The aftermath of the NFL Draft always brings with it the cold reality of post-draft squawking from the proverbial peanut gallery that inevitably rankles some fans. If I may digress momentarily; would that some fans cared as much about their own course grades or job performance evaluations as they do about post-draft grades from the likes of Kiper and McShay. Sigh.

At any rate, the point of this post is NOT to suggest that we should ignore everything the pundits say about this draft for three years. Where's the fun in that? The Seahawks have just concluded a draft almost universally regarded as "meh" by the analysts, even some (like Rob Rang) who it's fair to say know Seattle reasonably well. Lots of Cs and Ds, although if you read through you'll hear lots of equivocation. (If it's one or two sentences per team don't waste your time.) Perhaps the best quote comes from Mel Kiper, Jr., the guy so many of us love to hate (as quoted in the Williams piece): "Let's be clear: I think the Seahawks drafted the guys they really wanted with a plan in mind for how to use them."

I'm not so concerned about how "right" the pundits are, since that part we really won't know for a while. I'm concerned with where the discourse about Seattle's draft converges, and whether there is any wisdom to be gleaned from the peanut gallery. Right now, I see the post-draft discourse converging on two basic questions.

1. Was Bruce Irvin a "reach" at 15th overall? Classically, he almost certainly was--in the sense of having more "highly rated" players available--regardless of which other teams were interested in selecting him in the first round. However, as I noted in another post, this draft--the first under the new CBA--may get the punditocracy to begin re-thinking how it puts together its boards and what it means to "reach." (Or, if I were feeling more charitable towards the bastard Niners for drafting one of my favorite college players, I might call Aldon Smith's 7th overall selection as a pass rush specialist the start of a possible sea change.)

At the risk of overstating things, the old CBAs structured in strong incentives for front offices (i.e., not coaching staffs) to select "talent" first then fit scheme around talent. In the abstract that's the right thing to do, but the devil is in the details. Teams tended to place a premium on talent that translates across schemes while simultaneously discounting scheme-specific talent (e.g., 3-4 OLBs) and specialized roles (e.g., slot corner). "Coaches and their schemes," front office thinking went, "may come and go, but that first round contract shackles us to this player."

Coaches and schemes still come and go under the new CBA, but contracts are cheaper and far more standardized. If nothing else, teams basically know what a player will cost over the life of a deal before he even signs. I imagine the Niners sitting at #7 in 2011 looked at Smith and thought, "If this kid averages 8 sacks per season, we couldn't buy that on the market for what we'll pay. Who cares if he's a 'specialist' at 7th overall? What matters is what it costs." For this, and a host of related reasons, I think that over time front offices will lessen the premium on talent just because it fits across schemes AND lessen the discount they traditionally applied to scheme-specific players and specialized roles.

Bruce Irvin is a great illustration of what could become a trend. He is both scheme-specific and a specialist; about as narrow as it gets. I'm reasonably sure Smith will develop into an all-around player. I have no idea whether Irvin will. It's obvious why Seattle rated Irvin highly. He was born to play LEO. And, it is equally obvious that he is a classic reach. So I can't blame the pundits for being skeptical. But, I can blame them for failing to question their assumptions. They are asking, why did Seattle reach? They should be asking, does it beg the question to label a player a reach because he has a narrow skillset? Or, to put it another way, in the era of standardized contracts, is there any such thing as a classic reach* anymore?

*My emphasis is on "classic." To be clear, I still think teams can "reach" on players. Even in Irvin's case, there are reasons to be leery about a guy with his background suddenly becoming a multi-millionaire. I found Art Thiel's first Irvin column to be a wee bit of a hatchet job, but he raises an important question in his subsequent column. We know Irvin can handle adversity. Can he handle success?

2. What's the Deal with Russell Wilson? What the PC/JS regime is looking for on defense has become somewhat more clear over time, but the offensive skill positions are still a bit less clear (esp. at QB). Every indication is that the front office and coaches adore Wilson. They passed on some talented guys, all of which had at one time or another been linked to Seattle, to draft Wilson (e.g., Mohamed Sanu, WR; Bernard Pierce, RB; Sean Spence, LB; Demario Davis, LB). People are all over the place in interpreting the selection's meaning and implications.

Perhaps the easiest piece to address is the height issue. It's obvious that Seattle is willing to tailor aspects of the passing game to fit what Wilson does. That doesn't mean that height is "overrated" (no matter how much Jon Gruden bullies and pouts). What's less obvious is whether they see Wilson as a potential day one starter or a high-quality backup with fringe starter potential. Even the latter in my humble opinion is worth a 3rd round pick. Where I usually don't pay much attention to the training camp blow-by-blow, I will now.

Last night's first round was certainly interesting. This is usually where I should take a shot at mock drafts, and how they are so stupid, don't know squat, yadda, yadda. I'm really not interested in going there.

What's far more interesting to me is how what I think may be a sea-change draft for analysts and mockers unfolded. Last night's first round is the first to take place where prospects were scouted and boards created entirely under the assumptions of the current collective bargaining agreement. So it's impossible to say right now that some distinct pattern has emerged. We'll just have to wait and see. Nevertheless, a story is unfolding where teams appear to be engaged in unvarnished "drafting for need," which is anathema to many draft experts and mockers.

Seattle's decision to take Bruce Irvin 15th overall after trading back is but one example of unvarnished drafting for need. PC/JS have made clear for months their intent to improve the pass rush early in the draft. Not only does it appear that they limited their first round focus entirely to players with pass rush skills, they chose a player that many characterize as a limited player; a pass rush specialist without a traditional position. In the press conference Carroll was crystal clear that the team sees Irvin as a LEO, in the same role that Clay Matthews played at USC.

