The Badgers have a big decision to make (again) at quarterback. It's no secret that Chryst and Bielema have said if the competition is close this fall, they will go with the guy with more upside -- the younger guy who will have more time to develop. That's a not-so-subtle nod to Curt Phillips.
Indeed, every report out of practice this week indicates Phillips is the guy (Adam Hoge says Phillips took over 60% of the snaps yesterday). Jeff Potrykus (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) hedged and said maybe the staff knows what Sherer brings to the table, and they are just trying to evaluate where the other guys are. Maybe. Probably not (the coaches provided all the clues needed to connect the dots prior to the Donovan and Evridge decisions, I have to assume the same is true this year).
According to those practice reports, while Dustin Sherer still makes bad decisions, Phillips is still "erratic" and also throws picks (to quote Potrykus this week: "Phillips still isn't a polished passer. Nevertheless, more often than not the ball arrives on time and in a place that allows the receiver to make a play." [In a different article] "However, [Phillips'] throwing was erratic."). Based on these reviews, it sounds as though the coaches are implementing the above theory: if it's close, go with the guy still developing. So here we go.
Generally I don't disagree with the theory: Phillips will continue getting better, so let's go with him rather than someone who's likely already peaked (or near it). The problem comes when we're in a tight game -- maybe down a score -- and Phillips has been playing badly: throwing incompletions and picks, trying to do too much with his feet while our best receivers in 5 or more years languish unused. Do you put someone else in?
With all the talk about Scott Tolzein being a safe #2, wouldn't you rather have the guy who has the bigger arm and the potential for bigger plays lead you back (not to mention 7 career starts): you know, like the strikes to David Gilreath in last year's Illinois game and Isaac Anderson in the Minnesota game? Do the Badgers then effectively end up with a two-quarterback system? That dog don't hunt.Last season when Bielema addressed the quarterback derby he talked about the obligation to go with the guy who gives the best chance of winning today, not next year. If Chryst and Bielema have in the back of their heads that maybe Sherer is really that guy, and not Phillips, will they be too quick to give Phillips the hook? We can't have that.
Now, I've been a Sherer proponent, but the chorus is pretty loud that he hasn't made the strides the Badgers need him to. Assuming that's the case (and the coaches and folks attending practice know better than me), then it's time for someone else.The coaches are at the practices and want to win even more than I do. I trust they will make the right decision on the quarterback. But that doesn't mean I'm not nervous about it. I think it's next Wednesday that the starter is announced.
Whomever we go with, it's got to be concrete. Period. Can you give a guy the hook if he's awful (see Evridge vs. Penn State)? Yes, but if they have any doubts about their decision it will end badly.
Pick someone and stick with him.
Showing posts with label Bielema. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bielema. Show all posts
Precedent
I have a simple message for the message board crazies out there: you're crazy.
This guy? You're partially right, but on Bielema?
Look, I don't know if Bielema is the answer. He's certainly done some things I wasn't happy with. He's done some things I was happy with, but in hindsight were wrong. He hasn't been perfect. But where all the crazies get this, "UW will never win under Bielema" from is beyond me. Seriously.
Oh, but you have numbers on your side, right? I mean look: 12-1, 9-4, 7-6. Clearly a team on the decline. Clearly Barry Alvarez's legacy is tarnished, left in tatters by a coach who doesn't know what he's doing.
Well, I'm a lawyer in my day job, so I like precedent. Let's look at some:
10-1-1 . . . 8-3-1 . . . 4-5-2. Anyone recognize that? Ok, another:
10-2 . . . 9-4 . . . 5-7. How about that one?
So what happened? In 1993 Barry led the breakout season that was a sign of things to come and was golden every year since, right? Um . . .
Returning a bunch of stars in '94 (notwithstanding Brent Moss's troubles), we started the season highly ranked (#10), got smacked around by Colorado (55-17, for those who don't recall the pain), and ended up beating #25 Duke (yeah, Duke), in the Independence Bowl (and we remained unranked). Not what we wanted, but not awful. Then it all came crashing down: 4-5-2, including another embarassing loss to Colorado (at the Camp, 43-7, we were ranked #21) and painful ties to Stanford and Illinois (the last tie in college football, and the most boring game in the history of Wisconsin football; thank God I decided Thanksgiving was more important).
That was it. '93 was a flash in the pan, and Wisconsin was back to the Morton era. Well, not quite. Ron Dayne saved the program, or that's how the script goes. In '96 we started unranked (not even receiving votes), went 8-5 but lost to all but two teams with a winning record (Utah in the Copper Bowl, and 7-5 Stanford), and finished the season unranked. In '97 we started the season #24, but after another embarassing loss (remember when Syracuse was good?) we dropped out, and ended the same way, with a brutal loss to Georgia in the Outback Bowl, finishing unranked, just as we had the prior three years (8-6 overall, beating one team with a winning record, 7-5 Iowa).
We all know what happened next: we were "the worst team ever to play in the Rose Bowl" (until we stunned national title contender UCLA), then we beat Stanford to become the only Big Ten team to ever win back-to-back Rose Bowls. And then?
That's right, we started 2000 with seemingly all the pieces in place, ranked #4 in the country, and instead went 9-4, beating a good Oregon team (10-2), but only beating two other teams with winning records (Western Michigan and pre-Big East Cincinnati; forgive me for not alerting the presses) before beating 6-6 UCLA in the Sun Bowl to finish the season at #23. Then? 5-7. And that's when people started wondering if Barry had passed his prime. The same people who are now arguing that Bielema has permanently ruined Barry's legacy and needs to go . . . now.
And it isn't as though Barry rocketed back from that 5-7 season, any more than he did from the 4-5-2 season in '95. 8-6 (losing to 3-9 Indiana and only two conference wins), 7-6 (beat a good Ohio State team, but the only other conference win over a winning team was Michigan State); that was when everyone started wondering if Barry had gone all Joe Tiller on us. The voices were loud: Barry needed to go. Then we narrowly missed the Rose Bowl in Barry's last two years, and sent him out with an epic beat down on Auburn.
Under Alvarez (of whom I'm a big fan, by the way), the Badgers finished in the top 25 only 6 times in 16 seasons, with two big gaps interspersed: '93, '98, '99, '00, '04, and '05 (see here).
So, Bielema goes 12-1 (#7), 9-4 (#24), and 7-6. Not the trajectory we like, but not without plenty of precedent from none other than "King Barry." So let's save the "trashing his legacy" talk for a little further down the road. How about we start by cheering for the Badgers and hoping (not without reason) that they have a good year. And what's the standard? Well, if we're holding up Barry's legacy, I'd go with about 8 wins against a pretty mild slate. That's what the King did.
