Jump to content

McRoberts


KoB2011

Recommended Posts

10 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. 

I don't feel out of place responding since I was the OP. Why isn't he the second best player? I'm not advocating he should be our second leading scorer or a focal point on offense, but that's irrelevant. 

Best player and best scorer aren't the same. He's consistent, which is more than we can say about anyone except Morgan. He's one of our three best defenders, one of our best rebounders, takes as good of care of the ball for what he is asked to do as anyone, he makes the shots he is asked to take as well as anyone. Based on this thread and the way you've talked about other guys who aren't asked to do as much on offense in the past (such as Draymond) I'm guessing you don't think guys who aren't asked to carry the load on offense can be among your best players? Even if that's fair in general, in our situation the guys asked to carry the load on offense are so inconsistent that it's hard to weigh that as a positive for them over Zach IMO. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply
11 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. 

I asked you who, other than Morgan, was playing better.  Rico asked for a ranking.  And, I'll ask again.  If, at this point and time, you do not think McRoberts is performing as the second best player on the team, who is out-performing him?  Morgan and.....

It's easy to say he's not our second best player simply because he's not supposed to be.  However, it's really hard to identify someone beyond Morgan who is playing better than he is.  If it was easy, you could have given us a name by now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 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. 

We have no idea how he’s been scouted. Any team I was on would have had a report on him, as he’s played enough minutes over the last 7 or so games to warrant it. As in regards to other guys (Green, Durham, etc.) that have played well, when do we get to the point where it is ok to make a change? It’s not like we’re suggessting McRoberts replace someone who is playing well. Durham is clearly struggling right now, and has been for a few games, while McRoberts is thriving. 

The bottom line for me in this discussion is simple. Since his play has increased, the team clearly plays best when McRoberts is on the floor. Also, IU has been getting off to terrible starts, at least offensively, so that to me warrants the idea that a change to the starting lineup should be entertained. Put those two thing together and I think it makes complete sense to give it a try. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, 5fouls said:

I asked you who, other than Morgan, was playing better.  Rico asked for a ranking.  And, I'll ask again.  If, at this point and time, you do not think McRoberts is performing as the second best player on the team, who is out-performing him?  Morgan and.....

It's easy to say he's not our second best player simply because he's not supposed to be.  However, it's really hard to identify someone beyond Morgan who is playing better than he is.  If it was easy, you could have given us a name by now

Fouls, this is your, and Rico's, result-driven question. Naming someone the second best player on the team is not the same as saying a player has been playing the best over the course of a few games, or is most helping us win at this point, and for some reason you and Rico are going out of your way to look for an argument. It's like you are going out of your way to ignore the good things I've posted about McRoberts (many), including that he's been the best at attacking the glass(as I think he clearly has) in order to argue.

Who cares how I "rank" the players, but do you really, honestly, think McRoberts is the second best overall player on the team? I mean, really? He's averaging 3 points per game. He's scored a sum total 33 points on the year. He's shooting 41% from the 3 -- promising -- but on, 12 shots, total. He's averaging 3.5 rebounds per game. He is looking great as a role player. He is not, in any way, shape or form, playing "out front' as a lead player being asked to carry the team, to create offense for the team, to defend the other teams' best players, to bang down low on the block against the other teams' top offensive bigs, to be the "leader on the floor," or anything remotely like that. He is playing as a role player. He's doing really, really well at it. But to make the jump to place him on a pedestal as the second best player on the team in that role and after only a few games of playing more than 12 minutes a game is just not warranted.

If you really want to argue for the sake of argument, tell me how this is so different than when guys like Newkirk, Green, Durham and others were playing, in their roles, as arguably best over a stretch of games? So Newkirk was the second best player on the team the second half of last season because, at times, he was playing really well?? And when Morgan started the year -- over several games -- playing marginally or without much impact, then that meant he wasn't one of our best players?? Of course not. And if you have the whole team in front of you, as high schoolers, and your scouting for IU, you would pick McRoberts as your second player? Are you building a Northwestern team or an IU team? I'm not big on "ranking" players on the team, but if for some reason that is so important to you then I'd have at least the following players ahead of McRoberts, in no particular order - Morgan, Hartman, Smith, Rob, Davis, Newkirk, Green, Durham. I wonder how an NBA scout would "rank" the players. McRoberts would not be anywhere near 2nd.

