Jump to content

Decision Making


Recommended Posts

I'm trying to figure this out and would appreciate feedback:  Who's primarily to blame for this team's poor decision making...coaching staff or players.  Coaching staff has to be working on the team's deficiencies everyday.  Players should be able to, over the course of the season, improve on their decision making.   However, it seems like we have complete stagnation?  It seems like at this level, we should be seeing improvement...regardless. Every time we get close, it seems like we revert back to grade school basketball IQ. This makes me wonder if there's a major cancer in the clubhouse or if this coaching staff has bit off more than they can chew.  I'm continuously giving CAM a pass, but I have my doubts now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hoosierburgh said:

I'm trying to figure this out and would appreciate feedback:  Who's primarily to blame for this team's poor decision making...coaching staff or players.  Coaching staff has to be working on the team's deficiencies everyday.  Players should be able to, over the course of the season, improve on their decision making.   However, it seems like we have complete stagnation?  It seems like at this level, we should be seeing improvement...regardless. Every time we get close, it seems like we revert back to grade school basketball IQ. This makes me wonder if there's a major cancer in the clubhouse or if this coaching staff has bit off more than they can chew.  I'm continuously giving CAM a pass, but I have my doubts now

We are really young. Really young teams typically only win if they have an incredible amount of talent; we don't have that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hoosierburgh said:

I'm trying to figure this out and would appreciate feedback:  Who's primarily to blame for this team's poor decision making...coaching staff or players.  Coaching staff has to be working on the team's deficiencies everyday.  Players should be able to, over the course of the season, improve on their decision making.   However, it seems like we have complete stagnation?  It seems like at this level, we should be seeing improvement...regardless. Every time we get close, it seems like we revert back to grade school basketball IQ. This makes me wonder if there's a major cancer in the clubhouse or if this coaching staff has bit off more than they can chew.  I'm continuously giving CAM a pass, but I have my doubts now

Everyone is to blame

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know I am also starting to waiver on Archie. This team isn’t playing as good as last years. I thought getting rid of Newkirk would automatically improve us. The team collectively has step up to prove me wrong! I think Archie and his Staff need to take there share of blame! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Bob said:

I don’t know I am also starting to waiver on Archie. This team isn’t playing as good as last years. I thought getting rid of Newkirk would automatically improve us. The team collectively has step up to prove me wrong! I think Archie and his Staff need to take there share of blame! 

I feel like they're playing hard.  If teams give up on the season and the coach, then typically the effort will be noticeably down.  That's not happening.  They just can't seem to make the right decisions in critical times.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KoB2011 said:

We are really young. Really young teams typically only win if they have an incredible amount of talent; we don't have that. 

This is part of it and I believe a big one at that.  I have read many complaints on this board "we have heard that every year since 20XX".  Yes, you have.  It's because it's true.  When was the last time we had 3 senior starters for a year? 2 for a season?  When was the last time our lineup consisted of 8 rotation guys with 5 of them being upperclassmen?  We give our rival tons of crap, and rightfully so.  However, one thing CMP has right, "you have to stay old in this business".  One last question, CAMs last 5 years, what % of minutes went to upperclassmen and what was his record over that span.

Normally I would look up the answers to all of these questions or know them before asking.  However, I am at work and have limited time atm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KoB2011 said:

We are really young. Really young teams typically only win if they have an incredible amount of talent; we don't have that. 

I’d argue Purdue and IU have similar rosters in terms of youth versus upperclassmen and I’d probably argue that IU has more overall talent than Purdue. So why such a significant difference in the results so far? I know IU has dealt with injuries but even with that being said, I didn’t expect this type of gap between the two teams this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Stlboiler23 said:

I’d argue Purdue and IU have similar rosters in terms of youth versus upperclassmen and I’d probably argue that IU has more overall talent than Purdue. So why such a significant difference in the results so far? I know IU has dealt with injuries but even with that being said, I didn’t expect this type of gap between the two teams this year. 

Purdue has some very good outside shooters.  We just dont! Not even close

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Stlboiler23 said:

Fair point. Cline has really stepped up his game this year too. 

Edwards draws attention of all 5 defenders and he Cline and Eifort can all hit 3s stretching the defense and putting stress on them. That opens up gapping driving lanes and room for Williams and Haarms to operate in the lane. Of course you guys all play fundamental defense as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bob said:

I don’t buy that we are young stuff! There are a lot of teams as young as we are. Since so many players are one and drones are only play two three years and move on. 

