Jump to content

Offseason 2022


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Madison22 said:

This ^^

We've had players work hard before.  "500 shots a day" stuff.  Lots to admire there.  But with incorrect form.

We've been the worst shooting team in the BigTen for 5 years, including 14th out of 14 teams last season.  At least once, there were over 300 teams in the country who shot better than Indiana for a season.

Trained seals bouncing balls from their noses could do as well.

Hard work alone will not correct that.  Teaching correct technique, by someone who knows how to teach, is a good first step.  

Is that being done?  

We weren't 14th in three point shooting last season? We were 11th and within a percentage point of being dead middle of the conference. 

This isn't directed at just you, but some of you drastically oversell how bad our shooting was and how much better it needs to be. It needs to be marginally better to be a really good basketball team; you don't have to be an elite shooting team to win in college basketball. I know the only really good teams we've had the last 20 years were great shooting teams, but we are probably not a case study in the type of program we are trying to be moving forward. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

We weren't 14th in three point shooting last season? We were 11th and within a percentage point of being dead middle of the conference. 

This isn't directed at just you, but some of you drastically oversell how bad our shooting was and how much better it needs to be. It needs to be marginally better to be a really good basketball team; you don't have to be an elite shooting team to win in college basketball. I know the only really good teams we've had the last 20 years were great shooting teams, but we are probably not a case study in the type of program we are trying to be moving forward. 

 

The final four teams ranked 41st to 65th in 3 pt shooting. They averaged 35.8% to 36.6%. IU was 216th and averaged 33.3%. For a team to increase its perimeter shooting 2.5 to 3.3% would be a big jump, especially without adding any shooters. The biggest issue is that IU was 311th in D1 in made three pointers per game. That means a lot of close, grind it out games, with a lot of pressure on the defense. We've seen too many games where a game has been close, or IU had a lead (but one that should have been larger), and then one guy on the other team starts throwing in clutch or even garbage 3s late. 

I hope I'm wrong and this team materially improves its perimeter shooting or can somehow compensate. It's just a glaring weakness, especially with how the game is played today. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

We weren't 14th in three point shooting last season? We were 11th and within a percentage point of being dead middle of the conference. 

This isn't directed at just you, but some of you drastically oversell how bad our shooting was and how much better it needs to be. It needs to be marginally better to be a really good basketball team; you don't have to be an elite shooting team to win in college basketball. I know the only really good teams we've had the last 20 years were great shooting teams, but we are probably not a case study in the type of program we are trying to be moving forward. 

 

I really like our guards on the defensive side of the ball, and they should be borderline intimidating to most teams, but we do need improved 3 pt shooting to be an elite team. We don’t need a huge jump, but 2-3 more per game should put us in a good position to have a great year. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, 13th&Jackson said:

The final four teams ranked 41st to 65th in 3 pt shooting. They averaged 35.8% to 36.6%. IU was 216th and averaged 33.3%. For a team to increase its perimeter shooting 2.5 to 3.3% would be a big jump, especially without adding any shooters. The biggest issue is that IU was 311th in D1 in made three pointers per game. That means a lot of close, grind it out games, with a lot of pressure on the defense. We've seen too many games where a game has been close, or IU had a lead (but one that should have been larger), and then one guy on the other team starts throwing in clutch or even garbage 3s late. 

I hope I'm wrong and this team materially improves its perimeter shooting or can somehow compensate. It's just a glaring weakness, especially with how the game is played today. 

 

From a percentage standpoint you’re talking about less than one additional made three per game. Our percentage is so not a big deal.

I’d like to see us shoot more threes but really have very little concern about our percentage.

You also don’t need to add an elite shooter to see an increase; style of play, good off season work, confidence/freedom to shoot, and having more playmakers is going to be a difference maker more than just having a gunner (who can go in a slump, like the one we had last year….)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

From a percentage standpoint you’re talking about less than one additional made three per game. Our percentage is so not a big deal.

