Nebraska Post Game

[5fouls]

IU is not a good team right now.

IU is very likely going to miss the NCAA tournament.

Those are semtimemts I can agree with.  

What I dont like are the comparisons of Woodson to Archie and Crean.

Archie was a bad fit all around.  A complete disaster.  His own players did not have his back.  The program is in a better place with Woodson now than it ever would have been with Archie.

I liked Crean.  IU has some good and exciting teams during his tenure.  He was/is a likeable human being.  But, at the end of his tenure, his own words 'It's Indiana' were at the core of his downfall.  He could win at IU, just not at the level required of a blue blood.  The job beat him down in the end.

Woodson did not construct a good roster for this season.  That's on him.  But, he can, and I believe will, win at IU.  He's multiple factors better of a coach than Archie, and unlike Crean, the job isnt to too 'big'.  He played here when the expectations were even greater than they are now.

[Hoosier987]

This team is who we thought they were. No guards. Can't win in today's basketball without guards. Incredibly unbalanced roster. Not sure why Woodson would put all his eggs in the XJ basket especially with a scholarship still available. Unless Cupps magically flips a switch, this season is most likely toast.

[IU Scott]

Yesterday I gave myself a little timeout from message boards because I just needed a break.  I logged off around 4 and now just logged back on. It made it a little less miserable during and after the game last night.

Last night was so dissappointing and it is now hard to stay in a positive bview on this team. With last night's game and the UCONN and Auburn's games we just haven't competed with the better opponents.

Last night committing 19 turnovers is just unacceptable and most were because of our low basketball IQ. We just get ball and put our heads down and try to dribble between two defenders. In the first half our first shot defense wasn't horrible but it was letting to many points off of second shots. We had two straight possessions where we gave up 5 second half points when the game was still close.

Like most others I just think the main problem is our lack of guard play and not having players who can score off the dribble. We have no one who can break down the defense and create shots for others.

[IUCrazy2]

43 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

So what I'm gathering from this thread (tongue in cheek - kind of 😎)

Malik - plays a 4. should be a 5
Ware - Plays a 5. should be a 5. But Malik gets in his way. 
Mgbako - Plays a 3. Should be a 4.
Banks - Plays a 3. Should arguably be a 4 too
Gallo - Plays a combo guard tasked with handling the ball a lot. should be more of a 2/3 guy
Cupps - Plays the 1. Should be a 1, but is a Freshman asked to do a lot.
XJ - Plays a combo guard. should be a combo guard, but was obviously injured.
CJ Gunn - A 2/3 guy that is too inconsistent to get meaningful minutes.
Leal - plays a 3. should be a 3, but is limited athletically

I think the only guys playing good for the position he's supposed to play is Walker?
 

Reneau and Ware both play alright for their position, the problem is that with the way the game is played today and with the switching we do on defense, you can't have a 5 out on the perimeter chasing a quicker guy or trying to close all that distance to get to a shooter.  On offense, both of them are really more comfortable in the same crowded spot on the court.  Why? Because we compound our problem by playing 4's at the 3.  Walker, Banks, and Mgbako are modern 4's.  We try and shoehorn them in as 3's.  Which again has them scrambling and fouling quicker guys out on the perimeter on D.

The offense is to get the ball into the 2 centers at almost all costs and then they dominate the ball.  We value them putting up heavily contested 2's more than we do kicking it out for relatively open 3's.  So much so that I watched players like Mgbako pass up some shots last night that were better than trying to force the ball into the paint that they chose (which led to bad shots or turnovers).

You cannot have 2 centers that are going demand a bunch of minutes on the same team.  Ware and Reneau are both good players but I would argue that if one of them could not handle coming off the bench, we would have been better off to trade their scholarship for a guy like Battle who transferred to Ohio State from Minnesota and is doing exactly the kind of stuff we are missing.

[IU Scott]

Also I think if Woodson stays around for awhile he needs to look at replacing a couple of his assistant coaches. It seems like right now our assistants are more there because of recruiting instead of actual coaching ability. We need teachers and guys who are good at developing players. I hear that Hunter is a good recruiter but we get very little players from the region he recruits.

