You get half a win in terms of percentage for a tie? That's what the numbers seem to indicate. What is this, hockey?
1. MICHIGAN - .740 (874-295-36, 1205 GP)
874 wins over 1169 (wins and losses) is 0.748
874 wins over 1205 (total games played) is 0.725
874 wins plus 18 (half of our 36 ties) over 1205 (total games played) is .740
Mgoblue.com notes that Rich Rod's Executive Assistant is Jennifer Maszatics. Her e-mail address is [email protected]. I don't know about you, but I am e-mailing her and asking her to give our support to all the players and coaches. Let's give her the best from the Michigan faithful and hope that she passes it on to Coach.
Even if there's just a 1 in a 1,000 chance that someone reads/pass along these e-mails, it's better than sitting by and watching our coaches get hung out to dry by journalists with an axe to grind. It's time to close ranks around our own however best we can.
Great video - keep them coming. No suggestions for music, but I would love to see some Breaston highlights in there. I had never heard that Desmond interview, by the way. Very cool.
Solid video. I am not thrilled with the idea of pumping in non-marching-band-music during the games, but I wouldn't mind a video beforehand. They play a History video before Bulls games in the United Center set to a song from Remember the Titans that gets me riled up every time I see it.
I think you're on target here about potentially losing some of these guys, especially if Robinson ends up as our starter (or Gardner seizes the reins next year).
I am not sure that the chances are quite that high, though. If Tate wins the starting position (I am assuming he is still the favorite despite the recent Robinson buzz), I could easily see Robinson playing defense. Then Gardner could redshirt or just end up as the #2 QB awaiting his turn to start.
The whole goal of the Rodriguez hire/change of direction was to win some national championships. I don't think you can do that without staying healthy. While planning for contingencies is helpful and prudent, you need to make sure your back-up plan doesn't hamper your ceiling.
With the limited number of practices and games in college athletics, the reps at QB are too precious to split evenly two ways. This is especially true for young players. A QB's rapport with his first team receivers, the center, etc., build over time. His ability to make good decisions and good plays hopefully improves over time. I want one of these young kids to seize the reins and end up the concensus starter. If that means the other eventually changes positions or even transfers, so be it. I like our changes of competing for a national championship in the next few years a lot better if we end up with one established, experienced quarterback.
I have to respectfully disagree here. I think you need your QB to have confidence in himself and not be looking over his shoulder. I think he has to be able to execute the game plan and take his time even when the game starts off a bit rocky. I think the offense needs to know that he's your QB and be thinking that they're going to win games together, not hoping that the Other Guy gets up off the bench. If the QBs know that they're going to get yanked for a slow start, I think it will hurt you more in the long run.
Don't tease us now, sir. Let's see this OSU shirt. If you can't print it for fear of lawsuits, assasination, or lynch mob - so be it. But at least give us a peek.
Six Zero - mgoblog inside jokes are all well and good, but I would be more interested in a sweet Michigan shirt than just a graphic representation of a catch-phrase from my favorite blog.
Off the top of my head: something like you-know-who doing the Heisman pose? Or a Michigan player doing the Heisman pose with no number or name and a tag line like "Who's got next?" I am pumped to see some Barwis shirts, but don't be afraid to invoke some old school Michigan icons, too.
I feel like Sheridan's arm strength crippled the offense last year. It shrank the field, and led to bad duck throws while backpedaling when he got into trouble. I don't want to see him out there this year except in case of emergency.
Also, I would like to remind everyone that this will likely be a rebuilding year no matter what from Michigan standards. If our goals is to win some national championships, let's have the QB of the future (with the clearly superior physical tools) taking snaps instead of the physically overmatched walk-on that frightens us all to death.
I am also hesitant about pinning our future wardrobe choices on the kid who has never started a game in his life. I remember being excited to start the Matt Gutierrez era before the 2004 season. The whole quarterback situation obviously panned out just fine in the long run, but a Gutierrez t-shirt would probably not have been a stellar idea.
That being said, just having a Darth helmet with the Michigan helmet stripes could look spectacular.
Overall a solid effort, but we have enough chips riding on young Tate this season. No need to put the pressure of 10,000 t-shirts on him, too.
I think you need some of that old toughness and commitment to defense in the locker room. Maxiel and Kwame definitely could learn a few tricks from Old Ben. There weren't any decent options available at that price for only a year, and I think the leadership is well worth it. If you get some passable minutes from him, that's great. In all honesty, I don't see the Pistons making many waves this year unless they can preemptively land one of the big free agents in a mid-season trade.