I’d like to see us shoot more threes but really have very little concern about our percentage.

You also don’t need to add an elite shooter to see an increase; style of play, good off season work, confidence/freedom to shoot, and having more playmakers is going to be a difference maker more than just having a gunner (who can go in a slump, like the one we had last year….)

Really hope you’re right. Just hate to think of TJD playing 4 years without putting shooters around him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 In the last 9 games of the season last year.  X went 15 of 30 from 3 if my addition is correct, averaging 16.6, 6.8 assists over the same time period.  

X and Kopp won't be the problem.  Can Race continue to shoot near 40% from deep like he did the last quarter of the season?  Can Trey take a 4% jump into respectability?  Will Leal ever materialize?  Will Tamar show more consistency?  Jalen was a solid high school shooter and he is one that plays within himself so I expect him to remain solid.  Jordan is real close to good.  31% last year.  He's a worker, he will improve.  

Overall, the team as a whole just needs a 2-3% jump.  When we have to have a bucket we have X on the drive/pick n roll with TJD.  There isn't more than 5 teams in the country than can stop that.  Just don't be down 3 with 15 seconds to go and we are good.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, 13th&Jackson said:

The final four teams ranked 41st to 65th in 3 pt shooting. They averaged 35.8% to 36.6%. IU was 216th and averaged 33.3%. For a team to increase its perimeter shooting 2.5 to 3.3% would be a big jump, especially without adding any shooters. The biggest issue is that IU was 311th in D1 in made three pointers per game. That means a lot of close, grind it out games, with a lot of pressure on the defense. We've seen too many games where a game has been close, or IU had a lead (but one that should have been larger), and then one guy on the other team starts throwing in clutch or even garbage 3s late. 

I hope I'm wrong and this team materially improves its perimeter shooting or can somehow compensate. It's just a glaring weakness, especially with how the game is played today. 

 

This post speaks to my concern. Our percentage is obviously pedestrian, but worse than that is our volume. We ranked 321 out of 358 teams in attempts per game, and 319 in percentage of our FG attempts that were from 3. Some of that makes sense when you have an All American down low, but you'd also think the attention on Trayce would create open shots for others.

The three point shot wasn't a weapon in our arsenal last season. That's a potential path to victory available to our opponents that we just didn't have. It put us at a disadvantage in most every game, requiring us to be more efficient everywhere else on the court. You can win like that, and we did, but the margin for error becomes so much smaller when your opponent can take and make threes and you can't. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

This post speaks to my concern. Our percentage is obviously pedestrian, but worse than that is our volume. We ranked 321 out of 358 teams in attempts per game, and 319 in percentage of our FG attempts that were from 3. Some of that makes sense when you have an All American down low, but you'd also think the attention on Trayce would create open shots for others.

The three point shot wasn't a weapon in our arsenal last season. That's a potential path to victory available to our opponents that we just didn't have. It put us at a disadvantage in most every game, requiring us to be more efficient everywhere else on the court. You can win like that, and we did, but the margin for error becomes so much smaller when your opponent can take and make threes and you can't. 

I think that speaks more to a lack of guys who could make plays and create for others than anything else. It’s not exactly a hot take to say our best lineup was probably X, Phinisee, TG, Race and TJD but two of those guys struggled with health and it left us with very little on the perimeter.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say the JHS is a big upgrade over Rob on offense. If TG can stay healthy and Bates can improve, we can be significantly better on the perimeter than last season and we could obviously be better down low just south the guys we bring back and taking MD for MR. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IUFLA said:

Just for conversation...

In our 14 losses we shot the 3 at a 29% clip (73-255)

In our 21 wins we shot it at 37% (133-362) 

In both cases, the volume was relatively the same (18 taken 3s per contest)

If you go game by game on the losses, it is interesting as well....

