BGleas

I’m with you on #2 and #4. Not so much on the other two. I think a big issue is colleges are all going to this NBA style ball screen offense where it’s really putting the ball in guys hands to make plays, instead of sets to guys open shots. Issue is college players aren’t as good as NBA players, they don’t make tough shots like NBA players do. Gone are the days, for the most part, of off-ball screening offenses and true motion. It’s all dribble-drive and ball screens while everyone else stands around, which results in a lot of bad shots. I know people are not happy with IU’s offense, but a lot of teams do the same stuff.

Completely agree. I've already said that while I absolutely want Brooks and will be disappointed if IU doesn't get him, if he's really focused on 1 and done then maybe everyone is better off if IU were to land McNeil (I'm going completely off the one highlight clip so trusting that is accurate of his game) instead. I'd love to land both.

Maybe, maybe not. Was just trying to not have the narrative that he's recruiting athletes as opposed to basketball players, because that hasn't been the case in his first two classes.

Forrester is really the only guy Archie has recruited at IU to this point that you could say is an athlete first, basketball player second. He has yet to recruit a guy like McNeil, or guys like Bohannon or Cline, but it's not like he's been recruiting unskilled, ultra-athletes either.

I guess I did make that up. Maybe IU put something like that in?

I could be completely making this up, but I thought a few years ago the NCAA did away with coaches being able to grab the mic in these situations? Again, I really might be making this up. But, I remember a few years ago the 'coach yelling at the crowd" thing basically becoming grandstanding opportunities on national TV games, coaches were doing it left and right over the slightest thing to get the exposure on TV, so they kind of stopped it. I think I'm making this up, but not sure?

I have no idea if it was as hard as when Crean did it, but this entire conversation is about Archie yanking Green after a dumb shot (air-balled floater) and then yelling at him as Green was coming to the bench.

I think this is one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't situations in terms of coaching. Edwards is an extremely crafty player and people would be going ballistic if Phinisee (I think that's who was defending) reached in to foul and Edwards drew him into a shooting foul (which certainly could have happened). The bottom line is that IU did exactly what they wanted on that play by forcing Edwards into a tough shot. They just didn't finish the play on the boards. Edit: I'd also guess that there isn't a single player on this roster that Archie trusts enough the execute a foul in that situation without somehow screwing it up.

That’s just a back-breaking loss. I hope the effort, which was excellent, doesn’t end up being a one-time thing because of the loss. This team would have 3 or so more wins if they played that hard the last six weeks. Was proud of Langford, especially in the first half, because he set the tone for how hard IU’s had to play tonight early on. It was the first time I saw him as a leader. On the negative side, he just flat out has to work harder to get open. People are complaining about not going to Langford on several possessions down the stretch, but both the play where Juwan slipped and the last play at the end were for Langford but he couldn’t get open. Not the first time he’s struggled to get open. The reason Davis wasn’t in on defense the last several minutes is because Purdue would have exposed him with screens, both on-ball and off. Archie has got to find a way to get some shot makers on this roster.

No idea who Brooks is going to pick, and this isn't a sour grapes type of thing, as I really hope he picks IU, but with that said if Brooks is focused on 1 and done then IU could potentially be better off with the McNeil JUCO kid (who is nowhere near any type of lock, as he has a ton of schools after him). I've admittedly only seen a couple minute highlight clip of McNeil, but if that is close to what a school can expect from that kid, then he seems like the type of kid that can step in a fill an immediate role right off the bat, plus he'd have 3 years of eligibility. The grand slam would be landing both.

Thank for the kind word, fouls! Much appreciated!

Appreciate it, Bob!! I’m laughing even harder because believe it or not, I’m a partner in a health/wellness supplement startup. No lie.

Good point on DD. I don’t know how ready he is for big minutes, but would love to see Race start next to Morgan. I just feel like that kid has something and we’re going to like him the next three years.

I'm really struggling with what drastic changes could occur in the short term (before the end of the season). I'm speaking strictly of play on the court, not locker room issues, but clearly Morgan, Langford, Davis and Durham are not part of the problem. All four can definitely play better at times and be more forceful of course, but they're generally playing with effort and contributing what they can. Guys that have either struggled with poor play, poor effort or both seem to be Smith, Green, Fitzner and Phinisee (I hate to put Phinisee here because he's a freshmen point guard that's had injury issues and he plays hard, but he has been inconsistent). Guys that haven't really had a chance, though do seem to play hard when they get in seem to me to be Forrester, Damezi, Moore and Race. I'm not really sure what the drastic change could be this season? Yeah, we can give some guys more minutes and some less, but that's not drastic. It's also tough to do something like start Race or Forrester because clearly Morgan and Davis aren't the problem, so there really isn't room to start those guys. The only real drastic change I can figure is putting the ball in Langford's hands. Giving him the keys to initiate the offense. So basically you'd be playing him at the point, along with additional lineup changes. It's tough because this teams real problems are at the point and the wing opposite Langford, but answers to those questions are not on this roster. Damezi and Phinisee aren't all of the sudden going to turn into veteran All Big Ten guys. Maybe you do something like Langford, Durham, Anderson, Morgan, Davis. Then the first off the bench are Phinisee, Thompson and Forrester. I'd love to see Thompson or Forrester start and play a lot, but I just don't see how you bench Davis when he's been playing well? I'm also interested in the scheme tomorrow. To me, drastic changes are also implied that scheme might change, but it's hard to change that in two days. I don't really expect too many changes, but it is fun to discuss.

I'm just commenting on his play on the court. I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes and I typically don't like to speculate on those things since we basically have zero actual facts. If there are real locker room issues that are sabotaging the season, then yes players contributing to that should probably move on. In terms of his play, Smith has killed this team in Big Ten play, but a coach needs to decide if he thinks a veteran/upperclassmen Smith, with some improvements and work (if he's willing) can be better than bringing in a new player that needs to get acclimated, learn, etc. Archie is the one that said IU needs to get old and stay old fast, which is difficult to do if the program loses guys like Smith and Green. But again, those two have been really bad and inconsistent, so the coach also has to gauge if he thinks the necessary improvement is realistic for guys like that. I am by no means advocating for bringing everyone back, just saying the decisions aren't as simple as how they're playing at the moment. There are complexities to the decisions.