I will start with a disclaimer. I thought the Dallas Cowboys would win 4 games this year.
I thought DeMarco Murray would go down after 4 games and with no running attack, Romo would be beaten down and be out after 6 games and the Cowboys lead by the worst backup QB in the league would go 0-10 it's last ten games.
Obviously, I was wrong.
In a contract year, Murray finally stayed healthy. The Cowboys' new offensive coordinator surprised everyone by running the damned ball all year. Hits on Romo were reduced to a minimum and both Murray and Romo lasted all season. The team controlled the clock and kept the defense off the field.
It is very Jerry to think that will happen again next year.
Don't fall for it Mr. Jones.
Head Coach Jason Garrett may be resigned, but the Cowboys could lose any of 3 very good coaches
Garrett makes about $5 Million a year as a head coach which puts him in the middle of the pack as an NFL head coach. The thought locally is that he would get a pay bump up to Chip Kelly range (~$7 Million annually), which would put him in the top 3 in the NFL.
I think Garrett ought to meet the Cowboys halfway for a couple years. The reality is that Garrett was a .500 coach until this season. By my thinking that means he was paid VERY appropriately. This year his staff delivered a hell of a coaching job, but that doesn't mean he deserves to be one of the three highest paid coach in the league.
Further Garrett should realize that his coaches played a HUGE role in the team's success this year. If Garrett asks for $7 Million this year, Jerry is likely going to lowball at least one of the three assistants who made this possible.
To my thinking it is far better for Garrett to say, "give me an appropriate $5.5M per year with bonuses that bump up my base salary in the remaining years by $500K each time we make the playoffs."
What does that do? In the immediate future, it gives Garrett the ability to tell Jerry that the $1.5 Million dollar savings he is essentially giving Jerry this year is designed to help Jerry keep Garrett's three key assistants.
Jason Garrett needs to realize---he has tons of money, but NFL success is hard to come by. He has magic in a bottle with this staff. He needs to do what he can to keep them.
Defensive Coordinator Rod Marinelli is rumored to be looking to join Lovie Smith's staff in Tampa Bay. Marinelli earned a big raise in Dallas, and Garrett leaving some money on the table could make Jerry more likely to retain Marinelli.
I like Marinelli, but to me it isn't the end of the world if Marinelli leaves as Dallas has now transitioned back to a 4-3 defense that plays some man coverage. They are again playing a scheme that fits their personnel. Butch Davis and Dave Wannstedt would probably eagerly take the DC job and do an equally credible job if money cannot sway Marinelli.
Still it is optimal that Marinelli stays as there is no doubt he "coaches players up" and this defense is likely not quite as good as it appeared --- especially on the defensive line.
Passing Game Coordinator Scott Linehan was a great hire. I do not think he is the world's greatest offensive coordinator, but he is someone Garrett trusts which was absolutely necessary to get Garrett to let go of play calling. Linehan is very competent and to his credit he absolutely saw that everything (strong OL, injured QB, and RB in a contract year) all pointed to a heavy does of ball control, but he isn't the second coming. It is unlikely he would be interested in a college job and I don't think anyone is going to hire him to be their NFL head coach at this point, but he may need a small raise and it is possible titles may have to be shuffled. He may have to have the OC title. If the right crap team (Cleveland? Buffalo?) offers Linehan a position as OC/assistant head coach, would Dallas be able to keep him?
Last year after stripping Bill Callahan of his play calling duties, Jerry Jones held the OL coach (and offensive coordinator in name only) to his contract rather than letting him take offensive coordinator jobs in the league. Now a great season can soothe a lot of ills , but I would still be hacked off about that if I were Callahan. Maybe Jerry can keep him if he smacks him with a lot of money, but I wouldn't be surprised if he leaves over the principle of the thing.
If you have to replace Callahan, you need to either hire someone who can develop star players on the OL like a Callahan (or a Hudson Houck back in the day) or someone who can get an OL to play well together and exceed their likely production as a group like a Tony Wise-type and then draft to back up that thought process.
It is tough to find a player building OL coach of Bill Callahan's caliber. It is IMO a short list. Should he leave, I would strongly look at Tennessee OL coach Bob Bostad. Bostad coached a slew of collegiate linemen at Wisconsin into first round picks. To my point of view he was the best OL coach in college from 2008-2011. He coached center Travis Fredrick in college. Dallas will likely still need to develop at least one more young offensive lineman, so a guy with collegiate experience makes sense.
Could a huge roll of money and a title like "running game coordinator/offensive line coach" make that happen? I think additionally sliding Tennessee a lower pick like a fifth rounder would be acceptable "grease" to apply there if needed.
I happen to also like UTEP offensive line coach Spencer Leftwich a lot as well. Leftwich was UNT's offensive line coach for a number of years and did a fantastic job there. UTEP is coached by Sean Kugler who was well known as a very good NFL offensive line coach. That Kugler selected Leftwich to me validates my opinions on Leftwich. I think he is a young Tony Wise. Leftwich hasn't produced anyone, but his OLs are always among the best in the conference.
I think what Jerry Jones has to remember is that everything broke right for the Cowboys last year and it had everything to do with coaching. Next year won't be like that. I will discuss the players tomorrow.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Ouch, the Las Vegas Bowl was a huge black eye for Colorado State's Big 12 hopes.
Colorado State had a huge task ahead of them. They had lost their head coach and faced a very good Utah team in the Las Vegas Bowl.
A victory over the Pac-12 Utes would have given CSU an 11-2 season record and would have proven their record was not a product of an incredibly weak Mountain West Conference. From there, CSU could have rolled into basketball and to quite possibly another NCAA tournament bid.
Such a scenario could have put CSU athletics in the cat bird's seat for Big 12 admission.
45-10 later, all one can say is "Ouch." So much for that.
The loss of their coach and their poor bowl game showing does a lot to erase what football credibility they built this year.
CSU will continue to have to hope for someone in the Big 12 to show some long term vision in looking at the Rams as a candidate.
A victory over the Pac-12 Utes would have given CSU an 11-2 season record and would have proven their record was not a product of an incredibly weak Mountain West Conference. From there, CSU could have rolled into basketball and to quite possibly another NCAA tournament bid.
Such a scenario could have put CSU athletics in the cat bird's seat for Big 12 admission.
45-10 later, all one can say is "Ouch." So much for that.
The loss of their coach and their poor bowl game showing does a lot to erase what football credibility they built this year.
