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: Hulk01
Subject: Lemmings as "Booster": A Bill of
Particular
Date: 01/19/02
Tom Lemmings "handpicked", according to the Bowl
website, the rosters for this year's All American Bowl, from a
list of several hundred nominees, including all the familiar
suspects.
Among his final 75, he named the following:
Scott Rairdon (Rivals #15 OG)
Marcus Freeman (Rivals #26 TE)
James Bonelli (Rivals #13 OG)
Bob Morton (Rivals #1 C)
Chris Frome (Rivals #11 WSDE)
Anthony Fasano (Rivals # 8 TE)
Jake Carney (Rivals #30 S)
Had Burton and Crabtree of Rivals chosen the teams, it appears
only Morton would have been named. None of these seven players
ranks among Allen Wallace's Top 50. Only Bonelli and Morton would
be listed in a consensus top 200 list--never ming top 75.
Yet for his top 75 US players, Tom Lemming named these seven.
What do these seven young men have in common? All were Notre Dame
verbals at the time of the game. All but Marcus Freeman had
verbaled at the time they were selected. Seven of ND's 12
verbals, six at the time of their selection, in were named to the
team.
Also exceeedingly curious is a Notre Dame verbal who was not
invited. It's curious, because he is Derek Landri, widely
considered to be one of the top players in the country at any
position, by every observer (Wallace ranks him the #2 OL, and the
#35 player in the country--on a top 50 list that includes only
four offensive linemen.) Now, what was Derek Landri doing at the
time this All American team was chosen?
He was considering reneging on his verbal to Notre Dame and going
to Michigan instead, to join his teammate Matt Gutierrez. One
could argue that a possible turncoat in the midst might not be
good publicity for Notre Dame, and for that reason Landri was
deemed not to be one of the top 12 offensive linemen in the
country. Maybe not--maybe he had a conflict.
You wonder.
Now , there may be an innocent explanation for Landri's omission.
The entire Poly team, for example, opted for another all star
game, and some schools and state associations had regulations
that led to some players not being available or eligible. And you
could argue that an objective observer would deem Bonelli worthy
of mention, and perhaps, by a stretch, Raridon and Fasano, too.
But Marcus Freeman, who my friends across the river say is a
merely a very solid Divison One prospect? Jake Carney, as much as
we liked him, one of the six best safeties in America? Chris
Frome, who most West Coast programs looked at and passed on
without inviting for a visit?
Curious, too, is the absence of anything approaching critical
mass for any other school. Texas, Michigan, Ohio State and UCLA
jumped out to fast recruiting starts, with classes considered
superior to Notre Dame's at the time of these selections. So
surely they have several players, too--right?
Well, Michigan had two, but only one of the two had verbaled to
Michigan when Lemming chose him. UCLA had just one: Eric McNeal.
Lemming invited just one Texas verbal: Marquis Johnson, who lived
just down the road from Lemming, in Champaign, Illinois.
Curiously, Lemming chose not to name the number one prospect on
Texas's list of verbals at the time of the team's selection, OG
Neal Tweedie, Rival's #4 ranked OG in the US. Interesting note:
Tweedie had chosen Texas over guess who: Notre Dame.
Lemming did name Texas's future verbal, Larry Dibbles to the
team. Interesting note: At that time, Dibbles had scheduled his
last official visit to be to South Bend on January 25. He was
still a strong Notre Dame prospect, capable of being influenced
by seven future teammates at a prestigious all star game.
So of Texas's top-ranked class of 15 prospects who had verbaled
at the time of selection, just one was invited. UCLA and Michigan
right behind, just one each. But of Notre Dame's class of 12
verbals, six players plus an imminent verbal, 13th verbal Marcus
Freeman, were chosen.
Notre Dame 6-7, Michigan 1, Texas 1, UCLA 1--at a time when all
three of those programs were considered to be outrecruiting Notre
Dame.
Now, one thing we know about these games is that they influence
other prospects. Mike Craven made that point last year when he
said "I went to these all star games and didn't see other
Stanford guys. That made me worry." These undecided players,
as well as the many juniors invited to the combine during the All
American Bowl festivities, see seven Notre Dame guys and decide
the Irish must be the looming next great power, Lorenzo Booker
runs behind these buys as his line and decides he could get some
good blocking at ND; Booker said exactly that when recently asked
about his growing interest in Notre Dame. Booker would not be
visiting Notre Dame but-for his experience in playing in this
game.
