Old Friend

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?

Time will tell.   I don't see the negatives in this kid a couple seem to.  He's only recently bloomed on the recruiting scene, and he still has a year left in high school.  Kid's 6'5", smart, and can shoot.  I'm stunned there's so much negativity surrounding his commitment.    Not sure what people think Indiana needs to be or what they want in a basketball player.   Not every kid on our team needs to be a guy who needs the ball and plays like he's on the street in New York.

You mean teams other than, say, Wisconsin...who recruits like this every year and wins 80% of their games along with the Big Ten all the time?      The order of kids' accepting scholarship offers is completely meaningless.   You're getting all worked up and fighting with anyone who disagrees with you based on nothing other than your opinion.  Take Kentucky out of the equation....and ALL teams "behave" in a manner than says "go get kids you think can help your program."   Some end up being wrong, but someone said other higher level schools were beginning to get involved with this kid, and Indiana was simply first on the "major school" list.  He accepted.  I think it's great.  If he's Matt Roth, he makes Indiana better.  If he's Leary, he makes Indiana better.  He's a 6'5" kid who understands the game and is a great shooter.  You really don't think other schools would start to come calling pretty soon?   If so, I think you're naive and you're definitely getting all excited over nothing.

How in the world do you know?   This comment is completely baseless.  April and Hoetzel are gone.  Priller is a kid Indiana should never have looked at, let alone signed.  He does not have a single Big Ten skill.   This kid has at least the ability to catch and shoot at the Big Ten level, and he understands how to play the game...you can learn that from the youtube clips.   If he stays 2 years and plays more than 34 seconds a game, he's far better than April.  If he scores 300 points in his career, he's 3x the player Hoetzel was, and I'll give you long odds on both, assuming he's not recruited over and actually shows up.   You're panicking, and you have no idea what this kid will or won't be.  Just because he's not a 5* kid who impresses you on paper means nothing, and I still fail to see the validity of recruiting your 5*'s, then your 4*'s, then your 3*'s and fill in's.  That's not how this game works.

If this causes us to miss on other kids, you're right.  If not, you're trying to win the war on paper and in social media.  If this is a kid Crean wants and a kid he thinks can help, you're spinning this into something it isn't.   There's no reason we can't go get other kids we want.   The story on Gary Harris is long and complex.  An example that's a reach at best.   Let it play out and then complain.   

It's all smoke, mirrors, and "buzz."  It matters little.  These kids ALL talk to each other.  No signing is a surprise, really.  Maybe "either, or" but no surprises.  This will have almost zero bearing one way or the other on who comes or doesn't come.  I can also say with 100% confidence that it can work both ways.   A team signs a "star" other kids view as difficult to play with, a prima donna, a ball hog, someone who shoots too much, etc....they'll avoid playing with a kid like that.   A kid like Gelon?   No negatives and no baggage.   Just a player who's part of a class.

Why does the order in which kids commit matter at all?   Are we trying to win the battle on paper and in social media, or trying to win games on the floor?  This kind of player helps any team win games.  Maybe not in his first year or maybe in his first TWO.  But he's clearly a smart player...watch his position defense and how he uses screens.   Leave alone his shot...watch how he sets up other players to score.   I don't understand why his being the first commit for 2016 means a thing.

Your post struck me (based solely on the thread a few weeks ago) as a personal shot.  Maybe I mis-read it.  It read to me like you think all I want are kids like this, and that this kid's not very good, but will make me happy; which isn't true or accurate.  I'm really pleased at this pickup because it shows me Crean has focused at least some on kids who don't need the ball, aren't in a national spotlight, and bring a set of skills Indiana will need.      And by the way, I have no idea what he can or will do, but I promise he understands how and why - which I place more importance on than many. Edit - I'll also say this.  After watching his youtube clip, he understands angles and how to use screens.  Stanford Robinson had no clue on either, and lots of kids don't.   I think kids from around here by and large understand those (and other) details of the game better than others.   Enough said, but that's my general point.  We need kids like this.   We also need horses.

I think this is a good thing, and I'm honestly very pleased that Crean went a got a kid like this instead of focusing on "stars."    That's a positive step, I think.   Doesn't take over-thinking the room, just takes a simple understanding of the value a kid like this brings, especially at 6'5".  Every team needs stars, but they don't need a roster full of them.  Not enough basketballs.   Fundamentally sound, smart kids who can shoot are generally winners.  