CSU will continue to have to hope for someone in the Big 12 to show some long term vision in looking at the Rams as a candidate.
Michigan needs to sign Mrs. Harbaugh.
Michigan is reportedly out to sign Michigan alum and current San Francisco 49ers head football Coach Jim Harbaugh to be their next head football coach. Reportedly they are waiving $8 Million a year at the former Michigan QB but still Harbaugh has not committed.
I'll be as blunt as I can be. I do not believe Jim's wife wants to live in Michigan. I don't blame her. The state is in a state of collapse.
Michigan needs Harbaugh. To get him, I think they need to land his wife.
Whatever she needs to hear, they need to say.
The reality is that Michigan has signed throw it around, space coaches for years. It has failed miserably. Michigan is soft. They need someone who will bring back toughness and the Michigan way and no one is a better candidate than Harbaugh for that.
Harbaugh's Stanford teams played a lot more like classic Michigan teams than any Wolverine team in the last decade. Ohio State and Michigan State are good enough teams that if Michigan beats them both, Harbaugh's Wolverines would be in the college playoffs, where his physical style has a great chance of success.
There is nothing preventing a Michigan resurgence. The Offensive linemen that go to Wisconsin these days could easily be brought in by Harbaugh. Harbaugh's enough of a national brand and proven commodity to recruit any position that the region cannot produce.
I don't know what it would take to land Mrs. Harbaugh. Whatever it is, Michigan needs to figure it out and tell it to her.
If they need to give her guest homes in New York and Chicago to win her over than it needs to be done.
If it takes a frank conversation where they tell Mrs. Harbaugh that a lack of toughness is the problem at Michigan and the only coach skilled enough and manly enough to restore the program is her husband, it needs to be said. If they need to show a connection between top level FBS football and university donations that can help a brain drain in a struggling state, Michigan's admins needs to do that research. Maybe they need to show her how football generated donations to a university can go to academic scholarships, cooperative educational programs, and can even generate university created businesses. Maybe they need to show her how her husband's brand can correct a lot of what is wrong in that state.
Jim Harbaugh can be football Jesus to the state of Michigan and Mrs. Harbaugh can play a huge and public role in making that happen.
This is a state that needs someone to believe in and the Harbaughs would have little trouble being those people.
I'll be as blunt as I can be. I do not believe Jim's wife wants to live in Michigan. I don't blame her. The state is in a state of collapse.
Michigan needs Harbaugh. To get him, I think they need to land his wife.
Whatever she needs to hear, they need to say.
The reality is that Michigan has signed throw it around, space coaches for years. It has failed miserably. Michigan is soft. They need someone who will bring back toughness and the Michigan way and no one is a better candidate than Harbaugh for that.
Harbaugh's Stanford teams played a lot more like classic Michigan teams than any Wolverine team in the last decade. Ohio State and Michigan State are good enough teams that if Michigan beats them both, Harbaugh's Wolverines would be in the college playoffs, where his physical style has a great chance of success.
There is nothing preventing a Michigan resurgence. The Offensive linemen that go to Wisconsin these days could easily be brought in by Harbaugh. Harbaugh's enough of a national brand and proven commodity to recruit any position that the region cannot produce.
I don't know what it would take to land Mrs. Harbaugh. Whatever it is, Michigan needs to figure it out and tell it to her.
If they need to give her guest homes in New York and Chicago to win her over than it needs to be done.
If it takes a frank conversation where they tell Mrs. Harbaugh that a lack of toughness is the problem at Michigan and the only coach skilled enough and manly enough to restore the program is her husband, it needs to be said. If they need to show a connection between top level FBS football and university donations that can help a brain drain in a struggling state, Michigan's admins needs to do that research. Maybe they need to show her how football generated donations to a university can go to academic scholarships, cooperative educational programs, and can even generate university created businesses. Maybe they need to show her how her husband's brand can correct a lot of what is wrong in that state.
Jim Harbaugh can be football Jesus to the state of Michigan and Mrs. Harbaugh can play a huge and public role in making that happen.
This is a state that needs someone to believe in and the Harbaughs would have little trouble being those people.
Who makes the NFL playoffs? Week 17 predictions.
Let's start with the AFC
1 New England --- I would not be surprised to see the Pats take this game off and the Bills win this game.
2 Denver --- Oakland has a chance to pull another upset, but I think the Broncos are not playing quite as badly as people think and will put this one away early.
3- Pittsburgh --- Pittsburgh has been about as flaky as you can get this year and their defense is pretty mediocre, but it doesn't change the fact they are 7-2 in their last nine games and beat the Bengals a few weeks back. They are playing well at the right time.
4- Indianapolis --- The Colts can use some time to get healthy. The playoffs are unfolding right for them with a week essentially off and then a matchup against a Cinci team that doesn't show up in big games who the Colts torched earlier this season.
5- Cincinnati - More of the same for Cinci. Expect an Andy Dalton mediocre game.
6- San Diego - San Diego will be without Ryan Matthews and likely without Keenan Allen and will be playing a solid KC team with a gamer at QB in backup Chase Daniels. So why am I picking the Chargers? I believe in Phillip Rivers. One of these days he will drag the bolts to the superbowl ala Aaron Rodgers a few years back.
Now the NFC
1- Seattle - The Seahawks will take the #1 spot this week with a win over the Rams but I think the game will be fairly close.
2- Green Bay - I am not in love with Green Bay, but they have played fairly good ball for most of the season and should kill the Lions in the cold.
3- Dallas - Disclaimer: I am a lifelong Cowboys fan, but ...I also picked them to win 4 games this year. The development of Zack Martin into a rookie season pro bowler surprised me a bit --- I thought it would take him 2-3 years to get there. The team taking on the attitude of the line was a lot more surprising. Murray playing all 16 games and Romo playing almost all of them was shocking to me. Dallas and Washington usually split games and the Cowboys seem to get they are playing over their talent level. They seem focused to win this game as a playoff tune-up. I wonder if losing this game would give us a shot at Atlanta or Arizona... I do not like Dallas's chances against either NFC North team, but do against the rest of the field.
4- Atlanta - I have no faith in Cam Newton, but I have only slightly more faith in Atlanta. I think they played last week to save their coach and will do so again this week.
5- Arizona - Man, the Cards are paying the price for having crap at QB. SF will kill them. Good luck in the playoffs....