Great idea - is there somehow with the time, tools, and know-how to detach the hood or door panels? They would make great collector's items to hang on a wall instead of corroding in a scrapyard. Maybe it could be auctioned off with half the proceeds donated to MGoBlog or the University?
First, lets give this man some points. This is the type of thought-provoking, labor-intensive post that the up arrow was invented for.
Second, I am not totally sold on whether you can draw a lot of conclusion from this data. I would be particularly cautious about drawing conclusions from the "tiers."
For example, the tier 1 quarterbacks could easily be pocket passers that take a lot of sacks (which is usually credited as a run, unless you accounted for that). If you look at something like that and see that they are generally injured for longer, it could easily be because they are getting sacked all the time and not actually trying to run that much more than your average, Tier I pocket passer.
That being said, I was shocked to see how often the quarterback ended up injured. It makes me wonder what the NFL numbers would be for something like this. When you look at a guy like Favre (probably a Tier I guy who did a lot of scrambling to create room to throw downfield) who went so long without missing a game, it makes you wonder what it is that makes some people borderline invincible, willing/able to produce despite an injury, and/or both.
I have to put in a mention for the game against Indiana in 2000 (58-0). Although beating up on Indiana is normally not a huge point of pride, as I recall Randle El was putting up some good numbers that year and was pretty heavily hyped coming into the game. Their offense had put up 38, 34, 42, 45, and 33 points in their first five games of the season. I remember leaving the stadium just beaming after the whooping we put on IU.
The quasi-arbitrary break points worry me, too. Could we do a regression analysis to eliminate that issue? Any volunteers with plenty of time on their hands?
Actually, could we instead re-categorize Sheridan into the category most likely to not see the field? Any statistical fallacy you could arrange to make me think that he will never see the field would be greatly appreciated.
Our average time of possession ranking from last year was 110th nationally. The only teams worse than us were:
Record Team
5-7 Florida International
5-7 Temple
8-5 Houston
3-9 Syracuse
8-5 North Carolina
3-9 Indiana
1-11 SMU
2-10 San Diego State
10-4 Missouri
10-3 Oregon
http://www.cfbstats.com/2008/leader/national/team/offense/split01/categ…
Obviously that's a pretty good mix of awful, average, and good. Two very average teams - Arkansas State (6-6) and Memphis (6-7) - were both in the top five.
I wish they tracked time of possession by either your number of plays on the field or the actual time you posses the ball (as opposed to the game clock time). I feel like incomplete passes distort the statistic quite a bit. It might be a useful metric for games between two teams that run a lot (or have similar pass/run balance), but it doesn't seem to be that reliable of an indicator of success in general.
I am on the fence as to whether our third down conversion defense in general is a huge factor in our wins (if any amateur statisticians want to take a crack at some sort of regression analysis, be my guest).
For context, our 38.78% defensive 3rd down conversion rate was 60th nationally and 7th in Big Ten (PSU was tops in the big ten at 32.36%, FSU at 25.75% was tops nationally). The mean national conversion % was 39.04% (37.60% in the big ten). We were very close to the median both in conference and nationally.
In our three wins, we allowed Miami to convert 42% of third downs (and there were a lot of third downs), Wisconsin 32%, and Minnesota 29%. Our percentage against Minnesota was good, obviously, compared with our season average of 39%, as was our percentage against Wisconsin. Miami actually converted an above-average percent of their 3rd downs but couldn't find the end zone.
The four-loss stretch from Toledo through Minnesota was certainly pretty ugly (44, 50, 50, and 47%), but we held Toledo to only 13 points. I am just not feeling a strong connection.
I also cobbled together some stats on 3rd and long based on the defense's situational stats for rushing/passing (links below). On 3rd and 7-9 yards to go, we let up 12 conversions in 41 attempts (29%). On 3rd and 10+ we let up 12 conversions in 50 attempts (24%). I don't have a lot of context for those numbers, but PSU (which led the conference in overall 3rd down defensive conversion %) was 7/33 on 3rd and 7-9 (21%) and 5/48 (10%) on 3rd and 10+. We are fairly far off the league-leading pace on those numbers, so maybe you have a point about third and long.