But who cares? If the discussion is about who most helps this team win, McRoberts is clearly one of guys you want on the floor at this point in the season. And that's taking us back to who starts or who should be on the floor -- that is a different question than who is the "best" or second best player on the team. McRoberts absolutely has helped the team, in a big way, over the last few games, and he's earned increased minutes, by how much he's helping the team. That doesn't make him a better player than Davis or Rob or whoever, it means, in the role he's playing, he's helping the team win. So sure, maybe he should start (and get us out of a 3-guard lineup, a good thing). I think his role will continue to grow -- not defending the other teams' best players or running the team or leading scoring, or being the primary option up front, but he could lead the team on the glass, he could be that "Jeff Foster" (Pacers) type player that every team needs. Lots of games left to be played, I'm looking forward to seeing how well he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

I don't feel out of place responding since I was the OP. Why isn't he the second best player? I'm not advocating he should be our second leading scorer or a focal point on offense, but that's irrelevant. 

Best player and best scorer aren't the same. He's consistent, which is more than we can say about anyone except Morgan. He's one of our three best defenders, one of our best rebounders, takes as good of care of the ball for what he is asked to do as anyone, he makes the shots he is asked to take as well as anyone. Based on this thread and the way you've talked about other guys who aren't asked to do as much on offense in the past (such as Draymond) I'm guessing you don't think guys who aren't asked to carry the load on offense can be among your best players? Even if that's fair in general, in our situation the guys asked to carry the load on offense are so inconsistent that it's hard to weigh that as a positive for them over Zach IMO. 

 

See my post above. That is how I see it. To me, this debate conflates "best" player with the player(s) that best help us win at this point. Those are not the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

I wonder how an NBA scout would "rank" the players. McRoberts would not be anywhere near 2nd.

I'll contend that this is where your argument fails as it relates to assessing college basketball players.   College basketball history is littered with very good, and even great, players who helped their college teams win that never sniffed the NBA.  And, on the flip side, there are also plenty of examples of players with NBA talent that do little or nothing to help their college team win (see Markelle Fultz). 

I'm not interested in 'pro' potential.  I'm interested in IU winning games.  I'm sure Rob Johnson, De'Ron Davis, DeVonte Green, etc. will make a career out of basketball, if not in the U.S., then internationally.  But, for the last 5 games, their performance has been behind that of Zach McRoberts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 5fouls said:

I'll contend that this is where your argument fails as it relates to assessing college basketball players.   College basketball history is littered with very good, and even great, players who helped their college teams win that never sniffed the NBA.  And, on the flip side, there are also plenty of examples of players with NBA talent that do little or nothing to help their college team win (see Markelle Fultz). 

I'm not interested in 'pro' potential.  I'm interested in IU winning games.  I'm sure Rob Johnson, De'Ron Davis, DeVonte Green, etc. will make a career out of basketball, if not in the U.S., then internationally.  But, for the last 5 games, their performance has been behind that of Zach McRoberts.  

Right, you're back to arguing for arguments' sake, you've ignored almost my entire post including the distinction between "best" player and who is helping a team win at a particular point in the season, or that Zack has a sum total 33 points on the year, in order to say my argument "fails." OK. Again, though you ignore it, I said he's clearly helping us win right now -- Jeff Foster / Jeff Newton type, maybe, still a very small sample size, but that would be great, without making him the best player on the team. And for what it's worth, I agree guys like Rob and Davis have been really inconsistent and (though Rob's D is or should be obviously key) they don't seem to be bringing it. Some points from CAM I think everyone would agree with:

"He is an every-day guy," Miller said of McRoberts. "What you see in the games is what you see in practice … he's giving maximum effort. He's playing extremely hard. He's giving you a lot of hustle plays, a lot of winning plays.
" … We need to get some other guys on this team fired up and ready to go and playing like that. When you wear 'INDIANA' across the front of your jersey, I don't care who you're playing, you represent a lot more. I think Zach embodies that."

