[Oskee] wow

Thu Dec 3 11:16:53 EST 2009

I think DM has come a long way since last year, and his ability to break
the press is what led to us being close early in the first half.  It was
19-19 or something similar when he picked up his third foul...Clemson
then turned up the heat and went on the 26-4 tear to stretch the lead
with him sitting.  I don't think that's coincidental.  He still makes
some shaky decisions...(his spinning shot that Booker tipped in being an
example) but without him, we don't win last night, imho.  

From: oskee-bounces at heins.net [mailto:oskee-bounces at heins.net] On Behalf
Of Robert Mingee
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 10:10 AM
To: Fighting Illini Sports Enthusiasts List
Subject: Re: [Oskee] wow

I know the numbers are compelling, but it just didn't feel like the
difference to me -- our total lack of energy and complete inability to
handle the press did.  Being an engineer, I'm always wary to jump to
conclusions about cause and effect :-).  I guess I really didn't see
McCamey doing a lot out there in the first half before he got into foul
trouble -- we had just as much of a problem with the press with him in
there as without.  Maybe I wasn't paying attention enough, but I don't
recall ANY possessions in the first half where they didn't press, with
or without McCamey in there.  They let up some in the second half, and I
can't say I was watching for a correlation with McCamey's presence on
the floor.  I hope the announcers are right that aside from Missouri
we'll see very little of that type of pressing and intense defense the
rest of the season, but it's still something that has to be improved.

Maybe my impressions are colored by my feelings about him -- it wouldn't
be the first time (Brian Randle, anyone? :-).  I know he's the best PG
we've got right now, and I know he has a lot of offensive talent, but in
the past he's had serious issues with effort (and it will take time to
convince me that's a thing of the past), and his decision-making is very
shaky at times.  I hesitate to blame him for racking up so many fouls
early, because I clearly recall one call being complete crap, but I
think that was the 4th foul instead of the 3rd.  But he's had frequent
foul trouble in the past, and you can't have that from your point guard.
It's just always seemed like there's a big gap between potential and
production with him.  I agree that Jordan is not the answer, as much as
I wish he were.  I still think there's a good chance he'll become our
lock-down defensive stopper, but he just doesn't have the offensive
ability.

Any other opinions out there?  Am I full of it, and just needing to set
down the axe?  Or does anyone else doubt that was the primary
contributing factor?

-- robert

________________________________

From: John Livengood <jdlive at yahoo.com>
To: Fighting Illini Sports Enthusiasts List <oskee at heins.net>
Sent: Thu, December 3, 2009 9:27:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Oskee] wow

The announcers were making a huge deal about McCamey because...well, IT
WAS A HUGE DEAL. ;-)

As soon as he went out with his 3rd foul, they went on a 26-4 run. If
you look at the +/- for the game (i.e. the point differential when a
player is in the game or out), McCamey was +26! Clemson didn't seem to
want to press us when he was in the game, but when he was out, it was
pretty ugly trying to get the ball up the court.

The problem is, we really don't have a decent backup PG. Jordan has been
playing, but he really should be playing 5-10 minutes a game, not the 20
he's been playing so far. I think eventually DJ Richardson might be the
guy, but he's not quite ready yet.

Hopefully this is a season changing win, things were looking pretty grim
at halftime, amazing how 20 minutes of great play can change the
outlook.

JL

________________________________

From: Robert Mingee <mingee at swbell.net>
To: Fighting Illini Sports Enthusiasts List <oskee at heins.net>
Sent: Thu, December 3, 2009 10:10:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Oskee] wow

I don't think I'd ever truly give up and not watch/finish a basketball
game, but I freely admit I was tempted to start fast-forwarding at the
beginning of the second half, since I took a break for dinner at
halftime.  We just looked awful in the first half.  We seemed clueless
about handling the press (WAY too much dribbling, not enough movement
and passing), or even the tight half-court D, and just had no emotion or
energy, so we were getting our butts kicked on the glass as well.
Sounds like from what the announcers said the pre-game walkthrough was
the same way, and Bruce was really on them about it.  The announcers
were making such a huge deal about how McCamey was on the bench, but
honestly, I just don't think that was nearly the factor they were
trumping it up to be.

Clearly something happened at halftime.  Whether Bruce finally got
through to them, or one of the players finally stepped up and spoke out,
who knows.  But you could just see it in their eyes at the start of the
second half -- they were sick and tired of getting kicked around.  I
never thought of Davis as the leader type, and he still wasn't vocal at
all, but the intensity on his face and body language spoke volumes.
Shoot, even Tisdale looked fired up, and I honestly wonder at times if
he's even fully awake out there. :-)

I have to wonder if the press and high-intensity D didn't ultimately
backfire on them.  I was a little surprised they were still running it
at the start of the second half with the lead over 20, not because we
couldn't come back (clearly, though there's no way I'd have bet money we
would), but because it takes a lot of energy.  They are deep, and were
subbing a lot, but at some point you just run out of gas if you never
allow yourself time to catch your breath.  They did back off on it
occasionally once the run started, but it seemed too late.  I was a
little disappointed that we never seemed to make them pay for it with
fast-break points or wide-open looks underneath, but hopefully that'll
come with time -- again, I thought we were dribbling way too much, and
you'll never make a team pay for pressing that way.  It was really our D
finally stepping up and just the overall intensity and energy level (and
hitting shots, obviously) that sparked the comeback.

I'm sure we will still struggle often this season -- that's just the
nature of a young team that still doesn't have a clear leader.  But last
night showed that the talent is there, and when the guys turn up the
intensity and play together, they can swing a game in the right
direction very quickly.  And even though we didn't make as many FTs as
I'd like to see down the stretch, we didn't panic, and we didn't give
up.  I'm really glad we pulled it out, because I still feel that the
damage done to team morale with a 3rd loss in a row, especially after
clawing back from so far down, would have been extremely difficult for
even Bruce to deal with, and he's one of the best in the business.  And
man, it is really fitting that we helped win the first Challenge ever
for the Big Ten after (IMHO) we lost it for the conference last year by
losing to Clemson at home.

Now let's see if we can keep this momentum rolling!

I...   L...   L...   !!!!

-- robert

________________________________

From: "Arbuckle, Jeanne" <jarbuck at ilstu.edu>
To: Fighting Illini Sports Enthusiasts List <oskee at heins.net>
Sent: Thu, December 3, 2009 7:45:39 AM
Subject: [Oskee] wow

I guess we had to go through a lousy football season to properly
appreciate last night. I hope no one gave up at halftime.

Jeanne

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.perusion.com/pipermail/oskee/attachments/20091203/4d5c5b74/attachment-0001.html 