Old Friend

Two very different offensive game plans with 2 very different quarterbacks. One played poorly, the other had a nice start and brought a very needed burst of energy. Virginia was prepared for one QB; not the other. Indiana's defense and special teams won that one. When you have 2 QB's, you really don't have one. Ramsey is clearly far more athletic with his legs, but he was not asked to make the throws Lagow was asked to make. Completely different playbook. Lagow was bad. No question. I just hope the coaches don't think Ramsey is the answer. He's a little better than Diamont, but not that much. Teams who prepare for him will take away what he does well.

I will happily eat my crow this week. Lagow was awful. Play calling and a dropped ball didn't help him; and game plan not nearly as sound with him in the game as it was last week; but he has to be better than that. Different set of plays w/Ramsey in the game. UVA prepared for one; not the other.

I have no attachment to this kid at all. I do laugh at "excuses." Reasons are not excuses. See above. The game plan was very clear....find one on one matchups on the outside and throw the ball to that player; especially Cobbs. It ended up being Hale much of the time, also. When OSU doubled the outside, he frequently found Timion on crossing routes; but he was not going through progressions. No\t deciding where to throw the ball; and in fact audibled out of running plays to throw into 1 on 1 coverage multiple times. That was the game plan. I don't yet think you're wrong. I even said you may be right given time. But after that game, and that game plan,...in which decision making was taken for the most part away from him; I don't think it's fair to make the statements you made. Basically? Me, my boyfriends, and my hissy fits think you're making statements without knowing what you were watching. I'll be here next week and after if you turn out to be right, and I'll even give you credit. In turn, where will you be? Context matters.

This is where you're missing the point I and others have made. This was not a progression read game plan. This was "find the 1 on 1 and throw it" game plan. Lagow was not given an opportunity to value the ball. He was told to let his receivers make plays in 1 on 1 matchups; especially w Cobbs. We did not have time to go through normal progressions. He did not have time to make decisions. In essence, decisions were taken out of his hands much of the time.

Good Lord. Grow up. He's a kid. He was executing a game plan, and had turnovers any QB on the planet would have had, and you're so convinced you need to be critical you resort to this childish garbage hoping for a laugh from the rest of the people who don't understand this is a brand new offensive staff, game planning against by far the best team he'll see, putting him in position to make mistakes, but also succeed. The first INT was a tipped ball. Defensive guy made a play, and you still feel like you need to blame him. The other INT happened when the game was decided and he was trying to make a play. This is a new season and I promise you he and everyone who works with him focused on the turnovers. It's like you all think he's an idiot incapable of learning lessons. He's not, and he does get the benefit of the doubt from me because he's the quarterback. He is not under pressure from anyone better, and I know absolutely that he's aware of last season and focused on being better. That's not my opinion; and I didn't see a kid prone to mistakes; I saw a kid playing against an incredible team that pressured our entire offense; and we STILL had a lead in the middle of the 3rd quarter. I think time will show OSU is no ordinary football team; and our line still has some developing to do. That pressure was far more than he'll see again, and I didn't think he played that poorly under that duress. It's not like he threw 4 INT's because of pressure. Maybe he threw one. You do understand the throws he made to receivers with 1 on 1 coverage were asked of him, right? Not his decisions. Not because of pressure. That's the context you miss. He threw 65 balls. Two were picked. One was his fault, but the game was already decided at that point. Context. Again, let's see where he is next week. My boyfriends and I have a date and we're all wearing his jersey with crimson eye make up. May we buy you a lemonade?

So you can emininate context and game plan and the fact Indiana couldn't run the ball. You can ignore the eyeball test. You can take 4 players projected in 2 rounds of one draft (let alone others projected in others or in later rounds), and just ignore it in favor of criticism? Got it. You're like the old men in the balcony of the Muppet Show. Just complaining for the sake of it and applying facts without context so you convince yourself you're right. You may be. But if you you really don't think context and game plan mattered this week, I tbink you're foolish.

All I'm saying. I hope I'm right, too. I think he executed the game plan a lot more than he made several poor decisions. In 65 throws, not all will be perfect. Several were.

