Old Friend

"The University.....of Indiana." Someone please tell him.

You let me know when Zach McRoberts does anything as well as Rodman defended or rebounded. You just used an example of perhaps the best rebounder in NBA history, and if you have to go to that extreme to make a point, I feel pretty sound in my thinking. When McRoberts averages 18 rebounds a game, we can use that example. Your examples are extreme, and your point is noted. Let's reconvene in February. If McRoberts is playing 20+ minutes every game, still not producing; and Indiana is in the mix for a Big Ten title and looking like a solid NCAA Tournament team, I will very gladly eat my words. Until then....

There is no data that doesn't back up my point unless you eliminate some of it to favor yours. Good grief. (And you had to go back 3 seasons to find that comparison..which made me smile. And you have one. A single comparison to make your point. I can find about 800 that prove mine if you want to look them up)

Wow. Thank you for clearing up all of those things "I am" for me. I was confuzzled. Hell, dude, I started this out saying "all due respect" to you, and look where it took us. This is on you...not me. Your opinion is your opinion. You've been given examples and facts to back up everything I've said. You clearly don't get what I'm trying to tell you because you're focused on numbers. I have no bias because he is a walk on. For the 3rd time....my opinion is based on WHY he's a walk on, not THAT he's a walk on. I've pointed out those reasons repeatedly. You're not biased in his favor, are you? Pot..meet kettle.

This makes the overall point. I'm reading this wondering why you're expending so much energy comparing McRoberts w Josh Gasser; because this is what I'm saying....and what I'll stand by. Indiana does not need McRoberts to play as many minutes this season as last, and there are now more talented players available to start and play more minutes. He is a walk on because his level was Vermont; and his numbers as a freshman there suggested that fit was a good one. At a place like Indiana, in a year where they have high aspirations; his role shouldn't be as large and he shouldn't start nor play starter minutes on THIS team.

You're nit picking. Gasser took 3x the number of shots, and scored 3.5x the number of points. His role was different. He was a threat. McRoberts is not a threat. You're splitting hairs in order to make a point.

No...you don't. I agree with that argument and never said you do. The difference in what I did say is subtle, but significant because of the way teams defend you. A guy who isn't a threat allows a player to float and make things more difficult for everyone else. But I disagree with his playing starter minutes in this case because he isn't even a threat to score. Do I think it matters if he starts the game? No. But starting the game and playing starter minutes are different things. I think if we need McRoberts to play 20+ minutes every night, we're in trouble. There are only 200 minutes to go around; and last season we needed him. Different season, different team. I like him. As I have said multiple times. I truly do. He has a role, and it may be a significant role. But now that we have added 6 new faces (counting Thompson), all of whom are more athletic and talented than McRoberts is, I believe his role should diminish because we don't need him as much as we did a season ago. Josh Gasser averaged ~ 7 PPG from his sophomore season through his senior season. He also took 180+ shots per season after his freshman year. He was a threat. McRoberts took 68 shots and is not a threat. McRoberts averaged 2.8 a year ago, and as I said, 1/3rd of his points came against 3 teams...IPFW, Tennessee Tech, and Youngstown State; otherwise, he averages about 1.9 PPG. Not a valid comparison to Gasser.

No....they really kind of aren't. Take a look back at this thread and let me know whose tone was argumenative. Hell, take a look at THIS post. A Dodge Stratus? Really? That's all you have? (2014 Ford Explorer Platinum if you need to know) You've now gotten off the point, which tells me a whole lot and you're telling me to accept your fabricated comparison and change my tone when you're the guy who took an argumenative tone to begin with. (I do love the basic statement "accept my opinion...dammit" stance.) Sorry, pal. You fire, I'm firing back. Go back and read. My first post started out "All due respect to Brass Cannon...." And my next ones were polite. My last to you? No, but put the blame where it belongs. For the record, I don't care one bit whether or not my background gives me validity. I would think the facts would, as would history, but maybe not. Maybe you can't see past the style. I'm nothing but a guy next to you on a bar stool. Go with that or assume something else. Your call. Now...back on point or...not?

This is not accurate. You can dig and find what some may find "similarities," but the top 2 Big Ten teams did not rely on players who are no threat at all to score. Similar (if you reach) stat lines do not make them similar players.

Exceptional first sentence. Some people just want to argue. It sometimes takes minutiae in order to satisfy that craving, and I find it sporty to counter. My apologies for my role in it, however sometimes...a good debate is needed for some.

Harden, Paul, Gordon, Capela, Tucker, and Ariza all play 30+ minutes a night. Help me understand what you're trying to say.

Normal rotation? 20-30 minutes a night depending on the team, depth, foul trouble, etc. You can look this up yourself, but for the sake of the question, last season: Morgan 29.4 MPG Johnson 34.2 MPG Newkirk 23.3 MPG Those three were the only ones to start more than 20 games, so they're the ones I'll use that played "starter minutes" in any normal rotation. We do not need McRobers to play that many minutes this season. We did last; and he did. We need 10-12 minutes this season, game dependent.

On what successful team at any level do starters not play starter minutes?

