Old Friend

Indiana wins on Saturday, they're in good shape.  With a healthy Sudfeld, they can get Rutgers, Penn State, Purdue, Wake Forest, and Maryland.  They have Iowa (who they play with competitively about half the time, and beat them once in a while) and Michigan at home.  They won't win all of those games...but they can get 3 of them.  Indiana has a really solid offense.  They've stalled a little, but that'll clean up.  They're gaining experience every week; and they just allowed 22 points and less than 50 yards rushing in the same game.  That defensive line is decent, too.   Others should step back and think, too.

Try reading what I said again.  I said nothing of the Colts "making the playoffs."   I said "post-season success."  You know....when they'll face those pesky "stud defenses?"

I'm not sure, Hutch.  The Colts look in trouble to me.  Too much talk, too much dysfunction.  I'm honestly more comfortable with IU than I am with the Colts relative to post-season success.  I need one more week to make any kind of convicted prediction about IU, but this is a game they can win; and if they do, I can easily see 6 or 7 wins this season.  There's not much margin for error, but their tendency (until last season when an injury did it) has been to win a few games, then lose one they could easily have won, and it sends the thing on a downward spiral.  If they can avoid that and get this win, I'll feel really good about saying "yes...we're going bowling this year."   The Colts, on the other hand, have a lot of work to do.  They just need to shut up and bring it.  

No, you don't,   =)   And yes, I do know that short cut, and many others; but that's great intel and it is appreciated.

He's hit or miss....and I don't like that he flaps his mouth after every plan he's close to and wags his finger like Dikembe Mutombo.   He had a nice game yesterday, but got beat a couple of times, too.   He simply needs to keep playing and keep improving.   We need him as much as a leader than anything else.       Was overall very pleased yesterday.  For Indiana, that's a quality win.  Any time they can get a win against a good group of D1 athletes is a positive step for this program, and while it gets tougher, that was a good win.   Will look forward to next Saturday...coming down for the first time this season.  How's traffic on 37 from Indy?  Anybody have a better suggestion?

Sometimes, I'd rather be lucky than good.   Missing our two top DT's and one of our top LB's obviously hurt a lot.  (The reason they were out is another conversation....enough suspensions already) Howard is terrific.  We have plenty of WR's.  Without penalties in the first half, it's a different game.      Lots to work on, lots to build on.  But wow...that defensive scheme is awful.  How many times can we have 2 players in the same spot, seemingly in the way of one another?

1)   You will never hear me argue "pro Crean."   Not a fan.  At all.  I'm "pro kid" all the time, and I like what Grant brings to the table...as a piece.  Not a center piece.     2)  I don't think anyone (I know I didn't) said this kid would be "great."   And I completely agree that he looks like an impulse signing borne of desperation.   If Crean thinks this is his 30-minute per night answer at point guard, then we have a huge problem.     The reality, Fleek?  I had another identity for a long time, and I mercilessly blasted Crean year in and year out.  Got crushed for it.  Lots of drama surrounding my opinion of the man that didn't look altogether different than yours does.  I don't know if you were around or not, but there were a ton of people who didn't care for my opinion of Crean, nor my posts which provided evidence on why I felt the way I did.  Mostly surrounding a horrible half-court offense, "looking completely lost" against a Syracuse zone he'd seen before AND which had been exposed by Butler 2 years prior, horrible halftime adjustments or a complete lack of them, an inability to defend without fouling, a lack of local focus on recruiting and subsequent loss of tons of local talent and the "right kids," which spawned desperation that looked like Peter Jurkin, Stanford Robinson, Tim Prilller, Jeremiah April, and Bawa Muniru; lack of movement of ball or people, lack of true understanding of Indiana's culture, and generally acting like an arrogant prick.  (Which is one reason I found the feel-good story yesterday somewhat laughable)   There were plenty of other reasons.  But there was way too much drama that got way too personal.   Basically, it was obvious very few people truly wanted to hear anything other than "Crean's awesome," so I've been a little softer on him here because I have no interest in stirring that pot again....even though I think time has proven me to be correct in my early assessment which occurred when I watched Verdell Jones stand on offense for 20+ seconds at a time.   Believe it or not, it's nice to see guys like you because I agree with you, and maybe I have more allies than I thought.

I get it, and we're more aligned than you think we are.  I don't think this kid's a home run, but I don't think it's fair to assume he'll be lost in our system because he "looked lost" in another.   Different sport, but Jerry Hughes "looked lost" as a Colt and made the pro bowl as a Bill.   I don't think he's any more than a stop-gap, and I think it's unfair to be overly critical before he's played in his first practice.   He'll have a year to work with the kids on the team; and I'm assuming we'll start to improve the quality of player we're signing.  Again...he's a piece.  If it ends up that we're counting on him to play major minutes and assume Yogi's production, I agree 100%.   I just don't think that's the case, and I don't think any team needs 13 five-star players because all of them would be used to dominating the ball.   That's not good for anyone.

