lillurk

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.

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.

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?

One reason to believe he'll improve I see right now: through eight games, he's only shooting 11/31 on 2s (35.5%). He's 9/22 on 3s (40.9%), and in his two seasons at Pitt, he shot 48.1% as a frosh and 42.1% as a sophomore on 2s (44.4% combining the two years). Those aren't great numbers, even for a small-ish guard, but I can't imagine he'll shoot below 40% from two all year. Even if he matched his career average on the 31 attempts so far this year, he'd have hit three more 2s. For comparison's sake, Yogi's FG% on 2s by year: 45.3%, 42.9%, 46.0%, 48.8%.

I mean, I could be wrong. He's pretty straight-faced. The gathered media seemed to take it in jest.

For what it's worth, he's being playful; the question is at 8:12 in the video here http://www.insidethehall.com/2016/10/13/video-transcript-tom-crean-big-ten-media-day-2/

Juwan's athleticism may not stand out, but he appears to have good speed, quickness, and quick leaping (including second jump) ability. As a frosh it was most obvious to me on D and the boards.

I've thought a lot about the '11-'12 team this offseason -- IU's last pre-Yogi team. They finished with the #4 offense in terms of adjusted efficiency (http://kenpom.com/index.php?y=2012) with Hulls and Verdell as the starting backcourt. They're both talented players, but neither one was the dynamic, ball-dominant PG Yogi became. Victor -- the starting 3 on that team -- was very good but hadn't made The Leap yet. IU's Crean-era staff can cobble together an elite offense without an All-B1G PG. We've already seen it.

Albers reports Lyle is a 2015 target, not a midyear add, at the moment: http://indiana.scout.com/story/1474094-recruiting-notes-following-hoosier-hysteria?s=170