Yes. Offense was horrid at the start. SC was worse but UK could have had way more distance.
Should IQ start!
- Thread starter TortElvisII
- Start date
Yes. Offense was horrid at the start. SC was worse but UK could have had way more distance.
The real question is should EJ and brooks continue to start along with Whitney being the 6th man???
Abd we absolutely got off to a slow start, just lucky usc’s was slower. 6 points in 5 minutes is not setting the world on fire. We should’ve been up double digits at the first tv timeout.
Abd we absolutely got off to a slow start, just lucky usc’s was slower. 6 points in 5 minutes is not setting the world on fire. We should’ve been up double digits at the first tv timeout.
48 point pace is great. I really wonder what people watch.
But he plays a lot of minutes " = Yeah Playin' Catch up !! Or like last night , we could have been up 10-15 with good O , but we werent .
One more thought (trying to read Cal's mind):
If we start 3 point guards, we have no pg to come off the bench.
Weak point, unless (like last night) the Officials call 6 touch fouls on us in 3 minutes.
So rotating those 3 seems reasonable early so we can finish with all 3 late.
If we start 3 point guards, we have no pg to come off the bench.
Weak point, unless (like last night) the Officials call 6 touch fouls on us in 3 minutes.
So rotating those 3 seems reasonable early so we can finish with all 3 late.
I imagine he will. IQ starting probably doesn't change his minutes, but it does help set the tone.
I actually like his scoring off the bench. He checks in after the other team is slightly winded, or they start tapping into their bench, and it gives us a little bit of an edge. We usually go on a mini-run after he checks in.
I also like Cal trying to get Keion going. Kid is going to be a really really good player, and the sooner he gets going, the better.
But when push comes to shove, there's no question Quickley needs to be on the court. I just don't think "starting" him is all that important, and frankly, not "starting" him has its advantages.
My two cents.
I also like Cal trying to get Keion going. Kid is going to be a really really good player, and the sooner he gets going, the better.
But when push comes to shove, there's no question Quickley needs to be on the court. I just don't think "starting" him is all that important, and frankly, not "starting" him has its advantages.
My two cents.
I was against messing with this but last night changed my mind. Imagine if Quickley is in there, hits 2 threes, and we're up 15-0 at the first TV TO instead of just 8-2. UK had a chance to bury that team in the first 5 minutes and instead Brooks is in there clanking everything he throws up. Not even close.
A long, long time ago, I played on a fairly good team, with a pretty good coach.
When we played teams that we were much better than they were, Coach would play his starters until we ran up the score enough to know they were beat, both on the scoreboard and mentally.
Then, Coach would put in the subs and let them throw the ball away, miss shots, take bad shot, double dribble, miss free throws, miss defensive assignments, fail to block out on rebounds.....well, you get the picture.
This is how subs generally play when they get in the game.
A good coach always starts his best 5 players barring injury or illness.
A good coach knows who his best players are by the end of the first few practices, and certainly after the first few games when they have had a chance to perform with the scoreboard on and fans in the seats.
A good coach also knows who he can and can't depend on with the outcome of the game hanging in the balance.
At some point, a good coach has to accept that some players are only safe to play when the game is no longer in doubt.
I believe Cal is a good coach..........hope he comes around to reality sooner rather than later.
The clock is ticking on this team and this season.
I would bet your life we were up on top until the last few minutes of the game. How is that playing catch up?
It’s not working for the team. Automatically taking our most consistent scorer off the floor for the first 4 or 5 minutes is similar to giving the opponent a 5 point head start. He did this crap starting nick every game his freshman year then bam down 11 to kst in ncaa and couldn’t come back from it. You have to start your best 5 when you’re dealing with 6-7 viable players. For the 4 min IQ is on the bench it takes him another 4 to get into the flow. He isn’t the instant impact guy off the bench people will lead you to believe. It takes him a few min to get going. So potentially that’s 8 mins wo IQ and getting him into the flow.
I think it is horseshit those who say it doesn't matter who starts. If you're starting Mark Coury like the drunk BCG did and gives up 10 quick points inside, you burn an unnecessary time out to pull him to get a substitute in. When you play your most trusted 5 that have proven to be the best, get off to a quicker start instead of digging a hole to come from behind.
His ability to make 3s is very good, and if we can find some plays to get him in the flow of hitting. He'll easily make close to half of his attempts, I'd hope considering that he won our 3 point contest, 2 years in a row.
From a moneyball standpoint, it makes sense to backload Quickley's minutes to the ends of each half since that's the time both teams will be in the bonus...and having your best FT shooters on the floor theoretically maximizes your overall point totals. Let Brooks and EJ get fouled early and it's an out of bounds play instead of a bricked one and one.