All of this can depend on a system and what makes a kid comfortable.   I've never known of a point guard who "looked lost" in the open floor or didn't like a penetration style of offense.    Kind of don't care for the broad brush painting of everyone who doesn't agree with you.  I promise you, everyone on this board has high expectations, and I, for one, have been all over Crean about that for several years.  It's just that I don't fly off the handle and paint every picture as an absolute because of some random tidbit devoid of context.   Crean has failed miserably on the floor in every season save one.  No argument.   But until we see a kid on the floor and how he does in whatever system we're running when he's eligible, to say those who are "impressed" (your word) don't have high enough expectations is comical.   "The Movement" should be all the proof you need that things don't always work out on the floor like they look on paper.

He is 3x the ball handler Verdell was.

1)   I don't think we "know" anything, yet.   We don't know Grant will be a bench-warmer, and we don't "know" whether Newkirk will be a good fit or not.   2)  There is no doubt we need better talent to compete on a national level; but I don't see the point in worrying about this recruiting class when we still have 4 (likely) spots left to fill.  Like I said before, recruiting a bench full of kids who need the ball and need to score in order to either be happy or make a difference is not a formula for success.  You need role players and fundamentally sound players, too....and I honestly see Grant as a sign Crean may finally understand what wins in college basketball.   He isn't going to be a "star," but he also won't dominate the ball, take bad shots, or turn it over all the time trying to "do his thing."    (See : Verdell Jones, Stanford Robinson).   That's not a bad thing.  It can't stop with Grant, but I don't see starting with him as a negative at all.   3)  I've been hard on Crean for 7 years about the way he recruits.  No plan, just a shotgun approach and an ability to get kids to say yes.  No ability to build a team or a roster that can compete consistently.  I absolutely agree with that sentiment, and I still don't care for him as a coach.   But....   What we have in these two are :  an experienced ball handler at the high D1 level, and a kid who was very highly rated out of high school.   Which tells me there are no guarantees no matter WHO we recruit.    This kid WAS an elite recruit, and now...he's not good enough for many.   There are no sure things.....and people are very impatient and even more fickle.   We also have a great high school shooter.   That skill translates.   Assuming he can get open and assuming he has enough athletic ability to run the floor, he'll be helpful because he can put the ball in the basket.   Think about IU two years ago.  Our shooting was awful, and we couldn't score.  Grant is a shooter, and no team can have enough of those.  He's also a smart, fundamentally sound player who understands where he is.   That's helpful.  And he'll be fine.   Now....we need Ogunoby and Morgan to play well; we need Bryant to stay and play well; it would help if Blackmon stayed; Johnson needs to become a leader and a better ball handler; Hartman and Holt both have to develop as players and as leaders; and we do need some high-level talent added to the roster.      That said, I think both of these kids add some level of "help" to our team and to our program.   Newkirk especially because he has experience at the D1 level, and he's got decent size.  I don't expect him to dominate, but I do expect him to be a stabilizer and allow Indiana to transition from Ferrell to whatever we'll become pretty smoothly.  It just disappoints me to see so many people upset about two kids who are far better and bring far more than most seem to want to believe.

Rrrreeealllly unfair and premature to lump Gelon and Newkirk with Priller and April.   Not close to legitimate right now.   First of all, April had zero basketball IQ.  No clue where he was on the floor, very weak, and had no ability to contribute anything on a Big Ten floor.  That's not true with Grant and Newkirk.   Priller is a clumsy, slow 6'9" who's being forced to play out of position because of his skill set, and he's not got many basketball skills at the low D1 level, let alone the Big Ten.    Both Grant (shooting, spacing, and using screens) and Newkirk (ball handling and experience) bring far more to the table than Priller or April.   Let's say Grant's Matt Roth and Newkirk's Remy Abell.   I'd say that's at least close.   I'm not saying they're all we need in order to win championships, but as was beaten to death in the first recruiting thread about Grant, making comparisons to April or Priller is.....unfair and I don't think accurate in any way.

Don't know what this means, but it has to show at least some concern on the staff's behalf that our point guard situation is not strong on the recruiting trail.   The offense Crean has run for the last 6 seasons is almost completely dependent on either points off the break or points off penetration.   This kid's a little bigger than Yogi is, and has experience handling the ball at a high D1 level.  At worst, a stop-gap.  At best, a relatively productive 2-year player.   What we do not need (and I think this gets missed a lot) is a group of 5 kids on the floor, all of whom need the ball and are looking to score all the time.   If this kid can simply run an offense, guard somebody, and lead...he'll help.   And having a year on the practice floor with this system can't hurt.  This has to play out, just like Grant does.

