Jump to content

Juwan Morgan's Comments / Playing for Future


Recommended Posts

To me it's perfectly said by a Senior who (as far as we know) has given his all to IU. Also could be viewed as leaving a parting gift to a few who maybe don't go all out. I don't want to turn this thread into that debate so I'll leave it alone. 

I applaud JM for those comments. Honestly wish they were said in Mid-January. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

To me it's perfectly said by a Senior who (as far as we know) has given his all to IU. Also could be viewed as leaving a parting gift to a few who maybe don't go all out. I don't want to turn this thread into that debate so I'll leave it alone. 

I applaud JM for those comments. Honestly wish they were said in Mid-January. 

So here is what bothers me.  Miller said that he is only looking to play guys who have that fire and are chomping at the bit on the bench ready to go.  Those guys have been on that bench the entire bleeping year.  When that lack of effort was being shown by players when we had lost 4 of 5, 5 of 6, 6 of 7, 7 of 8, etc. why was that bench not used?  Why did it take the season to completely go down the tubes before we finally saw some guys get yanked?  And please do not give me the no one was available injury excuse.  Anderson, Forrester, and Moore have been healthy all year.  You need more guards, play Jager or another walk on.  We were losing those games anyway.  

After we had gotten to the point where we had lost 3 or 4 in a row, the change should have been made.  Instead guys were allowed to do whatever the heck they wanted with no repercussions.  That kills morale for those playing and for those not playing.  I really hope Miller learned something this season.  Sometimes taking a loss to send a message is better than continuing to double down on bad habits in the hope of getting a win with "better" players.

I also hope that the non hackers get sent packing at this point.  If you have been a problem this year and you show up for the NIT with a crap attitude, don't let the door hit you on the way out.  The team is better off without you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IUCrazy2 said:

So here is what bothers me.  Miller said that he is only looking to play guys who have that fire and are chomping at the bit on the bench ready to go.  Those guys have been on that bench the entire bleeping year.  When that lack of effort was being shown by players when we had lost 4 of 5, 5 of 6, 6 of 7, 7 of 8, etc. why was that bench not used?  Why did it take the season to completely go down the tubes before we finally saw some guys get yanked?  And please do not give me the no one was available injury excuse.  Anderson, Forrester, and Moore have been healthy all year.  You need more guards, play Jager or another walk on.  We were losing those games anyway.  

After we had gotten to the point where we had lost 3 or 4 in a row, the change should have been made.  Instead guys were allowed to do whatever the heck they wanted with no repercussions.  That kills morale for those playing and for those not playing.  I really hope Miller learned something this season.  Sometimes taking a loss to send a message is better than continuing to double down on bad habits in the hope of getting a win with "better" players.

I also hope that the non hackers get sent packing at this point.  If you have been a problem this year and you show up for the NIT with a crap attitude, don't let the door hit you on the way out.  The team is better off without you.

This is just a thought for conversation. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Archie's approach. What I will say is that sometimes coaches do things in the short term to benefit the long....meaning he wanted his players who he knew were going to be a part of things (long term)  to dig themselves out of trouble.

Again...not saying which way is right or wrong but I think a guy like Archie (undersized PG who had success in ACC) wanted to check a few of the guys for the long term while taking short term hits. Only way to find out what you have and what you need for the season and upcoming seasons. Something clicked there for a little bit so some could say letting the guys dig out themselves was working....but of course Thursday happened and we go back to some of these conversations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, IUCrazy2 said:

So here is what bothers me.  Miller said that he is only looking to play guys who have that fire and are chomping at the bit on the bench ready to go.  Those guys have been on that bench the entire bleeping year.  When that lack of effort was being shown by players when we had lost 4 of 5, 5 of 6, 6 of 7, 7 of 8, etc. why was that bench not used?  Why did it take the season to completely go down the tubes before we finally saw some guys get yanked?  And please do not give me the no one was available injury excuse.  Anderson, Forrester, and Moore have been healthy all year.  You need more guards, play Jager or another walk on.  We were losing those games anyway.  

After we had gotten to the point where we had lost 3 or 4 in a row, the change should have been made.  Instead guys were allowed to do whatever the heck they wanted with no repercussions.  That kills morale for those playing and for those not playing.  I really hope Miller learned something this season.  Sometimes taking a loss to send a message is better than continuing to double down on bad habits in the hope of getting a win with "better" players.

I also hope that the non hackers get sent packing at this point.  If you have been a problem this year and you show up for the NIT with a crap attitude, don't let the door hit you on the way out.  The team is better off without you.