Seattle isn't the only case. New York's decision to select RB David Wilson at the end of round one is another. This draft was widely perceived as a one where only one RB (Richardson), two at best (Martin), was thought worthy of first round selection. Similarly, Minnesota's selection of Notre Dame safety Harrison Smith is surprising insofar as no one considered this a two safety first round.

"Drafting for need" versus "best player available" has always been something of a false dichotomy. Teams' perceptions of "best" players are often informed by need as well as their own rules about positional value rather than pure abstractions. (Tim Ruskell, famously, didn't place much importance on interior offensive linemen in the first round.) Drafting for need has been described by some as a near-mortal sin. But, that rationale has always been predicated on previous CBAs where first round selections, particularly top 10 draft picks, were extremely costly. Now that the costs have been dropped considerably (though not radically for mid- and late first round picks) it's not surprising that we are seeing broad diversity in how teams construct their boards. What will be interesting as we go forward is less what teams will do, and more about how the conversation will change among those of us who watch prospects and write about the draft.

This Thursday, April 26th in over 60 cities across the US and Canada, literally thousands of people will join the fight against HIV & AIDS in their communities by dining in thousands of participating restaurants. Those restaurants pledge a percentage of the day's proceeds to help AIDS organizations provide educational programs, critical testing for STIs, and linkage to care and other services for persons living with HIV & AIDS in their local communities.

But. But. The Draft, Dave. The NFL Draft.

I know.

I got you.

Relax.

Just go to the Dining Out for Life website and find the closest participating city. In Missouri, Dining Out for Life takes place in St. Louis and Kansas City. You will see lots of restaurants to choose from, many of which will also be tuned into the draft.

But. But. I'm tracking six mock drafts. What if Michael Egnew vaults up the board into the first round!? And what about all that witty banter from Mike & Mike? And Mel's hair? Also, my [mother/wife/daughter/significant other] will no longer let me wear my ___ jersey in public. I simply must wear that jersey on draft night, Dave. I must. So you see. It's really quite impossible for me to go out that eve--.

Shhh... [presses index finger to lips]

Listen [low voice]. Listen [whisper].

Help me to help you.

Many participating restaurants serve both lunch and dinner. You could organize your co-workers to go out for lunch at a Dining Out for Life restaurant. Check the website to see which restaurants are donating lunch. Also, the draft doesn't start until 7pm CDT. So you have plenty of time to get your meal on and get home for the draft. (We pretty much know who the first two picks are going to be anyway.)

So, we're good?

I guess.

No. You know.

You're right.

Of course I'm right.

To review. You're checking the Dining Out for Life website for the closest participating city.

Okay.

Then, you're figuring where to go eat and what time on Thursday, April 26th.

Right.

Aaaaaannnnd. You're not keeping this to yourself, right? You're telling everybody.

Got it. I'm gone.

Right on.

See version 1 from early February.

My updated assumptions for the mock are: (1) No trades, (2) Each selection features the player I think is the best option (with some consideration of team needs) for the team at that spot. I'm not really trying to guess what a given team will actually do.

Selections after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

Per Terez Paylor's tweet: "DeSmet '14 OL Andy Bauer just tweeted that he's decided to commit to #Mizzou. Bauer (6-5, 290) has offers from Auburn, Arkansas, OSU, Mich."

With about 8 minutes or so to go I decided to sit back and just enjoy a truly great basketball game as it unfolded. I'm no masochist. I hate to lose as much as any fan, though I try to keep my hissy fits to a minimum. Those kids from Norfolk rose up and beat us--and we played a quintessential Mizzou game. We win most nights in our league with the way we shot the ball.

NSU is everything that makes us both love and hate March. So I'm trying to appreciate the moment for being great on its own terms, even if it broke my heart. If I signed up for the greatness of 2009's amazing run--and I'd do it again a thousand times, even Kemba Walker--then the heartache of 2012 is also part of the deal. Now I'm not saying I'm there. I'm saying that's where I'm trying to go.

"They did to us what we do to other teams..." I have always really liked Coach Calipari, and I am reminded of his post-game comments after we stunned his favored Memphis Tigers in 2009. "They did to us what we do to other teams. They walked up and punched us right in the mouth. That's what we do to other teams. And we didn't handle it very well." What I always loved about that quote is Cal's understanding that basketball isn't football. I love football, but not its tiresome incessant macho posturing, where no team ever loses to its opponent--only to itself. Basketball has a little less of that. Sometimes your opponent just hit more shots. It's not all about what you failed to do. Norfolk State had a shooting night that was, for all practical purposes, preposterous for them.

"Sometimes fate just up and f___s you for no good reason." That line from the almost criminally underrated Smokin' Aces comes to mind. Nothing in NSU's profile says they could shoot that way. Yet they made it look like they do it every week. Missouri obviously could have been better defensively, but in truth NSU could always shoot over the top even when closely guarded. Then, after all that, NSU still needed a banked in three, an airball putback and-1, and a deflected inbounds pass to come right back to one of their players a millisecond after he touched one foot in to establish himself. (And Phlip still got a shot up to the rim that would have won.) I know that perimeter defense has been an issue all season, but as Greg Anthony said in studio, Haith can't coach guys to be taller. I'm honestly more upset about a few loose balls that NSU outhustled us for and a couple sloppy turnovers and bad shots than I am about the defense. The guards from NSU should have been taking uncontested perimeter shots. They hadn't proven that they could hit them consistently all season.