I, for one, think we'll be a little better than that.
This guy? You're partially right, but on Bielema?
Look, I don't know if Bielema is the answer. He's certainly done some things I wasn't happy with. He's done some things I was happy with, but in hindsight were wrong. He hasn't been perfect. But where all the crazies get this, "UW will never win under Bielema" from is beyond me. Seriously.
Oh, but you have numbers on your side, right? I mean look: 12-1, 9-4, 7-6. Clearly a team on the decline. Clearly Barry Alvarez's legacy is tarnished, left in tatters by a coach who doesn't know what he's doing.
Well, I'm a lawyer in my day job, so I like precedent. Let's look at some:
10-1-1 . . . 8-3-1 . . . 4-5-2. Anyone recognize that? Ok, another:
10-2 . . . 9-4 . . . 5-7. How about that one?
So what happened? In 1993 Barry led the breakout season that was a sign of things to come and was golden every year since, right? Um . . .
Returning a bunch of stars in '94 (notwithstanding Brent Moss's troubles), we started the season highly ranked (#10), got smacked around by Colorado (55-17, for those who don't recall the pain), and ended up beating #25 Duke (yeah, Duke), in the Independence Bowl (and we remained unranked). Not what we wanted, but not awful. Then it all came crashing down: 4-5-2, including another embarassing loss to Colorado (at the Camp, 43-7, we were ranked #21) and painful ties to Stanford and Illinois (the last tie in college football, and the most boring game in the history of Wisconsin football; thank God I decided Thanksgiving was more important).
That was it. '93 was a flash in the pan, and Wisconsin was back to the Morton era. Well, not quite. Ron Dayne saved the program, or that's how the script goes. In '96 we started unranked (not even receiving votes), went 8-5 but lost to all but two teams with a winning record (Utah in the Copper Bowl, and 7-5 Stanford), and finished the season unranked. In '97 we started the season #24, but after another embarassing loss (remember when Syracuse was good?) we dropped out, and ended the same way, with a brutal loss to Georgia in the Outback Bowl, finishing unranked, just as we had the prior three years (8-6 overall, beating one team with a winning record, 7-5 Iowa).
We all know what happened next: we were "the worst team ever to play in the Rose Bowl" (until we stunned national title contender UCLA), then we beat Stanford to become the only Big Ten team to ever win back-to-back Rose Bowls. And then?
That's right, we started 2000 with seemingly all the pieces in place, ranked #4 in the country, and instead went 9-4, beating a good Oregon team (10-2), but only beating two other teams with winning records (Western Michigan and pre-Big East Cincinnati; forgive me for not alerting the presses) before beating 6-6 UCLA in the Sun Bowl to finish the season at #23. Then? 5-7. And that's when people started wondering if Barry had passed his prime. The same people who are now arguing that Bielema has permanently ruined Barry's legacy and needs to go . . . now.
And it isn't as though Barry rocketed back from that 5-7 season, any more than he did from the 4-5-2 season in '95. 8-6 (losing to 3-9 Indiana and only two conference wins), 7-6 (beat a good Ohio State team, but the only other conference win over a winning team was Michigan State); that was when everyone started wondering if Barry had gone all Joe Tiller on us. The voices were loud: Barry needed to go. Then we narrowly missed the Rose Bowl in Barry's last two years, and sent him out with an epic beat down on Auburn.
Under Alvarez (of whom I'm a big fan, by the way), the Badgers finished in the top 25 only 6 times in 16 seasons, with two big gaps interspersed: '93, '98, '99, '00, '04, and '05 (see here).
So, Bielema goes 12-1 (#7), 9-4 (#24), and 7-6. Not the trajectory we like, but not without plenty of precedent from none other than "King Barry." So let's save the "trashing his legacy" talk for a little further down the road. How about we start by cheering for the Badgers and hoping (not without reason) that they have a good year. And what's the standard? Well, if we're holding up Barry's legacy, I'd go with about 8 wins against a pretty mild slate. That's what the King did.
I, for one, think we'll be a little better than that.
The 4-week Season
Really, that's what 2009 is shaping up as. As much as NIU, Fresno State, Wofford, and the Rainbow Warriors would have us believe otherwise, we should be 4-0 in those games. Look at the second half of our conference slate: Purdue, Indiana, the once mighty Michigan (at home), and Northwestern. Yeah, Northwestern isn't a given, but those other three? Even in our present devalued state, we're favorites (maybe big favorites) in those games.
As much as the commentor crazies at various places (JSOnline, BadgerBeat, Badger message boards, etc.) want everyone to believe that the Bielema Badgers are the second coming of Morton's Badgers, it's hard to believe they will be. You have to have an awfully negative view of things to believe a team returning this many guys on offense will be that bad.
What that means is the difference between a mediocre season with a decent bowl (7-8 wins) and a solid or even great season comes from those four weeks starting September 26 through October 17. MSU, @ Minnesota, @ Ohio State, Iowa. Last year wasn't all that different, with Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa all in a row. We went 0-4, and went on to a mediocre bowl with awful results.
This year? Another 4-week season.
I, for one, can't wait for the pre-season.
As much as the commentor crazies at various places (JSOnline, BadgerBeat, Badger message boards, etc.) want everyone to believe that the Bielema Badgers are the second coming of Morton's Badgers, it's hard to believe they will be. You have to have an awfully negative view of things to believe a team returning this many guys on offense will be that bad.
What that means is the difference between a mediocre season with a decent bowl (7-8 wins) and a solid or even great season comes from those four weeks starting September 26 through October 17. MSU, @ Minnesota, @ Ohio State, Iowa. Last year wasn't all that different, with Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa all in a row. We went 0-4, and went on to a mediocre bowl with awful results.
This year? Another 4-week season.
I, for one, can't wait for the pre-season.
Media Days Bits and Pieces: Day 1
A nice follow-up at Bucky's 5th Quarter with some decent info in it. Nice work, Adam. [edit] Here's another nice piece where Adam asks the question many of us want: what's up with Sorenson? (and some other stuff)
Here's Potrykus's write-up of the same, and Badger Beat's, complete with a little sunny optimism.
Here's Potrykus's write-up of the same, and Badger Beat's, complete with a little sunny optimism.
Media Days: Coach Speak
(1) I'm jealous of Adam Hoge, Badger blogger at Bucky's 5th Quarter. He's attending Big Ten Media Days, and is providing updates. Good on him. In addition to the convenience of living in Chicago and working at BTN, something tells me Adam is single and without kids. (As a 2008 grad, he's also young enough to have a handle on Twitter.) But maybe he's just better at multitasking than me. Anyway, I'm jealous.
