SFCityBear said:

---

In his post-game presser, Cal coach Wyking Jones said this:

"UCLA is a talented team. They shoot the ball at all five positions. We pressed them, and they took the shot we wanted them to take issue is, they made them. Your five man, your four man shooting three's against the press we want that, the odds are in our favor in situations like that. Unfortunately, they made those shots and I think that was the difference in the game."

In over 60 years of watching basketball and listening to coaches, this is probably the strangest statement I ever heard from a basketball coach.

I may be old-fashioned, but my coaches never told me the objective of a press was to give the other team a shot, any kind of shot. They taught me that objective of the press was to keep the ball from getting over the half-court line, either by stealing it, causing a turnover, or getting a 10 second violation called on the opponent. In any case you get the ball. The ultimate objective is to steal the ball and convert it into a score for yourself. There are secondary objectives, like forcing the opponent to use up clock, or don't make it easy to start his offense, or get his guards tired out, and so on, but in no case was the object to give him a certain kind of shot. Hell, the objective was to keep him from getting a shot. Any kind of shot.

I've seen the great presses, Newell's, Wooden's, the Razorback press and more. I never saw a press that had an objective that had anything to do with letting the other team shoot a shot and have a chance to score. The objective is to give them no shot, no chance to score, isn't it? Have basketball rules and players and coaches changed so much since my day that now we plan for our press to fail to cause a turnover and we plan more for what happens after our press has failed than we plan to execute our press in the first place?

This kind of thinking goes against a player's basketball instincts. For example, if Jason Kidd is pressing a guard in the backcourt, is he thinking about letting this guy dribble over the line, or letting him pass the ball down the floor? Heck no. Jason Kidd is thinking about two things: stealing the ball from that guard, or forcing him into a turnover, or not letting him get the ball over that half court line. That is it. If Kidd fails to stop the guard, then he is thinking only about quickly recovering and getting back into position on defense.

To me, if this is the objective of our press, to give certain opponent players an open shot, it is defeatist thinking, expecting to fail, so why bother pressing in the first place?

---

Just to play devil's advocate...LMU's man-to-man full court press under Westhead was done to either get a steal or get the other team to shoot asap. I haven't seen us play but we probably aren't playing the same style as Paul Westhead's teams.

Even more troubling is that the shots they were taking were WIDE OPEN! That's what we wanted?

I suppose SFCB he just knows more than us and that is why he got $5 million guaranteed....and Cuonzo got $21 million.

SFCB - I share your thoughts on this. I'm taking a long view about what's going on with the team and willing to take some short-term learning lumps with the zone if it's part of a well-considered long term plan. But that comment floored me too. I can understand wantIng to edge in and be willing to give up more threes. But: 1) it wasn't just their bigs taking 3's. The wings/guards took 19 of them. 2). Even if you want us to force teams to hit 3's, that doesn't mean not having a defender within 5 feet of the shooter and 3). UCLA is the last team where you want to "force" bigs to be taking 3's with Welsh at 42%, Golomon at 38% and Olesinski admittedly at 30%.

Just a thoroughly bizarre comment about the strategy but also a troubling assessment of what actually happened. Hope Wyking reconsiders those sentiments after watching the film and takes it as a learning opportunity. Long way to go and still time to learn, evolve and improve.

Mo matter what happens this year, I can't wait for next year to start. I wish I could hibernate.

helltopay1 said:

---

Mo matter what happens this year, I can't wait for next year to start. I wish I could hibernate.

---

So do we.

Uh . . . probably putting too much weight on this comment (albeit an odd one). In addition to being a first year coach, WJ is also in his first year giving regular post game interviews and is not as 'polished' as many of us have come to expect in our era of immediate information overload.

I find it hilarious that coaching is not only measured in W/Ls, player development and recruiting (more so in the last 10 years), but alos in how well they handle the media presentations.

:gobears

SFCityBear said:

---

In his post-game presser, Cal coach Wyking Jones said this:

"UCLA is a talented team. They shoot the ball at all five positions. We pressed them, and they took the shot we wanted them to take issue is, they made them. Your five man, your four man shooting three's against the press we want that, the odds are in our favor in situations like that. Unfortunately, they made those shots and I think that was the difference in the game."

In over 60 years of watching basketball and listening to coaches, this is probably the strangest statement I ever heard from a basketball coach.

I may be old-fashioned, but my coaches never told me the objective of a press was to give the other team a shot, any kind of shot. They taught me that objective of the press was to keep the ball from getting over the half-court line, either by stealing it, causing a turnover, or getting a 10 second violation called on the opponent. In any case you get the ball. The ultimate objective is to steal the ball and convert it into a score for yourself. There are secondary objectives, like forcing the opponent to use up clock, or don't make it easy to start his offense, or get his guards tired out, and so on, but in no case was the object to give him a certain kind of shot. Hell, the objective was to keep him from getting a shot. Any kind of shot.

