Jump to content

New approach/offense in 2020-21


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, BGleas said:

Yes, and a 3-guard lineup vs. the big lineup last year makes us quicker and more athletic. You’re describing basketball from the 80’s and 90’s. Being bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better defensively. 

This is 2020, 90% of the teams play a dribble drive/high ball screen offense and you’re bigs have to be able to defend the perimeter. If Race, or even TJD for that matter, can’t blitz a high ball screen and rotate back or can’t switch on a guard and at least for resistance as a perimeter defender, then they can’t play. 

That’s a big reason why Deron Davis couldn’t play much. The injuries had made him so slow and unathletic that he couldn’t play the defense. Teams just put his man in high ball screens and the coaches feasted. He couldn’t switch and he couldn’t rotate fast enough off the blitz. Race can. 

Miller will jumpstart the offense, Lander and the health of Phinisee and Hunter help him do that a great deal, but in no way does it mean he has to ‘give something up’ defensively. I don’t know if the defense will be better or worse next year, neither do you, but the simple fact that the offense should be better does not mean the defense has to be worse. If anything, the offense being better gives the defense a better chance for improvement. 

Should go the route of the 89 fighting Illini and just go with players between 6'4 and 6'7 and can switch every screen.  That Illini team was great defensively and caused a lot of turnovers because of their athletic ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

Should go the route of the 89 fighting Illini and just go with players between 6'4 and 6'7 and can switch every screen.  That Illini team was great defensively and caused a lot of turnovers because of their athletic ability.

I love it. Surround TJD with Hunter, Durham, Franklin, Phinisee, Lander, Geronimo, etc. and let’s play fast, skilled and athletic, and force pressure on other teams. That also solves the interior depth problem to an extent, because then you have both Race and Brunk off the bench as bigs. 

It also still leaves the option to go big. All this talk of small, quick and fast, which I love, but Archie can still throw a Brunk, TJD, Hunter, Franklin, Lander lineup (just using that as an example) and that’s a big, long lineup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sark said:

No, I’m describing current day basketball, and it’s anyone’s guess as to whether the offense will be better. Pretty likely the defense will take a step back though, given how much younger we’ve gotten.

No you’re not, because again in current day basketball you’re toast if you’re bigs can’t switch defensively on the perimeter. 

Agree on youth potentially being an issue defensively. That’s where the loss of Smith really hurts. It’s never a good thing to lose a 3-year senior starter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sark said:

Too bad we don’t have that kind of talent. That was a great team.

Remains to be seen. Lander is a freshmen for sure, but in this day and age having two 5*’s, especially at the two most important positions, is a good amount of talent. We are though relying on some guys like Phinisee, Hunter, Race and Franklin to not only improve, raise their game, and develop, but also stay healthy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BGleas said:

No you’re not, because again in current day basketball you’re toast if you’re bigs can’t switch defensively on the perimeter. 

Agree on youth potentially being an issue defensively. That’s where the loss of Smith really hurts. It’s never a good thing to lose a 3-year senior starter. 

Just let it go with him because he knows all and is never wrong LOL!  I think we are young but I don't think we really are overly young.  Yes we have 4 freshman but 3 are not expected to come in and have to really produce for this team to be a contender.  Brunk is a 5th year senior, Race is a 4th year junior, Al is a senior, RP a junior, Hunter a 3rd year sophomore.  TJD and Franklin are sophomores but with TJD playing big minutes a freshman so I think this team is pretty experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BGleas said:

Remains to be seen. Lander is a freshmen for sure, but in this day and age having two 5*’s, especially at the two most important positions, is a good amount of talent. We are though relying on some guys like Phinisee, Hunter, Race and Franklin to not only improve, raise their game, and develop, but also stay healthy. 

I really enjoyed watching the 89 UI team and actually was at the RCA Dome for their first two games of the tournament that year.  I had bought tickets thinking IU would be there as the #1 seed because we had one the big ten but losing twice to UI killed that chance.  Could not believe that  our 89 team won the big ten that year with the talent we had compared to UI and UM that year.  there is no way that IU team should have been able to best UM both games that year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I really enjoyed watching the 89 UI team and actually was at the RCA Dome for their first two games of the tournament that year.  I had bought tickets thinking IU would be there as the #1 seed because we had one the big ten but losing twice to UI killed that chance.  Could not believe that  our 89 team won the big ten that year with the talent we had compared to UI and UM that year.  there is no way that IU team should have been able to best UM both games that year.