6- Detroit - Just the team I did not want Dallas to play. Detroit is a beast up the middle and they know our OC's tendencies.
1 New England --- I would not be surprised to see the Pats take this game off and the Bills win this game.
2 Denver --- Oakland has a chance to pull another upset, but I think the Broncos are not playing quite as badly as people think and will put this one away early.
3- Pittsburgh --- Pittsburgh has been about as flaky as you can get this year and their defense is pretty mediocre, but it doesn't change the fact they are 7-2 in their last nine games and beat the Bengals a few weeks back. They are playing well at the right time.
4- Indianapolis --- The Colts can use some time to get healthy. The playoffs are unfolding right for them with a week essentially off and then a matchup against a Cinci team that doesn't show up in big games who the Colts torched earlier this season.
5- Cincinnati - More of the same for Cinci. Expect an Andy Dalton mediocre game.
6- San Diego - San Diego will be without Ryan Matthews and likely without Keenan Allen and will be playing a solid KC team with a gamer at QB in backup Chase Daniels. So why am I picking the Chargers? I believe in Phillip Rivers. One of these days he will drag the bolts to the superbowl ala Aaron Rodgers a few years back.
Now the NFC
1- Seattle - The Seahawks will take the #1 spot this week with a win over the Rams but I think the game will be fairly close.
2- Green Bay - I am not in love with Green Bay, but they have played fairly good ball for most of the season and should kill the Lions in the cold.
3- Dallas - Disclaimer: I am a lifelong Cowboys fan, but ...I also picked them to win 4 games this year. The development of Zack Martin into a rookie season pro bowler surprised me a bit --- I thought it would take him 2-3 years to get there. The team taking on the attitude of the line was a lot more surprising. Murray playing all 16 games and Romo playing almost all of them was shocking to me. Dallas and Washington usually split games and the Cowboys seem to get they are playing over their talent level. They seem focused to win this game as a playoff tune-up. I wonder if losing this game would give us a shot at Atlanta or Arizona... I do not like Dallas's chances against either NFC North team, but do against the rest of the field.
4- Atlanta - I have no faith in Cam Newton, but I have only slightly more faith in Atlanta. I think they played last week to save their coach and will do so again this week.
5- Arizona - Man, the Cards are paying the price for having crap at QB. SF will kill them. Good luck in the playoffs....
6- Detroit - Just the team I did not want Dallas to play. Detroit is a beast up the middle and they know our OC's tendencies.
Friday, December 12, 2014
If Texas wants to have their cake and eat it too, they need to champion upgrading Texas Tech.
As I wrote last time, the leadership of the University of Texas is torn four ways when it comes to conference affiliation and best of those scenarios would appear to require Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and Oklahoma to come along.
This means it is in the best interest of UT to rally it's political capital behind changing and upgrading the mission of Texas Tech University.
Tech has strong support in West Texas and in the major cities of Texas. Media wise, they are a good compliment to UT in delivering the state. It is in UT's best interest to make this alliance more understandable academically.
I am going to get pretty far into this. A lot of these recommendations won't happen. I get that. In a lot of ways this list will lean heavily into the realm of "not gonna happen". I am only pointing out what would make sense for UT.
It is in the interest of UT to have the state fast track Tech's evolution into more of a research university and use the legislature to raise the admission standards at Tech.
It is in the interest of UT to bend over backwards to push cooperative research efforts with Tech when ever possible.
It is in the interest of UT to help push for legislation that would push more students in the top 10% of their Texas senior classes to Texas Tech via state scholarships.
It is in UT's interest as well as the state's to see Tech move closer in quality to Texas A&M, so in a decade or so when the Big 12 Grant of Rights deals end, Tech is not a somewhat embarrassing anchor to drag with UT, but more of an academically respectable partner which will not skunk any deals that could bring money into the state.
Today, Tech is ranked #156 among National Universities by US News. These kinds of changes would dramatically impact the US News scoring system and would push Tech higher.
A higher ranked Tech means a more powerful Tech. It means an increase in value of a Tech degree. That means more money in Tech alumni hands. And all of that means more power backing UT alumni in state.
The State of Texas wants more "tier 1 research universities". UT has already chosen an alliance with Tech over one with Houston, UNT, UTEP, and all the other schools vying to get more into research. So why let Tech struggle? It is counter-productive.
It is in the best interest of UT to leverage their alumni's political clout into pushing down on that scale in favor of Tech.
It is in the best interest of UT to push legislation that reassigns small west Texas public universities into the Texas Tech System as it increases Tech's clout by reducing A&M's.
It is in the best interest of UT to try to rally political support from all Big 12 alumni to bring that enlarged Texas Tech system into the Texas Permanent University Fund over A&M resistance. It doesn't make UT sense to have Tech, a long term ally, fighting with the other lower tier large public universities over a share of the much smaller Higher Education Assistance Fund.
Tech's association with UT in the Big 12 brings a lot more value to UT than say UT-Permian Basin brings to UT by their membership in the UT system. Why should UTPB get access to the PUF funds over Tech? It make no sense from a Longhorn perspective. If UTPB (or for that matter UTEP, UTSA, or UTA) was pushed to the Tech system, it could create a little legal tension and political support to admit the Tech system in order to protect UTPB's small PUF share.
(In my opinion, shifting UTEP, UTPB, UTRGV, and UTA out of the UT system and into the pool of schools pulling from the HEAF would make a lot more organizational sense as they are similar tier universities... but I also believe that fund should be dramatically expanded with the express intent to transition the larger schools in that lot into "tier 1 research universities". That would still leave sensible candidates like UTPB and West Texas A&M as candidates for the Texas Tech System.
If UT lets manay of them members schools be reassigned but keeps the higher ranked UT-Dallas as well as UT- Southwestern and all the science and medical universities in the UT system, I would think it would actually enhance the UT brand. Let the lesser schools that chip away from the UT brand follow a similar rebranding path as the University of Memphis.
Pulling Prairie View and Tarleton out of the A&M system to match the changes made on the UT side would make sense as well.
Simply redirecting some funds that would normally trickle down to UT and A&M associate schools towards Tech as a new PUF member would be a great start to ramping up Tech.
Neither UT or A&M are as reliant on that fund as they used to be, but those monies could quickly help upgrade Texas Tech to slow the brain drain of top Texas seniors going to college out of state.
