Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

Old Friend

What does an Archie Miller Indiana player look like?

Recommended Posts

This is probably a question better asked on a different thread, but given this is a popular one, I'm going to ask it here and if the mods see fit to move it; that's obviously just fine.

"What does an Archie Miller Indiana player look like?"

What characteristics does he have?  Does anyone - including Archie - know the answer right now?   I honestly don't know.  Jake Forrester and Damezi Anderson clearly aren't ready to contribute as freshmen and I'm not convinced either of them will as a sophomore.  Romeo Langford didn't fit. Phinisee has been down since his concussion, but prior to looked okay.  Hunter's been hurt.

Nothing in common among those guys, and  Franklin and Davis are different than both.  I'm trying to figure out what he's trying to build and I'm struggling to figure it out.   Thus the question.   Looking forward to the replies and discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Old Friend said:

This is probably a question better asked on a different thread, but given this is a popular one, I'm going to ask it here and if the mods see fit to move it; that's obviously just fine.

"What does an Archie Miller Indiana player look like?"

An alpha male.  Tough, hardnosed, vocal, the first guy on the floor for a loose ball, gives 110%.  I think of Dane Fife, Will Sheehey, Zeke, Yogi to offer just a few names. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An alpha male.  Tough, hardnosed, vocal, the first guy on the floor for a loose ball, gives 110%.  I think of Dane Fife, Will Sheehey, Zeke, Yogi to offer just a few names. 

A team composed of more of these type of players than not. If we were in this situation adding a Romeo would look completely different.


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:


A team composed of more of these type of players than not. If we were in this situation adding a Romeo would look completely different.


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app

Yes, I don't think an entire team of what I described would be effective but definitely more than not as you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Class of '66 Old Fart said:

An alpha male.  Tough, hardnosed, vocal, the first guy on the floor for a loose ball, gives 110%.  I think of Dane Fife, Will Sheehey, Zeke, Yogi to offer just a few names. 

You think this is what an Archie Miller player looks like or what you want an Indiana player to look like?

I don't think this is an Archie Miller player at all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Old Friend said:

You think this is what an Archie Miller player looks like or what you want an Indiana player to look like?

I don't think this is an Archie Miller player at all.  

How about we put it this way;  what 66 described is a type of player Archie would benefit from for having on his roster.

We speculate that's the type of player Archie likes because that's the way he (CAM) played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Old Friend said:

This is probably a question better asked on a different thread, but given this is a popular one, I'm going to ask it here and if the mods see fit to move it; that's obviously just fine.

"What does an Archie Miller Indiana player look like?"

What characteristics does he have?  Does anyone - including Archie - know the answer right now?   I honestly don't know.  Jake Forrester and Damezi Anderson clearly aren't ready to contribute as freshmen and I'm not convinced either of them will as a sophomore.  Romeo Langford didn't fit. Phinisee has been down since his concussion, but prior to looked okay.  Hunter's been hurt.

Nothing in common among those guys, and  Franklin and Davis are different than both.  I'm trying to figure out what he's trying to build and I'm struggling to figure it out.   Thus the question.   Looking forward to the replies and discussion.

Wisconsin?....gulp!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, theriverpilot said:

How about we put it this way;  what 66 described is a type of player Archie would benefit from for having on his roster.

We speculate that's the type of player Archie likes because that's the way he (CAM) played.

I'm interested in what his players look like.  What he's trying to build.  I'm not looking for speculation or "how he played."

My point is, I am beginning to think he's a lot like Crean and just taking anyone who says yes.  I don't see a team being built.  At all.  Every team would benefit from who 66 described.   That wasn't my question. We'd all love to have that player across the roster.   We don't.  We have a mish mash...even among his recruits.  We have a bunch of kids who so far don't look like winners.  They look like they want everything to be easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Old Friend said:

My point is, I am beginning to think he's a lot like Crean and just taking anyone who says yes.  I don't see a team being built.  At all.  Every team would benefit from who 66 described.   That wasn't my question. We'd all love to have that player across the roster.   We don't.  We have a mish mash...even among his recruits.  We have a bunch of kids who so far don't look like winners.  They look like they want everything to be easy.

