ZoomSlowik

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 02:45 PM) There is an expiration date on this sig bet...i'm not going to be sporting an Iowa sig come March. Hurry up you bastard Edit: I also won't be sporting it past Feb 25th, when we beat you at Assembly Hall. And by beat, i mean destroy. Yeah, okay, Iowa shoots 35% and still beats the Illini by 15 and the Illini are suddenly going to dominate them just because they are at home. Illinois would actually have to score to do that, something they've had trouble with against any competent team. 68 against a young UNC team, and 79 against Michigan are the only two good offensive games I see against quality opponents, and another fairly good night with 65 against Xavier. Even against weak teams like NU and Coppin State they didn't exactly light up the scoreboard. Even assuming they play stellar defense it is going to be tough to hold Iowa under 50, meaning that Illinois would have to score at least 65 to make it a killing in my book. They've going to have to a very good night to do that, especially from behind the arc. They probably should win since they play better at home, but I'd hardly expect them to dominate.

It's way too early to be worrying about seeds. About the only ones that appear to be locks are Duke and UConn. The other two one spots and everything below it are very much up for grabs. It should be interesting to see who gets them, because 3 of the major contenders for #1 seeds (Florida, Memphis, and Texas) don't have very strong schedules from here on out, although Memphis had a solid out of conference schedule and Texas also played some teams. Villanova is the only other major contender as I see it, but who knows what happens with them in the Big East. I think someone that is currently a bit under the radar can sneak in because some of the other contenders are a bit lackluster, especially whoever wins the Big Ten. There are a whole lot of teams out there with between 2 and 5 losses, meaning there isn't very much seperation between the teams. Just look at the Big Ten as an example. MSU, Wisconsin, and Illinois all look like #3 seeds or better right now, and Indiana, OSU, and Michigan might be able to get there if they end up winning the conference (I'm not saying they all will be 3 seeds or better, I'm just saying they could be. These teams still have some chances to put up some pretty solid wins.). There's just too much that is still unknown that has to be played out on the floor.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 11:15 AM) Brandon Phillips was in the same deal with Sizemore and Cliff Lee though, so they did turn out ok in that one. I realize that, but he was the most touted and farthest along in his development at the time. IIRC he was one of the top 10 prospects in baseball, and he still hasn't done anything of note.

You don't "have" to keep anyone. You can choose which players you want after each season. If Johan Santana ends up tearing a rotator cuff, you don't have to keep him on your roster. Likewise if you have someone like a Chase Utley that suddenly turns into a stud, you can decide to dump Jeff Kent or another solid but not stellar player. Yes, if you are going to draft minor leaguers that you can keep, you should do a seperate draft, although you have to limit who is available (no Felix Hernandez or Brandon McCarthy in this draft). You don't need to be wasting picks on AA guys that might not contribute for another year or two. You don't need to go nuts, just like 4 or 5 rounds to decide who gets which of the bigger name prospects.

QUOTE(JDsDirtySox @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 11:00 AM) Remember this trade when the Tribe traded for a can't miss stud. http://www.espn.go.com/mlb/news/2001/1211/1293403.html You could put Brandon Phillips in that category too.

I don't know if this really helps the Indians that much. I realize that they think that Crisp is expendable, but he's been a pretty solid player the last two years, hitting around .300 twice with mid-teens power and speed, a respectable although not stellar OBP, and decent defense. He's a pretty valuable player if you can put him in CF. Obviously the Indians weren't going to do that though. On the other hand, Mota is a talented reliever, but he's dropped off ever since teams tried to make him a closer. If he turns it around he can be a major asset, but who knows if that will happen. He could be in the same position as Latroy Hawkins right now. As for Marte, he's obviously got talent, but I wouldn't call him a can't miss. He's shown good power and plate discipline, but his contact has not been impressive. He hasn't cracked .280 above AA and he's striking out quite a bit. Maybe it's because he's a bit young for those levels, but until he straightens that out he's not exactly the next Scott Rolen. He's got time to make an impact, but I wouldn't expect him to be a solid full-time starter for another two years given his recent performances (although he might be with the major league club before that).

Apparently I'm one of the few that isn't overly impressed with what the Indians are doing. To me they look an awful lot like us from about 1999-2004. They developed a few quality position players from their system and made some smart trades to get other players, but they're doing even less on the pitching front than we were. Okay, so maybe Millwood=Loaiza, but they don't really have anything similar to the acquisitions of Wells and Colon. I don't see them really building a perrenial WS contender with this team. At best they might put together a run like they did in the late 90's, but their lineup isn't as good as that one was. They'll eventually need to address the pitching to really make progress. They've got some pretty good young position players, and they were smart enough to lock up Hafner and Martinez. Sizemore and Perralta look pretty good too. But 4 position players doesn't prove anything, especially when none of them have done it for more than 2 years. Their other efforts have not been as successful. Lee is only a passable pitcher so far that is somewhat similar to Garland before he broke out. Sabathia is supposed to be their version of Buehrle, but he hasn't produced all that well. Outside of that, Marte and Sower may or may not turn into an above average player. They still have some work to do before we call them a pending dynasty. Are the guys they developed thus far really any better than the Thomas/Ordonez/Lee/Konerko group the last 5 years? I don't think so.

