First, breaking news. According to the UW itself, the Badger's All-Big Ten cornerback Jack Ikegwuonu has been reinstated to the football team. Now since I currently kind of earn my living in law enforcement, and am a current and definitely future quasi-judicial officer, I should tread lightly here. I am not one to be soft on criminals. In particular, I think the sentences for sex offenders should be far longer than they currently are (then you could avoid involuntarily committing people for "treatment"), and I think "good time" systems-- where someone gets sentenced to 20 years but gets out in ten because they only verbally (not physically) abused the prison guards-- are ridiculous. But if we're going to have a system, we need to let the system work the way it's supposed to. That means the criminal justice process starts with the assumption that you haven't done anything. There is far, far too much trial by media immediately upon arrest. It's basically definitively reported in the papers, that person X did terrible crime Y, and it's all fine because of the magical word "allegedly." That's normally thrown in after some visceral, detailed description of the crime. If I had my way, I'd say a crime was committed, describe the crime, say a suspect has been arrested, but not release the person's name or picture. So when they put out someone's name and picture with descriptions of dastardly deeds and the magic word tossed in, I know it's "educating the public" but lets remember it's also "tampering with the potential jury pool" and "convicting the defendant in the public eye before he or she has been found guilty of anything." Enough venting...
This applies to Jack's situation because of course it was widely assumed, based on his arrest, that he did whatever it was he was arrested for (for the record, the allegations are he and others broke into a house in Dekalb, IL and took a PS2). But he hasn't been proven guilty of anything, and the public defender in his case made, what I thought was, a very strong statement about Jack and his brother's innocence. That, plus his reinstatement upon the University's further review of his situation, bodes very well for his criminal case. I guess what I'm saying is he hasn't been proven guilty of anything yet, and I'm hoping it turns out that he didn't do anything wrong. If he really did it, he should be punished accordingly. But the signs, I think, point to the case being sketchy. (Yes, I have contemplated that his reinstatement may mean nothing except that UW is overly lenient with high profile student-athletes, especially when big games are impending).
Back to the the hardcourt. I'm unsure about what to say about the Pitt/Wisco match-up that will be going down on the morn in the Madtown--tipping off at 11 am Central. Clearly, it's one of the biggest games of the year, a list which includes the Marquette, OSU, Sparty, Indiana and FIB games. And next to the papists, the Pitt Panther (so nice and alliterative) showdown will be our toughest non-conference contest. And, depending on what OSU does against decent opponents, currently #2 ranked Pitt could be our highest rated opponent this season.
But will it be our toughest game this season? We do play at Georgia, OSU, Illinois and Indiana. We also have a fine home record, despite the loss to NDSU last season, and Aaron Gray, the large semi-mobile centerpoint of the Pitt team has strep throat and his status "is in question." I think that means he'll play but probably not have the greatest endurance. Also, apparently one of the players that would usually attempt to guard A-Tuck, Sam Young, has tendinitis in his knees. (I can sympathize). Still, if we're throwing around factoids, Jaime Dixon (that's the coach of the Pitt Panthers, sorry, it rolls off the tongue), has yet to lose a game in December as coach of his team, his team returned 8 of its top 10 players from last season (they won 25 games last year), and is currently undefeated, sitting at 10-0.
How do we compare to the team from the lovely Burg of Pitts? Performance-wise, our non-conference schedule has been slightly tougher. Both teams beat Florida State, Delaware State and Auburn. Pitt's win against Auburn was at Auburn, while ours was in South Father Island, TX, and they beat Delaware State by more. Pitt's other victories are over Western Michigan (3-9), Northeastern (2-6), UMass (9-2 and who just beat Louisville), Oakland (of Michigan) (6-6), Robert Morris (5-3 but 0-2 in their conference the NEC--isn't this a brand of TV?), Duquesne (lousy at 2-6--just lost to West Virginia by 30), and Buffalo (6-4, generally thought of as a solid mid-major).
Most of these victories have been by double digits, though they came close to losing to Buffalo at Buffalo just a few days ago. Whether that close win fires them up, or rather is demonstrative that they can be had, I don't know. As may already be apparent, I actually don't know much about Pitt, besides the facts that (a) they have an enormous white dude, Aaron Gray, who may be even slower than Butch but is bigger with better post moves; and (b) many of their players are from New York, specifically Brooklyn and the Bronx. I think that means they have more of a claim to being from "the Street" and specifically may have more "Street Cred." Joking aside, my general understanding is that they have lots of big athletic folks who play good defense, and that they are, like us, a deep team. Gray is their leading scorer, but lots of other guys (once again, like us) are around 10 points/game. Their second leading scorer is Mike Cook, a 6'4" guard who sat out last season after transferring from East Carolina and who may attempt to guard Alando. Gray rebounds like a fiend, but they actually beat UMass handily (perhaps their best win so far) with Gray only playing 17 minutes. Not sure what else to say, and giving an in-depth match up analysis would require so much computer time that my wife would make me sleep outside.
Thus, I will leave forecasting and in-depth profiling in the hands of other more knowledgeable folks, although many of the quasi-professionals seem ig'nint about the details, too. Is it possible that each team is so deep, no one can do a legitimate preview because it would require too much research? Such a task is beyond me, at the least. I will say that the Panthers have a good inside attack, and thus to counter such things, hopefully the Stiemer will stay out of foul trouble and see plenty of game time. Same for Landry. I bet we see a lot of big lineups from Bo, with the Hoft or A-Tuck playing the 2, and only one traditional "guard" on the floor. Maybe a triple towers look of Butch, Stiemer and J-Cheezy? Or an alternate "big" lineup of Flowers, A-Tuck, Landry, Stiemsma and Butch? One can only dream... We'll need a bunch of folks to have good games, and if we're not moving the ball around well on offense I wouldn't be surprised to lose by several possessions. Hopefully, that won't be the case.
Anyhow, here's what I've discovered out there, and Sconnie represent:
- Brief Sportsline discussion (about halfway down)
- PA coverage
- More PA coverage
- ESPN piece about a 6'10" Canadian senior on Pitt, labeled a "glue guy" (the Hoft also makes the list)
- Best Preview so far: Rivals game of the week coverage (no subscription needed for this one)
- College Hoops Net coverage is solid as well.
Final note, we may not be able to take this game. Pitt is deep, experienced, well-coached, and more athletic overall. They haven't played a ranked team yet this season, however, so they are somewhat untested. I think we can win this game, but certain players, like Stiesma, Flowers, and perhaps Pop Hughes, will have to step up. And no one crucial can have a bad game. Yee gods, I hope we can do it. If we can, it'd be a huge win for this year's team and the program, and vengance for last season's defeat and the loss in Milwaukee in DevI's last game.
I say theme of the weekend: "the legend of the rent was way hard core!"
Friday, December 15, 2006
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
"In the year 2000..."
Over the past season or two, I've found myself thinking about the future-- specifically, who will replace Bo at UW. Not that I want such a thing to happen anytime soon, it's just that Bo has already had a long career and is in his late 50s.
Last season, my eye fell to Rob Jeter, the current coach at UW-Milwaukee. Of course, this is an easy way out-- Jeter is a Ryan disciple, having played for and coached under Bo for years. Jeter runs "the swing" just like Bo, meaning the team's strategic focus wouldn't have to change. Plus, given their close relationship, it would be akin to Bo naming a successor, Barry-style.
