McRoberts

[KoB2011]

Behind Morgan, I think he's our second best player all things considered. I actually don't think it's close; he is a great rebounder, a good defender, can hit an open shot and he doesn't make mistakes. Best of all, he is consistent. 

Is there anyone you all trust more than Zach (besides Juwan)?

[5fouls]

No. He should be starting and he should get a scholarship.  Reward the performance that deserves it.

[KoB2011]

Just now, 5fouls said:

No. He should be starting and he should get a scholarship.  Reward the performance that deserves it.

It's been discussed, but I don't think we can give him a scholarship. I agree he should start. 

[madmax]

I’d be interested in seeing him start.. but I just don’t see it happening, at least not against Wisconsin.

Tonight would’ve been the perfect opportunity to start him, and he still came off the bench. I don’t foresee a change coming unless we totally bomb one of these next two games.

 

[Ryno6284]

I'm not so sure he wouldn't be best fitted as the 6th man.  He just has that fire coming off the bench! 

[Reacher]

He did get the third most minutes last night. More than RoJo. As long as he is top 4 in minutes, he can come off the bench. I'd rather see him start in place of Al, though.

I would have thought Hartman would have been starting by now. A Hartman McRoberts platoon at the 3 spot makes sense to me with Hartman getting some extra front court minutes.

I have to agree with Kob and Fouls that he has been our second best player this year when you consider all the factors. I understand he can't get a scholarship this year. He deserves one next year.

[milehiiu]

9 hours ago, 5fouls said:

No. He should be starting and he should get a scholarship.  Reward the performance that deserves it.

Serious question. To you, or any one else.  Seeing as how McRoberts cannot be rewarded with CuJo's vacated scholarship..... would McRoberts  be able to play next year for another school, should they offer him a scholarship ?  Seeing as how he is a walk on, and not a scholarship player. 

[BGleas]

He should be starting. Everything is better for this team when McRoberts is on the court. Defense, rebounding, balance, scoring, etc. 

[Seeking6]

Perfect example of Peter Principle. Leave McRoberts exactly where he's at. He's playing great, brings a spark off the bench....so often we want to change. What's wrong with staying with what's working for the time being. Plus...it's whoever is on the floor at the end anyway.

[rico]

1 hour ago, milehiiu said:

Serious question. To you, or any one else.  Seeing as how McRoberts cannot be rewarded with CuJo's vacated scholarship..... would McRoberts  be able to play next year for another school, should they offer him a scholarship ?  Seeing as how he is a walk on, and not a scholarship player. 

By my interpretation of the rules he could somewhere else as a grad transfer.  This year is his 4th year of his eligibility even though he was away from basketball for a year.  But I could be wrong.

[milehiiu]

20 minutes ago, rico said:

By my interpretation of the rules he could somewhere else as a grad transfer.  This year is his 4th year of his eligibility even though he was away from basketball for a year.  But I could be wrong.

Thank you.  I am aware of the grad transfer rule.  However, McRoberts' case is a little different in that he has not had a scholarship.  Just wondering if another school would attempt to steal him from IU by offering him a scholarship and be able to play him next year.

[BGleas]

1 hour ago, Seeking6 said:

Perfect example of Peter Principle. Leave McRoberts exactly where he's at. He's playing great, brings a spark off the bench....so often we want to change. What's wrong with staying with what's working for the time being. Plus...it's whoever is on the floor at the end anyway.

It matters who starts because this team has consistently gotten off to poor offensive starts. Look what happened when he started the second half. 

[rico]

Just now, milehiiu said:

Thank you.  I am aware of the grad transfer rule.  However, McRoberts' case is a little different in that he has not had a scholarship.  Just wondering if another school would attempt to steal him from IU by offering him a scholarship and be able to play him next year.

He had one at Vermont. I see what you are saying.  You are implying does the red-shirt rule apply to him?

[Seeking6]

1 minute ago, milehiiu said:

Thank you.  I am aware of the grad transfer rule.  However, McRoberts' case is a little different in that he has not had a scholarship.  Just wondering if another school would attempt to steal him from IU by offering him a scholarship and be able to play him next year.

