lillurk

Yeah, I think you want the best players who fit your scheme and culture. The state of Indiana produces a ton of talent, and there are obvious secondary benefits to recruiting close to home. You have to supplement from elsewhere, whether because the in-state talent sometimes produces knuckleheads or, as in this example, it doesn’t meet your needs.

With respect to Rob, I think some of us are reading far too much into one poor shooting night. I'll watch the BTN replay, but we have three years' worth of evidence of who he can be, plus a summer in which he was perhaps the most lauded player by his new coach. He's a career 39.6% 3 point shooter on a lot of attempts. He was 0/5 last night, and someone mentioned he missed five layups. I'm glad he was cold against Marian and not against Duke. He had five boards, four assists, and a steal, with no turnovers. If a normal number of shots fall, his numbers would've rivaled Green's. Let's not write him off just yet.

Back to DG...things still looking good?

Additional evidence:

Has anyone seen any sort of unofficial Hysteria box score?

Rojo has done it his entire career.

These are up there with the Louisville and other adidas teams’ zubaz from a couple years ago for the worst uniforms I’ve seen.

To your original question, @Hoosier Roots, when the Kansas info seeped out last week I did a little digging. Other than a Self in-home and Doyel’s tweet, I don’t think there were any real or substantiated reports about anything. I dug around, and even KU boards were sourcing the Kansas rumor to Doyel. Doyel does some things well, but covering the ups and downs of recruiting is not his main beat. Could Romeo end up there? I mean, sure. But the recent “he’s close” rumors all seem to come back to Doyel.

A lot of board chatter has assumed or projected that some comments Arch made at his introductory press conference mean we won't use all thirteen scholarships regularly. I'm sure there are some years that's the case, but from a resource allocation standpoint, it will typically make sense to use all of them one way or another. Yes, sometimes a late transfer or recruiting decision will go against you. But you have thirteen "chips" to use each year and you can't carry them forward to have fourteen in other years. Thus it's rarely optimal to leave one vacant. Maybe you have reason not to make a four year commitment to a player who may not prove worth it. But there are other options: grad transfers, rewarding a Jeff Howard/McRoberts-type walkon as a senior, etc. And guys leave, too. Coaches know that's coming before we, the general public, do. So what looks like an oversign may just be wise roster management with more info than we have.

Agreed. Maybe Seton Hall or ND isn't as good as expected, maybe there's a little Assembly Hall magic there for Duke...but I think we should be ecstatic if we split 'em. Win two, don't drop a game you should win, 10-8 in conference, and you're 20-10 with some good wins. That puts you somewhere between a six seed and a nine most years, I think.

I tend to think this is a tournament-caliber team, as @Stromboli says, given the experience, depth, and pretty evenly distributed roster construction. (As an aside, I think we'll see some creative workarounds to the lack of a clear backup 5: against less threatening interiors, some combo of two or three of Morgan/Hartman/McSwain/Smith could provide serviceable spot minutes, and I like the possibility of Moore's skill and height challenging oafish bigs like Haas to defend him out to 24 feet to shoot or drive.) In general I think IU's probably seen as roughly a bubble team at the moment: some reasons to believe, some reasons for concern. There aren't a ton of statistical models projecting the year publicly yet, but T-Rank is a decent-enough one and has IU in a mid-conference logjam just a couple games out of third. I don't think there's any adjustment for the coaching change there, though, so if IU's the team he projects on offense but a bit better on defense, they'd jump more comfortably into that Northwestern-Iowa-Minnesota Maryland tier, as all those teams' offensive projections are in the same ballpark as IU, with defenses a point or two better per 100 possessions. If IU wins a couple or more of the four tough non-conference games (Seton Hall, Duke, Louisville, Notre Dame) without dropping any others, they'll be in a good place. My hunch is the most likely outcome is they win one of those and have lots of work to do in conference but once we see the team we'll know more. There are some winnable road conference games on the schedule (Illinois, Ohio State, Rutgers, Nebraska, maybe more), so even if they drop a couple at home, if they otherwise hold serve they should be able to get to 18-12 (9-9) or 19-11 (10-8). I don't think the above is wildly optimistic but it isn't a shoo-in, either. Assuming you win a conference tournament game or two, that's probably good enough for an at-large bid. The upside this year, theoretically, is in maintaining Crean-era offensive efficiency (roughly top 30 even in a less-than-great year) and adding an equivalently good defense. That's maybe a top 20 or 30 squad, so you're comfortably in the tourney. At that point things can break all sorts of ways.

I like Cujo but I'm curious what kind of player the board hive mind envisions he could become. Last year he seemed a bit unaware even in the Kansas game: lots of shots that looked like bad decisions went down. So I ask, what do we think he might become in a somewhat rosy scenario? Blackmon-esque 2 with limited off-the-dribble effectiveness? LeVert-style skinny combo guard who can shoot a little, pass a little, and handles it a lot even as the nominal 2? Jamal Crawfordish 6th man? Some variety of PG?

If we assume Davis stays and a PG commits for '18, then the Hurt/Watford/Brooks targets make sense. If '18 PG or someone currently on the roster is ready to start by then they can live without a point, but it's too early for us to know that (the coaches have more info, of course). I don't assume De'Ron is going anywhere but as constructed he's the only 5 on the roster. Obviously if he improves dramatically he could go pro after his junior year, though now it seems a long shot. In that case you really need a 5. I think Moore's gonna be good but I think he's best deployed as a 4.

Same. Adidas has done pretty well with the alternates; recall the stars on the shorts started with an alternate. But script Indiana would be a great touch — certainly an upgrade on the Kansas/Maryland game once from last year (which were fine but not outstanding).