Probably one of Knights best coaching jobs. Obviously Jay Edwards was a stud but what we got from Freshman Eric Anderson was pretty incredible. Not a deep team but Knight got as much as anyone could that is for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Should go the route of the 89 fighting Illini and just go with players between 6'4 and 6'7 and can switch every screen.  That Illini team was great defensively and caused a lot of turnovers because of their athletic ability.

That season of big 10 hoops was incredible.  The flying Illini team was fun to watch.  Some here may remember a kid named Benji Wilson, great friends with nick anderson, who would have likely been on that team as well, unless the general was able to reel him in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Threedom said:

That season of big 10 hoops was incredible.  The flying Illini team was fun to watch.  Some here may remember a kid named Benji Wilson, great friends with nick anderson, who would have likely been on that team as well, unless the general was able to reel him in. 

I would think he would have went to UI but had heard at the time of his death that IU was really involved with him.  Did you see the 30 on 30 about him because how he died was total non sense and should have never happened.

You are right because that year was one of the best season I can remember watching college basketball.  The difference is that most of the teams that were good back then played mainly juniors and seniors.  A few months ago I watched the final 4 from that year and none of those teams even played a freshman one minute in those games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BGleas said:

We just have a different point of view on this. I don’t see how smaller and quicker means worse defensively, especially in IU’s case because it’s a decision Archie can make, unlike last year where he was almost forced to play bigger and slower. If we have a season, Archie has the luxury of going smaller, but quicker with guys like Geronimo and Hunter getting some time at the 4, or he can go bigger with TJD and Brunk/Race together if he needs to. Race sort of splits the difference, while he’s a 4 he does have the athleticism to defend the perimeter effectively. 

This board has discussed Smith ad nauseum, so at the risk of bringing that debate back up, I’ll agree that Smith was arguably IU’s best on-ball defender when motivated (which was not always the case). He was definitely our go-to defender if the other team’s best player was a 3/4. With that said, throughout his career he was an average off-ball defender, and hurt the defense off the ball quite often.  

At the end of the day, the Smith loss does hurt defensively, but I don’t see how anyone can say being more versatile, quicker and more athletic means worse defensively? I don’t see any tradeoff being made and I think this roster has the talent and athleticism to actually be better defensively. Not saying it definitely will, but it has the potential. 

And more versatility includes what should be a more versatile offense. 
I’m not sure smith was our best defender - best at guarding forwards, but as you point out (I think correctly) he was not a strong off-ball defender. Green was better on guards generally and off ball. Rob, when healthy, is a good defender. 
But again, without meaning to denigrate what Smith brought, versatility on offense was not one of his contributions. He did not develop an outside or a mid-range game. He did not create off the dribble. Teams could sag. I don’t know if we’ll be better offensively, but I do think we should be. Race is growing his game on both ends. Hunter clearly was and brings much more versatility - has a ways to go defensively but also showed improved D. Trayce has been working on his shot all summer. We need to be able to spread the floor, not be a one dimensional team — I think we will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Sark said:

We aren’t remotely close to the Illinois team. They were extremely athletic, very skilled, experienced and well coached.

Yes, we’re not going to be that good. That was a great team and was in an era where for the most part upperclassmen stayed, which isn’t the case in this day and age. But, IU does have talent and if some guys develop and stay healthy, has a chance to be one of the better, more talented Big Ten teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I would think he would have went to UI but had heard at the time of his death that IU was really involved with him.  Did you see the 30 on 30 about him because how he died was total non sense and should have never happened.

You are right because that year was one of the best season I can remember watching college basketball.  The difference is that most of the teams that were good back then played mainly juniors and seniors.  A few months ago I watched the final 4 from that year and none of those teams even played a freshman one minute in those games.

Not to de-rail how bad our offense has been lately, but if you go back and look at the rosters of big 10 teams that year....wow.  You are correct, a lot of upper classmen, but not our Hoosiers with jay edwards, Jones and Anderson leading the way.  
 