(2) The live chat UW set up with Coach Bielema today was what one would expect: thin on substance. Nonetheless, I think he gave two comments we can learn from: (a) expect a lot of Lance Kendricks and Garrett Graham together (Q: "I thought Garrett Graham was kind of a breakout player last year. Can you give us one or two that you think might 'breakout' this season?" A: "I believe one offensive guy is Lance Kendricks. We really felt good about him last year going into the MSU game, but unfortunately broke his leg."); and (b) JJ Watt will play some tackle depending on the game situation (I predict passing downs) (Q: "If the opener were tomorrow, who would you anticipate being the starting front four defensivlely" You mentioned JJ Watt & I've read you like his cersatility, but will he start inside?" A: "I can name our top six: Schofield [DE], Watt, Moore [DT, some DE], Stehle [DT], Kelly [DE], and Butrym [DT]. It would probably be some combination of those four. J.J. is one of our d-lineman who can play inside or outside [Moore is the other] depending on game plan and the type of offense we are going against.")
Ok, so neither of these is earth shattering. I think everyone expects a lot of 2-tight end sets (I've only written about it somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 times). But I was wondering about Watt. Originally I thought of him as an undersized tackle, but he's listed on the two-deep as a starting end. I think this clarifies that. He is probably the starting end (opposite Schofield), but may move inside from time to time. I'm guessing passing downs because guys like Kelly, Nzegwu, and Mains are pass-rush specialists (they have to be given their size). So you throw them in to rush the quarterback, but keep Watt in on the play as a solid penetrating tackle.
Pretty much the same story out of the opening address to the media today (video embedded below): three solid tight ends (with Turner playing some fullback, too); Kendricks looking to fill Beckum's H-back role, and effectively the same rundown on the defensive line. Combining the statement he made in the chat and the statement he made to the media, it's looking like: Watt, Moore (he pegged him as inside), Stehle, and Schofield.
Last thing: Bielema thinks the Badgers' success at home has hindered high profile home-and-home scheduling. Wouldn't surprise me. Generally scheduling is a tough thing to do, and our home record doesn't look too appealing to opposing teams with resumes similar to ours.
Don't have the interviews with Graham, McFadden, or Schofield up on the BTN yet, so I'm in the dark on those.
(2) The live chat UW set up with Coach Bielema today was what one would expect: thin on substance. Nonetheless, I think he gave two comments we can learn from: (a) expect a lot of Lance Kendricks and Garrett Graham together (Q: "I thought Garrett Graham was kind of a breakout player last year. Can you give us one or two that you think might 'breakout' this season?" A: "I believe one offensive guy is Lance Kendricks. We really felt good about him last year going into the MSU game, but unfortunately broke his leg."); and (b) JJ Watt will play some tackle depending on the game situation (I predict passing downs) (Q: "If the opener were tomorrow, who would you anticipate being the starting front four defensivlely" You mentioned JJ Watt & I've read you like his cersatility, but will he start inside?" A: "I can name our top six: Schofield [DE], Watt, Moore [DT, some DE], Stehle [DT], Kelly [DE], and Butrym [DT]. It would probably be some combination of those four. J.J. is one of our d-lineman who can play inside or outside [Moore is the other] depending on game plan and the type of offense we are going against.")
Ok, so neither of these is earth shattering. I think everyone expects a lot of 2-tight end sets (I've only written about it somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 times). But I was wondering about Watt. Originally I thought of him as an undersized tackle, but he's listed on the two-deep as a starting end. I think this clarifies that. He is probably the starting end (opposite Schofield), but may move inside from time to time. I'm guessing passing downs because guys like Kelly, Nzegwu, and Mains are pass-rush specialists (they have to be given their size). So you throw them in to rush the quarterback, but keep Watt in on the play as a solid penetrating tackle.
Pretty much the same story out of the opening address to the media today (video embedded below): three solid tight ends (with Turner playing some fullback, too); Kendricks looking to fill Beckum's H-back role, and effectively the same rundown on the defensive line. Combining the statement he made in the chat and the statement he made to the media, it's looking like: Watt, Moore (he pegged him as inside), Stehle, and Schofield.
Last thing: Bielema thinks the Badgers' success at home has hindered high profile home-and-home scheduling. Wouldn't surprise me. Generally scheduling is a tough thing to do, and our home record doesn't look too appealing to opposing teams with resumes similar to ours.
Don't have the interviews with Graham, McFadden, or Schofield up on the BTN yet, so I'm in the dark on those.
Notes from Bielema
Coach Bielema gave an enlightening interview to the Big Ten Network, below. Some things of note:
(1) Sherer is in the lead. He says so specifically. Something I noticed about the quarterback discussion in 2007 and 2008? Bielema and Chryst both gave direct answers that were prescient about who would start. With Donovan, he had an understanding of the playbook and toughness, whereas Evridge needed more consistency. Then with Evridge it was experience, but everyone needed to be more consistent (then experience wasn't getting it done). All of that was absolutely true.
Bielema's doing the same things. (1) Sherer has the "upper hand" and has taken a big step forward this Spring. (2) Notice the paucity of remarks about Phillips. The only thing he says is that the Spring start last year helped him; nothing about what he's doing right. (3) Tolzein does certain things well, but isn't flexible: i.e., doesn't read defenses, breakdowns well. (4) Budmayr? Looks good. Seriously, we aren't starting a true freshman.
Bielema tells us what he's thinking, really. I'll be moderately surprised if Sherer isn't the starter in the fall.
Some other things? He was more positive about Clay than Settle was a week ago. Still, expect Brown to get around 40% of the carries. He's more versatile, and Clay's size won't allow him to take many more than 60% of the carries.
Oglesby vs. Konz? This is the big battle that's suprising folks (Bscherer is firmly planted at guard). A by-line in an article in the Journal Sentinel, and now Bielema's comments to BTN? Ok, maybe. Taking a wild guess, the coaches think Oglesby isn't working hard enough and they're pushing him to work harder. As long as he responds, he's still the right tackle.
There's been a lot of emphasis on the change in the conditioning program. I like big, strong football players. What I'm hoping is that we have a defense that isn't gassed in the second half. That's been a consistent theme over the years under Bielema. It needs to end.
The team is practicing turnovers. That's a good thing. It was a major problem last season, so I'm happy to hear the coaching staff is addressing it.
Finally, no more weakside or strongside linebackers. Like the safeties and also the ends, the defense will be playing left and right, not strong and weak. Apparently this is part of the recognition of how things need to change to defend the spread.
