btownqb

11 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

I don't want to get into an argument, but we did have an issue early on and i think some last year with the platoon subbing, which is what i assume he is trying to reference.  That didn't work and i would say we stuck with a bit longer than we should have when there was proved metrics (i know everyone hates metrics) to say it wasn't working, and coach even defended it saying it worked when it clearly did not.

Lack of talent, that's a harder thing to say definitively.  We had talent on the team and definitely should have performed better than we did.  But once you got past Ware, MR, and MM, the talent level really dropped off, which is kind of an issue when you're platoon subbing (see above).  There are also glaring holes with almost every player on the team.  Most of them were shooting issues, but lateral quickness and BBIQ seems to be lacking across the board which really showed itself in our defense and giving up 3s like it was out day job. 

This infusion of talent (I hope it translates to IU) should fix alot of our issues.  We gain smart players, who show multi level ability to score and defend.  We have true guards who can shoot, dis and drive and run an offense.  Couple that with MM, MR,  Tucker, and Goode and we should be able to open the lane and score from anywhere.

I am not getting my hopes up though, i have read this script to many times to think it going to go the way i hope.  But i won't be surprised if we have a great year, as well as i won't be surprised if we under perform and flame out early in both the BTT and the NCAA.

Just waiting to see.

But WTF do i know, i am just some keyboard monkey wasting time at work between meetings.

See, I don't agree. It's an accepted complaint, which I feel to be a myth. 

If we had a pie chart with our "issues" or our "problems", IMO, "subbing" "platoons" (didn't happen)--- would be about 2%, at best, of the issue. My opinion. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"kind of the issue when you're subbing"---I mean, you can't make it through an entire season playing 7 dudes. And, Walker, XJ, Cupps, and Leal being a part of that Top 7 with CJ Gunn as your 8th guy---pretty well cements my opinion of "not even close enough talent".... AND AGAIN---WOODSON IS LIABLE FOR THAT TOO, I realize that.. Before someone, for the 100th time points that out. 

that's pretty good 

If Hatton is truly the best we can do, so be it. I hope we've turned over every stone before we add him. 

13 minutes ago, BobSaccamanno said:

Good article.  One slight comment is that Bostad seems to like Drew Evans at guard.  He seemed to play with the ones at left guard  in the spring game from my recollection.  The offense has a lot of potential.  

I don't think Kidwell was healthy. 

18 hours ago, dgambill said:

Indeed…he built those…and he is responsible for his substitution patterns. I almost wonder if he cried to his boosters if he only had better players “his” system would work…so they bought him the best team money can buy.  I really hope he realizes this is his prove it moment…if he can’t take this team and win a conference title and make a deep run in March…there will be no protecting him.  I’m not supper confident but if we round out this team with the couple players we seem to be rumored to get…I don’t think that will be a problem.

Substitution patterns- not an issue

Lack of talent-- an issue

🤷‍♂️

Talk lineup in a different thread 

55 minutes ago, thirdgenhoosier said:

@btownqb I guess IU is up to 60 in the  RPI now with obviously a huge weekend at Nebraska next weekend.  Do we have a midweek game v Louisville this week?  Are our hopes for an at large bid still alive somehow?

Yes for sure alive. 

Cinci at home Tues, at UL next Tues. 

Shewwwwww

8 minutes ago, KDB said:

He covered IUPUI while Braylon's dad played there so they've known each other for a long time.

Makes sense.  Knew there had to be something there. 

Not sure I've seen Rabjohns be so personable? (Not sure of the term to use here).. with an uncommitted recruit. 🤷‍♂️

Tennessee, USC, and Bama were looking at Ponds  

I hope we re-evaluate who we're chasing for our depth 5 piece. The only reason I was interested in the kid from Monmouth was because he had 2 years of eligibility. 

Hatton, meh. 

Woodson and staff have looked at this type of player the last 2 of 3 cycles--- Durr and Sparks-- a backup big that you can run a little offense through..  

Hatton/Monmouth kid fit that mold too. 

I don't want that. If we didn't have Goode or whatever and this spot was looking like they'd play 15-20 mins a game, maybe. 

-----------

But with Ballo-- we're going funnel things to him defensively, find a 6'10+ lurch that blocks shots and can catch oops... if Ballo goes down, or whatever else, at least we don't have to change our style of play defensively. 

Hemenway is an "auto-add".. if he wants a spot, he gets one. 

1 minute ago, Kdug said:

With regards to the part you bolded, idk how you can say we weren’t talented enough to blow those two teams in particular out. Army lost by double digits to Stonehill, Marist, Central Connecticut, American (twice), Bucknell (twice), Colgate, and Holy Cross. Respectfully, all of those teams suck. The FGCU list isn’t quite as bad, but they were also missing one of their best players.

I think I agree that we just see the level of talent differently, which as you said is just a difference of opinion. Most rankings had us in the 80-100 range, which was near the bottom of P6 teams. Imo we were “talented” enough to be in the 40-50 range. Not good, but not as bad as we were.

I find the difference in those teams to be next to nothing. Iowa was in that range, they sucked. But, Wisconsin ended up Top 20 in KenPom makes me have serious reservations about whether I care about KenPom at all. Wisconsin SUCKED and gave up 53 to us in a half. We also watched UW get absolutely BULLIED by JMU. 

