IU Scott

2 minutes ago, BGleas said:

Why are those things exclusive? It's not like we have to choose between guards and wings that can shoot OR a big that can shoot. It's possible to have both. 

How many times last season did Race, Brunk or TJD get the ball at the top of the key with the defense just remaining in the paint, basically shutting off all driving lanes. That action isn't changing in the offense, so a big that can knock that show down would pay huge dividends. 

This is why I think we should just play TJD in the post and surround him by more perimeter players.  Until Race and Smith shows that they can hit the outside shot I would rather see us go smaller.

2 minutes ago, btownqb said:

3pt% shooting is literally the best it's ever been. 

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on what we think efficient is.  To me the best shot is an open shot and I don't care if it is from 1,5,10,15 or 20 feet.  To me what has killed offense in college basketball is going to 30 second shot clock because it does not give you time to run an offense. It does not allow time to move the defense side to side.  I also think going to more dribbling in the half court and the micro managing that coaches do today hurts the offense.  Also they need to start the offense right away but it seems like we see to many teams do the weave for 15 seconds before getting into their offense.  For me the object of the game is to put the ball in the basket and today's basketball just don't see that as much as we use to.  I would rather see a player who is reliable like Cheaney or Henderson shooting those 15-17 shots over players who can barely hit 35 % from 3

1 minute ago, btownqb said:

Doesnt happen with 5 shooters 😂😂😂

I know you think things are more efficient today but why is shooting down and why is scoring down.  To me when you say more efficient it should mean you are shooting better and scoring at  a higher rate.

1 hour ago, go_iu_bb said:

Touche.

You are correct but my point stands that it is still not a good shot and certainly not the best shot. And I did say "about the worst." 😉

Any shot that goes in is a good shot, still show me how using these analytics has helped scoring because it hasn't

1 hour ago, btownqb said:

Why should it work now if it worked then? There's about a billion things in the world that don't work now that used to work. They used to put butter on burns. 

Analytics have nothing to do with them shortening the shot clock. A midrange shot is easier to hit than a layup? What? 

Also.. maybe a 15ft shot is easier to hit than a 3pt... but it isn't efficient. I hated shooting from the baseline especially from the range you mentioned, I would much rather shoot a three from between the wings. 

30 sec shot clocks don't allow you to "feed the post" at will. 

Good basketball players make shots regardless. 

Yes it is efficient if you hit those shots like a Henderson, Anderson and Cheaney and those team scored a lot more than we see in college basketball today.  If it is so much more efficient then why is scoring down all over college basketball compared to what it was when the shot clock was at 45 seconds.  The 81 team without the shot clock and the 3 was still able to score a lot more tan what we see today because they took good shots and for the most part were open shots.  The last time basketball was about getting the ball in the basket and it shouldn't matter what kind of shot that is.  As for your layups, it is easier if it is a wide open layup but today when the defense knows you are driving it is not a open layup and usually have 2 or 3 guys there at the basket to contest the shot so yes the 12-15 wide open shot is easier.

1 hour ago, BGleas said:

Honestly, it doesn't really matter what you or I like, the fact is the game has changed. For the most part, there are obviously always exceptions, the game has changed to where it's a benefit to have all 5 guys on the court be multi-skilled players that can play inside and out. Big men need to be able to defend the perimeter and shoot the ball off the pick and pop and spot ups. 

We all know you don't like that, but again it doesn't really matter, because it's the way the game has changed and will continue to change. We can whine and moan about it (not saying that's what you're doing, just mean as a collective) or IU can recruit and develop players that fit into the way the game is played today. 

I can't imagine watching the last 3 years of IU basketball and not wanting skilled bigs that can operate inside and out.  

I want everyone to be able to shoot the ball but that does not mean it all has to be 3 pointers as well.  Like I said we had plenty of big's who could knock down the 15-17 foot shots at a high rate and to me there Is no reason that the kids today could not do the same thing.  I would like TJD to be able to shoot outside as well but why does that mean being able to hit the 3.

