|

Bouncing Around: Rockies, Peterson ascendant; Wolves dinged to faretheewell

by Britt Robson   ::   posted on Oct. 16, 2007 - 12:39pm

Great pick of the Diamondbacks, eh? Compassionate readers for the most part decided to withhold their "what are you thinking!?" comments on me picking against a team that had lost once in a month and clearly have some scintillating mojo warped right into their wheelhouse. Here's my excuse, and confession: I have seen Brandon Webb pitch three or four times in the past couple years and been mightily impressed every time. So I ignored the Rockies' success against him, both at Coors (where, as one commenter pointed out, the movement on his pitches flattens in the thin air) and Bank One. And I underestimated the Rockies' no-name starting rotation, conceding the fine year of Francis but not understanding that the mojo had even affected Josh Fogg (!), who hadn't compiled an ERA of under 4.64 nor a WHIP under 1.45 in the past five seasons for the Pirates and Rockies.

Here's the confession: As one who believes one's religion to be a literally sacred thing, best cherished internally and practiced by example instead of screed, I blanched and then was annoyed at the big "we're gonna be a Christian team" push that the Rockies (or perhaps just an overzealous media) embarked upon last season. I don't mind clean-cut, upstanding, high-character, whatever you want to call it, but when a religious agenda get put into the games I watch, even obliquely, I react negatively. It's bad enough that politics are already suffused with it. And then there's the Coors family and their wonderful politics (Google it if you want, I'm not going further on it right now) putting their name on the ballpark as a final sour note. So, despite the fact that the D-Backs have their own baggage--they borrowed, from the league no less, their way to their only championship while the rival Giants were building a stadium with private funding--I went with Arizona.

Which is all a way of saying when you let non-sports-related emotions get in the way of your picks (as opposed to your rooting interest), you're asking for a dunce cap. I'm wearing mine now. And no, having the Indians-Red Sox shape up in a manner much as I predicted, at least thus far, doesn't compensate.

On a much more pleasant topic, I heartily agree with frequent reader/commenter Andy B that the performance by Adrian Peterson Sunday immediate turned future Vikings games into must-see TV. It was among the handful of marvelous, spectacular displays of man-among-boys I've ever witnessed on a football field. I am old enough to remember Gayle Sayers going off for something like five or six touchdowns when I was a little boy, and this had the same spendid aura, this very real notion that he could take it to the house every time he touched the ball.

That said, I am probably in the minority in agreeing with Chilly's decision to essentially split the running back duties between Peterson and Chester Taylor. It makes sense for a lot of reasons. First and foremost, as I noted one of the first times I wrote about Peterson earlier in the season, the guy runs in a manner that courts injury, and you can't change it without limiting his natural intuition and runner's identity. But you can minimize the injury risk a bit AND soften up the defenses by giving the ball to a very capable and bruising back like Taylor a fair bit. Lost in the shuffle of Peterson's glory was Taylor's respectable 83 yards on the ground in half-time duty. Plus I like the idea of putting Taylor and Peterson in the same backfield more than occasionally, to give the aging and contact-heavy Tony Richardson a blow and force defenses stacked up against the run to worry about Chester up the gut enough to give Peterson a split-second more glimmer on the outside, which, as we saw, is all he needs. Finally, if you are going to keep Peterson returning kickoffs (something I don't think is wise, because that is where his upright running style faces the greatest injury threat), you want Taylor to feel like more than simply Peterson's stand-in.

I've ripped the expensive left side of the Vikings' line a fair bit, but have to hat-tip them on this game. Nearly all of Peterson's breakaway runs from scrimmage came behind McKinnie-Hutch-Birk. The coaching staff clearly worked profitably during the bye week to iron out whatever was ailing this lumbering crew--and no, I don't think McKinnie's bout of the flu explains all of it by any stretch--and for the first time since they came together, they blocked the way they were supposed to for most of a football game.

I say most because any die-hard Vikings fan (don't look at me) has to be chagrined at the way a 1-3 ballclub essentially thought they had the game in the bag and rolled over late in the fourth quarter, on the road against the defending NFC champs, no less, on Sunday. Those final two offensive series, where even Peterson's stupendous talent stood no chance against the onslaught, were pitiful, and displayed a lack of heart and killer instinct that augurs for a miserable second half of the season regardless of Peterson's gifts. And the play where Hester blew past Dwight Smith on what was a blatant "prevent defense" situation--WTF?

Thoughtful fans will respond that the O-line broke down because the Bears knew the Vikes would run the ball and stacked everyone to stop it. True: the one pass play that was attempted, a slant over the middle to Wade, was there for the taking except that Tavaris Jackson threw the ball behind Wade and nearly created an interception. But that pass, as well as Jackson's less than stellar 9-22 pass completion-attempts log, indicates why the Vikes aren't going to be making a playoff push any time soon. A one-dimensional offense, even when that dimension is gilded by the likes of Peterson, doesn't cut it, even in the woeful NFC. And that's not even talking about the horrid pass defense. No matter: Even if the Vikes get thumped 41-17 by Dallas on Sunday, the chance to watch AP roam will put me in front of the set.

Last, and least, we have the Timberwolves. Thanks to AK for the super-secret decoder link to a voice that will actually describe what this dinged up ballclub is doing during tonight's game, because my search for a connection last night came up nada. And fittingly so. Of all the things that could have happened during this preseason, a pile of nagging injuries is among the worst, as it retards the crucial winnowing process and will inevitably make the losers of the playing time competition believe that the circumstances were unfair to their cause in some way shape or form. It also provides a ready-made excuse for what will almost certainly be a shakey start to the regular season.

