There is so much to say about last night's game against St. Joe's, and it just doesn't feel right to hold off on everything until Monday's edition of the DP. So here's a brief, informal overview of some of my thoughts from the game, and what I will be writing about in my columns this week.
Sorry to all of you that couldn't make it out to the Palestra last night. You missed what might wind up being Penn's best and most exciting game of the season, not to mention a fantastic, classic Big 5 showdown. Sure, the Quakers couldn't pull off the upset, but they did give the most inspired 40 minutes we've seen from them all season. Now, heading into conference play with three consecutive halves of quality, high-energy basketball against Big 5 teams -- to go along with a few nice wins (albeit against weaker opponents) -- Penn seems to be hitting full stride. That's very encouraging.
In many ways, I strongly believe that last night's game was a watershed for the Quakers. I hate to read into one game too much, especially a Big 5 game at the Palestra. No matter what the circumstances leading up to game time are, in the Big 5 we all know that anything can happen. Against Villanova this year, however, not even the ghosts of the Palestra could give the Quakers a fighting chance. But, last night we witnessed the most compelling evidence to date that this team is maturing rapidly and moving in the right direction.
Since I cannot cover everything in one column, I'll be writing two this week in the paper and posting and responding to your comments on The Buzz, which I am always happy to do.
Tomorrow, I will focus on Penn's intensity from yesterday's game as a sign of its increased confidence and maturity. And from my unique vantage point on press row yesterday -- because it was a St. Joe's home game we sat directly behind Penn's bench and were practically in the huddle -- I will give you some anecodtal evidence of why I now am more confident than ever in Glen Miller's ability to lead this team.
On Wednesday, I will discuss last night's game in terms of its importance not only to the revival of Penn's role in the Big 5, but also to the potential for a revival of Penn's regular fan base, as well.
In the meantime, I look forward to your comments and ideas.
Tags: basketball, Big 5, St. Joe's
An RSS feed of The Buzz is available
January 26th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Andrew, I'm afraid I don't quite get your renewed optimism, or the implied extent of it, based on yet another loss. The Quakers don't have an attitude problem, but they do have a talent dearth, and that dearth continues to be exposed again and again against quality Division I teams. They simply don't match-up athletically against even remotely athletic teams. This severely limits their "ceiling." Even when they play inspired, as you might argue they did against St. Joe's, they're still likely to lose such games. The St. Joe's game, while competitive, was not winnable. I am curious about the incoming recruiting class. I wonder how much you know about the incoming recruits and whether any of them promise to be immediate contributors. To me, this is the question Miller needs to answer. We know he can coach; but for each recruiting class, can he find a Zoller? Or a Jaaber? Or an Allen? Or, at least, an approximation of those guys?
January 26th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Steve,
The talent isn't there yet, but that's in large part due to the team's inexperience. Ibby and Zoller, as sophomores, were not the same players that they were as seniors. The problem I sensed back in December was a lack of inspiration and intensity -- the team played without a purpose. That is very serious problem that a coach needs to correct.
I don't know if you were at the game on Saturday -- I certainly didn't think it would be winnable before hand. But Penn really hung in there and gave itself a chance to win all the way through -- the 12-point point victory for St. Joe's belies how close the game actually was throughout.
I would say that Bernardini and Eggleston came into this program as "immediate contributors," and I would say the same about Zack Rosen and even Rob Belcore now. Dunphy's teams did not usually feature as many active and successful underclassmen as Miller's teams have. Penn is still a team dominated by sophomores and freshmen, whereas St. Joe's is a team dominated by juniors and seniors. A few years back, in Miller's first season with Zoller and Jaaber leading the way as seniors, Penn -- the same team that gave Texas A&M a good game in the NCAA Tournament -- still lost by 10 to a much younger St. Joe's team.
You're right. Penn didn't match up athletically against St. Joe's on Saturday, or against Temple or Villanova or North Carolina or any other major program. But Penn hasn't matched up athletically to those teams in a while, save the rare case of Jaaber -- who will go down as one of the better players to ever come through the program. In the final years of Dunphy and first season of Miller, it was blue-collar guys like Zoller and Grandieri or the uncoordinated Danley that got the job done and gave teams like St. Joe's a run for their money.
Thankfully for Penn, they do match up talent-wise and athletically against most of the teams in the Ivy League. This year, Cornell might be too tall an order for this young Penn team, just as Penn was too tall an order for a young and burgeoning Cornell program in Miller's first season. Either way, now that the Quakers are playing smart, inspired basketball and gelling together well as a team, I have renewed optimism for the program. I'm not saying they're going to win every game, but down the road, I think they're in a lot better shape than we all thought they were in December.
January 26th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Extremely astute analysis, Andrew. Your observations are all entirely valid. I daresay you're on the brink of persuading me to rethink my more pessimistic perspective. By the way, you can really write, brother.
January 27th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Re: SteveB Comment#1
Check Coach Miller's record over his seven seasons at Brown. It may provide some insight into the answer to the question posed in the last sentence.
January 31st, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Re: Quakers' Road Weekend #1
Well, the guys looked inconsistent early Friday night, but played an extremely nice closing portion of the game to take the game away from Harvard.
They didn't look nearly as good Saturday night, particularly in the late phases.
Is this sort of inconsistency going to mark the whole season... or have they learned?
This weekend at the Palestra, with both the tenacious Lion defense and the overall depth and consistency of Cornell coming in, will be the biggest league test of the season for the young Quakers.
Let's get out there and support them. If they play at the top of their game both nights, they can bring home 2 W's.