Jerome Hunter's Improvement

[IU Scott]

3 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

this is one thing we agree on.  I would like to see the first non injury/foul trouble sub to happen around the 4-8 minute mark.  Let these guys get into a rhythm and work through any rough or slow starts.  Then at half time, look at what line-up or guys have performed the best and go with them

I know I never played at a high level but I always felt more comfortable when I knew I would be in the game most of the time.  You need to get into the flow of the game to get your rhythm especially if you are a shooter.  I think if a player knows he will only get a few minutes they will try to force things to early when they enter the game.  To me with the players having better training and being in better physical condition today that the players would be able to play longer minutes.

[BGleas]

34 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I know I never played at a high level but I always felt more comfortable when I knew I would be in the game most of the time.  You need to get into the flow of the game to get your rhythm especially if you are a shooter.  I think if a player knows he will only get a few minutes they will try to force things to early when they enter the game.  To me with the players having better training and being in better physical condition today that the players would be able to play longer minutes.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the flip side to your point is that a bench player feels much more comfortable when they know when they're going into the game. They can get themselves more mentally prepared when they know roughly the minute mark that they're entering the game and for who.  

You see it in the NBA all of the time. Typically the first round of substitutions in an NBA game the coach doesn't even tell the player to go in, he just gets up and checks in because he knows "at the 4-minute mark of the 1st quarter I'm going in for player X".  

[IU878176]

5 hours ago, btownqb said:

Congrats on wasting your time! DD is an idiot btw. 

Recruits, coaches, players, some offense and some defense we as fans are farrrrrrrrrr more knowledgeable than we are about who should and shouldn't be in the game. Just leave that to the coaches.... really not that hard, honestly. 

Ha.

It would be very helpful if you could add an electronic request form in which we could apply for permission to comment on different topics. 
 

[KoB2011]

11 hours ago, BGleas said:

I agree as well. There has absolutely been improvement, albeit gradual, especially the last 3 weeks or so. You also mentioned playing the last two road games better, but I'd add in the Minnesota game as well and make it the last 3 road games. And as you've said, a big part of the improvement is guys like Hunter and Race, and to an extent Rob getting healthy and comfortable. It bodes well for next season.

The flip side though is that IU has lost 7 of their last 10, including not showing up at all in 4 of those games, and blowing a late 5 point lead in another. I don't bring that up to be negative necessarily, I just think momentum for a program at this stage is so important, and IU needs to find a way to win these last 2 home games and then win 1-2 in the BTT. Going into the Tournament and the offseason with some momentum is really important. 

Then barring any major, unexpected changes and assuming a Lander reclass, I do think in year 4 for Archie Miller there needs to be a bigger leap. I'm not saying he'd be in trouble of losing his job or anything, but IMO with most of the team coming back (especially TJD) and the 2020 class including Lander, the improvement needs to spike more. For example, it will be disappointing if we improve next year but it's to something like 6th or 7th in the conference. By year 4 the leap should be to a conference contender IMO. 

I kinda agree with what you're saying, kinda not. 

Regardless of Landers, let's assume we win the next two. That makes us 20-11 and 10-10 in the conference. We may be frustrated with some things, but that is steady improvement. We would go from a team that narrowly missed the tournament to a team that comfortably made it. A team in the 50s to a team in the 30s. A below .500 conference team to a. 500 conference team. 

If we keep that same level of improvement up we are talking a top 5 conference finish and a top 5 seed. 

It seems to me we are following the lose big, lose little, win little, win big model very well to this point. Isn't that what most of us wanted and what we said leads to sustainable long-term success?

[NCHoosier32]

14 hours ago, IU Scott said:

I just think these coaches today is to worried about keeping their players happy with their playing time they try to play to many players.  I would prefer a rotation of 8 players that played and only use the rest if needed for foul trouble or injury.

I remember when Dean smith use to rotate 5 new guys in at a time and I think that is what caused him not to win as many championships.

see i have always agreed with this and most argue with me.  just no reason to play more than 8-9 guys in a close game.  also no reason to sit any of your best 5 very many minutes unless foul trouble, injury, or bad play.  we worry about keeping everyone happy and load management.  seriously?  it's the new bball society though.  

[NCHoosier32]

14 hours ago, Billingsley99 said:

To me it just feels too scripted. Part of being a good coach is a gut feeling or riding a hot hand. As a player it usually takes a few trips up and down to get a feel and to get some flow.when you sub 4 guys at once it really limits the offense and the flow of the game IMO

i also don't like scripted subs at all.  as a coach i like to have a certain time in mind that i am thinking about a sub or subs, but it depends on game flow, performance, lots of things.