I've seen the great presses, Newell's, Wooden's, the Razorback press and more. I never saw a press that had an objective that had anything to do with letting the other team shoot a shot and have a chance to score. The objective is to give them no shot, no chance to score, isn't it? Have basketball rules and players and coaches changed so much since my day that now we plan for our press to fail to cause a turnover and we plan more for what happens after our press has failed than we plan to execute our press in the first place?

This kind of thinking goes against a player's basketball instincts. For example, if Jason Kidd is pressing a guard in the backcourt, is he thinking about letting this guy dribble over the line, or letting him pass the ball down the floor? Heck no. Jason Kidd is thinking about two things: stealing the ball from that guard, or forcing him into a turnover, or not letting him get the ball over that half court line. That is it. If Kidd fails to stop the guard, then he is thinking only about quickly recovering and getting back into position on defense.

To me, if this is the objective of our press, to give certain opponent players an open shot, it is defeatist thinking, expecting to fail, so why bother pressing in the first place?

---

First, your characterization and what he said are not at all the same. Second, not all presses are designed to create steals. Some are intended mostly to force time off the clock and disrupt the offense's ability to get into the set or play they want to run, or to force pace and quicker shots. And you might have noticed we aren't the greatest half court offensive team in the world, so forcing quick shots off a scattered set plays into break opportunities if they miss. Finally, the object of DEFENSE is, among other things, to force the offense into shots that are not the most efficient for them. You might say the object of defense is to stop the offense from scoring, but in reality you want to take away strengths, force less efficient shooting, and work the odds. That's not at all the part I found strange. What I find strange is the idea that you want their five shooting, since Welch is a very good shooter. If that was a guy like Roberson who we used to leave open under Montgomery, of course you do it. He couldn't shoot from outside. Welch can. On the other hand, as Wyking noted, all five guys on the court for them could shoot so pick your poison I guess.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

SFCB - I share your thoughts on this. I'm taking a long view about what's going on with the team and willing to take some short-term learning lumps with the zone if it's part of a well-considered long term plan. But that comment floored me too. I can understand wantIng to edge in and be willing to give up more threes. But: 1) it wasn't just their bigs taking 3's. The wings/guards took 19 of them. 2). Even if you want us to force teams to hit 3's, that doesn't mean not having a defender within 5 feet of the shooter and 3). UCLA is the last team where you want to "force" bigs to be taking 3's with Welsh at 42%, Golomon at 38% and Olesinski admittedly at 30%.

Just a thoroughly bizarre comment about the strategy but also a troubling assessment of what actually happened. Hope Wyking reconsiders those sentiments after watching the film and takes it as a learning opportunity. Long way to go and still time to learn, evolve and improve.

---

Two different things imo. Shooters weren't only open while we pressed. Without the press our defense was getting sliced and diced in the half court and UCLA was getting the shots they wanted. Our perimeter guys couldn't stop penetration, our bigs rotated slowly too often, and once that happens you're going to have open threes or dunks.

The press was effective for a stretch in the second half but I think failed because we have no depth or ability to sustain it. Also, note that he said all five guys could shoot. Forcing shots to come from the weakest of the five isn't a bad strategy or strange at all. The problem is they were hitting them. Bottom line, UCLA is way better than Cal.

My concern is way more with the lack of energy and competitiveness in the first half than any particular strategy against a much more talented team. At least they had some fire in the second and made some headway before running out of gas.

bluesaxe said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

In his post-game presser, Cal coach Wyking Jones said this:

"UCLA is a talented team. They shoot the ball at all five positions. We pressed them, and they took the shot we wanted them to take issue is, they made them. Your five man, your four man shooting three's against the press we want that, the odds are in our favor in situations like that. Unfortunately, they made those shots and I think that was the difference in the game."

In over 60 years of watching basketball and listening to coaches, this is probably the strangest statement I ever heard from a basketball coach.

I may be old-fashioned, but my coaches never told me the objective of a press was to give the other team a shot, any kind of shot. They taught me that objective of the press was to keep the ball from getting over the half-court line, either by stealing it, causing a turnover, or getting a 10 second violation called on the opponent. In any case you get the ball. The ultimate objective is to steal the ball and convert it into a score for yourself. There are secondary objectives, like forcing the opponent to use up clock, or don't make it easy to start his offense, or get his guards tired out, and so on, but in no case was the object to give him a certain kind of shot. Hell, the objective was to keep him from getting a shot. Any kind of shot.

I've seen the great presses, Newell's, Wooden's, the Razorback press and more. I never saw a press that had an objective that had anything to do with letting the other team shoot a shot and have a chance to score. The objective is to give them no shot, no chance to score, isn't it? Have basketball rules and players and coaches changed so much since my day that now we plan for our press to fail to cause a turnover and we plan more for what happens after our press has failed than we plan to execute our press in the first place?