A couple of comments on Saturday's games... NU blows big time. Their effort in the first half was just brutal. They finally woke up with about 7 minutes left, but by then it was too late. Vedran had the worst game of his life, and it didn't have all that much to do with the defense. He missed about 5 open 3's when he'd normally make at least two of those even on an off night, he missed about 3 more shots in the paint that he makes every game, and he wasn't getting any foul calls in the post like he normally does. It sounded like he was really pissed after the game. If I were Weber, I wouldn't be too happy with my team's performance either. They would have been in a dog fight if not for some solid 3-point shooting (McBride actually got in double figures. I rest my case). Two of them were pretty lucky and fluky shots too (Frazier's prayer at the end of the half and Dee's banked 3 from the parking lot as the shot clock wore down). They had virtually no offense in the post even though NU's post defense is horrendous. Augustine probably could have had 40 if they kept giving him the ball, and he finished with 6. That is not going to cut it on the road against real teams, and this isn't exactly a new occurence. UCLA is another team that people need to stop expecting big things from. Okay, Farmar and Afflalo are great. The rest of the team isn't at the same level however. Mbah a Moute is a decent post player, but he's a little young and not all that consistent. The other players that are actually healthy are somewhat less than inspiring. They just have too many issues this year. They don't have a lot of depth, they only have two scorers, they're not particularly good on the boards, and their outside shooting isn't that good. I can't see them doing much unless Shipp or Bozeman come back earlier than expected. Next year they could be a pretty solid team, but I'd be seriously surprised if they made it past the Sweet 16, if even that far.

There are fewer question marks with White because he is more of a pro-style runner, but he's also probably not going to be an elite back. He's not exactly a blazing fast runner and will probably have trouble getting around the corner in the NFL. The Larry Johnson comparison isn't really accurate because Johnson is also a fairly fast runner. I don't see Bush being a total bust, although it could be hard to live up to the hype. He's not the first back out there that doesn't weigh 225 pounds. Marshall Faulk was a highly productive back for years and played at or around 210 pounds. Tiki Barber is one of the better backs in the league and he's listed at 5'10" 200. Clinton Portis has typically played at around 210. Warrick Dunn is listed at 180 for christ's sake. Payton and Sanders are two of the best running backs of all time and neither one weighed any more than Bush. He has an incredibly high ceiling. There simply aren't any backs in the league right now with his combination of talents. The best comparison in recent history is probably Faulk. He has elite speed and agility and also is a solid receiver. Plus there's a distinct possibility he winds up playing at around 210 without affecting his speed. He's quite simply the best pure runner to enter the league since Barry Sanders. That said, the Texans need a lot more help than just Bush. They really should try to trade Davis for another pick somewhere and let Bush and Morency take the RB load. Their offensive line and their defense need some major help. They might also want to trade down, but they don't seem to keen on that. I don't think they want to be the team that passed on the next Gale Sayers, even if there are some concerns.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 05:30 PM) Take out LSU(next year is when they'll make their run imo) and Indiana(sorry greasy, just dont see it without white) and add Pitt and Texas and I'll agree with those teams. I still don't buy Pitt just yet, they have a really weak schedule. We'll see how they do in their two games against West Virginia, at UConn, and against Syracuse. Those are the only tough games they play tough. Sadly, they only play UConn once and wouldn't play Villanova until the Big East tourney. I'm amazed that they can get a schedule that weak in the Big East. Their other remaining games are Marquette and Providence twice, at St. Johns, at Georgetown, Cincy at home, and Seton Hall at home. They really won't have been tested a whole lot going into the tourney, and I think they might be like last years' Boston College team.

That is a somewhat funky list of teams that can win it all. I won't argue with UConn, Duke, Villanova, Florida, or MSU. LSU is a really wierd pick. Apparently they've never heard of a thing called guard play. Mitchell/Thomas/Davis is one of the top 5 frontcourts in the country, but they won't survive with Mitchell being their only legit guard. I find it amazing that only one guy on their team has hit more than 10 3 pointers. They simply can't make it through the tournament hoping they can pound the ball against everyone. While I think Indiana is a fairly good team, I don't see them winning it all. They need another legit scorer besides Killingsworth, Vaden, and Strickland for that to happen, especially since the latter two seem to disappear at times. Wilmont just doesn't do it for me. Maybe if White comes back anywhere near 100% I'd give them a shot, but I don't have much faith in their current roster. I REALLY don't buy West Virginia as a legit title contender. They've only beat two teams with any kind of tourney hopes, and one of them is an Oklahoma team that is in disarray. How much credit are we going to give them for one good game against Villanova. Don't get me wrong, Pittsnoggle and Gansey are tough, but the rest of the team isn't exactly overwhelming. Maybe they can have another Elite 8 run, but unless they run into a really easy bracket there's no way they make the Final Four. Eventually they'll have a game where they can't hit from outside, or someone absolutely pounds them inside and on the glass. They have virtually no post presence at all. If I were to pick another 3 teams with national title hopes, I'd add the following: 1) Texas- They have probably the best front court in the country, and Gibson and Paulino have started playing better. Their defense has gotten stronger since the start of the year, as shown by their wins over Memphis and Villanova. The one major concern is depth. If any of their starters get hurt they could be in for a rough time. 2) Memphis- They have a lot of the same problems that West Virginia has, but they are deeper, have a gifted PG in Washington, and have a much more diverse set of scorers. Inexperience is a major concern because of silly turnovers and poor shot selection, but they are extremely athletic and they might get some help from their press. 3) I don't really have a strong 8th team, but if I had to pick one it would be Maryland. I know they aren't exactly dominating and their lineup doesn't seem to gel right now, but they have a lot of positives going for them. They've got pretty good guard play from McCray and Strawberry. Both are solid defenders and can do a lot of things for their team. They also have good depth. James Gist and Mike Jones would be stars on a lot of teams, and both of them typically come off the bench. They've also got some decent big players in Ebekwe, Garrison, and Caner-Medley. They do have some issues though. As I said, their lineup doesn't seem to blend together that well at this point in the year, despite all the talent. I think they might actually be better off if Caner-Medley got hurt. He seems to be the problem when they lose, and it would give Gist and Jones more chances to get out there. They also aren't the greatest rebounding team despite their size. They'll do alright against a lot of teams though because they are so big. They're just might be in trouble if they face a team with stronger rebounders like UConn, Texas, LSU, or Duke.

