The quarterback's job is to manage the game and make throws. Unless I'm delusional, the choice couldn't be clearer if the season started today: Sherer. Phillips is fun to watch and can do more with his legs, but that's not his job. Playing against the second team he consistently threw inaccurate balls into coverage. Playing the game he played on Saturday against a solid defense would be a disaster. There's nothing wrong with that: he's a redshirt freshman. He's not really supposed to be game ready. Sherer is.
Sure, the pick was bad. Really bad. The throw was late, but the pass was never open and Brown -- presumably the earlier read -- was, right over the middle for an easy 5-7 yards. Ok, so bad, bad throw. But outside of that throw, he was solid and had one or two throws that no one else on the team can make, and it's not close. Not right now. So Sherer, please.
Could Phillips challenge in the fall? Yes, but I wouldn't count on it. Could Chyrst install something to try to make Phillips Tim Tebow, circa 2006? Sure. Maybe that's even likely (except the Tim Tebow part). I think the more interesting quarterback battle will be next Spring when it's Budmayr and Phillips. I think this statement Potrykus wrote pretty much sums up this fall: "If [Phillips] makes similar progress in the summer it is conceivable he could push Sherer in camp." If, conceivable, could . . . Phillips is your starter.
Ok, so on to a few other things I noted:
(1) Turner at fullback. I'm not excited about it. I'd rather see two tight ends and two wide receivers. But I'm not in charge and Chryst knows a lot more about this stuff than I do.
(2) Where was Isaac Anderson? He emerged towards the end of last season, but we didn't see much from him on Saturday. Is Jefferson really ahead of him on the depth chart? I didn't think so, but after the game, maybe. Gilreath appears no higher than third on the depth chart. I think that's a good call.
(3) Still pretty confident we'll see Clay starting, but Brown with about 40% of the snaps.
(4) I'm scared stiff of injuries to the offensive line. There is no quality depth. As with Phillips, nothing against the freshman on the depth chart, it's just not a position freshman should have to play.
(5) Linebacker isn't looking good. There's no depth, and Sorenson didn't look like he was playing at full speed.
(6) Glad not to see any fumbles.
(7) Penalties weren't bad, but the holding needs to go.
Spring Game: Two Things
I've been on vacation this week, but no great changes at practice. Sherer still looks in the lead, Pleasant is pushing Valai, and the two-deep is getting nailed down on the defensive line. So, what's on tap? The Spring Game is a nice opportunity to watch the team practice in a scrimmage format, but remember that's what it is: a practice.
Two keys that the Badgers were bad at last year, Bielema has identified as major areas of concern, and they need to be better at this coming season:
(1) penalties: the offense, particularly, has to stop hurting itself with penalties. Unfortunately, the news out of practice hasn't been great. What better place to see if there's been any improvement than a scrimmage?
(2) ball security: the receivers need to make their catches and the running backs and quarterback need to hang onto the ball. The quarterbacking wasn't great last year, but the receivers hurt the guy under center far too often. And fumbles? The main difference in the bowl game and hurt us all year. They need to stop. The quarterback needs to feel the rush better and the running backs need to cover up as they approach contact.
This is it, folks: the last big football event until the fall . . .
Two keys that the Badgers were bad at last year, Bielema has identified as major areas of concern, and they need to be better at this coming season:
(1) penalties: the offense, particularly, has to stop hurting itself with penalties. Unfortunately, the news out of practice hasn't been great. What better place to see if there's been any improvement than a scrimmage?
(2) ball security: the receivers need to make their catches and the running backs and quarterback need to hang onto the ball. The quarterbacking wasn't great last year, but the receivers hurt the guy under center far too often. And fumbles? The main difference in the bowl game and hurt us all year. They need to stop. The quarterback needs to feel the rush better and the running backs need to cover up as they approach contact.
This is it, folks: the last big football event until the fall . . .
