UCLA

BearcatTalk

Help Support BearcatTalk:

What will be the outcome?

  • UC wins by 5+

    Votes: 19 61.3%

  • UC wins by 1-4

    Votes: 6 19.4%

  • UCLA wins by 1-4

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • UCLA wins by 5+

    Votes: 6 19.4%
  • Total voters
    31
cincyguy13 said:
This is how I feel. Yes it sucks when you have to play a good team in th tourney but you are allowed to win the game. There are teams that do it. Instead of blaming it on luck, just admit we weren’t good enough.
Click to expand...

there is a difference in blaming things on luck and pointing out that luck exists in the world.


nobody is saying you can't be unlucky and still win.
 
cincrulz11 said:
there is a difference in blaming things on luck and pointing out that luck exists in the world.


nobody is saying you can't be unlucky and still win.
Click to expand...
Luck exist sometimes. But attributing every tournament loss or the reason we can’t get to the 2nd round is stupid. Or saying Xavier gets lucky on recruits and tournament matchups. Eventually you have to look yourself in the mirror and try to get better.
 
cincrulz11 said:
there is a difference in blaming things on luck and pointing out that luck exists in the world.


nobody is saying you can't be unlucky and still win.
Click to expand...

We got lucky yancy Gates went to high school 5 minutes from uc. Got lucky lance Stevenson couldn’t go anywhere else. These things happen everywhere
 
Last comment on the Broome at PG thing...in the end I don't get why we think putting him on the wing is the way to get offense out of him. We're talking about running him off of screens and running plays that work to get him the ball. But why? Why do all that to get him the ball when he could already have the ball, and be in a position to work off of high ball screens? I honestly feel like that should be Option A for us on offense a lot of the time. It's an easy way to get a look. If nothing comes of it, we reset and run a play, no big deal. We talked about using Broome to play faster. After being involved in the day to day stuff for a full year and an additional offseason, it was decided that Broome would start at PG. I can't accept that it has totally flipped since the start of the season to the point where we don't feel like Broome can be used to initiate the offense hardly at all. Maybe Jenifer is better right now at getting into sets for other people to get touches. That's great, and that's necessary. But not for 25 minutes per game. It just leads to us getting stalled out, time and time again. Having Broome and Evans BOTH playing PG on the floor together is a dream come true. Bc of Evans, there's not a concern about Broome not being ready or able to handle the pure PG role for 30+ minutes. I liked what we were being sold with quicker PGs, and I had every reason to believe it bc, well, they are quicker PGs. I just fear some, including the coach, are getting cold feet. We can't afford to be wasting time. I think Broome needs to get a shot to be a spark for us at the beginning of games. Instead of "feeling things out" the first 5 minutes of big games, Broome would have a chance to get a couple looks early that could get him comfortable and set him off towards a big night. And I'd like to embrace that, bc I'm pretty sure that's why we recruited him. I mean I get that there's an adjustment, but he's gone from averaging like 24 PPG to 9.6. That's hogwash. Broome is good for way more scoring than that. Playing half the game and averaging under 10 isn't acceptable. Something's gotta give.
 
cincyguy13 said:
This is how I feel. Yes it sucks when you have to play a good team in th tourney but you are allowed to win the game. There are teams that do it. Instead of blaming it on luck, just admit we weren’t good enough.
Click to expand...

WE have not been a good enough team in the Cronin era to go past sweet 16. I think we would have been lucky to do it in any year so far. Could we have had some better draws to win 1 more game? Sure.

This is our best team without a doubt in terms of talent. If we can gel as a team I think we can achieve just about any level of success. WE have the horses IMO. I'm not capping our ceiling...but we need to put it together. We are going to need Broome to make a big time run.
 
waterhead said:
WE have not been a good enough team in the Cronin era to go past sweet 16. I think we would have been lucky to do it in any year so far. Could we have had some better draws to win 1 more game? Sure.

This is our best team without a doubt in terms of talent. If we can gel as a team I think we can achieve just about any level of success. WE have the horses IMO. I'm not capping our ceiling...but we need to put it together. We are going to need Broome to make a big time run.
Click to expand...

