Old Friend

Please no chants. Please. No. Chants.

Yes I do. And civilly agreeing to disagree is what boards like these are about. Peace..Go Hoosiers!

Yeah, but his numbers are only part of his story. His mobility was his greatest attribute. He was never utilized as he should have been; and we absolutely contended for a title with him at Indiana. We were a #1 seed and won the Big Ten. The problem there was Crean; not Cody. The way he was used in the Syracuse game was laughable. That's on Crean, not Cody. Cody committed relatively early; and the following season was "the movement." It obviously didn't work out, but that's the only class who COULD have "flocked" to play with Cody, and it was one of the top classes in the country at the time. The guy was arguably the most dominant mobile big man in the country, and his team in 2011-2012 went from 12-20 to 27-9 without adding a whole lot more. (Though Oladipo improved a great deal....that's true) That''s exclusively on Cody because it sure as heck wasn't on Crean. All due respect, I think you're selling Zeller short and perhaps placing blame on un-reached potential on a guy 30 years younger than the man who should shoulder it.

I saw what you saw, and I would attribute most if not all of it to coaching and the way he was used. I smiled at your last sentence. Wouldn't know anything about that....

"As good?" Yeah. He was. He was a far better defender as a sophomore. Also a lot bigger. He averaged more points, more rebounds, more FT attempts - and led the Big Ten in attempts and makes; had more assists, and more blocks. (granted the last two were marginal, but so were the numbers on which he declined a bit) His team improved by 2 games, his "plus/minus" was identical, and he was asked to play more minutes. He never was asked to develop a jump shot; and he drew a hell of a lot more double teams than he did his freshman year. He was never truly allowed to play out on the floor facing the basket; and he was the best mobile big man in the country. Was he as efficient as he was his freshman season? Was he utilized properly? I can make that argument. But a regression? I don't see that.

The other thing Zeller did was show other top recruits Indiana was worth a look. Coach Miller would benefit as much from who might follow and continue building than he would Romeo himself. Only I think Miller could sustain it.

I will never understand why a player would want to sit on the ends of the court.

34-6 INDIANA wins

The way I see this season boils down to how well we defend and how well our bench can adapt and contribute. Our starting 5 is okay. (Assuming it's Johnson, Newkirk, Hartman, Davis, and Morgan) We're not going to be an offensive juggernaut by any means, but there won't be many teams with that kind of experience in the starting lineup. That's 3 seniors, a junior, and a sophomore. If they guard, we'll be in a lot of games. Newkirk is a kid who I think can really improve his offensive stats, Johnson is who he is; we'll see whether or not Davis' hype is smoke or fire; and we pretty much know what we'll get from Hartman and Morgan. I think Indiana will struggle to score 70 points most nights. I see a lot of 64-57 type games, even against teams we may not expect; but especially in the Big Ten. There really isn't "instant offense" off the bench, and we don't have much size. If Indiana wins 18-20 games this season, and is in the NCAA conversation; I think that's a successful year 1, whether we make the tournament or not. Can we defend? Can we rebound? Can we score consistently? Those are the question marks as I see them. If we can do the first two, we've got a shot to be better. If not? 14-15 wins will be difficult.

What about deflections?!?!?! Can anyone take this kind of thing seriously without a reference to those? Removes tongue from cheek. Basketball is a simple game. SAB VRG Spacing, Angles, Ball movement, Value the ball, Rebound, Guard somebody. As an Indiana fan, what's not to like about that article?

Whatever. You're more interested in being right than anything else. I said he may end up having value, but he was hired for his east coast ties. And he was. I did not say he had no value. That's you putting words in my mouth. You want to be right, I'll let you be right. What does it matter? Same group of 3-4 guys. Every time.

And to think you got on me earlier about nit picking. Listen...Brusier Flint is an east coast guy who was hired because of his east coast relationships. That's a fact. Miller said so. Whether or not he has other responsibilities is not something I know. But I DO know Miller contacted Phinisee very quickly after he was hired and maintained contact. That's also a fact. I have no idea if Forrester is any good or not. I have no idea what real role Flint played in recruiting Anderson. I have no idea what prior relationships he had with Phinisee or Anderson. Maybe he'll end up being great for the program. I have been on record for a long time that I don't think Indiana University needs to recruit the east coast on a consistent basis; but the whole university and the Big Ten (except Izzo) are going that direction, so this is kind of a me problem.

You are correct...and I have no clue where my brain was...I deviated from my point about east coast ties.. Wow... I know what he's saying, but I never said he wasn't. I said he was hired for his east coast ties....and he was.

Who's "he?" Miller or Flint? Flint was hired for his east cost relationships (which Miller mentioned early on); and also because of some coaches he knows around here. Of course he can recruit around the area. I never said he couldn't. What's your point other than to argue? I never said anything about anyone's ability to recruit Indiana, and in fact have been very complimentary so far. What is your point?? I'm not ignoring anything. You're arguing for the sake of arguing. You put words in my mouth...I called you on it. Move on. For the love of God, man.