Here's the interview:
(1) Sherer is in the lead. He says so specifically. Something I noticed about the quarterback discussion in 2007 and 2008? Bielema and Chryst both gave direct answers that were prescient about who would start. With Donovan, he had an understanding of the playbook and toughness, whereas Evridge needed more consistency. Then with Evridge it was experience, but everyone needed to be more consistent (then experience wasn't getting it done). All of that was absolutely true.
Bielema's doing the same things. (1) Sherer has the "upper hand" and has taken a big step forward this Spring. (2) Notice the paucity of remarks about Phillips. The only thing he says is that the Spring start last year helped him; nothing about what he's doing right. (3) Tolzein does certain things well, but isn't flexible: i.e., doesn't read defenses, breakdowns well. (4) Budmayr? Looks good. Seriously, we aren't starting a true freshman.
Bielema tells us what he's thinking, really. I'll be moderately surprised if Sherer isn't the starter in the fall.
Some other things? He was more positive about Clay than Settle was a week ago. Still, expect Brown to get around 40% of the carries. He's more versatile, and Clay's size won't allow him to take many more than 60% of the carries.
Oglesby vs. Konz? This is the big battle that's suprising folks (Bscherer is firmly planted at guard). A by-line in an article in the Journal Sentinel, and now Bielema's comments to BTN? Ok, maybe. Taking a wild guess, the coaches think Oglesby isn't working hard enough and they're pushing him to work harder. As long as he responds, he's still the right tackle.
There's been a lot of emphasis on the change in the conditioning program. I like big, strong football players. What I'm hoping is that we have a defense that isn't gassed in the second half. That's been a consistent theme over the years under Bielema. It needs to end.
The team is practicing turnovers. That's a good thing. It was a major problem last season, so I'm happy to hear the coaching staff is addressing it.
Finally, no more weakside or strongside linebackers. Like the safeties and also the ends, the defense will be playing left and right, not strong and weak. Apparently this is part of the recognition of how things need to change to defend the spread.
Here's the interview:
Breaking Announcement: New Quarterback, New System
For those people who think that Barry Alvarez still has tight control over "his" football program, today's expected announcement should put that talk to rest.
Everyone has been waiting with baited breath to learn more about the quarterback situation, and the answer has leaked out. Curt Phillips is your new starter. But that's not all. One of the last vestiges of the Big Ten's three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust reputation is going by the wayside. After a hush-hush meeting with the coaching staff, we've learned that Paul Chryst is stepping down as offensive coordinator to pursue other options outside of the program. The new offensive coordinator appears to be Nevada's Chris Klenakis, who Bielema is bringing in to institute his version of the spread option, the Pistol offense that Nevada has used to light up the scoreboard for the last few years.
Although there isn't yet an official announcement, it is expected soon. The spread option, especially one that makes use of running back dives the way the Pistol does, looks like a solid move for the Badgers. Phillips came in a touted "athletic" quarterback who can make plays with his legs. Lining up behind him with Clay turns the Pistol into a Colt .45, as it were. Likewise, the spread may make better use of Gilreath's speed and compensate some for his shorter stature, and with high caliber tight ends, Phillips could have some great options to work with. With less experience than year's past on the offensive line, and a little less weight, this appears to be the perfect opportunity to bring in the new system, taking advantage of Moffitt's athleticism at center, and effectively playing with three tackles (Oglesby, Bscherer, and Carimi).
Presumably message boards the Badger nation round will rejoice at the news: a highly touted quarterback recruit running an exciting new offense? The "Colt .45" -- a spread packing a serious kick (Clay and the Big Uglies) -- could give the Badgers the most potent offense Madison has seen since Ron Vanderkellen roamed the backfield with Pat Richter at "split end."
And yes . . . April Fool's.
Everyone has been waiting with baited breath to learn more about the quarterback situation, and the answer has leaked out. Curt Phillips is your new starter. But that's not all. One of the last vestiges of the Big Ten's three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust reputation is going by the wayside. After a hush-hush meeting with the coaching staff, we've learned that Paul Chryst is stepping down as offensive coordinator to pursue other options outside of the program. The new offensive coordinator appears to be Nevada's Chris Klenakis, who Bielema is bringing in to institute his version of the spread option, the Pistol offense that Nevada has used to light up the scoreboard for the last few years.
Although there isn't yet an official announcement, it is expected soon. The spread option, especially one that makes use of running back dives the way the Pistol does, looks like a solid move for the Badgers. Phillips came in a touted "athletic" quarterback who can make plays with his legs. Lining up behind him with Clay turns the Pistol into a Colt .45, as it were. Likewise, the spread may make better use of Gilreath's speed and compensate some for his shorter stature, and with high caliber tight ends, Phillips could have some great options to work with. With less experience than year's past on the offensive line, and a little less weight, this appears to be the perfect opportunity to bring in the new system, taking advantage of Moffitt's athleticism at center, and effectively playing with three tackles (Oglesby, Bscherer, and Carimi).
Presumably message boards the Badger nation round will rejoice at the news: a highly touted quarterback recruit running an exciting new offense? The "Colt .45" -- a spread packing a serious kick (Clay and the Big Uglies) -- could give the Badgers the most potent offense Madison has seen since Ron Vanderkellen roamed the backfield with Pat Richter at "split end."
And yes . . . April Fool's.
Rolling Along Through Spring Practice
First, tracking Potrykus's comments, I'm sticking with my obscenely early snap decision that Sherer will be the starter. And I'm ok with that.
The Sentinel's (unattributed, but got to believe it's Potrykus's) latest practice report has some good info in it. From the sound of things, expect Toon as a starting wide receiver. It's good to hear that Jefferson is doing something to reduce his exposure to further concussions, but with the solid reports Toon is getting, I'm assuming he'll be the first on the field (with Anderson). As I said the other day, I think 3 WRs will be a pretty common set for the Badgers, with a TE rather than a fullback. That's where Gilreath will come in, I think. On the other hand, with Mickey Turner flashing some skills in practice, Chryst may have a tough decision whether to go that way, or two tight ends, which might give him as many weapons receiving, and better versatility running. Either way, don't expect to see our new fullbacks (Jones, Ewing, and Spitz) on the field as often as you saw Pressley and Rentmeester last season.
Two more notes from the report: it sounds like the DBs are playing pretty well (also here), and Pat Hughes, a walk-on, will be the back-up kicker with Fischer off to Cornell (Potrykus asks Bielema about it on video; also an interesting discussion of the DBs, including focus on Otis Merrill who remains buried in the depth chart).
