Hoosierfan2017

I'd like to see a before and after of De'ron. If I recognize him I'm going to be disappointed! Lol.

Because it sets a "bad precedent"? You don't think the benefits of getting young guys experience would exceed the cost of the 'bad precedent'?

I'm going out on a limb with the sweet 16 prediction haha. He's had some tournament success with lesser teams, so hey why not lol. Top 5 in conference and a tournament birth are my realistic expectations and I'll be concerned if we don't meet them (barring injury). We did lose our 3 best players, but we still should've made the tournament after OG got hurt. I think Davis will be able to completely fill the void left by TB, and maybe one of Cujo/DG/Al can rise up and take a big chunk of JBJ's minutes.

Enlighten me then. How would starting Lagow over Ramsey, if it'd give us the exact same result for this upcoming season, benefit the IU football program? The way I see it giving Ramsey the starting experience this year would help IU football the next several years. A season of starting experience would be much more beneficial for him than holding the clipboard would be.

Nope. This doesn't require coaching experience, it's common sense and can be applied to a number of situations. If you're running a business and you have two guys of equal ability competing for a promotion you're going to give it to the one that'll be there longer.

It doesn't set a bad precedent at all. It shows players that if they don't improve and separate themselves from the younger guys coming up behind them then they'll be replaced. Say you could see into the future and see that Ramsey and Lagow would both lead us to 6-6 records. How would playing the guy in his last season instead of the guy with three more years left benefit you at all? You'd still get the same result and you'd be taking valuable experience away from the guy coming back.

That defies logic. Say Ramsey and Lagow can give us equal production. A "tie" implies that in spite of Lagow having more experience and better relationships with other players, the two would give you the same results. Lagow is a redshirt senior, he's done after this year. Ramsey is a redshirt freshman, he has three more years of eligibility after this year. In that scenario giving the reigns to Ramsey and giving him the game experience would provide invaluable experience for the next three years.

That makes zero sense. If two players are equal why would you give it to the guy in his last year of eligibility over the guy with several years left?

Top 5 in the Big Ten and a sweet 16 appearance. I think we take a few lumps early on but we'll be better for it come March. Anything can happen once you're in the tournament and I think Archie will coach us to the second weekend.

If they're at least in the same ballpark then I'd rather play the young guy to get him experience, whether that be Ramsey, Tronti, etc.

#AnyoneButLagow If he's made significant improvements this offseason then he'd be okay, but if not I hope CTA has him on a short leash.

I think a series with Villanova would be cool. We have some connections to that area and playing a game over there could help with recruiting.

As long as we're the away team we're in good shape. The home team doesn't win in MSG.

Our projected starting qb is wildly inaccurate and now our projected starting rb is done.

Devonte Green seems like he might have it. We didn't see him play enough last year but I think he'll show some dog this upcoming season.

I don't know all that much about Henry but I get that vibe from him too. Now that we're moving away from playing directional schools and toward scheduling the big boys we'll have to get a lot tougher as a team, like Fleek said. The teams I always hated playing against in high school were the scrappy, physical ones. We won't always have more talent than Arizona, UL, UK, etc., but if we can bring physicality then we'll consistently have a good shot. Archie seems like that kind of guy to me, and I think having Marshall as the strength coach will help change the culture.

You've really never heard anyone say "that player has some dog in him" before? It just means that a player brings physicality and toughness to the game and he's never going to back down to anyone. Draymond has it. Lance Stephenson is crazy but he has it too. A lot of the time it's the kind of player that fans absolutely hate unless they're on their team.

Why not? Kids want to play against top competition so having marque non-conference games is something to sell to recruits.

You said "you're vastly overselling how popular Irving is." He's been top six in jersey sales for the past three years. #6, #4, and #5 to be exact. Steph, LeBron, Durant, and Westbrook were the only people ahead of him this year, and they're the four most popular players in the NBA. It's a pretty strong correlation. Is it a perfect indicator? No, of course not, but people don't buy jerseys of players they don't like. Kyrie is #2 in signature sneaker sales of all NBA players. That is also a sign of popularity. #5 in jerseys and #2 in shoes and you don't think he's very popular? How would you determine if a player is popular or not?

Lol. He has the #5 selling jersey so he might have a few fans. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nba.com/amp/league/article/2017/04/11/nba-most-popular-jersey-sales-2016-17-regular-season

Yeah I know, I was trying to say more along the lines that him putting the Knicks on his list as a team he wants to play for could make them more willing to make a high offer. If they trade Kyrie for Melo and picks I'd be beyond ticked lol, unless they flip the picks for someone like Bledsoe. Whatever happens I'm intrigued. It might not make them better, but what they had wasn't good enough and this will be something new.

Why not? Phoenix just hired James Jones as VP of basketball operations and he really likes Kyrie. I could see him lobbying for a trade for him. The Knicks were going to give Carmelo away for Austin Rivers. I'm not sure that they would trade away KP, but the Knicks are on Kyrie's list and the only way they get him is by giving up KP. It just depends on how much they would want Kyrie. The Cousins trade, to me, seems like a deal that the Pelicans would make. The spacing with Davis/Cousins just doesn't work, and keeping Davis is their biggest concern. A trade for Kyrie would give them an all-star guard to pair with Davis and make it more likely that he stays. Maybe none of those trades would happen, but those are the kinds of offers that Cleveland should be demanding for Kyrie. They don't have to trade him right now, so they're not going to just give him away. You could point to the Pacers giving away George as a counter example, but they could've gotten a better deal for him if they would've been willing to trade him to the East. They just didn't want to risk him staying in the conference.

Reading comprehension man. I never said it's "so easy", just that's it's possible. Which it is. Kyrie is a phenomenal scorer, but he's one dimensional. The Cavs' problems weren't with their offense. They put up 113 points or more in each of the last 4 games of the finals, they just couldn't stop Golden State from scoring 125+. A trade that brings in two way players would improve the team. A young, athletic wing would give the Cavs someone to put on Durant for 35 minutes a night in the Finals. Durant would still get his numbers but it would allow LeBron to play free safety on D and exert more effort on offense. The Cavs were shopping Kyrie before the draft. David Griffin was working on a deal that involved him, but Dan Gilbert disagreed and let Griffin go. Kyrie has two years left on a very cap friendly deal. He's a top 5 scorer in the NBA, and he's an electric player who would put fans in the seats. They can get a quality return for him, and if the offers are too low they shut off the phone and keep him on the roster.

Lebron's not going to accept a trade to a team that has to gut its roster to get him. The only way to get fair value is to gut a team's roster. Cleveland still offers LeBron a cakewalk to the finals. They can trade Kyrie and improve their roster. He's an offensive maestro but he doesn't play defense and can't facilitate. A Bledsoe/Jackson, Melo/KP, or a Cousins trade would improve the Cavs, imo, and none are pipe dream trades.

Trading LeBron would be the most foolish thing the Cavs could ever do. They wouldn't get anything valuable back in return, and their championship contending window would close as soon as he leaves.