The Timberwolves’ road win Tuesday over the Los Angeles Clippers certainly starred guard Anthony Edwards. He was the catalyst for Minnesota’s massive comeback, with his offensive aggression changing the tone of the game.

But not to be overlooked were the Timberwolves’ other major offensive contributors. Those primarily came from the backcourt in Los Angeles, as Nickeil Alexander-Walker scored 28 points on 9-for-10 shooting. And Mike Conley splashed five triples in a 23-point outing.

With Karl-Anthony Towns likely sidelined for the remainder of the regular season, Minnesota will need to find consistent scoring alongside Edwards down the stretch run if it’s to stay in the race for the No. 1 seed in the Western Conference.

A few names have emerged to step into that role on any given night.

Naz Reid

Reid is the one everyone looks to as a de facto Towns replacement given the two play the same position and possess similar skill sets. Reid has indeed stepped into a scoring role twice since Towns went down, scoring 34 against Cleveland and 25 against the Lakers.

“I think he’s taken advantage of this opportunity. He’s a super talented player. For the time he’s been in the league, I think he hasn’t had the opportunity to truthfully show it in a big minutes perspective,” point guard Mike Conley told reporters after the loss to the Lakers. “He’s getting that opportunity, and he’s another guy we can lean on. A fully healthy team with him coming off the bench, it’s pretty scary. This is a good run for him. We’re happy with what he’s doing, and hopefully this keeps going.”

When Reid’s 3-point shot is falling at the rate it has been of late, the big man is difficult to defend with his floor spacing opponents must respect, which opens Reid up to attack closeouts and make plays in the paint.

Reid has always been someone who takes advantage of increased opportunities. In 17 career games when the reserve has played 30-plus minutes, he is averaging 21 points and 8.9 rebounds while shooting 52 percent from the floor and 40 percent from deep.

Mike Conley

Tuesday’s game was, stunningly, the first time all season Conley has topped 20 points.

The veteran floor general has made a point all season to be a catalyst for ball movement, even at the expense of getting his own shot. But he has noted since the all-star break that he needs to ramp up his offensive aggression for the good of the team’s overall offense.

Those comments came even before Towns went down. Now, Conley can’t hesitate to pull the trigger on good looks. He needs to establish himself as a legitimate threat to score to ease the burden on Edwards and, after Conley hits a few shots, open the floor for others by demanding attention from opponents.

Conley is shooting 43 percent from deep this season, and his pick-and-roll game with center Rudy Gobert is one of Minnesota’s most repeatable offensive actions to generate consistent looks. After the win over the Clippers, Wolves coach Chris Finch told Conley he needs the point guard to continue to be aggressive.

Nickeil Alexander-Walker

The wing has primarily been known for his enhanced defensive prowess. But his offense isn’t to be overlooked. Alexander-Walker is shooting 51 percent from deep in March and has made multiple triples in five of Minnesota’s seven games this month.

That outside threat is something the Timberwolves need with Towns, the team’s best shooter, out of the lineup. But as Alexander-Walker showed Tuesday, he also is a legitimate threat going to the rim when he’s aggressive on the attack.

“Nickeil has been awesome. This last month or so he’s been lights out. He’s found a great role with our team, and he knows when to be aggressive, he knows how to stay within himself for what we want for him and our team,” Conley told reporters after the win over the Clippers. “And we’ll just keep building with him, because he’s got a lot of room to just keep getting better and better and growing, so I’m excited for him.”

Related Articles

Edwards scores 37 as Timberwolves overcome 22-point first-half deficit to thump Clippers

Wolves still feel aggrieved by officiating

Shorthanded Timberwolves can’t maintain identity in loss to Lakers

Timberwolves’ Rudy Gobert fined $100k for gesture, comments implying refs involved in gambling

Fatigue starting to set in for Timberwolves amid difficult stretch

The Chicago Bears have a new offensive coordinator, announcing the hiring Tuesday of former Seattle Seahawks coordinator Shane Waldron.

With that question answered, attention focuses even more on what the team will do at quarterback. And not surprisingly, QB questions dominate this week’s edition of Brad Biggs’ Bears mailbag.