Gotta' love the pot shots.   We'll see if he fits and what else he can bring, but I'd sure rather have shooters from around here.   I just hope you don't judge me or him after his first 6 games as a freshman.   I think the impatience of fans expecting immediate contributions from every kid who sets foot on campus is pretty unrealistic.   This kid's Todd Leary.  He's not going to play a huge role, but he brings a skill this team will need.   Not sure why it matters when he signs.   1st?  6th?  So?   We all know Indiana needs more than him.    Watson would be great, also....but here's the difference.   A quote from Watson :  "I feel I can create off the dribble and get my own shot.  I think a lot of people think of me as a straight up shooter, but my game is more than that.  I can attack off the dribble and pull up."   Okay....fine.   But so many kids today seem to need the ball to create and be dangerous.  Give me Roth. Give me Hulls.  Give me catch and shoot guys who don't need to create and are dangerous without the ball and lethal when they get it.   Give me kids who want to be here and understand how to play the game instead of just the sport.   I'll take 5 of those kids and beat the pants off 5 kids who need the ball and want to "create."     Edit : Let's say this kid becomes a solid contributor by his junior season, stays 4 years, and ends up a very good player at Indiana.   What will you say to me then?    Instead of being skeptical before he gets here and taking pot shots based on nothing more than said skepticism, why not wait until it plays out?  Neither you nor I are "right."

FWIW I talked today to a business associate who also has a son who plays with "Team Thad," which was one of OG's AAU teams, and his comment was OG's is physically ready in the lower body, still a kid in the upper body.   Pretty much what you see if you watch his highlight tapes.   He has tools.  I hope fans are patient with him, and easy on the labels.

This is where I think we have to be careful and the point where expectations become greater than a kid can produce.   I've seen predictions like this with a couple dozen kids who never really worked out.  Ferrell, Williams, Blackmon, Zeisloft, Johnson, Holt, Hartman, and Bryant (8 players at least) are all ahead of him right now; Morgan comes in as more highly touted, and Beilefelt will be a senior.   You might be right, but this thread alone has already pumped him up to a status I'm not sure he can achieve.   I'd rather let kids be what they are and not inflate expectations of a 3-star kid regardless of how much we think we'll like him.

I hope you're right, however I can't find logic in the reasoning that it will be better because Crean is putting an emphasis on it.  I wish I had that kind of faith in him.   I think it's as likely he over thinks it and gets gimmicky again as it is the defense truly gets better.   Changing in the middle of possessions needs to go away, and we need to either be a man team or a zone team.   Using both doesn't typically work over the course of a season at the D1 level.   On another note, I talked yesterday with another college coach who believes Anunoby will be a very nice get for IU in time.    

Not "everyone," but there is a large crowd who will.  Believe me, I saw them when we signed Mike White, Bawa Muniru, Peter Jurkin, etc.   I heard from them when we signed Jeremy Hollowell and I said he was lazy and would not be a good fit.   They're out there.

Time will tell.   I will never understand Tom Crean's recruiting, and I sure as hell will never pretend to be able to predict it.   Whoever we get, you can bet the IU faithful will tell us how great he is and how much better he is than anyone we didn't get as soon as he commits.