Bonus Thought: Really, we mostly played the way we wanted to play. So did they. We just lost. Be disappointed. To end like this is disappointing. I am disappointed--in the ending. Tournament play inevitably splits one season into two, and focuses our attention on the latter. But, we do a disservice to these kids if so-called Mizzou fans go all Comic Book Guy* on this team under the guise of being "sick and tired" or "not settling for mediocrity" and other such flim flam. If you can't (eventually) bring yourself to appreciate and cherish winning 30 games out of 35, only to focus on the final game, then shame on you. No one is entitled to an outcome in sports, and no one is justified in complaining about a 30 win season. No one.

*Comic Book Guy: Last night's Itchy & Scratchy was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever. Rest assured that I was on internet within minutes registering my disgust throughout the world.
Bart Simpson: Hey, I know it wasn't great, but what right do you have to complain?
Comic Book Guy: As a loyal viewer, I feel they owe me.
Bart Simpson: What? They've given you thousands of hours of entertainment for free. What could they possibly owe you? I mean, if anything, you owe them.
Comic Book Guy: Worst episode ever.

So, I like Ken Pomeroy's stats. They are awesome nerdy goodness. However, the site does not in any way dispel the notion that "user friendly"only means that whomever wrote the code understands what he (or she) meant.

I am pretty familiar with Pythagorean wins, so think I understand his measures conceptually. However, I don't have a precise understanding of what he measures in a couple of instances. So here are my questions for anyone who knows answers.

1. AdjO and AdjD -- Adjusted Offense and Defense, respectively, but adjusted for what? My intuition is that Pomerory adjusts solely for tempo (i.e., points per 100 possessions). But then the next column is adjusted tempo. So, is Pomeroy adjusting for quality of opponent?

2. AdjT -- What is tempo adjusted for? I always thought that tempo was just raw possessions per game.

On my way to the gym so I'll make this quick. (Master my ass, indeed!)

1. To quote Bill C: "Oh, Flip (Phlip)." To quote the incomparable Keith Jackson (or Daffy Duck, whichever): This (err, check volume before linking).

2. Marcus Denmon probably had his worst shooting game since grade school. But, look at the rest of his line: 6 boards, 3 steals, 2 assists. He's probably the happiest guy in the world for the quick turnaround.

Bonus Point: I can't hear you possible thigh contusion, la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la.

In the words of Sprite pitchman Miles Thirst, "King-sized waterbed, plasma screen, blah blah blah." The game was almost boring in its efficiency. State had nothing left for the game, and due in large part to Lord Baltimore's previously unknown mutant power, it was over early. Mizzou kept it in cruise control after the under 16 timeout. Coaches love these kinds of blowouts so they can work on their curmudgeon routines. Anyway, one thought on OSU and one on ISU.

1. Kimmeh has improved his handle. Before getting to that though, he came out and refused to let Mizzou play down to the level of the opponent. I have argued that he's a 3/stretch 4 stuck in a 2's body, and he may yet get me to re-think that. My impression over the past few games is that he is taking the ball into traffic far less often in the halfcourt. On the break he's not overhandling the ball. His defense has been good-to-borderline-outstanding all year.

2. Even if we lose, I am glad it's Texas rather than ISU. The Longhorns are playing well, and obviously they gave us a lot of trouble in Austin. So if we're not on our Ps and Qs they can beat us. The difference is that beating Texas is an easy, straightforward baseball metaphor. "The 'Horns are gonna give you a fastball to hit. You have to be ready. They're not trying to fool you." On the other hand, Iowa State defies any single metaphor. The Cyclones are a mixed metaphor. They are all Big 12 defensive end Royce White surrounded by a gaggle of guys committed to putting up 35 collective three-point shots. I'm ready to see them play somebody else. I wanna see the "what the bloody hell?" look on the faces of some unsuspecting team when White flies by their power forward then pancakes the help defender (and then airmails the free throw attempt).

After a sluggish first half, Mizzou opened up the floor--not to mention a can--in the second half.

1. Move along people. Nothing to see here. Mizzou did what it needed to do against a game, but overmatched Red Raiders squad. (Here's hoping Billy Kennedy Gillespie gets that thing turned around.) The shooting from distance is obviously the story in this game, along with Ratliffe getting a career-high in boards. Tech was frequently slow and/or confused on rotations and they didn't get back on defense to matchup with the shooters. As I said in another post, what often makes Mizzou's runs so demoralizing is that they're not making spectacular shots. Mizzou beats defenses at the level of basic organizing principle with ball movement and shooters everywhere on the floor.

2. Good to see Matt Pressey get back in the flow. It has been a while sense he has been a notable presence. He didn't just hit shots yesterday. He looked fluid.

Bonus point. If you watched the UNC-Duke matchup last night you saw what, to my mind at least, is a big reason I like this Mizzou team more than Duke (as does Ken Pomeroy). Although Missouri isn't as talented as the Blue Devils, specifically on the interior, I think the Tigers get better shots against quality defenses because of the spacing, movement, and Phlip. Everything for Duke last night was high effort with maximum dribbles, especially in the first half.* Give tremendous credit to UNC, because they're an excellent defensive team that doesn't always play that way. Still, Rivers and Curry really gave the ball a headache last night. Every move was an eight dribble move, and none of their guards could create off their penetration.** Kansas is every bit as good defensively as North Carolina, and our struggles in Lawrence came primarily because of a mismatch between our personnel and our sets. But, the Tigers had lengthy stretches in both games where they carved an elite Kansas defense down to the bone. Even in the game Duke won, mostly they beat their defender one-on-one.