This kind of thinking goes against a player's basketball instincts. For example, if Jason Kidd is pressing a guard in the backcourt, is he thinking about letting this guy dribble over the line, or letting him pass the ball down the floor? Heck no. Jason Kidd is thinking about two things: stealing the ball from that guard, or forcing him into a turnover, or not letting him get the ball over that half court line. That is it. If Kidd fails to stop the guard, then he is thinking only about quickly recovering and getting back into position on defense.

To me, if this is the objective of our press, to give certain opponent players an open shot, it is defeatist thinking, expecting to fail, so why bother pressing in the first place?

---

First, your characterization and what he said are not at all the same. Second, not all presses are designed to create steals. Some are intended mostly to force time off the clock and disrupt the offense's ability to get into the set or play they want to run, or to force pace and quicker shots. Yes, basketball is different than when you played. Finally, the object of DEFENSE is, among other things, to force the offense into shots that are not the most efficient for them. You might say the object of defense is to stop the offense from scoring, but in reality you want to take away strengths, force less efficient shooting, and work the odds. That's not at all the part I found strange. What I find strange is the idea that you want their five shooting, since Welch is a very good shooter. If that was a guy like Roberson who we used to leave open under Montgomery, of course you do it. He couldn't shoot from outside. Welch can.

---

This. Montgomery was a master at forcing the opposition into low percentage shots (e.g., he'd get a right-handed post player to go over his right shoulder instead of his left), and you can argue that 3's from your 4 or 5 are low percentage. Imagine if the defense against Cal gave Okoroh and Lee wide open 3's! The problem is: their 4 and 5 players were too wide open (having enough time to read the writing on the ball) and making the shots. Once it became clear, the defense should have changed.

ucla has a lot more talent then we do. usc has a lot more talent then we do. we need better players. we need athletes who can put the ball in the hole.

Monty is a great coach and I like listening to him to learn. Now I even record the games when I attend them

He always also says something funny ... one of the things he's said a few times is his story about telling some of his players ... "there is a reason you are open"

UrsaMajor said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

In his post-game presser, Cal coach Wyking Jones said this:

"UCLA is a talented team. They shoot the ball at all five positions. We pressed them, and they took the shot we wanted them to take issue is, they made them. Your five man, your four man shooting three's against the press we want that, the odds are in our favor in situations like that. Unfortunately, they made those shots and I think that was the difference in the game."

In over 60 years of watching basketball and listening to coaches, this is probably the strangest statement I ever heard from a basketball coach.

I may be old-fashioned, but my coaches never told me the objective of a press was to give the other team a shot, any kind of shot. They taught me that objective of the press was to keep the ball from getting over the half-court line, either by stealing it, causing a turnover, or getting a 10 second violation called on the opponent. In any case you get the ball. The ultimate objective is to steal the ball and convert it into a score for yourself. There are secondary objectives, like forcing the opponent to use up clock, or don't make it easy to start his offense, or get his guards tired out, and so on, but in no case was the object to give him a certain kind of shot. Hell, the objective was to keep him from getting a shot. Any kind of shot.

I've seen the great presses, Newell's, Wooden's, the Razorback press and more. I never saw a press that had an objective that had anything to do with letting the other team shoot a shot and have a chance to score. The objective is to give them no shot, no chance to score, isn't it? Have basketball rules and players and coaches changed so much since my day that now we plan for our press to fail to cause a turnover and we plan more for what happens after our press has failed than we plan to execute our press in the first place?

This kind of thinking goes against a player's basketball instincts. For example, if Jason Kidd is pressing a guard in the backcourt, is he thinking about letting this guy dribble over the line, or letting him pass the ball down the floor? Heck no. Jason Kidd is thinking about two things: stealing the ball from that guard, or forcing him into a turnover, or not letting him get the ball over that half court line. That is it. If Kidd fails to stop the guard, then he is thinking only about quickly recovering and getting back into position on defense.

To me, if this is the objective of our press, to give certain opponent players an open shot, it is defeatist thinking, expecting to fail, so why bother pressing in the first place?

---

First, your characterization and what he said are not at all the same. Second, not all presses are designed to create steals. Some are intended mostly to force time off the clock and disrupt the offense's ability to get into the set or play they want to run, or to force pace and quicker shots. Yes, basketball is different than when you played. Finally, the object of DEFENSE is, among other things, to force the offense into shots that are not the most efficient for them. You might say the object of defense is to stop the offense from scoring, but in reality you want to take away strengths, force less efficient shooting, and work the odds. That's not at all the part I found strange. What I find strange is the idea that you want their five shooting, since Welch is a very good shooter. If that was a guy like Roberson who we used to leave open under Montgomery, of course you do it. He couldn't shoot from outside. Welch can.

---

This. Montgomery was a master at forcing the opposition into low percentage shots (e.g., he'd get a right-handed post player to go over his right shoulder instead of his left), and you can argue that 3's from your 4 or 5 are low percentage. Imagine if the defense against Cal gave Okoroh and Lee wide open 3's! The problem is: their 4 and 5 players were too wide open (having enough time to read the writing on the ball) and making the shots. Once it became clear, the defense should have changed.