Just playing devil's advocate because I know you two don't agree, love to beat dead horses, I like the debate because there's no definitive answer right or wrong, I'll take the other side just for the sport of it, and I like Yogi,  but.......He  has.  That's a fact.     He's also a career 42% shooter who's taken more shots on his team than anyone else combined over his 3 year run.  He also averages an assist about every 8 minutes while having the ball in his hands the lion's share of the time.  In the half court, that number goes up to about one every15 minutes.  Kind of..very vanilla.  He's the best we have, and I'm sure he'll lead a better team this season; but facts are facts.  He has taken on a role, asked of him or not, as primary scorer AND ball handler; and his teams haven't done well.  Not saying it's all his fault or that he's a bad player or that I don't like him.   But...that doesn't change the team's 37-29 overall or his 16-18 Big Ten record.    It's more of an indictment of Crean for not either using him the right way or giving him enough to work with; but as beloved as he is, so far, his results are very ordinary by "stud at Indiana" standards.   How many "studs" at IU can you name who have been catalysts on teams with the record he has?   Edit :  Again, just playing yin to yang and taking the other side of this argument.   Yogi has a year left, so it could all change, but in recent memory, say the last 40 years, the "stud" and legendary point guards at IU are :   Quinn Buckner - had a 63-1 record his last two seasons, and led an undefeated national champ while earning first team all America honors.   Isiah Thomas - Don't need to make this comparison, do I?   Steve Alford - arguably the best shooter Indiana ever had and one of the best in college basketball history.  More of a combo guard, but handled the ball most of the time.   Big Ten POY, first team all American, and Olympic gold medalist.  Also won a national title.   Honerable mention to Michael Lewis, Chris Reynolds, and AJ Guyton.     Tough to categorize.  Can make an argument either way :  Tom Coverdale.   All beloved Hoosiers, all receiving some conference honor, none "studs" by IU's standards.   Yogi's in that honorable mention category right now.  Beloved and talented, but hasn't really done anything yet.   In fact, that's why he said he was staying at Indiana...to leave a legacy.   He hasn't done that yet, and he knows it.      The defense rests.

I don't know a thing about the kid from Philly, so I can't comment with any intelligence, but if he's the right kind of kid, I'm all for him.   Would rather prioritize local kids, but we don't need to rehash all of that.    I like some of the midwestern kids, and I know what you're saying.   I'm not here to argue with you.  I would rather have kids from the local area than Philadelphia.   I think it matters that kids understand the lay of the land when they set foot on campus.   We'll see who we're able to actually sign and how we do in the couple of years following the coming season, and how our program builds a foundation.  The biggest problem I have is we don't seem to HAVE a foundation, and I think a lot of that is a breakdown of the local pipeline and corresponding fan interest, etc.   One man's opinion.

Agree.  Have said it before....  Indiana is going to be very good this coming season.  I don't think that's in question, and I think everyone's happy.  The issue is the long term health and success of the program, and that's where Crean has fallen short over the course of his career.   The whole conversation about Bo Ryan, Tom Izzo, or anyone like that is simply that those guys have a system they recruit to, they get kids who know exactly what the expectations are, and they win consistently no matter who the players are.   Indiana is a program that deserves the same, and it's questionable whether or not Crean can deliver.     We don't have Yogi's replacement on the radar.   We don't have Williams' replacement (he'll be gone and deservedly so after this season.  The NBA will invite him to join that party quickly).   I'm not sure Blackmon will stick around.  We have lots of holes to fill, lots of depth to build; and Crean's pattern has been a shotgun, year to year approach that doesn't really build consistently winning teams, but rather a good collection of talent every few years and complete mediocrity surrounding it.       It's all but impossible to compete on a Final Four level every season, but being in the Big Ten conversation and giving Indiana a chance is a reasonable and very attainable goal he's not met in his tenure here.   And I think you're spot on to consider that a concern for the 16-17 season and beyond.  The 2016 recruiting class is a deep one.  I saw a kid named Xavier Simpson play not long ago..a point guard from Lima, OH.  He's quick, a great distributor, and he forced a lot of mistakes playing defense.   Would love him to show up at Indiana, but we're not even on his list.  His options are Michigan State, Xavier, Purdue, Iowa, and Illinois.  He's rated somewhere in the 70's, I think.  He would be a good target for Yogi's replacement...for example.  But I haven't heard a word about him or really any others.   CJ Walker from Indy Tech already committed to Florida State, but he's got some potential.   I think he's a top 100 kid.   Another target might be Jordan Bone.  He's from Nashville, but plays a lot of AAU ball with and against kids from Indiana and Kentucky.   I also wonder where Vijay Blackmon will end up.   He's more of a combo guard, but a pretty solid player.  He's not James, but he has better ball handling skills.   Kyle Guy already committed to Virgina, so the only other target I know of (at PG) is that kid from Evansville who's not even a top 150 kid.  I bet we get a JUCO.

Thanks Wat.  Never claimed perfection, and I'm certainly not.  But I will never understand posts like Beowulf's.  As if he and others want to be somehow protected from something that might make them uncomfortable, differ from whatever mold or style they want to read, or Heaven forbid, think a little.  