UT and A&M can't take all the qualified applicants they get. Why not start the process of transforming Tech into a lesser A&M to soak up candidates who just miss the UT and A&M cut? I envision a Texas Tech ranked in the top 100 National Universities with an enrollment of 45,000 by the year 2030 that pumps out a better graduates to power the economy in West Texas.
That would be a great ally for UT and would be great for the state.
Similarly the State of Oklahoma raising academic standards at Oklahoma State and pushing oil revenue into research at both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would be smart moves to cement the relationship with UT long term.
This means it is in the best interest of UT to rally it's political capital behind changing and upgrading the mission of Texas Tech University.
Tech has strong support in West Texas and in the major cities of Texas. Media wise, they are a good compliment to UT in delivering the state. It is in UT's best interest to make this alliance more understandable academically.
I am going to get pretty far into this. A lot of these recommendations won't happen. I get that. In a lot of ways this list will lean heavily into the realm of "not gonna happen". I am only pointing out what would make sense for UT.
It is in the interest of UT to have the state fast track Tech's evolution into more of a research university and use the legislature to raise the admission standards at Tech.
It is in the interest of UT to bend over backwards to push cooperative research efforts with Tech when ever possible.
It is in the interest of UT to help push for legislation that would push more students in the top 10% of their Texas senior classes to Texas Tech via state scholarships.
It is in UT's interest as well as the state's to see Tech move closer in quality to Texas A&M, so in a decade or so when the Big 12 Grant of Rights deals end, Tech is not a somewhat embarrassing anchor to drag with UT, but more of an academically respectable partner which will not skunk any deals that could bring money into the state.
Today, Tech is ranked #156 among National Universities by US News. These kinds of changes would dramatically impact the US News scoring system and would push Tech higher.
A higher ranked Tech means a more powerful Tech. It means an increase in value of a Tech degree. That means more money in Tech alumni hands. And all of that means more power backing UT alumni in state.
The State of Texas wants more "tier 1 research universities". UT has already chosen an alliance with Tech over one with Houston, UNT, UTEP, and all the other schools vying to get more into research. So why let Tech struggle? It is counter-productive.
It is in the best interest of UT to leverage their alumni's political clout into pushing down on that scale in favor of Tech.
It is in the best interest of UT to push legislation that reassigns small west Texas public universities into the Texas Tech System as it increases Tech's clout by reducing A&M's.
It is in the best interest of UT to try to rally political support from all Big 12 alumni to bring that enlarged Texas Tech system into the Texas Permanent University Fund over A&M resistance. It doesn't make UT sense to have Tech, a long term ally, fighting with the other lower tier large public universities over a share of the much smaller Higher Education Assistance Fund.
Tech's association with UT in the Big 12 brings a lot more value to UT than say UT-Permian Basin brings to UT by their membership in the UT system. Why should UTPB get access to the PUF funds over Tech? It make no sense from a Longhorn perspective. If UTPB (or for that matter UTEP, UTSA, or UTA) was pushed to the Tech system, it could create a little legal tension and political support to admit the Tech system in order to protect UTPB's small PUF share.
(In my opinion, shifting UTEP, UTPB, UTRGV, and UTA out of the UT system and into the pool of schools pulling from the HEAF would make a lot more organizational sense as they are similar tier universities... but I also believe that fund should be dramatically expanded with the express intent to transition the larger schools in that lot into "tier 1 research universities". That would still leave sensible candidates like UTPB and West Texas A&M as candidates for the Texas Tech System.
If UT lets manay of them members schools be reassigned but keeps the higher ranked UT-Dallas as well as UT- Southwestern and all the science and medical universities in the UT system, I would think it would actually enhance the UT brand. Let the lesser schools that chip away from the UT brand follow a similar rebranding path as the University of Memphis.
Pulling Prairie View and Tarleton out of the A&M system to match the changes made on the UT side would make sense as well.
Simply redirecting some funds that would normally trickle down to UT and A&M associate schools towards Tech as a new PUF member would be a great start to ramping up Tech.
Neither UT or A&M are as reliant on that fund as they used to be, but those monies could quickly help upgrade Texas Tech to slow the brain drain of top Texas seniors going to college out of state.
UT and A&M can't take all the qualified applicants they get. Why not start the process of transforming Tech into a lesser A&M to soak up candidates who just miss the UT and A&M cut? I envision a Texas Tech ranked in the top 100 National Universities with an enrollment of 45,000 by the year 2030 that pumps out a better graduates to power the economy in West Texas.
That would be a great ally for UT and would be great for the state.
Similarly the State of Oklahoma raising academic standards at Oklahoma State and pushing oil revenue into research at both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would be smart moves to cement the relationship with UT long term.
The four paths ahead of the University of Texas.
The leadership of the University of Texas is torn four ways when it somes to conference affiliation.
On Academic Lines
On one hand their academics would love to be in the best conference currently available to UT for academics --- The Big 10. With it's academic and research consortium, the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, the Big Ten represents the kind of conference UT academics would love to call home.
Luckily the athletic department swings a big stick. The Big 10 firmly favors schools that are members of the 62 member Association of American Universities (AAU) - an exclusive fraternity of elite "National" (ie. doctorate granting) Universities. UT's strongest allies, the University of Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State are nowhere near that. For UT to join the Big 10, they would likely have to leave most and possibly all of those allies behind, becoming regionally isolated.
UT pulls a large amount of their ability to market themselves from playing regional rivals. A schedule filled with Midwestern teams would be soul deadening for UT's often fair weathered fan base.
Additionally UT would lose all influence over the direction of the conference --- something that the leadership in the athletic department and at the university appear to rightfully consider an unnecessary poison pill.
On Academic and Athletic Lines
The more tolerable academic move concept is to build a UT ark and carry UT's allies (Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and maybe Kansas) into the Pac-12. The Pac-12's conference admission standards are frankly, a notch lower.
Academic knuckle draggers Tech and OSU are on a similar tier to Arizona State and Washington State. The PAC may not love the idea of admitting those two, but to land UT (for the Texas Media Markets, political clout, and UT's research dollars) the PAC-12 would make the deal happen.
UT would go from being the undisputed ruler of the Big 12 conference to being a somewhat influential minority party member of a PAC-16 or Pac-18 ruling senate, capable of rallying votes on some issues.
Athletically, UT and their ark members should be able to maintain their success in an enlarged PAC-12.
UT fans and donors look on this move somewhat unfavorably as they balk at the loss of influence and feel that they would be propping up "someone else's conference".
