Jump to content

Arkansas post game


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 761
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 minute ago, D-BONE said:

I also thought Arkansas was a solid squad. But a squad you should be able to beat at home at the same time. So two recruiting classes and still three Crean starters. Is that good or bad? I'd like to see less, personally. That would indicate top recruiting.

It would probably be two if whatever is going on with Rob wasn’t going on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 5fouls said:

I think you're assuming that me, and others, aren't capable of considering it, when, in fact, I considered it in Year #1.   And, I still don't know.  My issue is that people are cherry-picking an 8 minute stretch of play to, yes, 'overreact' about a team that is 11-2.  And, as has been pointed out, that 11-2 is not as 'soft' as many would like to make it out to be.  

I'm defending the the position as strongly as I am because I think the other side is being absolutely over the top in their criticism.   

Ok, that's completely fair. I think the problem is that we've seen these 8 minute stretches before, so it's not really cherry picking if it's becoming a consistent problem - it seemed like every game last year had at least one, and a lot of them were longer than 8 minutes. We also seem to have lost a bit of the home court mystique/advantage we used to have. Those things and the other seemingly consistent problems are concerning, because they seem to be more on coaching than the players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, D-BONE said:

I also thought Arkansas was a solid squad. But a squad you should be able to beat at home at the same time. So two recruiting classes and still three Crean starters. Is that good or bad? I'd like to see less, personally. That would indicate top recruiting.

Yes we started three Crean players but I believe two of those “Crean starters” did not even have a single practice under Crean.

I understand the need and importance for Archie to recruit “his type” of guys but after nearly three years shouldn’t he be able to instill his system into Crean guys (Smith and Durham) that really never played or practiced under Crean? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IU878176 said:

Yes we started three Crean players but I believe two of those “Crean starters” did not even have a single practice under Crean.

I understand the need and importance for Archie to recruit “his type” of guys but after nearly three years shouldn’t he be able to instill his system into Crean guys (Smith and Durham) that really never played or practiced under Crean? 

Just because you're a good guitarist doesn't mean you can pick up a violin and play it. Even if you practice, some might become decent violinists, but are probably still going to be better guitarists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, HoosierDom said:

Why are we all of a sudden going to pay so much more than everyone else? We pay the 12th most in the country, that seems pretty good to me.

Wasn't UCLA willing to throw a boat load of money at their new coach and couldn't find anyone worthy of the money once Cal turned them down. I think the reason that no one pays more is that you can't really justify it. You pay more only when you have an established star coach and you have to pony up to keep him. 

Late to the conversation here but no UCLA offered cal one and a half million less per year than he's currently making a Kentucky.  It was a joke offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zlinedavid said:

Just because you're a good guitarist doesn't mean you can pick up a violin and play it. Even if you practice, some might become decent violinists, but are probably still going to be better guitarists.

I’m not sure if you are saying we are guitarists or violinists (but get your point) but let’s say Archie recruits guitarists. If that’s the case it would have been helpful to fill the two open scholarships with two guitarists with at least one of them able to hit from the perimeter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, IU878176 said:

Yes we started three Crean players but I believe two of those “Crean starters” did not even have a single practice under Crean.

I understand the need and importance for Archie to recruit “his type” of guys but after nearly three years shouldn’t he be able to instill his system into Crean guys (Smith and Durham) that really never played or practiced under Crean? 

This "his guy" conversation has really gone on for way too long. Just this past season Crean and Miller we're recruiting some of the same guys.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, 13th&Jackson said:

AD let the ARK players bait him into an ejection. DG let Joe get into his head by trying to prove he's as good a shooter (he's not). JR and SR guards put themselves ahead of the team and cost the game. Unfortunately, with AD out, if you yank DG you only have two guards. This team started the season lacking guard depth and it will haunt them all year.

Not only were the JR and SR guards you referring to upperclassmen, they are the team captains!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IU878176 said:

I’m not sure if you are saying we are guitarists or violinists (but get your point) but let’s say Archie recruits guitarists. If that’s the case it would have been helpful to fill the two open scholarships with two guitarists with at least one of them able to hit from the perimeter.