---

the issue isn't whether the goal of his press is turnovers or something else (there are other legitimate uses of a press). The issue is that his goal was to give up wide open corner 3s to solid shooters. What matters isn't their position, it's what percent they're going to shoot on that shot. If you're playing against Ryan Anderson and AJ Diggs then you give the pg the open jumpers and sell out against the 4. If Diggs hits 3s then its just not your day.

bluesaxe said:

---

First, your characterization and what he said are not at all the same.

---

I usually respect your posts, but this time, I really have to respectfully disagree with all of it. First, I did not CHARACTERIZE what Wyking Jones said. I QUOTED what he said, exactly and verbatim.

Quote:

---

Second, not all presses are designed to create steals.

---

I never said that. I wrote that my coaches "taught me that the objective of the press was to keep the ball from getting over the half-court line, either by stealing it, causing a turnover, or getting a 10 second violation called on the opponent." Not only just steal the ball. And a big part of Wyking Jones' press is the trap. Isn't the purpose of a trap in a press to get steals or cause a turnover, at least for most coaches? When they are trapping, I don't believe defenders are thinking about who gets a shot at the other end of the court.

Quote:

---

Some are intended mostly to force time off the clock and disrupt the offense's ability to get into the set or play they want to run, or to force pace and quicker shots.

---

I basically said that, didn't I? I wrote this: "There are secondary objectives, like forcing the opponent to use up clock, or don't make it easy to start his offense, or get his guards tired out, and so on,"

Quote:

---

And you might have noticed we aren't the greatest half court offensive team in the world, so forcing quick shots off a scattered set plays into break opportunities if they miss.

---

????? We want to give the other team more shots because we don't have a great half-court offense? If you design your press to give opponents shots you want him to take, and I design my press to try and keep him from getting the ball into the frontcourt, then your press is giving him more shots than mine would, even if I stop him only one time in a game. What Wyking Jones said makes no sense to me.

Quote:

---

Finally, the object of DEFENSE is, among other things, to force the offense into shots that are not the most efficient for them. You might say the object of defense is to stop the offense from scoring, but in reality you want to take away strengths, force less efficient shooting, and work the odds.

---

I was not writing about DEFENSE in general. I was writing about a FULL COURT PRESS, which is one type of defense which Cal often uses, as a supplemental defense to our half court defense. Cal's PRESS is all Wyking Jones was talking about in the statement of his that I quoted.

Quote:

---

That's not at all the part I found strange. What I find strange is the idea that you want their five shooting, since Welch is a very good shooter. If that was a guy like Roberson who we used to leave open under Montgomery, of course you do it. He couldn't shoot from outside. Welch can. On the other hand, as Wyking noted, all five guys on the court for them could shoot so pick your poison I guess.

---

So if all five UCLA guys on the court are good shooters, why would you want to give ANY of them MORE shots, by designing a press to give them shots at the other end? Wouldn't you try and keep all of them from getting shots at the other end as much as physically possible within the rules?

I think you are over analyzing this, reading way too much into it.

The goal of every defense is to make the opposing team take the worst shots possible. The coach is saying their assessment of what worst shot possible for UCLA was Bruin 4's and 5s shooting 3's. That isn't such an outlandish notion. Big people taking long shots is usually going to be a net positive for the defense. Think of it in reverse, how happy would we be if our offense involved a disproportionate number of 3s from Lee and Okoroh? Or to say it yet another way, common coach talk on D would be to never give up layups, to keep the ball away from the other teams primary scorers or to prevent the other team from getting their normal shots. Same thing here.

*Insider premium content*

Wyking clarified today at the presser about his creative D: "We are trying to funnel our opponents into a path for a dunk. The reason being, when the path is clear one is easily susceptible to rush and then be hung on the rim. When the ball bounces off the front of the rim forcefully, there is no easier fast break started for us than that. We have not perfected this D, and it may require Jordan Brown and my type of guys to fully install it, but it will get done. Sometimes getting posterized like against that SC guy is a small price to pay for sustained development."

boredom said:

---

the issue isn't whether the goal of his press is turnovers or something else (there are other legitimate uses of a press). The issue is that his goal was to give up wide open corner 3s to solid shooters. What matters isn't their position, it's what percent they're going to shoot on that shot. If you're playing against Ryan Anderson and AJ Diggs then you give the pg the open jumpers and sell out against the 4. If Diggs hits 3s then its just not your day.

---

Disagree completely. The issue is the objective of Jones' press. It is designed to fail. It is designed to permit the opponent to get the ball across the half-court line against a mismatch in his favor. A mismatch that Jones' press creates by taking risks in the first place in trapping and leaving a man free. It takes risks only to give a certain opposing player or two a shot at your basket, a chance to score against you. And if you don't play Jones' press well, that shooter at the other end will often be wide open for his shot. Even poor shooters can make a better percentage of their shots when they are left wide open. You can read my response to BluesAxe for more detail.