This team seems like it was just thrown together and not put together with the thought of how the team fits together. How much I hate to say this but I would rather we put our team together like Painted does.  I know we joke about their tournament success but I would still rather have their season as a whole. It just seems like it is hard to connect with our team because of the way we recruits. We have to many transfers and guys who are looking to leave ASAP

Edited January 4 by IU Scott

[IU Scott]

3 minutes ago, IUCrazy2 said:

Reneau and Ware both play alright for their position, the problem is that with the way the game is played today and with the switching we do on defense, you can't have a 5 out on the perimeter chasing a quicker guy or trying to close all that distance to get to a shooter.  On offense, both of them are really more comfortable in the same crowded spot on the court.  Why? Because we compound our problem by playing 4's at the 3.  Walker, Banks, and Mgbako are modern 4's.  We try and shoehorn them in as 3's.  Which again has them scrambling and fouling quicker guys out on the perimeter on D.

The offense is to get the ball into the 2 centers at almost all costs and then they dominate the ball.  We value them putting up heavily contested 2's more than we do kicking it out for relatively open 3's.  So much so that I watched players like Mgbako pass up some shots last night that were better than trying to force the ball into the paint that they chose (which led to bad shots or turnovers).

You cannot have 2 centers that are going demand a bunch of minutes on the same team.  Ware and Reneau are both good players but I would argue that if one of them could not handle coming off the bench, we would have been better off to trade their scholarship for a guy like Battle who transferred to Ohio State from Minnesota and is doing exactly the kind of stuff we are missing.

On defense with this team I think we are better suited to play zone

[Hoosier987]

6 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Also I think if Woodson stays around for awhile he needs to look at replacing a couple of his assistant coaches. It seems like right now our assistants are more there because of recruiting instead of actual coaching ability. We need teachers and guys who are good at developing players. I hear that Hunter is a good recruiter but we get very little players from the region he recruits.

This team lons like it was just thrown together and not put together with the thought of how the team fits together. How much O haye to say this but I would rather we out our team together like Painted does.  I know we joke about their tournament success but I would still rather how their season as a whole. It just seems like it is hard to connect with our team because of the way we recruits. We have to many transfers and guys who are looking to leave ASAP

Definitely not disagreeing. The question is...would Woodson be willing to go this route and not want "yes sir" coaches? That's what his staff currently is. 

Edited January 4 by Hoosier987

[NCHoosier32]

1 hour ago, tdhoosier said:

So what I'm gathering from this thread (tongue in cheek - kind of 😎)

Malik - plays a 4. should be a 5
Ware - Plays a 5. should be a 5. But Malik gets in his way. 
Mgbako - Plays a 3. Should be a 4.
Banks - Plays a 3. Should arguably be a 4 too
Gallo - Plays a combo guard tasked with handling the ball a lot. should be more of a 2/3 guy
Cupps - Plays the 1. Should be a 1, but is a Freshman asked to do a lot.
XJ - Plays a combo guard. should be a combo guard, but was obviously injured.
CJ Gunn - A 2/3 guy that is too inconsistent to get meaningful minutes.
Leal - plays a 3. should be a 3, but is limited athletically

I think the only guys playing good for the position he's supposed to play is Walker?
 

i honestly agree with almost all of that

[IU Scott]

8 minutes ago, Hoosier987 said:

Definitely not disagreeing. The question is...would Woodson be willing to go this route and not want "yes sir" coaches? That's what his staff currently is. 

I wish he would go the Larry Bird route where he had a offensive coach and a defensive coach. Bird was like the CEO and delegated responsibilities to his coaches.

[KoB2011]

19 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

IU is not a good team right now.

IU is very likely going to miss the NCAA tournament.

Those are semtimemts I can agree with.  

What I dont like are the comparisons of Woodson to Archie and Crean.

Archie was a bad fit all around.  A complete disaster.  His own players did not have his back.  The program is in a better place with Woodson now than it ever would have been with Archie.

I liked Crean.  IU has some good and exciting teams during his tenure.  He was/is a likeable human being.  But, at the end of his tenure, his own words 'It's Indiana' were at the core of his downfall.  He could win at IU, just not at the level required of a blue blood.  The job beat him down in the end.

Woodson did not construct a good roster for this season.  That's on him.  But, he can, and I believe will, win at IU.  He's multiple factors better of a coach than Archie, and unlike Crean, the job isnt to too 'big'.  He played here when the expectations were even greater than they are now.

At the risk of arguing myself into a position I'm not necessarily at personally right now, why shouldn't we compare the tenures of our past three coaches?

I think we can say a lot of subjective things good or bad about all of them so if we want to table that, fine, but the results should absolutely be fair play.

Crean obviously took over a dumpster fire and the first three years were very rough. He laid the groundwork to have things really take off in Year 4 and beyond and IMO is unquestionably the best tenure of the three at this point. He ultimately couldn't bring the level he achieved with the consistency needed, but Crean had 3 teams that were significantly better than any we've seen under Woodson.