Archie has signed 8 recruits, and they're all top 150 guys. How does that scream desperation? He has 6 recruits on the current team. Who specifically would you say looks like they want everything to be easy? Pretty much everybody loves Phinisee, and Romeo was a no-brainer pickup. 2 of the recruits have been injured all year. Jake was never expected to contribute. So we basically have one guy, Damezi, who could be somewhat criticized. I'm sure the season has not gone as Damezi hoped, but it's way too early to make any judgments on him. He tries when he's out there, but his defense is just not ready. 

Don't get me wrong, Archie has had a bad year, and he deserves to be criticized. But it's way too soon to act like he doesn't have a plan for recruiting or player development. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BGleas said:

I think if approached correctly, this is a fascinating topic and one I've thought about as well. I don't know the answer to the question, but I would guess a good way to find out would be to watch some Dayton film on YouTube his last 3-4 seasons there. 

Being completely honest, I didn't watch a ton of Dayton when Miller was there, but I do remember watching their Elite 8 run and I really liked watching that run. This is completely on recollection, but what I recall is a really long, tough, together team. A team of guys that played with emotion, that you could tell were all on the same page, we're all long, athletic, and well-built, and all knew what they should be doing and where they should be doing it. They weren't one of those mid-major teams winning in the tournament because they got hot from 3 and got lucky. They appeared to have clear leadership, guys that came through in big moments, and like they belonged in that spot. I remember them playing like they were mad that the rest of us didn't think they belonged. 

With all that said, I don't see that in the recruits Archie is bringing to IU so far. I don't remember his Dayton teams (again, I didn't watching closely) having these sleepy types that don't play with emotion. To be fair though, as others have said, we've really yet to see Race or Hunter play, Langford was a 'must-recruit', and Fitzner doesn't fit what I remember him having at Dayton.

I think the jury is still out on Forrester obviously, though he doesn't seem like a guy he had at Dayton. I think Damezi actually does kind of fit what Archie had at Dayton, but again Damezi is a guy you're probably not expecting to be fully what he is until probably his junior year. Phinisee is another guy that I think maybe fits what Archie likes, but again I wonder about his demanour. I love that he's cool, calm and collected, but I think Archie generally likes more fiery guys. 

Of course, the goal isn't to just mirror Dayton, it's to improve upon it. If I'm being honest, I'm not sure if what Archie is doing so far at IU really mirrors the type of team he really wants or has had. I don't think he's even remotely like Crean though. Archie is being very intentional with his offers, and to be fair to Archie we have to give 'his guys' 3-4 years to develop before we really know. He's had 1 class to this point, so it's really too early to judge them. 

I do wonder if the "inside/out" approach has gotten to be too much of a mantra. I'm all for locking the borders, I really am, but has he gotten a few guys he typically might not have gone after because of that mantra?  

Not sure if I’ve said this before, but love your posts BGleas. Always a great read

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, V05!

To add to this, if everyone develops the way you'd hope and guys stay, and of course Brooks goes our way, I think in two years (20-21) the below actually looks a lot like an Archie team, and it looks pretty good to me. Add in some other signings and that's a long, athletic, skilled team. 

Phinisee (Jr)

Brooks (So)

Hunter (RS So)

Thompson (RS Jr)

TDJ (So)

Bench

Durham (Sr)

Smith (Sr, though I'd guess he might not be here)

Franklin (So)

Forrester (Jr)

Add in 2020 guys (maybe a big and a guard) and this is a nice team with a lot of versatile pieces. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Str8Hoosiers said:

So you begin a topic saying "I honestly don't know."

Then when somebody tells you their opinion you say they are wrong and "I don't think that is an Archie Miller Player at all"

Then proceed to say you aren't looking for speculation? So the ONLY person that could answer your initial question is Archie himself... so assuming you don't believe he posts on this board what was the point?

Were you just bringing it up as another way to take shots and say he is a bad hire? Just like Crean? Not the guy?