I would also remind you and BluesAxe that when Wyking Jones was hired for this job, he stated several times that Cal was going to press and the objective was to get steals and turnovers and create offense for Cal and increase the tempo to get some easy baskets. He was talking so often about deflections, in the press and in the half-court defense, and for a while at least was keeping track of how many deflections Cal players got. Apparently he has changed his mind, willing to accept a far less effective objective for his press now, allowing certain lower percentage shooters to get shots at the other end of the court. I believe this is called lowered expectations. I call it a recipe for losing.

We all know that the press requires a lot of energy and stamina, and that usually means you need more depth. If all Jones' current objective is to give the weak shooters shots, then why not give them those shots in the half-court defense, and not press at all, to conserve energy, since we have very little depth on the bench?

And if we are picking teams for this press of ours, I'd want Diggs as my point guard. That way, Cal wouldn't have to trap in full court press. Diggs could steal a ball from just about anyone, or cause a turnover all by himself. Too bad AJ is a little long in the tooth and has no eligibility left. And I would like Anderson as well, not so much for a press, but for everything else we don't do too well.

SFCityBear said:

---

boredom said:

---

the issue isn't whether the goal of his press is turnovers or something else (there are other legitimate uses of a press). The issue is that his goal was to give up wide open corner 3s to solid shooters. What matters isn't their position, it's what percent they're going to shoot on that shot. If you're playing against Ryan Anderson and AJ Diggs then you give the pg the open jumpers and sell out against the 4. If Diggs hits 3s then its just not your day.

---

Disagree completely. The issue is the objective of Jones' press. It is designed to fail. It is designed to permit the opponent to get the ball across the half-court line against a mismatch in his favor. A mismatch that Jones' press creates by taking risks in the first place in trapping and leaving a man free. It takes risks only to give a certain opposing player or two a shot at your basket, a chance to score against you. And if you don't play Jones' press well, that shooter at the other end will often be wide open for his shot. Even poor shooters can make a better percentage of their shots when they are left wide open. You can read my response to BluesAxe for more detail.

I would also remind you and BluesAxe that when Wyking Jones was hired for this job, he stated several times that Cal was going to press and the objective was to get steals and turnovers and create offense for Cal and increase the tempo to get some easy baskets. He was talking so often about deflections, in the press and in the half-court defense, and for a while at least was keeping track of how many deflections Cal players got. Apparently he has changed his mind, willing to accept a far less effective objective for his press now, allowing certain lower percentage shooters to get shots at the other end of the court. I believe this is called lowered expectations. I call it a recipe for losing.

We all know that the press requires a lot of energy and stamina, and that usually means you need more depth. If all Jones' current objective is to give the weak shooters shots, then why not give them those shots in the half-court defense, and not press at all, to conserve energy, since we have very little depth on the bench?

And if we are picking teams for this press of ours, I'd want Diggs as my point guard. That way, Cal wouldn't have to trap in full court press. Diggs could steal a ball from just about anyone, or cause a turnover all by himself. Too bad AJ is a little long in the tooth and has no eligibility left. And I would like Anderson as well, not so much for a press, but for everything else we don't do too well.

---

Whoa, SFCity. I agree fully that Jones' press doesn't work and that it does not appear to be designed well. HOWEVER, the two sentences highlighted together suggest that you think his intention is to fail (what--he's betting against his team??). Objective in this context means purpose or goal. Please tell me that you don't really mean that.

This is just another version of the debate over whether Jones can coach or not. So far it's problematic, but let's wait and see if the defense improves as the season moves along. It's not like we had so many more attractive options. Bennett turned us down, we weren't going to take Musselman or Pasternack. Russell Turner, who many thought we should pursue, is having a worse season than Jones (6-12 to date), albeit with a tougher non-conference schedule, I think.

tequila4kapp said:

---

I think you are over analyzing this, reading way too much into it.

The goal of every defense is to make the opposing team take the worst shots possible. The coach is saying their assessment of what worst shot possible for UCLA was Bruin 4's and 5s shooting 3's. That isn't such an outlandish notion. Big people taking long shots is usually going to be a net positive for the defense. Think of it in reverse, how happy would we be if our offense involved a disproportionate number of 3s from Lee and Okoroh? Or to say it yet another way, common coach talk on D would be to never give up layups, to keep the ball away from the other teams primary scorers or to prevent the other team from getting their normal shots. Same thing here.

---

What you, BluesAxe, and boredom are talking about is the general term "defense," or half-court defense, which is defense from the 3-point line in to the basket itself. I will reiterate: Jones spoke about, and I wrote about, was PRESS DEFENSE, not DEFENSE in general. It is defense played primarily in the backcourt after a basket or a free throw is made. Back in the day a "press defense" was called a "pressure defense." In the context of general defense, I can't disagree with anything any of you have said. It is always a good idea defensively to encourage a team to pass the ball to their poorest shooters, often leaving them open.