Financially this is one of the better moves from the perspective of the State of Texas. This would do much to ally the states of Texas and California. California has a lot of angel investors. This kind of expansion of their academic circles could easily lead to new emerging industries and the high paying jobs that come with that coming to Texas.
Additionally, the Pac-12 is a heavy research conference. Such a move would likely ramp up research at Texas Tech and Oklahoma, yielding an improved national view on those universities and the degrees they grant.
On Athletic and Jingoistic Lines
Texas is a conservative state. Conservatives fear change and will fearfully cling to the old ways, even if they aren't the most lucrative or optimal options.
There are plenty of people in Texas who do not want anything to do with a "foreign" conference. They proudly beat the drum about how good it is to get "unloyal programs" like Nebraska out.
That inbred mindset combined with the ability to actively steer the direction of the Big 12 has kept UT in a conference that is a combination of the least impressive academically, the least attractive to new members, and the most limited market-wise of the 5 power conferences.
UT can tread water here, but that would amount not leveraging UT into a lot more money for the state and it's residents and ignoring a dramatic improvement on the hiring power of a UT degree in other states.
It is short sighted, but that is the nature of conservative policy ("trust what you know").
On Fantasy Lines
Then there are those who think UT should just take the Notre Dame route and become an independent. I think their strategy recklessly ignores the needs of UT athletically and academically and would not yield any positive results.
The Longhorn Network was an effort to test those waters of independence. It drove a huge wedge between UT and Texas A&M and almost drove off all of the members UT's fans like to see UT playing.
It was in no way worth a couple million dollars a year to lose having Texas A&M tied at the hip with UT long term.
UT independence would piss off OU. OU has proven they can replace the UT game with another random power (BYU) and still do quite well financially in Dallas/Fort Worth.
For UT, the OU game is the key piece in their annual fund raising effort. The loss of that game would hobble UT athletics financially.
UT is reliant on appealing matchups to keep their fans engaged. There is just too much to lose there for UT.
Other options?
UT has tangoed with the ACC. I would classify that as a lesser version of the Big 10 option above. The ACC is quite a strong conference academically and is in a lot of nice markets, but it has many of the same issues as a move to the Big 10.
UT's leadership concluded long ago that the SEC was not up to the academic standards of Longhorn scholars. Having to follow Texas A&M there makes it a poison pill for UT's powerful athletic boosters. Much like Notre Dame to the Big 10, UT won't be broken. It won't happen.
Realignment of the Big 12 could potentially ramp up the perception of that conference, but most Big 12 scenarios have an easily viewable ceiling.
The obvious conclusions
There are two (and a half) workable scenarios for UT. Take a UT ark to the PAC-12 or expand and enhance the Big 12 (...or build a new conference off the bones of the Big 12).
What do those scenarios have in common? These scenarios would appear to require Texas Tech and Oklahoma to come along. Oklahoma appears tied at the hip to Oklahoma State by Oklahoma politics.
On Academic Lines
On one hand their academics would love to be in the best conference currently available to UT for academics --- The Big 10. With it's academic and research consortium, the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, the Big Ten represents the kind of conference UT academics would love to call home.
Luckily the athletic department swings a big stick. The Big 10 firmly favors schools that are members of the 62 member Association of American Universities (AAU) - an exclusive fraternity of elite "National" (ie. doctorate granting) Universities. UT's strongest allies, the University of Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State are nowhere near that. For UT to join the Big 10, they would likely have to leave most and possibly all of those allies behind, becoming regionally isolated.
UT pulls a large amount of their ability to market themselves from playing regional rivals. A schedule filled with Midwestern teams would be soul deadening for UT's often fair weathered fan base.
Additionally UT would lose all influence over the direction of the conference --- something that the leadership in the athletic department and at the university appear to rightfully consider an unnecessary poison pill.
On Academic and Athletic Lines
The more tolerable academic move concept is to build a UT ark and carry UT's allies (Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and maybe Kansas) into the Pac-12. The Pac-12's conference admission standards are frankly, a notch lower.
Academic knuckle draggers Tech and OSU are on a similar tier to Arizona State and Washington State. The PAC may not love the idea of admitting those two, but to land UT (for the Texas Media Markets, political clout, and UT's research dollars) the PAC-12 would make the deal happen.
UT would go from being the undisputed ruler of the Big 12 conference to being a somewhat influential minority party member of a PAC-16 or Pac-18 ruling senate, capable of rallying votes on some issues.
Athletically, UT and their ark members should be able to maintain their success in an enlarged PAC-12.
UT fans and donors look on this move somewhat unfavorably as they balk at the loss of influence and feel that they would be propping up "someone else's conference".
Financially this is one of the better moves from the perspective of the State of Texas. This would do much to ally the states of Texas and California. California has a lot of angel investors. This kind of expansion of their academic circles could easily lead to new emerging industries and the high paying jobs that come with that coming to Texas.
Additionally, the Pac-12 is a heavy research conference. Such a move would likely ramp up research at Texas Tech and Oklahoma, yielding an improved national view on those universities and the degrees they grant.
On Athletic and Jingoistic Lines
Texas is a conservative state. Conservatives fear change and will fearfully cling to the old ways, even if they aren't the most lucrative or optimal options.
There are plenty of people in Texas who do not want anything to do with a "foreign" conference. They proudly beat the drum about how good it is to get "unloyal programs" like Nebraska out.
That inbred mindset combined with the ability to actively steer the direction of the Big 12 has kept UT in a conference that is a combination of the least impressive academically, the least attractive to new members, and the most limited market-wise of the 5 power conferences.
UT can tread water here, but that would amount not leveraging UT into a lot more money for the state and it's residents and ignoring a dramatic improvement on the hiring power of a UT degree in other states.
It is short sighted, but that is the nature of conservative policy ("trust what you know").
On Fantasy Lines
Then there are those who think UT should just take the Notre Dame route and become an independent. I think their strategy recklessly ignores the needs of UT athletically and academically and would not yield any positive results.
The Longhorn Network was an effort to test those waters of independence. It drove a huge wedge between UT and Texas A&M and almost drove off all of the members UT's fans like to see UT playing.
It was in no way worth a couple million dollars a year to lose having Texas A&M tied at the hip with UT long term.
UT independence would piss off OU. OU has proven they can replace the UT game with another random power (BYU) and still do quite well financially in Dallas/Fort Worth.
For UT, the OU game is the key piece in their annual fund raising effort. The loss of that game would hobble UT athletics financially.