*As a caveat let me say that for my money when North Carolina is right and into it I don't know if anyone can beat them, except maybe Kentucky. However, I still think the Tar Heels are one ball handler short of being a prohibitive favorite for a title. Without Franklin their offense can quickly devolve into a mess, and if they're not scoring they probably won't defend.

** I should also note that Duke has played on the whole against better defenses than Mizzou, according to KenPom.com. Really I am comparing the two games for both teams against an elite defensive conference opponent (i.e., North Carolina and Kansas).

1. A very "Andre Miller" game, indeed. The Cyclones did their thing where they keep your defense off-balance with Royce White, the rest of the guys throw up threes like they're going out of style, and they uncannily manage to get points out of every scrum. Iowa State, you are really, really annoying. And I say that with the utmost of affection. (If styles make fights I'd pay money to see Iowa State matchup up against Syracuse.) Mizzou, on the other hand, did its Andre Miller thing, which is to say a little bit of everything. Haith and his charges threw everything but the kitchen sink at Iowa State to get them off track. Played slow. Sped them up. Played zone. Played man. Doubled and trapped White. What I like about so much about this team is its ability to do lots of different things, but it is safe to say that none of it really worked for most of the night. It was, just like the win in Ames, the quintessential grind-it-out win. Speeding up our own offense early in the second half, and then speeding up their's about midway through, was to me the difference in the game.

2. Good luck to the Seniors. You really could not ask for a better group of young people. It will be important to keep that in mind as we gear up for March Madness, which will inevitably end in heartbreak for all but one school.These seniors have been such an integral part of restoring this program to where it really should be nationally--a well-respected, consistently good though not elite program. Mike Anderson and his staff certainly deserves some credit for that as does Frank Haith and his staff.

Tough loss, but not a devastating one. Congrats to Kansas. Hate. Hate. Hate. Hate. Hate. Respect too.

As far as seeding is concerned there is MUCH basketball remaining, so no need to really worry about it. First, anything can happen still in the regular season. (I'm looking at you Keiton Page and J'Covan Brown... ahem.) Second, I'm pretty indifferent about a "high" seed unless it's #1 overall seed. It's about the matchups, not the number.

Onto the game. What a game! We got it at our place. They got it at their's.

1. Running Clock and Running Plays. I have no problem with Haith running clock with a big lead (sometimes not even a big lead). It's common for a team that lacks functional depth is to trade points for time with a big lead. Given how good Mizzou is at the FT line and at game-end situations the rationale makes perfect sense. Take your breaks on offense.

How-e-vah, if you spread the floor and start your offense with 10 or 12 seconds on the clock it can't just be to get jump shots. It's gotta be first good shot, then free throw line--in that order. Open looks are great, but against good defenses you won't have time for four and five passes to find a fantastic shot. You have to be willing to play ugly, jump into defenders' shoulders and get yourself to the line. Regardless of what we think of the zebras, if you run the clock down to 10 seconds and you are not initiating contact you'll go through droughts.

2. Pick and Roll (PnR) with Steve. One (of several) reasons the offense bogged down midway through the second half in my opinion is that with Moore on the floor Kansas could overplay the PnR and trap with abandon. The guards don't pass to Steve off the PnR. In the first half, Moore fumbled a pass on a screen roll out of bounds on a beautifully executed play. The defender may have deflected the pass off Moore. (By the way, thanks for the fantastic camera work CBS. Good gracious. I felt like I was watching a bootleg copy of the game.) By my (often faulty) memory it was the last time they passed to Moore on the PnR. Kansas could push our guards further and further out on the floor. Long term it's as simple as this; Moore has to be able to make a play or two on the PnR or we can't run it so much with him on the floor. As I noted in point #1, if we run the clock down to 10 seconds then the passes have to stay on schedule.

Many PnR teams do two things with bigs that have questionable hands: (1) set the offense lower (closer to the basket), and (2) throw some passes over the top. Setting the offense lower puts Ratliffe or Moore in the lane when they get the pass. It also allows the guard who recovers from the trap not have so far to dribble. That makes it harder for the help to get back to the dribbler. I recognize that we have below-the-rim bigs, but you don't have to dunk alley oop passes for them to be effective. We just need a wrinkle to discourage teams from trapping our guards and making them pick up the dribble. (I'm looking at you Mike Dixon, Jr. As much as I love you, your indecision cost us on at least 3 possessions in the second half.)

Bonus: I don't cry about officials in print. (Only in private.) I don't think Kansas got any calls that were incorrect until Phlip's foul on Taylor. That was phantom, but it happens. The foul disparity wasn't bothersome. Again, you don't deserve to go to the line shooting jump shots. But, Kansas was allowed to handcheck, bump and ride drivers the entire game. Yet they were also going to the line on touch fouls on the other end. That's not right. You expect the home team to get calls but damn. That's just an officiating crew not working well together (not a conspiracy). The zebras didn't match the level of play on the court and that's a shame. (I thought Clark Kellogg was clear about this during the broadcast without being unprofessional.)

You can't really sum it up much better than today's study hall, especially since I only got to see the 2nd half. So if you haven't already, head there first and come back. I'll wait... Okay.

