Final 4 questions…

I still think we can schedule ourselves into bowl games and EVENTUALLY meet our low expectations in football. However, what’s happened on the other side of the street since 2005 really bothers me, as if we’re losing out dominant, national program. So, despite the struggles for football the last two seasons, I’m more concerned about the basketball program long-term. Am I crazy?
~ Mike, Chicago

I’m not sure how to answer your question without talking myself in circles. My gut reaction is to say that basketball will turn around as the talent level increases. But I said that for 15 years about the football program, and then the talent level increased, and then we went 5-7 and 3-9. So maybe basketball won’t turn around once the talent is there. But it should. But football didn’t.

I’ll say this: as far as programs go, even with my lowered football expectations, basketball still looks brighter to me. Mostly because I use the phrase “if he sticks around” fairly frequently. I haven’t used that phrase since 2005. Coincidentally, that side of the street hasn’t been very good since 2005.

Here’s an example: If Meyers Leonard and Jereme Richmond are still here for their junior years, and if Brandon Paul doesn’t leave before his senior year, a 2012/13 lineup of Paul (SR), Richardson (SR), Richmond (JR), Griffey (SR), and Leonard (JR) is easily in the top-5 of all time on-paper Illini lineups. If not the top 3. If they don’t stick around, well, that means they had an outstanding 2011/12. And that hasn’t happened since 2005. So in that sense, basketball’s future looks bright.

But things seemed to be looking up this year, preseason ranking and whatnot. And then we watched the Vegas clownshow and realized that talent + experience brings no guarantees. With every frustrating inbounds pass, 6-minute stall offense, and fake comeback, we all thought it: “If we can’t win 20 games with this lineup, who’s to say we’ll even win 22 with Richmond and Leonard?”

So from that perspective, sure, I could see a scenario where Petrino and Koenning are the real deal, and Weber proves to not be, and the 7-5 bowl seasons from the north side of the street are much more satisfying than the Round-of-32 losses on the south side.

But I’m not seeing things from that perspective.  Richmond and Leonard are the real deal.  And our basketball future is bright, inbounds plays or no inbounds plays.

Do you think that our pash rush will improve this season?
~ Chris in Chicago

It has to. We were 89th in sacks last year. That has to improve, no? New defensive scheme that likes to pressure the QB and force interceptions… Clay Nurse as a senior… Michael Buchanan getting starters minutes… we have to get more than 19 sacks on the season, right?

I’ll put it this way: I think we improve in both sacks and QB hurries. But I think we give up more rushing yards and more rushing TD’s because of it. Clay Nurse was decent as a pass rusher last year, but Antonio James was better against the run. And while Michael Buchanan brings some nice quickness to the DE position, Doug Pilcher was better against the run. Martez brings some great blitz speed, but has struggled against the run. So you can see a theme developing.

Bottom line: I think the combo of Buchanan and Nurse (as well as Liuget, Spence, and Foster) will be able to get more pressure on the QB. But I’m scared to death of off-tackle runs.

Do you believe the starting QB job is still really in doubt? Asmussen of the News Gazette keeps saying he expects Charest to make a strong run at the job in the summer and fall. I just don’t see it. I think it is Nathan’s job and it will be for awhile. I think Charest won’t even be second string this time next year.
~ Sean in Hyde Park

Because I’m lazy, here’s what I wrote after one of the spring practices.

I don’t think the QB derby is over just yet. At the beginning of practice (no pads, helmets and shorts), Charest was on and Scheelhaase was off. They were mostly working on underneath routes in 11 on 11, but Charest was hitting his guys in stride while Scheelhaase was missing. Petrino kept saying things to Jacob like “THAT’S what we’ve been talking about” and “THAT’S where you put the ball”. If a casual observer was watching the early practice, they would have thought Charest was the clear leader at QB.