Speaking of the secondary, another note from the JS gives a little background on the Shane Carter "incident" that kept him out of the bowl (not academics, as I previously misstated). Also, Potrykus reiterates what Coach Cooks said last week, that the safeties will play one side and the other, but not a traditional strong and free safety. In the back of my head that worries me a little re Valai, who's height might be a liability in a free safety-type role -- on the other hand, it's probably a liability no matter what. Despite that, he got consistently better last year, and I expect will do the same this year.
JJ Watt sounds like the real deal at DT. I remain not terribly concerned about the d-line.
Badgerbeat reiterates what Coach Settle had to say about John Clay: lose weight, understand the playbook. Clay has been up around 250, but needs to get to 240, preferably a little lower than that. I've got to believe Clay will stay at #1 on the depth chart, but if he doesn't get a better handle on the playbook, we'll see more of Zach Brown. Not a bad thing. Zach can play.
The Sentinel's (unattributed, but got to believe it's Potrykus's) latest practice report has some good info in it. From the sound of things, expect Toon as a starting wide receiver. It's good to hear that Jefferson is doing something to reduce his exposure to further concussions, but with the solid reports Toon is getting, I'm assuming he'll be the first on the field (with Anderson). As I said the other day, I think 3 WRs will be a pretty common set for the Badgers, with a TE rather than a fullback. That's where Gilreath will come in, I think. On the other hand, with Mickey Turner flashing some skills in practice, Chryst may have a tough decision whether to go that way, or two tight ends, which might give him as many weapons receiving, and better versatility running. Either way, don't expect to see our new fullbacks (Jones, Ewing, and Spitz) on the field as often as you saw Pressley and Rentmeester last season.
Two more notes from the report: it sounds like the DBs are playing pretty well (also here), and Pat Hughes, a walk-on, will be the back-up kicker with Fischer off to Cornell (Potrykus asks Bielema about it on video; also an interesting discussion of the DBs, including focus on Otis Merrill who remains buried in the depth chart).
Speaking of the secondary, another note from the JS gives a little background on the Shane Carter "incident" that kept him out of the bowl (not academics, as I previously misstated). Also, Potrykus reiterates what Coach Cooks said last week, that the safeties will play one side and the other, but not a traditional strong and free safety. In the back of my head that worries me a little re Valai, who's height might be a liability in a free safety-type role -- on the other hand, it's probably a liability no matter what. Despite that, he got consistently better last year, and I expect will do the same this year.
JJ Watt sounds like the real deal at DT. I remain not terribly concerned about the d-line.
Badgerbeat reiterates what Coach Settle had to say about John Clay: lose weight, understand the playbook. Clay has been up around 250, but needs to get to 240, preferably a little lower than that. I've got to believe Clay will stay at #1 on the depth chart, but if he doesn't get a better handle on the playbook, we'll see more of Zach Brown. Not a bad thing. Zach can play.
Badger Day in Florida
The Journal Sentinel's blog links a nice article from the Naples News on the Badger Day (29th Annual) talk that Barry and Bret gave yesterday in Naples. The big news is Bielema announced Culmer St. Jean (a Florida product) would start at middle linebacker next season. While this is a change from McFadden, it's not a big surprise. The Badger coaching staff has been excited about St. Jean's progress for a while now and it was near a lock that he'd be in the starting lineup. McFadden will likely still play, probably on the strong side, with Sorenson on the weak side.
Some other interesting comments in the article, but I particularly liked hearing the coach and AD emphasizing academics and citizenship. The guys at Wisconsin need to be student athletes. Just this morning I was discussing with a friend what happens to all the guys who aren't playing on Sundays; it's most of them. That degree is important, and it starts with arriving prepared as a Freshman, as Bielema and Alvarez stressed.
Some other interesting comments in the article, but I particularly liked hearing the coach and AD emphasizing academics and citizenship. The guys at Wisconsin need to be student athletes. Just this morning I was discussing with a friend what happens to all the guys who aren't playing on Sundays; it's most of them. That degree is important, and it starts with arriving prepared as a Freshman, as Bielema and Alvarez stressed.
More On Recruiting and Expectations
Good find by Scott Tappa over at Badgercentric on recruiting. It shouldn't come as a big surprise, but the Badgers are among the best at turning average recruits into winning football teams. We have the biggest positive spread in the Big Ten between win rankings and recruit rankings over the last four years. That's the good news (here's a link to the article he's discussing). Also worth pointing out, the three teams ahead of Wisconsin in these rankings all play in the Big East. I have a hard time viewing the Big East on the same level as any of the other BCS conferences. Maybe that's unfair, but it's how I see it.
The bad news is that "elite" teams recruit better than we do, and win more often. Here is Scout's take on recruit rankings vs. winning % and AP ranking (which I would argue is the more relevant number because it weights strength of schedule) for 2004 to 2008. Of course, I think one should really stagger the years considered for recruiting vs. ranking. How about take the AP rankings for 4 years after the recruit rankings. That way you capture the team in the recruits' 4th and 5th years. The San Diego Union Tribune did one of the better pieces on this, here. The AP's entry staggers a little, as reported on doublextrapoint (a Nebraska blog; the AP has taken the story down).This is a pretty good article from North Carolina.
Bottom line? You don't need to be a top recruiting school to have a very good program, but you probably do need to be a top recruiting school to join the college football elite.
I had the great fortune to be on campus when Barry made us matter to the football world, but I'm not one of those fans who won't be happy until we're winning national titles. I think a good bowl game with the occasional Rose Bowl is enough (don't get me wrong, I'd love a national title). Heck, that would basically put us on par with Michigan (and we tend to win those Rose Bowls!). And that's how I will rate Bielema: can he keep winning the way Barry did? So far? The jury is out. Year 1 was great, year 2 was ok, year 3 was disappointing (to say the least), but Barry had those years (and runs), too.
Again, I may be the Pollyanna in the crowd, but I'm seeing a solid season for the Cardinal and White come this fall. Our recruiting is good enough, and I haven't yet jumped the Bielema ship.
The bad news is that "elite" teams recruit better than we do, and win more often. Here is Scout's take on recruit rankings vs. winning % and AP ranking (which I would argue is the more relevant number because it weights strength of schedule) for 2004 to 2008. Of course, I think one should really stagger the years considered for recruiting vs. ranking. How about take the AP rankings for 4 years after the recruit rankings. That way you capture the team in the recruits' 4th and 5th years. The San Diego Union Tribune did one of the better pieces on this, here. The AP's entry staggers a little, as reported on doublextrapoint (a Nebraska blog; the AP has taken the story down).This is a pretty good article from North Carolina.
