Jump to content

Transfer Portal--2020


rico

Recommended Posts

Well...this is a lively debate. 😂

I won't say that knight's teams were devoid of talent, but you can count me on the side of Knight getting more from less.  I'd venture to guess more than a few of his players would have been less successful under other coaches.  Surely that's stating the obvious here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 739
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, BGleas said:

I didn't say he needed elite talent, I said he had elite talent. To say otherwise is flatout 100% false. 

I don't have the lineup cards in front of me. As always we understand and respect your opinion.....but check out the IU lineups Knight had in 80's vs UNC, Louisville, UCLA, Duke, Houston, Georgetown....shoot even Maryland, Michigan, NC State and Illinois had more talent. So the point would be everyone had elite talent but only coach knew what to do with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

So just for conversation and logic you'll also agree that Brad Stevens needed Hayward and Shelvin Mack (2 NBA Players) and Bo Ryan needed 2-3 NBA guys on his Final 4 teams to become classified as tacticians and good coaches?  Kind of diminishes the coaching profession if you ask me....basically says the coach doesn't matter unless I'm reading you wrong? Again...fun conversation. 

I mean, yeah, talent matters in sports, even more in a sport like B-ball with just 5 guys on the court at a time. Brad Stevens isn’t taking Butler to the Final Four without Gordon Hayward, Matt Howard, Shelvin Mack, etc. It takes great talent and great coaching. 

Theres a reason the 13-14 (I think I have the right year) Wisconsin team was so good. Bo Ryan didn’t all of the sudden learn how to coach, he was always a great coach, but that year he had elite, talented, experienced players. 

Talent matters. Phil Jackson is a great coach, but he’s not winning titles without Jordan, Pippen, Kobe and Shaq. Greg Popvich is a great coach, but his resume would like a heck of a lot different if the ping pong balls had bounced the Celtics way (they had the most ping pong balls) in the ‘97/Duncan draft.  

There’s a reason Bob Knight only went to 4 Final Fours. 1) it’s hard to go to Final Fours, but 2) he went the years where he had elite talent. When he had elite talent he won titles and went to Final Fours. He wasn’t a better coach those years compared to others, he had better talent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my initial statement:

He was known for being able to take a team with less talent and win

Never said a word about National Championships. Just a general statement that you decided to follow with this:

I think the bolded is a bit of a myth that's grown over time.

So I tried to demonstrate to you that even his first 2 NCs there were teams that had as much, if not better talent, that IU simply stomped. The fact that some got drafted into the NBA, but never excelled to All Star heights, speaks even more to what a great coach RMK was. He made them better than they actually were with his coaching (sans Isaiah Thomas).

 

I think 87 speaks for itself...

 Then I present the testimony of 3 guys I'd consider basketball experts...remember what Calhoun said?

Calhoun: Anybody who played for Knight instantly become better. He determined their role.

I've heard Al McGuire and Don Haskins say the same thing

I'm not even going to bring the magic he worked at West Point into it, but go back and look at his record there. He was beating pretty good teams with teams constructed with a roster where no player could be over 6'8" and had to be military academy ready, academics and all...

So my original statement wasn't just something I said offhandedly...I believe it. And I think some pretty good basketball minds do too...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Seeking6 said:

I don't have the lineup cards in front of me. As always we understand and respect your opinion.....but check out the IU lineups Knight had in 80's vs UNC, Louisville, UCLA, Duke, Houston, Georgetown....shoot even Maryland, Michigan, NC State and Illinois had more talent. So the point would be everyone had elite talent but only coach knew what to do with it?

I think the problem is some of you are looking at what guys did playing in the NBA and not how good they were in college.  There have been a lot of players who were great college players but did not do well in the NBA but that does not take away how good they were in college.  Also there were players who we had never heard of in college come up and be great NBA players.  I would agree about the 84 team had no business beating the UNC with all of that talent.  Also the 89 team had no business winning the conference and going to the sweet 16.  The 76 and 81 team has as much talent as anyone in those years so I don't agree that he always won with less talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

Show me where anyone said anything close to that...

Love ya fla.  Thanks for being a GREAT member.

Just to remind some of our other great friends.  It was once said that Coach Knight would beat you with his own kids.  And then turn around and beat you with the kids he just beat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, milehiiu said:

Love ya fla.  Thanks for being a GREAT member.

Just to remind some of our other great friends.  It was once said that Coach Knight would beat you with his own kids.  And then turn around and beat you with the kids he just beat.