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 01:25 PM) Until they play somebody, i can't tell how good they really are. They haven't played many teams, but I'd still call them a major threat once March rolls around. They have a very balanced team. Brewer and Horford are both future lottery picks that are playing pretty well. Taureen Green is playing very well at the point. He's distributing the ball fairly well without racking up a ton of turnovers, and his outside shooting has been deadly. Joakim Noah gives them another big body that makes life difficult for the other team. He's been solid on defense. Humphrey doesn't do much other than shoot, but he does that fairly well. They don't have a lot of guard depth, but Richards gives them another fairly productive post guy off the bench. It's hard to say what they'd do against the top teams, but I'd expect them to do well against virtually anyone but the top few teams. They've got a lot of different weapons on offense, and they seem to do pretty well on defense. The one thing that could hurt them is that they don't seem to be an elite rebounding team.

Now that I went through the recruiting, let's see what that means for the forseeable future. 2006- Frazier will probably end up as the starting PG. The wing positions will be filled by some combination of McBride, Smith, and Randle. If Randle doesn't start on the wing, he will be at PF. Pruitt will start either at PF or at C. The other post spot will likely go to Arnold or Carlwell. Other contributors will be Carter, Brock, Jackson, and Semrau if he doesn't redshirt. Unless some of these players really step up their game, this looks like a borderline tourney team that will be fighting in the middle of the pack in the conference. This team will be the result of some subpar recruiting the last couple of years. They have no returning impact players, and the players they do have back have not been team leaders that are counted on to consistently produce. Randle, Pruitt, Smith, and McBride will be crucial if this team is going to go anywhere. Three of these guys have to average double figures (or two of them around 15) for this team to be even remotely competitive, although the more they can get from them the better. PG appears to be a major sore spot for this team, and although there is depth the interior isn't all that strong either. Pruitt may be a solid post player, but unless Carlwell can produce better than Pruitt this year, bigger teams should be able to take advantage of them. This definitely looks like it will be a down year. 2007- Frazier at PG, Smith, Gordon, and Randle combo on wings, Pruitt and Carlwell up front. Odd man out of wings, Brock, Jackson, Semrau, Cole and Tisdale (if they don't redshirt) off the bench. There is definitely some hope for this team. Hopefully by now Smith, Randle and Pruitt are proven double figure scorers, although that is by no means a guarantee. Gordon has the potential to have an impact either starting or off the bench. If Carlwell or one of the current younger players can become another solid post player, all the better, although I wouldn't count on it. As of right now, PG still seems to be a weak link for this team. That can all change if Rose or another impact PG signs. They will depend on some young players like Carlwell, Gordon, and Rose to be fairly solid players, meaning I wouldn't expect a deep tourney run. Looks like anywhere from a 4-9 seed in the tourney depending on what happens with some of these players. 2008- Smith, Frazier, Jackson, and Brock return from the 2005 roster as seniors. Carlwell and Semrau will be juniors. Gordon, Cole, Tisdale, and any other 2007 signees will be sophmores. 2008 class to be determined. Obviously there is still a lot that is unsettled for this team. The group of upper-classmen is unsettled, another result of some lackluster recruiting. Smith should definitely be a solid scorer by now, at least if he hasn't entered the draft. Illini fans hope that Carlwell will be one of the more effective big men around by know, although that's a lot of speculation. It's very difficult to project what Frazier, Jackson, Brock, and Semrau will do at this point, although I hardly see stardom for any of them. Cole and Tisdale will probably still be acclimating to the Big Ten. Gordon and Rose (or whatever other recruits) will probably be coming into their own as long as none of them are a one-and-done type player. This could be a fairly solid team if Smith becomes a top-flight scorer, Carlwell at least plays like Augustine by this point, and Gordon and whatever top level recruit signs should be establishing themselves. However, there are a whole lot of unknowns, and the team could really use another solid upper-classmen. My final conclusion is that it's crucial that Weber adds at least one more major recruit if they want to continue to be a factor in the next few years. Adding another major recruit for the 2006 season would go a long way, and as would adding another top 50 player or two from the 2007 class. Otherwise, the lack of quality talent coming in the last couple of years can stall Illinois ascent to elite status.