Bottom line? You don't need to be a top recruiting school to have a very good program, but you probably do need to be a top recruiting school to join the college football elite.
I had the great fortune to be on campus when Barry made us matter to the football world, but I'm not one of those fans who won't be happy until we're winning national titles. I think a good bowl game with the occasional Rose Bowl is enough (don't get me wrong, I'd love a national title). Heck, that would basically put us on par with Michigan (and we tend to win those Rose Bowls!). And that's how I will rate Bielema: can he keep winning the way Barry did? So far? The jury is out. Year 1 was great, year 2 was ok, year 3 was disappointing (to say the least), but Barry had those years (and runs), too.
Again, I may be the Pollyanna in the crowd, but I'm seeing a solid season for the Cardinal and White come this fall. Our recruiting is good enough, and I haven't yet jumped the Bielema ship.
Notes in the Off-Season
The Champs Sports bowl was the most watched bowl game on cable TV, and higher than 3 bowl games on network TV. So people wanted to see us play Florida State; that's good. Too bad they saw us take the 3rd worst beating of the bowl season. It still stings.
Scott Tappa at Badgercentric has a nice look at Badger running backs over the years.
A little noticed tidbit in the State Journal tells us that someone new will take over football scheduling duties. That said, Bielema and whomever the new assistant is take their direction from the AD, so don't expect to see big changes on the scheduling front. So probably little noticed for a reason.
Interesting summary of Paul Chryst's discussion of the quarterback situation with Mike Lucas and Matt lePay.
Scott Tappa at Badgercentric has a nice look at Badger running backs over the years.
A little noticed tidbit in the State Journal tells us that someone new will take over football scheduling duties. That said, Bielema and whomever the new assistant is take their direction from the AD, so don't expect to see big changes on the scheduling front. So probably little noticed for a reason.
Interesting summary of Paul Chryst's discussion of the quarterback situation with Mike Lucas and Matt lePay.
The Cynic: Bowling For Fun, and other odds and ends from Florida
Say what you will (Michael Hunt) about the BCS, USC, Texas, Utah, the SEC, the MWC, fairness, money, legitimacy, mythical national championships, whatever . . . that bowl game last night was fantastic. That's what college football bowls should be. Two very good teams that can beat each other on any given night (and they could).
This is a Badger Blog, so here are some things relevant to the Badgers: the single most important key to the game was Oklahoma's two first downs inside the Florida 10 yielding no points. Bret!?! Listen up!! At the time I said, "yeah, Bob Stoops, slam that thing in from the 1 on 4th down. You can do it. Make a statement." I was wrong. Bob Stoops was wrong. Oklahoma fans everywhere were wrong. Take the points. Now, if you're in a bad spot, and you know that everything is stacked against you, maybe going for it is the right option, but I'll tell you what: if Oklahoma gets 3 points from either trip inside the 10, that's a very different ball game. And that early? You never know. Take the points.
Why? With another three points, is Sam Bradford forcing a deep throw with 5 minutes left in the game? No. Now, a bunch of things would've been different, but the bottom line is Oklahoma is up three in a close game. TAKE THE POINTS, Bret. I swear, as a Badger fan, I will never again question taking the points in a competitive game.
Ok, three more things that were "keys." (1) Defense getting off the field on third down. Florida did, Oklahoma didn't. The Sooners routinely allowed Florida to convert even third-and-longs. That, folks, is how you lose football games. (2) Percy Harvin. The kid is sick. Speedy and slippery. I wish we had one of him. (3) Tim Tebow. Solid arm, solid legs, silly size for a quarterback. Great player.
Now, onto the juicy stuff: Tebow, God, and idiotic sports announcers. This isn't a blog about Christianity, but . . . (here goes nothing) I practice my faith much differently than Tebow does. While we appear to agree on some fundamentals, his evangelicizing irks me. I don't like it. I don't like John 3:16 eye black. I don't like the religious gesticulations after touchdowns, and I don't like the, "first, I'd like to thank Jesus Christ for [choosing me over the Sooners]." But I'll take it a step further: it's not what I'd do, but it's also not right for me to judge him for his apparently authentic faith. (This does not mean that I no longer mind athletes prattling on about how Jesus blessed them because they scored a touchdown or made a tackle, then take their guns into night clubs, get a little too funky with the local ladies, and generally don't act Christian at all; deeds, not words, my friends). So I don't like it, but I also won't turn my back on the kid because he's different than me. So there.
Not that it isn't difficult. God didn't choose him over the Sooners (or at least I don't think so). And those announcers!?! Good God (to turn a phrase), get off his . . . um . . . lap. Seriously. These are the same people who tell us that Florida "throttled" Oklahoma (to use ESPN's terminology). Yeah, like George Bush throttled Al Gore in 2000. Folks, until that last pick-turned-touchdown drive, that game could've gone either way. Florida won, and good for them, but there was no "throttling." But this is about Tebow. When announcers, who are well known idiots for saying things that preposterous, can't stop fawning over Tebow the Messiah ("you'll be a better person for spending ten minutes in his precence"), it makes it easy to dislike the kid. Seriously, that kind of talk did Tebow's reputation more harm than good (at least with the 70% of Americans who recognize evolution occurs).
On the other hand, it's not Tebow that deserves the scorn, it's the announcers. So I will continue to think that Tebow is a good kid (even with the unsportsmanlike taunting -- he's a kid playing sports; I'm not proud of it, but I've done some taunting during a game this year, and I'm nowhere near as young). Really, it sounds like he's a genuinely good kid with an authentic faith (which I, for one, prefer to express differently). The announcers, on the other hand . . .
Final thought on the BCS title game: Congratulations Florida, Coach Meyer, Harvin, Tebow -- and Oklahoma, Coach Stoops, and Bradford. Well done.
PS. Remember when we went for it late against Tennessee in the '08 Outback? We should've taken the points. Then we wouldn't have needed a touchdown, just a field goal to tie it, when Donovan threw that last interception. So I repeat: TAKE THE POINTS. Badger fans? Take note.
This is a Badger Blog, so here are some things relevant to the Badgers: the single most important key to the game was Oklahoma's two first downs inside the Florida 10 yielding no points. Bret!?! Listen up!! At the time I said, "yeah, Bob Stoops, slam that thing in from the 1 on 4th down. You can do it. Make a statement." I was wrong. Bob Stoops was wrong. Oklahoma fans everywhere were wrong. Take the points. Now, if you're in a bad spot, and you know that everything is stacked against you, maybe going for it is the right option, but I'll tell you what: if Oklahoma gets 3 points from either trip inside the 10, that's a very different ball game. And that early? You never know. Take the points.