Josiah Vinson, on the fence but thinking about ND, also was
invited and played alongside these guys, and got a chance to bond
with them, and be sold by them. We know verbals try to sell
uncommitted prospects on their school, as they should.
What is the message here to a senior who verbals to Notre Dame?
Well, among other benefits, you have an inside track to being
named to the All American Bowl--a seven in 12 chance. Pledge
anywhere else and your odds actually may be reduced; to Texas,
one in 15. The game clearly prefers players who have chosen
either Notre Dame, or no school at all.
But wait: it's also a good alternative to at least be visiting
Notre Dame before the teams are chosen. Here's a partial list of
Lemming's picks for the team who had officially visited Notre
Dame or who scheduled an official visit to Notre and still were
considering the Irish at the time of the nominations:
A.J Davis, Thomas Clayton, Travis Leitko, Derek Morris, Dominique
Byrd, Dedrick Harrington, Brian Mattes, JeJuan Rankins, Larry
Dibbles, Lorenzo Booker, Nate Schicattano, Maurice Stovall,
Buster Davis and Josiah Vinson.
So seven current Notre Dame verbals and at least 14 official
Notre Dame visitors--21 ND prospects in all--were invited to play
in the game--by Tom Lemming. (The All American Bowl website
stresses that each player is "handpicked" by recruiting
guru Tom Lemming.)
In other words, more than one in four players invited to the game
(21 of the 75) were serious enough Notre Dame prospects to have
either verbaled, officially visited, or scheduled an official
visit to Notre Dame--including several committed ND prospects who
are not regarded by any other person as worthy of being included
in a game involving the top 75 available high school seniors in
the country. No other school comes remotely close to this
representation.
Is Lemming trying to help Notre Dame's recruiting by inviting a
dispropottinate share of its players to these games, while making
sure that no other program has signficant representation? There's
circumstantial evidence that he is.
There is evidence that Lemming is literally and technically a ND
booster, which among other things bars him from contacting
recruits for the school he boosts. At the least, his efforts
smack of subversive--though not hard-to-detect--support for a
particular program, from a vantage point of apparent objectivity.
At the least, it appears suspicious and worth more--and
official--examination.
I say call the NCAA.
Poster: Roscoe Maples
Subject: I'm not CJ, but...
Date: 01/27/02
1. First of all, there were plenty of games in the last two
years in which JB didn't play outside of garbage time. JB was
recruited to be a point guard in MM's grand two year cycle.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but guys like Art Lee and Mike McDonald
were the primary backup points in their first two years in
preparation for the starting job as upperclassmen (except when
they were injured, as Mike McD was for a good part of his
freshman year). In a way, these guys knew Monty's intentions from
the day they signed with the team, and they were groomed as heirs
to the starting position all along. Of course, I don't guarantee
that JB would be a rock of consistency now if he had received
backup minutes in his first two years, but I don't believe they
would have hurt his development, either. In JB's freshman year,
both he and Tony were poor shooting backup points with imperfect
handles (and they've each improved with time)... but if this was
the case, and JB was not only the more athletic player but also
recruited as the next-in-line PG, why did Monty give TG so many
minutes at JB's expense? I don't think either guy would've
singlehandedly lost games for us in those double-digit wins we
had over the Oregon schools, Washington schools, Cal's and ASU's
of the world the last two years. So why not give JB more runs
with the other starters at that time?
2. There's this other complaint with JB's point guard play. Some
say he's erratic, others say he's wild and out of control, and
still others maintain(ed) that he "can't run a team."