Thanks, mile...I appreciate it. You're a great member too...the conscience of the forum...

I've had conversations like this about Bob Knight's coaching acumen all over the country (and over 3 continents) for the better part of 30 years. There are things about his personal behavior I won't defend, but I think his acuity as a basketball coach is beyond question...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

Thanks, mile...I appreciate it. You're a great member too...the conscience of the forum...

I've had conversations like this about Bob Knight's coaching acumen all over the country (and over 3 continents) for the better part of 30 years. There are things about his personal behavior I won't defend, but I think his acuity as a basketball coach is beyond question...

I'd agree.  If all you remember is Knight's last five years at IU and his time at Texas Tech, you have no appreciation for how good he was in his prime.  I can't say I agreed with all his methods, but man, did he get the job done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

Show me where anyone said anything close to that...

Hopefully we can wrap this up quickly. Sorry if I came on a little strong on this topic. But, the answer as always is probably in the middle. 

I completely agree that Bob Knight was a master tactician and motivator, and one of certainly, if the the best college coach of all time. He probably is the best X's/O's coach of all-time, and he certainly had lots of teams that played above their talent level ('84 and '89 as have been mentioned come to mind, and you can probably say '87 as well, among others). So, ultimately I agree with you that Knight did much more overachieving than most other coaches. From a talent perspective, the '84 teams sticks out as a team that probably had no business going to an Elite 8. 

The point I was trying to make, and I probably just went too far with it in terms of the back and forth, is that his best teams (ie. his national championship and Final Four teams) had as much talent as anyone in the country. Those teams were absolutely loaded and not of the "win with less" variety. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

Thanks, mile...I appreciate it. You're a great member too...the conscience of the forum...

I've had conversations like this about Bob Knight's coaching acumen all over the country (and over 3 continents) for the better part of 30 years. There are things about his personal behavior I won't defend, but I think his acuity as a basketball coach is beyond question...

Just to be clear, I wasn't questioning his "acuity as a basketball coach".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, IUFLA said:

He was known for being able to take a team with less talent and win

 

5 minutes ago, BGleas said:

Hopefully we can wrap this up quickly. Sorry if I came on a little strong on this topic. But, the answer as always is probably in the middle. 

I completely agree that Bob Knight was a master tactician and motivator, and one of certainly, if the the best college coach of all time. He probably is the best X's/O's coach of all-time, and he certainly had lots of teams that played above their talent level ('84 and '89 as have been mentioned come to mind, and you can probably say '87 as well, among others). So, ultimately I agree with you that Knight did much more overachieving than most other coaches. From a talent perspective, the '84 teams sticks out as a team that probably had no business going to an Elite 8. 

The point I was trying to make, and I probably just went too far with it in terms of the back and forth, is that his best teams (ie. his national championship and Final Four teams) had as much talent as anyone in the country. Those teams were absolutely loaded and not of the "win with less" variety. 

I'll end my part with this...

I guess somehow from my initial statement (see above) you jumped to the conclusion that I was saying that his team, and in particular his championship teams, didn't have talent. Don't know how you got there, but it is what it is...

So, you called it a "myth."

myth
/miTH/
noun
  1. 1.a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
    2. a widely held but false belief or idea.
    And, as I showed, there's nothing "false" about this statement "He was known for being able to take a team with less talent and win" according to his peers...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

 

I'll end my part with this...

I guess somehow from my initial statement (see above) you jumped to the conclusion that I was saying that his team, and in particular his championship teams, didn't have talent. Don't know how you got there, but it is what it is...

So, you called it a "myth."

myth
/miTH/
noun
  1. 1.a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
    2. a widely held but false belief or idea.
    And, as I showed, there's nothing "false" about this statement "He was known for being able to take a team with less talent and win" according to his peers...

Was trying to have a little 'meet in the middle' moment, but whatever. He was known first and foremost for winning titles, and those title teams, like many of his teams were stacked. He also had several overachieving teams, as well as several underachieving teams later in his career. He's arguably the greatest college basketball coach of all-time, how about we settle on him being known for that?

Sorry if the word "myth" got under your skin. I should have used a better word choice there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just am not too excited for a transfer unless they are a 4/5 big that have 2-3 years eligibility or they are a 2/3 that are here for a year and can shoot the 3. Anything else and it just isn’t what we need considering all the guys we have coming in and what we should be landing in the future. I don’t want to run off who we have nor scare off some of what we should be landing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dgambill said:

I just am not too excited for a transfer unless they are a 4/5 big that have 2-3 years eligibility or they are a 2/3 that are here for a year and can shoot the 3. Anything else and it just isn’t what we need considering all the guys we have coming in and what we should be landing in the future. I don’t want to run off who we have nor scare off some of what we should be landing.