First, purely based on the team's success last season, Jeter can coach. I know he took over a team that Bruce Pearl coached to the Sweet-Sixteen (one game further than they went last season) and that returned a lot of starters. Nonetheless, he put in what appears to be an entirely new system, the team bought it, going 22-9 overall, but going 12-4 in their conference and winning the Horizon League tournament. Plus, their second round tournament exit was at the hands of Florida, last year's national champion, and they beat Kelvin Sampson's Oklahoma team in the first round. Jeter's abilities are currently being put to the test in a different way this year, as the Panthers lost nine scholarship players from last season. They've started the year 2-9, and may be easy fodder for the Badgers this evening. If they rally as the season goes along (hopefully not tonight against Bucky), I think that'll be a good sign in re Jeter's coaching prowess.
Second, and this is the weakest reason, which is why it's in the middle, he's a Wisconsin guy. Though Jeter's from the greater Chicagoland area, he went to UW-Platteville, coached with Bo at Platteville, UW-M, and Madison, and is now back in The Good Land, fronting the Panthers. It'd be nice to have someone committed to the state, like Bo, who views being the Wisconsin coach as, if not the pinnacle of a career, than as a seriously awesome job. Yes, I admit it, I'm afraid of overly qualified coaches like Stu Jackson coming in, having some success and swimming off to feed in higher profile/paid waters.
Third, I believe that Jeter is a good recruiter. Of course, the only way to prove/disprove this is anecdotally, so here goes. Although I love Trevon "Pop" Hughes, Mr. Basketball in the state of Wisco last year was Jerry Smith, a young man who is currently a freshman at Louisville. He explicitly said that he would have come to UW, but Jeter taking the job at UW-M caused him to balk; after Jeter left, Smith looked around some more and then eventually headed down to the birthplace of Cassius Clay. Apparently, Smith and his parents really liked Jeter. Smith is averaging about 9 points a game for the Cardinals this season.
A further example-- the best high school basketball team in Illinois this year is a Chicago Public League team from Simeon High School. Simeon won the state tournament last season. They have the best player in the state, Derrick Rose, who is heading out of Illinois to play college basketball (like many of the best players in Illinois in recent years, knock on wood) . Rose will play one or two years at Memphis before jumping to the pros. Simeon also has two other stars, both of whom have taken over games when opposing teams focused their defense on Rose. Both are going to UW-M next season. One, forward Tim Flowers, had scholarship offers from USC and Temple (the other is Kevin Johnson, a 6'6" forward).
Time will reveal how these players, and others, pan out for Jeter, and whether he's capable of developing them and bringing them together to create a successful team from scratch. But if he can, especially at a commuter school like UW-M, you'd think that would bode extremely well for his abilities. Something to keep an eye on, and another reason to cheer for an in-state school, at least when they're not playing Bucky.
Last season, my eye fell to Rob Jeter, the current coach at UW-Milwaukee. Of course, this is an easy way out-- Jeter is a Ryan disciple, having played for and coached under Bo for years. Jeter runs "the swing" just like Bo, meaning the team's strategic focus wouldn't have to change. Plus, given their close relationship, it would be akin to Bo naming a successor, Barry-style.
First, purely based on the team's success last season, Jeter can coach. I know he took over a team that Bruce Pearl coached to the Sweet-Sixteen (one game further than they went last season) and that returned a lot of starters. Nonetheless, he put in what appears to be an entirely new system, the team bought it, going 22-9 overall, but going 12-4 in their conference and winning the Horizon League tournament. Plus, their second round tournament exit was at the hands of Florida, last year's national champion, and they beat Kelvin Sampson's Oklahoma team in the first round. Jeter's abilities are currently being put to the test in a different way this year, as the Panthers lost nine scholarship players from last season. They've started the year 2-9, and may be easy fodder for the Badgers this evening. If they rally as the season goes along (hopefully not tonight against Bucky), I think that'll be a good sign in re Jeter's coaching prowess.
Second, and this is the weakest reason, which is why it's in the middle, he's a Wisconsin guy. Though Jeter's from the greater Chicagoland area, he went to UW-Platteville, coached with Bo at Platteville, UW-M, and Madison, and is now back in The Good Land, fronting the Panthers. It'd be nice to have someone committed to the state, like Bo, who views being the Wisconsin coach as, if not the pinnacle of a career, than as a seriously awesome job. Yes, I admit it, I'm afraid of overly qualified coaches like Stu Jackson coming in, having some success and swimming off to feed in higher profile/paid waters.
Third, I believe that Jeter is a good recruiter. Of course, the only way to prove/disprove this is anecdotally, so here goes. Although I love Trevon "Pop" Hughes, Mr. Basketball in the state of Wisco last year was Jerry Smith, a young man who is currently a freshman at Louisville. He explicitly said that he would have come to UW, but Jeter taking the job at UW-M caused him to balk; after Jeter left, Smith looked around some more and then eventually headed down to the birthplace of Cassius Clay. Apparently, Smith and his parents really liked Jeter. Smith is averaging about 9 points a game for the Cardinals this season.
A further example-- the best high school basketball team in Illinois this year is a Chicago Public League team from Simeon High School. Simeon won the state tournament last season. They have the best player in the state, Derrick Rose, who is heading out of Illinois to play college basketball (like many of the best players in Illinois in recent years, knock on wood) . Rose will play one or two years at Memphis before jumping to the pros. Simeon also has two other stars, both of whom have taken over games when opposing teams focused their defense on Rose. Both are going to UW-M next season. One, forward Tim Flowers, had scholarship offers from USC and Temple (the other is Kevin Johnson, a 6'6" forward).
Time will reveal how these players, and others, pan out for Jeter, and whether he's capable of developing them and bringing them together to create a successful team from scratch. But if he can, especially at a commuter school like UW-M, you'd think that would bode extremely well for his abilities. Something to keep an eye on, and another reason to cheer for an in-state school, at least when they're not playing Bucky.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Meaningless Wins...
So I think that when you're a bad NFL team, and you manage to win games toward the end of the season that do not put you in the playoffs or take your opponent out of the playoffs, you hurt yourself in the long run.
People more knowledgeable than me, like Mr. Christl at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel who has been covering the Packers since the 80's, feel differently about it. Now he advertises the strong argument in favor of losing games--that the best players are usually taken high in the draft and never become free agents. But Christl and other "football insiders" still believe that a team must try to win every game, no matter how much that lone win might harm their potential long-term success. (One win can make a huge difference--think of the third and fourth picks this year-- Vince Young and D'Brickshaw Ferguson). I think the rationales for winning no matter what go something like this:
(1) winners try to win all the time, and will never, ever not give it their best;
(2) winning any game helps teach younger, developing players how to win;
(3) playing lackadaisically or trying to lose on purpose with an eye toward your draft status is totally unethical and will "kill the soul" of your team;
(4) players have to play hard because they have no job security and are playing to stay in the NFL;
(5) similarly, coaches have to do the best job possible every time out, because they have no job security and are in constant try-outs for other jobs...
And so on and so forth. I understand these rationales, and if I were inside the organization or an assistant coach worried about my livelihood and my family, I'd certainly buy into them. But as a fan, I get to advocate for whatever makes sense to me, personally. If I was on my deathbed and wouldn't live to see another season, I'd root for the Packers to win every game now. Since I think I have at least a few decades left, barring some unfortunate accident involving a bus, a pushcart and several dozen mangoes, I choose to pull for my team to lose because I see that our best players are in decline. The question I find myself asking is: do I want the Packers to be moderately bad now and mediocre in the future, or really bad now and good in the future? I'll take the latter any day.