and

"We're a low-energy team (too often)," Miller said. "We're not a hyped team. We only have a couple of guys on this team that you know, when the ball goes up, they're coming for you.
"Zach is moving in the direction of a guy that you know, when he's in there, that's he's going full-throttle. He's playing as hard as he can on defense. He's on the offensive glass. He's doing hustle plays. Whatever it takes. And when you have guys out there that impact the game with their effort and their passion, it can really spearhead some guys."

http://iuhoosiers.com/news/2017/12/30/mens-basketball-mcroberts-adds-spice-to-hoosiers-lineup.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Right, you're back to arguing for arguments' sake, you've ignored almost my entire post including the distinction between "best" player and who is helping a team win at a particular point in the season, or that Zack has a sum total 33 points on the year, in order to say my argument "fails." OK. Again, though you ignore it, I said he's clearly helping us win right now -- Jeff Foster / Jeff Newton type, maybe, still a very small sample size, but that would be great, without making him the best player on the team. And for what it's worth, I agree guys like Rob and Davis have been really inconsistent and (though Rob's D is or should be obviously key) they don't seem to be bringing it. Some points from CAM I think everyone would agree with:

"He is an every-day guy," Miller said of McRoberts. "What you see in the games is what you see in practice … he's giving maximum effort. He's playing extremely hard. He's giving you a lot of hustle plays, a lot of winning plays.
" … We need to get some other guys on this team fired up and ready to go and playing like that. When you wear 'INDIANA' across the front of your jersey, I don't care who you're playing, you represent a lot more. I think Zach embodies that."

and

"We're a low-energy team (too often)," Miller said. "We're not a hyped team. We only have a couple of guys on this team that you know, when the ball goes up, they're coming for you.
"Zach is moving in the direction of a guy that you know, when he's in there, that's he's going full-throttle. He's playing as hard as he can on defense. He's on the offensive glass. He's doing hustle plays. Whatever it takes. And when you have guys out there that impact the game with their effort and their passion, it can really spearhead some guys."

http://iuhoosiers.com/news/2017/12/30/mens-basketball-mcroberts-adds-spice-to-hoosiers-lineup.aspx

Really?  To be honest I am just shaking my head.  So you got some guys on here that think McBob is the 2nd best player on the team in the "right here, right now".  So what?  I don't understand why you argue vehemently against it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 5fouls said:

I'll contend that this is where your argument fails as it relates to assessing college basketball players.   College basketball history is littered with very good, and even great, players who helped their college teams win that never sniffed the NBA.  And, on the flip side, there are also plenty of examples of players with NBA talent that do little or nothing to help their college team win (see Markelle Fultz). 

I'm not interested in 'pro' potential.  I'm interested in IU winning games.  I'm sure Rob Johnson, De'Ron Davis, DeVonte Green, etc. will make a career out of basketball, if not in the U.S., then internationally.  But, for the last 5 games, their performance has been behind that of Zach McRoberts.  

Totally agree with this because I couldn't care less what their NBA potential are.  All I care about is how the players play at IU and how they help us win college games.  NBA drafts on potential and not what kids did in college. If you don't believe that I give you Micheal Olokandi(sp)? being the number one pick in the draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Totally agree with this because I couldn't care less what their NBA potential are.  All I care about is how the players play at IU and how they help us win college games.  NBA drafts on potential and not what kids did in college. If you don't believe that I give you Micheal Olokandi(sp)? being the number one pick in the draft.

And more recently Anthony Bennett.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept the point about sample size, which is well taken.  His expanded role is somewhat recent   It may be fine to be laser focused in a limited role, but as your responsibilities mount, keeping that laser focus is key.  Based on the things he’s bringing to the table, I’d say he can do it.  It’s not like we are talking about a hot shooting streak.  

But if the version of McRoberts we have seen the last few games is here to stay, then, yes, I would give him the nod as the second best player.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, BobSaccamanno said:

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. 