  • Syracuse - we lost by 2 and shot 11/27 from three. I don't think anyone would argue we lost this game due to shooting..
  • Wisconsin - lost by 5 on 5/13 from three. Definitely can make a case for a higher volume, but we blew a huge lead. Hard to chalk this up to shooting....
  • Penn State - lost by 3 on 4/13 from three. This was a low scoring game and a disappointing loss - I'll certainly buy that shooting could've made a difference here but I'll also say it's a game we should have won regardless of poor shooting.
  • Iowa - lost by 9 and blew a lead again, shot 7/22 from three. We gave up 83 points, I can't really chalk this up to shooting as I think needing to make 4 more threes and shoot 50% to win is an unfair ask. That game was on the defense.
  • Michigan - lost by 18 on 5/19 shooting. Nothing went right in this game, can't blame it on shooting IMO.
  • Illinois - lost by 17 on 3/13 shooting. My recollection says that we had a lead or were right there until 10-12 minutes to go, and I'd actually buy hitting some more shots through the game could've made a big difference. Shooting, amongst other things, probably cost us this one. 
  • Northwestern - lost by 8 in the Windy City 5 game on 4/16 shooting. Sure, 7/17 would have won us the game but I don't think any of us feel like that loss was on the shooting. It was on some bad decisions. 
  • Michigan State - lost by 15 on 5/21 from three, and less than 40% on our twos. Again, hard to chalk that up to three point shooting.
  • Wisconsin - lost by 5 on 5/18 from three. We lead late and had some awful calls go against us, but hitting a couple shots down the stretch could have and would have made a difference. I'll put this on shooting as probably the top thing we could control in this one. 
  • Ohio State - lost by 11 in OT on 6/19 shooting. We weren't good from two in this game either, and I'd chalk the choke job up more so to the entire inability to get a bucket more than just poor shooting. But that was certainly part of the equation. So was not being able to get a stop late. 
  • Rutgers - lost by 3 and blew a lead again, losing on Harper's late dagger. Shot 6/21 from three. I guess you can call this shooting, but it seems to me that it wouldn't be the top of the list when you blow a lead at home on Senior Night. 
  • Purdue - lost by 2 on 5/20 shooting, but got absolutely screwed by the refs. I refuse to put this game on anything other than the refs, it was the biggest travesty in officiating I've witnessed over the duration of a game. 
  • Iowa - lost by 3 on 5/19 shooting, but gave up 80 points. I guess you can say hit one more shot and we go to OT, but I was more concerned with us getting lost on Bohannon multiple time slate. Hard for me to put the game on anything on offense when we score 77 and give up 80.
  • St. Mary's - 2/10 shooting but absolutely nothing went right at all. This was about running out of gas, no more and no less. 

 

From my perspective, there is 5 games we lost that really came back to shooting. You can make a case for more, could make a case for less in a couple of those too, but that seems like the right number to me. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

If you go game by game on the losses, it is interesting as well....

