[Oskee] wow

Thu Dec 3 12:03:26 EST 2009

He only played 4 minutes in the first half?  OK, I guess it's time to admit my impressions are a bit colored, because I thought he played close to 10 minutes the first half.  So clearly a lot of that struggling with the press in the first half was with him out of the game -- that's just simple math.  I admit I went into the game with pretty low expectations, and started to mentally tune out when the gap got to about 10 -- I went into the same mode I use for all our football games now, where I'm watching and know the score, but I'm not paying much attention to the details.

If Bruce thought DM had a great game and said so, that's good enough for me, because you're right, he hasn't been shy about calling him out publicly before.  I didn't have any doubt he played very well in the second half, I just thought he played lackluster in the first half (when in reality he simply didn't play much, period).  Kudos to Bruce for not pulling him when he picked up the 4th foul, because even I could see we would have lost had he done that (and he usually does).  I promise to give the guy the benefit of the doubt now and set down the axe :-).

Scoring 2 points and having a great game is just fine from your point guard, I'm just glad it's a luxury we can afford this year!

-- robert

________________________________
From: John Livengood <jdlive at yahoo.com>
To: Fighting Illini Sports Enthusiasts List <oskee at heins.net>
Sent: Thu, December 3, 2009 10:38:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Oskee] wow

I have to admit I'm a little flabbergasted that you didn't see the difference when McCamey was in the game, I thought it was very noticeable. Jordan has his limitations and his worst habit is picking up his dribble too soon, and against the kind of pressure Clemson uses, it's disastrous. And when your 2 other guards are both freshmen playing their first true road game, it gets ugly. You may want to read the post games quotes by Weber about McCamey's performance. As you know Bruce is not shy about criticizing players and Demetri in particular, he was full of praise about him last night.

Looking at the box score, McCamey only played 4 minutes in the first half and we had 10 turnovers. In the second half, he played 18 minutes and we had 5 turnovers.

The amazing thing is he only scored 2 points, and those were very early in the game, yet he probably played one of his best games as an Illini, IMO.

________________________________
From: Robert Mingee <mingee at swbell.net>
To: Fighting Illini Sports Enthusiasts List <oskee at heins.net>
Sent: Thu, December 3, 2009 11:09:35 AM
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/20091203/6fda5c70/attachment-0001.html 