Great point, and example citing Showalter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in a related topic, i am the one always calling for s shorter bench, but if we're not going to make the tourney, i'm good with getting the young guys more time.  still think the most important thing about this season is going to turn out to be figuring out who is part of our future and who is not.  obviously the seniors are not.  sure, we're going to play them, but i'm hoping for less minutes from them as we go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Right, you're back to arguing for arguments' sake, you've ignored almost my entire post including the distinction between "best" player and who is helping a team win at a particular point in the season, or that Zack has a sum total 33 points on the year, in order to say my argument "fails." OK. Again, though you ignore it, I said he's clearly helping us win right now -- Jeff Foster / Jeff Newton type, maybe, still a very small sample size, but that would be great, without making him the best player on the team. And for what it's worth, I agree guys like Rob and Davis have been really inconsistent and (though Rob's D is or should be obviously key) they don't seem to be bringing it. Some points from CAM I think everyone would agree with:

"He is an every-day guy," Miller said of McRoberts. "What you see in the games is what you see in practice … he's giving maximum effort. He's playing extremely hard. He's giving you a lot of hustle plays, a lot of winning plays.
" … We need to get some other guys on this team fired up and ready to go and playing like that. When you wear 'INDIANA' across the front of your jersey, I don't care who you're playing, you represent a lot more. I think Zach embodies that."

and

"We're a low-energy team (too often)," Miller said. "We're not a hyped team. We only have a couple of guys on this team that you know, when the ball goes up, they're coming for you.
"Zach is moving in the direction of a guy that you know, when he's in there, that's he's going full-throttle. He's playing as hard as he can on defense. He's on the offensive glass. He's doing hustle plays. Whatever it takes. And when you have guys out there that impact the game with their effort and their passion, it can really spearhead some guys."

http://iuhoosiers.com/news/2017/12/30/mens-basketball-mcroberts-adds-spice-to-hoosiers-lineup.aspx

Bro.... you're the one arguing semantics on a message board.  That's kinda the definition of arguing just to argue.  

I'd say when he is one of the only guys that is bringing energy and making winnings plays a lot, that makes him one of our best players.  Does making winnings plays not factor in high on your player rater because he doesn't score as much as Rob?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, rico said:

Really?  To be honest I am just shaking my head.  So you got some guys on here that think McBob is the 2nd best player on the team in the "right here, right now".  So what?  I don't understand why you argue vehemently against it?

I'm not "vehemently" arguing against anything, you keep nitpicking away and Fouls ignores basically my entire post to quibble. Shake your head away, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

Bro.... you're the one arguing semantics on a message board.  That's kinda the definition of arguing just to argue.  

I'd say when he is one of the only guys that is bringing energy and making winnings plays a lot, that makes him one of our best players.  Does making winnings plays not factor in high on your player rater because he doesn't score as much as Rob?  

Bro, it's not semantics. Best player means best player. But what's the point of this kind of nitpicking anyway? Don't we all agree he's been helping the team over the past several games? I'm not the one who keeps coming back to nitpick, it's right there for you above this post. Good grief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BGleas said:

I don’t care if he’s the 2nd best player or the 8th best player, I’ll repeat it again, to this point IU’s most successful 5 has McRoberts in it. The team plays best when he’s on the floor. 

Sure, so far, in the last several games, right? Already said he looks like a Hartman type, or a Jeff Foster type, if he can keep it up, and I hope he can. So why the angst? Why not recognize where we agree instead of this? What's the point?? Good grief, have a happy new year.

Again we're not far off here -- although I don't read into a few games how much a player will contribute for the rest of season, though I hope he proves this true over the rest of the season --

"But who cares? If the discussion is about who most helps this team win, McRoberts is clearly one of guys you want on the floor at this point in the season. And that's taking us back to who starts or who should be on the floor -- that is a different question than who is the "best" or second best player on the team. McRoberts absolutely has helped the team, in a big way, over the last few games, and he's earned increased minutes, by how much he's helping the team. That doesn't make him a better player than Davis or Rob or whoever, it means, in the role he's playing, he's helping the team win. So sure, maybe he should start (and get us out of a 3-guard lineup, a good thing). I think his role will continue to grow -- not defending the other teams' best players or running the team or leading scoring, or being the primary option up front, but he could lead the team on the glass, he could be that "Jeff Foster" (Pacers) type player that every team needs. Lots of games left to be played, I'm looking forward to seeing how well he does."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...