From last night's boxscore, the preseason comments of Coach Wittman regarding the non-exclusivity of Randy Foye at the point, and the performance we've seen thus far from Foye and Sebastian Telfair, it appears as if Marko Jaric is going to get a fair amount of time running the offense this season. On that score, it is illuminating to revisit my interview with Wolves owner Glen Taylor last season with respect to Jaric. I can't remember whether any of this made it into print or even the longer online edition last season. In any case, it implies that Jaric was misused as a point guard two seasons ago and, by the almost unanimous opinion of those including Randy Wittman, is better suited to play the two or three. Now, granted, much of Taylor's talk is about Marko having trouble with quicker point guards, particularly on defense. But unless Foye can stay with the lightning bugs and bear the scoring load at off-guard, it seems like Marko's fragile confidence, referred to by Taylor, may be destined to take another hit. Bottom line, lack of a classic point guard to provide a steadying influence remains the largest of the Wolves' many problems heading into this season.

Here is the relevant part of my Glen Taylor interview, conducted in mid-October of 2006, with respect to Jaric.

Britt Robson: Well if I remember Casey was emphasizing a defensive identity for the team right after he was hired and that was clearly thought to be Jaric's strength.

Glen Taylor: Yeah. And I would just say that they sold me. I had seen him play before and I didn't see quite what they saw. But they were saying, "Gee the guy is 6-7 and he can play all these positions and do all these things and boy wait until the fans see him" and all this type of stuff. Here's what I would say on that, what I would say to our fans. Let us see what happens this year--[he's talking about the 06-07 season here] and judge that. Because whatever we did last year, we really messed up. And actually there is a player who comes and talks to me, so I can tell you what I know about him. Number one he was really eager to come here. He would do anything the coach asked of him. I don't know that he wanted to play point guard nor did he think he should be playing that, but he never, this is just a guy who won't back off and if he is told to do that, he does that. I think, as we all saw, he got exposed. The opponents realized that, "If we put a little fast guy in there, it kills their whole defense." Because we built a defense around pushing guys certain ways and we put a guard in who couldn't do that, so all of a sudden Garnett's got to do it differently and Trenton's got to do it differently and so no one is doing their job anymore. So not only does it kill your defense but there is a breakdown in the players because the players in a defensive mode have to trust each other. You lose a little trust in a guy and pretty soon you start questioning the guy and all of a sudden that whole thing started to break down. Now talking to Marko and kind of asking him—after the fact, you know?—he said, "You know, I came in, I didn't say anything, I was willing to do it. I'm going to go back and look at it." He said, "I worked so hard that summer. I came here so enthused starting out. And it was just like I hit a wall." He said, "It had never happened to me before but I just hit a wall. I am tearing after these guards and my mind was like just trying to keep up with it. I had never been there before." So he said he thinks that probably playing all summer and then being so enthused and then he hit that wall and I think we all saw it. He was going good and then all of a sudden the coaches and the players were like…

BR: There was a lot of pressure on him.

GT: And then he lost confidence in himself and everyone lost confidence in him. And so then you say, "Gee, you gave a number one draft choice and Cassell, for this guy?"

BR: And you signed him to an expensive long-term deal.

GT: Yup, a long term deal. So came this summer, I started out with the assumption that they are going to say, "Can we trade him?" But as it came around I didn't have one guy on our staff who said that's what you should do. The coach [Casey] went out and brought Randy [Wittman] in, and so we asked Randy, because we was a neutral guy [for not being with the team last year], and he said, "You just used him wrong. He's a nice player. I think you should keep him." So I was going along, and I, I didn't think we had to trade him, but I thought that's what they would say to me. And nobody says trade him. They all say, we used him wrong. Rob Babcock comes back this year after being with another team. And we asked him, What do you think? And he says, "Well you guys used him wrong." Everybody just said, He’s a different type player. I wouldn't get rid of him. Okay. He's tradeable. So first of all you say, had we made a mistake, we could have traded him this summer. There are other teams that see the value in him and would take his contract. So that surprised me. So all of a sudden it is like, "Okay, let's bring him to camp and let's see what happens." I think the injury to Rashad [McCants] also slowed us down a little and made us say, "Wait a minute. What do we have here? Let's not trade a guy." So I think at this point in time, I think—I understand our fans and everybody saying, "Gee Kevin, you went out there and did this on this guy." And if you just did it on what he has done up to today, I can see why people would say, "Kevin, big mistake on your part." But what I am saying to you, is I see all that. But I now have some information where a lot of people have said, give it another year to make that judgment. So I am saying that on Kevin because I've seen that type of stuff happen on other players where you can look back and say, gosh that was a bad year. And right now we could be really critical. And that's where I'm at, that right now it looks like it was a terrible trade. But I watched [Jaric] the week they were in Mankato and I've seen what he's been doing since then. He is playing altogether differently than he was last year; he's very aggressive in scoring and he's really coming off a 2 or 3 guy [a shooting guard or small forward] so he is against bigger guys and he has found out he is quicker than them and that he can get to the [foul] line. Now can he continue that for the entire season? I know he has a slender body, but he appears to be a strong individual. I know we saw him last year when he lost confidence but I’m saying when you are talking to him, even last year when he had lost confidence, you don't feel like you are talking to a guy that is depressed or whatever. He is pretty reasonable about saying things like, "I've never been here before. I can dig myself out but I am physically tired and even worse, I am mentally tired." He said things that I understand.