I especially feel this way because our wins are not coming by way of the efforts of developing young players. No, several guys over or pushing thirty were largely responsible for this win-- Favre, DD, Green, Harris (pushing Gore out at the 2), and Woodson. I didn't see the younger guys making big plays, and although the interceptions by Hawk and Collins are good signs, both looked like they were due more to Smith than their extraordinary efforts.
Unfortunately, my "root for draft status" philosophy may have already be for naught. Here's what I believe the draft order would be if the season ended today:
(1) Detroit
(1) Oakland
(3) Tampa Bay
(4) Cleveland
(4) Houston
(4) Washington
(4) Arizona
(8) San Francisco
(8) Green Bay
(8) St. Louis (if they lose to the Bears tonight)
So we're tied for the 8th pick right now, and could pick as low as 10th. Yeesh. Leinart was picked 10th this year, and the jury is still out on him in a big way. In 2005, Mike Williams, still inactive for the Lions, was taken 10th overall. In '04, the Texans drafted the poster-child for back to basics school reform, Dunta Robinson (he claims it's pronounced Dante), a CB from South Carolina, with the 10th pick. Not that great of a recent track record. And the last medium-high draft pick of the Packers was? Da dum-- Jamal Reynolds. That worked out well.
And our remaining games are the Lions and Vikings at home, and then at the Bears, who might be resting starters. Even if we lose to the Lions at home (a terrible thought), the chances of jumping them in the draft sweep-stakes are thin. With that schedule we could be picking in the mid-teens by season's end! Is the 15th pick of the draft going to replace Favre or Green or Harris, all of whom could be gone this offseason? I doubt it. Trouble ahead, trouble behind.
Furthermore, we're already well below the salary cap, and if Favre, the highest paid player on the team, retires, we'll be even more flush. I'd much rather spend that money on a high draft pick who might turn into a franchise player than some overpriced free agent whose best years are already behind him.
A semi-final note: how amazing did Vince Young look on that run to end the game against the Texans? He's not Michael Vick fast, but he can't be much slower.
Finally, has anyone seen the Pitt men's basketball team play this season? I have not, but based on Worldwide Leader highlights Gray looks thicker, but potentially even less mobile than Butch. I say come Saturday, Bucky gives him the Randoph Stiem(sma)er...
People more knowledgeable than me, like Mr. Christl at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel who has been covering the Packers since the 80's, feel differently about it. Now he advertises the strong argument in favor of losing games--that the best players are usually taken high in the draft and never become free agents. But Christl and other "football insiders" still believe that a team must try to win every game, no matter how much that lone win might harm their potential long-term success. (One win can make a huge difference--think of the third and fourth picks this year-- Vince Young and D'Brickshaw Ferguson). I think the rationales for winning no matter what go something like this:
(1) winners try to win all the time, and will never, ever not give it their best;
(2) winning any game helps teach younger, developing players how to win;
(3) playing lackadaisically or trying to lose on purpose with an eye toward your draft status is totally unethical and will "kill the soul" of your team;
(4) players have to play hard because they have no job security and are playing to stay in the NFL;
(5) similarly, coaches have to do the best job possible every time out, because they have no job security and are in constant try-outs for other jobs...
And so on and so forth. I understand these rationales, and if I were inside the organization or an assistant coach worried about my livelihood and my family, I'd certainly buy into them. But as a fan, I get to advocate for whatever makes sense to me, personally. If I was on my deathbed and wouldn't live to see another season, I'd root for the Packers to win every game now. Since I think I have at least a few decades left, barring some unfortunate accident involving a bus, a pushcart and several dozen mangoes, I choose to pull for my team to lose because I see that our best players are in decline. The question I find myself asking is: do I want the Packers to be moderately bad now and mediocre in the future, or really bad now and good in the future? I'll take the latter any day.
I especially feel this way because our wins are not coming by way of the efforts of developing young players. No, several guys over or pushing thirty were largely responsible for this win-- Favre, DD, Green, Harris (pushing Gore out at the 2), and Woodson. I didn't see the younger guys making big plays, and although the interceptions by Hawk and Collins are good signs, both looked like they were due more to Smith than their extraordinary efforts.
Unfortunately, my "root for draft status" philosophy may have already be for naught. Here's what I believe the draft order would be if the season ended today:
(1) Detroit
(1) Oakland
(3) Tampa Bay
(4) Cleveland
(4) Houston
(4) Washington
(4) Arizona
(8) San Francisco
(8) Green Bay
(8) St. Louis (if they lose to the Bears tonight)
So we're tied for the 8th pick right now, and could pick as low as 10th. Yeesh. Leinart was picked 10th this year, and the jury is still out on him in a big way. In 2005, Mike Williams, still inactive for the Lions, was taken 10th overall. In '04, the Texans drafted the poster-child for back to basics school reform, Dunta Robinson (he claims it's pronounced Dante), a CB from South Carolina, with the 10th pick. Not that great of a recent track record. And the last medium-high draft pick of the Packers was? Da dum-- Jamal Reynolds. That worked out well.
And our remaining games are the Lions and Vikings at home, and then at the Bears, who might be resting starters. Even if we lose to the Lions at home (a terrible thought), the chances of jumping them in the draft sweep-stakes are thin. With that schedule we could be picking in the mid-teens by season's end! Is the 15th pick of the draft going to replace Favre or Green or Harris, all of whom could be gone this offseason? I doubt it. Trouble ahead, trouble behind.
Furthermore, we're already well below the salary cap, and if Favre, the highest paid player on the team, retires, we'll be even more flush. I'd much rather spend that money on a high draft pick who might turn into a franchise player than some overpriced free agent whose best years are already behind him.
A semi-final note: how amazing did Vince Young look on that run to end the game against the Texans? He's not Michael Vick fast, but he can't be much slower.
Finally, has anyone seen the Pitt men's basketball team play this season? I have not, but based on Worldwide Leader highlights Gray looks thicker, but potentially even less mobile than Butch. I say come Saturday, Bucky gives him the Randoph Stiem(sma)er...
Sunday, December 10, 2006
No Soup for the Papists
Whoop! What a wacky game. And hello Marcus Landry and Trevon Hughes. Way to rumble. Landry was clearly representing mad hip-hop and R&B flavor upon being back in the Good Land and performing in front of his people. 4 blocks in 20 minutes, new-found assertiveness by the basket. Wee haw!So let's discuss what the hell happened...
First off, Alando is the man, and is seriously able to take people to the basket off the dribble. Getting Barro in foul trouble, thus eliminating Moo's main interior defensive presence was likely a serious plus for UW. He had three fouls in the first half, and finished with four. The lanes were therefore open, and A-Tuck took Wes Jr. to the rack repeatedly. Why Crean didn't shift who was guarding Alando, I don't know. You'd think throwing a bunch of different people at him would prevent him from getting into a rhythm of sorts.
Second, when we were deep in the second half, and Bohannon hadn't hit the floor yet, I was certain that he was sick or something. And I thought, why that actually worked out well because Hughes (despite some bad turnovers, like the unnecessary charge against James) is playing great. But it turns out Bohannon was fine. Bo just went with Hughes from the beginning thinking that he matched up better with Moo's guards. Well done, Bo. An astute move that I wrongly believed you'd be afraid to make given Hughes' limited minutes. See this for a more thorough explanation.
Third, it was nice to see that our 3-point defense actually doesn't suck, and that we had just played against a bunch of teams that were on hot streaks. The proof/pudding is that Moo shot 3 of 19 on 3-pointers, in their own building. Even when people got temporarily open, we made a strong effort to fly out there late, at least giving them something to think about. And the "foul" called on Flowers during James three attempt in the closing minutes was Grade A Baloney Sausage. By the way, did anyone else notice that Ed Hightower was wearing patent leather hightops?
