Jorge Gutierrez: The Un-Point Guard
For a point guard who is kinda slow, doesn't have a great handle, is an unreliable passer, and doesn't shoot real well, I didn't really understand why he got so many minutes and more minutes than the more heralded prospect, DJ Seeley. Was it just because he was Monte recruit? He sure showed why he was valuable today - I thought he had at least eight steals, so he should have had a triple-ocho. Playing four guards and Kamp, when down 22 to win by almost ten, Monte you wily dog. As always it seems, Mike Montgomery right, I'm wrong. Just for good measure I bet you guys won't show up against OSU or UCLA this time either.
The opinions expressed in a FanPost are, in every way, reflective of the opinions of every California Golden Blogs Marshawnthusiast. Moreover, they are reflective of every employee of SBNation, including Tyler "Blez" Bleszinski.
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
There's a lot of crazy players with unbelievable style
Guiterrez, Randle, Christopher, Theo all have weaknesses in their game but they make up with it with some of the most unconventional play you’ve ever seen. A delight to watch when they’re on.
by BearsNecessity on Feb 14, 2009 11:23 PM PST reply actions
I thought of today's game
as the Gutierrez game.
He dominated the second half, especially as the game wore on and his teammates were looking seriously tired even on TV. It reminded me, in an odd way, of Jason Kidd’s game. No, he wasn’t throwing no-look passes, but he physically intimidated the opposition on defense and seemed like he was everywhere.
Everyone keeps saying they thought he had more than five steals. That’s because he was always around the ball, threatening Stanford’s guards, grabbing rebounds, and chasing down loose balls. And, like Kidd, he even hit a few shots when left alone.
Gutierrez didn’t score the baskets that finally put Cal over the hump, but there was no way they stay in the game without him.
That was really fun.
Jorge
Gutierrez has the best defensive court vision of any Cal player in recent memory. When he’s on the ball, he plays like a bump-up-and-run cornerback, disrupting his man’s rhythm by bodying directly up against him. When he’s off the ball, he plays like a free-safety, reading the ball-handler and his man, and playing passing lanes and weak-side defense expertly. If my kid grows up to play basketball, I would show him videos of Jorge Gutierrez to teach him how to play defense.
Three of his steals, in particular stood out for me today — I don’t have the game taped, so excuse the total lack of knowledge re: Stanford’s player’s names.
The first one was the steal on a cross-court pass near end of the first half, where Gutierrez was playing weak-side D down near the baseline with the ball out on the opposite side above the elbow near the 3-point line; the ball-handler looked to the post, Gutierrez cheated down, the ball-handler then looked cross-court to Gutierrez’s man and, like a free-safety, Gutierrez read the passer’s eyes, jumped the passing lane, and got a steal leading to a fastbreak.
The second was the steal on a pick-and-roll in the second half, where one of Stanford’s big men set a pick right above the free-throw line, Gutierrez’s man ran him off the pick, and Gutierrez rolled with the picker (as though he were the offensive player), and stole the pass, leading to another fastbreak.
The last was (I believe) also in the second half, when he came out aggressively on one of Stanford’s guards on the sideline on the near side of the court (I watched the game on TV, so the near side from the TV camera’s vantage point), stole the ball, and then Stanford’s player grabbed his jersey for a foul (thwarting another fastbreak).
All three of those steals demonstrated an understanding of something a lot of players forget about when they’re on the defensive side of the floor: how the offense works. On the pick-and-roll, Gutierrez wassn’t just thinking about playing his man, he was thinking about what the offense was trying to do (run a pick and roll), reading that (rolling with the big man into the lane), and then making a defensive play based on his knowledge and instincts of what the offense was doing. On the cross-court pass, he wasn’t just clued in on his own man, instead he read the post-play first (inching down into the lane), then he reacted back to the cross-court pass knowing he had time to recover to the weak-side (where his man was); providing help in the post, while still playing great defense on his own man. (This aspect of Jorge’s game is particularly key on THIS team, which is weak inside defensively. Any sort of disruption the Jorge can cause in our opponent’s post game is extremely valuable to guys like Kamp, Boykin, and Wilkes. Theo, Jorge, and Jerome are all doing a good job of helping when their men are on the weak-side of the court, which is a testament to Monty’s coaching… Jorge just takes it to the Troy Polamalu-Ed Reed level because his instincts are so ridiculous.)
The last thing about Jorge’s defense, a sort of multiplier which makes Jorge’s defense even more valuable than the sum of its parts, is that it gets the team in transition more frequently — 5 steals and I’m not sure how many other defensive plays that led to missed shots and/or turnovers (plus his 8 rebounds) means Jerome Randle (and the rest of our team) gets out in the open floor more, and a spread out defense is Jerome Randle’s best friend.
(Speaking of open floor, great move by Monty shifting our offensive set out to the side of the court in the second half; reminded me of the way Nebraska used to use Tommy Frazier in their option offense when the hash marks were farther apart than they are now; start Jerome on the left-side of the floor, bring Kamp up to run the pick-and-roll; Stanford’s defense now has two options — Jerome’s man can fight through the pick, in which case he’ll be off-balance and probably a little behind Jerome already, in other words, Jerome wins; or, Kamp’s man can hedge out and try to cover Jerome, but that would just be ugly, sort of a Rick Smits tries to cover Chris Paul one-one-one from half court, I’m picturing a twisted ankle or some sort of blooper-reel video; I was a little surprised Dawkins didn’t counter Monty’s all-small lineup with an all-small lineup of his own, might have helped slow down the Jerome Randle Express.)
by Uncle Charlie on Feb 15, 2009 9:00 PM PST reply actions 9 recs
Epic post
Rec’d for knowledge of pick and roll D. I was surprised at how well Jorge read the lanes and cut off the picker at the point of pass; either he’s been meticulous on the tape study or he’s really honed in on what the offense is doing.