1. Mizzou::KSU as Baylor::Mizzou. KSU seems to be kryptonite for our beloved Tigers much the same way we are for Baylor. Our matchup problems against KSU are kinda obvious yet also subtle. KSU obviously has size and length advantages, but we also lack a bona fide quickness advantage at any position (apart from whomever Will Spradling guards). That part is key. It means that in the main we really don't stress their half court defense, getting people out of position to set up good shots. That's what makes Mizzou special in my opinion. Our quickness advantages stress and flex a defense so that we don't just make shots. We get good shots. We don't just beat players--though Dixon is fabulous at that--we beat schemes. That's what makes opposing coaches gush. To the Cats' credit their size/speed ratio and their defensive schemes just don't allow good looks; it's not just against us. Offenses have a tough time beating their scheme or their players.

KSU's issues are usually on the offensive end, just not against us evidently. If you'd told me Monday that we would out-board KSU in expected off. rebounds and out-BCI them I'd have said we win by ten. We lost by ten. They stroked it last night like they do it every night. It's very frustrating. This is how Duke must feel about Florida State. In fact, I kinda hope KSU goes to the tournament and ends up paired against Duke. I have nothing against Duke, I just see the matchup problems as somewhat similar* and I'm curious about what they'd do differently.

* I recognize that Duke has more functional size that Mizzou, but their offense is similarly perimeter oriented.

2. Mizzou still controls its own destiny. Just to leave things on a hopeful note, KSU is a terrible matchup for us and yet the narrative about this loss is very different than what one might expect. Mizzou essentially won many of the "little things/hustle stats" but just couldn't throw it in the ocean. The Tigers had eight steals, 12 offensive boards, and only 10 turnovers. KSU mostly shot themselves to a victory. They didn't out-hustle or out-scheme an entitled team that was looking ahead. Mizzou had the ball with a chance to tie late in the game. KSU hit clutch shots to stymie runs to keep Mizzou at arm's length for most of the night. Some nights you lose and mostly you just tip your cap to your opponent.

Much basketball remains no matter what happens Saturday, and if nothing else these Tigers have demonstrated beyond question that they will make enough plays in every phase to give themselves a shot every single night. As a fan, none of us has the right to ask for (much less expect) anything more.

1. Kimmeh's! Really a Forward. What a great all-around game we saw from Kimmeh! yesterday in College Station. As I watched the umpteenth Mizzou game with Fran Fraschilla I noticed that he continues to beat the "Bowers'-injury-made-all-this-possible" drum, a story that I believe to be well-intentioned but false. I love that Fran is a big Mizzou fan. (Remember how much he, Bob Knight, and Jay Bilas all gush about Mizzou the next time you're belly-aching about Gottlieb.) But, I really disagree with a couple of memes that Coach Fran harps on continuously both of which involve Kimmeh!

Meme 1: Bowers' injury made Missouri faster, because it lead to Meme 2: a four guard lineup where Kimmeh! is the fourth guard. Admittedly that's poetic, but it's also wrong.

Why Coach Fran is Wrong. First of all, just on speed, Kimmeh! is NOT faster than Party Starter with the ball in his hands. When either of those guys has the ball in his hands in the open floor we all hold our breath, but for very different reasons. Kimmeh! brings better perimeter shooting and better spacing, but not speed. No. Second, Fran is convinced that Kimmeh! replaced Bowers because they both (technically) play the power forward. In truth though, Big Pressey replaced Bowers. Kimmeh! was always going to play for Haith, who recruited him and knew how to use him.

Add to that, Missouri doesn't really play four guards. Regardless of how he may be listed, Kimmeh! is a forward not a shooting guard--and the distinction is important. Moving Kimmeh! to forward was a brilliant move by Haith. Kimmeh! lacks quickness and ball handling when matched up against traditional shooting guards. He is a natural small forward though, a bit undersized but offsets that to some degree with his strength. He may be matching up against power forwards this season but that's not really a stretch for his skill set and his body type. (I joked in yesterday's game thread that Kimmeh! has a power forward's butt.) The overlap between college small forwards and power forwards is pretty substantial. Kimmeh's transformation has been a natural fit for him and fun to watch, but he's not playing out of position this year. He was playing out of position the other years. I also strongly suspect this transformation would have occurred regardless of Bowers' injury. Had Party Starter played, Big Pressey's minutes would have suffered more than Kimmeh's!

I harp on this point, because the story here isn't so much about Kimmeh being willing to sacrifice by playing out of position (and Mizzou getting lucky it's worked out so well). The story is about Haith recognizing his skill set and the matchup possibilities.

2. Keep an Eye on Turnovers. Dumb turnovers are something to watch. On a smart team that generally values the ball they can be a tell-tale sign of team-wide fatigue. What we saw yesterday early on weren't the "trying-to-make-the-spectacular-pass" turnovers that we can see from this club sometimes. There were quite a few lazy, telegraphed passes. These are the dog days. Haith has taken to the old Coach K strategy of playing stall ball after the under 8 minute time out, as a way of getting in-game rest.

3. Bonus Point: Ratliffe Looks Tired. I am hoping Ricardo can find his second wind this week. He looked generally beat yesterday in the second half. He really got pushed off his spot. I wonder if Haith will consider trying to steal a minute or two with Andrew Jones somewhere along the line.

Busy week. So I couldn't get to this straightaway.

