113
Agree on Hopkins and Livingston being best used as 4s.

I think the problem the coaching staff has run into is playing those guys at that position with Oscar at the 5. I just think Oscar’s such a liability on defense that you need more length and athleticism to make up for what he isn’t on defense.

It’s very possible to have an undersized from court and still be really good defensively (Reid/PJ in 18-19), but those guys have to be really smart and connected to what you want to do. Oscar’s just not on the same level as those guys, but does makes up for some of it with his rebounding.

Really like Hopkins game and think he would have helped out a ton as he gives you another shot creator/skilled guy in the lineup. Not surprised he’s doing well, just not sure about the fit defensively with Oscar.

Do think Livingston eventually slides to the 4 too if Toppin keeps being unsure and passive of himself.

Everyone in college basketball plays a perimeter player at the 4 so Collins - who would be a decent rim protector- is instead guarding a guy on the perimeter all game. So we don’t even get to use his length and athleticism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gharding07

wcc31

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 18, 2002
75,875
65,661
113
Crazy thing is “positionless” could actually work if it was small ball centric…. The GSW are essentially a “positionless” basketball team w small ball Draymond that’s capable of handling the ball to drive and can knock down wide open shots respectably enough.

You just can’t play “positionless” with a roster of 4s and 5s that lack ‘all around fundamental game’ plus 1 complete guard and 1 “go stand in the corner” shooter

If you want to be positionless it has to be a roster full of SKILLED 6’3- 6’8 PG-PFs at the 1-4 at minimum and then you can have a max of 1 true big man as a shot blocker or rebound machine

Basically like his old Memphis teams.
 

JonathanW

All-American
Jan 3, 2003
22,831
7,051
113
No they aren't. Having strength to move people off the block is just as valuable as length. Notice how Collins gets bullied? His blocks come from weak side. Both Hopkins and Livingston would thrive as face up fours where their first steps are valuable, not asking them to drive from the 3pt line. By playing them as their natural position you use their assets, by playing them on the perimeter you negate them, it is that simple. And the shooting % comment is nonsensical, he is getting more open shots because the spacing is better.
Yes they are. I agree about having strength to hold/gain position on the blocks is important (defensively and rebounding), but so is length. Otherwise Briscoe or Hawkins could have been a 4.
Can they play the 4? Yes.
Is that their natural position? No.
Is their natural position the 3? No, it's not that either.
They are "tweeners".
So I'm not disagreeing about playing them at the 4. I'm just saying that ALSO is not their natural position. I like the idea of having 2 tweeners at the 3 & 4 on the floor together. Because I think their assets is that they can BOTH play on the perimeter or inside, not great at either but capable at both.
And you make no sense about the shooting %. Yes shooting % matters, duhhh! Unless you are saying he would not shoot 38% (or close) at UK. That is debatable (maybe you are right, maybe not), but that is another discussion all-together.
 

Montana81

All-American
Gold Member
Aug 12, 2004
16,223
18,199
113
He’s a good college player on a bad team, not a stud. As another poster pointed out he’s averaging more turnovers then Wheeler who probably has the ball in his hands at least twice as much and Hopkins is doing that while playing against lesser competition. There basically has been no player that transferred that in the last 12 years that really proved Us wrong, some did ok but nothing amazing. Juzang who I loved is probably the exception. While some that I thought could transfer stayed and improved (Quickly, Richards, etc)

Eh, if hes a good player on a bad team then he’s probably got the ball in his hands a ton and being asked to carry the scoring load. So it makes sense that his turnovers are high. He’s averaging 15/9 and shooting nearly 50% from thefield and 38% from 3 as a small ball 4.

And his a/to ratio is at least 1/1. So it’s not all bad. He’s pretty dang good. Doing better than any of the 4’s on our roster. Oscar actually had a negative assist to turnover ratio right now. Antonio reeves is 1.5 to 1.4. When your leading scorers get the ball you typically want them to try and score.
 
Last edited:

JLoad22

Junior
Apr 18, 2022
2,298
6,019
113
He’s a good college player on a bad team, not a stud. As another poster pointed out he’s averaging more turnovers then Wheeler who probably has the ball in his hands at least twice as much and Hopkins is doing that while playing against lesser competition. There basically has been no player that transferred that in the last 12 years that really proved Us wrong, some did ok but nothing amazing. Juzang who I loved is probably the exception. While some that I thought could transfer stayed and improved (Quickly, Richards, etc)

Charles Matthews is an example but they are few and far between. Most don't do much and neither will Hopkins consistently against good competition when it matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: STL_Cat

Cawood86

All-American
Feb 20, 2005
34,274
56,983
113
Charles Matthews is an example but they are few and far between. Most don't do much and neither will Hopkins consistently against good competition when it matters.
You don't know that. So far, Toppin or Collins haven't done much against good teams.