My understand and interpretation of the rules is yes. Obviously the family isn't hurting for extra $ but I can see where he would feel his efforts might warrant a scholarship. If that's the case and he decides to go elsewhere I say wish him well.

We all know how important Romeo is but if we miss there I'd like to find the very best available grad transfer who can shoot and another big for both available scholarships...if we miss on Romeo. 

[Seeking6]

3 minutes ago, BGleas said:

It matters who starts because this team has consistently gotten off to poor offensive starts. Look what happened when he started the second half. 

I get it trust me but some guys are just better starting on the bench. Seeing what opponent is doing and coming in. Sheehey was similar. When we asked him to start and be leader his performance dragged. Some guys are just off the bench guys and conversely some guys need to start to keep their confidence up. 

Given the risks of both sides? Stay the course with McRoberts for now is my opinion.

[Hoosierhoopster]

McRoberts is playing really well, sound, fundamental basketball and he's our best at attacking the glass. I am in the camp with those who think he should be that 6th man, he's doing very well in that role, that doesn't mean he would suddenly change the team if he became a primary player, or started. 

He's not our second best player. This is like when Durham was playing great early and there were those saying he could be our best or second best guard, etc. McRoberts has only recently started playing more minutes.  One thing not included in this discussion is that he's not been a scouted player -- that makes a major difference in terms of his impact. The more he plays, the more he will be scouted (Durham is getting scouted now btw). And if you change his role -- the role in which he's thriving, and try to make him a primary player/primary option, you really have no idea how that will pan.  

McRoberts is the latest in the players who have been elevated to a guy who should be recognized as best or one of the best players on the team after a string of good games -- Green was talked about in the same way for a while, Newkirk had a strong second half last season, Durham was our best or most solid guard.

This is not me taking a negative view in any way on McRoberts or being the contrarian. In my book he's clearly a scholly player (and several here criticized that idea early on, or even having him on the team -- I didn't). He was a scholly player at Vermont, and I watched him practice last summer with the team. He's good. But just elevating a guy to best or second best player after a string of games, and in a reserve role, is not warranted. In any event, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not he starts -- it is about how much you play and who finishes more than who starts for me (though the comment that we get off to slow starts is fair). 

[BGleas]

21 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

I get it trust me but some guys are just better starting on the bench. Seeing what opponent is doing and coming in. Sheehey was similar. When we asked him to start and be leader his performance dragged. Some guys are just off the bench guys and conversely some guys need to start to keep their confidence up. 

Given the risks of both sides? Stay the course with McRoberts for now is my opinion.

It wasn’t that Sheehey was better off the bench, he did fine when he was a starter at times with the ‘11 team. His problem his senior year was that he wasn’t a go-to guy. It was about the talent around him his senior year, not that he was better off the bench. I think with McRoberts this team clearly plays best when he’s on the court, and this team gets off to slow starts, so IMO it would be best to start him. 

He adds length, athleticism, hustle, B-ball IQ and more to a lineup that needs it. He wouldn’t be asked to do anything different than he already does, just do more of it. 

[Hoosierhoopster]

8 minutes ago, BGleas said:

 

He adds length, athleticism, hustle, B-ball IQ and more to a lineup that needs it. He wouldn’t be asked to do anything different than he already does, just do more of it. 

I agree with this, but with the caveat that we're heading into B1G play, when he will actually be scouted. He didn't start playing meaningful minutes until the ND game, or you could look at it as the Louisville game (when his minutes went from 12 to 15). Agree that playing the same way he is now would be beneficial to the team -- who wouldn't agree with that? But the question is how much impact he will have as his role grows, and he is scouted, guarded more, etc. We do not know that yet.

The flip side of this discussion is how down people were on Morgan early on. He was a real letdown. He couldn't play the role that people thought he might grow into, because he started off this season not doing much to impact the game. Now look at him. If anyone has earned best player on the team recognition, it's Morgan. He's doing it night in and night out on both ends of the floor as a lead guy and getting the real scouting. All I'm saying is let McRoberts continue to grow into his role, without anointing him second best player on the team based on a few games when he's playing a reserve role and hasn't gotten the scouting the lead guys are getting. His play is looking really good, in the role he's playing now.