http://www.cfbstats.com/2008/team/418/thirddown/defense/gamelog.html
Game Result Attempts/Converted (%)
2 Utah L 23-25 5 of 19 (26.32)
Miami (Ohio) W 16-6 8 of 19 (42.11)
@ Notre Dame L 17-35 3 of 12 (25.00)
Wisconsin W 27-25 6 of 19 (31.58)
Illinois L 20-45 6 of 15 (40.00)
Toledo L 10-13 8 of 18 (44.44)
@ 8 Penn St. L 17-46 7 of 14 (50.00)
24 Michigan St. L 21-35 9 of 18 (50.00)
@ Purdue L 42-48 8 of 17 (47.06)
@ Minnesota W 29-6 4 of 14 (28.57)
Northwestern L 14-21 6 of 17 (35.29)
@ 9 Ohio St. L 7-42 6 of 14 (42.86)
TOTAL 196 of 76 (38.78)
http://www.cfbstats.com/2008/team/418/passing/defense/situational.htmlhttp://www.cfbstats.com/2008/team/418/rushing/defense/situational.html
Also, if someone could let me know how to paste an actual table into a post, that would be greatly appreciated.
That's certainly average, at best, but part of that is also the amount of possessions afforded opposing offenses. If our offense was frequently off the field in 3 downs (or close to it) or never saw the field because we fumbled a punt, that leaves more opportunities for the opposing offense to wrack up yards. I am not saying we had an elite defense last year, but I still think there's some hope for next year if our offense can even approach mediocrity.
Starting field position on the 45 is brutal (I wonder what the national average was). What is field goal range for your average college kicker? 40 yards? 45? That means you only need to get 27-32 yards to be in field goal range. I sure hope that Brian's theory about lost fumbles being essentially random is correct. We could really use a break towards the mean this year.
That may be a bit bold. That is a seriously porous starting five on the defensive end. Boozer is physically brittle and Villanueva is inconsistent and mentally fragile.
Boston just got better with Sheed (and would have been top 3 in East even with just a healthy Garnett), Orlando will probably be just as good as last year (and the Pistons don't have Sheed to stop Howard anymore), and Cleveland is showing no sign of slowing down.
The Pistons barely made the playoffs this year and I don't think they got much better this year. I would rather have Atlanta's starting five, and maybe even Toronto's or Washington's.
Did you see Shaq play last year? He had a solid season. I wouldn't sleep on Shaq now that he's camped in our division. I am curious, though, to see how well he plays with Lebron. Those are two great passers, though, at the 3 and 5. If only they had a point guard, shooting guard, or power forward to play with, things might actually be interesting.
Has anyone seen Morris actually play on t.v. or in person? One of the reasons I was such a big fan of Grady was that his handle was superb. I don't trust Stu or LLP to bring the ball up against full court pressure. Manny is passable at this, but he's not ideal and it's a waste of his energy that could be better spent elsewhere.
I think a great punter can be a huge weapon. I don't know how hard they are to project out of high school (any insight on this, people?), but I definitely have been frustrated with opposing punters pinning us deep time and time again. If you buy into the need to win the field position battle, I think you can't underestimate the value of a talented punter.
I think you have to look at 4th down calls as an expected value situation. It's not just a matter of "how likely are we to convert this?" or "can we afford to lose this?" You can afford to fail to convert any fourth down in the first quarter, but you might not want to risk handing your opponent easy points by going for it inside their field goal range even if you think you have a great shot at converting. You're probably more interested in trying to convert a fourth down from just outside your own field goal range because a conversion is more likely to result in points.
I feel like the more interesting aspect of play-calling is the paper-rock-scissors aspect of things. You can chart and diagram all you want. I am sure it's useful to be cognizant of what plays work best at what down and distance. But with all the moving parts and variables in a football game, so much of play-calling is a gut feeling. Something like the hook-and-ladder that sealed the Purdue game last year was just a great call. I don't know if you would ever cue that up based on stats alone, but it was a devastating, fantastic call.
What makes certain coaches good and creative with that aspect of the game? Is it luck, instinct, or just amazing scouting and film study to identify weaknesses in a defense?
As a Bulls fan who suffered through the Jamal Crawford era, Ben Gordon is the clearly superior choice. The entire city was pumped to see the Knicks take him off of our hands. If you thought AI didn't fit in with Detroit Basketball, just wait until you see Crawford.
Could you go small with Stuckey, Rip, and Hamilton at the 1-3, Tayshaun at the 4, and Maxiell or A.J. or free agent acquisition (Boozer? Millsap?) at the 5?