Wow, a multi-page Illinois recruiting bashing argument that I'm not even involved in yet. I'm going to break my response into two posts since it will be pretty long. I will say this, thus far, Weber has been a very good in game coach. He's done an awful lot this year without a whole lot of talent, and he did well with the remnants of Self's group. However, saying that he's done well on his own so far is less than accurate. You can argue all you want about the recruiting sites, but to this point Weber's recruits haven't peformed either so it's a mute point. Before you rip that statement, read my assessments. I think they're fairly accurate. IIRC He has partial claim to the 2003 class. Self recruited most of these guys, but Weber came in before everything was finalized. That group was Warren Carter, Rich McBride, and Brian Randle. Carter was rated #89, McBride was #31, and Randle was #53. That's a pretty good class for a top program, although much of that can probably be attributed to Self. Now, let's look at what those guys have done so far. Carter has shown absolutely nothing. McBride is in his 3rd year and is still nothing more than a role player that plays decent defense and hits the occasional 3, with some bad percentages this year none the less. On a good team he's a 6th man, but he's their starting SG. Randle has been in the progam for 3 years now and is still only showing flashes. He has good athleticism that allows him to make the occasional impact, but he's a brutal shooter that usually doesn't create his own points and often gets in foul trouble. This class was good on stars but not so hot on impact. We have two role players and a scrub, meaning it's mediocre at best. We can split the blame on this one: Self for recruiting underacheivers and Weber for not doing much with them. The only saving grace is that Randle has the potential to be an impact player in the next two seasons with some work on his game. 2004 was Shaun Pruitt, rated #78, and Calvin Brock, a 3-star that wasn't ranked. This is definitely a subpar-class for most programs. Calvin Brock redshirted his freshmen year and is a garbage minutes player this year. I've seen nothing as of yet to suggest that this is going to change. Pruitt played sparingly his first year, but is a decent role player this year. He's probably not going to turn it around this year, but there is some hope for next year. In terms of performance, you have one passable player and one non-factor. Not exactly a stellar showing. 2005 was Charles Jackson (#121), Chester Frazier (unranked 3-star), and Jamar Smith (unranked 3-star). Just based on rankings, this is a brutal class for a major program. Frazier gets some minutes and makes a marginal contribution. Jackson is a probable redshirt. Smith also gets time and shoots well, but does little else. It's somewhat pre-mature to judge this class, but for major programs you usually expect some help from your new guys. Jackson is a non-factor who we haven't really seen, so it's hard to judge his potential. Frazier hasn't done a whole lot, and is probably on the Rich McBride-career track as of right now. Smith looks like a steal that will at least be able to shoot, although he will need to develop his game to be a real impact player. Passable effort. This year's incoming class is Brian Carlwell (#40) and Richard Semrau (unranked 3-star). This is a below average class for a high major, although there is some potential for it to get better. Getting someone like Ramar Smith would be huge since they'll probably need some guard help. Carlwell is a pretty good recruit, but all accounts seem to say that he's a bit of a project. He seems to have Brian Cook like potential, although he isn't as polished or touted as Cook was coming out of high school. Semrau seems to have some talent since he was ranked higher at one point, but he clearly needs to add some bulk to do much in the Big Ten. My guess is he'll redshirt. Obviously I can't judge performance on this group yet. 2007 shows some signs of hope. Eric Gordon is a stud guard that is ranked #5 overall that could have an instant impact. Bill Cole is ranked #85 overall, although he also needs to add about 20 pounds to be able to do anything in the near future. Mike Tisdale is ranked #100 and is depressingly thin, weighing only 195 even though he is 6'11". I'd be very surprised if he doesn't redshirt. This is getting closer to a really good class, but I'd call it merely decent thus far. You have one apparent instant impact player and two fairly highly rated guys that appear to be projects. They need at least one other big time player to push it into the top 10. Derrick Rose would be huge. However, it still might not rank in the top 5 even if they get him. Other schools that get 3 impact players would probably be higher. It's obviously a little early to rank classes. So in 4 years (three full years and parts of two others), he's come up with 0 impact starters, 4 role players (3 of which I'd say might become solid starters in the coming years), and two still pending top 50 recruits, one of which looks to have an immediate impact. That's not really acceptable for a team that is supposed to be a perrenial conference contender. He hasn't really done a lot to build on the talent that Self brought in. My assessment of the immediate future is in another post.