Iowa doesn’t get the discussion they deserved with Armstrong Ed Harper and marble. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sark said:

I think our talent level could potentially get us into the upper half of the conference. That would be a plus.

We have the potential to have the talent to finish top 3, but as I mentioned a few times it’s going to take so,e key returners in Phinisee, Hunter, Franklin and Race not only making a leap, and they have the talent to do it, but also staying healthy. 

If those guys develop and stay healthy, that’s a solid, solid core to have around two 5*’s. How many Big Ten teams have two 5*’s on their roster?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2020 at 11:17 AM, Sark said:

Quicker? Maybe, because of Lander. But not really any more athletic. We’re just shifting to more three guard line ups because we really don’t have any choice. We can’t score, so something will have to give. Losing our best defender will only make that defensive loss hurt even more, and we’ll be painfully thin up front. Race can’t guard the perimeter consistently well, and we don’t want him out there. If he is, we’re in trouble. As I said, Miller must jump start the offense. He has no choice or we’re going to spend another year in the bottom half of the conference. It’s just a matter of how much defense he’s willing to give up to get that done. 

I am very curious how you define athleticism and which players we lost that you find to be more athletic than the player who replaced them/their minutes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2020 at 9:47 PM, BGleas said:

We have the potential to have the talent to finish top 3, but as I mentioned a few times it’s going to take so,e key returners in Phinisee, Hunter, Franklin and Race not only making a leap, and they have the talent to do it, but also staying healthy.

Agreed. But one of the unknowns is chemistry (which I don't think will be a problem), and the other unknown is confidence. I'm a little (not a lot) concerned that our confidence as a team, is not where it needs to be. We need guys in the locker room, and on the floor that tells the rest of the team, "we ain't losin'. It's time to kick some butt. Don't just compete...dominate!"

At least that's what I wish for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sark said:

We lost probably the most athletic player on the team and our best defender and three other guys, one of whom played a lot, another of whom played some, and the last of whom played sparingly. They’ll be replaced by four newcomers, only one of whom is likely to log significant minutes. I know Miller wants us to “get older”, but we really just got younger, which means we took a big step back in experience. You almost always pay a near term price for that.

How are you defining athleticism? Smith definitely had the highest vertical, but he wasn't the fastest, quickest, strongest, etc... Smith also is not as athletic as the guy replacing his spot on the roster. 

The rest of your point does nothing to address what I asked. 

I also don't agree that we got younger. I think we got older; we have one freshman who will play significant minutes, one who will be a roleplayer and the other two will likely play sparingly. Pretty much ever player who will log over 20 minutes per game, with the exception of Lander and TJ, is in at least their third year of being in a college basketball program. That was not the case last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sark said:

Who says Smith isn’t as athletic as the guy replacing his spot?  
 

As for getting younger, we have four first year players, and one of them should be a senior in high school. Only one of them is likely to contribute much in the coming year. Purely on that basis, we got younger. And increasing minutes per player, which isn’t likely in Miller’s system, will wear us out in what promises to be a very difficult Big Ten.

Well, I said it for one. Other than having a higher vertical (maybe), what about Smith is more athletic than Geronimo? 

You're flat out wrong on the experience thing. We return a higher percentage of minutes played this year than we did last year and a higher percentage of our points. These are indisputable facts. 

That doesn't even get into the fact that the total experience of those returning minutes and points is a lot more than last year had. For instance, Phinisee made up a higher percentage of returning minutes and points on last years team, but he has more experience this year than he did last year. We have our best player and leading scorer returning this year, that wasn't true last year. We have a guy who will likely surpass 100 career starts on this years team, that wasn't true last year. I'm not sure what you could possibly be basing the fact that you think we are younger on.... it certainly isn't based on reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sark said:

What makes Geronimo more athletic than Smith? There’s nothing to support that, unless you’re referring to a picture taken of him after a month with Cliff. 

The team got younger. That’s indisputable, no matter how much you want to ignore that. A third of the team is new, including one player who should be entering his senior year of high school. Not sure why you continue to deny these facts.

 

I didn't say he was more athletic, I said he was as athletic. You made the claim that Smith was a superior athlete, you are the one who needs to back it up. 