Talent will get you so far, the coaching has to be there as well, just look at UK, Kansas. Not only does the team have to gel, coaches have to put the players in the right spots to be successful. Will the offensive/defensive approach be successful enough to make a run, those are also questions that need to be answered
 
cincyguy13 said:
This is how I feel. Yes it sucks when you have to play a good team in th tourney but you are allowed to win the game. There are teams that do it. Instead of blaming it on luck, just admit we weren’t good enough.
Click to expand...

Not being good enough and being unlucky can go together, they don't have opposite meanings. Play a team that could be a 1 seed in the first round, is unlucky. Were they better and did they beat us, yes... playing a ten seed in the second is lucky, were they worse than Xavier, yes.. see how that works lol.
 
jacobkdoyle said:
Last comment on the Broome at PG thing...in the end I don't get why we think putting him on the wing is the way to get offense out of him. We're talking about running him off of screens and running plays that work to get him the ball. But why? Why do all that to get him the ball when he could already have the ball, and be in a position to work off of high ball screens? I honestly feel like that should be Option A for us on offense a lot of the time. It's an easy way to get a look. If nothing comes of it, we reset and run a play, no big deal. We talked about using Broome to play faster. After being involved in the day to day stuff for a full year and an additional offseason, it was decided that Broome would start at PG. I can't accept that it has totally flipped since the start of the season to the point where we don't feel like Broome can be used to initiate the offense hardly at all. Maybe Jenifer is better right now at getting into sets for other people to get touches. That's great, and that's necessary. But not for 25 minutes per game. It just leads to us getting stalled out, time and time again. Having Broome and Evans BOTH playing PG on the floor together is a dream come true. Bc of Evans, there's not a concern about Broome not being ready or able to handle the pure PG role for 30+ minutes. I liked what we were being sold with quicker PGs, and I had every reason to believe it bc, well, they are quicker PGs. I just fear some, including the coach, are getting cold feet. We can't afford to be wasting time. I think Broome needs to get a shot to be a spark for us at the beginning of games. Instead of "feeling things out" the first 5 minutes of big games, Broome would have a chance to get a couple looks early that could get him comfortable and set him off towards a big night. And I'd like to embrace that, bc I'm pretty sure that's why we recruited him. I mean I get that there's an adjustment, but he's gone from averaging like 24 PPG to 9.6. That's hogwash. Broome is good for way more scoring than that. Playing half the game and averaging under 10 isn't acceptable. Something's gotta give.
Click to expand...

I agree with this like 100% lol. Everyone acting like broomes turnovers are a surprise but we knew he had a decently high TO rate at sacred heart. He makes mistakes, pretty much every body who controls the ball that much does, when they're actually an aggressive player (sorry caupain). And really what made his assist to turnover rate higher than usual is he probably didn't have guy that could knock down shots. Kicking out to Evans and Cumberland or Moore or even Clark/Washington are WAY WAY better options than he ever had at sacred heart. Are we really gonna be made if a guy is scoring 15+ a game with 5-6 assists has 2-3 turnovers? And same goes for the screens and all that other stuff, like you said just start him with the ball in his hands, with him n Evans they can fluidly switch roles, either one can be very effective starting our offense. I still think and at The very least really hope that nick will eventually start broome and realize we are much better with him on the court. The more minutes him and Evans are In together the better we will be, plain and simple
 
Patrick Bateman said:
Talent will get you so far, the coaching has to be there as well, just look at UK, Kansas. Not only does the team have to gel, coaches have to put the players in the right spots to be successful. Will the offensive/defensive approach be successful enough to make a run, those are also questions that need to be answered
Click to expand...

So are you comparing Kansas and UK. As in Self knows how to coach, because I wouldn't call calipari a great X n Os guy. He's a talker and a great recruiter, his teams gel at best half the time. I certainly wouldn't be using him as an example of how to bring a team together, he's had the best recruits for a decade and won one championship. Went from #1 starting a year to losing in the first round of the NIT lol.
 

Similar threads

Q
Baylor
Replies
7
Views
27K
Queens_NYC
Q
Q
Kansas
Replies
11
Views
41K
sedziobs
S
Q
Texas
Replies
10
Views
41K
sedziobs
S
Q
Dayton
2
Replies
21
Views
66K
sedziobs
S
Q
Houston Part II
Replies
11
Views
27K
sedziobs
S

Latest posts

Back
Top