There’s a difference in the one and done talents Duke and UK get and the rest of the teams.  Everyone has become so enthralled with the one and done, that most people forget how most freshmen take time to develop.  If you look at most of the top teams, they have good experience (ie. Tennessee), while one team is stacked with ELITE one and done talent (Duke).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bob said:

I don’t buy that we are young stuff! There are a lot of teams as young as we are. Since so many players are one and drones are only play two three years and move on. 

this is my thing.  saying a team is young in college bball these days seems like an excuse that most teams deal with.  if you're competing to be a top 20 program, you're often going to be young as so few top players stay 4 years.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NCHoosier32 said:

this is my thing.  saying a team is young in college bball these days seems like an excuse that most teams deal with.  if you're competing to be a top 20 program, you're often going to be young as so few top players stay 4 years.  

So, I looked at the rosters of the 16 teams that were just named by the NCAA as the top seeds for the tournament.

Assigning a point total to equal the number of years each starter has played--4 for a Senior, 3 for a junior, and so on. I chose the 5 players from each team that had started the most games.

Duke--4 freshman, 1 junior   7 points

Michigan --1 Senior, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore, 1 freshman  13 points

Marquette--3 Seniors, 1 sophomore, 1 freshman   15 points

Iowa State--2 Seniors, 1 junior, 2 freshman   13 points

Virginia--1 Senior, 3 juniors, 1 sophomore   15 points

Houston--3 Seniors, 1 sophomore, 1 freshman  15 points

Kentucky--1 Senior, 1 sophomore, 3 freshman  9 points

Wisconsin--2 Seniors, 3 sophomores  14 points

Tennessee-- 2 Seniors, 2 juniors , 1 sophomore  16 points

Purdue- --2 Seniors, 1 junior, 2 sophomores  15 points

North Carolina-- 3 Seniors, 1 sophomore, 1 freshman  15 points

Nevada -- 5 Seniors  20 points

Gonzaga-- 1 Senior, 2 juniors, 2 sophomores  14 points

Kansas--1 Senior, 1 junior, 1 sophomore, 2 freshman  11 points * skewed because of injury to Azubuike

Michigan St. --2 seniors, 2 juniors and Ahrens junior or Henry freshman  17 or 15 points

Louisville--1 Senior, 2 juniors, 2 sophomores  14 points

Using the lower of the two MSU scores, the average for all 16 teams is 13.75. Only one team Duke, had no senior starters. 5 teams had 1 senior starter. The rest have multiple seniors.

IU starts 1 Senior, 2 sophomores and 2 freshmen, for a score of 10. Not surprisingly, only Duke and UK have lower scores. 

Please tell me how young and inexperienced isn't at a disadvantage. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Steubenhoosier said:

So, I looked at the rosters of the 16 teams that were just named by the NCAA as the top seeds for the tournament.

Assigning a point total to equal the number of years each starter has played--4 for a Senior, 3 for a junior, and so on. I chose the 5 players from each team that had started the most games.

Duke--4 freshman, 1 junior   7 points

Michigan --1 Senior, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore, 1 freshman  13 points

Marquette--3 Seniors, 1 sophomore, 1 freshman   15 points

Iowa State--2 Seniors, 1 junior, 1 freshman   12 points

Virginia--1 Senior, 3 juniors, 1 sophomore   15 points

Houston--3 Seniors, 1 sophomore, 1 freshman  15 points

Kentucky--1 Senior, 1 sophomore, 3 freshman  9 points

Wisconsin--2 Seniors, 3 sophomores  14 points

Tennessee-- 2 Seniors, 2 juniors , 1 sophomore  16 points

Purdue- --2 Seniors, 1 junior, 2 sophomores  15 points

North Carolina-- 3 Seniors, 1 sophomore, 1 freshman  15 points

Nevada -- 5 Seniors  20 points

Gonzaga-- 1 Senior, 2 juniors, 2 sophomores  14 points

Kansas--1 Senior, 1 junior, 1 sophomore, 2 freshman  11 points * skewed because of injury to Azubuike

Michigan St. --2 seniors, 2 juniors and Ahrens junior or Henry freshman  17 or 15 points

Louisville--1 Senior, 2 juniors, 2 sophomores  14 points

Using the lower of the two MSU scores, the average for all 16 teams is 13.75. Only one team Duke, had no senior starters. 5 teams had 1 senior starter. The rest have multiple seniors.

IU starts 1 Senior, 2 sophomores and 2 freshmen, for a score of 10. Not surprisingly, only Duke and UK have lower scores. 

Please tell me how young and inexperienced isn't at a disadvantage. 

 

 

Actually you probably could have given Nevada 25 points because they start 5 5th year seniors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steubenhoosier said:

So, I looked at the rosters of the 16 teams that were just named by the NCAA as the top seeds for the tournament.

Assigning a point total to equal the number of years each starter has played--4 for a Senior, 3 for a junior, and so on. I chose the 5 players from each team that had started the most games.