The team didn't get younger. There is no amount of data that will back that point up. Last year the team also had newcomers, this is probably going to be the case every single year. It's a reality of college athletics. That doesn't mean you get younger every year. 

Last years team lost our two top scorers and minutes played guys, and 4 of our top 10 from those two categories. This years team returns two of our top three minutes guy, our leading scorer, two of our top four scorers and has a guy who will crack 100 starts this year. No one on last years team cracked 100 starts. 

I promise people will respect you more if you can look at the objective facts and say, "yeah, my initial perception about the experience level of the team this year vs. last year was wrong."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, milehiiu said:

We have gotten younger.  True.  And while there is no substitute for experience.... two other bb truths hold true :

1. There is no substitute for height.

2. There is no substitute for talent.

GO HOOSIERS !

Still don't see how we are getting younger.  Yes we have 4 freshman but only one is expected to play significant minutes.

Brunk- 5th year senior

Al- Senior

Race- 4th year junior

RP- Junior

Hunter- 3rd year sophomore

TJD- sophomore but played huge minutes as a freshman

Franklin- sophomore you played some meaningfull minutes as a freshman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Sark said:

You claimed Geronimo is as athletic . . . there’s no proof of that whatsoever. A picture has you badly fooled. The team got younger. That’s indisputable. You can continue to deny the facts, but it just weakens your argument further.

There's no proof either way, but you're the one who made the first claim. Prove your point or stop spewing BS...

And we didn't get younger. There is actual data on this and it says otherwise. We return more minutes and more points. How exactly is that younger? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Still don't see how we are getting younger.  Yes we have 4 freshman but only one is expected to play significant minutes.

Brunk- 5th year senior

Al- Senior

Race- 4th year junior

RP- Junior

Hunter- 3rd year sophomore

TJD- sophomore but played huge minutes as a freshman

Franklin- sophomore you played some meaningfull minutes as a freshman

You're correct, we did not get younger. It is an objective fact that we return more minutes and more points this year than we did last year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We lost 4 players in Smith, Green, Davis and Green who combined for 26.5 ppg while playing around 60 minutes a game.  Two of them graduated and Smith transferred with one year left and Anderson had two left.  This is how I look at it that Lander will replace the minutes and scoring that Green did last year.  Yes he is a freshman but he seems like at this time more of a team player who can also get others involved.  Hopefully he will be a lot better of a teammate than what Green seemed to have been.  I think Hunter and Geronimo will more than be able to duplicate or even surpass what Smith gave us last year.  Hunter will be in his 3rd year at IU so he is only one year younger than Smith and brings better shooting which we need.  To me Race will totally surpass anything that Davis gave us last year and this will be Races 4th year in the system.  As for losing Anderson it is obvious he was not in the future plans of Archie so replacing him with Lea and Galloway seems to be step up.

Looking at the roster we had 3 Scholarship players last year who were considered freshman one being a redshirt compared to having 4 this year so that is not much of a difference.  Last year we had two scholarship players who were seniors in green and Davis and this year we have have a redshirt senior in Brunk and another senior in Al.  So to me to me you say we are a lot younger this year is just not a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Sark said:

Returning more minutes and points doesn’t mean we also didn’t get younger. Lol. We lost four upper class men and replaced them with four freshmen, one of whom should be a senior in high school. You’re really straining to make an invalid point. And you’re the one who made the claims about athletic ability that you can’t prove, all based on a picture and highlight tapes. It makes no sense no matter how often you try to say it.

Returning more minutes and points doesn't mean we didn't get younger? Maybe, but it certainly means we return more experience than last years team had. If your point was literally about their biological age and not experience, then your point has been irrelevant the entire time you've been struggling to make it.  Doesn't almost every team every year lose upperclassmen and replace them with freshman. Does that mean every team gets younger? No one talks about experience in the terms you're trying to frame it in. What objective data would convince you that we didn't get younger, or more importantly less experienced, if not for returning more minutes and points? 

You certainly are the one who brought up athleticism, not me. If we aren't basing it on things we can see like quickness, vertical, speed, strength, etc., then what should we base it on? Believe it or not, I don't care about the picture that was recently posted. You had numerous posts about it before I posted in this thread, and my first post was asking you to clarify what you meant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...