QUOTE(AirScott @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 02:21 AM) don't be mistaken though, this will be a tight 3-team race. I would've expected the Twins to compete this year not having picked up Luis Castillo...their only problem is finding someone to play shortstop (though Bartlett couldn't do too much worse at the plate than last year). then I'd expect the Indians to finish with about the same record, just this time to even it out and not have to play .800 ball in the last few months just to make a playoff push before the Sox can sweep them and send them packing. I really don't expect to see much from the Twins next year. They're a much weaker version of us last year. Their lineup is pretty pathetic. Stewart and Castillo are decent at the top, but they don't have any real middle of the order hitters or a whole lot of power. Mauer is decent and Hunter does some damage here and there, but both are far from elite (and Mauer doesn't play every game). Unless Morneau turns into the beast that people thought he would be last year or Kubel bursts onto the scene, they won't score enough to do anything. Their rotation isn't as good as people seem to think either. Santana is awesome, but Radke is only decent and on his last legs, Silva is fairly solid but is very hittable, and some younger guys that may or may not pan out this year are at the back end of the pen. Yes, if Liriano and Baker pitch up to their potential that's a dangerous rotation, but it seems unlikely that even one of them will dominate much less both. Their bullpen also isn't as deep as it once was with the departure of Romero. This might be the beginning of the end with the Twins. I think they might be a Santana injury away from 4th place with this team. The Indians are always going to be a threat with that lineup, but this time they're not going to get much help from the starting pitching. Millwood was a monster for them last year, and now he's gone. Sabathia gets credit for being an ace, but he's only had an ERA under 4 once. I think he might be the most overrated pitcher in the league not named Kerry Wood. Lee is a decent pitcher but not stellar. At times he can compete with our guys but he hasn't dominated for long stretches yet. The rest of their guys are nothing special, and only Byrd was effective last year. Their pen will help them win games late, but even that might lose some punch if Wickman isn't as solid at the back as he was last year. I'd be very surprised if the Sox win less than about 92, and they have the potential to win quite a few more. Thome's health is the one major thing that worries me, although it seems like he'll be healthy long before opening day. I'm also somewhat worried about the bullpen, but we should have a little leeway with our other arms unless Jenks and Cotts fall off considerably from last year's performances (you can even afford a bit of dropoff from Cotts, he was pretty dominant). On the other hand, the Twins have some fairly major lineup issues and not a whole lot of depth in their rotation or bullpen, and the Indians have some problems with their rotation and a possible issue with their closer. I really don't see the Twins winning over 90 (I think more like 86), and I think that's right around the best that the Indians will do unless their pitching performs well. They seem to be a lot like the Sox teams of old, depending on their lineup to carry them. The only problem is their lineup doesn't have as many thumpers as the Sox did, and the pitching isn't as strong either. They won 93 last year with a stronger starting staff and one of the best hot streaks that I've ever seen. That probably won't happen again, and I don't think their starting pitching will make up for it. Unless the Sox fall apart they really should win this division before the last weak of the season. Neyer's endless ripping of the defending champs and the best team in baseball on paper entering the 2006 season is really getting annoying.

Wisconsin is clearly in good shape with the way things have gone so far, and it helps that the other two favorites (Michigan State and Illinois) have already lost two games already. There are still several teams that can still win it however. MSU might be the best team, but they still have some tough games left (at Indiana, Wisconsin and Illinois at home for their last three games, plus they still play Michigan and Iowa twice). Illinois is still a threat, but they have to play better on the road with trips to MSU, Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Michigan remaining. Ohio State might have a shot since they have a relatively easy road left (trips to Iowa, MSU and Wisconsin, home against Illini, two with Michigan), but it will be a lot harder if they lose tonight. I still like Michigan's team, but it would be really hard for them to win it since they already lost twice and have 8 games left against ranked teams. Iowa and Indiana are in similar spots with 7 and 5 left respectively, plus Indiana gets a visit from UConn for good measure. In the end Wisconsin has the inside track because they haven't lost yet, and have probably the best schedule (trips to MSU, Michigan and Iowa, home against Illinois, OSU and Indiana). They have to start losing a few for these other teams to have a good chance at catching up, especially considering that several of the top teams only play them once from here on out.