That's where I'm at. Better be lock city from 3 shooter....or big who is equal or better than Brunk. I don't want to take guys just to take guys because I think we'll have plenty of depth anyway (as long as everyone returns,etc..).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dgambill said:

I just am not too excited for a transfer unless they are a 4/5 big that have 2-3 years eligibility or they are a 2/3 that are here for a year and can shoot the 3. Anything else and it just isn’t what we need considering all the guys we have coming in and what we should be landing in the future. I don’t want to run off who we have nor scare off some of what we should be landing.

I think either way, we could use a shooter. Whether a big or a wing, the big key for an incoming transfer would be someone that can consistently knock down spot up 3’s. But like you, I don’t see IU getting a transfer this cycle. 

I’m not saying IU couldn’t use an upgrade in talent at some spots, but the upgrade over what we already have isn’t enough IMO to make coming to IU enticing for a transfer. There’s no clear spot at IU where there are a ton of open minutes. If you’re a transfer, everywhere you look at IU there is an experienced, big minutes guy returning. 

Phinisee: Returning 3rd year starter

Durham: Returning 3rd year starter, senior

Smith: Returning 3rd year starter, senior

TJD: Returning starter, elite talent 

Brunk: Returning starter, 5th year senior

While IU could use an upgrade in talent over a couple of those guys, if you’re one of the top, impact transfers that would be eligible next season, meaning you’re looking to play a big role, IU is probably not that enticing in terms of opportunity. There’s no glaring open spot to slide right into. You’ll be fighting for minutes, and we didn’t even get into the bench returners like Hunter, Franklin and Race, or any of the freshmen 

So while IU isn’t where it needs to be long term from a talent perspective, there also aren’t any glaring, enticing holes for a transfer looking for big minutes. I think any incoming transfer would probably be of the Zeisloft/Bielfeldt variety which wouldn’t be a bad thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BGleas said:

I think either way, we could use a shooter. Whether a big or a wing, the big key for an incoming transfer would be someone that can consistently knock down spot up 3’s. But like you, I don’t see IU getting a transfer this cycle. 

I’m not saying IU couldn’t use an upgrade in talent at some spots, but the upgrade over what we already have isn’t enough IMO to make coming to IU enticing for a transfer. There’s no clear spot at IU where there are a ton of open minutes. If you’re a transfer, everywhere you look at IU there is an experienced, big minutes guy returning. 

Phinisee: Returning 3rd year starter

Durham: Returning 3rd year starter, senior

Smith: Returning 3rd year starter, senior

TJD: Returning starter, elite talent 

Brunk: Returning starter, 5th year senior

While IU could use an upgrade in talent over a couple of those guys, if you’re one of the top, impact transfers that would be eligible next season, meaning you’re looking to play a big role, IU is probably not that enticing in terms of opportunity. There’s no glaring open spot to slide right into. You’ll be fighting for minutes, and we didn’t even get into the bench returners like Hunter, Franklin and Race, or any of the freshmen 

So while IU isn’t where it needs to be long term from a talent perspective, there also aren’t any glaring, enticing holes for a transfer looking for big minutes. I think any incoming transfer would probably be of the Zeisloft/Bielfeldt variety which wouldn’t be a bad thing. 

I think what would be ideal is to get a 4/5 player who has to sit out next year and still have 2 or 3 years of eligibility left.  As of right now if Lander reclassifies we don't have an opening for next year anyways so unless someone transfers this is moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I think what would be ideal is to get a 4/5 player who has to sit out next year and still have 2 or 3 years of eligibility left.  As of right now if Lander reclassifies we don't have an opening for next year anyways so unless someone transfers this is moot.

We talk about transfers and the prospects of having to sit out a year but before this virus hit, wasn't it pretty much a consensus that the sit out requirement was going to disappear?   And if that was the consensus does the virus change that line of thought?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IU4Ever said:

We talk about transfers and the prospects of having to sit out a year but before this virus hit, wasn't it pretty much a consensus that the sit out requirement was going to disappear?   And if that was the consensus does the virus change that line of thought?

It is a rule change that is being considered but not yet implemented. There was also no timeline reported as to when it will go into effect if passed. I think they would have a hard time rationalizing it not being effective immediately if passed but we also don't know when they'll make the decision (vote?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...