  • Syracuse - we lost by 2 and shot 11/27 from three. I don't think anyone would argue we lost this game due to shooting..
  • Wisconsin - lost by 5 on 5/13 from three. Definitely can make a case for a higher volume, but we blew a huge lead. Hard to chalk this up to shooting....
  • Penn State - lost by 3 on 4/13 from three. This was a low scoring game and a disappointing loss - I'll certainly buy that shooting could've made a difference here but I'll also say it's a game we should have won regardless of poor shooting.
  • Iowa - lost by 9 and blew a lead again, shot 7/22 from three. We gave up 83 points, I can't really chalk this up to shooting as I think needing to make 4 more threes and shoot 50% to win is an unfair ask. That game was on the defense.
  • Michigan - lost by 18 on 5/19 shooting. Nothing went right in this game, can't blame it on shooting IMO.
  • Illinois - lost by 17 on 3/13 shooting. My recollection says that we had a lead or were right there until 10-12 minutes to go, and I'd actually buy hitting some more shots through the game could've made a big difference. Shooting, amongst other things, probably cost us this one. 
  • Northwestern - lost by 8 in the Windy City 5 game on 4/16 shooting. Sure, 7/17 would have won us the game but I don't think any of us feel like that loss was on the shooting. It was on some bad decisions. 
  • Michigan State - lost by 15 on 5/21 from three, and less than 40% on our twos. Again, hard to chalk that up to three point shooting.
  • Wisconsin - lost by 5 on 5/18 from three. We lead late and had some awful calls go against us, but hitting a couple shots down the stretch could have and would have made a difference. I'll put this on shooting as probably the top thing we could control in this one. 
  • Ohio State - lost by 11 in OT on 6/19 shooting. We weren't good from two in this game either, and I'd chalk the choke job up more so to the entire inability to get a bucket more than just poor shooting. But that was certainly part of the equation. So was not being able to get a stop late. 
  • Rutgers - lost by 3 and blew a lead again, losing on Harper's late dagger. Shot 6/21 from three. I guess you can call this shooting, but it seems to me that it wouldn't be the top of the list when you blow a lead at home on Senior Night. 
  • Purdue - lost by 2 on 5/20 shooting, but got absolutely screwed by the refs. I refuse to put this game on anything other than the refs, it was the biggest travesty in officiating I've witnessed over the duration of a game. 
  • Iowa - lost by 3 on 5/19 shooting, but gave up 80 points. I guess you can say hit one more shot and we go to OT, but I was more concerned with us getting lost on Bohannon multiple time slate. Hard for me to put the game on anything on offense when we score 77 and give up 80.
  • St. Mary's - 2/10 shooting but absolutely nothing went right at all. This was about running out of gas, no more and no less. 

 

From my perspective, there is 5 games we lost that really came back to shooting. You can make a case for more, could make a case for less in a couple of those too, but that seems like the right number to me. 

Excellent post. One area we can really improve on from last season which cost us a few games is wing defense. Specifically, individual wings who go off on us which happened multiple times last year. JHS should help with that immediately. An improved Bates would help. Banks could earn some PT doing that. Having Geronimo guarding a wing rather than being stuck under the basket should also help.

Stewart being gone will help and all his potential replacements are better defenders than he is. Phinisee is a good defender but he isn't long. JHS should be able to step into that role and with is size advantage be more effective.

Kopp is an okay defender but there are better options on this roster now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

If you go game by game on the losses, it is interesting as well....

  • Syracuse - we lost by 2 and shot 11/27 from three. I don't think anyone would argue we lost this game due to shooting..
  • Wisconsin - lost by 5 on 5/13 from three. Definitely can make a case for a higher volume, but we blew a huge lead. Hard to chalk this up to shooting....
  • Penn State - lost by 3 on 4/13 from three. This was a low scoring game and a disappointing loss - I'll certainly buy that shooting could've made a difference here but I'll also say it's a game we should have won regardless of poor shooting.
  • Iowa - lost by 9 and blew a lead again, shot 7/22 from three. We gave up 83 points, I can't really chalk this up to shooting as I think needing to make 4 more threes and shoot 50% to win is an unfair ask. That game was on the defense.
  • Michigan - lost by 18 on 5/19 shooting. Nothing went right in this game, can't blame it on shooting IMO.
  • Illinois - lost by 17 on 3/13 shooting. My recollection says that we had a lead or were right there until 10-12 minutes to go, and I'd actually buy hitting some more shots through the game could've made a big difference. Shooting, amongst other things, probably cost us this one. 
  • Northwestern - lost by 8 in the Windy City 5 game on 4/16 shooting. Sure, 7/17 would have won us the game but I don't think any of us feel like that loss was on the shooting. It was on some bad decisions. 
  • Michigan State - lost by 15 on 5/21 from three, and less than 40% on our twos. Again, hard to chalk that up to three point shooting.
  • Wisconsin - lost by 5 on 5/18 from three. We lead late and had some awful calls go against us, but hitting a couple shots down the stretch could have and would have made a difference. I'll put this on shooting as probably the top thing we could control in this one. 
  • Ohio State - lost by 11 in OT on 6/19 shooting. We weren't good from two in this game either, and I'd chalk the choke job up more so to the entire inability to get a bucket more than just poor shooting. But that was certainly part of the equation. So was not being able to get a stop late. 
  • Rutgers - lost by 3 and blew a lead again, losing on Harper's late dagger. Shot 6/21 from three. I guess you can call this shooting, but it seems to me that it wouldn't be the top of the list when you blow a lead at home on Senior Night. 
  • Purdue - lost by 2 on 5/20 shooting, but got absolutely screwed by the refs. I refuse to put this game on anything other than the refs, it was the biggest travesty in officiating I've witnessed over the duration of a game. 
  • Iowa - lost by 3 on 5/19 shooting, but gave up 80 points. I guess you can say hit one more shot and we go to OT, but I was more concerned with us getting lost on Bohannon multiple time slate. Hard for me to put the game on anything on offense when we score 77 and give up 80.
  • St. Mary's - 2/10 shooting but absolutely nothing went right at all. This was about running out of gas, no more and no less. 