UT is reliant on appealing matchups to keep their fans engaged. There is just too much to lose there for UT.
Other options?
UT has tangoed with the ACC. I would classify that as a lesser version of the Big 10 option above. The ACC is quite a strong conference academically and is in a lot of nice markets, but it has many of the same issues as a move to the Big 10.
UT's leadership concluded long ago that the SEC was not up to the academic standards of Longhorn scholars. Having to follow Texas A&M there makes it a poison pill for UT's powerful athletic boosters. Much like Notre Dame to the Big 10, UT won't be broken. It won't happen.
Realignment of the Big 12 could potentially ramp up the perception of that conference, but most Big 12 scenarios have an easily viewable ceiling.
The obvious conclusions
There are two (and a half) workable scenarios for UT. Take a UT ark to the PAC-12 or expand and enhance the Big 12 (...or build a new conference off the bones of the Big 12).
What do those scenarios have in common? These scenarios would appear to require Texas Tech and Oklahoma to come along. Oklahoma appears tied at the hip to Oklahoma State by Oklahoma politics.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Why the Lakers absolutely NEED to dump Kobe on the Knicks
Kobe isn't good enough to carry a team on his own. No one is or ever was (even Jordan).
This Laker team is lousy and is rebuilding. They have Kobe Bryant, Carlos Boozer, and a very young roster with little talent. They need more young talent.
The Knicks are equally bad. Phil Jackson has ripped up what little was there that worked last year (Tyson Chandler) to rebuild the team in his image, but the team is abysmal and Carmelo is far too immature to patiently wait for the picks to come in. In-fighting abounds.
Both teams are on a path to a crappy draft pick, which might be conceptually OK to the team leaderships, but represent the wrong moves.
If you are going to rebuild you need mentally stable people especially your stars. Dirk Nowitzki for example. You cannot rebuild with a win at all cost hothead like Kobe Bryant or an immature crybaby like Carmelo.
But none of that is required. The Knicks have the pieces the Lakers to radically speed up the Laker's improvement and the Lakers have the pieces to save Phil Jackson's New York effort from crumbling under Carmelo's immaturity.
The forces behind a deal
In business Win-Win deals often get done. This is exactly that kind of situation.
Phil Jackson is floundering badly in NY. Phil Jackson's girlfriend is Jeanie Buss, President of the Lakers.
Carmelo wants to play in New York, he both wants to win without doing much heavy lifting or working on his game, while dominating the ball due to a disdain for his teammates' talent level. He can be a top 5-10 player when his head is right, but he is more a cancer than anything else today. More than any other big time player in the NBA, Carmelo can use Kobe's constant badgering.
Kobe wouldn't mind playing in New York, but he wants talent around him. Kobe realizes how important Phil Jackson was to his career.
Most NBA teams are not desperate enough to trade for a caustic Kobe Bryant with 18 seasons on his legs and a $30M contract. Nobody is trading lottery picks for Kobe and the market for him is probably surprisingly sparse as teams wrest with the question of whether Kobe is locker room Kryptonite at this point in his career.
Laker fans are ready to rebuild. Most, if they were honest, are a little tired of Kobe. New York fans, as always, want to win now.
Kobe has lead the Lakers to a 5-7 record in the last 12 games. They team is not talented enough to make the playoffs in a stacked west, but if they play at this level for the rest of they year, the Lakers would finish 27-55. If the Lakers end up with a pick higher than 5th in the 2015 draft, the pick goes to Phoenix. Kobe is literally playing the Lakers out of a much needed lottery pick.
Based on his moves, Lakers Executive VP Jim Buss seems to want to build his own legacy. He has been in the center of most of the moves to rid the team of old Phil Jackson pieces.
Moving Kobe to New York satisfies almost every criteria.
What assets are on the Lakers
Kobe is still an all-star caliber shooting guard. Carlos Boozer is a decent starting power forward on a good team. Ronnie Price is a useful, underrated backup PG, but is in his eighth season. His Laker career probably needs to be sacrificed to the god of rebuilding. All three of them are too old for LA.
Everyone else is young. Jordan Hill has been dumped by two teams, but looks like he is developing into a very solid minute eating 4/5. Nick Young is a decent young 3, but more what you would have pulling 25 minutes on a bad NBA team. Jeremy Lin is a guy whose game would be much, much better in a more up tempo system with a green light to score instead of deferring. He showed leadership early in his career but has deferred to others lately. He is probably worth holding on to in the post-Kobe world.
Wayne Ellington has a shot to be a solid pro in the right situation and might do well without minute eater Kobe. Ellington is too physically limited to be great in the NBA. He is an average athlete with a poor handle. He is a good shooter and passer and plays within himself though, so he has a real shot to eventually make a niche for himself. He could help space the floor next to Lin.
Ed Davis is a nice young prospect worth holding on to. He can rebound and block shots, but his offense is very limited and his defense is a work in progress. Robert Sacre is a physical big at the center spot, but is more of a good "banger" third center than anything else. The rest look like NBDL guys.
What assets are on the Knicks
Carmelo can play like an elite player, but IMO is and always has been an immature little punk. Although he has flashed shut down ability on defense, it isn't something he wants to do. He dominates the ball despite being capable of being a strong passer. He likes living in New York. He knew the situation in NY was bad but still took the best financial deal. He isn't a Kobe-type. IMO, he may actually tap out at some point if he feels that will get Phil Jackson and the triangle gone.
If Carmelo isn't heading to LA, that means no old guys are likely to be desired back by the Lakers. Lets start with the Knicks who would not interest a rebuilding team. Sam Dalembert and JR Smith are too old with too many warts to interest LA. Both are useful cogs on a playoff-caliber team as is heady vet Jose Calderon.
Andrea Bargnani the former #1 overall pick has always been a bad fit for the Knicks (and really every NBA team he has played for). He was a Dirk Nowitzki starter kit who has been horribly coached and utilized. This is a guy who's main value is being a #1 scorer on a team that has somewhat limited offensive talent. This is a guy who can close, but unless you are arguably better than Carmelo, you can't have that role with Carmelo on the floor. The lack of opportunity to fill that role has messed him up a bit. Andrea can play at the 3,4, or 5 spots, but lack of plus strength or lateral quickness makes him a liability defensively wherever he plays. Probably, given his lack of an internal desire to rebound, his best role is as a 3 on offense and trying to match him on the least threatening opposing front court player on defense. He has had a series of injuries over the last few years. He is probably ready to move on and truth be told his teammates are probably ready to see him move on. He isn't playing right now due to lingering injuries. He is almost as old as the others, but salary-wise he would have to be included to get Kobe moved.