Pressing or pressure defenses are different. Here is what Pete Newell had to say: "The purpose of most press defenses is to disrupt the pattern of the opponents' game, to force him to make mistakes, and to create turnovers. Some coaches extend this philosophy to simply forcing the other team to play a tempo of game it is not used to playing." Basketball, the Sports Playbook with Dan Berger, 1976

Bob Cousy, talking about general team defense says, "The primary purpose of a team's defense is to limit the opponent's scoring opportunities, preventing them from using a fast-break or pre-designed offensive patterns by disrupting their continuity and efficiency." He also says this, "A coach must insist that his players never allow the offensive team to advance the ball to their point of attack without strong defensive pressure." Regarding a press or pressure defense, he says this, "Its purpose is to force misplays or bad passes by the opponents, taking advantage of the 10 second rule and overplay tactics." Basketball Concepts and Techniques, with Frank Power, 1970

Cousy also says this, "An all out press is demanded when the situation requires forcing opponents in order to gain possession of the ball." In 1970, he wrote about the improved shooting percentages in the game, but the quality of ball-handling is decreasing, He said, "therefore pressure defense can counteract the improved shooting by increasing the number of losses-of-possession by the offensive team."

Cal should be trying to get possession of the ball, starting in the first half, when they usually are falling way behind. They need the ball, and they need to provide the opponent with fewer opportunities to take shots. Unfortunately, their press is ineffective. How many steals or turnovers do they get? How many times this season have they forced a team into a 10 second violation? How many times have they gotten an easy basket off the press? If such stats were kept, they would be near the bottom, I'd guess.

SFCB - Not specific to turnovers caused by the press but opponents have turned it over 212 times which puts us 205th in the nation in forcing turnovers.

Offensively, it's been a rough go wit turnovers. We've turned it over 247 times, good for 287th fewest in the country.

Jeff82 said:

---

This is just another version of the debate over whether Jones can coach or not. So far it's problematic, but let's wait and see if the defense improves as the season moves along. It's not like we had so many more attractive options. Bennett turned us down, we weren't going to take Musselman or Pasternack. Russell Turner, who many thought we should pursue, is having a worse season than Jones (6-12 to date), albeit with a tougher non-conference schedule, I think.

---

I think this is complete nonsense. WJ was the number four assistant of a poorly coached team. Cal could have hired the top assistant for almost any well-coached college team and they would be better. Or a mid-major head coach. I would have gone another direction and hired an NBA assistant. Such a coach could argue that they what it takes to get a player into the league.

WJ is an only at Cal type of hire.

Sluggo

KoreAmBear said:

---

*Insider premium content*

Wyking clarified today at the presser about his creative D: "We are trying to funnel our opponents into a path for a dunk. The reason being, when the path is clear one is easily susceptible to rush and then be hung on the rim. When the ball bounces off the front of the rim forcefully, there is no easier fast break started for us than that. We have not perfected this D, and it may require Jordan Brown and my type of guys to fully install it, but it will get done. Sometimes getting posterized like against that SC guy is a small price to pay for sustained development."

---

Wow. Tell me you are just pulling my leg with this. There is no harder rebound to anticipate than the one where the ball caroms off the rim forcefully. And Cal is going to somehow get all or most of those long rebounds?

The fact that we are spending any time on this is troubling. And if we are designing this defense for use with players who won't be here until next season, and Brown, who is not even locked in for Cal sounds like fantasy. And if Cal does perfect this defense, coaches will see it on film, and do things like have the shooter take a layup or floater instead.of a dunk, and all Cal's rebounders will be out of position looking for the long rebound. And this defense isn't going to stop the highlight dunkers like someone who is as good at dunking as Jaylen Brown. Ayton would feast on this defense for dinner.

Please say it isn't true. I sincerely want this coach to succeed, but every week now, it seems I'm inching closer to agreeing with Tsubamoto on this coach, something I really don't want to do.

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

boredom said:

---

the issue isn't whether the goal of his press is turnovers or something else (there are other legitimate uses of a press). The issue is that his goal was to give up wide open corner 3s to solid shooters. What matters isn't their position, it's what percent they're going to shoot on that shot. If you're playing against Ryan Anderson and AJ Diggs then you give the pg the open jumpers and sell out against the 4. If Diggs hits 3s then its just not your day.

---

Disagree completely. The issue is the objective of Jones' press. It is designed to fail. It is designed to permit the opponent to get the ball across the half-court line against a mismatch in his favor. A mismatch that Jones' press creates by taking risks in the first place in trapping and leaving a man free. It takes risks only to give a certain opposing player or two a shot at your basket, a chance to score against you. And if you don't play Jones' press well, that shooter at the other end will often be wide open for his shot. Even poor shooters can make a better percentage of their shots when they are left wide open. You can read my response to BluesAxe for more detail.

I would also remind you and BluesAxe that when Wyking Jones was hired for this job, he stated several times that Cal was going to press and the objective was to get steals and turnovers and create offense for Cal and increase the tempo to get some easy baskets. He was talking so often about deflections, in the press and in the half-court defense, and for a while at least was keeping track of how many deflections Cal players got. Apparently he has changed his mind, willing to accept a far less effective objective for his press now, allowing certain lower percentage shooters to get shots at the other end of the court. I believe this is called lowered expectations. I call it a recipe for losing.