 

From my perspective, there is 5 games we lost that really came back to shooting. You can make a case for more, could make a case for less in a couple of those too, but that seems like the right number to me. 

Thanks for the breakdown.  I will say though, hitting a few bombs opens things up.  You mentioned the 2 point field goal percentage being weak a few times as well.  All of it adds up to clogged lanes and difficult shots for everyone.  IU has lacked team confidence for 6-7 years now.  I think that monkey is finally shaken off to some extent this season.  Everyone is hungry, older, and have been challenged and trained by a seasoned veteran coach now for a solid year.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

If you go game by game on the losses, it is interesting as well....

  • Syracuse - we lost by 2 and shot 11/27 from three. I don't think anyone would argue we lost this game due to shooting..
  • Wisconsin - lost by 5 on 5/13 from three. Definitely can make a case for a higher volume, but we blew a huge lead. Hard to chalk this up to shooting....
  • Penn State - lost by 3 on 4/13 from three. This was a low scoring game and a disappointing loss - I'll certainly buy that shooting could've made a difference here but I'll also say it's a game we should have won regardless of poor shooting.
  • Iowa - lost by 9 and blew a lead again, shot 7/22 from three. We gave up 83 points, I can't really chalk this up to shooting as I think needing to make 4 more threes and shoot 50% to win is an unfair ask. That game was on the defense.
  • Michigan - lost by 18 on 5/19 shooting. Nothing went right in this game, can't blame it on shooting IMO.
  • Illinois - lost by 17 on 3/13 shooting. My recollection says that we had a lead or were right there until 10-12 minutes to go, and I'd actually buy hitting some more shots through the game could've made a big difference. Shooting, amongst other things, probably cost us this one. 
  • Northwestern - lost by 8 in the Windy City 5 game on 4/16 shooting. Sure, 7/17 would have won us the game but I don't think any of us feel like that loss was on the shooting. It was on some bad decisions. 
  • Michigan State - lost by 15 on 5/21 from three, and less than 40% on our twos. Again, hard to chalk that up to three point shooting.
  • Wisconsin - lost by 5 on 5/18 from three. We lead late and had some awful calls go against us, but hitting a couple shots down the stretch could have and would have made a difference. I'll put this on shooting as probably the top thing we could control in this one. 
  • Ohio State - lost by 11 in OT on 6/19 shooting. We weren't good from two in this game either, and I'd chalk the choke job up more so to the entire inability to get a bucket more than just poor shooting. But that was certainly part of the equation. So was not being able to get a stop late. 
  • Rutgers - lost by 3 and blew a lead again, losing on Harper's late dagger. Shot 6/21 from three. I guess you can call this shooting, but it seems to me that it wouldn't be the top of the list when you blow a lead at home on Senior Night. 
  • Purdue - lost by 2 on 5/20 shooting, but got absolutely screwed by the refs. I refuse to put this game on anything other than the refs, it was the biggest travesty in officiating I've witnessed over the duration of a game. 
  • Iowa - lost by 3 on 5/19 shooting, but gave up 80 points. I guess you can say hit one more shot and we go to OT, but I was more concerned with us getting lost on Bohannon multiple time slate. Hard for me to put the game on anything on offense when we score 77 and give up 80.
  • St. Mary's - 2/10 shooting but absolutely nothing went right at all. This was about running out of gas, no more and no less. 

