The third mailbag of the season is here, and with it, Wisconsin fans can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Well, sort of.
Wisconsin won its first game of the season on Saturday, pulling away from Western Illinois 37-3 at Camp Randall Stadium. That's the good news. The fact UW led just 9-3 at halftime and couldn't mount any consistent running game throughout is the bad news. Add in the ongoing Joel Stave vs. throwing issues battle, and there certainly remains plenty to talk about, even during a bye week.
In this week's mailbag, we touch on the play of quarterback Tanner McEvoy, whether Stave can return to full strength, Melvin Gordon's Heisman chances and Gary Andersen's public-relations mistakes.
Thanks to everyone who submitted a mailbag question this week. We'll be off next Wednesday because of the team's bye week, but we'll return Sept. 24 following Wisconsin's game against Bowling Green. And now, on to the questions:
Q: I like what I saw from the Badgers' young linebackers vs. LSU. The defensive line looked good too prior to losing two starters to injury. I think coach Aranda is doing a very good job. Will we get a chance to see Jeremy Patterson soon? -- Tim, Saratoga, CA
A: In a perfect world, the coaching staff would like to redshirt Patterson this year. He's certainly an intriguing prospect, and at 326 pounds, he weighs more than every player on the roster except for right tackle Rob Havenstein. Still, he doesn't seem to be quite there in terms of being ready to contribute.
Badgers coach Gary Andersen has said that Conor Sheehy is actually ahead of Patterson on the depth chart, which is impressive because Sheehy came to Wisconsin thinking he'd play defensive end. Given that starting nose guard Warren Herring is out 4-6 weeks after undergoing right knee surgery, depth is thin at the position.
Here's what Andersen had to say about Patterson last week:
"With Warren out for that extended period of time, you're playing with a little bit of a teeter totter there with not redshirting Jeremy or redshirting Jeremy. And if we have to put him in a game, then we will. He's excited about that. I don't know quite how excited I am about that right now, but if we have to get to that spot, we will. That is not the plan, though, is to play him necessarily in this game."
Q: Our QB looked good against a team that might be a little better than UW-Stevens Point, but will he be OK against a real college team? -- Frank, Atlas, WI
A: Well, I guess we're all going to find out soon enough because McEvoy is the starter for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure what you'd consider "a real college team," though. Do Bowling Green and South Florida count? Will it only truly count once Big Ten play begins and Wisconsin travels to Northwestern on Oct. 4?
I do believe McEvoy ultimately will be just fine. There's no doubt his performance against LSU was awful, but the fact he owned up to his mistakes and said he was disgusted with the output was encouraging. Plus, it doesn't matter what team you play against -- to put up the kind of numbers he did against Western Illinois was impressive. He set a new program record with 17 consecutive completions and responded positively after an interception that really wasn't his fault.
McEvoy still needs to prove he can be consistent, particularly to skeptical Wisconsin fans. Saturday's game at Camp Randall Stadium, however, was a step in the right direction.
Q: What was up with the O-line play? Shouldn't a team like Wisconsin steam roll a FCS opponent even if they have "9 guys and their mommas" in the box? -- Chris, Springfield, IL
Q: Jesse, what's your take on the poor run game thus far? Lack of talent on the line or just inexperience? Doesn't seem like they are opening any holes. -- Mike, Chandler, AZ
A: I'm putting these two questions together because they touch on the same topic. During the game, I was just as flummoxed as anybody else as to why Wisconsin struggled so much to run the ball against Western Illinois. Yeah, it's an FCS team. And Wisconsin, you would think, should be able to ram the ball down that team's throat.
But with time to talk to players and coaches afterward and the benefit of a few more days, I'm less concerned here. The reason is because Western Illinois absolutely sold out to stop the run. And on most plays, they had at least one more tackler than Wisconsin had blockers. That makes life pretty darn difficult on the offensive line, regardless of the fact it's an FCS opponent.