What exactly does a sports information department do? It sounds intriguing, but the only thing I know they do is publish questionably accurate heights and weights for the players.
I buy this argument. I really don't like the idea of soft offers, but is there any other alternatives in the world of soft verbal commitments? I think Brian's idea of an early commitment period that prevents other teams from recruiting you is solid, but that's not the world we live in. I just hope that we're being straightforward with these kids and not being dastardly with our scholarship offers.
Someone needs to link some solid youtube footage of Harmon and some of the other solid old school guys for the young'uns.
And I second (or fifty-second) the Desmond Howard nomination. I have never seen someone destroy people quite as effortlessly as he did.
Clearly baseball is a difficult endeavour. There's no denying that. But it doesn't make it exciting or fun to watch. Chess is a mentally demanding activity - that doesn't make it fun to watch. Golf is certainly a very difficult sport to perform at a high level, but it's hard to call it exciting. Doing an iron cross on the rings is extremely difficult, but it doesn't make me want to watch men's gymnastics.
Certainly football is a start-and-stop game, but you have over twenty people on the field at a time and they're usually all doing something of import on each play. Each down is important. You can't foul off five straight screen passes in a football game. Plus, the action itself is more exciting. While a home run might be majestic, how much more entertaining would an hour-long Barry Sanders highlight reel be than an hour-long Barry Bonds highlight reel?
If you enjoy the mental duel or can admire an activity for its difficulty alone, then more power to you. Have fun with your baseball game. I just think that excitement counts in sports, and baseball just isn't that exciting.
I could go on forever about baseball. It's slow, boring, and non-contact. Even the most impressive athletic feats are not that visually satisfying (home-runs, diving catches) and dilute the quality of SportsCenter's top ten plays. Dominant defensive efforts in basketball get you highlight-reel blocks or great, exciting fast-break opportunities on offense. Dominant defensive efforts in football give you bone-jarring hits and turnovers that lead directly to hard-to-come-by points. Dominant defensive/pitching performances in baseball are just not that amusing to watch. I just think the sport is vastly overrated and it's a shame that we have no other sports to entertain us all summer when it's raining outside.
ND was the loss for me last year that hurt the most. I think we outplayed them for the vast majority of the game, but the mistakes we did make were catastrophic in their impact. I remember sitting in the rain - a TON of rain - and thinking "any other day, we would come back and win this game. Please, just stop raining. Please."
I both love and loathe this thread.
One game that sticks in my mind was the 2000 Michigan/UCLA game. This started a long string of young Navarre/Hayden Epstein debacles that haunted my dreams during my early years of Michigan fandom.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/scores100/100260/100260379.htm#RECAPS
We had the ball down three on UCLA's 26 yard line, but Navarre threw an interception to seal the game. Epstein also missed an extra point and two field goals (I think). As a relatively recent Michigan grad, that was my first gut-punch game as a Michigan fan.
First, I feel like our defense was a bit underrated last year. The stats certainly tell a bloody, abysmal story, but a lot of the points we gave up last year were a result of bloody, abysmal field position because of turnovers. As long as we find someone capable of fielding punts/kick-offs and don't see extensive playing time for Mr. Sheridan, I think we will see better results from the defense even if they arguably lost a bit of talent.
I say we get at least 7 wins. I am hoping for 9 with a few minor upsets (by your reckoning). If the offense makes Rodriguez's signature second year leap, we could be in for a seriously pleasant surprise and all bets are off.
I like Warren and Cissoko next year. We have seen plenty of Michigan corners that contributed early develop pretty quickly into scary defenders (Jackson and Hall come to mind, in particular).
I really think Koger could do some damage this year. If his blocking improves enough to keep him on the field, I trust Coach will find a way to use him. Also, if our offense makes the mythical Rodriguez second year jump, I see Odoms doing a lot of the damage.
I have heard good things about Vogrich's shooting, and god knows that one game doesn't tell the entire story. He will obviously have a summer to work out, but at first glance he doesn't look like he's physically ready for Big Ten basketball. I certainly hope the kid proves me wrong.
I saw Vogrich in a playoff game against my alma mater (Stevenson H.S., which is an average team at best). He does not look physically ready for college basketball. As you might have noticed from his measurables (6'4", 180), he is a beanpole. He didn't jump out at me as a particularly great athlete, either. I imagined a D-I recruit would stand out against an average high school team, but I could never have identified him without a program. He got a lot of his points off of put-backs of his own misses, but I don't think he gets those offensive boards at the next level. He attacked the rim, but was not particularly strong or skilled. He just happened to be taller than most of the guys he was playing against (or at least taller than the guys guarding him).