[rico]

3 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

I agree with this, but with the caveat that we're heading into B1G play, when he will actually be scouted. He didn't start playing meaningful minutes until the ND game, or you could look at it as the Louisville game (when his minutes went from 12 to 15). Agree that playing the same way he is now would be beneficial to the team -- who wouldn't agree with that? But the question is how much impact he will have as his role grows, and he is scouted, guarded more, etc. We do not know that yet.

The flip side of this discussion is how down people were on Morgan early on. He was a real letdown. He couldn't play the role that people thought he might grow into, because he started off this season not doing much to impact the game. Now look at him. If anyone has earned best player on the team recognition, it's Morgan. He's doing it night in and night out on both ends of the floor as a lead guy and getting the real scouting. All I'm saying is let McRoberts continue to grow into his role, without anointing him second best player on the team based on a few games when he's playing a reserve role and hasn't gotten the scouting the lead guys are getting. His play is looking really good, in the role he's playing now.

Let me ask you this.  If you were to rank the players by performance thus far what would it be?

[BGleas]

6 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

I agree with this, but with the caveat that we're heading into B1G play, when he will actually be scouted. He didn't start playing meaningful minutes until the ND game, or you could look at it as the Louisville game (when his minutes went from 12 to 15). Agree that playing the same way he is now would be beneficial to the team -- who wouldn't agree with that? But the question is how much impact he will have as his role grows, and he is scouted, guarded more, etc. We do not know that yet.

The flip side of this discussion is how down people were on Morgan early on. He was a real letdown. He couldn't play the role that people thought he might grow into, because he started off this season not doing much to impact the game. Now look at him. If anyone has earned best player on the team recognition, it's Morgan. He's doing it night in and night out on both ends of the floor as a lead guy and getting the real scouting. All I'm saying is let McRoberts continue to grow into his role, without anointing him second best player on the team based on a few games when he's playing a reserve role and hasn't gotten the scouting the lead guys are getting. His play is looking really good, in the role he's playing now.

I didn’t anoint him anything, or say anything about who is the best or second best player on the team, and don’t see what this has to do with Morgan? The fact is this team plays better with McRoberts on the floor. Everything works better when he’s out there, and what he does “travels”, meaning what he does to impact the game applies even if his role/minutes continue to rise. 

He hustles, grabs offensive rebounds, plays solid defense, makes good passes,etc. This isn’t comparable to Green or another player who has had moments of making some shots, etc., what McRoberts brings won’t be impacted by hot/cold shooting. It’s the little things that he does and nobody else really does. 

In addition, it gets the team away from the 3-guard lineup, it adds size and length to the lineup, which will be needed in Big Ten play. With Durham struggling to make an impact, I see no reason why McRoberts starting should be tried. If it doesn’t work, then he can go back to 6th man and shouldn’t miss a beat, as what he brings is more impacted by effort than anything else. 

[Hoosierhoopster]

3 minutes ago, BGleas said:

I didn’t anoint him anything, or say anything about who is the best or second best player on the team, and don’t see what this has to do with Morgan? The fact is this team plays better with McRoberts on the floor. Everything works better when he’s out there, and what he does “travels”, meaning what he does to impact the game applies even if his role/minutes continue to rise. 

He hustles, grabs offensive rebounds, plays solid defense, makes good passes,etc. This isn’t comparable to Green or another player who has had moments of making some shots, etc., what McRoberts brings won’t be impacted by hot/cold shooting. It’s the little things that he does and nobody else really does. 

In addition, it gets the team away from the 3-guard lineup, it adds size and length to the lineup, which will be needed in Big Ten play. With Durham struggling to make an impact, I seee no reason why McRoberts starting should be tried. If it doesn’t work, then he can go back to 6th man and shouldn’t miss a beat, as what he brings is more impacted by effort than anything else. 