At the end of the day, worrisome, why? Until he costs us a game we should win, this is a 6-8 win team either way. He is by far the best we have, so why be so uptight about a couple of bad throws in 65 attempts? Why be upset over "forced throws" when the game plan was to throw it up and ask receivers to make plays? He may be exactly the same as he was.....but I also think after that game, when we simply could not run the ball and played against a far superior and deeper team, making blanket statements is premature, especially given his production when the game still mattered. I know he had 3 turnovers, but that's a very simplistic and incomplete way to look at it in my mind.

Context matters. Talk to me in a week or two. Let's see how he does against "everybody." OSU is not "everybody." There's nobody behind him close to better, and Indiana is absolutely a 6-8 win team if they stay healthy; so you all are just bitching for the sake of bitching.

He was asked to make those throws this week. Asked to let his receivers make a play. That was very clearly the game plan. I'm telling you I don't see that as an issue this season yet. You need to grasp that before you make blanket statements. Let's have this conversation again in a week or two. I'm not telling you you're wrong; but I think making a blanket judgement based on that game is premature.

It is one game. This season. He had 3 TD's, over 300 yards, and 1 INT on a tipped ball during the time in the game when it mattered. Against the #2 team in the country. OSU has 4 players on defense projected in the top 2 rounds of the 2018 NFL mock draft. Laughable...how, exactly?

I think you guys are way too hard on a kid after one game against that competition. He had guys in his face all night, and not much time to throw. You're asking a kid to make split second decisions and execute every throw perfectly under duress. I'd just say hold your criticism for a week or two. I'm not sure why (with nothing behind him that's any better) you're so quick to be critical and paint a picture of a kid who "makes bad decisions." He did a year ago....against far worse teams than he saw the other night. I saw dramatic improvement and a kid asked to MAKE tough throws all night long. I don't get how anyone can say "we can't run the ball" and things like that after playing against that defense. Ohio State will hold more than half its opponents under 21 points; and I would bet almost ALL under 21 points in 2.5 quarters.. Mark my words. And we scored them when it mattered. Our game plan was obviously to spread them out. It was not to establish the run. Again, I'd say wait a week or two before making quick judgments. This was Indiana vs an NFL team. We won't see that again. Blaming a tipped ball on a quarterback is nit picky and reeks of an alternate agenda. Sometimes, defensive players make plays. They're on scholarship, too. I dunno'. Maybe you guys just want to hate on Lagow for whatever reason. If he blows up in the next 2 weeks, I'll be with you. After that game, I'm more than willing to give him a pass. Again, when it mattered, he had 3 TD's, 1 pick, over 300 yards, and led Indiana to 21 points against a team that might win the national title.

I think you're discounting the opponent, in this case. The game plan was very obvious....any time Cobbs had 1 on 1 coverage...throw to him. The PLAN was to let receivers make plays. They weren't bad throws, they were the throws he was asked to make. Our WR's couldn't get open consistently on the outside; so they make plays on go routes, on back shoulder throws, and on timing throws. They were able to do so (get open) on crossing routes and hitches, and Timion had a hell of a game, too. Cobbs is big and strong on the outside, and was asked to make plays on those throws. He had 12 catches and at least..20 targets. Lagow was far more accurate than he was a year ago; but OSU's defensive line is by far the best IU will face all season; and no...they did not have a running game Thursday. They will...and they won't see a D line like that again. When a QB is asked to throw 65 times, he's not going to be perfect. Not Tom Brady, not Peyton Manning, and not Richard Lagow When the game was on the line...say the first 2 1/2 quarters when Indiana could hang with that depth; he had 3 TD's and 1 INT which was tipped. Lagow was far more accurate than he was a year ago; and made a handful of mistakes with pressure in his face; but all QB''s at every level do that. At the end of the day, Indiana will win 6-8 games this season, and he will have been the QB on two bowl teams. I'm not sure what expectations are, or what you think he cost Indiana the other night or will moving forward; but I saw more improvement than you did. Re: running game, that'll be there. OSU has so many great players up there; with Indiana's young line, they weren't going to have consistent success running it. They just weren't. That's not our peer. That's not a team Indiana should measure itself against right now. I was impressed by the elimination of stupid penalties; by better tackling before we obviously wore down; by intensity, by game plan.. I saw far more positive than negative; and when OSU plays for the national title, I think Indiana's deficiencies will be long forgotten.