The form on his shot looks pretty, but I didn't get a sense that this was the next Ray Allen. He didn't play poorly and I think he put up decent numbers, but I didn't see any skills that made me excited for his future at Michigan. I hope he was just having a bit of an off day.
Thank God Manny and DeShawn are coming back. Cronin intrigues me. I just read that he averaged over 7 blocked shots per game. Hopefully he's not quite as soft as advertised. We could use some toughness at the rim. I pray daily for Grady to get his head on straight.
Here's the question, though - what are our expectations for next year's team?
Clemson's base press, I believe, is a zone trap. This is what you will probably see after most made baskets for Clemson. A previous poster said that Clemson had 3 different looks for their press. I thought they just ran a 1-2-1-1 zone trap and full court M2M. What's the third one?
In Clemson's base zone trap, you will likely have one guy jumping around like crazy in front of the inbounder, make the inbounds pass difficult. This guy might be facing the inbounder, trying to disrupt his passing lanes, but he might also be partially turned away from the inbounder, shadowing one of our offensive players and trying to force the inbounds pass to another direction. Whomever is inbounding the ball for us has to utilize his ability to run the baseline to open up a good angle for a pass. Ideally, you want to get this pass into the middle of the floor (more on this in a moment).
Getting off a second pass definitely is key to breaking this press, and once the balls is inbounded, the "trap" part of the zone trap comes into effect. Clemson wants to force the inbounds pass into a corner, so they can pin us between the baseline, the sideline, and two defenders. Once the ball is inbounded, the guy who was guarding the inbounds pass will swam whomever received the pass. There will have been a Clemson defender positioned around each of the elbows on the inbounds pass, and whomever is on the side with the ball will double-team our guy with the ball. If we can inbound to the middle of the floor, that's great, because we won't get pinned in the corner. Dribbling out of a double-team is much easier if you are not pinned against the sideline.
If we do end up inbounding to the corner, our guard has a few options to escape. If our guard can split this double-team with the dribble or escape down the sideline, he leaves two defenders behind him. Grady can do this consistently. I am not confident that anyone else on our squad can reliably dribble out of this trap. If our player escapes with the dribble down the sideline, he has to stay in control. Clemson will often try to trap again around midcourt with another defender positioned at half court. If our guy can escape the first trap down the sideline, he wants to head for the middle of the floor, if possible, or find a teammate ahead of him with a pass.
If we can't split the trap with the dribble (which we often will not be able to do), our other players need to keep moving. There will be two Clemson players (one originally positioned at the half court and one originally at the opposite elbow) that are going to drop back when the double team pins our guy in the corner. It's tough to get a good angle on a pass with a double-team draped over you, and the other two clemson defenders in the backcourt are going to playing the pass lanes looking for a steal and quick lay-up. Our guys definitely should not be staying in one spot. You need to keep moving to open up passing angles out of the double-team, and to prevent the defenders from sitting on the passing lanes. Think of the Clemson defenders as defensive backs who have sniffed out a screen pass. They are waiting to snatch the ball out of the air and take it back the other way.
If the ball is trapped in the corner, our players have to move to the ball, and execute sharp V-cuts to get free from pressure (a V-cut is when you start running one direction, then cut sharply the opposite way to get momentarily free for a pass).
In addition, it is a lot easier to pass over a double-team than it is to pass around it. We don't have a lot of tall guards, unfortunately. If Manny ends up helping against the press, he might be tall enough to throw overhead passes over the defense. These are usually faster, more accurate passes than bounce or chest passes delivered around four waving arms. If we can pass over the defense, we're in good shape. With our guard-heavy line-up, we don't often have much height on the floor, but when Gibson or DeShawn or Manny come back to help break the press, they will have an opportunity to spark some fast-breaks if they can pass over the defense.
Most teams only run a zone press off of a made basket, because it requires some time to get in the correct position to trap the ball. Our big guys want to pull the ball out of the nets immediately and get it inbounds to prevent Clemson from getting into position.
On defensive rebounds, I think Clemson usually plays full-court man-to-man defense. There's not a lot of trickery to this one. Our players will need to keep their heads up, but this will probably be more tiring than anything else. Sometimes Clemson might throw in a trap at half-court off of a M2M look, so our guards need to dribble with their head up and be cognizant that a clear path to the sideline might be a clear path into a double team. Breaking the half court trap requires our players to move with their eye on the ball, trying to open up passing lanes. Sharp, quick passes will be essential all game.
