According to this LA Times article, former UCLA standout and malcontent Reeves Nelson has resurfaced, this time in the professional ranks with the Lakers. He has a non-guaranteed contract and has been invited to camp this year. On a team with huge salaries of Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, Dwight Howard, and Pau Gasol, there are multiple spots for guys who are making the league minimum or something close to that.

And this, I think, is where Nelson fits in. Lakers fans have seen some old and/or unknown big men as 2nd and 3rd stringers over the past 3 years. Can anyone say D.J. Mbenga? Josh Powell? What about Joe Smith? Theo freaking Ratliff. OK, you’re right, I missed the glory of Derrik Caracter.

So I can see the wheels turning for Mitch Kupchak. Depth at the post is a hard thing to come by. Rebounding and toughness off the bench are something worth taking a chance on. What harm can it be to sign a guy who can play with incredible energy and ferocity in spurts?

Reeves is still saying things that aren’t super-smart. From the Times article:

“I’m very grateful,” Nelson said in an interview. “It’s nice becasue I’m pretty sure that virtually no one thought I could get this far, so it’s pretty gratifying.”

Does he mean that nobody thought he could make it this far before or after he forced his way off the UCLA roster by acting like an ass? The talent of Reeves Nelson should have always got him AT LEAST to a non-guaranteed training camp somewhere. If he would have just not been an idiot in college, he could have seven-figures guaranteed for at least a few years.

Instead, he’s had to do all the “right things” to even get the opportunity to make an NBA team.

Reeves Nelson is a player who, in college, let his reckless emotions get in the way of him becoming great. Anybody in Los Angeles (or Indiana) know anybody like that?

I can’t wait to see Reeves, Metta, and Kobe on the court at the same time. Thank God for Steve Nash.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrfvu1jUvKs

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVYPbgzQ9co

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=K29LauvnC8s

_________________________________________

UCLA basketball fans are in panic mode.

Mid-way through last season, Bruins fans had visions of a 2011-12 team that would include Tyler Honeycutt, Malcom Lee, Reeves Nelson, Joshua Smith, and the Wear twins. That team would have youth and experience. Leadership and poise. Athleticism and something Ben Howland’s teams have lacked during the past few years: depth.

Now, two games into the 2011-12 season, Bruins fans’ heads are spinning over a perceived set of dire issues with coach Howland’s program. After losses to Loyola Marymount and Middle Tennessee State and in the midst of a 2-game Reeves Nelson suspension, UCLA’s critics have become more and more vocal.

Anyone who follows the program or reads UCLA message boards is aware of the perceptions:

Howland’s teams don’t have as much fun as other teams.

UCLA focuses too much on defense.

The Bruins play at too slow a pace.

Howland runs practices that are too physical.

The coach’s track record speaks for itself. Three consecutive Final Four appearances, a huge number of players in the NBA, and three conference titles in eight years should be good enough. But UCLA expectations are different. For Howland, six out of eight winning seasons may not be enough for some fans.

Howland’s style can be described as old-school. Howland hates zone defense and preaches fundamentals. His teams play with a control of the tempo that only come from disciplined practices and the hard-nosed mentality typical of the former Weber State defensive standout.

But is Howland’s style really that different than other coaches? Many experts would say no. An ESPN article within the last year did its best to put to rest the “myth” of Ben Howland holding anyone back offensively. Howland has produced players who have had decent NBA careers. Russell Westbrook is an NBA star who came to UCLA as a skinny combo guard who was a below-average shooter. Players like Aaron Afflalo and Luc Richard Mbah a Moute have stuck in the NBA because of their ability to play on both ends of the floor — Howland’s defensive teachings seemingly paying off.

What about Howland’s recruiting ability? Well, if your definition of a good recruiting class is freakishly athletic and raw players, then UCLA hasn’t been the place for you in recent years. Instead, important recruits have included more “heady” players like Kevin Love and Jrue Holiday. While Howland was (in the past) able to recruit Mbah a Moute, Alfred Aboya, Darren Collison, Westbrook, and Love, his last few recruiting classes have left much to be desired. Drew Gordon and Chase Stanback have been recent recruits who have left UCLA to transfer and players like Tyler Lamb have yet to show any part of what made them top-flight recruits.

Here’s a good article that compares UCLA’s 2008 recruiting class to the disappointing 1998 class.

In other words, the real issue is the talent that Howland has recruited. Like Notre Dame footall, pundits and fans always assume that UCLA Basketball recruiting classes are always better than they are. Here is an article from 2008 that lists the UCLA class as one of the best. At this point, it’s safe to say that Rivals.com, among others were wrong.

This expectation of great UCLA recruiting classes had begun to wane before Howland pulled the Mbah a Moute and Westbrook classes out of his hat. While some individual players have come in with promise only to disappoint (Jerime Anderson, among others), Howland hasn’t found players that is much better than everyone thought a’la Mbah a Moute.

When you have success, expectations don’t get lower.

For Howland to dig himself out of the recruiting hole, his perception among potential recruits will have to change. More importantly, Howland will have to find the next Jordan Farmar, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, and Russell Westbrook. Ballyhooed players like Love and Holiday will still come around from time to time. But to build the kind of program Howland wants to, he needs to have more Alfred Aboyas than Brendan Lanes. More Kevin Loves than Joshua Smiths. More Mbah a Moutes than Nelsons.

Coaches and coaching strategies can take teams only so far. And the kids might be great kids — though we know Nelson has had some difficulties. Without requisite talent though, UCLA, its coaching staff, and its fans will have to do the best they can with what they have. The issue isn’t Howland’s ability to recruit any one player. The issue is with a recurring pattern. Unless Howland gets an infusion of talent that Westwood hasn’t seen during the past few years, it will probably be more of the same for the Bruins.