Why? With another three points, is Sam Bradford forcing a deep throw with 5 minutes left in the game? No. Now, a bunch of things would've been different, but the bottom line is Oklahoma is up three in a close game. TAKE THE POINTS, Bret. I swear, as a Badger fan, I will never again question taking the points in a competitive game.
Ok, three more things that were "keys." (1) Defense getting off the field on third down. Florida did, Oklahoma didn't. The Sooners routinely allowed Florida to convert even third-and-longs. That, folks, is how you lose football games. (2) Percy Harvin. The kid is sick. Speedy and slippery. I wish we had one of him. (3) Tim Tebow. Solid arm, solid legs, silly size for a quarterback. Great player.
Now, onto the juicy stuff: Tebow, God, and idiotic sports announcers. This isn't a blog about Christianity, but . . . (here goes nothing) I practice my faith much differently than Tebow does. While we appear to agree on some fundamentals, his evangelicizing irks me. I don't like it. I don't like John 3:16 eye black. I don't like the religious gesticulations after touchdowns, and I don't like the, "first, I'd like to thank Jesus Christ for [choosing me over the Sooners]." But I'll take it a step further: it's not what I'd do, but it's also not right for me to judge him for his apparently authentic faith. (This does not mean that I no longer mind athletes prattling on about how Jesus blessed them because they scored a touchdown or made a tackle, then take their guns into night clubs, get a little too funky with the local ladies, and generally don't act Christian at all; deeds, not words, my friends). So I don't like it, but I also won't turn my back on the kid because he's different than me. So there.
Not that it isn't difficult. God didn't choose him over the Sooners (or at least I don't think so). And those announcers!?! Good God (to turn a phrase), get off his . . . um . . . lap. Seriously. These are the same people who tell us that Florida "throttled" Oklahoma (to use ESPN's terminology). Yeah, like George Bush throttled Al Gore in 2000. Folks, until that last pick-turned-touchdown drive, that game could've gone either way. Florida won, and good for them, but there was no "throttling." But this is about Tebow. When announcers, who are well known idiots for saying things that preposterous, can't stop fawning over Tebow the Messiah ("you'll be a better person for spending ten minutes in his precence"), it makes it easy to dislike the kid. Seriously, that kind of talk did Tebow's reputation more harm than good (at least with the 70% of Americans who recognize evolution occurs).
On the other hand, it's not Tebow that deserves the scorn, it's the announcers. So I will continue to think that Tebow is a good kid (even with the unsportsmanlike taunting -- he's a kid playing sports; I'm not proud of it, but I've done some taunting during a game this year, and I'm nowhere near as young). Really, it sounds like he's a genuinely good kid with an authentic faith (which I, for one, prefer to express differently). The announcers, on the other hand . . .
Final thought on the BCS title game: Congratulations Florida, Coach Meyer, Harvin, Tebow -- and Oklahoma, Coach Stoops, and Bradford. Well done.
PS. Remember when we went for it late against Tennessee in the '08 Outback? We should've taken the points. Then we wouldn't have needed a touchdown, just a field goal to tie it, when Donovan threw that last interception. So I repeat: TAKE THE POINTS. Badger fans? Take note.
The Cynic, New Year's Day Edition
(1) Good for Penn State for trying, but the Big Ten really isn't that good this year. Seriously, though, they couldn't at least have tried a little bump-and-run?
(2) Can anyone explain how USC lost to Oregon State and only beat Arizona 17-10?
(3) Final thought on the Rose Bowl: remember when it mattered? Stupid BCS . . .
(4) No news here, the Big XII really doesn't play much defense.
(5) Did LSU really need to go deep with the lead they had over Georgia Tech, or was it some form of league redemption policy for Georgia's loss to the Jackets? This way everyone can chant "S-E-C" again?
(6) Except for that whole Sugar Bowl thing. Yes, that was Alabama, number two in the SEC, getting stomped by a mid-major in the Sugar Bowl -- basically a home game for the Tide. Best season by a non-BCS program that I can remember. Significantly better than 1985 BYU. I'm sorry, I misheard those southern fans . . . "M-W-C!! M-W-C!!" (Took the sting off the Rose Bowl, didn't it?)
(7) Didn't there used to be an Orange Bowl? Stupid BCS.
(8) I know Hawaii's not that good, but you're gonna tell me Syracuse is!?! Next year, Weis, winning your last game won't be enough.
(9) Ok, so Sarkisian is taking over at U-Dub. Can someone please tell me on what basis Ty Willingham is still considered a decent coach?
(10) Hey, Coach Bielema! 2006 is starting to feel like a long time ago . . .
(2) Can anyone explain how USC lost to Oregon State and only beat Arizona 17-10?
(3) Final thought on the Rose Bowl: remember when it mattered? Stupid BCS . . .
(4) No news here, the Big XII really doesn't play much defense.
(5) Did LSU really need to go deep with the lead they had over Georgia Tech, or was it some form of league redemption policy for Georgia's loss to the Jackets? This way everyone can chant "S-E-C" again?
(6) Except for that whole Sugar Bowl thing. Yes, that was Alabama, number two in the SEC, getting stomped by a mid-major in the Sugar Bowl -- basically a home game for the Tide. Best season by a non-BCS program that I can remember. Significantly better than 1985 BYU. I'm sorry, I misheard those southern fans . . . "M-W-C!! M-W-C!!" (Took the sting off the Rose Bowl, didn't it?)
(7) Didn't there used to be an Orange Bowl? Stupid BCS.
(8) I know Hawaii's not that good, but you're gonna tell me Syracuse is!?! Next year, Weis, winning your last game won't be enough.
(9) Ok, so Sarkisian is taking over at U-Dub. Can someone please tell me on what basis Ty Willingham is still considered a decent coach?
(10) Hey, Coach Bielema! 2006 is starting to feel like a long time ago . . .
Thud.
With that, the 2008 season is over.
It was a strange game to watch. You read the box score and the Noles crushed the Badgers. They did. But it never felt that way until the second fumble return for a touchdown, and that was to start the 4th quarter.
At the half, I actually felt pretty good. The defense shut down the Noles, save for the last 33 seconds of the half, where they seemed to play like the half was already over. Ponder was nearly broken from hits he sustained from our line and linebackers. Sure, it was 14-3, FSU, but 7 of those points came from a flukey 75-yard bad screen-pass turned fumble recovery going the other way for a score on what had been a very promising drive. Another good drive ended in a field goal (to make it 7-3). So all in all, not that bad.
