|
by Cameron Blount
 With
another UCLA basketball season over and yet another drawing near, it is
time to take stock of the program and assess just where the Lavin Era
has taken us and where we may very well find ourselves at the close of
next year. It is time to evaluate the various weaknesses of the team,
identify possible strengths, and attempt to gauge our success next year
in the Pac-10 and beyond.
Last year left us (by us I mean the typical slack jawed, beer
guzzling, armchair quarterbacking UCLA hoops fan) with mixed emotions to
say the least. To some the end of the season left a bitter taste in the
mouth, a ‘what might have been’ flavor that was something like eating a
vegetarian hamburger. Sure, it might be close to the real thing, but
tasting it only whets the appetite for some real meat. The final four,
indeed the national championship, was only a few games away (with humble
Missouri to beat, no less) and yet the team once again succumbed with
the final goal in sight, leaving the fans hungering for more.
And yet, for another set of loyal fans, the season was an undeniable
success. It was yet another campaign filled with exciting upsets,
unforeseeable losses, and an improbable run in the tournament that once
again proved Lavin’s capability to motivate his players to achieve with
the odds stacked against them. It was a campaign that included an
impressive fifth sweet sixteen in six years, another victory over a top
ranked opponent, and the national distinction of having our program’s
success over the past seven years only comparable to the accomplishments
of the great Mike Krzyzewski of Duke University.
For the former the season was yet another disappointment, for the
latter it was something that swells the chest with that indescribable
and altogether fleeting feeling of Bruin pride.
Whatever the correct estimation of last year’s season may be, UCLA’s
accomplishments and shortfalls have left the team with a precarious
future. Where does the team stand going into the upcoming season? There
are no definitive answers to this question, and perhaps far more
questions.
Offense
Any analysis of next year’s offense has to start with the returning
team scoring leader, Jason Kapono. With the loss of Dan Gadzuric, Matt
Barnes and Billy Knight to graduation, Kapono is left as the only
consistent offensive threat. And throw into this mix the fact that Lavin
has lost his lucky charm in Rico Hines, and one has to come to the
conclusion that Kapono will have to step up his game even more than last
year if UCLA is to remain an offensive threat. The ball has to go
through his hands and the offense has to work to get him open, simple as
that.
Beyond Kapono, UCLA’s offensive outlook becomes more than a little
hazy. One is forced to look at Dijon Thompson, the returning sophomore
that displayed flashes of brilliance during last year’s NCAA tournament,
for consistent scoring. With a quick first step and an emerging jump
shot, Dijon Thompson could prove to be the perfect compliment to the
spot-up offensive style of Kapono. With the dual threat of an outside
shot and a slashing move to the basket, Thompson could very well be the
catalyst that this team needs to free up other players that have trouble
creating their own looks.
Needless to say, Evan Burns, UCLA’s high school McDonald’s
All-American recruit that was scheduled to begin classes at UCLA this
week, would surely have factored into the equation as a multidimensional
offensive threat at least as much as Dijon Thompson. But, unfortunately
for Lavin and the rest of us Bruin fans, academics has once again
claimed one of Lavin’s star recruits. It was a big loss for a team that
already appears thin on the offensive side of the ball.
Other than Kapono and Thompson, outside threats could also come from
the likes of Ray Young, T.J. Cummings, and Cedric Bozeman. It is rumored
that Ray Young has improved his shot significantly during his redshirt
year and the ball looks more like a rotating leather orb coming out of
his hand rather than a metallic shot-put. Cedric Bozeman displayed
flashes of long-range touch from the outside last year and, much like
most of his game, one hopes that a year of experience under his belt
will bring stability to his performance. Similarly, T.J. Cummings has
shows an affinity for the mid-range shot and he, perhaps more than any
other player on the team aside from Kapono, can consistently knock down
the jumper from outside the paint. But with Young, Cummings, and even
Bozeman seeing spotty playing time last year (especially Cedric as
result of the arguably overused Ryan Walcott), it is difficult to gauge
what kind of contributions these players can make throughout the course
of an entire game.
And this brings us to one of the biggest question marks surrounding
the 2002 UCLA basketball campaign: points in the paint. With the loss of
Dan Gadzuric any low-post threat at the outset seems to have left with
him. Barring any unforeseen advancement in Michael Fey (who we’ll
discuss again later in this article), it seems that the team’s only
threat in the paint comes in the form of T.J. Cummings. And this hope
stems from a player that has shown a desire to shoot from the perimeter
rather than bang bodies in the post. Andre Patterson could also be seen
as a low-post weapon. His aggressiveness beneath the hoop and incredible
wingspan has already shown him to be a force on the boards. But his
touch in the post is still mostly unproven and much of his scoring thus
far has come on second-chance opportunities (not to mention the fact
that Patterson might not return to the team at all next year, but we
won’t get into that here). While it could also be said that Josiah
Johnson has the frame and talent to emerge as a significant low-post
threat, he’s been the beneficiary of even less playing time than any
other freshmen scholarship player and such hopes might be based on
pedigree rather than any tangible evidence.
Another possibility (if not untested) option in the paint could be
Cedric Bozeman. Given his exceptional size as a point guard and
demonstrated finishing ability in the paint, posting Cedric up could be
a viable option that the UCLA coaching staff might need to recognize.
With potential mismatches of six inches or more, posting Cedric up
against certain defensive schemes could provide the opportunity for an
inside-out game that could emphasize UCLA’s outside threats while
simultaneously taking advantage of Bozeman’s passing ability.