Duke--4 freshman, 1 junior   7 points

Michigan --1 Senior, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore, 1 freshman  13 points

Marquette--3 Seniors, 1 sophomore, 1 freshman   15 points

Iowa State--2 Seniors, 1 junior, 1 freshman   12 points

Virginia--1 Senior, 3 juniors, 1 sophomore   15 points

Houston--3 Seniors, 1 sophomore, 1 freshman  15 points

Kentucky--1 Senior, 1 sophomore, 3 freshman  9 points

Wisconsin--2 Seniors, 3 sophomores  14 points

Tennessee-- 2 Seniors, 2 juniors , 1 sophomore  16 points

Purdue- --2 Seniors, 1 junior, 2 sophomores  15 points

North Carolina-- 3 Seniors, 1 sophomore, 1 freshman  15 points

Nevada -- 5 Seniors  20 points

Gonzaga-- 1 Senior, 2 juniors, 2 sophomores  14 points

Kansas--1 Senior, 1 junior, 1 sophomore, 2 freshman  11 points * skewed because of injury to Azubuike

Michigan St. --2 seniors, 2 juniors and Ahrens junior or Henry freshman  17 or 15 points

Louisville--1 Senior, 2 juniors, 2 sophomores  14 points

Using the lower of the two MSU scores, the average for all 16 teams is 13.75. Only one team Duke, had no senior starters. 5 teams had 1 senior starter. The rest have multiple seniors.

IU starts 1 Senior, 2 sophomores and 2 freshmen, for a score of 10. Not surprisingly, only Duke and UK have lower scores. 

Please tell me how young and inexperienced isn't at a disadvantage. 

 

 

Pretty telling stuff and as much as I suspected.  Thanks for this. 

Going forward, it obvious you cannot have 3-5 seniors every year.  Having some combination of 3-4 upperclassmen is vital.  A number low enough to allow for early departures, but high enough for experienced continuity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Stlboiler23 said:

I’d argue Purdue and IU have similar rosters in terms of youth versus upperclassmen and I’d probably argue that IU has more overall talent than Purdue. So why such a significant difference in the results so far? I know IU has dealt with injuries but even with that being said, I didn’t expect this type of gap between the two teams this year. 

I'd argue Purdue being able to succeed versus us fail has to do with continuity of culture.  Archie is still trying to implement a culture and this cannot be underappreciated. It would be one thing if we had upperclassmen who could show us the way, but really we have only Morgan that can do that and I would argue he is a lead by example guy, not vocal.  We don't have a culture the young guys can assimilate into.  The other issue has already been mentioned and that it is outside shooting.  We are not giving our two best players room to work with down low due to defenses being able to pack in the paint.  Both Romeo and Juwan are both best around the paint, but they have no space to work with and can't pass out to an open shooter at the three to consistently knock it down and thus defense sag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Steubenhoosier said:

So, I looked at the rosters of the 16 teams that were just named by the NCAA as the top seeds for the tournament.

Assigning a point total to equal the number of years each starter has played--4 for a Senior, 3 for a junior, and so on. I chose the 5 players from each team that had started the most games.

Duke--4 freshman, 1 junior   7 points

Michigan --1 Senior, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore, 1 freshman  13 points

Marquette--3 Seniors, 1 sophomore, 1 freshman   15 points

Iowa State--2 Seniors, 1 junior, 2 freshman   13 points

Virginia--1 Senior, 3 juniors, 1 sophomore   15 points

Houston--3 Seniors, 1 sophomore, 1 freshman  15 points

Kentucky--1 Senior, 1 sophomore, 3 freshman  9 points

Wisconsin--2 Seniors, 3 sophomores  14 points

Tennessee-- 2 Seniors, 2 juniors , 1 sophomore  16 points

Purdue- --2 Seniors, 1 junior, 2 sophomores  15 points

North Carolina-- 3 Seniors, 1 sophomore, 1 freshman  15 points

Nevada -- 5 Seniors  20 points

Gonzaga-- 1 Senior, 2 juniors, 2 sophomores  14 points

Kansas--1 Senior, 1 junior, 1 sophomore, 2 freshman  11 points * skewed because of injury to Azubuike

Michigan St. --2 seniors, 2 juniors and Ahrens junior or Henry freshman  17 or 15 points

Louisville--1 Senior, 2 juniors, 2 sophomores  14 points

Using the lower of the two MSU scores, the average for all 16 teams is 13.75. Only one team Duke, had no senior starters. 5 teams had 1 senior starter. The rest have multiple seniors.

IU starts 1 Senior, 2 sophomores and 2 freshmen, for a score of 10. Not surprisingly, only Duke and UK have lower scores. 

Please tell me how young and inexperienced isn't at a disadvantage. 

 

 

Good stuff Steuben.  Duke may be inexperienced, but their freshman class could go down as the best ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...