Archie's tenure was a failure, no doubt there. He also had us improving YoY until the Covid year and things fully fell off of the rails. A lot of the on court complaints we had with Archie have not really changed under Woodson. In fact, I'm curious which of the major complaints we had about Archie have improved? Is it the defense? The guard play? What's gotten better?

Woodson has been a mixed bag - I'm not trying to knock anything or discredit anything but it's absolutely the truth and anyone that isn't an IU homer recognizes that. We get blown out regularly under Woodson in big games, our guard play sucks despite having two starting guards that he's coached for three years now, our perimeter defense has been putrid his entire tenure. What has really majorly improved from this same time 36 months ago? This team is the most "his guys" that he has had and it's the worst. Does next year look better? 

The rest of this season and this offseason are massive for Woodson. Play-in game, embarrassed the first weekend, and possibly missing the tournament the next two season once the generational player that he didn't recruit leaves is not remotely good enough. 

[IUFLA]

11 minutes ago, Hoosier987 said:

Definitely not disagreeing. The question is...would Woodson be willing to go this route and not want "yes sir" coaches? That's what his staff currently is. 

 

1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

I wish he would go the Larry Bird route where he had a offensive coach and a defensive coach. Bird was like the CEO and delegated responsibilities to his coaches.

Really?
ROSEMOND: "One thing I can tell you about Coach. Coach always says next man up. He always tells us as assistants, if something ever happens in the game, whoever scouted it, you'll be the head coach. If I get two techs, you guys will be the head coach. We're always prepared. He treats us like head coaches, he doesn't treat us like assistant coaches and he gives us a lot of say in what's going on. Obviously, he has the final say, but he asks for our input a lot and it's just a tribute to him and his confidence in us.''

And wasn't the zone against Louisville a suggestion from one of the assistants? Oh, that's right... Then it was used to try to demonstrate how incompetent Woody was... 

[IU Scott]

3 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

 

Really?
ROSEMOND: "One thing I can tell you about Coach. Coach always says next man up. He always tells us as assistants, if something ever happens in the game, whoever scouted it, you'll be the head coach. If I get two techs, you guys will be the head coach. We're always prepared. He treats us like head coaches, he doesn't treat us like assistant coaches and he gives us a lot of say in what's going on. Obviously, he has the final say, but he asks for our input a lot and it's just a tribute to him and his confidence in us.''

And wasn't the zone against Louisville a suggestion from one of the assistants? Oh, that's right... Then it was used to try to demonstrate how incompetent Woody was... 

Actually I was the one to suggest the zone against UL LOL! At least a few minutes before they actually went to the zone. Just to me it doesn't appear we have really scouted to well or wasn't coached the game plan well enough. Both goes to all the coaches. Besides a few big men I haven't seen much player development on this team.

[IUFLA]

Just now, IU Scott said:

Besides a few big men I haven't seen much player development on this team.

JHS? 

[IU Scott]

20 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

JHS? 

He did but was here only a year. It is easier to see how TJD got better through the years or how much better Ware has been this year compared to last year.

Edited January 4 by IU Scott

[IndySportsPartizan]

1 hour ago, Indykev said:

Kenpom projecting 3-14 the rest of the season. Ouch...might not happen, but still a bad look.

I have not lost faith in Woody, but I am sorry if we go 3-14 to end the season then it is time to move on. 

[Kdug]

25 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

At the risk of arguing myself into a position I'm not necessarily at personally right now, why shouldn't we compare the tenures of our past three coaches?

I think we can say a lot of subjective things good or bad about all of them so if we want to table that, fine, but the results should absolutely be fair play.

Crean obviously took over a dumpster fire and the first three years were very rough. He laid the groundwork to have things really take off in Year 4 and beyond and IMO is unquestionably the best tenure of the three at this point. He ultimately couldn't bring the level he achieved with the consistency needed, but Crean had 3 teams that were significantly better than any we've seen under Woodson.

Archie's tenure was a failure, no doubt there. He also had us improving YoY until the Covid year and things fully fell off of the rails. A lot of the on court complaints we had with Archie have not really changed under Woodson. In fact, I'm curious which of the major complaints we had about Archie have improved? Is it the defense? The guard play? What's gotten better?