Fourth, though we had some lame defensive responses, particularly on tips and Moo's offensive rebounds, our help defense was outstanding. Landry, and his outsize wingspan, played their best game of the season. That's the guy we remember from last year. Stiemsma played well defensively, before starting to lay down the elbows. Goodness, I wish he could stay on the floor longer, but two turnovers (and offensive fouls no less) in six minutes is not a good rate, though he had two blocks as well. Overall, Moo shot 39% from the field, and we outrebounded them by 6. (That's probably an effect of them shooting much worse than we did).
Fifth, we still managed to win despite having a season high 22 turnovers. Looking at that stat alone, you'd think we wouldn't have come out on top, but somehow it happened, even though we only hit three 3s. Very weird. I guess our solid D, and Moo's poor outside shooting played a big part. As did Alando, who 59% from the floor. Moo turned the ball over 16 times, and Wes Jr. and McNeal fouled out, with McNeal and Barro being in foul trouble for most of the game. Since they're a pretty shallow team at this point, that likely helped a lot.
Finally, the papist student section, perhaps suffering from irritability after camping our for the "best" seats, was quite foul-mouthed. Chanting our "f*** the Badgers" at one point, on national television. Not only naughty, but unoriginal, and something that will not curry favor with Disney-owned ESPN. It's things like that that make you wonder whether Marquette is a four year, accredited institution. I'm not saying their not, it just makes you wonder.
Next on the schedule, UWM and then Pitt, both at home. Thoughts on #2 ranked Pitt will come later in the week, but on a purely superficial basis, I think they can be had. Stiemsma can take Aaron Gray.
Packers play at 3 pm this afternoon in the city by the bay. I guess the game will show us whether (A) we'll see whether we were just getting our butts kicked by good teams the past three weeks, or (B) we're just plain bad. As noted before, I am looking for improvement in our youth (that means you Hawk, Collins, Jennings and linemen), but for drafting purposes, will not be upset if we lose. I will not be excited if we pull out a win because of Brett and DD and Al Harris. Those guys don't have much, if any, time left. I won't be seeing the whole game, because the wife is pulling me away to see Moscow Cats. Yeah, not joking.
First off, Alando is the man, and is seriously able to take people to the basket off the dribble. Getting Barro in foul trouble, thus eliminating Moo's main interior defensive presence was likely a serious plus for UW. He had three fouls in the first half, and finished with four. The lanes were therefore open, and A-Tuck took Wes Jr. to the rack repeatedly. Why Crean didn't shift who was guarding Alando, I don't know. You'd think throwing a bunch of different people at him would prevent him from getting into a rhythm of sorts.
Second, when we were deep in the second half, and Bohannon hadn't hit the floor yet, I was certain that he was sick or something. And I thought, why that actually worked out well because Hughes (despite some bad turnovers, like the unnecessary charge against James) is playing great. But it turns out Bohannon was fine. Bo just went with Hughes from the beginning thinking that he matched up better with Moo's guards. Well done, Bo. An astute move that I wrongly believed you'd be afraid to make given Hughes' limited minutes. See this for a more thorough explanation.
Third, it was nice to see that our 3-point defense actually doesn't suck, and that we had just played against a bunch of teams that were on hot streaks. The proof/pudding is that Moo shot 3 of 19 on 3-pointers, in their own building. Even when people got temporarily open, we made a strong effort to fly out there late, at least giving them something to think about. And the "foul" called on Flowers during James three attempt in the closing minutes was Grade A Baloney Sausage. By the way, did anyone else notice that Ed Hightower was wearing patent leather hightops?
Fourth, though we had some lame defensive responses, particularly on tips and Moo's offensive rebounds, our help defense was outstanding. Landry, and his outsize wingspan, played their best game of the season. That's the guy we remember from last year. Stiemsma played well defensively, before starting to lay down the elbows. Goodness, I wish he could stay on the floor longer, but two turnovers (and offensive fouls no less) in six minutes is not a good rate, though he had two blocks as well. Overall, Moo shot 39% from the field, and we outrebounded them by 6. (That's probably an effect of them shooting much worse than we did).
Fifth, we still managed to win despite having a season high 22 turnovers. Looking at that stat alone, you'd think we wouldn't have come out on top, but somehow it happened, even though we only hit three 3s. Very weird. I guess our solid D, and Moo's poor outside shooting played a big part. As did Alando, who 59% from the floor. Moo turned the ball over 16 times, and Wes Jr. and McNeal fouled out, with McNeal and Barro being in foul trouble for most of the game. Since they're a pretty shallow team at this point, that likely helped a lot.
Finally, the papist student section, perhaps suffering from irritability after camping our for the "best" seats, was quite foul-mouthed. Chanting our "f*** the Badgers" at one point, on national television. Not only naughty, but unoriginal, and something that will not curry favor with Disney-owned ESPN. It's things like that that make you wonder whether Marquette is a four year, accredited institution. I'm not saying their not, it just makes you wonder.
Next on the schedule, UWM and then Pitt, both at home. Thoughts on #2 ranked Pitt will come later in the week, but on a purely superficial basis, I think they can be had. Stiemsma can take Aaron Gray.
Packers play at 3 pm this afternoon in the city by the bay. I guess the game will show us whether (A) we'll see whether we were just getting our butts kicked by good teams the past three weeks, or (B) we're just plain bad. As noted before, I am looking for improvement in our youth (that means you Hawk, Collins, Jennings and linemen), but for drafting purposes, will not be upset if we lose. I will not be excited if we pull out a win because of Brett and DD and Al Harris. Those guys don't have much, if any, time left. I won't be seeing the whole game, because the wife is pulling me away to see Moscow Cats. Yeah, not joking.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Papists vs. Secularists
The Jesuits vs. the Jovials, Private v. Public (Pubic?), "The Good Land" vs. the Emerald City, Catholics vs. Agnostics, the Holier than Thous vs. the Hellions, Devotees vs. Divorcees, The Rhthym Method vs. the Morning After Pill, The Affectedly Pious vs. the Effectively Profanatory, yes it's Marquette v. UW time once more.
This one has the potential to be the best game in the series since Devin Harris and Dwy-ane (that's how he spells his name, folks) Wade moved onto the professional ranks.
Both teams are in the top 20. Both have exciting, athletic, dominant players-- Dominic James and A-Tuck. Both have been upset by scrappy mid-majors (although losing to a good Missouri Valley Conference team like Missouri State on a neutral floor is far less emabarassing than losing to North Dakota State at home--yes, I know we lost to them last year) and thus have something to prove. Both have high expectations within their respective conferences, and for the post-season.
So what can we expect?
If you follow the link to the Journal-Sentinel's website to the right, you'll see they do the lamest "preview" that one could imagine, basically saying "here is one player's stats and the stats of a player for the other team who plays the same position." Great, I could have looked that up myself in two minutes. What inquiring minds like me want to know is which team looks like it has the edge. What will the interesting match-ups be, and what should people look for?
The Big Ten Wonk (also conveniently linked to your right), makes some interesting notes about each team thus far. He notes that Marquette has been playing consistent defense, and their struggles (going to OT against Idaho State and losing to NDSU) were due in large part to wildy inconsistent offensive performances. He finds that Marquette, despite being a "guard oriented" team, doesn't take all that many 3s. He also concludes that Jerel McNeal, who has an outrageous number of steals, has been hurting the team overall because he shoots a low percentage and turns the ball over too often.