I am with Gus on this one - context matters. No TO is good, but the fact that our non-Grady-guards often turn the ball over because of an inability to handle defensive pressure is a different story than Grady turning the ball being too aggressive trying to create for other people. Grady is physically capable of not forcing things on offense. I am not sold on the idea that our other guards are physcially capable of breaking an effective, aggressive press. The question is, are Grady's strengths important enough against a team like Clemson to outweigh his shortcomings in comparison to his elders at the guard spots?
Clemson feasts on TOs, and though I haven't seen them play personally, I have to assume that a lot of those are created in the backcourt by the 40 minutes of full court pressure. I am not saying that Grady is a cure-all. I wonder, however, if we give up less by rolling the dice with him for 20 minutes than by playing guards whose Achilles Heels line-up perfectly with Clemson's favorite way to attack a team.
Hasn't DeShawn struggled a bit against beefier big guys? He is the player I am least worried about given his recent play, but I still have nightmares of the first game against Illinois when their big, gangly stiff ate us alive. I certainly hope to face the dilemma of having to prepare for Griffin (and his slumping Sooners) on short notice.
I think the Northwestern game exposed our guards as pretty subpar ball-handlers. We had some poor turnovers late in the game when they tightened up what had been lackluster pressure earlier in the game. We certainly turned the ball over in traffic in the lane throughout the game. I also get a sense that C.J. and co. aren't super comfortable as ballhanders becase you see them needlessly give up their dribble at the top of the key with regularity.
When Minnesota was pressing more earlier in the season, you saw Grady score 12 points in 14 minutes on four FGAs while slipping through the press with ease. I will take that any day. No one cares what he did in high school -- they just would like to see him developed because he has some incredible physical gifts with his handle and quickness.
I would say that if there was one common fatal flaw of the Amaker and Ellerbe teams, it was the lack of development of the talent we recruited. We had some decent players come through the program (Abrams, Harris, Horton, etc.), but they didn't seem to improve much between during their time in the program. I have faith in Beilein and I am certainly pleased with the progress of the program, but I want to see Michigan become a premier program once again. For the future, it would certainly be helpful to coax some useful contributions from a guy like Grady.
I'm not claiming that Grady won the game for us by any means. I'm just saying that the Minnesota game was a prime example of how much he can help our team on offense. I think one of the coaching staff's top priorities in order to maximize both our short-and long-term chances of success should be to get this kid coached up and on the floor.
Does anyone with an inside track have any insight on why Grady can't live up to Beilein's standards on defense? He certainly has the foot speed to guard people and fly over screens, if that's truly the issue. Is it an attitude problem, an intelligence/following directions issue, or just a function of with inexperience?
I hear everyone on cringe-worthy behind the back pass attempt, though. Not his smoothest of moves.
Michigan commit Vogrich and his Lake Forest squad just slaughtered my alma mater. From what I hear, he is just the kind of shooter we have been looking for. I am hoping for J.J. Redick 2.0.
I am not sold on the idea that Lee is a solid ball-handler. I think he's conservative, which limits his TOs to a point, but when pressured he seems to have a lot of problems getting the ball out safely. I certainly don't see him creating a lot of opportunities for other players. The first 3/4s of the game against Northwestern, they set up a soft trap just past half court. We were never able to dribble out of it, and we ended up making soft lob passes to escape the double-team. That was acceptable against half-hearted pressure, but later in the game you saw Northwestern's defense in the backcourt get more aggressive and we had a few key turnovers. When Beilein brought Grady in for a few plays towards the very end, he easily sliced through the double-team and put pressure on the defense to get back and recover.
Someone needs to tell Manny or Barwis or someone to get in Grady's face about his defensive lapses, because there's no way we can replicate what Grady gives us as a ball-handler. I could care less whether or not Lee is a walk-on. The bottom line is he's not a great point guard. I give him all the credit in the world for player hard, but an offense like Beilein's needs a playmaking guard, especially when we don't have the benefit of a big man with whom we can play inside-outside. The only time we ever stress our opponents' defensive spacing is on Manny's penetration, and we're never going to get anywhere offensively as a one-trick pony. Even freaks of nature like Stephen Curry need a little bit of help to make their team successful on offense.
Recent Comments