You're right.  You're the only one that values championships.  You're smarter and set higher goals than everyone here.  Nobody else "values" championships, and nobody really wants to win.  Who needs that pressure??  We're all just happy to be here.   Or......   You're the only one that doesn't grasp the absurdity of that comment.   That actually winning has a title as much or more to do with things like injuries, how a game is officiated, foul trouble, how well you shoot or don't shoot, lucky or unlucky bounces, etc.  Great coaches don't always win championships, mediocre coaches sometimes do, and if that's your sole standard, we'll have to change coaches every season and hope we guess right every year.   Good gravy....   Rollie Massimino, who won 62% of his games during his career won a championship, and he couldn't win at UNLV immediately following Jerry Tarkanian's historic run there when they were still "the sh*t."  Was he a great coach?  You'd rather have him than Bo Ryan?  Jim Valvano won 62% of his games as a head coach, made just one Final Four in his career, and had a lifetime conference record of 71-69 in the ACC; having a .500 record or worse in 6 of 10 seasons.   He's a better coach than Bo Ryan?   Gary Williams won 55% of his conference games at Maryland, finishing 6th or lower eight times.    He had a losing record in the Big Ten over the 3 years he was at Ohio State.  But he won an NCAA title.  He's better than Bo Ryan?   How about Jim Harrick?    He's so good, he was able to compile a 33-31 conference record while at Georgia.  Or Steve Fisher.  He's won 63% of his games.  He's awesome and better than Bo Ryan, right?  Heck, he won 58% of his games at Michigan....WITH the Fab 5 for a few years.     Bo Ryan has won 76.4% of his games over his career.  He has four, not one, four national titles to his credit.  But he's only got two undefeated seasons.   You're right.  He's had a horrible decade.

Sometimes the truth and the "rest of the story" takes a while.  Thanks for reading!   :biggrin:

Just throwing some numbers out there to see where your bar really is.     1)  Bo Ryan has been a head coach for 31 seasons.  In his first season, his team finished 7th in its conference.  That was in 1985.   Since then, he has 30 straight top 5 conference finishes. 2)   His teams have won 12 conference titles and finished 2nd 6 more times.   Which means his teams are either 1st or 2nd in conference 60% of the time. 3)   At WIsconsin, Bo Ryan has reached the NCAA Tournament every year - 14 times - and has lost in round one exactly once.   He has 7 Sweet 16 appearances in 14 years. 4)   He has won 71% of his conference games in the Big Ten and 73.4% of his conference games overall.   Teams that know his system and know his teams beat him less than 30% of the time, even in one of the best conferences in America.  His winning % as a head coach is 76.4%.   Better than Bob Knight.  About the same as Mike Krzyzewski,  Better than Jim Boeheim.  Better than Tom Izzo (in the Big Ten and overall).  And just a percentage point below Calipari, Dean Smith, and Roy Williams. 5)   He has never finished below 4th place in the Big Ten.   At Wisconsin.  Think about that for a minute.   He's a lot better than "a good coach."  He is historically and statistically one of the best ever, and he's done so with FAR less talent than any coach I mentioned above, save maybe Knight.    Wisconsin is in the conversation for Big Ten champion every year. What is it you're tired of?   The reality that he's much better than what we have?   I would agree there, but you can't short the guy.  Izzo has just one title, but so does Rollie Massimino.   So did Jim Valvano.  Mike Davis almost won one.   You don't have to be a great coach to win a title, and lots of the greatest coaches ever have won one or never won at all.   Lou Carnesecca, for example won more games percentage wise than Knight did, but he never won a title.   Where's your bar?   Bo Ryan is a marvelous recruiter.  No, he doesn't always have top talent, but he recruits kids who can and do succeed in his system, and he does it year after year after year.   He knows how to build a program that wins no matter who the pieces are, and that's the mark of a fantastic coach.   Winning titles takes so much more than most people ever credit.  Kentucky had by far the most talent this season, and they didn't win it.    