The second half started well, with a solid drive to kick another field goal making it 14-6, a one-score game (I might have gone for it on 4th and 2 the way we had run the ball), but taking the points was reasonable, probably the better decision). FSU's first series of the half, Valai forces a fumble, recovering it on the Noles' 22-yard line. Now we're in business. Or not. The fumble recovery is overturned. Tough for me to say that was the right call, but it was understandable, and being a Badger fan, of course I didn't like it. It was probably the right call. Then the Badgers surrender 22 yards on a 3rd and 19, and after a nearly 8 minute drive, FSU scores to go up 21-6. Still, the Badgers have had three very good drives out of the last four.
A big run from Sherer, and the Badgers are back in business. From FSU's 31, Hill drives up the middle for 6 yards, churning, twisting, turning, dragging players, . . . fumbling. Ok, down 15 points and driving, we really needed that, but the defense played so well in the first half and again forces a three-and-out. Except that Nzegwu was called for roughing the kicker on the punt -- without even touching the kicker. Bizarre. Still, doesn't excuse giving up the ensuing drive for a touchdown.
Now it's 28-6, and with only 18 seconds left in the quarter, it's looking a little desparate, despite the Badgers not looking that bad. We need points and execution the rest of the way. A big play, another 15-yard personal foul against FSU, and the Badgers are back in business at the Noles' 41. Sherer drops back, feels pressure, gets hit, fumbles, FSU recovers and . . . returns it for a touchdown. Game Over.
From then on, everyone plays like it's over. The offense goes three and out, the special teams give up a 17-yard punt return, and the defense allows a 41-yard scoring drive. At 42-6, in come all the reserves. The Badgers add a late touchdown against FSU's scrubs, and there it ends, 42-13.
I don't know that there was a single turning point, but if I had to pick one it was Valai's non-fumble recovery. To that point the defense played well. Afterwards? Not so much. But the Badgers were still in it, even after another fumble inside the Noles' 30, when the non-penalty against Nzegwu gave FSU another chance on their subsequent drive. Even then, we had a chance. Sherer's fumble ended the chance.
By the way, the ESPN announcing was really, really, really bad. Paul McGuire is awful, and Nestler and Griese are justifiably relegated to 4th tier status by the "World Wide Leader." Just awful.
So? Does this one go in the ever growing list of Bielema coached games with ugly second halves despite quality starts? Probably. Bielema didn't give up the turnovers and it was the defense, not Bielema, that gave up the plays allowing the long touchdown drives in the 3rd quarter after what seemed like stops. But it was Bielema's coaching.
Disappointing. Not really that we lost; it was that kind of a season. More that a game we could have won ended so ugly.
Disappointing that the senior-led defense wasn't more resilient when things didn't go their way. Disappointing to have three very costly fumbles and not get any turnovers the other way. Disappointing to dominate the run game the way we did and not come away with a touchdown until garbage time against FSU's scrubs. Disappointing that we got blown out, and that people reading the box score will think we were outclassed from the opening kick-off.
Thud. 2008 is over.
It was a strange game to watch. You read the box score and the Noles crushed the Badgers. They did. But it never felt that way until the second fumble return for a touchdown, and that was to start the 4th quarter.
At the half, I actually felt pretty good. The defense shut down the Noles, save for the last 33 seconds of the half, where they seemed to play like the half was already over. Ponder was nearly broken from hits he sustained from our line and linebackers. Sure, it was 14-3, FSU, but 7 of those points came from a flukey 75-yard bad screen-pass turned fumble recovery going the other way for a score on what had been a very promising drive. Another good drive ended in a field goal (to make it 7-3). So all in all, not that bad.
The second half started well, with a solid drive to kick another field goal making it 14-6, a one-score game (I might have gone for it on 4th and 2 the way we had run the ball), but taking the points was reasonable, probably the better decision). FSU's first series of the half, Valai forces a fumble, recovering it on the Noles' 22-yard line. Now we're in business. Or not. The fumble recovery is overturned. Tough for me to say that was the right call, but it was understandable, and being a Badger fan, of course I didn't like it. It was probably the right call. Then the Badgers surrender 22 yards on a 3rd and 19, and after a nearly 8 minute drive, FSU scores to go up 21-6. Still, the Badgers have had three very good drives out of the last four.
A big run from Sherer, and the Badgers are back in business. From FSU's 31, Hill drives up the middle for 6 yards, churning, twisting, turning, dragging players, . . . fumbling. Ok, down 15 points and driving, we really needed that, but the defense played so well in the first half and again forces a three-and-out. Except that Nzegwu was called for roughing the kicker on the punt -- without even touching the kicker. Bizarre. Still, doesn't excuse giving up the ensuing drive for a touchdown.
Now it's 28-6, and with only 18 seconds left in the quarter, it's looking a little desparate, despite the Badgers not looking that bad. We need points and execution the rest of the way. A big play, another 15-yard personal foul against FSU, and the Badgers are back in business at the Noles' 41. Sherer drops back, feels pressure, gets hit, fumbles, FSU recovers and . . . returns it for a touchdown. Game Over.
From then on, everyone plays like it's over. The offense goes three and out, the special teams give up a 17-yard punt return, and the defense allows a 41-yard scoring drive. At 42-6, in come all the reserves. The Badgers add a late touchdown against FSU's scrubs, and there it ends, 42-13.
I don't know that there was a single turning point, but if I had to pick one it was Valai's non-fumble recovery. To that point the defense played well. Afterwards? Not so much. But the Badgers were still in it, even after another fumble inside the Noles' 30, when the non-penalty against Nzegwu gave FSU another chance on their subsequent drive. Even then, we had a chance. Sherer's fumble ended the chance.
By the way, the ESPN announcing was really, really, really bad. Paul McGuire is awful, and Nestler and Griese are justifiably relegated to 4th tier status by the "World Wide Leader." Just awful.
So? Does this one go in the ever growing list of Bielema coached games with ugly second halves despite quality starts? Probably. Bielema didn't give up the turnovers and it was the defense, not Bielema, that gave up the plays allowing the long touchdown drives in the 3rd quarter after what seemed like stops. But it was Bielema's coaching.
Disappointing. Not really that we lost; it was that kind of a season. More that a game we could have won ended so ugly.
Disappointing that the senior-led defense wasn't more resilient when things didn't go their way. Disappointing to have three very costly fumbles and not get any turnovers the other way. Disappointing to dominate the run game the way we did and not come away with a touchdown until garbage time against FSU's scrubs. Disappointing that we got blown out, and that people reading the box score will think we were outclassed from the opening kick-off.
Thud. 2008 is over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