With all of these strengths and weaknesses considered, the potency of
the UCLA offense this year will probably rest on the shoulders of one
still relatively inexperienced point guard: Cedric Bozeman. As the rabid
UCLA fan that followed the team last year came to understand, the team
lived and died at the hands of Bozeman. When he avoided turnovers and
distributed the ball as we know he can, we won. When he became lost on
the court and disappeared within the UCLA offensive scheme (which most
fans still haven’t quite figured out), ball movement was stagnant and
good looks at the hoop were hard to come by. While we have to admit that
Walcott certainly was effective at times when subbing in for Bozeman,
one cannot deny that the true future of UCLA basketball rests with
Bozeman. The challenge for Lavin will be to set up an offense that
Bozeman will be comfortable with. It will have to be an offensive scheme
flexible enough to give him some creative license to utilize his
capabilities to dish the ball and work the post, while also providing
enough structure to prevent him from getting lost in the pressure that
defenses will try to throw at him.
Defense
If there’s one thing that has become the hallmark of the Lavin Era
(at least statistically), it’s defense. Lavin’s teams have averaged
fewer points per game against and a lower field goal against percentage
than any other coach going back to the Wooden regime. However, the 2002
campaign includes a group of players that is unlike any other team that
Lavin has faced and, for better or for worse, the defensive scheme will
have to change.
Since the beginning of Lavin’s tenure he’s always had an intimidating
shot blocker to anchor the middle. In 1996 and 1997 it was Jelani McCoy
and J.R. Henderson. For the past four years it’s been Dan Gadzuric. All
of these players were serious shot blocking forces in the paint (that
is, when they weren’t sitting on the bench in foul trouble) and for any
penetrating guards or post players they represented the last line of
defense that altered shots and/or sent basketballs into the seats like
streaking leather meteors.
But now, with the departure of Gadzuric, that anchor in the middle is
gone. The closest player left on the squad with comparable height and
athleticism is T.J. Cummings. But, again, his ability to bang bodies and
his presence in the paint is still suspect. Michael Fey, the 6 feet 11
inch incoming freshman, might very well develop into the McCoy/Gadzuric
type shot blocker that Lavin so desperately needs. But early reports are
that his footwork needs some improvement and aggressiveness is not at
the same intimidating level as that of McCoy and Gadzuric when they were
freshmen.
How might Lavin compensate for the lack of a true center? One might
think that a zone defense would allow UCLA to pack the middle and
prevent mismatches in opposing team’s favor. However, as we witnessed
last year against pure shooting teams such as Oregon and Arizona,
playing zone is dangerous, especially with Kapono protecting the wings.
Now let’s be honest here: Jason Kapono doesn’t have the fastest feet in
the west. A zone defense needs quick movement to cover areas of the
perimeter as teams try to swing the ball from one side of the court to
the other in order to free up a long-range shot. Against certain teams
this might work, but against good teams (i.e. teams that can shoot like
Duke, Oregon, and Indiana), you have to play at least some man defense.
A man-to-man strategy might help soften some of the defensive
deficiencies of UCLA’s starters, but without a true bruiser in the
middle it will be difficult for Lavin to match up against physical
teams. And this leads us into one of the other major questions
surrounding the 2002 campaign: rebounding. With the potential loss of
Andre Patterson hanging in the balance, UCLA surely needs to improve
this aspect of their game if they want to win. Considering that the team
was consistently outrebounded last year even with Dan Gadzuric in the
middle, and add on top of that the potential loss of Andre Patterson,
and one is left wondering who will take up the slack. Maybe T.J.
Cummings can turn on the aggressiveness around the hoop, maybe Dijon
Thompson. But, as sports fan who ever watched Moses Malone play ball
will attest, rebounding is more about an attitude than a particular
style of play. As always, UCLA has the athletes to get the job done, but
as to whether any player on this year’s roster has the belligerent
mindset of a power rebounder the jury is still out.
Just as with the offense, the defensive scheme that Lavin chooses
will require some serious thought. Perhaps more than anything else,
he’ll have to take into account the strengths of the opponent and weigh
that against the weaknesses of the team he has on the floor. Against the
Oregon’s and Duke’s of the world he might have to play man-to-man to
guard against the three-point threat. Against the likes of Kansas and
Stanford with significant inside power, he might be forced to play zone
and pack the middle to try to avoid rebounding routs and size
mismatches. And against teams like Arizona with threats in every
position, he’ll have to say a prayer to the same basketball god that he
consults before NCAA tournament games and hope that the ball bounces the
Bruins’ way.
Nevertheless, despite these feeble attempts at prognostications, we
have learned over the past seven years that when Lavin is concerned all
we really can predict is one thing: the unexpected. We ARE talking about
a guy that substitutes five players at a time, yanks starters from the
scorer’s desk when subs are playing well, and institutes more offensive
schemes than Donald Rumsfeld in a secret security meeting. Get ready for
another season of staggering lows, mind-blowing highs, intermittent
outbursts of fan anger followed shortly thereafter by incessant
cheering, and, more than anything else, press conferences filled with
telltale Lavinisms that do anything but answer reporter’s questions.
As true UCLA basketball fans wouldn’t we be disappointed with
anything less?
Article written by Cameron Blount,
cblountus@yahoo.com
In my spare time I actually bleed powder blue and gold. I’m not
kidding, it’s a serious medical condition.
|