If you go back and look at the bad stretch, those very guys WERE the bench.  Look at vs. Nebraska, at Purdue, at Rutgers....they were the bench because everyone was hurt....and it was a disaster.  So as the team got healthier and there was a season to save, Archie should have gone back to the disaster?  And the guy(s) that Morgan is likely talking about weren't consistently bad effort wise.  There would be great effort one day and none the next, leaving Miller guessing on what he would get.  I am not completely disagreeing with you, but I don't think it was as easy as you suggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Daily Hoosier said:

If you go back and look at the bad stretch, those very guys WERE the bench.  Look at vs. Nebraska, at Purdue, at Rutgers....they were the bench because everyone was hurt....and it was a disaster.  So as the team got healthier and there was a season to save, Archie should have gone back to the disaster?  And the guy(s) that Morgan is likely talking about weren't consistently bad effort wise.  There would be great effort one day and none the next, leaving Miller guessing on what he would get.  I am not completely disagreeing with you, but I don't think it was as easy as you suggest.

Agreed. I think each of those guys were given a shot, and they were pretty bad. Not to single him out, but Damezi was just awful. As a coach, you also have to keep in mind whether you're destroying the confidence of guys who aren't ready by throwing them into the fire too early. Archie was stuck in a lose/lose situation there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Daily Hoosier said:

If you go back and look at the bad stretch, those very guys WERE the bench.  Look at vs. Nebraska, at Purdue, at Rutgers....they were the bench because everyone was hurt....and it was a disaster.  So as the team got healthier and there was a season to save, Archie should have gone back to the disaster?  And the guy(s) that Morgan is likely talking about weren't consistently bad effort wise.  There would be great effort one day and none the next, leaving Miller guessing on what he would get.  I am not completely disagreeing with you, but I don't think it was as easy as you suggest.

No, the disaster is guys like Justin Smith deciding to show up one game and then taking 4 off.  That is what lost us games, not playing Anderson and Forrester for a few minutes here and there.

You can tell within about 5 minutes with certain players whether they came to play or not.  Quite often during that down stretch, we had guys who had no business being on the court getting a ton of minutes.  And they had no business to be on the court mot because they were less talented, it was more because, like Juwan said, they did not care.  I would have fully supported losing games if Miller came out and said that we have some guys who should be playing based on their talent but I am sitting them because of their attitude and that led to us losing games.  I do not support coddling these guys while the season burned down around them.  We coddled for about 10 games and we lost every single one of them.  And the turn around started to occur when the bench was finally used.  And when those guys got comfortable, they were right back to their crap habits against Ohio State.

Like I said, I hope this was a learning experience for Miller.  He is not getting chip on their shoulder type of players here like at Dayton.  He is getting guys who have been coddled and treated like the best thing since sliced bread by most of the people around them.  He needs to learn how to deal with those guys quickly or he will not be around long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, IUCrazy2 said:

So here is what bothers me.  Miller said that he is only looking to play guys who have that fire and are chomping at the bit on the bench ready to go.  Those guys have been on that bench the entire bleeping year.  When that lack of effort was being shown by players when we had lost 4 of 5, 5 of 6, 6 of 7, 7 of 8, etc. why was that bench not used?  Why did it take the season to completely go down the tubes before we finally saw some guys get yanked?  And please do not give me the no one was available injury excuse.  Anderson, Forrester, and Moore have been healthy all year.  You need more guards, play Jager or another walk on.  We were losing those games anyway.  

After we had gotten to the point where we had lost 3 or 4 in a row, the change should have been made.  Instead guys were allowed to do whatever the heck they wanted with no repercussions.  That kills morale for those playing and for those not playing.  I really hope Miller learned something this season.  Sometimes taking a loss to send a message is better than continuing to double down on bad habits in the hope of getting a win with "better" players.

I also hope that the non hackers get sent packing at this point.  If you have been a problem this year and you show up for the NIT with a crap attitude, don't let the door hit you on the way out.  The team is better off without you.

Well early on during that losing streak we were not fully healthy so it was hard to use the bench as a motivator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Well early on during that losing streak we were not fully healthy so it was hard to use the bench as a motivator.

I debunked that in the post you responded to Scott.  Anderson, Forrester, Moore, the walk ons....we had guys on that bench who were capable of playing.

What you are making the mistake of doing is saying that we did not have our more talented guys healthy enough to take those spots and therefore we did not have anyone on the bench who would help us win.  That is not the argument I am making.  I am saying that we had the wrong guys losing those games for us.  Which group do you respect more, Crean's first team that had little talent but busted their butts while playing games or guys with all the talent in the world who just do not seem to care enough?  Now in the long term, you need talent.  However, in the short term if you need to send a message, you sit those starters who are capable but are not giving the necessary effort and replace them with guys who are not there yet but who will give you their all.  I would rather lose with the guys giving their all to send a message to the guys who are not then to play those guys in some hope that you can win when you are in the middle of losing 12 out of 13 games.  Letting the talented guys "play through it" should have ended after about 3 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HoosierJax said:

Thats all fine,well and good...but its easy to talk,lets see it on the floor,lets see if all this talk is followed up by action.. thats what gets the attention. 