Freaks! On the NFL Draft and Prospects
Interesting write up in the Journal Sentinel about the players with Wisconsin ties getting ready for the NFL draft, here. Bottom line, as discussed before, the NFL is a business. All those guys we cheer for in the Cardinal and White? Scouts say things like, "just a guy," "never blocks anybody," "not very good." These are multi-year starters, all-Big Ten players, all-Americans. So, yeah, it's a business. On top of that, to be a pro athlete you need to be a freak of nature. I claim no credit for this thought; a fellow Badger was the first to make the argument to me, but it's right on. To make it as a pro athlete -- to play a few years for league minimum (which is a lot, I will grant you) -- a guy needs to be a freak of nature. Maybe he's unnaturally large. Maybe he's unnaturally fast. Unnaturally strong. Maybe only well above average talent and size, but an unnatural work ethic, which always sounds like, "oh, he really worked hard to get here," as if it wasn't freakish that the guy could pull it off. But it is.
Thinking about all those guys who are stars in Madison, few make NFL rosters, fewer start, and the number of stars in "the League?" Minimal.
I've played a lot of sports [badly] over the years. I've played basketball with Division 1 scholarship players who are head and shoulders above anyone else I've seen. Nowhere close to NBA talent. The pitcher with the 88-mph cannon for an arm? 3-4 mph too slow. The best kid on my little league baseball team, the best my old coach said he's ever had in now 30 years, made it up to triple A and plataued. That's pretty darned good. But it's not the show. Of all the people I ever played with and against, there's been one legit pro athlete. He is a hockey player who projected as a journeyman in the NHL. Decided he'd do better if he finished school. He was right (he did better). I played with him many years after he'd abandoned serious hockey. Now approaching 50, he's still leaps and bounds better than anyone I've ever seen skate with or against him.
Anyway, I think the lesson here is stay in school and take it seriously. Even the freaks only make a living at it for a few years.
Thinking about all those guys who are stars in Madison, few make NFL rosters, fewer start, and the number of stars in "the League?" Minimal.
I've played a lot of sports [badly] over the years. I've played basketball with Division 1 scholarship players who are head and shoulders above anyone else I've seen. Nowhere close to NBA talent. The pitcher with the 88-mph cannon for an arm? 3-4 mph too slow. The best kid on my little league baseball team, the best my old coach said he's ever had in now 30 years, made it up to triple A and plataued. That's pretty darned good. But it's not the show. Of all the people I ever played with and against, there's been one legit pro athlete. He is a hockey player who projected as a journeyman in the NHL. Decided he'd do better if he finished school. He was right (he did better). I played with him many years after he'd abandoned serious hockey. Now approaching 50, he's still leaps and bounds better than anyone I've ever seen skate with or against him.
Anyway, I think the lesson here is stay in school and take it seriously. Even the freaks only make a living at it for a few years.
Have We Talked About Two-Tight End Sets?
In yesterday's practice report, two items that warmed my heart. The offensive play of the day?
Zach Brown took the handoff on the counter play, following
guard Jake Bscherer and Kendricks. Bscherer wiped out one defender and both
Kendricks and Brown ran downfield untouched for about 25 yards.
Effectively playing with three tackles (Bscherer at guard) could have its advantages . . .
And spotlighting the tight ends:
Whoever ends up being the quarterback will be able to take solace in the fact
that they will be throwing to a very talented group of tight ends. As a group
they haven’t gotten a whole lot of pub this spring. Part of the reason for that
is the headliner in the group, senior Garrett Graham, is an unassuming star.
However, it doesn’t seem like offensive coordinator Paul Chryst will be taking
them for granted.
It seems as though every practice each of UW’s four tight ends come up with multiple catches. There were two that stood out today. One by Lance Kendricks, who absorbed a hit from Niles Brinkley to come up with a reception for about a 20-yard gain. Graham also picked up about 20 yards by jumping in front of safety Aubrey Pleasant, making the catch and coming down with Pleasant on his back.
The biggest item from Bielema's post-practice interview with the media:
If the season started tomorrow, Sherer would start. He's considering packages to get Phillips in the game to take advantage of his running ability, but folks, the smart money is on Sherer.