We all know that Monty is a fan of "system" point
guards like Mike McDonald and Tony, but he also realizes that
athletic, penetrating point guards can carry him a long way. In
my mind, Monty was torn between these two ideals and thus never
established a consistent methodology for teaching Julius. Monty
could either try to tame the horse or let it run wild, but I
think he didn't implement either of these strategies. For sure,
Monty had a quick leash when Julius played erratically against an
Oregon or ASU, but against athletic teams like Arizona, Duke, and
St. Joe's, Monty suddenly "needed" JB's athleticism and
basically told him to do his thing. While others have lauded
these moves as pragmatic and our best shot at winning each single
game (let the ever-"steady" TG play in slow-tempo games
we knew we'd win, JB play when we were out-quicked), I think we
did so at the expense of developing a strong starting point guard
for this year and the next. JB must've been as confused as any of
us, since he never knew when to "put his palm out and slow
down" and when to put the ball behind his back and
penetrate. Monty's adjustable-length leash (depending on the
athleticism of the opponent) must have been equally confusing. As
a player, it's fair to ask, "Hey coach, why'd you pull me
for one dumb turnover in this game when we were up 20 but leave
me in after a similar turnover in this more competitive game when
we were down by 1? What do you want me to do?" In my mind,
these questions are still unanswered. My best guess is that Monty
wanted to turn JB into a PG who could run the system without
cutting off his instincts to drive. He didn't want JB to become a
Mike McDonald-- a guy who didn't take full advantage of his
athleticism. But in doing so, I think Monty never established a
direction for JB's development.
3. By now, I think just about everyone here agrees that JB needs
a lot of confidence to play well. Believing that he was the
better player all along, how confident could he have been the
last two years when he was sitting the bench in favor of TG?
Monty's short leash didn't help-- he was out of the game before
he had really been given a chance. JB never really got the
opportunity to learn how to play with the other guys in game
situations. So why'd he play so well against Duke? It's
Hillcrest's argument, and he's said so a thousand times, but in
the Duke game, Monty had no alternative at point, and JB knew it.
No one was looking over his shoulder, and Monty wouldn't pull him
for one small mistake. Suddenly, JB had all the confidence he
could ever need, and he played about as well as you could ask.
And, perhaps most disturbingly, (and we've seen the same thing
this year,) Monty didn't go back to JB after such a fine
performance (was he even the primary backup point in the very
next game after we beat Duke?). When you look back at the
inconsistencies of the last few years, and even the fact that JB
didn't start for the first several games this year, I'd say JB
was hardly given an opportunity to establish and build his
confidence.
4. In short, I'm criticizing Mike Montgomery for the inconsistent
approach to development he used on JB. In doing so (and since I
know I'm going to catch the wrath of many for disagreeing with
our coach), let me say that Monty IS a great coach and there is
absolutely no chance that I could do his job better than he does
it overall. And to be fair, it's difficult to establish a vision
for a team that will be playing together several years down the
road and develop your players accordingly, especially with the
scarce minutes available to bench players. However, just because
Monty's a terrific coach doesn't mean that he's always right.
With regard to JB, I think Monty was wrong in failing to annoint
him the "PG of the Future" title so many others have
received, in giving TG almost all the backup minutes for the last
two years, in his "adjustable-length leash", his
constant indecision about what position JB would eventually play,
whether JB could "run a team", whether JB would be a
pure system guy or something closer to Brevin Knight, and in
failing to bulid on JB's successes against teams like Duke. While
JB is ultimately responsible for his own performance, I think
it's been awfully difficult for him to both play his best game
and please the coach. And when you play something other than your
best just to please someone, something is wrong with the
situation... and something is lost.
Poster: scorecard
Subject: on MM (detailed)...
Date: 01/29/02
I refrain from commenting on recruiting, because many of the
facts are not publicly available. (I too wish we had CT's
freshman) I can only assess based upon games, practices, and
analyses by those I respect.
1. I think MM is the best coach of fundamentals in the US. Even
our fast breaks are taught with precision...
2. He is a fabulous evaluator of every player's talent,
abilities, and idiosyncratic flaws and strengths. He notices very
obscure differences and highlights them for improvement or takes
advantage of them. The subtleties he observes during the game,
before consulting film, are awesome.
3. As a result, every player in his 16 years has improved to the
cap of their abilities by the time they graduated, with the
exception of Tim Young and (maybe) Kris Weems.
4. I am a strong proponent of his system, of power basketball,
etc. I do think that we had more astute play calling from the
bench when Doug Oliver was the assistant in charge, and that we
are not nearly as sharp these days with play-by-play calling.
5. We are so well prepared due to his abilities that the aberrant
game (like USC) where we look weak is so striking. In contrast,
how many times during the last 15 years have teams like UCLA, AZ,
etc. been upset?
6. He coached fabulous games in losses to UMassII and Utah, which
was perhaps the most talented team we have ever played. The win
vs. Wake Forest was highly dependent on strategy, as is our
unprecented five game streak at UCLA.
