I'll take my shot:
OPEN: Mitty
D1: Clet
D2: PV
D3: University
D4: Arcata
D5: Crystal Springs
D6: Fall River
OPEN: Mitty
D1: Clet
D2: PV
D3: University
D4: Arcata
D5: Crystal Springs
D6: Fall River
Last edited:
NorCal finals predictions
- Thread starter northbaybbguru
- Start date
I'm in agreement on all of these. I'm pretty curious about the Carondelet-Bishop O'Dowd game.
Me too. Kelly’s teams have always had trouble with BOD. That said, I’ve always contended that Malik is a below average coach that’s always a had amazing talent. I still will give the slight nod to C-let!
I get ripped by people for saying Kelly is average. I’ve actually watched Malik in practices many of times and never walked away like I learned something. I’ve also seen Doc? Sue, and Mertle during practice and believe me ehe I say where in a league of their own and it’s not just players but a combo of both.
i guess coaching has many tenticles to it. you need x's and o's when you have no laquitas and sharkeshas.. when you have those girls motivation is more important than boxing out angles. although having all aspects would surely help i guess but 2 of the superior coaches are at home
First, it's about talent. You can't get very far without good players.
Second, for me, a coach's first job is to get his or her players to play hard. I think every coach has his or her own way of doing that, and it's probably just a reflection of their personality rather than a conscious strategy.
And then, given the limited amount of time available, coaches must decide what to focus on. You can spend a lot of time on fundamentals -- even with the top kids -- but if you do that, you're not working on the sets you'll need to attack top opponents. And of course you could spend two hours shooting every day and that wouldn't be a bad thing. Or focus on defense and fundamentals. Or rebounding and a press. Or transition and crashing the boards.
But if the kids don't play hard, none of that matters.
Second, for me, a coach's first job is to get his or her players to play hard. I think every coach has his or her own way of doing that, and it's probably just a reflection of their personality rather than a conscious strategy.
And then, given the limited amount of time available, coaches must decide what to focus on. You can spend a lot of time on fundamentals -- even with the top kids -- but if you do that, you're not working on the sets you'll need to attack top opponents. And of course you could spend two hours shooting every day and that wouldn't be a bad thing. Or focus on defense and fundamentals. Or rebounding and a press. Or transition and crashing the boards.
But if the kids don't play hard, none of that matters.
The playing hard factor can be a deciding factor. And I think Carondelet and O'Dowd are hitting the level they need in that department.