The Wonk also notes that Wisconsin is shooting well as a team this year, but not taking all that many three pointers. Butch and Krabbenhoft are rebounding machines, while our defense has been solid with the exception of allowing the highest three point percentage in the Big Ten thus far. What's interesting is that MU is allowing an even worse three-point shooting percentage, 39% to our 38%.
Bo was asked about our long-range defense after Withrop shot 60%(!!!) against us from distance, hitting fifteen(15) 3s. He replied that he had looked at the Withrop game tape, and that except for a handful of attempts, we were contesting their shots, meaning people weren't wide open, and that they were just getting lucky, I guess. The same apparently for the guy on Florida Internationl who hit 7 threes last weekend.
What does all this mean? Perhaps our "weakness"--allowing lots of 3s--isn't systematic, but just a product of dumb luck and the permimeter obsessed teams we've played (Delaware State, Winthrop, Missouri State). I predict that this will even out as the season goes along, and we play different types of teams. And for the purposes of this game, since Marquette doesn't shoot that many 3s, they won't be able to take advantage of this alleged "weakness" anyway. Good news.
But Sconnie fans should still be wary.
First off, the game is at the Bradley Center, where the Bucks play but where Marquette rolls out the extra special Al McGuire Court. Note to Marquette, having your own special memorial floor does not transmorgify that hardly-ever-sold-out characterless NBA venue into a charming, on-campus stadium. Regardless of these television-based pretend shenanigans, Marquette has the home court advantage. By my likely inaccurate count, they are 24-3 at home since the arrival of James, McNeal and Wes Jr., including a victory over UConn last year. Further, the home team has won the last five games in the UW/MU (moo?) series. Plus, UW's only loss this season has been on the road, and UW had a bad road record last year-- going 4-11, including tournament games. Hopefully, last season's on the road pants-crapping was a learning experience, and we can now strap on weens, and play with good teams in hostile environs.
Second, the teams have different strengths, but their area of strength may be more key. They have three (or maybe 2, if you think the Wonk's stats are right) fine young guards. In the game against Duke, James looked unbelievable, hitting all sorts of shots, driving, passing, doing a reverse dunk on a fast break (he's 5'11"). He scored 16 straight points against Valpo (Fuzzy Thurston's alma mater; he played basketball there as well). Que ridique. If James declared at the end of this season, I think he'd be a lottery pick. No one in UW's backcourt matches up with him talent-wise at this point (Hughes may well be as good in the long run). McNeal, while he may be a poor shot/turnover machine, is an excellent on-ball defender, who has twice as many steals as Michael Flowers (and doesn't it seem like Flowers has a lot?). Young Wesley, the former Spartan, is a bigger and better athlete than any of our guards. In comparison, Kam is a fine shooter when he's on, but he can disappear, especially against tenacious defense. I like Flowers' intensity, but I don't think he's as good a defender as we'd like to think he is, and I don't trust him offensively. Bohannon's heady, but has been more off than on in his shooting streaks. Bo hasn't "trusted" Hughes, or especially Perry, enough to give them seasoning, and they may both get shut out minutes-wise in this game. It's too bad, because I think had Hughes gotten more experience earlier this season, he could really have helped out against Marquette's backcourt. In conclusion, I would say that UW's backcourt does not match up well with Marquette's.
But Marquette's frontcourt does not measure up with UW's. Who on Marquette will attempt to guard Alando? If it's Wes, he should get posted-up repeatedly. If it's Barro (Marquette's lone athletic frontcourt player), Alando can lure him outside, leaving the middle open for Butch and others to attack the basket. Or Tuck can face him up, drive at him and get to the line. Also, if Stiemsma stops getting screwed by the refs, he could seriously shut down direct access to the basket, and Butch and the Hoft can clean the boards. Marquette's biggest body is hurt, and the other starting frontcourt player, Fitzgerald, is one of those "not that athletic, but can hit open shots" guys. The other two other guys with decent minutes are a true freshman, and senior James Lott, who seems to be more of a designated fouler. Barro did play well against Duke though, defending McChinnuts, sorry McRoberts well. But we should be able to blind them with science and numbers. I give the edge here to Alando, the Hoft, Butch, Stiemsma, Chappell, Landry and Gullickson.
However, the CW is that in college baskeball the backcourt dominates. Thus, with the backcourt advantage to Marquette, and with the game in Milwaukee, Marquette should be favored. UW needs someone to keep James under control-- a job that will probably fall to Flowers. Alas, I don't think Flowers will be able to stop him from penetrating, so he'll need good help defense. The worry is that we overcommit to James, enabling other guys to beat us. That will be the struggle on defense, I predict. If the Wonk is right, then we should funnel the ball to McNeal on offense, have Flowers tightly shadow James and the Hoft blanket Wes, thus allowing McNeal to take bad shots and turn the ball over. Ha, statistically informed genius!
On offense, I expect our guards to struggle, with Kam getting D'ed up hard by McNeal. Despite the Wonk's belief that he's an overall drain, unless we enact my funneling idea and encourage him to go one-on-one against the world, this could be a game where his defense makes up for it. Sadly, I have my suspicions about Kam, especially against strong, aggressive guards. Alando will have to perform well, and he usually does in big games (knock on wood, please). Marquette is a relatively thin team, and getting free throws and putting Moo's players in foul trouble could be huge. If Barro or one of the three guards has to miss time because of fouls, Bucky could be ok. But if our guards take too many bad (read, partially blocked) shots, and turn the ball over before getting it to the bigs, allowing James and Co. to run the floor and ram it home, that's the game. As the former Spartan on North Dakota State related, if our guards can play decently, we can beat them.
So I say keys for Bucky: decent guard play, controlling turnovers, and getting in the paint and getting free throws. Funnel ball away from James to McNeal. Let the depth come through.
Keys for Moo-- harass the guards and prevent the ball from getting into the frontcourt. Look to create turnovers and press the ball whenever possible. Set up James to drive and dish. Keep Tucker out of the paint.
I was hoping to tell you what the line was, but try as I might, I can't find a comphrensible spread. The over/under is 135, though. Marquette's probably favored by about 5. Their victory over Duke was on national television, after all. Nice ranking system by the way. If the 11th ranked team isn't favored at the place of the 20th ranked team, what does that tell you about the rankings? Oh right, they're stupid and uninformed and designed to create news, not to do anything useful.
Anyhow, go Bucky! Down come the papists! Out come the knee pads! We shall dine at the Three Brothers in celebration! Schlitz shall be guzzled, and premarital genital intercourse, with contraception, shall be had!
Links to semi-legitimate previews of the game:
On SI, Seth Davis rings in with an ill-informed opinion that the poor 3-point shooting percentage UW is giving up so far spells trouble against MU because of their guards. As noted above, that theory is stupid because (a) people have been more lucky than open, and (b) Marquette doesn't shoot many threes.
On ESPN, Andy Katz comments about the intra-state rivalry.
The kids at the Badger Herald talk about the Madison based roots of some of the players on both teams.
Mike Lucas traces the history.
Another Madison columnist talks to the Madison born former Spartan who has conquered both teams in the past 12 months.
This one has the potential to be the best game in the series since Devin Harris and Dwy-ane (that's how he spells his name, folks) Wade moved onto the professional ranks.