Jason Smith is kind of a backup 5/4 type. He is useful. SG Imam Shumpert is an athlete with an unrefined game. He excels when the pace picks up. Tim Hardaway Jr. is a solid backup SG at least. He is a winner with a solid shot, but the rest of his game is pretty average. Still he could be a starter and a leader on a young team. Shane Larkin looks like a guy who will have a long and productive career as a solid NBA backup point. He also exudes some leadership. Cole Aldrich is the kind of center who eventually becomes an NBA starter and teams realize he isn't half bad.
Mechanics of the deal
I used Real GM's NBA trade checker to confirm the viability of the deal. It is Trade ID #6534478.
Kobe would need to sign off and the inclusion of a couple guys dictates it would need to occur after Christmas.
Kobe, Boozer, Sacre, and Price go to New York and a flood of middling young players come back. Los Angeles gets Bargnani, Jason Smith, Shumphert, Hardaway, Larkin, Aldrich and PG Pablo Prigioni (for cap reasons), who is cut on arrival.
The lineups
New York can roll out:
5- Stoudemire, Dalembert, Sacre
4- Boozer, Acy
3- Anthony, Wear, Early
2- Bryant, JR Smith
1- Calederon, Price, and Prigioni (if resigned)
That's a strong starting lineup with some bench issues that could be solved by some NBDL scoring help. It should be a playoff caliber lineup in the east (to appease fans) and more importantly should keep Carmelo in line and working to fit into the triangle.
New York is 4-20. At this rate, by Christmas they would be 5-26. if they finished the season 31-20 they would probably be in the race for a playoff spot in the east. I have to think that roster could do that.
Los Angeles can roll out:
5- Smith, Aldrich,
4- Hill, Davis,
3- Bargnani (injured), Hardaway, Young
2- Ellington, Shumpert
1- Lin, Larkin
Certainly that is not a roster to write home about, but it is a serious-minded young roster with a lot of mid-to late first round types. There would be a lot of good roster players --- guys who would be 3rd to 9th off the bench in a good rotation --- but few potential stars. In the brutal west, wins would be hard come by for this group this year, but that is exactly what LA needs. LA needs a top 5 lottery pick to give this roster a feature player.
How would this roster look with a star center in the middle next year? Pretty decent actually...
LA is 6-16 now, going 5-7 after a 1-9 start. By Christmas they might be 9-20 at this rate. If no trade happens 22-31 over the last 53 games may be possible for a season record of 31-51. That is mid to late lottery range. That would have been the 9th worst record in the NBA last year. Kobe might very well cost the Lakers their lottery pick.
With this kind of trade LA would lack the top closer to win in the west. It wouldn't be hard to see them going say 10-43 the rest of the way out. 19-63 is a much better position to be in if you want a top 5 pick. That would have tied you for 2nd worst in the league.
It would be easy to imagine the team learning to play together even if they have to wait a year for Bargnani. Although Young and Hardaway can both score a little, Bargnani is a lot more talented scorer at the 3 spot than anyone else on the roster.
The team would be athletic enough to run more. Lin and Hill could take on a lot more of the scoring load with Ellington and Hardaway providing space creating shooting and leadership. Aldrich and Smith are good backup center types, with Smith able to help create space in the middle for Lin's drives and Hill in the paint. Their depth would be quite solid and could help dig the Lakers out of holes their outclassed starting lineup would face.
It wouldn't be difficult to see Lin, Ellington, Hardaway, and Bargnani evolve into pretty clutch crunch time shooters complimenting a lottery talent at center.
Isn't that much better than letting Kobe play the team out of next year's lottery pick?
This Laker team is lousy and is rebuilding. They have Kobe Bryant, Carlos Boozer, and a very young roster with little talent. They need more young talent.
The Knicks are equally bad. Phil Jackson has ripped up what little was there that worked last year (Tyson Chandler) to rebuild the team in his image, but the team is abysmal and Carmelo is far too immature to patiently wait for the picks to come in. In-fighting abounds.
Both teams are on a path to a crappy draft pick, which might be conceptually OK to the team leaderships, but represent the wrong moves.
If you are going to rebuild you need mentally stable people especially your stars. Dirk Nowitzki for example. You cannot rebuild with a win at all cost hothead like Kobe Bryant or an immature crybaby like Carmelo.
But none of that is required. The Knicks have the pieces the Lakers to radically speed up the Laker's improvement and the Lakers have the pieces to save Phil Jackson's New York effort from crumbling under Carmelo's immaturity.
The forces behind a deal
In business Win-Win deals often get done. This is exactly that kind of situation.
Phil Jackson is floundering badly in NY. Phil Jackson's girlfriend is Jeanie Buss, President of the Lakers.
Carmelo wants to play in New York, he both wants to win without doing much heavy lifting or working on his game, while dominating the ball due to a disdain for his teammates' talent level. He can be a top 5-10 player when his head is right, but he is more a cancer than anything else today. More than any other big time player in the NBA, Carmelo can use Kobe's constant badgering.
Kobe wouldn't mind playing in New York, but he wants talent around him. Kobe realizes how important Phil Jackson was to his career.
Most NBA teams are not desperate enough to trade for a caustic Kobe Bryant with 18 seasons on his legs and a $30M contract. Nobody is trading lottery picks for Kobe and the market for him is probably surprisingly sparse as teams wrest with the question of whether Kobe is locker room Kryptonite at this point in his career.
Laker fans are ready to rebuild. Most, if they were honest, are a little tired of Kobe. New York fans, as always, want to win now.
Kobe has lead the Lakers to a 5-7 record in the last 12 games. They team is not talented enough to make the playoffs in a stacked west, but if they play at this level for the rest of they year, the Lakers would finish 27-55. If the Lakers end up with a pick higher than 5th in the 2015 draft, the pick goes to Phoenix. Kobe is literally playing the Lakers out of a much needed lottery pick.
Based on his moves, Lakers Executive VP Jim Buss seems to want to build his own legacy. He has been in the center of most of the moves to rid the team of old Phil Jackson pieces.
Moving Kobe to New York satisfies almost every criteria.