The obvious countermove would be just to throw it over his head, and one of those passes was just downright awful, but there’s no doubt his awareness on the floor is something we haven’t seen in quite some time.
by BearsNecessity on Feb 15, 2009 9:11 PM PST up reply actions
Rec'd!
for helping me understand things I see. I wish I had a little more basketball knowledge and write stuff like this.
Wow, great post - rec'd!
I just have to say that that was an amazing steal at the end of the first half. I was thinking the same thing you were, he looked just like a DB who read the route and cut it off – brilliant play.
I haven't seen that many tear-stained dollar bills since my dad hired a stripper for my uncle's funeral.
Holy Moses, WELCOME TO CGB
I'm Fijian. Yes, the water is like that.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 16, 2009 12:11 AM PST up reply actions
Considering that much of what killed the Cardinal was offensive rebounding,
I have a hard time seeing where an all-small lineup would really have helped them out much. Stanford has serious problems with interior defense and giving up offensive rebounds. Putting more guards on the floor just makes that worse.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Reply below
"It is the mark of an educated mind to expect that amount of exactness which the nature of the particular subject admits. It is equally unreasonable to accept merely probable conclusions from a mathematician and to demand strict demonstration from an orator." - Aristotle, Ethics
by Uncle Charlie on Feb 16, 2009 2:36 PM PST up reply actions
Agree (sort of)...
… yes, interior defense and defensive rebounding are not strong points for the Cardinal (just as they aren’t for the Bears), and putting in an even smaller lineup may have hurt Stanford even more in that regard, but…
… (1) they were already getting pounded in those departments with their “big” lineup on the floor, so how could it have gotten worse?… and
… (2) going small may have allowed Stanford’s defense to do a better job of containing Randle.
The problem for Stanford wasn’t that Cal’s players were out-jumping or out-muscling them on every rebound, it was that Randle was blowing by his man off high picks, meaning that another defender had to play “help” defense on Randle, which left Stanford’s defense in a number of situations that essentially amounted to 4-on-3 halfcourt breaks for Cal. This, in turn, meant Cal’s other offensive players were more likely to end up with an offensive rebound. Randle basically acted as a magnet, drawing all of Stanford’s defensive players to him on each play, which resulted in (1) Kamp and Gutierrez finding open cutting lanes (where Randle found them a number of times) and (2) Cal’s players being able to crash the offensive glass without having someone boxing them out. Had Stanford gone small, they may have been able to keep Randle from penetrating, thereby limiting the magnet effect (drawing Stanford’s D into Randle), thereby limiting the number of open lanes available for cuts-to-the-basket and/or offensive rebounding.
Granted, going small may not have worked for Stanford… Randle may have had the same success against any lineup, but I’m surprised Dawkins didn’t try something different given how little success his defense was having containing Randle in the second half.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to expect that amount of exactness which the nature of the particular subject admits. It is equally unreasonable to accept merely probable conclusions from a mathematician and to demand strict demonstration from an orator." - Aristotle, Ethics
Oops... I meant that to be a reply to P-Thomas
"It is the mark of an educated mind to expect that amount of exactness which the nature of the particular subject admits. It is equally unreasonable to accept merely probable conclusions from a mathematician and to demand strict demonstration from an orator." - Aristotle, Ethics
by Uncle Charlie on Feb 16, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions
The problem here is that Stanford only has one great defensive player (Goods)
and he needed to be in two places at once. They had him on Christopher (on whom he, by and large, did a good job, though Christopher took enough shots to end up with a lot of points) and Johnson on Randle, which is, in theory, a ridiculous mismatch. (I say in theory, because in prior games, Randle hadn’t really taken advantage of it.)
There really aren’t any other strong defenders on the Stanford bench. Green is exactly what his name suggests. Shiller and Brown are not at all quick. Past that you’re really getting into uncharted waters. I actually think their strategy of using Paul and Owens to hedge and trap Randle when Cal ran high screens was the correct one, and Cal never really burned them for it.
Stanford is just a really bad rebounding team this year. Paul’s a shooting guard trapped in a 6-10 body, Owens doesn’t have a good feel for rebounding at this point, and the four best board men from last year’s team are all gone. That said, you make it even worse when you put guys like Brown and Shiller in.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Fair enough
Stanford’s a crap-ass defensive team. I think we’ve pinpointed the problem.
Their best defense was the one they played in the first half — make every shot; keep the Bears out of transition; make the Bears score every point out of a halfcourt set.
It’ll be interesting to see if anyone else tries Oregon State’s 1-3-1 zone on us this year…
"It is the mark of an educated mind to expect that amount of exactness which the nature of the particular subject admits. It is equally unreasonable to accept merely probable conclusions from a mathematician and to demand strict demonstration from an orator." - Aristotle, Ethics
by Uncle Charlie on Feb 16, 2009 3:43 PM PST up reply actions
I think that’ll depend on how well our team handles Oregon State’s 1-3-1 on Saturday.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Do you do drugs Danny?
Every day.
Good… good.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to expect that amount of exactness which the nature of the particular subject admits." - The Not Big Aristotle
by Uncle Charlie on Feb 16, 2009 8:07 PM PST up reply actions

by 












