That’s been one of my main gripes with Archie.  He has talked a lot about things (like we need to find a way to get “insert name” some playing time, etc., but never does it.) Don’t get me wrong though, I think he’s the right guy for the job......just needs to learn to use “ass, meet bench” more when players aren’t giving maximum effort (but I think he’s done a better job of this later in the season, particularly with Smith)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, IUCrazy2 said:

I debunked that in the post you responded to Scott.  Anderson, Forrester, Moore, the walk ons....we had guys on that bench who were capable of playing.

What you are making the mistake of doing is saying that we did not have our more talented guys healthy enough to take those spots and therefore we did not have anyone on the bench who would help us win.  That is not the argument I am making.  I am saying that we had the wrong guys losing those games for us.  Which group do you respect more, Crean's first team that had little talent but busted their butts while playing games or guys with all the talent in the world who just do not seem to care enough?  Now in the long term, you need talent.  However, in the short term if you need to send a message, you sit those starters who are capable but are not giving the necessary effort and replace them with guys who are not there yet but who will give you their all.  I would rather lose with the guys giving their all to send a message to the guys who are not then to play those guys in some hope that you can win when you are in the middle of losing 12 out of 13 games.  Letting the talented guys "play through it" should have ended after about 3 games.

That's a fair counterpoint.  Archie may well agree doing post-season analysis.

...and had he known IU was going to lose 12/13 games, I'd just about bet he would have used the bench a lot more.  Problem is...how do you know in advance when your kids are going to snap out of it and play.  For certain he didn't want to throw winnable games and toss out a tourney invite in the process.  This is one of those things that's much easier to see in hindsight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we do seem to know at this point is that Archie can win in this league IF the players play his brand of basketball consistently.  The question is will he be able to build this program's culture so that his players give the required effort.  If he can do this than we will be a happy fan-base, if not he will not be at IU for the long term.  I personally think he can, but what do I know? I like his approach, I like the way we perform when we compete, I like the way he talks about the game.  He doesn't make me cringe, and if he ever is asked to take a shot in Hawaii on live tv, I know he would look better than another coach did a few years back.  Keep working Archie, keep looking for kids like Morgan who stay for multiple years and give max effort.  Nothing against Brooks, but we need players that play multiple years.  If we have any OADs, they should be unstoppable on the court, a la Zion.  Otherwise, give me a Morgan every day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

That's a fair counterpoint.  Archie may well agree doing post-season analysis.

...and had he known IU was going to lose 12/13 games, I'd just about bet he would have used the bench a lot more.  Problem is...how do you know in advance when your kids are going to snap out of it and play.  For certain he didn't want to throw winnable games and toss out a tourney invite in the process.  This is one of those things that's much easier to see in hindsight.

There were people on this board begging for him to do it when it was occurring though.  To me, after 3 or 4 games is when I would have started to sit guys.  It took Miller around 9 or 10 IIRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, IUDan93 said:

What we do seem to know at this point is that Archie can win in this league IF the players play his brand of basketball consistently.  The question is will he be able to build this program's culture so that his players give the required effort.  If he can do this than we will be a happy fan-base, if not he will not be at IU for the long term.  I personally think he can, but what do I know? I like his approach, I like the way we perform when we compete, I like the way he talks about the game.  He doesn't make me cringe, and if he ever is asked to take a shot in Hawaii on live tv, I know he would look better than another coach did a few years back.  Keep working Archie, keep looking for kids like Morgan who stay for multiple years and give max effort.  Nothing against Brooks, but we need players that play multiple years.  If we have any OADs, they should be unstoppable on the court, a la Zion.  Otherwise, give me a Morgan every day of the week.

I totally agree with you here, especially regarding the type of player to recruit.  Give me the kid who hasn't been told that he's great...a sure pro...since he was in junior high school.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you consider that adults behave in that manner, it's no surprise kids do.  Based on what I saw at the end of the season, they apparently worked through it.  Bad judgment, yes, but apparently they were able to get past it and that's a credit to both, especially Justin.  For anyone dogging Justin on his attitude, he probably deserves a mental apology and some respect for being able to work past something like that.  That's my last word on the matter...probably something we should put to bed sooner vs. later in the interest of not rubbing salt in the wound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

When you consider that adults behave in that manner, it's no surprise kids do.  Based on what I saw at the end of the season, they apparently worked through it.  Bad judgment, yes, but apparently they were able to get past it and that's a credit to both, especially Justin.  For anyone dogging Justin on his attitude, he probably deserves a mental apology and some respect for being able to work past something like that.  That's my last word on the matter...probably something we should put to bed sooner vs. later in the interest of not rubbing salt in the wound.

Yep.  Feel bad for the kid honestly, couldn’t/can’t be easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

When you consider that adults behave in that manner, it's no surprise kids do.  Based on what I saw at the end of the season, they apparently worked through it.  Bad judgment, yes, but apparently they were able to get past it and that's a credit to both, especially Justin.  For anyone dogging Justin on his attitude, he probably deserves a mental apology and some respect for being able to work past something like that.  That's my last word on the matter...probably something we should put to bed sooner vs. later in the interest of not rubbing salt in the wound.

Well said FKIM01...Totally agree. I sure don't live in a glass house....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...