1. Lordy. So, to be perfectly honest with you I don't think I had seen this team really play with a chip on its shoulder prior to this game. Don't get me wrong. This team plays with plenty of emotion. But I mean to say something different. I had not seen this team really "take it out" on an opponent for some perceived slight, some, dare I say, disrespect. This Missouri team, if nothing else, mostly plays with a cool efficiency, a business-like demeanor. Despite playing with emotion it's never personal with Mizzou. The run they put on Baylor never felt personal. No woofing. No preening. No pounding of breasts. Missouri is just a dreadful matchup for the Bears, and both teams know it. It was a matter of 'if both teams are taking the same shots Mizzou wins every time.' The Okie State game was different. The Tigers beat the Cowboys like they stole something; like they were angry at the Pokes for refusing to play their appointed role in Stillwater. You know the role. It's the one where the plucky underdog puts on a good show for the home faithful, falls behind, then makes a valiant comeback that falls just short? It was like Mizzou was annoyed that they lost on poor execution and a series of hero shots in Stillwater. So they intended to not just beat OSU but to disembowel a very good defense, leveraging it into giving up good shot after good shot after good shot after good shot. It was as vicious a beating as I've seen the Tigers put on a team since the Oregon game a few years back.

2. Jeremy Lin! Um. Yeah. That's--uh--that's all I got.

I wish I was around for the live thread for this game. How exciting. Thank goodness for ESPN3 though.

1. Mizzou has what Clark Kellogg calls "spurtability". I'm one of those people who thinks the NCAA tournament, as unique and as wonderful as it is, degrades the regular season a little. I'm doing my level best to enjoy this truly magical season for what it is without looking too far ahead to "brackets" and "seeding" that only end up sending my anxiety skyrocketing and taking my focus off what is going on right now. Fortunately, with Kansas on the near horizon even the fans--much less the players--can't get too terribly far ahead of what's going on right now. Having given that preamble, I'll give one little nugget that leaves me hopeful about Missouri's tournament chances. It isn't the "senior leadership" that commentators love to go on about. We've seen experienced teams play tight when the moment becomes a little too big, while some inexperienced teams play great precisely because they're "too stupid" to know how big the moment is. It isn't talent either. Missouri is plenty talented, but I doubt there is a first round NBA talent on the roster. Nope. What leaves me hopeful about Mizzou is spurtability--that ability to get on runs that, for the most part, the other team can't really defend, only try to limit. I remember Kellogg coining this term with the '97 Arizona title team. As evidenced yesterday, in a game that is sputtering along without much flow, out of nowhere Missouri can hit you with a run--and all a defense can do is try to keep it from getting out of hand. To my mind, the biggest component of wading through the opening weekend minefield is the ability to spurt against "inferior" opponents. 14-0, 15-0 runs are harder to come by against quality defenses, but as a high seed in the early rounds you need separation if for no other reason than to keep the upset vultures at neutral site arenas from circling.

2. Don't weep for Baylor. They are built for tournament play. I'm not so sure that I agree that their problem is toughness. They're not the toughest team around for sure, but they're not punks. I think their issue--such that they have "issues" with losses to KU and Mizzou--is that their talent isn't the most complimentary. It's hard to be great in the regular season with a front court-dominated team in college hoops, which is so guard friendly. (It's not impossible--KU and UNC does it all the time.) Their guards are turnover prone, not only do they personally turn it over, they put their bigs in situations where they are likely to turn it over. For all the barbs thrown at PJIII, it really is kinda easy to take an inexperienced big out of his comfort zone. (That's no excuse for his disappearing acts on the boards and on defense.) A team that can't figure out how to involve a young big man, especially when they don't run, and they don't have guards who limit turnovers, isn't terribly uncommon. Having said all that, come March they're likely to look a lot like they did in non-conference. They're not going to see many teams that can match their perimeter quickness like Mizzou or leverage them into horrendous shots AND keep them off the glass like Kansas--both of whom know the Baylor playbook as well as Baylor. Don't be shocked if they make a run, maybe even farther than us. Tournaments aren't about overall quality. They're about matchups.

With the 2012 off-season now unofficially underway, I figured I'd post my first mock of the off-season. A thousand different people will do mocks a thousand different ways. My preference, especially pre-combine and free agency is to set up mock drafts that tend toward "best player available" approaches rather than sticking too closely to perceived team needs. This mock isn't insensitive to team needs, but it's certainly not finely tailored. In other words, this mock basically features what I think are the top 32 prospects available based on what I've read.

I have noted some places where I think teams may be open to trading, but do not incorporate trades. Each selection features the player I think is the best option (with some consideration of team needs) for the team at that spot.

As always comments and feedback welcome. With my work schedule I'll jump in and jump out of discussion throughout the week.

Mock after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

Soooooooo, to paraphrase a scene from an old Simpsons episode: Was this a good ending or a bad ending? It's an ending. That's enough.

1. Hat Tip to Lon Kruger and a game bunch of Sooners. I don't want to damn OU with faint praise, but even the most ardent Boomer Sooner would admit that they shot WAY the hell over their heads from the perimeter tonight. Unlike the trip to Stillwater, a sizable number of OU fans showed up as empty seats. You can't say OU rode a wave of energy coming from the crowd. It was a nice crowd but hardly raucous. You can't even say it was about Missouri being flat. See that would be a lazy narrative. (Ahem... I'm looking at you ESPN announcers.) The Tigers may have started slow but they landed a fair number of haymakers along the way that staggered Oklahoma, who managed to get off the deck and survive them.

