Kdug

1 hour ago, Zlinedavid said:

Actually, it's his position that makes him valuable.  Contrary to what some want to believe, we can't just roll Reneau and 4 guards out on the floor.  Power has the size to play as a stretch-4 alongside either Reneau or Ballo, or if MM runs into foul trouble or if we just need the size on the floor, he could play alongside both Reneau and Ballo as a wing. 

Essegian is just another decent shooting SG.  Power gives us both shooting and flexibility. 

Can Power actually play the 3? I haven’t seen him play, but everything I’ve seen has him listed as a PF. Feel like him, Reneau, and Ballo at the same time wouldn’t be a lineup that would work very well, especially defensively.

10 minutes ago, 13th&Jackson said:

That would have put them third and tied for fifth on the IU roster ahead of Cupps and Leal. I wasn't basing it on 100 minimum attempts. I'd love to find a young transfer or two who shot 40% plus, but didn't get a lot of playing time on a very good team. 

Number of attempts matters. I don’t think anyone would argue that IU had two sharpshooters last year because Ware and Leal made 40%+ of their threes at low volume. Teams weren’t particularly concerned with Ware shooting threes, despite the high percentage, because he didn’t do it very often. IMO, a 35% shooter that shot 150 threes is better than a 45% shooter who shot 40.

I also think Purdue in particular has a little bit of an inflated 3% all around due to how much attention Edey drew. Plug those guys into most other teams, and they don’t get nearly as many clean looks.

9 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

NIL in the pros is actually about NIL.

Pro teams aren't paying players under the table with fan donations to come to their team and pretending it is NIL because they actual have contracts and rules.

The pros can do that because they acknowledge players as employees and pay them salaries. All of this NIL stuff is caused from the universities refusing to acknowledge players as employees.

26 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

If you look at the first 25 games Rice played in, he's a 33% 3PT shooter.  After that point was clearly the freshman wall, but up to that point, he was respectable and took more 3s than Reneau and Leal combined, so it's not exactly limited volume.

Carlyle is also a 32% shooter on the same volume of Rice's first 25 games. 

That puts us up to 3, and if Reneau has shown at least a little bit of ability in that department, that's what I'd be having him focus on in the offseason. 

Is it an "OMG" level transformation? No, but I think it's an upgrade with a lot of upside. 

Not saying we’ll be worse than last year shooting wise. That’d be pretty tough to do.
 

With Rice he very well could’ve hit a freshman wall, or maybe he just regressed to what his true shooting ability is. I don’t know, but if we only get 33% by ignoring some of his bad games, that tells me he has some improvements to make with his shot. I think it was Tony Adragna mentioned some of his synergy stats on other shot types weren’t particularly good either. His FT% was good, so hopefully that’s a sign he has a good touch. But as it currently stands, it seems like his strength offensively is attacking the rim and creating for others. Hopefully the shooting develops, but it makes me a little nervous to rely on that. I really like the rest of his game though.

I do think relying on Rice and Carlyle to improve their shooting to the 34%+ range from 3 is doable and an easier ask than what we needed last year. I was just pointing out that we don’t have anyone on the roster, even including Carlyle if he commits, who was able to maintain a 33% clip from 3 on reasonably high volume for a full year last year.

1 hour ago, iuswingman said:

Fishbowl doesn't require 7 figures and being paid more than doctors.  Bidding wars is the only reason they get paid ridiculous amounts.  If every school decided they would stick with 6 figures, there would be complaining but very few are taking a pay cut to change professions.

Obviously the talent wouldn't be as good but quit pretending no one would play for just a free education.  

Yeah, that is incredibly illegal and goes against every free market principle that our economy is based on. Schools are willing to pay a lot of money to coaches because college basketball and football bring in an insane amount of money. IU is well within their right to set a cap at $100K for a basketball coach. They don’t do that because that’s no what the market dictates for a competent coach, and having good athletic programs is beneficial to the school.

1 hour ago, Zlinedavid said:

Jones for Purdue took almost as many 3s as the next two below him combined and shot 35%. 

For UConn, Karaban, Newton and Spencer all took about the same amount of 3s and shot 44%, 37% and 32%. 

So you're right, this whole idea that we need this 45-50% 3PT shooter or our season is going to be a failure is kind of a panicky reaction.  Give me 3-4 guys that can shoot it at 33-36% vs 2 that are at 40%+.  That's what will keep defenses honest. 

To play devils advocate, the only guy currently on the roster who was in the 33%+ range from 3 last year was Malik at 33.3% on very low volume or Leal on even lower volume. I think it’s safe to count on Mack being there based on how he finished the year, but anyone else would require some improvement over the offseason. Good programs develop players, but it’s felt like shooting in particular isn’t something that IU as a program has developed well since Crean.

14 minutes ago, DWB said:

Is this guy as good as Ware? (probably not)

So we're now gonna see 2 bigs playing together again, "inside (and hopefully) out". I'll believe it when I see a 4 out 1 in game with 3 shooters on the perimeter. (from IU that is)

So far I'm under whelmed with the committed recruits. Not a huge step forward IMO. If MM gets hurt we got NO shooters on the perimeter.