At the same time, are you ignoring that OSU may be the best team in the country; Indiana is not in that league; we had no running game and it was ALL on Lagow's shoulders, he made some terrific throws against NFL caliber corners, had pressure in his face all night, and honestly didn't cost Indiana anything? OSU has NFL caliber players 2 deep at almost every position. Indiana can't compete with that size or speed over 4 quarters; and anyone who thinks they can right now needs a reality check. We don't have the depth or experience to play with Ohio State, and had zero running game to take pressure off Lagow. When it's all on you, you're forced to try to make plays sometimes. Judging him as harshly as you are after this game is premature in my mind. I saw a lot of things I thought were better the other night, and I'll bet you whatever you feel like you want to bet his numbers show vast improvement over a year ago.

I didn't think Lagow was bad at all the other night; and I thought both turnovers were.....excusable. The first was tipped, the second a late-game "trying to make a play" pick with the game already decided. I actually thought he made mostly good throws, made good decisions, and played relatively well. Ohio State might be the best team in the country. They're certainly one of the biggest, deepest, and most athletic teams in the country, and that will be by far Indiana's toughest game. Judging Lagow negatively by that game and using to to say "same old Lagow" is a bit premature. I thought his throws were generally more accurate and decision making much better. Ohio State will turn lots of good quarterbacks over multiple times. If Lagow regresses against Virginia or has a tough first half of the season, I'd say it's fair to be critical and point to history. After that game? No. Indiana was not going to run the ball Thursday night. They are not and will not be in that league. And don't have to be. The rest of this season will be easy by comparison..Ohio State is that good. They're on par with Alabama. Indiana simply cannot compete with that for 4 quarters right now. They don't have enough depth...Ohio State does. And it showed. I'd give Lagow another week or two before heaping any negatives on him.

You're right, Strom. My last comment on it is this. Misunderstanding may have rules this day, but if we're talking "general tool" as a way to put kids in a "top 150" category, I'd say the system is okay for that. Not perfect and not close; but a general tool. Okay. I can get with that. My point has not been "general," but more on specificity. How does the existing system (or any national system) accurately predict the order? Or even compare the #9 shooting guard with the #16 shooting guard? Will the #9 kid make his team exponentially better than the #16? No way to tell. Way too many variables. Is he really 7 spots better? Based on what? Robert Phinisee, who started this discussion, is better than the #17 point guard, and my guess is he'll finish higher than that. Many people doing the ranking have never seen him, and based his ranking on his production. RP is a kid that "could" look to score far more than he does. He is far more explosive than he shows most of the time. You really have to watch him play to know how good he is. Same with Aaron Henry. Once guys see those kids, their opinion changes, but all along, they've ranked him based on subjective and intangible data, which makes the system crap (to maintain my word) in my opinion. Fire away....and Go IU

He makes my point. You can stop the insults whenever. One guy agreeing with you doesn't make you right. Speaking of reading comprehension....take a look through this thing. Many people agree on both sides, and someone made the point that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Which means - as I said yesterday - this garbage can stop and we can talk about basketball. Phinisee is an example; not an outlier. And HoosierX, I only mentioned I knew him because he and I have had discussions about this, and he was a guy who was part of the system....which is why I said my opinion on it was based on experience. He passed away this year.

Your opinion is your opinion. You labeled what I gave you as evidence "outliers," which they weren't, but that's your opinion which you are presenting as absolute fact. It's not. At all. And anyone who's objective and not worried about how things are said will know it. Not like this is the first time you've argued about minutiae with me....trying to paint a picture. You know that as well as I do. You're worried about style. Nothing I post initially is ever condescending intentionally. Yeah, I have strong opinions, usually (almost always) based on experiences or knowledge; and you along with a few others consistently worry about style or tone. Like I've told everyone else....I'm nothing but that guy next to you belly up to a bar, talking sh*t about sports. If you're worried about tone or style, you and I won't ever see eye to eye. I've been posting on boards like this for over a decade; and believe me I've been on the right track a hell of a lot more than I haven't. It started with Mike Davis...I think I was the first guy on any board to claim he was a clown who didn't belong; and I got slammed for it. It's not like I'm going to change my style to appease you or others who don't care for it. Especially if you're going to tell me your evidence is absolutely right and mine are "outliers" even if I gave you an article, just like you gave me. And examples. You don't accept them....which is fine. But you don't get to pick and choose. In my opinion, the system is crap. I showed you multiple times using multiple examples why I feel that way. My points are not at all unsupported, and your saying so just means you aren't willing to accept them or do any legwork on your own. The data is all there if you want to look for it. I gave you several examples;. and said I can do the same year after year. And I can. You can look up those lists as easily as I can. I also told you I knew Gary Donna, who was one of the guys who ranked kids....and he specifically told me he sees the top kids all the time and the others almost never. That's "unsupported." Okay. Your opinion. I still say the rankings system is crap beyond the top kids, and is a predictor of very little. See all above examples. Anyway, nobody wants to read you and I in a pissing match; and I'm sure there are people who think you're right and people who think I am. Who cares? Robert Phinisee is better than his ranking. Mostly because he doesn't put up numbers like others do, and because the guys who do the ranking don't see what he IS. Or...they haven't seen him at all. Go IU