There's always an assistant attached. Flint was not hired because he can recruit Indiana. Don't kid yourself. Based on what I know, the first recruit Miller contacted after Langford was Phinisee. Why would you doubt a head coach's role in recruiting? Even Knight took the lead on mission-critical kids much of the time; and he hated recruiting. I never used the word "only." You did.

The lead recruiter on Phinisee was Archie Miller. Like I said, the kid might be terrific and a perfect fit. Flint may end up having value; but the reason he was hired was because of his east coast ties. The entire university has gone that direction, as has the Big Ten. I'll never understand it, nor like it; but that's my opinion.

Sorry.... I was referring to whether or not this recruitment somehow means Morgan is leaving.

This would disappoint me. A lot. Not sure if this comes as a guess or whether you know something; but if this is the case, I'm leery of the methodology.

I was not impressed with the Bruiser Flint hire, so I'm skeptical and I still have no idea why we feel the need to go to Philadelphia to find the #37 ranked PF in the country. BUT....He runs the floor well, he's bouncy, he shows lots of potential fundamentally and seems to understand spacing and help side defense based on the 4 videos I just watched (he opened the right way in a screen/roll, for example..many kids don't). If he stays 3-4 years, I can see him making an impact. Bruiser Flint and his connections scare me because I just don't think he's that great. Guy won 53% of his games and never did a thing as a head coach. In his last 2 seasons, his Drexel teams went 17-44 ; and he never made the NCAA tournament in a horrible Colonial Athletic Conference. Welcome to the kid....hope he's terrific.

What holds no weight is Zander was never asked to throw the ball much. We had a FAR better running game when he was here; and generally speaking he was a substitute to run the read option. You really think that's an equal comparison?

That was for those who said Zander couldn't make the throw to Hale. People above made comparisons based on one throw, saying Zander couldn't make that throw and the comparison was absurd. If you're objective at all...you know as well as I do this video refutes that claim. Yes. He could have made that throw. He wasn't asked to make lots of throws. He was a read option QB. The video does in fact say all you need to know; but context matters. Help me understand how making statements based on one throw is an accurate or reasonable thought process, when a video disproves what they were saying? You lost me. Serious answer. He was never asked to.

Think you're overestimating what he'd do when teams prepare for him. There's a reason Indiana used Diamont as a change up a year ago. He was effective that way. As a full time starter? Not so much.

Here you go fellas. Selective memory aside; there are a couple of pretty solid throws here. You're making statements based on one throw, AND saying Diamont couldn't make them? Damn these highlight reels. They take away so many narratives when you so badly want someone else to be wrong. Check out his HS stats at the beginning. We're not taking about a kid who couldn't throw it.

With the receivers we have? We're going to need throws outside the numbers. We just are. We need to be multi-dimensional; but we need arm strength better than what Ramsey gives them. Diamont's strength was the read option and speed. Same with Ramsey. His throw to Hall was simply an out and up with no safety help. He had to throw it ~ 35 yards. Any good college QB can make that throw over a smaller corner. Lagow's arm will be needed. What we need is a running game to keep the defense honest. When he was in the game both this week and last, we didn't have that. Game plan changed....and playbook changed when Ramsey came in. Lagow threw no screens or delayed drags. He was asked to make tough throws from the pocket, and today, he didn't make them. Last week, he did. I like the change up; I just don't think this needs to be "bash Lagow and sit him forever" because teams can take Ramsey away and his arm can't bail him out. What we really have are two incomplete QB's. If we start Ramsey, defenses will key on the read option with ends and linebackers playing very differently than they did today with Ramsey in the game. Ends were crashing w Lagow, and linebackers either dropping into coverage or filling A/B gaps. Perfect for an option QB, and Virginia clearly wasn't ready for that. I just think it's a lot more complicated than saying "Lagow sucks, sit him;" and I think some are kinda' over stating how much better Ramsey is than Diamont was.

I said give Lagow a week or two....and he made NFL throws a week ago against the #2 team in the country. Not like being "pro Lagow" was that outlandish. I disagree with you that Ramsey gives them so much more than Lagow can. His arm's not close; and you can take away that read option very easily. This is not Randle El we're dealing with. I think you WAY over estimate what Ramsey is right now because he looked good against a defense clearly ill prepared for his skill set. You think he does that against WIsconsin when they're prepared for him? I think UVA was not prepared to play against the read option or a screen game, and the coaches made a great decision making the change. Ramsey averaged 8 yards per attempt, and a lot was after the catch. That's very average; and he made only one or two difficult throws. Very different playbook than Lagow had, and that's just truth. They're gonna' need both QB's this season, and I would simply tell you if you believe Ramsey is the answer and Lagow just needs to sit, I think you're wrong. I'm not gonna' argue with you. Lagow was bad today. No doubt. But they're going to need him down the road.