Both teams are in the top 20. Both have exciting, athletic, dominant players-- Dominic James and A-Tuck. Both have been upset by scrappy mid-majors (although losing to a good Missouri Valley Conference team like Missouri State on a neutral floor is far less emabarassing than losing to North Dakota State at home--yes, I know we lost to them last year) and thus have something to prove. Both have high expectations within their respective conferences, and for the post-season.
So what can we expect?
If you follow the link to the Journal-Sentinel's website to the right, you'll see they do the lamest "preview" that one could imagine, basically saying "here is one player's stats and the stats of a player for the other team who plays the same position." Great, I could have looked that up myself in two minutes. What inquiring minds like me want to know is which team looks like it has the edge. What will the interesting match-ups be, and what should people look for?
The Big Ten Wonk (also conveniently linked to your right), makes some interesting notes about each team thus far. He notes that Marquette has been playing consistent defense, and their struggles (going to OT against Idaho State and losing to NDSU) were due in large part to wildy inconsistent offensive performances. He finds that Marquette, despite being a "guard oriented" team, doesn't take all that many 3s. He also concludes that Jerel McNeal, who has an outrageous number of steals, has been hurting the team overall because he shoots a low percentage and turns the ball over too often.
The Wonk also notes that Wisconsin is shooting well as a team this year, but not taking all that many three pointers. Butch and Krabbenhoft are rebounding machines, while our defense has been solid with the exception of allowing the highest three point percentage in the Big Ten thus far. What's interesting is that MU is allowing an even worse three-point shooting percentage, 39% to our 38%.
Bo was asked about our long-range defense after Withrop shot 60%(!!!) against us from distance, hitting fifteen(15) 3s. He replied that he had looked at the Withrop game tape, and that except for a handful of attempts, we were contesting their shots, meaning people weren't wide open, and that they were just getting lucky, I guess. The same apparently for the guy on Florida Internationl who hit 7 threes last weekend.
What does all this mean? Perhaps our "weakness"--allowing lots of 3s--isn't systematic, but just a product of dumb luck and the permimeter obsessed teams we've played (Delaware State, Winthrop, Missouri State). I predict that this will even out as the season goes along, and we play different types of teams. And for the purposes of this game, since Marquette doesn't shoot that many 3s, they won't be able to take advantage of this alleged "weakness" anyway. Good news.
But Sconnie fans should still be wary.
First off, the game is at the Bradley Center, where the Bucks play but where Marquette rolls out the extra special Al McGuire Court. Note to Marquette, having your own special memorial floor does not transmorgify that hardly-ever-sold-out characterless NBA venue into a charming, on-campus stadium. Regardless of these television-based pretend shenanigans, Marquette has the home court advantage. By my likely inaccurate count, they are 24-3 at home since the arrival of James, McNeal and Wes Jr., including a victory over UConn last year. Further, the home team has won the last five games in the UW/MU (moo?) series. Plus, UW's only loss this season has been on the road, and UW had a bad road record last year-- going 4-11, including tournament games. Hopefully, last season's on the road pants-crapping was a learning experience, and we can now strap on weens, and play with good teams in hostile environs.
Second, the teams have different strengths, but their area of strength may be more key. They have three (or maybe 2, if you think the Wonk's stats are right) fine young guards. In the game against Duke, James looked unbelievable, hitting all sorts of shots, driving, passing, doing a reverse dunk on a fast break (he's 5'11"). He scored 16 straight points against Valpo (Fuzzy Thurston's alma mater; he played basketball there as well). Que ridique. If James declared at the end of this season, I think he'd be a lottery pick. No one in UW's backcourt matches up with him talent-wise at this point (Hughes may well be as good in the long run). McNeal, while he may be a poor shot/turnover machine, is an excellent on-ball defender, who has twice as many steals as Michael Flowers (and doesn't it seem like Flowers has a lot?). Young Wesley, the former Spartan, is a bigger and better athlete than any of our guards. In comparison, Kam is a fine shooter when he's on, but he can disappear, especially against tenacious defense. I like Flowers' intensity, but I don't think he's as good a defender as we'd like to think he is, and I don't trust him offensively. Bohannon's heady, but has been more off than on in his shooting streaks. Bo hasn't "trusted" Hughes, or especially Perry, enough to give them seasoning, and they may both get shut out minutes-wise in this game. It's too bad, because I think had Hughes gotten more experience earlier this season, he could really have helped out against Marquette's backcourt. In conclusion, I would say that UW's backcourt does not match up well with Marquette's.
But Marquette's frontcourt does not measure up with UW's. Who on Marquette will attempt to guard Alando? If it's Wes, he should get posted-up repeatedly. If it's Barro (Marquette's lone athletic frontcourt player), Alando can lure him outside, leaving the middle open for Butch and others to attack the basket. Or Tuck can face him up, drive at him and get to the line. Also, if Stiemsma stops getting screwed by the refs, he could seriously shut down direct access to the basket, and Butch and the Hoft can clean the boards. Marquette's biggest body is hurt, and the other starting frontcourt player, Fitzgerald, is one of those "not that athletic, but can hit open shots" guys. The other two other guys with decent minutes are a true freshman, and senior James Lott, who seems to be more of a designated fouler. Barro did play well against Duke though, defending McChinnuts, sorry McRoberts well. But we should be able to blind them with science and numbers. I give the edge here to Alando, the Hoft, Butch, Stiemsma, Chappell, Landry and Gullickson.
However, the CW is that in college baskeball the backcourt dominates. Thus, with the backcourt advantage to Marquette, and with the game in Milwaukee, Marquette should be favored. UW needs someone to keep James under control-- a job that will probably fall to Flowers. Alas, I don't think Flowers will be able to stop him from penetrating, so he'll need good help defense. The worry is that we overcommit to James, enabling other guys to beat us. That will be the struggle on defense, I predict. If the Wonk is right, then we should funnel the ball to McNeal on offense, have Flowers tightly shadow James and the Hoft blanket Wes, thus allowing McNeal to take bad shots and turn the ball over. Ha, statistically informed genius!
On offense, I expect our guards to struggle, with Kam getting D'ed up hard by McNeal. Despite the Wonk's belief that he's an overall drain, unless we enact my funneling idea and encourage him to go one-on-one against the world, this could be a game where his defense makes up for it. Sadly, I have my suspicions about Kam, especially against strong, aggressive guards. Alando will have to perform well, and he usually does in big games (knock on wood, please). Marquette is a relatively thin team, and getting free throws and putting Moo's players in foul trouble could be huge. If Barro or one of the three guards has to miss time because of fouls, Bucky could be ok. But if our guards take too many bad (read, partially blocked) shots, and turn the ball over before getting it to the bigs, allowing James and Co. to run the floor and ram it home, that's the game. As the former Spartan on North Dakota State related, if our guards can play decently, we can beat them.
So I say keys for Bucky: decent guard play, controlling turnovers, and getting in the paint and getting free throws. Funnel ball away from James to McNeal. Let the depth come through.
Keys for Moo-- harass the guards and prevent the ball from getting into the frontcourt. Look to create turnovers and press the ball whenever possible. Set up James to drive and dish. Keep Tucker out of the paint.
I was hoping to tell you what the line was, but try as I might, I can't find a comphrensible spread. The over/under is 135, though. Marquette's probably favored by about 5. Their victory over Duke was on national television, after all. Nice ranking system by the way. If the 11th ranked team isn't favored at the place of the 20th ranked team, what does that tell you about the rankings? Oh right, they're stupid and uninformed and designed to create news, not to do anything useful.
Anyhow, go Bucky! Down come the papists! Out come the knee pads! We shall dine at the Three Brothers in celebration! Schlitz shall be guzzled, and premarital genital intercourse, with contraception, shall be had!