I don't disagree with you one bit.  And maybe I'm giving him too much credit.   But I reserve hope that he's finally getting the picture that he doesn't have to spend $630,000 on recruiting every year in order to build a team - especially when Wisconsin spends $65,000 and Michigan State spends $200,000.  I absolutely agree that he's been hap-hazard and "shotgun" so far.  Heck, he has - with the exception of one group - always had a collection of varying levels of talent, not a consistent roster.   Completely agree there.  Maybe I should have said "I hope it's a sign."  

I think plenty of people questioned why we weren't more of a player for Cline, and I don't understand why we weren't.    I've questioned Crean's recruiting practices to the point of whipping a dead horse.  Not recruiting Cline was a mistake, because he's the kind of player who can succeed in Crean's system.   Grant is a similar player who's playing in different circumstances, in a different system, with a different coach, and very much out of the limelight compared to Carmel.  Whether we would laugh at Purdue 12 months before a kid hits campus or not, this has to play out before anything can be reasonably questioned.   I've been very hard on Crean because I think he has no idea how to build a team.  I think he knows how to get a few kids to say yes, and I think he uses a very "shotgun" approach to recruiting; but building a consistently successful roster seems beyond his capability.   I also don't think he's a very good game coach, and I hate his half court offense because I think it lacks movement and is very inefficient.  And I've been saying those things for 5 years, so we agree that he's not the right fit.  I don't like that he hasn't seemed to focus his primary recruiting effort locally.    Michigan State does, and they spent 1/3rd what Indiana did on recruiting last year.   Wisconsin does, and they spent 10% what Indiana did (according to the Indianapolis Star).  Culture is important everywhere, but especially at a program like Indiana.  Understanding that culture along with the expectations that come with it are important.   More important than many credit or realize.   Crean's not done a good job in that area, but this kid sends a message that maybe he's starting to get the picture.   In Grant, whether he's highly ranked or not....and I have no idea on what basis he's not; we have a 6'5" kid who can shoot it (43% from the 3-point line is stout, and I don't care who he's playing or where.   That's terrific in game conditions.), who understands angles, spacing, and how to use screens (you can see that in his youtube video), and has a knack for being around the ball defensively.   Kids like that don't necessarily need to be spectacular athletes, and I'll use the Brian Evans example again.  He was an unknown beanpole from Terre Haute who was seen at the time as not much more than a 6'7" shooter who shot the ball from his waist.   He turned out to be the Big Ten POY as a senior,   Certainly not going to make that prediction for this kid, but the point is the precedent, not the achievement.  Smart basketball players who can shoot?  Sounds like the Indiana culture to me.   Now, he may end up nothing more than a HPER all star.  Or, he may end up a very solid player at Indiana. We won't know for at least 2 1/2 years, so I don't care if Purdue laughs or not, and it doesn't matter to me if he signs first or last.  You see this as a sign of poor judgement by our coach and I see it as a sign he may be changing the way he recruits in a way which will benefit the program in the long term.   As long as this kid has the ability to succeed in the Big Ten, we can't have enough kids like this.  We need athletes, size, speed, and ball handlers too....but 6'5" shooters who understand the game pretty well?   Sign me up.

Thanks.   For what it's worth, I have zero interest in "always being right."      Interested to know what ccgeneneral means, however.  Not sure when or on what I've "flipped."   "'Splain, please."

Precisely.   Winning next season is expected, and it's time after being very ordinary and even bad by our standards the last 2 seasons.   Winning every 4th year is not enough, and Glass knows that.   Crean's not Indiana's long term guy.  Glass knows that, too.    A fun thread would be "if not Brad Stevens, then who?"   - for our long term answer.  I'm not sure I know who I'd even put on the list.

And every one of them has sold his soul for the sake of a collection of talent to whom they have no personal loyalty.   That's not Indiana's culture, and I have no interest in it BEING Indiana's culture.   Someone else said they don't want "Wisconsin success," and I can't disagree more.   They've won the Big Ten 4 times since 2002 (which should be our goal every season because it means we've got a chance nationally), never finished below 4th; have 7 Sweet 16's, and two Final Fours.  They're in the conversation every year.  They're a top 10 team in the country 3 of every 4 years.   No, they've never won it, but they're in position all the time and just haven't gotten it done.   That can change with circumstances and match ups.   Once you get to the Elite 8, every team there is fantastic and playing well.  It's very hard to measure success simply by national championships.   We all want them, but if you have smart, talented players who play for each other and play together, you're going to have success.   We've had a bunch of "me first" guys, and also our share of low basketball IQ kids.   We've had our share of kids who need the ball and need to dribble.    FK Football said Crean's a lame duck coach, and while I hope he's right, I still see some talent and potential in the list of kids he's after,   Still don't think signing Grant first is a story at all.