Toppin was better last game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fox2monk

EliteBlue

All-American
Mar 27, 2009
10,553
12,138
113
Basically like his old Memphis teams.
Exactly.

That’s what baffles me. Is he played that way at Memphis and Umass. The “dribble drive motion offense” actually kinda works when you have that athletic, skilled guard/SG/SF oriented basketball with no true big man unless they are a specialist and only gets garbage points…not tuning the O through them.

Then suddenly he went away from how he use to do things and it can strictly about size and PF/C Heavy lineups and playing through them
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fox2monk

shaudyshaud

All-SEC
Apr 2, 2011
7,022
13,495
113
Greenville, SC
Yeah, it’s nice to see Hopkins playing well, but Providence is a bad team. Hopkins has turned it over a total of 13 times in their three losses to Miami, TCU, and St Louis (and averages 2.7 TO per game). 7 games with 3+ turnovers.

For comparison, Wheeler, who has the ball in his hands all game, is averaging 2.0 turnovers per game and gets shredded on here for some of the decisions he makes with the ball.

Hopkins would be getting eaten alive by this message board. And let’s be honest. Cal’s system would not allow Hopkins to thrive.
Yeah, it’s nice to see Hopkins playing well, but Providence is a bad team. Hopkins has turned it over a total of 13 times in their three losses to Miami, TCU, and St Louis (and averages 2.7 TO per game). 7 games with 3+ turnovers.

For comparison, Wheeler, who has the ball in his hands all game, is averaging 2.0 turnovers per game and gets shredded on here for some of the decisions he makes with the ball.

Hopkins would be getting eaten alive by this message board. And let’s be honest. Cal’s system would not allow Hopkins to thrive.
The problem with that is Hopkins most likely wouldn’t turn it over as much because his usage would be lower here . It sounds like the offense runs through him at Providence.

Also it’s more than turnovers as to why people are frustrated with Wheeler.It’s some of the reckless shots in the paint and contested 3s late in the clock which I put on Cal more than him but I think people are more frustrated on that than his turnovers .
 
Last edited:

Cowtown Cat

All-American
Gold Member
Aug 23, 2015
18,160
37,441
113
Cowtown, Kentucky
I will also sadly point out 2015 where Cal insisted on playing bigs at the 3 instead of playing much with 3 guards...Duke midseason moved Winslow from the 3 to the 4 and they took off. He was the same size if not a little smaller.
That AND they went to a zone damn near 100% of the time, because Jokafor couldn’t guard. That’s the difference between Cal and a coach that does what’s best for the team to actually win. Furthermore, Cal fell in love with getting KAT drafted #1 and lost total sight of the real prize, the national title.
 

qwesley

All-American
Feb 5, 2003
17,185
22,467
113
Yes they are. I agree about having strength to hold/gain position on the blocks is important (defensively and rebounding), but so is length. Otherwise Briscoe or Hawkins could have been a 4.
Can they play the 4? Yes.
Is that their natural position? No.
Is their natural position the 3? No, it's not that either.
They are "tweeners".
So I'm not disagreeing about playing them at the 4. I'm just saying that ALSO is not their natural position. I like the idea of having 2 tweeners at the 3 & 4 on the floor together. Because I think their assets is that they can BOTH play on the perimeter or inside, not great at either but capable at both.
And you make no sense about the shooting %. Yes shooting % matters, duhhh! Unless you are saying he would not shoot 38% (or close) at UK. That is debatable (maybe you are right, maybe not), but that is another discussion all-together.
There is a difference b/w tweeners and multi-position players. If you played let's say Livingston and Hopkins (you call them tweeners, I say you can really only play them at the 4 for the most part) together they would do ok but neither is great driver or shooter. My disagreement is the bolded, they are weak at SF, at least for a top level team, which is topic.

Yes shooting % matters but you can't just look at a guy shooting 38% and say that means he would do the same as a perimeter player. Toppin gets tons of open 3 opps but he would not get the same as a SF because the spacing would suck.