Woodson has been a mixed bag - I'm not trying to knock anything or discredit anything but it's absolutely the truth and anyone that isn't an IU homer recognizes that. We get blown out regularly under Woodson in big games, our guard play sucks despite having two starting guards that he's coached for three years now, our perimeter defense has been putrid his entire tenure. What has really majorly improved from this same time 36 months ago? This team is the most "his guys" that he has had and it's the worst. Does next year look better? 

The rest of this season and this offseason are massive for Woodson. Play-in game, embarrassed the first weekend, and possibly missing the tournament the next two season once the generational player that he didn't recruit leaves is not remotely good enough. 

I don’t agree with the bold. When compared to Crean’s last year that got him fired, only Archie’s 3rd team was better. Even then, I’d say they were only marginally better than Crean’s last team.

I guess you can say he “improved” relative to his first team. But that’s only because we got worse in Miller’s first year. He took over a program that was one year removed from winning a big ten title, and turned it into a team that was consistently in the bottom half of the big ten.

[Hoosier987]

29 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

 

Really?
ROSEMOND: "One thing I can tell you about Coach. Coach always says next man up. He always tells us as assistants, if something ever happens in the game, whoever scouted it, you'll be the head coach. If I get two techs, you guys will be the head coach. We're always prepared. He treats us like head coaches, he doesn't treat us like assistant coaches and he gives us a lot of say in what's going on. Obviously, he has the final say, but he asks for our input a lot and it's just a tribute to him and his confidence in us.''

And wasn't the zone against Louisville a suggestion from one of the assistants? Oh, that's right... Then it was used to try to demonstrate how incompetent Woody was... 

dang…you think Rosemond is going to say otherwise? Anyways, if that’s the case then Scott is really right, we need to consider making a staff change

Edited January 4 by Hoosier987

[IU Scott]

7 minutes ago, IndySportsPartizan said:

I have not lost faith in Woody, but I am sorry if we go 3-14 to end the season then it is time to move on. 

Agree but I see no way we finish the season that bad

[KoB2011]

1 minute ago, Kdug said:

I don’t agree with the bold. When compared to Crean’s last year that got him fired, only Archie’s 3rd team was better. Even then, I’d say they were only marginally better than Crean’s last team.

I guess you can say he “improved” relative to his first team. But that’s only because we got worse in Miller’s first year. He took over a program that was one year removed from winning a big ten title, and turned it into a team that was consistently in the bottom half of the big ten.

That was my point, they improved from his first team YoY.

But I'll say we were 52 and 34 on KenPom in years 2 and 3 of Archie, and we were 48 and 30 in year 1 and 2 of Woodson. The two best years of each is not drastically different. This year hasn't fully played out so it can obviously change, but....

First 3 Years of Archie: average KenPom of 52.3 and average Adjust Efficiency of 13.3

First 3 Years of Woodson so far: average KenPom of 56.7 and average Adjusted Efficiency of 12.96

What exactly is the big difference?

[KoB2011]

10 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

He did but was here only a year. It is easier time see how TJD got better through the years or how much better Ware has been this year compared to last year.

Did he? At what? He scored a little more but he wasn't anymore efficient. His assists went down as the year went on.

[IU Scott]

2 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Did he? At what? He scored a little more but he wasn't anymore efficient. His assists went down as the year went on.

You can say the reason his assists went down because later in the year he was asked to score more. I don't look at numbers but you can see a player who was better at the end of the year

Edited January 4 by IU Scott

[KoB2011]

Just now, IU Scott said:

You can say the reason his assists went down because later in the year he was asked to score more. I don't look at numbers but you can see a player who wad better at the end if the year

I mean yes, a freshman got more comfortable as the season went on.

I think saying a 5 star freshman played like a 5 star freshman is a bit of a given though. 

[IU Scott]

3 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I mean yes, a freshman got more comfortable as the season went on.

I think saying a 5 star freshman played like a 5 star freshman is a bit of a given though. 

He went from not being considered a one and done to being a lottery pick so to me that shows a lot improvement

[NCHoosier32]

Just now, IU Scott said:

He went from not being considered a one and done to being a lottery pick so to me that shows a lot improvement

i think it is tough to say that the staff developed him a whole lot.  he had very high expectations coming in.  again i'd argue that the staff got him off to a slow start by not turning PG over to him.  when they were left with no choice due to X's injury, then he started playing like a one and done.  

[bronkonagurski]

Last night sucked. Looking at the rest of January, I see us going 3-4 (beating OSU, Minny and Iowa). 5-5, 13-8 heading into February would be pretty scary for March Madness hopes. We gotta do better than 3-4 imo but not sure I can see it.