We all know that the press requires a lot of energy and stamina, and that usually means you need more depth. If all Jones' current objective is to give the weak shooters shots, then why not give them those shots in the half-court defense, and not press at all, to conserve energy, since we have very little depth on the bench?

And if we are picking teams for this press of ours, I'd want Diggs as my point guard. That way, Cal wouldn't have to trap in full court press. Diggs could steal a ball from just about anyone, or cause a turnover all by himself. Too bad AJ is a little long in the tooth and has no eligibility left. And I would like Anderson as well, not so much for a press, but for everything else we don't do too well.

---

Whoa, SFCity. I agree fully that Jones' press doesn't work and that it does not appear to be designed well. HOWEVER, the two sentences highlighted together suggest that you think his intention is to fail (what--he's betting against his team??). Objective in this context means purpose or goal. Please tell me that you don't really mean that.

---

Poor choice of words, I guess. Should have proofread it. Maybe I could have said "doomed to fail."

I think what has happened may be that Wyking (who is usually good at spotting when something isn't working, and then making an adjustment) observed that his press has not been effective at creating instant offense and easy buckets as he promised before the season. He still wants to keep using the press as much as he can, so he has to think about what to do when the press fails to get a turnover or a steal, and the opponent gets the ball into the frontcourt with a mismatch in their favor, 4-3, 3-2, 2-1, etc,, and he is doing some scheming with his frontcourt defenders to try and leave the weakest shooter open for a shot, and encourage the opponent to pass the ball to that open shooter. So it is now a defense that is trying to plan for what to do following the failure of the press to get possession of the ball, because the ball is now coming over the half-court line and we don't have enough defenders in that half court. That is what I meant.

I would prefer that we spend more practice time on fundamental defense until we get good at that, with some practice on traps and pressing, but I would not press until we had mastered it, or until we are 20 points behind and need to get possession of the ball. I would not spend near as much practice time on offense. Our players seem good enough to score 80 points, even playing in this disorganized offense, and even playing by themselves one-on-one. Their biggest problem is they are giving up 90 and 100 points, and almost no team can win dong that.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

SFCB - Not specific to turnovers caused by the press but opponents have turned it over 212 times which puts us 205th in the nation in forcing turnovers.

Offensively, it's been a rough go wit turnovers. We've turned it over 247 times, good for 287th fewest in the country.

---

Thanks. Not very good either way, is it?

sluggo said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

This is just another version of the debate over whether Jones can coach or not. So far it's problematic, but let's wait and see if the defense improves as the season moves along. It's not like we had so many more attractive options. Bennett turned us down, we weren't going to take Musselman or Pasternack. Russell Turner, who many thought we should pursue, is having a worse season than Jones (6-12 to date), albeit with a tougher non-conference schedule, I think.

---

I think this is complete nonsense. WJ was the number four assistant of a poorly coached team. Cal could have hired the top assistant for almost any well-coached college team and they would be better. Or a mid-major head coach. I would have gone another direction and hired an NBA assistant. Such a coach could argue that they what it takes to get a player into the league.

WJ is an only at Cal type of hire.

Sluggo

---

+1. There is just nothing that Jones has shown this year that gives me hope. Now perhaps he lands an amazing class....but that is still VERY MUCH a question mark. They look poorly coached (the eyeball test). But most worrisome is that he isn't showing confidence in his assessment. After Hawaii I thought he had reached the correct decision that putting both bigs on the court at the same time isn't that great. Yes, I know, we have a BAD match up at the four. But with both of them out there everything stalls. We might as well do a bit less well defensively and not score less than 25 in a half.

KoreAmBear said:

---

*Insider premium content*

Wyking clarified today at the presser about his creative D: "We are trying to funnel our opponents into a path for a dunk. The reason being, when the path is clear one is easily susceptible to rush and then be hung on the rim. When the ball bounces off the front of the rim forcefully, there is no easier fast break started for us than that. We have not perfected this D, and it may require Jordan Brown and my type of guys to fully install it, but it will get done. Sometimes getting posterized like against that SC guy is a small price to pay for sustained development."

---

Seems like a reasonable strategy.

my advice to SFCB ... take a deep breadth

sluggo---was WJ really the #4 assistant?????

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

*Insider premium content*

Wyking clarified today at the presser about his creative D: "We are trying to funnel our opponents into a path for a dunk. The reason being, when the path is clear one is easily susceptible to rush and then be hung on the rim. When the ball bounces off the front of the rim forcefully, there is no easier fast break started for us than that. We have not perfected this D, and it may require Jordan Brown and my type of guys to fully install it, but it will get done. Sometimes getting posterized like against that SC guy is a small price to pay for sustained development."

