UCLA played within their means. There isn’t a star player on the team. That means that any night is an opportunity for any player like juzang to have his one night. The problem with this is that there is never a go to guy to take over.
The bigs both completely disappeared and Stanford absolutely destroyed UCLA in the paint. That’s how Sta…
UCLA played within their means. There isn’t a star player on the team. That means that any night is an opportunity for any player like juzang to have his one night. The problem with this is that there is never a go to guy to take over.
The bigs both completely disappeared and Stanford absolutely destroyed UCLA in the paint. That’s how Stanford won.
I’m actually not disappointed because I love watching this team as compared with the old guy in charge. There is always a chance to win.
I’m also not disappointed because I know UCLA is never winning a championship with this team. Defensive efficiency is so bad and they will get bounced in the tourney. You need a star on the team and UCLA just doesn’t have one. I have to hope that future years will bring a star because without one there really isn’t any hope of winning a natty again. Go bruins, play hard, keep rebuilding and hope that next year brings a player that can win a natty... until then, who cares
and just for clarification, I don’t say who cares as a swipe. I just say that because I can’t get wrapped up as much as I used to when my expectations for this team have already been exceeded. Prior teams had multiple players getting drafted in the first round and expectations of a great season. This team has zero nba draft caliber players as far as I’m concerned, and you typically need at least two draft worthy players to be in the natty conversation. UCLA hasn’t had that. I hope mick can change that soon because all the coaching ability in the world doesn’t win a championship. You need some real nba level players to join the conversation IMO
Agree....Bruins are 10-11 deep with good college players playing in a weak Pac-12. Mick can squeeze more out of this team but not without suffering a MI.
Nobody was saying this when we were 8-0 in conference. It's one game and we lost our first conference game to a really good Stanford team on the road. Everyone knew this was going to be a tough game. We showed a lot of fight coming back from multiple deficits. Yes the last 0.8 second is inexcusable, but this team is on the right track.
On the record, I was saying this in the Buzzer Beater once Chris Smith went down. Specifically, I pointed out that the loss of Smith meant the Bruins didn't have a go-to player and would instead be relying on guys who fit more into the role-player model. Then in this most recent Buzzer Beater, I stated that UCLA was going to top out as a team with little margin for error because it had a roster of flawed players.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing. I do think it limits the ceiling on this team considerably but not in a way that can limit growth in future seasons.
This sort of game was inevitable. Even though we have become more confident that this team and this coach will find ways to pull out games much more often than not, we have all still been sort of cringing at the end of games lately. It sucks it finally happened, but you can't keep cutting things that close without it finally going wrong at some point.
So hopefully, this was a needed wakeup for these guys, and I'm hoping that the reaction by Bernard after the layup (where he slammed the ball into the floor) speaks for the sudden awareness and frustration that comes from their overall sloppiness and inconsistency. If that brain lock with 0.8 seconds is what it takes to get these guys to come out with a drive to kill from the initial jump ball going forward, then, good.
Yes, despite of losing, this was fun and real B-ball to watch, East Coast gritty. I like the return of Bruin defense. Now about giving up all of those three pointers...
UCLA played within their means. There isn’t a star player on the team. That means that any night is an opportunity for any player like juzang to have his one night. The problem with this is that there is never a go to guy to take over.
The bigs both completely disappeared and Stanford absolutely destroyed UCLA in the paint. That’s how Stanford won.
I’m actually not disappointed because I love watching this team as compared with the old guy in charge. There is always a chance to win.
I’m also not disappointed because I know UCLA is never winning a championship with this team. Defensive efficiency is so bad and they will get bounced in the tourney. You need a star on the team and UCLA just doesn’t have one. I have to hope that future years will bring a star because without one there really isn’t any hope of winning a natty again. Go bruins, play hard, keep rebuilding and hope that next year brings a player that can win a natty... until then, who cares
and just for clarification, I don’t say who cares as a swipe. I just say that because I can’t get wrapped up as much as I used to when my expectations for this team have already been exceeded. Prior teams had multiple players getting drafted in the first round and expectations of a great season. This team has zero nba draft caliber players as far as I’m concerned, and you typically need at least two draft worthy players to be in the natty conversation. UCLA hasn’t had that. I hope mick can change that soon because all the coaching ability in the world doesn’t win a championship. You need some real nba level players to join the conversation IMO
Agree....Bruins are 10-11 deep with good college players playing in a weak Pac-12. Mick can squeeze more out of this team but not without suffering a MI.
UCLA is really lacking in star power. I hope some of the new recruits change that
They will
Nobody was saying this when we were 8-0 in conference. It's one game and we lost our first conference game to a really good Stanford team on the road. Everyone knew this was going to be a tough game. We showed a lot of fight coming back from multiple deficits. Yes the last 0.8 second is inexcusable, but this team is on the right track.
On the record, I was saying this in the Buzzer Beater once Chris Smith went down. Specifically, I pointed out that the loss of Smith meant the Bruins didn't have a go-to player and would instead be relying on guys who fit more into the role-player model. Then in this most recent Buzzer Beater, I stated that UCLA was going to top out as a team with little margin for error because it had a roster of flawed players.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing. I do think it limits the ceiling on this team considerably but not in a way that can limit growth in future seasons.
This sort of game was inevitable. Even though we have become more confident that this team and this coach will find ways to pull out games much more often than not, we have all still been sort of cringing at the end of games lately. It sucks it finally happened, but you can't keep cutting things that close without it finally going wrong at some point.
So hopefully, this was a needed wakeup for these guys, and I'm hoping that the reaction by Bernard after the layup (where he slammed the ball into the floor) speaks for the sudden awareness and frustration that comes from their overall sloppiness and inconsistency. If that brain lock with 0.8 seconds is what it takes to get these guys to come out with a drive to kill from the initial jump ball going forward, then, good.
Yes, despite of losing, this was fun and real B-ball to watch, East Coast gritty. I like the return of Bruin defense. Now about giving up all of those three pointers...