The Illini actually got some good games from people other than Dee. Augustine was better than I thought he would be, and Randle and Pruitt were both pretty solid. If they can consistently get some contributions from those last two I think there's some hope for this team. They've still got to get either McBride or Smith going as a consistent shooter though. That'll really hurt them in the long run if the streaky Brown is their only major outside threat. Still, Indiana was able to get a win against them without playing a particularly good game. They basically just had Wilmont and Killingsworth playing well with very little contribution from Vaden or Strickland. Neither team played an inspired game, but both put on a decent performance without being on top of their game. The rematch in Champaign should be interesting. Dee seems to come up with his big games at home, but maybe Vaden or Strickland has a better night also. Plus until they do it somewhat frequently I'm not expecting much from Randle or Pruitt.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 02:56 PM) well, talent and athleticism are subjective terms so there's no way to come to a definitive conclusion either way. you watch more northwestern football than i do, so i respect your view of their talent. similarly, i haven't missed an illinois game in quite awhile, and i strongly feel their talent the last two seasons (that was the sampling size i initially brought up) was below anyone's. i looked at some of scout.com's draft ratings for last year and this, and those seem to suggest that illinois is at a low ebb for talent. prior to the draft scout will evaluate every kid they view with draft potential. this year, northwestern has 10 players deemed as draft worthy. four of those players are rated within the top 25 at their position. illinois has seven players, two of which are in the top 25 (their punter and fullback). last year, northwestern had 11 players deemed draft worthy, six of whom were rated in the top-25 at their position. illinois had seven players, with two in the top-25. for the record, northwestern had three players drafted last year, and illinois had two. now does that prove anything? no. what we are discussing really can't be proven since we are dealing with a subjective criteria. however, illinois's talent lately has just sucked. if i take the long view i would agree that yes, over the course of history illinois has had better talent. lately? no. See, the difference with those figures is that they are evaluating players after they've already played on the college level. Several guys that NU has recruited went from being lightly recruited to being highly productive players. I doubt many would have said that Tim McGarigle or Zach Strief would be NFL draft worthy players even after their freshmen or sophmore year, but after some productive years they've increased their stock a bit. I certainly never thought that Noah Herron would actually be drafted even after his junior year. That's what I see is the major difference between the two schools right now. Illinois doesn't seem to turn even some 4-star level talent into productive college players, while NU has these guys playing near their peaks and producing well. Maybe NU's coaches just have a better eye for talent and can find lesser known guys that can produce. I suppose that is possible, but I tend to think that they get the best players they can and try to coach them from there. This especially seems true since we switched to the spread offense, which seems to let us get the most from some marginally talented receivers and runningbacks. I tend to lean toward the latter because very few of the guys they get come in and play well as freshmen. Sutton is the only guy I can think of that contributed as a solid starter in his true freshmen year (Loren Howard is borderline, but he was one of our better recruits anyways). Most of our guys don't stand out until their 3rd year. That suggests that they got a lot better as time went on. Obviously NU's players have been able to produce when they get on the field, but I find it really hard to believe that if you compared pure atheltic ability (not production or overall football talent) from the two schools that NU would be stronger. We've had a few very good athletes, but few since Walker took over control of the recruiting (happily it seems like we've got some pretty fast guys coming in the next class). I think that in recent years we've just had pretty good coaches in the area of player development and training. I can see your position based on the results on the field, but I'd imagine that if you looked at Illinois' roster you'd find a few solid athletes that just can't do much on the field. I'll admit that I don't know their whole roster as well as I did when I was at school, but I know that they definitely have some impressive RB's and WR's.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 02:07 PM) well, i didn't say the recruiting rankings didn't have some validity. i just said they were inexact. using guys like bush, young and ginn as examples as to their validity doesn't really tell me much. ray charles could have told you those guys were going to be players. besides, those are not players either illinois or northwestern are pulling in, so i'm not sure how they're relevant to this discussion. illinois has clearly not had better talent than anyone the past two seasons. different coaches and different systems have yielded the same results. now if you want to just stick with the underdog theme and always think that northwestern just has players who try harder and work harder and that allows them to overcome their deficiencies, then you are entitled to that opinion. mine is different. i also don't think you are giving sutton near enough credit. when you total more than 1,800 yards and 18 touchdowns as a true freshman running back in the big ten, you are ridiculously talented. You're missing one of my major points. There's a difference between talent and production. I'm not arguing that NU's players haven't produced better than the Illini. Clearly based on their win-loss record Illinois hasn't done much. However, that doesn't mean that Illinois doesn't have more atheltically gifted players. Just because guys at NU performed better doesn't mean that they necessarily recruited well. Good player development, training, and coaching can make up for that somewhat. However, you've been referring to athleticism, which is almost purely a factor of who you get to join the program. I've watched Northwestern football extensively, and I can tell you that Illinois and Indiana are the only team in the Big Ten that we are ever even close to in the Big Ten in terms of athleticism. There's a reason that most of NU's guys were passed over by the bigger teams. There's a reason that OSU decided not to seriously recruit Tyrell Sutton (I'm not sure where you got those numbers either, he rushed for 1474 yards and 16 TD's. That's a bit of a difference). Basically, he's a smallish back that doesn't have elite speed that probably wouldn't be all that effective in a standard I-formation set. He's pretty agile, shows some toughness, and is a decent receiver. But he also has trouble holding on to the ball and struggles a bit in short yardage situations. Illinois has 3 runningbacks that are more impressive athletically, they just can't seem to use them. Thomas's production would have been similar if he got as many carries as Sutton, who had about twice as many. Thomas had under 130, which is unacceptable for a guy with his talent. Bracic had over 150. Even considering that total counts sacks, that's absolutely ridiculous. The same goes for their wide receivers. None of our guys are exactly elite. Half of them can't even catch the ball with regularity. Our defenses have been almost equally inept also. The one possible difference is that NU seems to tackle a little better, but that has nothing to do with their athleticism. The one area where I'll admit that NU has done a bit better is at quarterback. Basanez has been at least a competent passer throughout his career and was pretty solid this year. Before that Kustok was good. That's probably because Basanez was one of our better recruits and Kustok tranferred from Notre Dame. Other than that, Illinois has definitely been better in terms of recruiting. That difference in QB quality and the fact our coaches seem to do a better job in player development accounts for a lot. Only one of those seems likely to change in the near future with the impending arrival of Isaiah Williams.