 

From my perspective, there is 5 games we lost that really came back to shooting. You can make a case for more, could make a case for less in a couple of those too, but that seems like the right number to me. 

One of the big problems is a lack of balanced 3 pt shooting. We never spread out a defense from the perimeter. In the Rutgers game, X was 2-4, but Phin 0-2, Kopp 1-5 and Stewart 2-9. Kopp and Stewart had numerous open looks in the second half of a game IU lost by 3, but couldn't deliver. 

Against OSU, Stewart was 3-4, but X was 0-3, Bates was 1-4 and Kopp was 1-5. 

At PU, Kopp was 4-6, but RT was 1-4, Stewart and Phin were 0-2 and X was 0-4. 

There was no consistency and we never seemed to have more than one player shooting well. It's so frustrating seeing TJD kick out to wide open shooters for multiple misses. You could see it deflate TJD and the whole team at times. IU had only 3 players out of their first 7 in minutes played who shot over 30% from three. 

Compare that to MI. Of the top 6 players in minutes played, all but Diabate shot 33% or better from 3. If you gamble on defense or they make an extra pass or two they always seemed to have an open three, with at least a 1 in 3 chance of a make. That's how they could really get on some runs. 

Same with IA. 5 of their top 6 players were 32% or better. 

On and on. 

We can only hope for a more balanced attack this year. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned this before, but I think having 2 one dimensional scorers on the floor at the same time made us too easy to defend. 

The recipe was stick close to Kopp and Stewart because they can't get around you, and sag on X and Race, using their defenders to double team Trayce as a lot of the more knowledgeable posters pointed out during the year.

Didn't work on X and Race late in the year because they picked up their outside shooting. 

Stewart at times put in the effort on defense, but his physical limitations turned him into a fouling machine (tied with X at 2.6 per game in 170 less minutes total).

I'm sure JHS and/or Tamar can at least match the defensive part, but having a guy that can hit the mid range jumper (and at Montverde JHS displayed a solid mid range game) or get to the hole will help our offense. 

Down the stretch in the last 9 games (5-4), Stewart was 6-29 (21%) from 3. In the Illinois and Michigan games in the BTT, he was 1-4. Surely one of the young guys can match that... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IUFLA said:

I mentioned this before, but I think having 2 one dimensional scorers on the floor at the same time made us too easy to defend. 

The recipe was stick close to Kopp and Stewart because they can't get around you, and sag on X and Race, using their defenders to double team Trayce as a lot of the more knowledgeable posters pointed out during the year.

Didn't work on X and Race late in the year because they picked up their outside shooting. 

Stewart at times put in the effort on defense, but his physical limitations turned him into a fouling machine (tied with X at 2.6 per game in 170 less minutes total).

I'm sure JHS and/or Tamar can at least match the defensive part, but having a guy that can hit the mid range jumper (and at Montverde JHS displayed a solid mid range game) or get to the hole will help our offense. 

Down the stretch in the last 9 games (5-4), Stewart was 6-29 (21%) from 3. In the Illinois and Michigan games in the BTT, he was 1-4. Surely one of the young guys can match that... 

My mantra last year was that we should NEVER see Stewart and Kopp in at the same time or EVER see both Race and Trayce out at the same time.  But what do I know?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, eddy4iu said:

My mantra last year was that we should NEVER see Stewart and Kopp in at the same time or EVER see both Race and Trayce out at the same time.  But what do I know?