Part of me thinks Shane Waldron is a great hire because of how Geno Smith went from castoff to enjoying a rejuvenated career. But the skeptic in me says maybe Dave Canales was behind Smith coming on and the Seahawks offense was middling despite great WRs/RBs. What do you think of the hire? — @tn5280

How the Bears will look under Waldron is one of the biggest questions surrounding the Bears. We’ll need more information and a better idea of what the roster looks like in the spring to really dive into this. As you know, a coordinator can be only as good as the parts he has to work with. I called a veteran pro scout for his take on Waldron and the work he did in Seattle over the last three seasons.

“Sean McVay is the best play caller in the NFL right now, and Waldron’s system is going to be a direct reflection of that scheme,” the scout said. “In Seattle, they did open up the offense for Geno, and Shane worked for a head coach (Pete Carroll) that would pressure him to run the ball consistently. Waldron is a good play caller. You can wonder if he worked for a head coach that didn’t allow him to really open it up. Is he going to encounter the same thing with Matt Eberflus, another defensive head coach? Maybe.

“The run game is at the foundation of what McVay does. It creates a lot of formational variance, there’s a lot of misdirection and motion and all of that builds out to the passing game. McVay has transitioned to more of a gap scheme running the ball. (Waldron is) going to need athletic linemen, and the Bears have some of those.”

A lot of folks are wondering how Waldron’s offense will differ from what the Bears did under Luke Getsy, who had similar roots. It’s possible there could be more pre-snap movement, but we won’t know that for a while. The Seahawks really struggled to run the ball this season, but a lot of that can be attributed to a rash of injuries on the offensive line.

There has been intense focus on the scheme and X’s and O’s and play calling and how all of that will fit. That’s a huge part of the job. What also cannot be overlooked is how Waldron commands the room. How he presents information to players. How he connects with players. He essentially will be the head coach of the offense, and a lot more goes into the job than a game plan and play calls. There’s a lot to learn about Waldron and a ton of ground for the Bears to cover in terms of roster decisions.

Why are you not giving more consideration to the possibility Ryan Poles decides to trade down from No. 1 and build the roster around Justin Fields, who would then have another season or two to prove himself? He’d be in position with additional draft capital to get a quarterback in the future if Fields didn’t become the right guy. — Jordan M., Fishers, Ind.

It would be foolish to rule out any possibility at this early juncture, but I don’t think the odds of your scenario happening are very high. The Bears are in the unusual position of owning the No. 1 pick for the second consecutive year, and they’ve had rocky quarterback play — for a lot of reasons — for more than two years in a row. There’s no telling what kind of draft capital Poles would have in the future if he trades down.

When the Bears traded the No. 1 pick last year, it was the 13th time the top pick had been traded since 1967. Only two of those previous deals involved a future first-round pick.

In 2016, the St. Louis Rams traded up to No. 1 with the Tennessee Titans to select quarterback Jared Goff. The Titans wound up with the fifth pick in 2017 coming back from the Rams and used it on wide receiver Corey Davis.
In 1990, the Indianapolis Colts traded up to No. 1 with the Atlanta Falcons to select quarterback Jeff George. The Falcons wound up with the 13th pick in 1991 coming back from the Colts and used it on wide receiver Mike Pritchard.

If the Bears trade down from No. 1, there’s no way of knowing how valuable the pick(s) they would get back will be. The chances of them landing the No. 1 pick again wouldn’t be very good. For the sake of discussion, let’s say in a trade-down scenario, Poles nets the No. 4 pick in 2025. If there is one elite quarterback in that class, good luck being able to move up and get that player.

When quarterback is an issue and you’re in position to address the issue, I think you have to take action. I believe that is what the Bears will do.

After watching two weekends of playoff football, the passing plays and route designs are far more creative than what we saw from the Bears. Is it the offensive coordinator and play calling, the WR corps or just a plain talent disparity? — Ron M., DeKalb, Ill.

The route concepts you have seen in the playoffs are very similar to what the Bears did with Luke Getsy and really what every offense runs. There are only so many ways you can skin the cat, and the only real differences are in formations, pre-snap movement — and, of course, skill-position talent.

What you’ve seen throughout the playoffs is more talented pocket throwers than what the Bears have had for a long stretch, predating the Justin Fields era. C.J. Stroud, Patrick Mahomes, Jordan Love, Josh Allen, Brock Purdy, Jared Goff and Lamar Jackson are all highly skilled throwing from the pocket and on time. Most of the throws Jackson made Saturday, with the exception of the pass off the quarterback sweep, were from the pocket.