QUOTE(DukeNukeEm @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 01:57 PM) I didnt read this thread, and Im not going to. But I know you guys basically knocked Tillman like crazy, said he sucked then said we need a fast CB who cannot bench 250 lbs. Im guessing I heard a lot of generic Bears fan crap and nobody really question why Thompson was even lined up over Steve Smith, or why there was no Safety help. Just the same crap like "WE NEED HELP IN THE SECONDARY." No we dont. Chris Harris is the best DB on our team, and thats saying a lot. Tillman is a more complete CB than Vasher and Mike Brown is a goddamn Pro Bowler. Our defense needs a NT so Carolina's s***ty OL doesnt block even s***tier Ian Scott (led off the season so well too) and have NICK GOINGS run past them all. Our lack of an NT reminds me of a picutre I saw of 5 KC Chiefs getting blocked by 1 GIANTS LINEMAN, then Ron Dayne busting a 15 yard gain. I disagree that we don't need any help in the secondary. Some of it can be blamed on our D-line not playing as well as they usually do, but there were some seriously blown coverages out there. I think Bears' fans in general overrate our guys. Vasher is a solid guy and makes some big plays. I won't knock him. Tillman is solid but not spectacular. We make him sound like a shutdown elite corner, but he clearly isn't. Brown is good in run support, but I'm not so sure about his pass coverage. The bigger issue is that he's always hurt. I haven't really seen Harris or any of our backup DB's do anything of import, so I'd say that there is definitely room for improvement. It's not like we have Champ Bailey, Ed Reed, and Brian Dawkins in our secondary. Maybe it isn't our biggest area of concern, but it isn't set in my book either. The problem is that we're not going to draft a NT because those type of players don't fit in our system. Lovie likes to play a one-gap system, meaning of DT's are supposed to penetrate and make plays as opposed to just taking up blockers. Considering that this was the first game in a while that our line didn't do much, I'm not all that concerned about it.

It seems like everyone is focusing on the offense, but I'm not entirely happy with this defense yet either. We have a lot of good players but few elite ones. Plus our schedule will get a bit harder next year playing a first-place out of division schedule. I'm not so sure the defense can hold up quite as well when we have to play more top-level offenses. Our focus should be on O-line depth, WR's, and TE's, but we should also consider getting another corner, a safety, or an OLB (I'm not sold on our LB's outside of Urlacher and Briggs), even if it's in the first round. I think we've got room for improvement at all of those spots. If someone like Michael Huff or Chad Greenway slips (I know both seem unlikely, but strange things happen on occasion), we shouldn't just let them go because we have more pressing needs on offense. I'd like to see one of the TE's or Holmes as our first rounder, but unless it's a D-lineman or a runningback, I don't want to see us pass on a higher rated player just because our other positions need more help.