Cupps: No.     Gallo: No.      Newton: Unknown.     Rice: Not any better than Gallo.

You guys can celebrate all you want. Good for you. But I'm with-holding my excitement until I see the product on the floor.

I don’t really see how Ballo + Rice + Tucker can be considered underwhelming. Do we still need more guards and shooting? Yes. But Rice will be the best guard we’ve had since Romeo, Ballo is one of the few portal guys who can actually match Ware’s production, and Tucker seems like he should be able to slot into the rotation. We still need more, but that’s a solid start imo.

2 hours ago, Drroogh said:

I would say I want what you’re smoking thinking he’s coming to IU with the thought he’ll be on the bench but my neighbor works at a grow house and said she would hook me up if I ever wanted.

Of the guys ranked in the 16-25 range (Tucker is ranked 20th) from last years 247 composite, only 1 played more than 60% of his teams minutes. You can think whatever you want, but outside the top 10 or so guys, it’s very common for freshman to come off the bench as 20ish minutes per game type of players.

He’ll get minutes, but I sure hope we’re not relying on him to start unless he has a college ready game - which most freshman don’t.

2 minutes ago, Drroogh said:

If that’s what he was sold how long before he or someone else decommits?

Contrary to popular belief, there are a lot of top 20-30 recruits that do not start or play starter minutes. There were only 19 high major freshman who played more than 60% of their teams minutes. About half of those weren’t top 20-30 guys, but instead were guys on bad teams.

4 minutes ago, Drroogh said:

Not to mention the smoke around any of Malik, Mgbako and Tucker coming off the bench. Burger Boys don’t plan on needing to develop from the bench!

There’s only 5 starting spots. If IU gets Ballo, Tucker will almost certainly be coming off the bench.

1 hour ago, HoosierDPU95 said:

This probably should go in a different thread but I'm not sure which one. The term "shooter" has come up a lot in this thread though so I'll post here. What are folks thinking with statements like "he's not a shooter" or "we need shooters"?

Are folks wanting/expecting someone like Hulls where the player has one job and that is to knock down 3's at a +40% with defense, rebounding, driving the ball, etc. being optional?

or

Are folks wanting/expecting someone like Mark Sears that shoots +50% from the field +40% from 3, +80% from the line and can also kill you off the dribble, play D and rebound?

or

Are folks wanting/expecting something in between?

I'm not making a case one way or the other for what "shooter" should mean here, I'm just trying to understand what other's are wanting/expecting.

To me a shooter is someone who can knock down threes at a 35%+ clip with volume - i.e. 3 or 4 three attempts per game. Basically someone defenses have to respect so they can’t just pack the paint. In my opinion, if you don’t have at least two guys (and ideally three or more) who can do that, spacing starts to become a major problem. Bad spacing makes every other facet more difficult on offense.

I’d prefer shooters who are multi-dimensional like Sears, but I wouldn’t expect anyone to put up those types of numbers or be that dynamic. If you go the Hulls sharpshooter route, they have to be more in the 40% to 45%+ range to make up for the lack of production in other areas.

1 hour ago, dwtaylor1055 said:

on paper looks like a top 25 roster but who knows. 

I could see top 25 if things go well with that group. But I can also see how things could potentially go poorly. The highest 3% of those starters from last year is surprisingly Malik at 33.3%. I think Rice, Carlyle, and Mack all could/should be good shooters. But none of them have proven it yet, and I could see that being a big weakness if those 3 don’t improve to the mid 30% range.

24 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

I'm surprised at how many people have Carlyle penciled into the starting line up. This is not to say that i don't think he's a good player or I don't want him. I do. He has 3 years of eligibility. 

BUT knowing who is coaching this team, unless Carlyle lights the world on fire (on both end of the court), I just don't think there is any way he's starting over Gallo.

Guys, this is Woody. The man who values defense and veterans on the floor. The only exception to this rule was Mgbako and that's because the guys behind him on the depth chart were equally as bad at defense. 

I also think Gallo is very underestimated by some. He was asked to do WAY too much last year. Sandwich him in between Rice and a sophomore Mgbako and he's going to thrive. 

Our 1-3 is not going to be a below average defender in Mgbako and 2 brand new guards who have zero games of experience in this defensive system. I'll eat crow if I'm wrong, but I won't be wrong on this one. 😄

Agreed. Not sure what his defense looks like, so that could change things, but his offensive numbers were poor last year from an efficiency standpoint. Seems like he was asked to carry a heavy load when he played, so maybe that played a part in it. But I don’t see him as a lock to start.

2 hours ago, dgambill said:

I’m not trying to say analytics don’t matter but when you aren’t playing a similar schedule or opponents…well it’s not apples to apples. We played a much superior schedule. It ranked 29th vs 77th for Washington St. anyway my point is he will need to step up to both the offensive and defensive side of the ball coming to the B1G. I’m sure he can do it…but we all know the style of basketball from West coast to B1G is night and day.