Links to semi-legitimate previews of the game:
On SI, Seth Davis rings in with an ill-informed opinion that the poor 3-point shooting percentage UW is giving up so far spells trouble against MU because of their guards. As noted above, that theory is stupid because (a) people have been more lucky than open, and (b) Marquette doesn't shoot many threes.
On ESPN, Andy Katz comments about the intra-state rivalry.
The kids at the Badger Herald talk about the Madison based roots of some of the players on both teams.
Mike Lucas traces the history.
Another Madison columnist talks to the Madison born former Spartan who has conquered both teams in the past 12 months.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
60%, Running the Ball & Records
60% is the three-point field goal percentage the UW Men's Basketball team allowed Winthrop University (located in temperate South Carolina) to shoot on Monday night. But we'll get back to that later.
First, I'd like to discuss what the hell is happening with the Packers. Our defense has played terribly over the past three weeks, and it's doubly weird because they managed to get turnovers in each game. Maybe it's because Bob Sanders, who is in his first year of being a defensive coordinator in any capacity, isn't very good at his job. I'm guessing that it's also partly due to having a secondary coach, Kurt Schottenheimer who has been proven to be terrible. In fact, Schottenheimer demonstrated that he was terrible at his job two seasons ago when he was doing a poor job of coaching what was largely the same group of players. It's bizarre he's even on the staff. Football teams are symbiotic creatures though, so much of the fault falls on the offense. If the offense can't hold onto the ball, then the defense keeps getting put back on the field. And during our current three game losing stretch (a stretch where we've also been missing Mark Tauscher, the lineman who was apparently doing the best job of the bunch), the offense has been pathetic. Conspicuous. So everything has gone to shitter.
In the last game, the trip to the facilities included throwing the ball nearly 50 times and running the ball just over 20. This excellent disparity led to a whopping total of 10 points. On TMQ on the worldwide leader's website, Mr. Eastercreek notes that on our 40 plus passing plays, the Packers averaged 4.1 yards and had three turnovers, and on our 20 odd running plays, the Packers averaged 6.5 yards and turned the ball over zero times. He then concludes that the Packers are throwing so often because the coaches are trying to have Favre break Marino's career touchdown record. I emailed him, noting that by calling so many pass plays in obvious passing situations (that is, when you're down 31-0), the coaches appear to be more interested in having Favre break the all-time interception record.
This exchange gave rise to several questions in my mind: (1) why are we passing so much of late, and (2) does the coaching staff care about Favre's career records?
I'm guessing the answers to the first question are: (a) we've been down a lot, and (b) every coach seems to believe that the only way to get back into a game when you're losing is by scoring quickly via the pass. But is that last premise true? You'd think that if you're down by less than two scores and there's more than 10 minutes left you'd be able to, or maybe if you're down a colossal amount of points at halftime (lets say 31, just for fun), you might run the ball and slowly score more points just to make the game less embarrassing. I understand that incompletions stop the clock, so passing takes less time and thus preserves more time for a comeback. But I think people need to stop with the "down more than one score, must pass" mentality.
For example, the Falcons, the best rushing team in the league, never managed to rally to win games because they stop running the ball and have Ron Mexico run 7 step drops play after play. Memo to Falcones coach-- Vick isn't that good of a passer, especially when the defense knows what's coming. If they ran the ball more, even when they're down, I think they'd have at least 2 more wins.
In our case, Eastercreek is just wrong when he states that the Packers run game was effective against the Jets. We had more than 2/3 of our rushing yards in the second half when the Jets clearly had an eye toward the airport. But I think the "don't go to the pass so much when you're down theory" still applies. If we're losing and the other team is in Nickle, screw it, find your gonads and run the ball until they go back to a base defense. Then pass. If you're worried about the clock, run sweeps.
Second, I don't know if the coaching staff thinks much about Favre's career records. It'd probably be nice for them if he breaks Marino's record because it would distract everyone from how bad this season has been and how all of our young players have plateaued or regressed in the past four weeks. And I'm sure they like Brett. After all, if it weren't for him we might be 1 and 11. But I think they're more focused on trying to win, or at least make the bad losses seem palatable. Everyone in the NFL is or should be constantly worried about their jobs, especially at fungible position coaching positions (position, position). Unless you're Matt Millen. Consider Sherman, former GM and Head Coach of the Packers with a career winning record and several playoff appearances, now offensive line coach on one of the least successful teams in the league. The mighty fall quite quickly, and I'm pretty sure that these guys are just trying to stay employed.
Now back to the male basketballing Badgers and their 60%. We're not talking about a game where Winthrop shot five 3's and made three. No, Winthrop shot twenty-five (25) 3-pointers, and made fifteen of them. That's 15 (giving you the numerals for emphasis). This set a record for any team at the newish Kohl('s Department Store) Center. And somehow the Badgers still managed to win. I don't know whether to feel good or terrible. Apparently, our perimeter defense can be terrible, and at times, Flowers, Bohannon, Taylor and the Hoft completely lose the ability to man anybody up. What good teams will we be playing that shoot a lot of 3's? Yes, that'd be Marquette and Ohio A&M (twice). Hmmm. By the way, we haven't won at the Bradley Center since 2001.
Maybe I'm being too gloomy. We beat a team that friggin' hit fifteen 3-pointers on us! Crazy! The stat line shows that we outrebounded them like crazy (40-18), and that, for once, we got a ton of offensive rebounds. And Flowers scored 21 points, potentially establishing him as another guy that can be a legitimate scoring threat. Before the game I'd have said that our only established offensive threats were Kam, Butch, and of course, Alando. Hopefully Flowers will give teams another guy to pay attention to. The first half of last season Landry was also establishing himself as one of those guys. He's got a lot less playing time this season, it seems, and thus had less of a chance to show off his stuff and work on his offensive game. Maybe Bo objects to the Horace Grant goggles. Later in the week-- secularists vs. the papists preview!
First, I'd like to discuss what the hell is happening with the Packers. Our defense has played terribly over the past three weeks, and it's doubly weird because they managed to get turnovers in each game. Maybe it's because Bob Sanders, who is in his first year of being a defensive coordinator in any capacity, isn't very good at his job. I'm guessing that it's also partly due to having a secondary coach, Kurt Schottenheimer who has been proven to be terrible. In fact, Schottenheimer demonstrated that he was terrible at his job two seasons ago when he was doing a poor job of coaching what was largely the same group of players. It's bizarre he's even on the staff. Football teams are symbiotic creatures though, so much of the fault falls on the offense. If the offense can't hold onto the ball, then the defense keeps getting put back on the field. And during our current three game losing stretch (a stretch where we've also been missing Mark Tauscher, the lineman who was apparently doing the best job of the bunch), the offense has been pathetic. Conspicuous. So everything has gone to shitter.
In the last game, the trip to the facilities included throwing the ball nearly 50 times and running the ball just over 20. This excellent disparity led to a whopping total of 10 points. On TMQ on the worldwide leader's website, Mr. Eastercreek notes that on our 40 plus passing plays, the Packers averaged 4.1 yards and had three turnovers, and on our 20 odd running plays, the Packers averaged 6.5 yards and turned the ball over zero times. He then concludes that the Packers are throwing so often because the coaches are trying to have Favre break Marino's career touchdown record. I emailed him, noting that by calling so many pass plays in obvious passing situations (that is, when you're down 31-0), the coaches appear to be more interested in having Favre break the all-time interception record.