You can stop stalking me whenever you feel like it. What point ARE you making, exactly? Other than disagreeing with my breathing your oxygen, I mean? What is the system designed to do? What makes it accurate? If the rankings have zero impact on a career, don't predict anything accurately outside the top 20-30, don't take into account system, circumstances, work habits, coaching, etc....and the people doing the ranking don't see all of the kids; let alone against similar competition; how are they accurate at all? The system is crap and outside the top should be given little credence. It takes a snapshot and throws an arbitrary number that in the scheme of things means nothing. I've given you several examples of players we've all heard of. Not outliers. But....These "additional outliers." They just keep coming.....sort of makes you wonder if they are....you know...outliers. What point are you trying to make other than you think I'm wrong? Do you think anyone outside a small group of.....outliers cares who's right or wrong, here? Do you need a hug?

I don't think we're saying entirely different things. My initial point (which has for some reason started a fire) was and is that the rankings system is crap. It has no criteria, doesn't take many variables into account, overweights the tangibles, and can't predict anything. Notice that any time a lower ranked player signs with a big school, hos ranking frequently goes up? Why? Did he get better because he signed a piece of paper or made a phone call? Or....do those doing the ranking use subjective material to rank kids? Anyway..... I think more people are put off by a strong opinion and a style than the substance of this. Phinisee is better than hia ranking. By a lot.

Judging a kid and ranking him are different things, though. Perea was a highly ranked kid....got to the 30's for a while and ended up, what, #71? Based almost exclusively on athletic ability. He wasn't close to that good. So he dropped. How'd he get to the 30's? Because people didn't see him and ranked him based on highlight films. When they DID watch him...BECAUSE he got ranked highly, he dropped again. And still finished way too high. Here's the question....Do you all remember "the movement?" Every person here was so fired up about that class because they were ranked so highly....and look what happened. Clearly, Jurkin, Perea, and Hollowell were WAY over rated; and I was on record about Hollowell and Jurkin at the time. Patterson never qualified; and I was on record as a big fan...but we never got to find out. And Yogi. He was on the radar as a 4th grader. Great player then and now. The system was very wrong in that case. Now there are many people arguing on behalf of the ranking system vehemently defending it. I think that's interesting. Outlier? Cherry picking? Or flawed system?

This isn't the point I've consistently debated against. All I'm saying....is that the people doing the ranking don't see the kids ranked say, 30-150 enough to rank them accurately. Do they usually have the top 150 right? I'd say....sort of. If they rank the top 150 players in the country, by and large, that group will come from a group of maybe 250 - 300 players who in that snapshot of time are probably pretty close to that. But they are not a predictor,. They are not accurate. They're for fans. This thread is a good example. (The king of hot takes....I like that. Funny how the responses pile up sometimes, isn't it?) You say "but Butler," and I'll point you to the link I posted above which states half of final four teams since, what, 2008 have not had highly ranked kids on their roster. It's not just "but Butler." At all. That's an easy rebuttal, but there are far more examples. Teams with experience matter. Teams with good coaches matter. Rankings are meaningless in the scheme of things. They're for fans. They sell magazines. And they just aren't very accurate outside the obvious kids the "rankers" see all the time. There are WAY too many variables for rankings to matter or be accurate, which is why I have said the system is crap. I've never made a comment against the highly ranked kids because those have been pretty good indicators. They're also not very hard. You and I could go watch those kids against high school players and it would be pretty easy to point them out.