"They had a good plan and they did a nice job," Gary Andersen said of Western Illinois. "I thought they tackled very well. You didn't see many missed tackles in that first half and they were running to the ball.
"We need to be better. We're not going to sit here and say, 'Hey, that was an acceptable day on the ground.' It absolutely is not. We all know that as a coaching staff. The whole offense understands that and knows that if we don't run the ball better, we won't have a very successful season."
Western Illinois essentially dared Wisconsin to win the game through the air. If you're going to sell out in one area, that leaves another area vulnerable. Given that the Badgers took advantage with McEvoy passing for 283 yards and three touchdowns, I'd say the Badgers took advantage of the Leathernecks' weakness.
Badgers running back Melvin Gordon did note after the game that "it felt like everyone and their momma was in the box." He also said he fully expected most teams to stack the box from this point forward. Maybe that means Wisconsin must find creative ways to get Gordon the ball. On Saturday, he caught an 8-yard touchdown pass and hauled in four passes overall.
I don't think the offensive line has a problem in the way it did two years ago when line coach Mike Markuson was fired after two games. This line is stout with five starters that all have significant playing experience. Just two games ago against LSU, the Badgers averaged 6.9 yards per carry. We'll just have to see how the offense adjusts as more teams load up to stop the run.
Q: Enjoyed your article on the mental side of Joel Stave's throwing struggles. If he does get it figured out, can he still be a contributor this season? -- Bernie L., Stillwater, MN
A: The big word here is "if" because no one knows how Stave will progress this season. Coaches and teammates can only do so much to encourage him. Ultimately, it will be up to Stave when he feels comfortable enough to return, and that may take longer than a couple of months.
We all know Stave has the skills to play at this level of college football -- he is, after all, 13-6 as a starter at Wisconsin. If he does overcome his throwing struggles, hopefully coaches will help and put him back into the depth chart. But you have to wonder what their confidence level would be in Stave if he entered an actual game. Would his throwing issues suddenly surface again? Would that moment prove too traumatizing to come back from? Or would they prefer to keep him on the sideline all season?
I wrote a long feature on Stave and his bout with passing issues for Monday. In it, I talked to a renowned sports psychologist who deals with athlete "yips," former Major League Baseball player Steve Sax (who once suffered from the yips), a couple of Stave's teammates as well as Stave's mother. I found it especially interesting that everyone had a different viewpoint about what was wrong with Stave and how he should fix it.
The sports psychologist, Dr. Tom Hanson, noted Stave was experiencing an "emotional hijacking" in which he felt he was not safe to throw. He suggested Stave tap specific parts of his face to ease his mind.
Sax, meanwhile, said referring to the problem as a mental block was not true. He cited confidence as the only issue standing in the way for Stave, just as it was for Sax back in 1983 with the Los Angeles Dodgers, when he committed 30 errors that season.
Stave's teammate, wide receiver Jordan Fredrick, said Stave clearly was going through something mental. And Stave's mom, Barb, insisted nothing was wrong with her son at all.
What is the truth? Nobody really knows. And perhaps that says more about what Stave is going through than anyone else. Finding the cause and the cure is extremely difficult.
Q: Okay, so... who is Tanner McEvoy? I know it was just Western Illinois and not an SEC defense, but he looked like a completely different quarterback. What happened/changed and do you think he's closer to that QB or more like the one we saw against LSU? Thanks! -- Mitch Clydeburg, Madison, WI
A: As I mentioned in an above question, the fact that Western Illinois game-planned its entire defense to stop the run helped open up options in the passing game. The Leathernecks loaded up the box, but they didn't exactly cause McEvoy great stress in the pocket. Western Illinois recorded one sack, zero pass breakups and zero quarterback hurries. LSU, meanwhile, tallied no sacks but had four pass breakups and four quarterback hurries to go with two interceptions.
