TheBootleg.com®
Posts of the Week
Each week, we will
highlight a few entertaining and/or informative posts from the
previous week. Please keep in mind that it is hard to keep
track/prioritize all posts so we would welcome input from all
Booties. You can make a "Bootie Selection" post as a
response to any post that you deem worthy or you can email a link
(to the nominated post) to me at lars@thebootleg.com.
Below are the posts that
made this week's list:
Poster: Greenie
Subject: If only the Play had happened at Stanford
- mayhem?
Date: 12/17/01
After watching tape of the Browns fans show their disgust for
the officials at the end of the Jaguar game, I fell into a dream
if the '82 Big Game was played at Stanford.....?
Keep in mind in those days, a cooler filled with whatever you
liked could be brought in. The torrent of Chardonnay bottles from
the shady side would make Tora Bora look a picnic.
But the "Daisy Cutter" equivalent would have been a
"funnelator" loaded with hearing aids collected from
the long-time faithful.
Torrents of obscenities would fall down from the Stanford
faithful, only to be softenend by the swath of dead air above the
track separating the fans from the field.
And finally, the home field clock operator would have
inadvertently (?) let the clock continue down to 3 seconds after
Wiggins/Elway called timeout too soon, therefore preventing the
Play from ever happening.
Ah to dream.
Poster: Genuine Realist
Subject: A Scary Woody Allen Joke
Date: 12/18/01
Back when he was much younger and wrote good jokes, Woody
Allen was asked how success had changed lis life.
"Well," he replied, "I'm failing with a better
class of woman."
The story of this year's recruiting ? Could be. However, a note
of realism - the Stanford recruiting visit pattern has definitely
changed over the last five years, with the heavy lifting done in
January rather than the first week in December. (My feeling is
that the four kids who took 12/11 visits probablydid so because
of quirks intheir personal schedules.) So we shall see. Also, the
number of new names that have surfaced, some high quality, may be
some indication that the campaign is a bit moe covert than other
years. That would be the Sherrif's preference, I'm sure.
Poster: Long Winded
Subject: The Thing That Bothered Me About CH...(long)
Date: 12/23/01
is how ineffective he looked on the pick and roll. We ran the
play frequently last night, but he couldn't even get a step of
penetration. Instead, he was forced to dribble horizontally
across the top and then start over. Eveytime. Against BYU.
Against a clone. He did nothing.
The issue for me right now is identifying which of our many
problems can and can't be corrected this season. One thing that
can be corrected is to immediately ban the simultaneous presence
of last night's starting guards. As Jeff points out below--and I
do recall CJ and myself commenting on this in the summer--the
starting tandem of TG and JB is probably the worst-shooting pair
in the top half--top 150 teams--of college basketball. It is
brutal with these guys on the floor together. This is not
correctable, imo. They have too many years proving they are bad
shooters in their resume. We are a bad team when these guys are
on the floor together. We are a bad team when many OTHER guys are
on the floor together, too, but let's at least rid the starting
lineup of this combined problem.
So, what do we do in it's place? I don't know. I think Tony
brings nothing to the table, unless the absence of anything gives
him an edge over the others, and I do think there might be some
value to nothingness at that position right now. Tony cannot
shoot or score. He cannot defend. He cannot create. He cannot
lead a break. That last thing is what might cause me to choose
the nothingness of CH over the nothingness of Tony G. right now:
CH is at least willing to force tempo, even if that tempo goes
nowhere. I was fascinated at how many times Tony slowed things
down in spread floor situations last night. He brought a healthy
dose of quicksand to an offense that needs some easy points, some
transition. For that reason, I would probably go with CH over
Tony G.
Now, CH versus Julius Barnes. This is a tough one. Preliminarily,
I think Monty has to enforce a new rule with ruthless discipline:
The following players will immediately be benched if they even
attempt a 3-point shot: JB, Tony G, and Josh Childress. These
shots are Stanford turnovers. I don't care if the ball flukishly
goes in: Pine, baby. So, we're gonna take the 3-point shot out of
JB's "arsenal." If we do that, how does he stack up
with CH at the point? Close call, but I think I give JB a shot
here until after the second Cal game. He probably has a slight
edge over CH defensively, with emphasis on the word
"slight."( I believe I have correctly reported in the
past that JB does NOT have great lateral quickness, something the
staff has known for years.) I also think JB has a slight edge in
the ability to break down a defender, though, so I think he has
to get a real shot at proving he can't play the point. Three
games to see if he gets so discombobulated mentally that the job
will go to CH by default. Besides, all things being equal, I
think we look better out there with more African-Americans. It's
a perception thing, one that might even influence recruiting. God
knows I had to turn down the contrast button last night watching
Stanford play BYU.
We're not gonna correct our lack of bulk inside unless we drop
down to Rob Little, and I think he's way too unathletic to play
ahead of either Borchardt or Davis. I think we will remain
vulnerable defensively inside, and I don't think we'll be a great
rebounding team(even Borchardt got moved around ALOT last night).
I do think C-Bo's foul trouble can be corrected. Stick with that
pair inside. BTW, I continue to believe JK is more effective than
RL, and I see nothing to distinguish them athletically at all,
despite the protestations of practice observers.
That leaves the wing positions. CJ is one, of course. Now that
I've given JB a chance to play PG, that leaves Logan, Lottich,
and Childress as the possibilities. To me, the decision depends
on what Monty truly thinks he can and should play on offense. I
think the concept of "inside out" is a joke with this
team: Nobody can shoot, beyond CJ and maybe Lottich. I don't see
how you can continue to play that kind of philosophy with this
talent. If it was me, I'd be emphasizing penetration--sorties to
the hoop for shots, fouls, or dishes. Maybe you press a little.
Certainly, you push into even the slightest spread floor
situations. If Monty went this direction--and I don't think he
will--I'd go with Childress, so long as he is ordered not to
shoot standstill jumpers or 3s. If Monty continues to believe
this talent can play inside out, then I think you have to play
Lottich. His defense is no worse than any other wing players
right now, except for CJ, who--unbelievably--is our best
defender. Wow.
I also think I would create a second uni