I may have made this point elsewhere, but part of Newkirk's problem early was finishing. He shot 50.5% on 2s in conference play and only 43% in non-conference. At one point he was actually under 40%, which is awful. He looked a lot better once he quit missing bunnies. in limited minutes as a frosh, Juwan was hyper-efficient on offense and really good on defense. Some decrease in effectiveness is typical in extended minutes...that, plus the injury and maybe a bit of defensive malaise as the season unwound didn't help. He's a prototypical 4 for Archie's offense, watch Archie explain the transition short roll off a drag screen in this video. Arch wants a 4 who can catch, turn, and make a play. Ideally Juwan brings enough shooting, ball-handling, and decision-making to either make the defense pay for leaving him, or the defense respects it so much they won't leave him, opening the floor for the guard. He's a heady team defender. In thinking about 2017-18 IU's best case/worst case scenarios, the case for optimism is something like: offense remains stellar and improves slightly by decreasing turnovers, and an improved defense (focus and scheme) leads a veteran-led team to surprise. That's not a high ceiling, but I also don't think it's far-fetched if these two guys play like they can.

Noticed this too

Ron Patterson, a 3 star by Rivals and 247, and a 4 star by espn. He and Hanner didn't pan out, but they were well-regarded recruits (Perea was 43 on rivals, 53 on 247, and 71 on espn, all 4 star). In theory, those are the kind of players so many of us want: in-state, potentially good multi-year contributors. All the blue-bloods occasionally land these guys and they just don't pan out, e.g. Chase Jeter (thus far), most bigs who choose Kansas, plenty of UK guys, so on. Patterson, Perea, and Hollowell were all either overhyped by every recruiting service, didn't develop as expected for whatever reason, or some combination of the two. That sorta thing is clearly less worrisome than a panic offer, in my opinion. Most guys 3 star or above who don't blossom seem to either transfer (thinking they need a change of scenery, or they'll have more opportunity, or it's the coaches' fault; sometimes they're right, sometimes not) or at least contribute in a bench role, which is fine: with 13 scholarships, it's not gonna work for everyone to get starters' minutes, even if 2-3 of those are hurt, project players, etc. Conversely a panic offer can saddle you with uncomfortable choices: it ties up a scholarship for up to four years, or a guy leaves under less-than-ideal circumstances. I think Crean genuinely has an eye for talent (Victor, Wade, Holt, OG, Zeisloft, Beilfeldt, even someone like Green or Moore) and can develop guys who buy-in (Victor, OG), whatever else you may think of him. If one of those went wrong — misidentifying an under-the-radar guy who just isn't B1G caliber or lack of buy-in/development — problems came.

Agreed. I agree that there's value in somewhat balanced classes, but I wouldn't take Archie's comments about every scholarship's value to mean he'll rarely use all 13. If they're valuable, you'd use them carefully, and leaving one empty will rarely be a high-value choice. We all want a great '19 class, and it seems we're in good position with high-level targets. Just because Juwan's the only senior that spring doesn't mean he'll be the only one who leaves between now and then, as Cannon says.

I think it shows mutual follows first.

Recall that Rojo had a three to win or tie at Maryland this year. He's not been a great shot creator but he's always been a good shooter. If you need a jumper and can get him room, you feel good about it. Hartman could be a good candidate for a catch and shoot three, maybe a backdoor slip. if you need something going to the basket, maybe Newkirk. Early in the season his 2pt fg % was bad, but as he came along he got to the rim and finished better. Maybe Green, who showed some flashes in that area and has good vision. Morgan and Davis are likely to be one of the better offensive rebounding pairs in the league, and %wise, McSwain was the team's best rebounder last year. If a two ties or wins, shoot early enough that a second chance is possible. For his size, Morgan has good ball skills. He'd be an ideal screener in these scenarios: say his man leaves him to cover a ballhandler or shooter, I trust him to get a good look from three or otherwise make a good decision with the ball. In a tie, throw it in and see if DeRon can get to the line or finish. He's also a surprisingly good passer for his position and could make the D pay for a double team. I haven't responded in the expectations thread yet, but I tend to agree with the consensus: probably 5th-8th in conference, .500 or a little better in the B1G, a tourney seed somewhere 7-11. I have some questions (front court depth at the 5 especially, shot creation, shooting), but there's some depth and experience, as this answer implies.

I certainly think this is possible. Generally speaking, defenders are supposed to fight over/through screens in a pack line d. Obviously having interchangeably athletic players who communicate well may be the plan regardless of switching approaches. Golden State has had a world-class defense in its current iteration while usually switching screens at the 2, 3, 4, sometimes the 1, and — in lineups with Draymond at the 5 — even switching everything. Other good NBA defenses recently have moved that way. Pack line principles are theoretically compatible with switching. I'd actually love to see Archie merge a pack base with switching schemes that capitalize on length, speed, and athleticism to create turnovers and pressure; I think that's a good synthesis of pack line stinginess and aggression. I hope your hunch is correct.

I'll guess it will be very rarely used on a top 100ish player of Thompson's caliber (which is what @hoosierpap was getting at, I think).

That's my point, too. Any version of man (zone, too) makes implementation choices: full- or half-court, switch all, some, or no screens, how both the big and small defender react to ball screens, try to deny baseline drives, trap corners, and many more. Pack line is a set of choices among those — a school of thought of man-to-man, created by Dick Bennett.

Yeah, if pack-line isn't man-to-man I'm not sure what is?

Yogi was one of the best per-possession defenders in the conference his freshman year, check the chart here: http://www.umhoops.com/2013/03/09/game-31-indiana-at-michigan-preview/ I tend to think his defense lagged his middle two years, when he carried an efficient and large offensive load without tons of help on either end, though there were highlights those years, too, especially his lockdown of Stauskas.