21 hours ago, Kdug said:

Maybe the record wasn’t too far off what it should’ve been, but we massively underperformed in a lot of games which is why we were nowhere near the bubble.

The end of season run showed that we could have solid performances, and XJ was still playing poorly in that stretch. We weren’t good enough to be elite or anything, but we were good enough to blow out army and FGCU. We were good enough to not get blown out by bad Penn State or Rutgers teams, remain somewhat competitive in games against good competition, or not need a crazy run to sneak by Morehead state.

 

Those are just our "worst" games. If no team is allowed to play poorly, to reach their ceiling, there were probably only 3-4 teams all year that did that. If that is the criteria 1. That's fine 2. Of course, our shit team didn't reach their ceiling, no teams did, essentially. 

Respectfully, the bold, no we weren't. Not at the beginning of November, hell no. Did you watch the exhibitions? For real, I would totally understand if you didn't watch those lol... just didn't know if you were able to check them out... we didn't blow out two D2 schools. We weren't just going to somehow fix those issues within a week and start blowing people out. In fact, UIndy made us play an entire 40-minute game... 

Maybe Army. 🤷‍♂️

Ultimately-- it seems you, and some others valued our talent more than I did. Which is fine, maybe that's where differences lie and explains our difference of opinion. Lack of talent, lack of experience, and poor guard play is how I saw our team. That's a disgusting combination. 

Should have been vs. the reality of where we actually were? 

6 minutes ago, ledies22 said:

JHS/XJ?

Am I missing something? TJD and JHS 

ohhhhhhh.... you're saying their positions with "1-2". Gotcha gotcha. I thought you were saying our "best and 2nd best scorer".. gotcha. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But, either way, I shouldn't have included that year, because JHS wasn't eligible for the exercise. Thanks and sorry for wasting time lol 

6 minutes ago, ledies22 said:

Assembly Call brought up an interesting point. Last year IU had 0 players on the roster to play at least 40% of minutes and have a career high of over 20 points. This year we have 6. 
TG -28

MR - 34

KC - 31

Rice - 35

Ballo - 30

MM - 24

when was the last time IU had the 1 and 2 be able to go out and get you 30? 

1-2? 

2 years ago. 

1-2-3-4-5-6? Not often. 

2013-- Cody, VO(2 games), Hulls, Watford, Sheehey (1 game)--- so just 5 on that team. 

----------------------------------------

20pts+ games as a FR

Kanaan-- 3x, Rice--- 6x, MM--- 3x. Kanaan also missed 8 or so games. 

Zeller--- 7x, Hulls---- 1x (Watford, Sheehey, and VO didn't score over 20 points in a game as FR)

4 minutes ago, Boiler Sam said:

That trade may end up being about as bad as the Bears trade up for Trubiski. 

They were so much more than.. "a QB away"

Where are the Pro-Woodson posters!?!?! 

tf is Lilliard doing? 

Patrick Beverely deserves his ass kicked. 

11 minutes ago, Kdug said:

In trank and kenpom we dropped about 40-50 spots from the start of the year to the end of the year. I’d say that signals underachieving, or at bare minimum we didn’t hit our ceiling. Part of us being underdogs in some big ten games was due to massively underachieving in 

19-14 wasn't far at all from our ceiling, if not, at our ceiling. 

As soon as XJ was a NET zero or worse, we were f'ed. 

1 minute ago, kyhoosier29 said:

Right, but odds aren’t set at the beginning of the season. Maybe a much better D and rebounding team, which could have been possible maybe changes some of those underdog tags to favorite tags (especially some of the home games) as the season goes along. But I get your argument. End of the day, poor roster construction limited the teams ceiling, but I’m not sure he got everything out of them that he could have. 

600+ conference mins from Cupps and Gunn seals the deal for me. It also massively pissed me off that we chose that route. 

Just now, kyhoosier29 said:

I think you both can be right. The roster construction was terrible and that was CMW’s fault. He MAY have gotten out of that roster what you believe was the max. I kind of disagree because rebounding and defense is a lot of effort and could have improved the team (although limited still), but there didn’t seem to be an emphasis on either. 

We were damn close to our ceiling, we weren't favored (other than PSU at home) in games we lost... even the home ones.  

Multiple games we won when we weren't favored. I think we even, at one point, won 4 straight games that we weren't favored in. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But see-- I don't see this as some massive defense of Woodson, the bar being THAT low to begin with, is a BIG issue. 

Just now, tdhoosier said:

If we were going to be a team with an identity of being highly efficient on 2 point field goals (like Kansas, for example), then we needed a greater emphasis in at least a few of these areas

1. rebounding
2. reducing turnovers
3. solid defense (top 50ish)
4. making our free throws. 

That's the only way the math works when making up the difference against teams who are going to shoot 10+ more 3 pointers than we do. More second chance points for us. Less second chance points for them. Capitalize on FTs.

This is something we didn't not do last year. Lack of talent has something to do with it. But I think the team could've used a better defensive system to match their abilities/cover their liabilities. Rebounding is about emphasis (from coaching staff) and effort (from players).....and we lacked both. AND I have no idea why this program is curse when it comes to FT shooting. 

I don't think we reached our ceiling, but our ceiling wasn't that high anyway. 

So what teams did we lose to that we were better than? 

Woodson and the staff's issue last year was scouting and development. I pray those have been rectified. The winter will take care of itself, if so.