2. Whatever doesn't kill us can only make us stronger, right? Oklahoma landed more than their fair share of haymakers as well. One more thing to like about this team as that this crew can really take a punch but they don't take a lot of combinations. That is, they make mistakes but they don't let a mistake beat them a second time while sulking about it. At some point, I don't know when, that's gonna matter

[Bumped to the front page.]

Had to pay the Mrs. some attention on Saturday, so I just watched the game on ESPN3. Kansas got their 71st point on a Taylor dunk with 3 minutes and change left. They never scored again. Wow. Just. Wow.

1. Missouri as Andre Miller: Any Way You Wanna Swing It. I'm old enough to remember venerable NBA guard Andre Miller when he played at Utah under Rick Majerus. He has always been one of my favorite basketball players. Never overly athletic, Miller has the rare ability to play any sort of style: outside-in, inside-out, fast, or slow. My buddy Tee dubbed Miller an "any way you wanna swing it" guard. Miller is an apt metaphor for what I love about this Missouri team. They're an "any way you wanna swing it" team. What makes Missouri special--and see, I'm ready to declare them special rather than have that be determined by their performance in a single elimination tournament--is that they defy trite description. They don't have to play one way to win.

2. Give Love to Kimmeh! Denmon will (rightly) command most of the ink, but Kimmeh! was the quintessential "glue guy" in the game. If you're gonna be an "any way you wanna swing it" team you must have guys with serious versatility, who can put something in every column of the box score. Kimmeh! was that guy. He really kept it together tonight from the opening tip to the final whistle. Kimmeh! hit a couple big threes, but more importantly was 6-6 from the line. He only had 1 assist (was it the ball he lost that Moore gathered in for a flush?), but often he was the guy who swung the ball to make the defense move. He only had 3 boards, but his last (on the missed FT by Taylor) was the biggest of the game. He also rendered Withey an almost complete non-factor. Did you see him pull STEEEVE to the side after Robinson drew a grabbing foul to tell him that he needed to take T-Rob's shoulder in the chest? (Of course, that's exactly what STEEEVE did to draw a huge late charge on Robinson that replays showed to clearly be a legit call--ticky-tack perhaps, but they'd been calling charges all night.) I love what he brought to the game, and really, to this entire season.

3. Bonus Thought: Marcus Denmon. Feel good for him because he made shots last night, but love him because the other stuff, for the most part, has been there throughout his slump--the defense, the rebounding, the leadership. (He had nine boards last night, and not one was cheap.) In a quiet moment I wonder if Conner Teahan will regret woofing at Denmon on that sequence where he stole a Matt Pressey swing pass and hit the three on the other end. It may have been coincidence but after that moment Denmon took over the game.

So, it looks like Mizzou is going to sit tight with this class of 18 signees.

Evan Boehm OL 6-3 290

Torey Boozer LB 6-3 210

Harold Brantley DL 6-2 260

Levi Copelin WR 6-2 170

Chaston Cuffee DB 6-1 185

Sean Culkin TE 6-5 226

John Gibson DB 5-10 175

Markus Golden (JC) LB 6-3 240

Dorial Green-Beckham WR 6-6 220

Russell Hansbrough TB 5-8 173

Rickey Hatley DL 6-4 245

Maty Mauk QB 6-2 185

Donavin Newsom LB 6-2 220

Michael Scherer LB 6-2 230

Morgan Steward TB 5-11 182

Ka'Ra Stewart DB 5-10 190

Jordan Williams OL 6-4 250

Evan Winston DL 6-3 260

(Not listed, Texas transfer Darius White.)

So the question to you is: barring injury, academic issues, current players transferring out, etc. who from this class seems likely to play right away as part of the offensive or defensive rotation?

Near Locks -- Green-Beckham (WR)

Obviously, barring the unforeseen, DGB will play. It's possible he doesn't start game one, but he will be in the rotation. I don't see another no-doubt contributor on paper from this group. Think about that. Despite disappointments about players who signed elsewhere (e.g., Hines, Ray, Meador, et al.), this is the #33 ranked class and we can legitimately expect only one guy to command playing time from day one.

Good Bets -- Sean Culkin (TE), Marcus Golden (LB)

Tight end seems wide open. In fact, we may see more traditional in-line play from that position than we have under Yost. So Culkin should have opportunities to move up the depth chart.

Linebacker has a lot of depth. We have presumptive starters Wilson, Ebner, and Gooden. We also have some players who have put in their time on special teams, like Ruise and Brothers. Still, my suspicion is that Steck may rotate more guys in at that position which could create some opportunity. Golden was a big time recruit at one point, and historically Pinkel has brought in quality over quantity from the JUCO ranks.

Scheer could break into this group, but I think he'll be a guy they want to redshirt.

Wildcards -- Evan Boehm (G/C)

The only reasons Boehm is here is that he's a top 100 player and Mizzou has a history of getting snaps for linemen early in their careers. However, I look at the offensive line depth and it's hard to see room for Boehm unless someone gets hurt (heaven forbid).

Special Teams Only -- Anyone (but not everyone) else

The emphasis on the kicking game is one legitimate difference--in my opinion--between the Big 12 and the SEC. There is a LOT of halo effect about SEC speed and all that. But if there is one place I see a noticeable difference in actual overall talent (and not just distribution of talent) it is on kick coverage and returns. Almost everyone uses starters, but they also put some serious underclass talent on the field in the kicking game. In no small part this is because so many offenses are so conservative they MUST seize any opportunity to flip field position.