You mean the style of play that hasn’t won a championship since 2000? Yeah, I don’t mind if we play a different style than that. And let’s not pretend like the P12 is some mid major. Yes it’s typically slightly worse than the big ten, but it’s still a multi bid league that has really good teams. Again, WSU was significantly better than IU and at least half of the other big ten schools. He’ll be able to handle the big ten just fine.

4 minutes ago, dgambill said:

They had 4 teams in the tournament. One made it in the play in…and one made it with an automatic bid who had no business in the tournament. As bad as the B1G was last year the PAC12 is just a bad conference and playing in a league like that will warp your numbers. Some things you can use the eye test and see…the PAC12 and defense doesn’t go hand in hand.

WSU’s defense would’ve ranked 5th in the big ten. I don’t really care what the PAC 12 as a whole looks like, with Rice we’re getting a guy who played on a tourney team that had a solid defense. Fwiw, IU’s defense (and offense) would’ve been in the bottom half of the pac 12.

28 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Agreed. My biggest worry is his defense. PAC12 defense is like a 4 letter word.

Washington State ranked 26th in defensive efficiency last year while IU ranked 84th. Playing some PAC 12 level defense would be a huge improvement over whatever we were doing last year.

Fantastic get. Young player who was one of the best players on a tourney team. Needs to improve his 3%, but he shot 81% from the line and shot just under 4 threes per game. Both are signs that there is room for improvement there.

Using Bart Torvik’s PPRG stat, which measure offensive efficiency weighted for playing time and usage, the only IU guard since the start of Archie’s tenure who has had a better season than Rice’s freshman season was Romeo. This is the type of impact player we need.

One thing I like to look at with young players who don’t jump out with their 3 point percentage is FT%. That’s usually a good indicator on shooting potential.

Rice shot 81% while Carlyle shot 78% from the line. There have been enough bad shooting IU teams recently for me to be at the see it to believe it phase for shooting. But I can certainly see how it could work with those two if their FT% is any indication of the quality of their shot.

Also, Malik actually shot more threes than Ware last year in a similar number of minutes. I think he needs to continue to improve there, but he at least was willing to take them and hit them at an ok clip.

I definitely understand the skepticism on shooting. But at least we appear to be adding guards this year unlike last year. That alone is an improvement.

34 minutes ago, Stlboiler23 said:

I mean it’s dumb to do rankings this early before the flurry of portal activity but Purdue has earned the respect/kudos to be ranked high next year. They return a lot of production and bring in a really good recruiting class. 

Jones and Edey alone made up 44% of your scoring. I wouldn’t say you’re returning a lot of production with those two, especially Edey, leaving.

45 minutes ago, Artesian_86 said:

Pretty obvious how important guards are for Purdue. Zach had 0 assists last night. His guards were none existent, but I also give UConn's defense a ton of credit.

Yeah, UConn’s strategy was to play Edey relatively straight up, but not let anyone else get going. And they sure didn’t let anyone else get going. PU minus Zach Edey went 9/29 fgs (31%) for 23 points.

The crazy thing is that was kind of just a regular performance from UConn. They were just that much better than everyone else.

Fletcher Loyer flops more than any player I can recall in recent memory. One of the least likable players in all of college basketball.

45 minutes ago, Hoosier4Life53 said:

From what I’ve seen it looks like Tucker is more athletic, with a mid-range game, and McNeeley is more of threat from 3. Pretty much an even swap.

Based on the rankings, mock drafts, etc, seems like the consensus is McNeeley might be better, but I don’t think it’s that significant of a difference between the two. Feel like it just hurts losing his outside shooting which we’ll need to address in the portal now.

6 hours ago, Zlinedavid said:

And there's the big we need.  Defensive oriented, can crash the boards on both ends.  Him, Reneau, MM and two sharpshooting guards. 

MR would have to improve from the outside for that to work well offensively imo.

Feels like Williams would be able to replace Ware’s production on the boards and defensively - maybe a small step up defensively. But he’d be a step back on offense, and would cause even worse spacing problems since Ware could shoot well from 3. Feels like that’d be leaning in even more to the 2 post sets which I’m not a fan of.

1 hour ago, IUFLA said:

SI Article on Bryson

And not to crap on Queen and McNeely, but Tucker, from an athletic and physical standpoint, looked much more ready to compete at the college level in the Mickey Ds game last night...

Queen had a great game, but if you put him in with an Okpara or any center with length, I think he'll struggle unless he goes through a Malik Reneau type body transformation... 

Truthfully, I don’t think DQ would’ve fit well on next years team. I don’t think him and MR would compliment each others games very well, so he would’ve only made sense as a backup to MR imo.

1 hour ago, ledies22 said:

wouldnt hate that. They could coexist. T Perk 33% career, KC 32% fresh year in 3. Would like to have a bit more volume from the off guard.

KC shot 35% in conference from 3. Seems like he might have had a slow start like Mgbako. He shot 4.3 3s per game which isn’t crazy low, especially considering his minutes.