We can assume McEvoy falls somewhere between the quarterbacks he's been against LSU and Western Illinois. I don't expect him to have a game like the one he did against LSU, in part because he'll gain more experience at quarterback without playing a team of that caliber. The rest of the schedule is far better than Western Illinois, however, so we likely won't see him slinging the ball around for 17 straight completions.
If McEvoy can simply be consistent with his passes and maintain his effectiveness as a runner, he could wind up having a pretty successful season.
Q: Can McEvoy's scrambling and running ability translate successfully against Big Ten teams? I just can't see him making it through a full season unharmed doing that. -- Sean, Phoenix, AZ
A: McEvoy obviously has shown he has some wheels at quarterback. Through two games, his 95 rushing yards rank third on the team, and he did score Wisconsin's first touchdown Saturday on the ground. But you're right: There is cause for concern moving forward because he needs to develop a willingness to slide in certain situations.
I recall one instance early in the game against Western Illinois in which McEvoy literally flipped over before landing on his backside because he tried to gain extra yardage during a quarterback run. Given the importance this coaching staff has placed on McEvoy playing, he needs to be smarter than that and make sure he can finish games. Linebackers at Northwestern, Iowa or Nebraska (among others) might not let McEvoy get off so easy.
McEvoy's scrambling ability will have a huge effect on games, even in the Big Ten. And yes, there is reason to believe he can be successful in that area against any team (40 yards on six carries against LSU isn't bad). He simply must be more careful about when he runs and how he chooses to finish those plays.
Q: Gary Andersen needs to hire a personal PR assistant and have him around at all times. What happened last week? Do you think he was lying about Stave or was he actually confused and unsure of what was going on and there was a miscommunication or misunderstanding? Is he just not used to all the media attention here compared to Utah? -- Jeffrey R., Pewaukee, WI
A: No, I don't believe Gary Andersen's intent was to lie to anybody about the Joel Stave situation. If anything, Andersen was trying to protect his player from having word leak out about a mental block leading to Stave's demotion. By issuing a press release that vaguely cited a shoulder injury, it provided something plausible while causing media members and fans to back up Stave.
Andersen also needed to be proactive about the Stave situation because of exactly what happened in the Western Illinois game. Andersen knew a time would come when he'd insert a backup into the game. It was going to be Bart Houston and not Stave, which would have caused more questions. Given that Stave didn't participate in warmups with the team's three other quarterbacks, that also would have raised eyebrows.
Ultimately, Stave wanted to come forward with the real reason behind his demotion. He didn't want people thinking he had sustained an injury when that wasn't the case. Could the whole situation have been handled better? Certainly. Andersen should have spoken to Stave before issuing any kind of release to make sure they were on the same page.
Given that it took place in the same week as the Melvin Gordon "injury" fiasco against LSU, it hasn't made Andersen look great. But he is always going to do what is in the best interests of his players, even if it doesn't come across that way on the surface to the public.
Q: Can Melvin Gordon get back in the Heisman discussion or has that ship sailed? -- Morgan, Denver, CO
A: After Saturday's game, I wrote that Gordon's Heisman chances were just about finished. Maybe that's a tad premature, but it's going to take some sort of Herculean effort over the next 10 games to jump back into the Heisman discussion. Running for 38 yards on 17 carries against Western Illinois simply does not stir the masses.
Through two games, Gordon is averaging 89.0 yards per game and 5.4 yards per carry with one touchdown. Consider that 54 -- yes, 54 -- players are averaging more rushing yards per game than Gordon in the FBS right now. Included in that number are big-name players like Indiana's Tevin Coleman (247.0 yards), Georgia's Todd Gurley (198.0 yards) and Nebraska's Ameer Abdullah (143.0 yards).
Gordon is going to have to climb past at least four-dozen tailbacks by putting together a couple of 200-yard, three-touchdown games. He certainly is capable of it, but he has a long way to go.
Follow Jesse Temple on Twitter