If IU is the New York Philharmonic (since we play in Carnegie Hall....), the only violinists available were maybe on the level of another regional orchestra. None of them would ever be first chair. Do you fill them with lesser quality players, or just leave them empty? And if the lesser quality players rarely see the floor, does it matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

I think you're assuming that me, and others, aren't capable of considering it, when, in fact, I considered it in Year #1.   And, I still don't know.  My issue is that people are cherry-picking an 8 minute stretch of play to, yes, 'overreact' about a team that is 11-2.  And, as has been pointed out, that 11-2 is not as 'soft' as many would like to make it out to be.  

I'm defending the the position as strongly as I am because I think the other side is being absolutely over the top in their criticism.   

That's exactly it...

I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread say they'd back CAM no matter what happens over the next so many years...if we're mediocre any time after next year, I say form the search committee...

But we have to give him time...with his system...with his players...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IUFLA said:

That's exactly it...

I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread say they'd back CAM no matter what happens over the next so many years...if we're mediocre any time after next year, I say form the search committee...

But we have to give him time...with his system...with his players...

That's a beautiful and accurate summary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

That's exactly it...

I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread say they'd back CAM no matter what happens over the next so many years...if we're mediocre any time after next year, I say form the search committee...

But we have to give him time...with his system...with his players...

I agree. I REALLY like CAM. I want him to succeed big time. And I’m all in till end of next season to look back and ask “where are we now and how are we trending?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

That's exactly it...

I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread say they'd back CAM no matter what happens over the next so many years...if we're mediocre any time after next year, I say form the search committee...

But we have to give him time...with his system...with his players...

I completely agree with this. But, it's also not fair to say people are cherry picking 8 minutes from last night. We've seen this problem before, and in this same year - we almost lost the ND game because of a similar stretch, we were up 8 on Nebraska at home with 4 minutes left and had to go to OT, and we were plagued with these stretches throughout the B1G schedule last year - hell, I was at the Maryland game when it seemed to go on for days. I guess it's still possible to blame FCTC's players, as one of them is a captain, but it's also fair to have concerns about why this hasn't been fixed yet, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AxnJxn said:

I completely agree with this. But, it's also not fair to say people are cherry picking 8 minutes from last night. We've seen this problem before, and in this same year - we almost lost the ND game because of a similar stretch, we were up 8 on Nebraska at home with 4 minutes left and had to go to OT, and we were plagued with these stretches throughout the B1G schedule last year - hell, I was at the Maryland game when it seemed to go on for days. I guess it's still possible to blame FCTC's players, as one of them is a captain, but it's also fair to have concerns about why this hasn't been fixed yet, too.

Actually, both captains are CTC recruits...

And I can only offer this...

As I said, the coach draws up a game plan, and the players execute it. I knew, Eric Mussleman knew, and everyone in SSAH knew, that we were going to pound the ball inside and take advantage of our size. And it worked...but, then in the 2nd half, we stopped...for whatever reason people want to believe...I personally think it's because we lack true on the floor leadership that will hold players, including themselves accountable. But, that's just me...

And, until we get that, we'll continue to struggle...

It's not out of the question that some of our players have an epiphany and start making smart plays over risky, showy, flashy plays...I think Justin Smith has come a long way in that regard...but some still, in my opinion, haven't bought in...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Billingsley99 said:

What's the say about Archie's guy's if they cant beat out Creans guys

In terms of guard play, since that has been such a hot button, Crean's guys (Green and Al) are running Archie's offense because Archie's guys are not 100% (Rob) and a Freshman (Franklin).  Personally I think this is the root of our problem.  When a healthy Rob is running the offense we have been pretty good (Based on the beginning and ending of last year).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

If IU is the New York Philharmonic (since we play in Carnegie Hall....), the only violinists available were maybe on the level of another regional orchestra. None of them would ever be first chair. Do you fill them with lesser quality players, or just leave them empty? And if the lesser quality players rarely see the floor, does it matter?

A good conductor attracts good musicians.

On another note: I would like to publicly apologize to my employer for my distinct lack of focus today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know many of you dislike Dakich but he said something today that really made sense.  In discussing one of the bone hear passes DG made and DD said the problem is that DG thought it was ok to make that pass. There was no fear of coming out or of what happened if play was not successful.  I believe all playere should play with at least some fear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...