Gleas, this thread starts with the OP post that he's our second best player, and that it's not close. Already agreed with your points about his hustle, rebounding (I said he was the best player on the team on the glass). Did you read my post or skim it? The comparison to Green, Newkirk, Durham et al is that, pretty much exactly like is being done in this thread, they were touted as better than other guys and in Green's case as the guy who should start and replace another guard, based on good showings in a few games. McRoberts was playing 12 minutes a game before 15 in the Louis game. I also agree we need to move away from a 3 guard lineup and I would personally be fine with his starting (though I don't care who does or does not start). We're really not disagreeing on what McRoberts brings, or for that matter on his potential to help the team further down the road. I do not agree that he is our second best player, period, for whatever that really matters, and the simple point that he hasn't even been scouted yet is just ignored. I'd like to see him continue to play the role he's playing now -- he's getting "starter" minutes now, and continue to knock down a few shots from the perimeter to help spread the floor while attacking the glass. We'll see how he handles increased scouting if / as his offensive role increases. I'm happy where he's at now. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Seeking6 said:

My understand and interpretation of the rules is yes. Obviously the family isn't hurting for extra $ but I can see where he would feel his efforts might warrant a scholarship. If that's the case and he decides to go elsewhere I say wish him well.

We all know how important Romeo is but if we miss there I'd like to find the very best available grad transfer who can shoot and another big for both available scholarships...if we miss on Romeo. 

Maybe I am being naive here, but maybe Zach is living out his dream by playing in the candy stripes. He left a scholarship position in Vermont to come home and play for his dream school. As stated, his family can afford the tuition. From everything I have seen thus far from Zach, he comes across as a "team first " kind of kid. IMO, he is building his own legacy, so to speak, with all that he is accomplishing to help CAM turn the program around.

Would it take me by complete surprise if he went on scholarship elsewhere next year? No, but from all that I've seen of Zach, it would come across as out of character, for sure.

[Reacher]

3 hours ago, rico said:

Let me ask you this.  If you were to rank the players by performance thus far what would it be?

After Morgan and McRoberts, I think the next best has to come from among  the group of Davis, RoJo and Newkirk. All have had some good games but none have shown the consistency of Morgan and McRoberts. All are much better players individually than McRoberts. Ultimately, it comes down to how you value a player. McRoberts has a consistency and calming influence on the team. Add hustle, defense, rebounding and his intangibles and its easy to see why he is getting major minutes and his +/- has been at the top lately.

2 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Gleas, this thread starts with the OP post that he's our second best player, and that it's not close. Already agreed with your points about his hustle, rebounding (I said he was the best player on the team on the glass). Did you read my post or skim it? The comparison to Green, Newkirk, Durham et al is that, pretty much exactly like is being done in this thread, they were touted as better than other guys and in Green's case as the guy who should start and replace another guard, based on good showings in a few games. McRoberts was playing 12 minutes a game before 15 in the Louis game. I also agree we need to move away from a 3 guard lineup and I would personally be fine with his starting (though I don't care who does or does not start). We're really not disagreeing on what McRoberts brings, or for that matter on his potential to help the team further down the road. I do not agree that he is our second best player, period, for whatever that really matters, and the simple point that he hasn't even been scouted yet is just ignored. I'd like to see him continue to play the role he's playing now -- he's getting "starter" minutes now, and continue to knock down a few shots from the perimeter to help spread the floor while attacking the glass. We'll see how he handles increased scouting if / as his offensive role increases. I'm happy where he's at now. 

Whether or not he gets scouted and struggles in the future does not change the fact the over this last stretch of games, he has been our second MVP..

I think the people (myself included) saying McRoberts is our second best player may be defining "best" differently than you. Maybe second "most valuable" is more accurate?

That could change going forward. I think his comfort and confidence could build with an increased load. Only time will tell.

You say above that you are "fine with him starting" but then want him "to continue to play the rtole he's playing now". That seems contradictory.. I think his game will translate to a starting role just fine. The second half vs YS is a small sample size but showed the potential.

[rico]

I think one would have to have blinders on to not see Zach's contributions thus far.  If some want to call it "over achieving" then so be it.  But the stat sheet speaks for itself.  

[BobSaccamanno]

I’m all aboard the McRoberts train, particularly for what this team needs.  Heck, make me the engineer.   Showalter was a walk-on for Wisconsin and started, so there’s precedent for guys like Zach becoming legit.  

This team has a number of deficiencies, and Zach addresses those deficiencies in many ways.  You can’t ignore his plus/minus. He’s a winner.