---

Wow. Tell me you are just pulling my leg with this. There is no harder rebound to anticipate than the one where the ball caroms off the rim forcefully. And Cal is going to somehow get all or most of those long rebounds?

The fact that we are spending any time on this is troubling. And if we are designing this defense for use with players who won't be here until next season, and Brown, who is not even locked in for Cal sounds like fantasy. And if Cal does perfect this defense, coaches will see it on film, and do things like have the shooter take a layup or floater instead.of a dunk, and all Cal's rebounders will be out of position looking for the long rebound. And this defense isn't going to stop the highlight dunkers like someone who is as good at dunking as Jaylen Brown. Ayton would feast on this defense for dinner.

Please say it isn't true. I sincerely want this coach to succeed, but every week now, it seems I'm inching closer to agreeing with Tsubamoto on this coach, something I really don't want to do.

---

Yes, pulling your leg.

I'll give WJ credit for honesty. For those who didn't know what we were getting, you know what we've got. Take it for what it is.

SFCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

boredom said:

---

the issue isn't whether the goal of his press is turnovers or something else (there are other legitimate uses of a press). The issue is that his goal was to give up wide open corner 3s to solid shooters. What matters isn't their position, it's what percent they're going to shoot on that shot. If you're playing against Ryan Anderson and AJ Diggs then you give the pg the open jumpers and sell out against the 4. If Diggs hits 3s then its just not your day.

---

Disagree completely. The issue is the objective of Jones' press. It is designed to fail. It is designed to permit the opponent to get the ball across the half-court line against a mismatch in his favor. A mismatch that Jones' press creates by taking risks in the first place in trapping and leaving a man free. It takes risks only to give a certain opposing player or two a shot at your basket, a chance to score against you. And if you don't play Jones' press well, that shooter at the other end will often be wide open for his shot. Even poor shooters can make a better percentage of their shots when they are left wide open. You can read my response to BluesAxe for more detail.

I would also remind you and BluesAxe that when Wyking Jones was hired for this job, he stated several times that Cal was going to press and the objective was to get steals and turnovers and create offense for Cal and increase the tempo to get some easy baskets. He was talking so often about deflections, in the press and in the half-court defense, and for a while at least was keeping track of how many deflections Cal players got. Apparently he has changed his mind, willing to accept a far less effective objective for his press now, allowing certain lower percentage shooters to get shots at the other end of the court. I believe this is called lowered expectations. I call it a recipe for losing.

We all know that the press requires a lot of energy and stamina, and that usually means you need more depth. If all Jones' current objective is to give the weak shooters shots, then why not give them those shots in the half-court defense, and not press at all, to conserve energy, since we have very little depth on the bench?

And if we are picking teams for this press of ours, I'd want Diggs as my point guard. That way, Cal wouldn't have to trap in full court press. Diggs could steal a ball from just about anyone, or cause a turnover all by himself. Too bad AJ is a little long in the tooth and has no eligibility left. And I would like Anderson as well, not so much for a press, but for everything else we don't do too well.

---

Whoa, SFCity. I agree fully that Jones' press doesn't work and that it does not appear to be designed well. HOWEVER, the two sentences highlighted together suggest that you think his intention is to fail (what--he's betting against his team??). Objective in this context means purpose or goal. Please tell me that you don't really mean that.

---

Poor choice of words, I guess. Should have proofread it. Maybe I could have said "doomed to fail."

I think what has happened may be that Wyking (who is usually good at spotting when something isn't working, and then making an adjustment) observed that his press has not been effective at creating instant offense and easy buckets as he promised before the season. He still wants to keep using the press as much as he can, so he has to think about what to do when the press fails to get a turnover or a steal, and the opponent gets the ball into the frontcourt with a mismatch in their favor, 4-3, 3-2, 2-1, etc,, and he is doing some scheming with his frontcourt defenders to try and leave the weakest shooter open for a shot, and encourage the opponent to pass the ball to that open shooter. So it is now a defense that is trying to plan for what to do following the failure of the press to get possession of the ball, because the ball is now coming over the half-court line and we don't have enough defenders in that half court. That is what I meant.

I would prefer that we spend more practice time on fundamental defense until we get good at that, with some practice on traps and pressing, but I would not press until we had mastered it, or until we are 20 points behind and need to get possession of the ball. I would not spend near as much practice time on offense. Our players seem good enough to score 80 points, even playing in this disorganized offense, and even playing by themselves one-on-one. Their biggest problem is they are giving up 90 and 100 points, and almost no team can win dong that.

---

Absolutely agree. The way the press is done (I don't know if it is by design, or the players are not following the script) too often 4 players trap the ball leaving on big back to defend against 2-3 offensive players who release. It's bad enough to give a 2 on 1 or 3 on 1, but to do so when Okoroh is the 1 and can't move fast enough to cover is a recipe for disaster.

I understand Wyking's wish to perfect the press as well as his implicit decision to treat 17-18 as a year long exhibition season, but I agree that it appears to be putting the cart before the horse--stressing strategy before the fundamentals are solid.