That’s what you haven’t seen with a high level of consistency from the Bears. That’s what looks different.

I’m confused by the argument that resetting the QB clock — saving $30 million for three years — is more cost effective than trading down and continuing with Justin Fields. That amount will get you maybe two or three impact players for the three years of savings, right? Meanwhile, a trade like the one last year will net about four additional first/second-round draft choices on four- or five-year rookie contracts. Even with having to pay Fields in Year 3, that strikes me as more cost effective and consistent with the “build-through-the-draft” mantra. Conceding that you’ll probably upgrade the QB position using the first pick, at what cost to other positions? Your thoughts? — Glen H.

My reaction is that the whole idea of resetting the quarterback clock by drafting one to replace Fields, who has played three seasons, is only a minor part of the evaluation for the Bears. This would be an added benefit but only if the Bears wind up with the right quarterback.

The bottom line is that the Bears have had inadequate quarterback play, and if you’ve watched the playoffs even casually, you’ve seen that the remaining teams are getting high-level play at the position. It’s nearly impossible to be a consistent contender and have sustained success if you don’t get it right at quarterback.

With average quarterback play — and the Bears have had below-average play — nearly everything else needs to be elite to have a chance to make a postseason run. The Bears are in position with the first and ninth draft picks to select a new quarterback and change the trajectory of their offense. The financial ramifications of a rookie quarterback in the first year of his contract is only a small part of the equation.

The question the Bears have to ask themselves is would adding more talent through a trade down raise Fields’ play to a level that leads to sustained success. That’s possible, and Fields’ supporters certainly would push this thinking. The Bears would have to hit on those picks too.

There are so many ways to examine this scenario. I keep circling back to the fact Fields has had three years as the starter and hasn’t been good enough on a consistent basis, and here the Bears are with the No. 1 pick in what looks like a pretty darn good year to be sitting at the top of the draft if you need a quarterback. It’s really not complicated.

I’m sure there are many who are curious if Tyson Bagent could be the future quarterback. How about keeping Justin Fields next year, trading down and reevaluating things after 2024? — Joe H., Palos Park

Bagent’s development as an undrafted rookie and the fact he beat out P.J. Walker for a roster spot and then went 2-2 as the starter was a terrific story. I think Bagent has the ability to stick in the league for many years. He’s wired to succeed and the moment wasn’t too big for him in spots where we’ve seen quarterbacks with a lot more seasoning fall on their faces.

Bagent needs more time, though, and I don’t think what we saw screamed “future franchise quarterback.” The team won’t put a ceiling on his development, but it would be beyond risky to bet on Bagent for the future and use that as a rationalization to keep Fields.

You mentioned that it will not be possible to retain Justin Fields while taking a quarterback with the first pick, and the reasoning you provided makes sense to me. What is the possibility of picking up Fields’ fifth-year option and building weapons around him, and draft J.J. McCarthy late first round or in the second round? This will give Fields enough time to prove himself while McCarthy develops. This will not disrupt locker-room dynamics, and McCarthy has shown great leadership, maturity and key plays to help win the national championship. — Karthik J., Peoria

It’s possible the Bears could use the first pick on a quarterback and retain Fields. It’s my opinion they won’t choose that avenue. I don’t think the Bears are inclined to exercise the fifth-year option for 2025 in Fields’ contract because he hasn’t played well enough over three seasons for that to be a viable consideration.

There’s a decent chance McCarthy will be drafted in the top half of the first round. I’d be surprised if he lasted into Round 2, but we do see quarterbacks fall on occasion. I don’t believe the Bears would disrupt the locker room if they draft a quarterback and move on from Fields. You know what players will do if the team drafts a quarterback? Support the new guy. That’s what good teammates do. They have their quarterback’s back.

With Cole Kmet under contract for the foreseeable future and Robert Tonyan and Marcedes Lewis low-usage guys this year, is there any chance the Bears would draft Brock Bowers if he falls to them? — Mike F., Chicago

Bowers is an interesting prospect and a highly skilled tight end. The Bears would have to desire to use a ton of two-tight-end formations if they invested in Bowers. It’s more likely they would select a wide receiver as they don’t have a No. 2 opposite DJ Moore under contract right now and they probably want to create some competition for Tyler Scott for the No. 3 role.