1 hour ago, btownqb said:

Back to the basket basketball... its sort of archaic at this point, right? 

I don't see that that's the most efficient way to run an offense on a consistent basis. 

It is just archaic if all you look at his today's analytics but to me what worked back  in the day should work today as well.  M problem is that the analytics has taken away to many good aspects of the game of basketball and has taken variety away as well.  I like seeing teams play a different style where some might be a run and gun team or some would be a team that held the ball until they got a good shot.  You had teams you would shoot outside and some who would play more of an inside game or mid range game.  Today it is all driving all the way to the basket or shooting 3's and it has become to robotic.  To me the best and easiest shots for a good basketball player to hit is the 12-15 jump shot from the wing or baseline but that is totally taken away in todays game.

13 hours ago, BGleas said:

Agree on Noah, and let’s not forget how much of an asset Thomas Bryant’s three-point shot was as well. 

And as much as I love Cody Zeller, his lack of a shot killed IU in that Sweet Sixteen loss to Syracuse. They left him wide open at the foul line all night, and instead of knocking that shot down he would barrel into the zone and either get called for a charge or get his shot blocked. 

In 2013 if we had a Henderson or Anderson playing against that zone we would have killed Syracuse.

13 hours ago, BornHoosier said:

Of course, but TJD has no issues w/o a 3 pt shot!  I guess my understanding of a Big is different today than when i grew up.  If you need an outside shot to be successful, you might be a 4 instead of a 5.

Pretty much no such things as a 4 or a 5 any longer it is about position less basketball

1 hour ago, 5fouls said:

I personally do not want to see Joey Brunk ever take a 3.

As far as Race.  Yes.  The potential is there.

TJD is a mystery.  I know it's critical for his development, but it's just not who he is.  He can be a very special college basketball player without it in his arsenal.  And, even though everyone thinks you need that kind of game for the next level, I'm not sure his range will ever develop that far out.  What he needs to work on his taking it off the dribble (both hands) from the high post to the hoop.  That, is something I think will advance his game.

I just wish our post players would just be more decisive in their decision making.  When they get the ball they need to know what they are going to do with the ball when they get the ball.  Either pass it is back out or take a good 7-10 foot turn around shot or jump hook.  I get tired of seeing our guys just trying to dribble his guy down to the basket because it is so much easier to double down on them.  I know people get tired of me talking about the older days but the post guys were able to knock down the open 12-15 jumpers which todays players need to learn to shoot.

11 hours ago, IU878176 said:

I don’t quite follow the point you are proving with your post (disparage the rankings ?) but......

Three the 15 players above are overseas and thus were not included in Rivals or 247 rankings.. Of the remaining 12 players 7 were 5 stars.  An additional player was a high 4 star.  On the other side of the coin Lillard was only a two star. 

In a given year roughly 500,000 males play hs  basketball so roughly 100,000 are seniors.  Of the 100,000 or so seniors an astronomically low 25-30 are 5 stars but 58% of the above players were 5 stars. If anything I think that speaks to how the odds (not a guarantee by any means) of 5 star players being good is pretty impressive.

Back to the topic....glad we got Logan and hope we finish strong with Kaufman.

Curry was not highly ranked either

5 minutes ago, milehiiu said:

How in the heck can the NBA ignore the baseball rule ?  So many more players.  Maybe that's why the NBA has chosen not to follow MLB .  Time to change.

probably because they know that the players association will never go for it.  Also I think if we had that rule that we would see a lot more guys than we do now make huge mistakes and go straight out of high school that shouldn't.  A lot of kids would not want to go to college for 3 years so they will just go straight from high school and would never be heard from ever again.

10 minutes ago, milehiiu said:

Well. I am sure all of Hoosier Sports Nation knows I am an advocate for the college game. Over and above the NBA.  Hey. NBA get this stupid rule over with. 

So do I and I would love college basketball go to the baseball rule.  You go straight to the NBA but f you go to college you have to stay 3 years.