What assets are on the Lakers
Kobe is still an all-star caliber shooting guard. Carlos Boozer is a decent starting power forward on a good team. Ronnie Price is a useful, underrated backup PG, but is in his eighth season. His Laker career probably needs to be sacrificed to the god of rebuilding. All three of them are too old for LA.
Everyone else is young. Jordan Hill has been dumped by two teams, but looks like he is developing into a very solid minute eating 4/5. Nick Young is a decent young 3, but more what you would have pulling 25 minutes on a bad NBA team. Jeremy Lin is a guy whose game would be much, much better in a more up tempo system with a green light to score instead of deferring. He showed leadership early in his career but has deferred to others lately. He is probably worth holding on to in the post-Kobe world.
Wayne Ellington has a shot to be a solid pro in the right situation and might do well without minute eater Kobe. Ellington is too physically limited to be great in the NBA. He is an average athlete with a poor handle. He is a good shooter and passer and plays within himself though, so he has a real shot to eventually make a niche for himself. He could help space the floor next to Lin.
Ed Davis is a nice young prospect worth holding on to. He can rebound and block shots, but his offense is very limited and his defense is a work in progress. Robert Sacre is a physical big at the center spot, but is more of a good "banger" third center than anything else. The rest look like NBDL guys.
What assets are on the Knicks
Carmelo can play like an elite player, but IMO is and always has been an immature little punk. Although he has flashed shut down ability on defense, it isn't something he wants to do. He dominates the ball despite being capable of being a strong passer. He likes living in New York. He knew the situation in NY was bad but still took the best financial deal. He isn't a Kobe-type. IMO, he may actually tap out at some point if he feels that will get Phil Jackson and the triangle gone.
If Carmelo isn't heading to LA, that means no old guys are likely to be desired back by the Lakers. Lets start with the Knicks who would not interest a rebuilding team. Sam Dalembert and JR Smith are too old with too many warts to interest LA. Both are useful cogs on a playoff-caliber team as is heady vet Jose Calderon.
Andrea Bargnani the former #1 overall pick has always been a bad fit for the Knicks (and really every NBA team he has played for). He was a Dirk Nowitzki starter kit who has been horribly coached and utilized. This is a guy who's main value is being a #1 scorer on a team that has somewhat limited offensive talent. This is a guy who can close, but unless you are arguably better than Carmelo, you can't have that role with Carmelo on the floor. The lack of opportunity to fill that role has messed him up a bit. Andrea can play at the 3,4, or 5 spots, but lack of plus strength or lateral quickness makes him a liability defensively wherever he plays. Probably, given his lack of an internal desire to rebound, his best role is as a 3 on offense and trying to match him on the least threatening opposing front court player on defense. He has had a series of injuries over the last few years. He is probably ready to move on and truth be told his teammates are probably ready to see him move on. He isn't playing right now due to lingering injuries. He is almost as old as the others, but salary-wise he would have to be included to get Kobe moved.
Jason Smith is kind of a backup 5/4 type. He is useful. SG Imam Shumpert is an athlete with an unrefined game. He excels when the pace picks up. Tim Hardaway Jr. is a solid backup SG at least. He is a winner with a solid shot, but the rest of his game is pretty average. Still he could be a starter and a leader on a young team. Shane Larkin looks like a guy who will have a long and productive career as a solid NBA backup point. He also exudes some leadership. Cole Aldrich is the kind of center who eventually becomes an NBA starter and teams realize he isn't half bad.
Mechanics of the deal
I used Real GM's NBA trade checker to confirm the viability of the deal. It is Trade ID #6534478.
Kobe would need to sign off and the inclusion of a couple guys dictates it would need to occur after Christmas.
Kobe, Boozer, Sacre, and Price go to New York and a flood of middling young players come back. Los Angeles gets Bargnani, Jason Smith, Shumphert, Hardaway, Larkin, Aldrich and PG Pablo Prigioni (for cap reasons), who is cut on arrival.
The lineups
New York can roll out:
5- Stoudemire, Dalembert, Sacre
4- Boozer, Acy
3- Anthony, Wear, Early
2- Bryant, JR Smith
1- Calederon, Price, and Prigioni (if resigned)
That's a strong starting lineup with some bench issues that could be solved by some NBDL scoring help. It should be a playoff caliber lineup in the east (to appease fans) and more importantly should keep Carmelo in line and working to fit into the triangle.
New York is 4-20. At this rate, by Christmas they would be 5-26. if they finished the season 31-20 they would probably be in the race for a playoff spot in the east. I have to think that roster could do that.
Los Angeles can roll out:
5- Smith, Aldrich,
4- Hill, Davis,
3- Bargnani (injured), Hardaway, Young
2- Ellington, Shumpert
1- Lin, Larkin
Certainly that is not a roster to write home about, but it is a serious-minded young roster with a lot of mid-to late first round types. There would be a lot of good roster players --- guys who would be 3rd to 9th off the bench in a good rotation --- but few potential stars. In the brutal west, wins would be hard come by for this group this year, but that is exactly what LA needs. LA needs a top 5 lottery pick to give this roster a feature player.
How would this roster look with a star center in the middle next year? Pretty decent actually...
LA is 6-16 now, going 5-7 after a 1-9 start. By Christmas they might be 9-20 at this rate. If no trade happens 22-31 over the last 53 games may be possible for a season record of 31-51. That is mid to late lottery range. That would have been the 9th worst record in the NBA last year. Kobe might very well cost the Lakers their lottery pick.
With this kind of trade LA would lack the top closer to win in the west. It wouldn't be hard to see them going say 10-43 the rest of the way out. 19-63 is a much better position to be in if you want a top 5 pick. That would have tied you for 2nd worst in the league.
It would be easy to imagine the team learning to play together even if they have to wait a year for Bargnani. Although Young and Hardaway can both score a little, Bargnani is a lot more talented scorer at the 3 spot than anyone else on the roster.
The team would be athletic enough to run more. Lin and Hill could take on a lot more of the scoring load with Ellington and Hardaway providing space creating shooting and leadership. Aldrich and Smith are good backup center types, with Smith able to help create space in the middle for Lin's drives and Hill in the paint. Their depth would be quite solid and could help dig the Lakers out of holes their outclassed starting lineup would face.
It wouldn't be difficult to see Lin, Ellington, Hardaway, and Bargnani evolve into pretty clutch crunch time shooters complimenting a lottery talent at center.
Isn't that much better than letting Kobe play the team out of next year's lottery pick?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)