I'm not really enamored with the Illini or a White-less Hoosiers team. As good as Killingsworth is, he turns the ball over a ton and is brutal at the free throw line. Both of those can be crippling in a close game against a good team. On the other hand, my opinions on the Illini are well known. Unless Dee hits every outside shot again (not literally, you know what I mean), they should probably lose by about 8 (it will be very close, but I'm factoring in free throws at the end). They'd already have two more losses without some well-placed Dee Brown barages, so I'm starting to wonder how many of those he has left.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 08:39 AM) i just disagree that illinois has had better pure talent than northwestern lately. when you don't have a defensive back that can crack a 4.6, that is not talent. turner was not a horrible coach per se. he brought in poor talent. Guess what: NU probably only has one DB that can crack a 4.6, and that's Cole. Illinois in general has much better athletes than NU. Just since I started at Illinois, they've put Morton, Hayden, and Wilson in the NFL. All were DB's with better than average athelticism. That's not even counting all of Illinois' more talented players, that's just the one position that you decided to harp on. NU rarely has guys that can actually run. The only guys that I'd call better than average athletes since the 'Cats went to the Rose Bowl ten years ago are D'Wayne Bates, Damien Anderson, Napoleon Harris, Luis Castillo, Loren Howard, Marquice Cole, Marvin Ward, Sam Simmons and Jeff Backes. They got most of those guys because they were undersized or extremely raw, and two guys of that group are linemen that aren't particularly fast. There might be one or two more underclassmen hiding on the roster, but that's about it. The real difference is that NU does something with the guys that they have. As opposed to Illinois not getting any production from higher caliber recruits, NU is turning guys like Pat Durr, Kevin Bentley, Barry Gardner, Tim McGarigle, Barry Coefield, Darnell Autry and Pat Fitzgerald into All-Big Ten level players. Even Tyrell Sutton isn't a ridiculously talented running back. His 40 time is somewhere in the mid-4.5's, he just knows how to find the crease and won't go down. Recruiting rankings aren't everything, but when discussing pure athleticism and incoming talent level, it works pretty well. Not every top guy pans out, but if you look at the impact freshmen in the BCS conferences I'd say at least 8 out of 10 were top 50 recruits or higher. Guys like Reggie Bush, Vince Young, Ted Ginn, Derrick Williams, Maurice Clarett, and Adrian Peterson weren't just ranked in the top 10 because their names were picked out of a hat.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 11:34 AM) i don't think illinois has outrecruited northwestern lately. the past two years illinois has some of the worst talent i've ever seen in the league. the venturi-green-peay era northwestern teams had better talent than these last two illinois clubs. and i agree with just about everything palehosefan said in regards to what illinois needs to do. they have a real opportunity with their defensive coordinator position, and it would be nice to see them go out and get someone who has a clue. locksley i will live with because of his recruiting skills, but i'm not sold on the way they run their offense. Illinois definitely recruits better than Northwestern almost every year. According to Rivals Loren Howard was the only 4-star recruit we got since 2002 (including the 2006 class), and I can only remember Basanez and Brian Huffman (kicker, not even a good one) being good recruits before that under Randy Walker. Illinois had 9 4-star or better recruits from 02-05 and has 4 in the 06 class. Most of them weren't RB's either (OL Martin O'Donnell (who was actually a 5-star), WR Kelvin Hayden, WR Lonnie Hurst, and JUCO DB James McGill to name a few). The class that came it at Illinois my freshman year (2001) was pretty good too, featuring at least two 4-star level guys in Matt Sinclair and Morris Virgil, possibly more. They might not look like it on the field, but Illinois definitely gets better recruits. It's pretty rare when NU brings in anyone that is more than a 3-star recruit, and many of their guys aren't even rated that highly. I hate to play the academics card, but many of the better recruits can't get into NU, and those that have the offers will usually go to a better program. They try to find lesser known guys so they don't have to compete with the big boys. NU had one really good class from Barnett's last year that turned into that 8-3 team that got blasted in the Alamo Bowl, but outside of that their highly touted recruits have been few in number. Before that you might have to go back to the Ara Parseigan (spelling?) era to find an NU team that had good recruits. They've been football doormats for almost their entire time as a program, so recruiting is definitely not one of their strong suits. Illinois can get a decent recruiting class, but they're not going to be able to get an absolute top of the line class that allows them to be toe-to-toe with the big boys at Michigan and OSU. They're going to need a top-15 class or two to really move up in the world (at least under Zook), and that probably won't happen. Zook got some big time talent at Florida, but that was at Florida before people knew that he couldn't coach. He's going to have a very tough time getting instant impact recruits, because he'll have to beat out the big time programs that are winning to get them. He's actually going to have to be able to coach these guys at some point to get them any higher than about 4th place. Remember, Zook actually lost to Mississippi State with talent superior to anything he is probably going to attract to Illinois. I really believe that their best chance to really establish themselves as a program is to catch lightning in a bottle with a hot younger coach on his way up to establish their program for a few years. Getting some strong assistants will help, but in the end they'll still need a real head coach to attract really good talent, and to prevent an 8-3 caliber team from turning into a 6-5 or lower team. I find it hard to believe that they'll be able to post more than back to back good seasons otherwise.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 04:15 PM) Watching Duke, they have a very very good team. BUT....if they run into somebody like a UConn with big, athletic guards and a big front line, they will lose. Duke is way too slow and small at the guard spot defensively, and somebody that can exploit that while getting McRoberts and Williams on their heels (and into foul trouble) due to front line depth will beat them IMO. But another BUT......there aren't very many very good teams in college hoops this year (if any) so Duke might win it all anyways. Another issue could be if they face a deep team, because Duke doesn't have a whole lot of major contributors. It's a little early to worry about stuff like that (who knows what will happen between now and then), but I can think of 5 teams that could make it interesting if they meet Duke late in the NCAA tournament (yes, I know two of these are re-matches). Connecticut- Obvious reasons. Very atheltic, deep, big, probably the most talented team in the league. They could peak in early March like the 2004 team and just dominate. Memphis- Gave Duke one of their toughest games. They need to mature a bit, which might reduce their silly turnovers and poor shot selection. They are obviously very deep and very athletic, although their big guys aren't all that special. Very tough team, but they are vulnerable because they play a little sloppy and rely on the 3 a lot. Florida- Again, they're young, but they strike me as a very balanced team. Brewer and Horford are future lottery picks, Noah gives them another solid but not spectacular big man, and Green is a pretty solid PG. Michigan State- Last team to beat Duke. They're not as deep, but some of the ingredients are still there. Ager and Brown are both supremely athletic, and Davis can dominate inside when he wants to. However, it might take a perfect game this year. Texas- Yeah, I know, Duke blew them out. However, there are two major things to consider: Buckman played only 7 minutes. He's a very important player that suddenly has an injury bug that he needs to shake (his most recent one doesn't look that bad); and Redick had the game of his life. The game was also played in New Jersey and seemed to be a virtual home game for Duke. These factors may not all be the same if it happens again. Texas can certainly make life miserable for anyone in the paint with their potent trio, Gibson is always dangerous, and Paulino seems to be playing better as the year goes on. Texas isn't very deep, but their starting 5 is definitely championship quality. If you add Villanova and Louisville to the list, those also happen to be the only teams that I think have a solid chance of winning it all (obviously a lot of things have to go right for Louisville, but I like Palacios, Padgett, Dean, and Jenkins). Before one of you says: "What about the Illini?", I don't see them being able to win 6 in a row against quality opponents on a neutral or near neutral floor unless their offense drastically improves.