Yeah.  I don't think I said Painter has had more success in that context.  I simply meant his recruiting is focused here and I think that's a wise strategy.  I don't think he'll ever be able to consistently recruit this area the way Indiana could if Indiana really focused, but if he continues to focus locally while Crean doesn't, I think it puts him in position to succeed, and you really can't argue with the results.   Without Zeller, Crean's record against Purdue is 0-8, while Purdue's had a roster loaded with local kids.   I think there's a reason Michigan State spends so much time and energy within 4 hours of their campus.   Same with Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio State; and it's tough to argue against their results the last several years.   I think there's a reason those schools recruit Indiana so heavily, and why Steve Alford still recruits here coaching in Los Angeles.  I've had lots of conversations with coaches across the country, and it's basically a given that kids from midwest are taught and grow up playing a brand of basketball that's valued and desired by college coaches.  I'll believe that as a general truth until I see different results than I've seen.      "Local" kids isn't a blanket statement.   No player automatically has a monopoly on smart and mature based on where they're from.   Jeremy Hollowell, for example, was a very lazy player who worked almost exclusively on ball skills.  He either wasn't coached or didn't take coaching to make him the kind of player Indiana needed.  Conversely, Colin Hartman, who isn't nearly the athlete Hollowell is, has become a very valuable player for Indiana based on the way he plays, and kids like Hartman are recruited from Indiana and the surrounding area every year.   Glue guys who do the dirty work and understand the little things.   Not sure where else in the country gets a label like that.   I don't think anywhere.     Kids from the local area is only part of my point.  You still have to recruit the right ones.   I just think there are more per capita locally, and I don't understand the focus on kids who don't have any idea of the culture or expectations at Indiana.  That will always baffle me no matter how wrong you think I am.   We can disagree about that, and I think it's a fun debate.   I just don't know why it has to get personal sometimes if people disagree.    

Until Crean takes accountability for his team and until someone holds him accountable, excuses will be the easy way out.  Heck, I saw some fans last season commenting about how Crean had to "start over" when he got here and that people needed to be patient.   All he has are excuses.  There's no reasonable justification for a guy finishing 8th and 7th place in the Big Ten in his 6th and 7th seasons at Indiana University.   None.   He's coached for 16 years and has exactly two conference finishes above 4th.   He's at best a middle of the road coach in his own conference and the historically most elite school in the Big Ten.  But here he sits....with a job.  And a team that should be very good.   Given Indiana's history, they'll give him an extension, and we'll be bad again in 2016-17 because we'll lose a bunch of talent and be "re-building" again.   So one good season in 4 will be "good enough," and Crean will be the first in line talking about how young we are and speaking in platitudes like he always does.   The problem is and will be the replacement list is a one man list; and until that one man is ready to take the job, Indiana will be stuck in neutral unless it commits to excellence again.   

I thought Crean made the same mistake with Vonleh he made with Zeller.  In the half court, Crean put him on the block way too often, and didn't utilize his athletic ability in the high post nearly enough.   It drove me daffy when he finally put Zeller in the high post against Syracuse, and then asked him to drive every time.   First possession of that game, he drove and had his shot blocked. He makes that jumper a couple of times, it would have been a completely different game.   Butler beat that zone a couple years earlier with a 6'1" player at the foul line making jumpers.  Opened everything else up.  Crean had to see that film, and he was in the same conference with Syracuse for a few years....and still didn't have a clue how to beat it.    That was evident after exactly one possession.  I don't expect him to utilize Bryant in the most effective way.  Maybe I'll be surprised.   Zeller never developed a jumper because he was never asked to take it, and Vonleh was a good shooter who all too frequently was planted on the low block with a weak 18 year-old body playing against grown men.   When he was able to step out on the floor, he was a capable shooter, but unable to put up consistent numbers the way Crean used him.   Holt is a solid basketball player, limited only by his size.      I don't mean to bring up old business, however your comment about Vonleh and "natural talent" sort of affirm my original point and I'll use your words in the hope you might understand a little more.  He had ball skills but an immature, incomplete game.   True for many kids on the east coast because that's how they play growing up.   Vonleh was a kid I had no problem recruiting because of his talent level, but the point's the same.   With talented kids around the midwest who have grown up playing basketball around here, that kind of immaturity is rare.  Most of the kids recruited from this area are very smart and fundamentally developed players who HAVE been taught to pass from the post.  Who HAVE been taught about spacing and positioning.   Who HAVE been taught where their team mates are on the floor so their vision is more developed.   Vonleh, like many players from the east coast, had great ball skills and was terrific at the "sport," but was not so good at the "game."    I'll agree we need mature, smart players no matter where they're from; but I don't agree that we ever have to leave the area to find the 3 and 4 star kids like that, and I still say kids who come here prepared for the Big Ten and have an understanding of the rivalries have a leg up on kids who don't.