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 email@example.com.
Below are the posts that made this week's list:
Subject: If only the Play had happened at Stanford - mayhem?
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
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)
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