8. I am a major proponent of his honest and blunt sytle. IMO this
transcends basketball--the only way people improve is by working
with mentors, coaches, and bosses who are rigid, fair and frank
in their assessments.
My criticisms:
1. He allowed Art too get too far out of control during his
senior year. Art was reading too many press clippings and needed
to be reigned in.
2. He needs to discipline JB ruthlessly. JB needs to be planted
on the bench everytime he commits a mental (NOT PHYSICAL)
mistake. JB has proven he has the talent to be great, but needs
to prove he has the mental discipline and team-first mentality to
play major minutes. Negative reinforcement is the best way
here...
3. I would have played CH a great deal more against USC. If MM
reviews the USC film, I am confident he will see the same thing.
4. He made a mistake of staying with Weems too much against KY
(6-23), otherwise he probably would have won a NC. Nonetheless,
Pat Riley who is an awesome coach by any metric made the same
mistake with John Starks in Game 7 in 1994.
Poster: Mike McLaughlin
Subject: Academic Situation- long
Date: 01/30/02
Hulk, no offense taken, just ribbin' ya...
In terms of the academic situation, I have a real hard time with
that question. One side of me says that I want Stanford to keep
its rep in keeping academic admission standards high, both for
athletic and regular admissions. I enjoyed being in an
environment, both in the classroom and in the locker room, where
everyone wasn't a dolt. One of the most interesting things I can
tell people is that in our locker room, we had regular
discussions on politics, race relations, economics, as well as
how hot Brittney Spears looked on the cover of Rolling Stone. All
the guys on the team, even some of the ones we would tease
constantly for being a little clueless here and there, were smart
and well versed in many topics. Also, the guys are really
talented. Chad Hutchinson and I used to have dueling guitar
contests, and John Ritchie, Jon Hebert and I formed a band and
used to play all the time. So keeping the admission standards
high like it is made college really enjoyable and fun. Being able
to be around people like that made me think more, and have a lot
of fun.
On the other hand, sometimes I wish we could have a consistent
year in and year out chance for the nat'l championship. Sure, we
had our shot this year, and the year we went to the Rose Bowl,
but honestly, no one takes Stanford that serious, which is
unfortunate. To get that level of respect (which means you get
ranked higher) you need to have several good years in a row. To
have several good years in a row, you need the players, and most
of the players are not going to match up to the admission
standards.
I'm torn, but since I've been through it, I would have to say, we
really need to be proud of what Stanford represents. Class-act
student-athletes who play well on the field, but then contribute
to society once their football careers are done. I know some that
have come through the ranks haven't exactly lived up to that
standard, but on the whole, I would say most do. Just because we
don't compete for a shot at the title 8 years out of 10, as most
of the continual top 10 schools do, doesn't mean we should
sacrifice our heritage. My boss is a Cal grad, and a big football
fan. He hates that the football program has sunk to such low
levels in terms of recruiting, and yet they still suck. Not
trying to pick on Cal, but it's true. They've tried that avenue,
and have failed.
Another thing to think about is, no matter who you let in to
Stanford, they still have to get passing grades. Most Stanford
professors don't give a rat's ass how good the football team is.
If they see a player who got in on less then steller grades, they
are going to ride him. I had some tough professors who were extra
tough on athletes, and I don't blame them. They have a rep to
keep too, and they are not just going to let some player slide
through. They don't want a bunch of under-educated people out
there in the world with Stanford degrees, it looks bad for them.
Plus, the whole Stanford population doesn't want that. I don't
want that. I want Stanford to symbolize the highest excellence in
both academic and athletics.
I honestly believe we can achieve great success on the football
field even with our current standards. We may not win a national
championship, maybe not ever, but we will be a school that is
considered a great school to play football at. On top of that,
kids who are 1)smart and 2) want to do something with their life
other then play football, will naturally be drawn to Stanford,
and that is what I think is best for Stanford. I think over time,
things will change around Stanford. If you look at every college
program, they most have at least 1-2 players who are perfect
Stanford material. I believe over the next few years or so, with
the program under Teevans, most of these players are going to
migrate to Stanford on the selection. Once this has set
precendence, we will start to have recurring years of great
success, and an eventual nat'l championship.
I'd rather take that approach then the dot-com, easy way out of
things, such as cutting admission standards to horrifying levels.
Just my opinion, for what it's worth.