A number of guys in this class will have opportunities to contribute on special teams in coverage/blocking (e.g., Boozer, Newsome, Scheer, Hatley, Stewart) or as returners (e.g., Steward, Hansbrough). That's almost impossible to know right away. But, a good number of these signees look like they need a year or so in the system and in the weight room before they can contribute as part of the rotation on offense or defense.

[Bumped to the Front Page.]

All wins are good. All road wins are fantastic.

Repeat this mantra silently while you read.

1. This one goes to the coaching staff, both good and bad. Despite the up and down last few minutes of the game, Missouri was mostly in control last night (obviously until the very end). Last night, was in many critical respects the kind of win that says to me, "This isn't just a perfect storm of awesome things--smart, motivated senior led team with an uber-talented backcourt--this guy can coach." The decisions to spread the floor and then to zone Texas on the last possession were positively brilliant. Spreading the floor was the right move. It opened up driving lanes and made Texas come out of the lane to guard. Haith was not just burning clock. He was looking to put Texas' help defense in a bind and negate some of their shot blocking. But, Knight made an insightful point on the telecast. We started the offense too close to the half court line. Dixon's flagrant foul was completely a function of starting the offense too high. He let the defender eat up his entire cushion and then had to clear out. Zoning the Texas inbound play completely befuddled them. Haith and the staff REALLY pants'd Barnes on that one.

Continue reading this post »

Naturally, much of the discussion about this off-season will surround new players Seattle might bring in to improve a rapidly improving young team. However, even though re-signing current free agents is less likely to generate water cooler talk than the prospect of brand new free agents an important key to continuous improvement is continuity. In order to get better guys have to play together.

We should expect less roster churn than we saw in the first two off-seasons of the Carroll/Schneider regime. Still, some turnover is inevitable. Carroll/Schneider have not been bashful in expressing their willingness to upgrade where it makes sense to do so.

After the jump, let's take a look at Seattle's pending free agents. I'll offer a one line thought on who stays and who goes.

Continue reading this post »

Merry Christmas, and Happiest of Holidays to all the Twelves out there and your families. Please be safe, especially those of you who are traveling.

After yesterday's loss, as frustrated as I am with our QB situation, in my saner moments I recognize that QB upgrades--like better jobs--are extremely hard to come by. Ultimately, long-term upgrades are almost always "grown" through the draft rather than acquired in free agency or via trade. Every 12 knows this. We've been over it a thousand times.

Nevertheless, Schneider and Carroll will have opportunities to upgrade the position this off-season. But, finding a sufficient upgrade to justify the inevitable disruption that goes with changing QBs--at a price that doesn't fundamentally weaken the team--is among the most difficult moves in all of pro sports. So, self-righteously "demanding" a QB change, as I've heard from some fans, is about as pointless as a five year old's tantrum. Schneider and Carroll will be window shopping, as they have never so much as uttered a phrase publicly that implies long-term commitment to Jackson. But the fairly heavy odds are on Tarvaris Jackson returning as the starter in 2012. I'm at an uneasy peace with this. I look at the 49ers and see the same basic game plan at work. The better the team around him, the less Alex Smith must do. He was essentially one play better than Jackson yesterday. The near-perfect 41-yard sideline throw to Crabtree was the difference. So, continuing to improve the team around Jackson seems the most likely course of action.

Still Schneider will prepare to strike at an unexpected opportunities. QBs move every off-season, and this will be no different. So, who might strike Seattle's fancy? In order to avoid complete rosterbation here, I restrict my focus to pro players who are free agents or who have been recently rumored to be available. I'll separate them out by how much of an upgrade I perceive them to be after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

Twas the gameday before Christmas, when all through my house

Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.

They'll hang the flag soon, with tremendous fanfare.

I'll be listening to the game. I'll wish I was there.

I with my laptop all snug in my seat,

rooting against Detroit, and checking the tweets.

Mama Blue in her wig, and I in my cap,

feeling smug about Clemons being better than Tapp.

When out of my speakers there arose such a clatter,

I sprang from the seat to see what was the matter.

The fans began roaring and I jumped like a flash.

It was Lynch on the loose, with some smash and some dash!

Warren Moon was in shock at the zebra's call below

Raible on play-by-play tried not to let it show.

Bring it on back. Another flag? Oh, dear.

Yes. A little yellow flag lay at the feet of the beard.

"Holding, number 72," and then, just that quick,

My Seahawks were backed up. (Passing downs make me sick.)

More rapid than Eagles we lined up a-gain,

It was 3rd and forever. But then, Raible called his name!

"It's Doug Baldwin with the catch!" (Faked the defender out of his socks.)

"On, Golden! On, Obo!" (They made crucial down field blocks.)

"He's past midfield! At the 40!" (I hope he doesn't fall.)

Now dash away! Dash away! But, hold onto the ball.

And then, in a twinkling, on first down and goal

It was a run--Gallery was angry--as he plunged through the hole.

Gallery led the play. He pulled and he drove...

The tackle right into the ground, clearing the way for Beast Mode.

His eyes-how they twinkled! his dimples how merry!

His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!

But his tats made him look like some kind of biker,

And his beard was like something from the island of Rikers.

He made up for his nearly drive-killing mistake.

He and MRob lead the way, for a mini Beast Quake.

Laying on top of a defender, he could hardly hear the squawk.

But I heard the words I was longing to hear: "TOUCHDOWN! SEAHAWKS!!"

Lynch sprang to his feet. The crowd shouted and whistled.

As he basked in their glow, they showered him with Skittles(TM).

I hope this really happens, so we can end this season right.

Happy Christmas to all!

The playoffs are in sight!!