Why is a Justin Fields trade only worth a Round 2 pick when there are so many QB-needy teams and the potential is clearly there for him to develop into something special? — @opinion4you

I don’t think anyone knows specifically what Fields would command in a trade. I’ve written that I highly doubt the Bears could get a first-round pick in return. It’s possible they could get a second-rounder, or the best offer could be a third-round pick and change or maybe a third-rounder with conditions that could improve to a second. Who knows?

The more teams potentially involved, the more negotiating power the Bears would have. Fields’ value is limited by his performance in 38 career starts and the fact he’s currently under contract for only one more season with an option for 2025. His value also would be limited if teams believe the Bears are definitely going to select a quarterback in the first round. That’s one reason I expect GM Ryan Poles to play poker for a while as he sorts through the multitude of options.

I have heard many experts say Justin Fields does not make quick enough decisions in the pocket, which leads to sacks or chunk plays that don’t materialize. I have heard that Caleb Williams will step up in the pocket and under pressure will deliver positive plays without holding on to the ball too long. Of course both can scramble when necessary. Can coaches compare what Williams does against inferior college-level talent and compare that to what Fields does in the NFL? — Ed S., Auburn, Ala.

That’s an interesting question. One of the knocks on Williams, especially this past season, was that he also had a propensity to hold the ball too long waiting for something to materialize.

I don’t know that the Bears are comparing Fields and Williams side by side. They need to complete an exhaustive review of Fields and determine what they believe his career arc to be heading into Year 4. Then they need to thoroughly study the quarterbacks in this draft class — Williams and all of the others — and project those players’ floors and ceilings. After that, they can get an idea of what the best direction would be, whether that means keeping Fields, keeping Fields and drafting a quarterback or drafting a quarterback and moving on from Fields.

They’re in an enviable position with the first and ninth picks and they control the market. When evaluating Williams (and really all of the quarterbacks), it’s a projection to determine how they would fare in the NFL after playing against college defenses. It’s also a projection when considering the players they had surrounding them. Williams didn’t have a lot around him this past season. USC had a poor offensive line and not a lot of skill talent on the outside.

If the Bears and White Sox are both looking for new stadiums, what is the chance that they would end up sharing one? — Dave, San Diego

The Oakland Coliseum, when it was home to the Raiders of the NFL and Athletics of MLB, was the last multiuse stadium. Those days are gone and I don’t see them returning in the near future. Teams desire stadiums that are designed specifically for their sport. I’d put the chances of the Bears and Sox calling the same building home at zero.

()

A triumphant tale of goodness, modesty and kindness, “One Life” with Anthony Hopkins would be difficult to believe — if it weren’t all true.

In 1938-39 when Hitler’s Nazi regime occupied Czechoslovakia and initiated WWII, Nicholas Winton, a London stockbroker, visited the capital city of Prague. He decided he had to do something to help the stranded refugees who would otherwise be taken prisoner and sent to extermination camps.

Ultimately, Winton rescued 669 mostly Jewish children, getting each a British visa, a foster family and the government’s 50 pound fee.

Winton’s remarkable acts of heroism went unnoticed until in 1988 he appeared on a live BBC-TV show and met one of the children he saved. That changed Winton’s life, unleashing a flood of attention and reunions with those from the Prague kindertransport as it was known. He was 106 when he died in 2015.

Hopkins stars as the elderly Winton in “One Life” with Helena Bonham Carter as his wartime mother.

Last week his son Nick Winton and kindertransport survivor Eva Paddock, 88, were interviewed from London.

“I was on a train with my sister Milena as the film portrays,” Paddock began. “We were taken into a family office station in Liverpool Street. My sister and I were very fortunate. We were taken into foster care by a couple in the north of England, who had signed up to take one child. But I was three and held my arms around my sister’s neck. (I was also very cute in those days.)

“They decided they couldn’t separate us!”

In 1940 the sisters were reunited with their parents who arrived in England separately.

Eva met Winton once he had been publicly identified.  “My sister lived in the north of England and I was already living in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Many people began to get in touch with him. My husband and I went to visit him one day. It was a wonderful experience.”

“I guess everybody knows he was an extraordinary man. When I was very young I didn’t recognize that he had that impact,” Nick said.

“Because he liked people; he just wasn’t particularly fond of recognition. Only really when I saw ‘That’s Life!’ when the children stood up did I recognize the impact of what he’d done.”