A couple of days ago, Bielema said the defense is going back to a Strong Safety, Free Safety model rather than the right side/left side idea. No word on the linebackers, but given the personnel at safety, this seems like a good idea (Valai doesn't play much like a free safety).
Handicapping
For what it's worth:
I think Dustin (Sherer) is probably playing as well as he’s ever played since he’s been here at Wisconsin. All the other guys too, Curt Phillips, Scott Tolzien and Jon Budmayr, have all made progress and they have a better understanding and feel for what they’re doing when they’re under center.-- Bret Bielema, April 9, 2009.
Starting Offense?
It seems like every day we're hearing about how good JJ Watt and Nick Toon look. Sometimes Spring sensations don't turn into Fall gold, but I'm optimistic -- it's that time of year. Ok, so take the quarterback off the table for a minute (as before I'm in the Sherer camp, based purely on what we hear) and just look at the starting 10 for the 2009 offense.
No offense to Jones, Spitz, and Ewing, but based on the talent we have, I think you're looking at fewer downs with a fullback in the backfield. I think the sets we'll see the most from Chryst will be two tight ends, two wide receivers, or three wide receivers, 1 tight end, only one tailback. See 2005 (3/1 sets) and 2006 (no healthy fullbacks, lots of 2/2 sets). I'm also thinking that we'll see a Moss/Fletcher circa '93 type split of backfield duties. Brown is the better all-around back, but Clay just brings too much to the table for him not to get the majority of the carries. It's not going to be a feature back system, though. I think we'll see about a 60/40 Clay to Brown split in snaps.
From what we're hearing Toon must be locking down a starting spot on the outside. Maybe the bigger question is who is the #1 receiver, Anderson or Gilreath. I'm sticking with Anderson, and keeping Gilreath as #3, which means lots of playing time. You have to like the flexibility you get with Graham and Kendricks (or Turner) in there. Two tight ends with traditional size and blocking ability, plus Toon's size for downfield blocking. Clay and Brown should love the opportunities they get on the ground. And with Brown in there, you're looking at a formation (the 2/2) that could run a power dive, or send 5 solid receivers into pass patterns. That can happen with both tight ends in, or Chryst can send Kendricks wide, as he has before, effectively giving the Badgers a 3/1 set with 2/2 personnel. Chryst obviously knows way more about all of this than I ever will, but I'm salivating at the possibilities.
No offense to Jones, Spitz, and Ewing, but based on the talent we have, I think you're looking at fewer downs with a fullback in the backfield. I think the sets we'll see the most from Chryst will be two tight ends, two wide receivers, or three wide receivers, 1 tight end, only one tailback. See 2005 (3/1 sets) and 2006 (no healthy fullbacks, lots of 2/2 sets). I'm also thinking that we'll see a Moss/Fletcher circa '93 type split of backfield duties. Brown is the better all-around back, but Clay just brings too much to the table for him not to get the majority of the carries. It's not going to be a feature back system, though. I think we'll see about a 60/40 Clay to Brown split in snaps.
From what we're hearing Toon must be locking down a starting spot on the outside. Maybe the bigger question is who is the #1 receiver, Anderson or Gilreath. I'm sticking with Anderson, and keeping Gilreath as #3, which means lots of playing time. You have to like the flexibility you get with Graham and Kendricks (or Turner) in there. Two tight ends with traditional size and blocking ability, plus Toon's size for downfield blocking. Clay and Brown should love the opportunities they get on the ground. And with Brown in there, you're looking at a formation (the 2/2) that could run a power dive, or send 5 solid receivers into pass patterns. That can happen with both tight ends in, or Chryst can send Kendricks wide, as he has before, effectively giving the Badgers a 3/1 set with 2/2 personnel. Chryst obviously knows way more about all of this than I ever will, but I'm salivating at the possibilities.
P.S. Konz practicing with the 1st team looks more and more like a ploy to get Oglesby practicing harder. Oglesby is your starting right tackle.
And then there's the quarterback issue. So anyway, here's how I see the starting lineup, depending on whether we're 3/1 or 2/2 WRs to TEs:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