No...my argument isn't changing at all. I told you before....it's not just that he's a walk on...it's why. If you want me to write a book for you and use 7,209 words in every post, I would be happy to spell everything out for you in every post. Or...I can shorten it and simply say there's a reason he is a walk on, and that reason is he's that caliber of a player at Indiana. He was needed last season, but if you didn't notice his liabilities, that's on you. Your Hartman example is awful. He was a very capable shooter and a threat to score. McRobers is not. Your eyes work, right? He avoids trying to score. Dribbles out of the lane to give the ball up. If you need McRoberts to do the things you say above, we need him to do those things in starter minutes, right? So you're telling me this team needs McRoberts on the floor 24-30 minutes a game, right? That would leave me speechless if I thought you really believed that. You're seriously....seriously going to compare PJ Thompson - a pure point guard, still averaged 7.8 PPG. He also shot a better percentage. What's the comparison there? You're reaching. And not grabbing anything. Matt McQuaid? McQuaid averaged double what McRoberts did in fewer minutes. McRiobers scored 78 points all season, and 24 (about 1/3rd) of them were against IPFW, Tennessee Tech, and Youngstown State. He scored in double figures one time. Once. He was held scoreless 12 times. McQuaid took 165 shots...McRoberts 63. McQuaid made 67 shots. McRobers made 27. McQuaid made more than McRoberts took. And McQuaid played fewer minutes per game. One was a threat to score...one was not. McRoberts' statistical numbers at Indiana are much lower than they were at Vermont because that's his true level. He was fine on a bad team a year ago...but this is not a bad team. It's an athletic, deep, talented team that does not need a scrappy try hard to play major minutes. My story hasn't changed at all. He is a role player on this team, and if we need him to be more than that, we're in trouble. This season's team is not last season's team and you can't use last year as a barometer for this year. We are much deeper, much more talented, and so far, we haven't lost 2 key guys to injury. Using last season to compare to this one is a fool's errand. As I said, I love McRoberts off the bench. I am not anti-Zach McRoberts. I just don't see him as a starter. We need production as much as effort if we're going to win anything.

I didn't know that (Archie's comments about Davis), so consider that an uninformed mistake and I stand corrected.

McRoberts is not a lock down defender. He wasn't even mentioned for All Big Ten defensive team. He is a decent position defender, but he is not a very good on ball defender...and FAR from "lock down." The reason is not because he is a walk on. The reason is why. Come on...you know better than that. I'm not getting into these stupid comparison games. They are meaningless. McRoberts isn't even a threat to score. He doesn't have to be guarded tightly. No conference champion starts a player like that whether he's on scholarship or a walk on, and if he were that talented, he'd have done better than Vermont. Indiana was devoid of basketball IQ a year ago. Devoid of defenders at all. McRoberts is a willing defender and hard worker; but a "starter" plays starter minutes, and if you really believe Indiana is better off with him playing 24-28 minutes every game, I disagree completely. If he started and played 7 minutes, I could live with that, but that's not what starters do.

I think everyone disagrees with me on #2. Maybe #1, too because people (rightfully) fell in love w McRoberts. Yep...he is a winning player, but on a team with as much talent and athletic ability as this one has, I see him as a far bigger contributor off the bench than I do playing starter's minutes.

He is a walk on. That's a fact. Regardless of how you spin it....that's what he is. How he plays or the role he plays is irrelevant. He is a walk on. You don't start walk on's who can't score if you're competing for a Big Ten title. I don't care if you read the rest of the post or not...but you did. I am completely aware of how you build a team and what you put on the floor...I've only coached for 21 years. Any player in the NBA who starts is an expert at something. Foster was one of the best post defenders and rebounders in the eastern conference. He was also a 5. Harrington was a 3-4, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that comparison, but for all McRoberts is; find me a Big Ten champ who consistently started a walk on who can't score. I said I like him off the bench, and I do; but who does he start in front of? Smith? Langford? Not on any team that thinks it's very good.

1) All due respect to Brass Cannon, if we have to start McRoberts in any circumstance, I think we're in trouble. He is not at all a threat to score, and we don't need that liability on the floor with starters' minutes this season. Love him as a role player off the bench, but he should not be listed anywhere as a starter. He is still a walk on, after all 2) I may die on this hill, but I'm remaining firmly in the "Phinisee should start from day 1" camp. I may also be alone in that tent, but he is a pure point guard and I truly believe at least as good as Yogi was at this age. Quicker and not as strong, so not really comparable; but he's terrific. Green to me is a combo guard and still makes too many mistakes to start with a team this talented. 3) I would love at some point to see Smith get a shot at the "3." He should be the guy on a rim run on every fast break. 4) Don't be surprised to see Race Thompson in the mix in the front court. I haven't heard much (I also haven't asked), but what I DO hear is that he's a strong SOB and tough to move around in the paint. 5) I am also of the belief that Davis will contribute more this season than many think he will. Maybe Fitzner can fill the "5" role until he's ready or can play big minutes, but I know plenty of people who have come back to 100% from an achilles tear in less than 9 months. If I were making decisions, I'd start : Phinisee, Langford, Smith, Morgan, and Davis/Thompson/Fitzner. Maybe Archie will ask for my input?

I edited my original...meant he was an NBA 3. Typo. And yes....I suppose he is already working hard on his 3 ball....transition, catch and shoot, off the dribble, etc.

Raise your hand if you were convinced he was going to make the jump. He was not yet ready. He is an NBA 3 and a college post player. He'll be given every opportunity to work on his skills so he IS an NBA "3," but he's not there now and really needs to develop skills before he's a prospect. I never had a doubt, and this is a win for all parties.

I've actually played around with that. The best (and most balanced) geographically designed divisions I came up with were : North : Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State, Rutgers, Nebraska, Iowa South : Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Maryland, Northwestern, Penn State I might just re-do them based on nothing more than a need for balance and do this : Big Ten 1 : Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota Big Ten 2 : Penn State, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Indiana, Maryland, Illinois, Rutgers Either way, they are completely out of balance now.

And this will be true for eternity as long as the conference doesn't change it. The divisions are completely unbalanced and it's sickening for IU, Maryland, and Rutgers. MSU and IU are 4 and 5 at best every year and it sucks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Landry