"What happened to UCLA?" | The Boneyard

"What happened to UCLA?"

.-.
Make sure you click the embedded post game analysis video at the bottom of the article. Very informative.
 
.-.
calpedaler said:
UConn happened.
Expand ...

I came away more impressed with the Bruins than I was before the game. I can see how they beat Baylor. UConn was just too much for them, but they are going to be a real tough out for anyone on their schedule this year. They have some very talented players that can put the ball in the basket.
 
bags27 said:
“It’s really fun, especially being in someone else’s home and having the crowd against you,” said Huskies guard Collier. “To go on scoring runs and silence the crowd was really fun.”
Expand ...

"And coming out of my offensive funk!'
 
I have to say that UCLA is certainly a better basketball team than either Stanford or Cal. While I haven't seen Oregon yet, I have to believe that the Bruins should be the favorites to win the PAC12 with a good possibility to make it to the FF.
 
Plebe said:
This was something I hadn't realized till I read this article: ZERO transition points for UCLA. Probably the single most astounding stat from the game. As Geno says, that is a huge part of their identity and production.
Expand ...
Way back when in the less than dark days of Geno realm : he spoke of getting his players to run down the floor immediately, while the opponents were celebrating making a basket and scoring. He too spoke of quickly getting down the floor before the defense was set: it would appear the UCLA 's coach watched all of the CPTV Geno 's shows. Imitation is the---you know.
 
oldude said:
I have to say that UCLA is certainly a better basketball team than either Stanford or Cal. While I haven't seen Oregon yet, I have to believe that the Bruins should be the favorites to win the PAC12 with a good possibility to make it to the FF.
Expand ...
You are correct. Since you are more of an expert than I: wouldn't you expect Stanford to be a much better team by April?
I wish uconn had a Connecticut St university to confuse people from states with STATE teams and much as I am with say: Oregon/Oregon St. All Ct has is east ,, west, Central--as last I looked, admitted a long time ago.
 
.-.
BroadwayVa said:
You are correct. Since you are more of an expert than I: wouldn't you expect Stanford to be a much better team by April?
I wish uconn had a Connecticut St university to confuse people from states with STATE teams and much as I am with say: Oregon/Oregon St. All Ct has is east ,, west, Central--as last I looked, admitted a long time ago.
Expand ...
Yes, Tara will coach her team up, and they will be better come tournament time, but UCLA was really impressive last night. They were just not good enough to hang with the Huskies, but then again who is?
 
oldude said:
I have to say that UCLA is certainly a better basketball team than either Stanford or Cal. While I haven't seen Oregon yet, I have to believe that the Bruins should be the favorites to win the PAC12 with a good possibility to make it to the FF.
Expand ...
Based on the few games played so far, UCLA and Oregon look to be the two co-favorites. Oregon State could be in the mix as well. I'm still not sleeping on Stanford, though. I've learned the hard way not to count Tara out. They'll be a much better team by February than they are now.
 
Scoop said:
I came away more impressed with the Bruins than I was before the game. I can see how they beat Baylor. UConn was just too much for them, but they are going to be a real tough out for anyone on their schedule this year. They have some very talented players that can put the ball in the basket.
Expand ...
So far, as I said before the game, they appear to me to be the 2nd best team in WCBB.
 
Plebe said:
Based on the few games played so far, UCLA and Oregon look to be the two co-favorites. Oregon State could be in the mix as well. I'm still not sleeping on Stanford, though. I've learned the hard way not to count Tara out. They'll be a much better team by February than they are now.
Expand ...
Oregon did not look nearly as good as UCLA in the game they lost. Ionescu was neutralized most of the game but their center played. UCLA had a great opportunity to beat two top five teams but could not do it. I say great opportunity because Baylor and Uconn were missing a starter who is an impact player. If Cox had played, there is a good chance Baylor would have won. UCLA's guards were too quick for Baylor and without Cox, Baylor did not have enough rebounding or scoring options.
 
.-.
dtbtbtb said:
After this game (and their win against Baylor) is there anyone who will be shocked if UCLA gets to the final 4
Expand ...
If UCLA makes a few more outside shots, different game. UConn, Danger in particular, pushed them outside of their comfort zone. Put a strong rebounder on this team and they would make case for one of top 3 in US.
 
donalddoowop said:
The major news outlets gives Uconn more credit for the way they beat UCLA than some posters on the Boneyard. Most outlets did not mention any negative things about the way Uconn played.
Expand ...

Their oversight happened for a reason, the absence of negative things by UCONN. Did you not watch the game?
 
Plebe said:
Based on the few games played so far, UCLA and Oregon look to be the two co-favorites. Oregon State could be in the mix as well. I'm still not sleeping on Stanford, though. I've learned the hard way not to count Tara out. They'll be a much better team by February than they are now.
Expand ...

UCLA will clean Oregon's clock. UCLA stands alone as the PAC12 favorite.
 
Where do I start. I was hoping for so much more. It's not happening and I want to start with this years team compared to last years team. Last years team IMO was better and that is totally due to outside shooting. How can we compete at the top without any shooters? Teams that can scout now know we don't have any and if we cannot fast break, what do we have.

My next concern is defense. Are you kidding me, how many times were we beat down the floor, giving up lay ups which wasn't due to a lack of athleticism, it was because of poor transition defense, a lack of communication and a lack of heart. The PAC will be another slug fest as I don't currently see a team including us who can simply walk in the gym and expect a win if they can execute their game plan. It seems to be the same old complaint and we were all hoping this was our year but unless Close finds some kind of consistency from the outside it's not happening.

The most disappointing part for me personally was the missed opportunity against Uconn. I did not think you looked like the usual Uconn team on the offensive end which was expected. Even defensively, there were players we could have exploited, particularly on some of the lack of help side defense. That is coaching and some of our players not wanting the ball. Sure Uconn does that but if you can't take advantage now, no-one is going to have a snowballs chance when you are back at full strength.
 
wallman said:
Where do I start. I was hoping for so much more. It's not happening and I want to start with this years team compared to last years team. Last years team IMO was better and that is totally due to outside shooting. How can we compete at the top without any shooters? Teams that can scout now know we don't have any and if we cannot fast break, what do we have.

My next concern is defense. Are you kidding me, how many times were we beat down the floor, giving up lay ups which wasn't due to a lack of athleticism, it was because of poor transition defense, a lack of communication and a lack of heart. The PAC will be another slug fest as I don't currently see a team including us who can simply walk in the gym and expect a win if they can execute their game plan. It seems to be the same old complaint and we were all hoping this was our year but unless Close finds some kind of consistency from the outside it's not happening.

The most disappointing part for me personally was the missed opportunity against Uconn. I did not think you looked like the usual Uconn team on the offensive end which was expected. Even defensively, there were players we could have exploited, particularly on some of the lack of help side defense. That is coaching and some of our players not wanting the ball. Sure Uconn does that but if you can't take advantage now, no-one is going to have a snowballs chance when you are back at full strength.
Expand ...
I have to say, I think you’re being a little hard on your Bruins. They faced a much better Husky team that’s playing a lot faster and much tougher on defense than last year, even without Lou on the court. I don’t think there’s another team in the PAC12 that can match up with UCLA.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,566
Messages
4,583,277
Members
10,493
Latest member
Mwil1032


Top Bottom