I agree he should start the second half...which he does sometimes. Those first 5 minutes of the second half usually are critical.
I agree he should start the second half...which he does sometimes. Those first 5 minutes of the second half usually are critical.
IMO
Were not very deep thus IQ off the bench to BEGIN the game.
He gets plenty of minutes that reflect starter time. He will be on the floor at the end of games.
I can understand why he doesnt start. Unfortunately its more a reflection on our depth than IQ’s game.
Were not very deep thus IQ off the bench to BEGIN the game.
He gets plenty of minutes that reflect starter time. He will be on the floor at the end of games.
I can understand why he doesnt start. Unfortunately its more a reflection on our depth than IQ’s game.
Last edited:
This is not division 6 high school basketball. College basketball is way more complex. There is a huge mental game going on. I’d like to think guys like brooks and Whitney are going to be studs once they adjust to the college game. That is why they are playing. They have to develop into legitimate players for us to contend. Whoever the starter is, is largely irrelevant. Maybe Cal likes to buy a few minutes with the freshman playing to see if they can get going to start the game.
BS. Instead of spouting off with nothing of substance, give your reasoning as to why the best lineup should not start each game. Especially taking into consideration we start every single game very slow out of the gate and generally have 5 turnovers within the first 5 minutes.
Step up and make an appealing counter to the OP or STFU. All I have seen from you is pissing on others opinions.
first 7 possessions resulted in 6 points and 3 turnovers. Turning the ball over 3 of your first 7 possessions is not exactly a stellar start and it has also gotten very common. We do it every game.
I understand what Cal is trying to do with Whitney and Brooks, but this team has reached a point in this season where it can't be at the expense of losing to a horrible SEC team on the road.
And make no mistake, USC is a horrible team this year. Cal obviously thought he could experiment early and still win the game. This game was lost in the first 8 minutes of the first half.
There are plenty of minutes in the game that can be given to these underdeveloped freshmen without giving them starter minutes.
And if you think it doesn't matter when IQ or any player gets their minutes as long as they get them, you probably never played the game. We had an opportunity to put USC away early last night and did not do it because we had out top shooter on the bench playing behind two freshmen that are simply not ready to play meaningful minutes at this level.
Cal needs to be up front with both players and their parents/handlers. Neither of these players are going to be NBA draft picks this year if Cal plays them 40 minutes a game. And it is certainly not going to help anyone get there playing as a 7/8 seed in the tournament without a chance of advancing.
Time to put the team first.
exactly!!!!
So the best option (don’t care or doesn’t matter) wasn’t a choice. What matters most is minutes!!! 2nd most is who finishes the game.
I strongly disagree with this! He played 34 min, that’s about all a kid can go with maximum intensity. Finishing the game is more important than starting it, unless you starting it improves our chances of getting the jump ball.
A bigger problem was benching guys with fouls. Richards was on his way to a great game until that 2nd foul and being benched for so long. Totally got him out of his grove. Same thing with Hagans late in the game. You should want maximum minutes out of your best players. That is not 24 from Nick.
My point is those 34 minutes IQ played could have included the first 8 minutes of the game which could have made a difference between winning and losing.
Your best players should be starters. IQ is one of our best players. He should be starting and finishing games. Not that hard to figure out.
Give him a minute out before each tv timeout to rest him beginning at the 12 minute time out.
It is not rocket science. Cal just wants you to believe it is.
I feel bad for EJ. Maybe he's given up at this point? Looking at what's coming in next season, team struggling, he's getting pushed around out there.
If he starts then he will be on the bench for 6 minutes later in the game that me be equally if not more important. “Starting” is something that everyone views as important but there is really no proof that if matter or affects a game just what we have been taught matters. Minutes played matter way more how much you affect a game as opposed to who starts.
If he plays 34 minutes I’m not sure it really matters. The unfortunate reality is that this is just a flawed basketball team. It’s not a bad team by any stretch of the imagination, a lot of schools would love to have it. But if your goal is a national championship then there are flaws that are probably just going to be too much to overcome.
I mean--IQ played plenty of minutes. He was effective.
We started fine, we finished poorly.
Whether you like it or not, we have to get minutes out of someone else (Whitney, Brooks, Juzang). If letting them start keeps their confidence up--why not?
Quickley came off the bench vs Georgia and it worked fine.
We started fine, we finished poorly.
Whether you like it or not, we have to get minutes out of someone else (Whitney, Brooks, Juzang). If letting them start keeps their confidence up--why not?
Quickley came off the bench vs Georgia and it worked fine.