Here's where we differ and where I think the disconnect is. I said the top of the list is fine and usually accurate. I have no debate there; but I also don't think it's very hard to predict the top 10-20 kids in some order. Kids who will put up numbers as college freshmen are pretty easy to spot, and they'll make every list. I don't disagree with that, and never have. I think you're confusing what I'm saying with "all of the rankings are meaningless." That's not what I said nor what I mean. Rankings are a snapshot, and after the top, mean very little or next to nothing because the people doing the ranking can't see a kid enough times to rank him. The people who do this for a living are interested in the top kids. The NBA kids. That's what sells magazines. Nobody buys a magazine or subscribes to a website to find out who the #21 ranked small forward is. And the guys who rank don't see that kid more than once or MAYBE twice. Which is why the rankings are crap in my opinion, and they're generally not very accurate. The examples I gave were neither outliers nor cherry picking. They were simply examples. And there are plenty every year for the same reason. I take issue with the players from....say 30 -40 on down. Your articles list players like Carmelo Anthony, Anthony Davis, Janari Parker, Andrew Wiggins, etc. Kids that are ranked down lower than 30-40 are generally not one and done kids, so there is no correlation between ranking and NBA success, let alone predictors of college success; and the kids ranked there and below generally stick around and develop at different rates and to different levels. So the #17 point guard in Phinisee's case means very little. What does that mean? Does it mean he'll produce the 17th best numbers of all freshman point guards? No. Does it mean there are definitely 16 players better than he is at that position? No. So...what, then? Here's a line from one of your articles. This is not me...this is from something you posted : There have been almost as many Final Four teams that got there without a single prospect who was ranked by both Rivals and Scout. Butler (twice), VCU and Wichita State all got to the Final Four with starters who were apparently late-bloomers or overlooked as preps. That's the basis of my stance that rankings mean very little. The next sentence says the most important factor is the average experience on those teams was "junior." Yes. Exactly. The college experience made their high school ranking irrelevant. If you're telling me the top ranked freshmen are difference makers and ranked appropriately, I'd agree with you. And did. My point is the ranking system doesn't have any way to account for system, development, or anything else; and most of the kids ranked below 30-40 are ranked based on nothing but statistics and what other people say. Another of your articles talked about "stars" and how they predict NBA success. Like I said...I don't disagree with the top. I've never said differently; and of course 5 star kids are going to be more successful in the NBA because they're physically better. And it's obvious. I have never argued against that. Not one of your articles says that the # 12 ranked power forward has consistently proven out over time to be the #10-14 power forward; or the #16 shooting guard has consistently proven to be the #12-18 shooting guard year in and year out. Why? Because there is no science or criteria to rank these players; they play against different caliber of competition; and there's no telling how a kid will develop, fit into a system, or anything like that. My example in this case is Phinisee. He's explosive quick, but doesn't show it all the time. He's not a volume scorer. He's fundamentally sound. Doesn't try to do things he can't. And he just makes everyone better. There's no way there are 16 point guards better than he is; but he's just an example. Like Heyward or Aaron Henry...he has been largely overlooked by the system because that system doesn't necessarily look for players like him. Therefore, the system is crap. It's based on subjective data. Relative to your last sentence, if you want reasonable, meaningful debate, let's debate the same thing. It doesn't seem we are. You seem to be arguing against a point I'm not making. Here's something for you to read, since we're citing sources. http://coachgeorgeraveling.com/high-school-player-rankings-and-reality/ Here's a quote from it : Rankings have almost zero impact on your basketball career. By the way, Steph Curry was ranked #281 by 247 and unranked by Rivals. There is no realscience to predicting how a kid will do.

I wish it could be more entertaining....short movie. I'm out for a while. Too much diversion. Hope you enjoyed the "short." The rebuttal will be interesting.

No you didn't. You provided one side, I provided the other, also with facts. Rankings are based on opinion. They are based on what other people say, and not even from watching kids play. I stand by everything I say or I wouldn't say it. You're complaining about style, and I couldn't care less if you like the way I say things or hate the way I say things. I gave evidence that backed up my point and you said I was cherry picking, even though I said (and meant) I can do the same thing every year. I gave local examples so people would get the point. You think those were the only examples? Hardly. Your evidence and my evidence would hold equal value, I would think; and I stand by my point that I think the rankings are crap and designed to sell magazines.