This exchange gave rise to several questions in my mind: (1) why are we passing so much of late, and (2) does the coaching staff care about Favre's career records?
I'm guessing the answers to the first question are: (a) we've been down a lot, and (b) every coach seems to believe that the only way to get back into a game when you're losing is by scoring quickly via the pass. But is that last premise true? You'd think that if you're down by less than two scores and there's more than 10 minutes left you'd be able to, or maybe if you're down a colossal amount of points at halftime (lets say 31, just for fun), you might run the ball and slowly score more points just to make the game less embarrassing. I understand that incompletions stop the clock, so passing takes less time and thus preserves more time for a comeback. But I think people need to stop with the "down more than one score, must pass" mentality.
For example, the Falcons, the best rushing team in the league, never managed to rally to win games because they stop running the ball and have Ron Mexico run 7 step drops play after play. Memo to Falcones coach-- Vick isn't that good of a passer, especially when the defense knows what's coming. If they ran the ball more, even when they're down, I think they'd have at least 2 more wins.
In our case, Eastercreek is just wrong when he states that the Packers run game was effective against the Jets. We had more than 2/3 of our rushing yards in the second half when the Jets clearly had an eye toward the airport. But I think the "don't go to the pass so much when you're down theory" still applies. If we're losing and the other team is in Nickle, screw it, find your gonads and run the ball until they go back to a base defense. Then pass. If you're worried about the clock, run sweeps.
Second, I don't know if the coaching staff thinks much about Favre's career records. It'd probably be nice for them if he breaks Marino's record because it would distract everyone from how bad this season has been and how all of our young players have plateaued or regressed in the past four weeks. And I'm sure they like Brett. After all, if it weren't for him we might be 1 and 11. But I think they're more focused on trying to win, or at least make the bad losses seem palatable. Everyone in the NFL is or should be constantly worried about their jobs, especially at fungible position coaching positions (position, position). Unless you're Matt Millen. Consider Sherman, former GM and Head Coach of the Packers with a career winning record and several playoff appearances, now offensive line coach on one of the least successful teams in the league. The mighty fall quite quickly, and I'm pretty sure that these guys are just trying to stay employed.
Now back to the male basketballing Badgers and their 60%. We're not talking about a game where Winthrop shot five 3's and made three. No, Winthrop shot twenty-five (25) 3-pointers, and made fifteen of them. That's 15 (giving you the numerals for emphasis). This set a record for any team at the newish Kohl('s Department Store) Center. And somehow the Badgers still managed to win. I don't know whether to feel good or terrible. Apparently, our perimeter defense can be terrible, and at times, Flowers, Bohannon, Taylor and the Hoft completely lose the ability to man anybody up. What good teams will we be playing that shoot a lot of 3's? Yes, that'd be Marquette and Ohio A&M (twice). Hmmm. By the way, we haven't won at the Bradley Center since 2001.
Maybe I'm being too gloomy. We beat a team that friggin' hit fifteen 3-pointers on us! Crazy! The stat line shows that we outrebounded them like crazy (40-18), and that, for once, we got a ton of offensive rebounds. And Flowers scored 21 points, potentially establishing him as another guy that can be a legitimate scoring threat. Before the game I'd have said that our only established offensive threats were Kam, Butch, and of course, Alando. Hopefully Flowers will give teams another guy to pay attention to. The first half of last season Landry was also establishing himself as one of those guys. He's got a lot less playing time this season, it seems, and thus had less of a chance to show off his stuff and work on his offensive game. Maybe Bo objects to the Horace Grant goggles. Later in the week-- secularists vs. the papists preview!
Monday, December 04, 2006
J-E-T-S box score
The Jets have a first year head coach. The Jets have recently retired one of the most prolific tailbacks in NFL history. The Jets starting quarterback had surgery on his rotator cuff in the off season. The Jets are a team facing adversity. I mean... they didn't lose their backup QB for the rest of the season with a broken foot or anything, but they are dealing with some difficult circumstances.
How do we get blown apart at home vs. the Jets?! I don't care if we were starting Sage Rosenfels and Lamar Smith, we aren't the Dolphins, we don't get blown up by the Jets at home! We should at least be able to grind out a punt fest.
i didn't watch the game. But i can tell you exactly what happened.
Jets kick. Packers return to the 24.
Packer ball- 1 yd run. Incomplete pass. Fumbled exchange. Jets recover.
Jets ball- 12 yd run. 2 yd. run. 8 yd pass. 2 yd TD run Leon Barlow.
Jets kick. Packers return to the 36 (YAY!)
Packer ball- Interception @ GB 48.
jets ball- 12 yd run. 2 yd run. 8 yd pass. 8 yd run. 18 yd TD pass Santana Moss.
Packers Kick. Packers fumble kick. Jets recover.
Jets ball- 9 yd run. four 10 yd runs. fumble. GB recovers.
Packer ball- interception returned for TD
Jets Kick- Packers return to 29 yd line.
Packer ball- 29 yd reverse D. Driver. 19 yd pass (Driver). Driver donates $50,000 to fight AIDS. Ahman Green Fumbles at the NY 21.
Jets ball- Run. Pass, pass, pass, HB option, Lavernious Coles touchdown. Fakes lambeau leap. Gets Boo'd.
Jets Kick- Field goal is good.
Halftime
Mike McCarthy interviews Bonnie Bernstein for the defensive coordinator position. Kidding, Bernstein interviews McCarthy about how far apart his eyes are. Kidding, they'd never stick Bernstein with this game.
McCarthy yells at players.
Packers Kick- Jets return to NY 35. run, run, run. TD Ke'van Washington.
Favre plays 500 'till his arm hurts. Driver catches a bomb. Jets catch the rest. i guess we kicked a field goal.
Game Over
We suck.
Blog Over
How do we get blown apart at home vs. the Jets?! I don't care if we were starting Sage Rosenfels and Lamar Smith, we aren't the Dolphins, we don't get blown up by the Jets at home! We should at least be able to grind out a punt fest.
i didn't watch the game. But i can tell you exactly what happened.
Jets kick. Packers return to the 24.
Packer ball- 1 yd run. Incomplete pass. Fumbled exchange. Jets recover.
Jets ball- 12 yd run. 2 yd. run. 8 yd pass. 2 yd TD run Leon Barlow.
Jets kick. Packers return to the 36 (YAY!)
Packer ball- Interception @ GB 48.
jets ball- 12 yd run. 2 yd run. 8 yd pass. 8 yd run. 18 yd TD pass Santana Moss.
Packers Kick. Packers fumble kick. Jets recover.
Jets ball- 9 yd run. four 10 yd runs. fumble. GB recovers.
Packer ball- interception returned for TD
Jets Kick- Packers return to 29 yd line.
Packer ball- 29 yd reverse D. Driver. 19 yd pass (Driver). Driver donates $50,000 to fight AIDS. Ahman Green Fumbles at the NY 21.
Jets ball- Run. Pass, pass, pass, HB option, Lavernious Coles touchdown. Fakes lambeau leap. Gets Boo'd.
Jets Kick- Field goal is good.
Halftime
Mike McCarthy interviews Bonnie Bernstein for the defensive coordinator position. Kidding, Bernstein interviews McCarthy about how far apart his eyes are. Kidding, they'd never stick Bernstein with this game.
McCarthy yells at players.
Packers Kick- Jets return to NY 35. run, run, run. TD Ke'van Washington.
Favre plays 500 'till his arm hurts. Driver catches a bomb. Jets catch the rest. i guess we kicked a field goal.
Game Over
We suck.
Blog Over
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)