2018-19
FIRST TEAM
F: Giannis Antetokounmpo, Milwaukee Bucks
F: Paul George, Oklahoma City Thunder
😄 Nikola Jokić, Denver Nuggets
G: James Harden, Houston Rockets
G: Stephen Curry, Golden State Warriors
SECOND TEAM
F: Kevin Durant, Golden State Warriors
F: Kawhi Leonard, Toronto Raptors
😄 Joel Embiid, Philadelphia 76ers 
G: Damian Lillard, Portland Trail Blazers
G: Kyrie Irving, Boston Celtics
THIRD TEAM
F: Blake Griffin, Detroit Pistons
F: LeBron James, Los Angeles Lakers
😄 Rudy Gobert, Utah Jazz
G: Russell Westbrook, Oklahoma City Thunder
G: Kemba Walker, Charlotte Hornets
* Official release & voting totals
 

Tis is the list of the all NBA for 2018-2019.  I did not take the time to look but a lot of these players were not 5 star recruits.

1 minute ago, milehiiu said:

Apparently so.  And all I ask. Why not ?  Just seems like a perfect time to come together, through what ever means to make it happen. 

Thanks Scott. For being a GREAT Hoosier Sports Nation member.

I would think the players association likes the one and done rule because it allows the older players more roster spots.  If the players accept this then they will want something from the NBA so there will be some negotiating.

2 minutes ago, milehiiu said:

Good answer !.. Here's my response. With nothing else going on. Have to have the player's association get off their behinds.  And start the action going.  Why not ?  What else do they have to do under the current circumstances ?  GET RID OF THE ONE AND DONE RULE.  NOW !

I agree with you but it is not that easy

1 hour ago, milehiiu said:

I know.  However. With the recent shut down. Here's my thoughts on that.  Why wait ?  Do it now !

because the NBA can't just implement this because it has to be through collective bargaining with the players association.

1 hour ago, dbmhoosier said:

I'm no expert but I would almost bet the farm that the schools that are consistently elite (Duke, UK, UNC, Kansas, etc) consistently have top recruiting classes.   I'm sure that is no giant coincidence. 

but it has not produce that many champions lately and I would rather IU go to the UVA and Villanova route of roster management. 

6 minutes ago, NCHoosier32 said:

i battle with many of you about how important rankings are every time recruits come up.  i will admit that i think one of the most important things is what other schools offered, BUT... i still stick with we have guys ranked 99, 128, and 132 coming in this season.  hopefully Lander too.  now we have 106 coming in 2021.  sure guys can be underrated and hey can overachieve, but i don't exactly count that as killin it!  we need a nice mix of these #99-132 kids, but a couple more studs like Lander to really expect much.  

I saw a couple of rankings that had him in 80-90 range

4 minutes ago, Indykev said:

Here is another one.

 

Did it say if he is going through the process or leaving for good.  Also I thought our UI poster that comes here said that no way Cockburn would leave after this season.

1 minute ago, dbmhoosier said:

East coast?  Who are all these east coast guys we've landed?

Geronimo

6 minutes ago, go_iu_bb said:

I've thought that but I'm leaning towards UK. He's always talking as if the only way to win is with a ton of 5* recruits.

He probably still thinks that Donovan and his wife is in town looking for a house.

Just now, BGleas said:

Right, but he's not a guy you expect to be 1 or 2 and done. He's not a Lander, Langford, Zeller, Yogi. He's ranked around 80ish, so a guy you'd expect to probably be around 3 or so years, but he doesn't have the intangible potential with his length and athleticism to over deliver on his ranking like a VO or OG. 

Now a days you have no clue who will leave early.  I saw that Richmond had 3 guys declare for the NBA

3 minutes ago, Indykev said:

Thank god, tired of watching him.

Well now that is another big ten big man out of the way (Oturo, Tillman, Wesson and Smith)

1 minute ago, go_iu_bb said:

He is.

What a surprise but he is predictable.