Agree, sometimes it's just not complicated.  Coaches make the biggest mistakes when they put a premium on experience and knowledge at the expense of development and upside.  How many times did we look at the box score and Kopp and Stewie would combine for something like 61 minutes and 7 points?  It wasn't a one time thing.  We talked about it over and over again.  It as way to many empty minutes.

Hopefully, going forward, this won't happen.  Woody is going after bigger, tough minded wings who will be a load to deal with.

Edited by BobSaccamanno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t remember the specifics but I remember someone made a boneheaded play. The camera coverage was perfect, as it caught Woodson looking down the bench with Rob, Lander and Trey in street clothes. Not seeing any answers he turned to the ref and called time out. Our options in the backcourt and wings weren’t strong, gotta believe this year will be different!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, BobSaccamanno said:

Agree, sometimes it's just not complicated.  Coaches make the biggest mistakes when they put a premium on experience and knowledge at the expense of development and upside.  How many times did we look at the box score and Kopp and Stewie would combine for something like 61 minutes and 7 points?  It wasn't a one time thing.  We talked about it over and over again.  It as way to many empty minutes.

Hopefully, going forward, this won't happen.  Woody is going after bigger, tough minded wings who will be a load to deal with.

While I certainly understand the sentiment between you, @eddy4iu, and many others about those two - this just isn't really accurate.

Minutes Points
87 48
67 15
66 19
65 11
60 7
60 18
58 11
58 4
57 17
57 13
55 16
55 10
50 19
49 9
49 9
48 23
48 13
48 8
46 15
46 10
46 14
45 9
42 21
42 15
42 8
41 3
39 8
39 7
38 5
37 14
36 4
35 6
34 3
33 6
31 2

A couple outliers for sure, but for the most part when they played more minutes together their scoring was 'okay'. Between injuries and youthfulness we really just didn't have options. Galloway played a lot when he was healthy, so did Phinisee. Tamar just wasn't ready, I'm pretty sure I've seen you talk about how not ready he was on defense several times. Where was Woody supposed to go exactly? 

Edited by KoB2011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

While I certainly understand the sentiment between you, @eddy4iu, and many others about those two - this just isn't really accurate.

Minutes Points
87 48
67 15
66 19
65 11
60 7
60 18
58 11
58 4
57 17
57 13
55 16
55 10
50 19
49 9
49 9
48 23
48 13
48 8
46 15
46 10
46 14
45 9
42 21
42 15
42 8
41 3
39 8
39 7
38 5
37 14
36 4
35 6
34 3
33 6
31 2

A couple outliers for sure, but for the most part when they played more minutes together their scoring was 'okay'. 

I don't think those number are as impressive as you do.  There are a lot of problem games in there.  And they are on the wings where you want good production.   Low points at point guard is one thing.  On the wings, the problem is more pronounced.  I would also like to see who the opponent is.  Getting 40 points against Middle Kansas State is different than consistently doing it against good B1G teams.  IMO of course.   

I think we can do way better.

Edited by BobSaccamanno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

While I certainly understand the sentiment between you, @eddy4iu, and many others about those two - this just isn't really accurate.

Minutes Points
87 48
67 15
66 19
65 11
60 7
60 18
58 11
58 4
57 17
57 13
55 16
55 10
50 19
49 9
49 9
48 23
48 13
48 8
46 15
46 10
46 14
45 9
42 21
42 15
42 8
41 3
39 8
39 7
38 5
37 14
36 4
35 6
34 3
33 6
31 2

A couple outliers for sure, but for the most part when they played more minutes together their scoring was 'okay'. 

That's 16 games where they combined for single digit points. Only 3 games where they combined for 20 or more. For 2 starters, that is far from impressive.

Fortunately, Stewart has moved on. Kopp should see a reduction in minutes unless he can increase his production.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...