When they went to 7 on 7 (linemen go off to work through drills, skill positions work on routes and schemes), and especially when they went back to 11 on 11, Scheelhaase was back on. He hit two straight touchdowns on two plays, one from the 25 and one from the 20, one to Jenkins (gorgeous pass) and one to Fayson (zipped it in to double coverage). Nathan rotated out and was fired up. If you only watched the second half of practice, Scheelhaase would have been the clear leader.

In other words, it ain’t over yet.

End of the day, Scheelhaase is the clear favorite. In the last scrimmage and the spring game, Jacob Charest was a combined 5-23 with no TD’s and 2 interceptions. That, combined with our shaky pass protection and Scheelhaase’s ability to run, makes Nathan the favorite.

But Charest still has the better arm (Whitmer has the best arm – Scheelhaase is third). And there’s no telling what the summer might bring. Charest went into the spring as the favorite and came out as the clear backup – will that motivate him? Will he show up in Rantoul focused and ready to compete?

If you want my opinion, Corey Lewis’ ACL injury was the final blow to Charest’s starting hopes. Charest needs a pocket, and even with Lewis, I didn’t see much of a pocket.  Scheelhaase proved he can create with his feet and throw on the run, which, combined with his leadership, put him far out in front.  If Charest can show up in Rantoul and prove he can hit a receiver in stride while rolling to his right, we’ll still have a competition.  If not, we’ll start discussing whether Whitmer or Charest is the primary backup.

First of all, thank you for all your hard work in keeping us up with what is going on with the Illini. You’ve become as indispensable as Mark Tupper in helping us get our Illini fix. Now to my question. What really happened with the former offensive coordinator Schultz? Supposedly the guy had a lot of experience, he was at a very successful offensive program, he was supposed to have a similar approach, we had some serious offensive talent, and it just couldn’t have gone worse. There had to be something going on behind the scenes. How could Zook & Co. watch this guy game after game muck things up? Was he just stupid? Or did he act like he had a master plan? How could he fail so miserably? Maybe TCU wasn’t that upset when he left…
~ Dan in Nashville, TN

Thanks for the kind words, Dan. And thanks to everyone else who sent a compliment along with a question.

As far as Schultz, I think his failures were fairly simple: He came from the Gary Patterson school of “defense wins games – the offense just needs to not screw it up.” We were Turnover Central in 2008, and so when Locks left, we went searching for a guy who would teach us to not shoot ourselves in the foot.

Schultz was that guy at TCU. Careful. Calculating. Run it on third and 9, punt, down it at the 11, and wait for the defense to give it back in the opponents territory. I spent a lot of time on a TCU message board after we hired Schultz, and most every Horned Frog fan told me the same thing: he’s frustrating at times, but when you look back at the end of the game and see only 1 turnover, you’ll be happy.”

Fitting that in with our bend-but-don’t-break defense was a mistake from the get-go. And it still pains me that I didn’t see it. I thought he’d help reduce Juice’s turnovers, feed it underneath to Benn, pound it with Mikel, and keep the chains moving. No more interceptions on 15 yard in-routes – we’d be a dink and dunk and punch machine.

It took only 3 quarters of the Missouri game for that concept to fall apart. That offense + an inaccurate QB + a defense that will give up 40 yards after we pin them at the 9 was a recipe for disaster. We didn’t score on the big play because we didn’t try any big plays (too risky). And we couldn’t maintain the dink and dunk because Juice wasn’t accurate enough. Penalties and sacks put us in third-and-long situations, and instead of going for broke, Schultz played it safe, punted it away, and then watched the defense give up an 87 yard drive.

Around the Purdue game things started to turn around. Schultz let Juice air it out a little more (even at the risk of interceptions), LeShoure emerged as a feature back, and the offense began to click. But I never got the feeling that Mike Schultz was ever completely comfortable calling a game that way. I think he longed for Gary Patterson’s “keep our defense fresh for the 4th quarter” mentality, and his conservatism reared it’s ugly head at exactly the wrong time (final offensive series of the Fresno State game, anyone?).

All in all, bad fit. And we should have seen it coming.