 

I am generally curious... when I saw your first post, I thought to myself now this could be an interesting topic of discussion (which is why I moved it from the Brooks Recruiting thread and gave it it's own space).... but now it appears it was just that same thing you have said in every other thread, just trying to find a new way to say it at least?

No..It's not, and you're right.  I did say "I don't know."   My post to 66 was more clarification because I think we'd all like Indiana players to look like that.  And...I think we all agree....they don't.  So I was trying (poorly, apparently) to clarify what he meant.  To me....knowing him as I do, he was providing a description of what he wants an Indiana player to look like.   His description did not seem to me like an Archie Miller player, even though I said "I don't know."   Does that make sense?   (To use an extreme example to help illustrate what I was trying to say, he could have answered "I think of a gymnast who looks like Mary Lou Retton."   I wouldn't have agreed with that, either..as an Archie Miller player.   I don't KNOW what that player looks like now; but I do know it doesn't look like THAT.)   The main reason I made that comment, and maybe why I asked the question is I saw Romeo and Al walking out of a huddle on Sunday..down 28...laughing.  That doesn't say "tough" to me, or even committed.  Which is also a reason I assumed he meant "what do I want an Indiana player to be," which really wasn't what I was asking.

I really was trying to spark discussion.  I've heard two people (Jay Bilas and Seth Greenberg) say in the last...10 days, maybe, that a team can't just have one 1 and done kid because of the competing agendas of the players.  So...does Romeo fit?  Is THAT an Archie player?  Same with Brooks.   I made the Crean comment because I DON'T know what Archie's system is.  I DON'T know the kind of kids he's trying to recruit.  I DON'T know what he's trying to build because I can't tell.  So yes...I DO want discussion about that.  What I didn't want is "what do we want an Indiana player to be?"  That has been discussed ad nauseum.  And I think we can all agree we don't see that so far with Miller.

Now that we've lost 10 of 11 and somehow gone from 12-2 (should have been 13-1) to "awful and look like our players couldn't care less with pieces that don't seem to fit or don't seem to be coming together;" I asked what I wanted to be a question about direction and the characteristics of the players as they fit into __________ (whatever Archie is trying to do).

Make sense?

Edit : In response to another post above, I absolutely agree Archie recruits more specifically than Crean did, but I question so far what he's trying to do or what he's trying to build.  Is he trying to run like Crean did?  Trying to be a half court, opportunistic team?  A team that wins on defense (and if so, I would be hard pressed to think he can do that with the great coaches in the Big Ten)?  A player development/roster development guy like Matt Painter; whose most experienced teams are usually damned good?  What is he recruiting to?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He had to take a chance on fitzner because of his perceived shooting touch. Obviously that hasnt panned out but I truly believe archie had to have seen the deficiencies of the team from the get go. Anderson could be another really good shooter, I think phinisee will grow into a great shooter. You have to take Langford. Period. Whether he is a fit or not. I think Hunter, as somebody said above, would probably be the closest prototypical archie player. The three crean recruits that he signed, in my opinion, was because he felt it was the right thing to do. I don't believe that archie would have recruited them on his own. But I don't know. Pure speculation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say for his first recruiting cycle it’s a little early to tell what kind of player looks like this early in the process. For me the player he has recruited so far is someone who he feels can compete in the B1G. He has good company in the other coaches that wanted the player he got in his first cycle. If someone doesn’t trust Archie in the type of player he is bringing in hopefully they trust the other coaches that offered these kids scholarships. Rob had offers from Purdue,Ohio st and Virginia. Jerome had offers from Michigan, Ohio st, Purdue

Anderson had offers from Michigan and Purdue

Most those coaches recruit kids like this and ease them in to a role. Beilein saw something in Anderson but I would almost bet a lot of money he would of gotten less playing time then he got at IU this year. Beilein wanted Anderson for his size and ability to shoot the 3 but not for year 1. I think Archie sacrificed some of his culture this year on what made him successful at Dayton. I personally think it was a learning curve for him at the high major level and I believe he will correct it moving forward. For me and I believe you would agree Henry fits what I think Archie would want a player to look like. I wanted Henry to be a Hoosier from watching him throughout his high school. I wished it would of worked out

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×