He wasn't really a stud freshman.  A stud freshman would start, and he didn't; he was a shooter on that particular team.   He took 7 shots a game, more than half of which were 3 pointers.   He became a stud, and he's a great athlete who was also 6'9"..  Not really the point, though.   He fit what Wisconsin needed just like this kid fits what Indiana needs.  How many shooters does Crean need in a penetrate and kick offense and a secondary break that plays first on the perimeter unless something's open in the paint?   I'm also not saying Grant will have much of a difference making role as a freshman, and I'm not necessarily comparing him as a player to Dekker.     I just don't understand why the order in which kids sign makes any difference at all, and why people are skeptical of a 6'5" kid who has range to 25 feet and shoots 43% from the 3 point line.  Some kids don't grow or mature until they're 16, and Brian Evans is a classic example.   He was nobody as a high school junior.  A bean pole without even an offer from Indiana State in his home town.     To me, it doesn't matter one bit what this kid will do as a freshman, and I think he's a lot better than his ranking and a lot better than some are giving him credit for.  Nobody will be right or wrong for a few years, so there's no real point in bantering any further.   

He has that kind of range, and he's bigger.   I think kids who understand the game and play the way he seems to (have only seen Youtube video and heard some things about him, but he clearly understands simple things like spacing, angles, position defense, and how to use screens) can only help Crean.   Kids who need the ball and try to create generally make Crean look like a bad coach.    I think the Roth comparison is generally a very good one.

On this we agree.   But you watched Roth and Hulls play pretty significant roles in Crean's offense, and this kid's bigger than both.   We shall see.

Again....why does it matter where he was ranked?   This is a paper battle you're trying to win.  Dekker did nothing more on the floor his freshman season than Grant will do for Indiana.  He was mostly a shooter.  I think he played more than Grant will (much because of Ryan's need for speed on the perimeter defensively), but he took about 7 shots per game, more than half of them from distance.   And, we have no idea yet where Grant will end up in the rankings.   I'm doing something far different than feeding a narrative; but I'll make you a deal.  I'll keep "feeding it" if you keep telling yourself that rankings after a kid's junior season are relevant to outcome when he's in college or to whether or not Indiana will be able to recruit other kids.

They spent less than 10% what Indiana did on recruiting last season, and less than $65,000 overall.  They win every year with smart players who understand and play within Ryan's system, regardless of where they're ranked; and they know what they're getting when they walk on campus.  As a freshman, Kaminsky was not a very strong Big Ten player.  Same with Dekker.  He could shoot, but that was about all.   Wisconsin's formula is proven and consistent.  Anyone is free to mock it or predict the comparison.   Doesn't make it wrong.

He played his freshman year.   People have to stop judging recruits by what they do as freshmen.   Galen won't do much as a freshman.   He may not do much as a sophomore.   But he'll be a hell of a team mate as a senior, and I'd bet you 10 to 1 he has plenty of range and plenty of points from behind the line by then.

Someone really needs to help me understand the negativity.   This is a kid who :   - Absolutely knows how to play the game.  Listen to him talk about basketball, watch how he plays on both ends....This is an "Indiana kid." - Can flat out shoot the ball at a high percentage with range, and takes pride in it - Is 6'5" - Understands angles and anticipation - Wants to be at Indiana - Understands what it means to wear the candy stripes.   To many kids, Assembly Hall is just a building.  To him, the Taj Majal   So what if he didn't have an early high school career that led to his being highly ranked as a 15 year old kid?  He hasn't played his senior season yet, and he had - by all measures I've read - a terrific summer.   I don't get the negativity at all.   To me, this is a very positive step for Crean, and I actually think he's doing something which his program desperately needs.   Know who else was a relative unknown, skinny, off the radar high school junior?   Brian Evans.  All he did was end up Big Ten player of the year as a senior.    We can't judge this kid for at least 3 years, and he's only part of a class.  I simply don't get why some are so quick to throw this kid under the bus because the "experts" haven't put him on the main screen of the radar yet.  It's not as though this is the only kid we're going to get in this class, or that he'll prevent others from being part of it.    He's a piece.  A piece we need and a piece who "gets it."   There's no guarantee a more highly ranked player would out perform him or help win more games.   "The Movement" was one of the most highly ranked classes in the country.  How'd that turn out?