“It’s a privilege to be around to support this story,” Eva added,  “as one of the very few of us witnesses here to say, ‘Yes, this film is true. This film is well made. This film tells the story as it should be told.’

“There’s a strong message here, which has to do with Holocaust education.”

“One Life” opens on March 15

By Sally French | NerdWallet

Inflation has hit most of the economy, but that’s hardly the case with airfare. Not only are airfares down 6% year-over-year based on January 2024 prices, but they’re even down 15% versus a decade ago. That’s according to consumer price index data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics published in February. Some experts predict airfares to international destinations will drop even lower in 2024.

According to the American Express Global Business Travel Air Monitor 2024 report, prices on certain international routes may drop as much as 12%.

Here’s how AmEx GBT anticipates average economy airfares will change in 2024 versus 2023, for a sampling of regions:

South America to North America: Drop by 11.9%.
North America to Central America: Drop by 7.8%.
North America to Asia: Drop by 7.5%.
Asia to North America: Drop by 5.2%.
North America to Europe: Drop by 3.5%.
Europe to North America: Drop by 1.2%.

So, why are airfares dropping?

Existing airlines are offering more flights and routes

2023 was a huge year for travel, with several records broken. The U.S. State Department issued a record 24 million passport books and cards during the 2023 fiscal year, signaling increased interest in travel abroad.

Katy Nastro, a spokesperson for airfare tracking website Going, has seen an increase in international flights booked as well.

“For example, in 2023, almost 14% more people flew between Costa Rica and the U.S. than pre-pandemic,” Nastro says.

Related Articles

These 5 Colorado dude ranches are spectacular in winter 

Amid a cactus landscape, these Arizona wellness resorts melt away life’s prickles

Peace, simplicity and a sense of mystery: Exploring Amish communities across the Midwest

Civil unrest and terrorism are now travelers’ greatest fears

Tripadvisor’s top 10 beaches in the world include some spectacular entries

Airlines added 10% more flights between the U.S. and Central America in 2023 versus 2022, according to scheduling data analyzed by Going from aviation analytics company Cirium Diio. In 2024, airlines are expected to add another 10%.

Last year’s high traveler volume has prompted airlines to increase flight schedules to other parts of the world. For example, Delta Air Lines announced that — in light of a record-setting summer 2023 — it would launch its largest-ever transatlantic schedule for summer 2024. That includes new daily service from New York to Naples, Italy, beginning in May, as well as more flights from the U.S. to Paris; Venice, Italy; Barcelona, Spain; and Dublin.

For travel from North America to Asia, there are 5.5 million more airline seats for sale in the first half of 2024 versus the same period in 2023. That’s a 35% year-over-year increase, says Jeremy Quek, principal global air practice line lead at AmEx GBT.

“More availability in turn can help with pricing,” Nastro says. “Heading into 2024, in theory, this should reduce overall prices.”

Budget airlines are bringing down prices

New, smaller airlines (particularly low-cost carriers) are also competing for customers, which helps bring down airfares industrywide.

For example, Norse Atlantic Airways is a Norwegian low-cost airline that started flying to the U.S. in 2022. Now it operates 13 routes between the U.S. and five European cities. Come May 2024, Norse will launch summer flights between New York and Athens, Greece.

A return to normalcy after COVID-19

Quek says much of the phenomenon of falling airfares is a post-COVID-19 pandemic recalibration, considering so many airlines reduced schedules in 2020.

“Airline schedules, especially on long-haul international flights, are set at least six months out,” Quek says. “Restarting a route can take even longer. As countries announced border reopenings, airlines were constrained on how quickly they could reintroduce flights.”

And it’s not just schedules returning to normal, but airfares too. Airfares originating in the U.S. hit all-time highs in May 2022, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, when the summer of “revenge travel” was in full swing. Quek says this year’s price decreases are largely a return to pre-pandemic equilibrium rather than an extraordinary drop in prices.

Airfares are falling, but don’t wait to book

Though airfares are falling, don’t delay booking in hopes that they’ll fall further. Going advises booking two to eight months out for international travel.

“Airfares tend to increase the closer you get to booking,” Nastro says. “In reality, it is far more likely for airlines to sell tickets at higher prices at the last minute.”

 

The article Airfares Have Dropped. Here’s Why They Could Go Even Lower in 2024 originally appeared on NerdWallet.