Mike Woodson and His Coaching Staff

[Southside]

14 hours ago, Honkyman said:

Archie was arguably the best coach available if IU was intent on going the traditional route of hiring a young coach who appeared to be on the way up. Archie had a very good reputation when IU hired him and it seemed like a very good hire. But, as it turned out, he was too aloof for IU. He didn't seem to connect well with the IU community or even his players. He recruited Indiana's top two players--Romeo Langford and Trayce Jackson Davis--in successive years. But his inability to land other top players hurt performance as did his coaching style. Once Indiana started losing more than the fan base was willing to accept, he wasn't going to survive. 

I'm pretty sure I picked Archie to win the job when we were searching, but never got the warm and fuzzies from it. IIRC, I wanted some of the other big names floating around, and if not them, I think I wanted Marshall. 

[JSHoosier]

3 hours ago, Southside said:

I'm pretty sure I picked Archie to win the job when we were searching, but never got the warm and fuzzies from it. IIRC, I wanted some of the other big names floating around, and if not them, I think I wanted Marshall. 

I would've loved to hired Marshall, he can flat coach.  I wanted Holtmann more than Miller, but to be honest both were on a list I wanted to see more from.

[IU Scott]

My #1 choice was Marshall but luckily I wasn't the one doing the hiring. I wasn't a fan of the Archie hire when it happened.

[str8baller]

18 hours ago, lillurk said:

Personally I was disappointed but willing to wait and see. In hindsight Woodson would’ve been interesting even then and was interested, per Woj’s contemporaneous reporting.

My “realistic” 2017 pick at the time would’ve been Holtmann…maybe it’s true he would not have taken the job under any circumstance, as has been widely rumored. I don’t get the impression IU actually made him say no. In the years since I’ve cooled on him a little — good coach, pretty good IU culture fit, may not have the upside.

I know the Donovan/Albers/horse farm thing is a punchline, but Donovan is who I really wanted, and like Holtmann I don’t know that IU really made the big godfather offer there.

I’m happy where we’re at now, though of course it would’ve been nice if 2017-2021 had been better.

Wasn’t the timing wrong for Holtmann or am I misremembering? I thought we hired Archie then Holtmann jumped ship or vice versa. 

[Dave from Dayton]

 Crean is an extrovert, a sunshine pumper.  "It's Indiana!!"

Archie is an introvert.   (*crickets*)   His hiring may have been an opposite pendulum swing from his predecessor in many ways.

They loved him at Dayton because he won, teams improved during the year; didn't curse loudly during games and didn't use wolf whistles at players during games like Brian Gregory.  And he won.

Fans of UD think that Archie Miller lost at IU because of lack of support by the Indiana administration.  Could be right.  I think so, too.  

That and Phin's injuries.  Losing 3 years of a seasoned and excellent PG really sucked.  

That and the unresolved locker room issues...why Archie didn't tell players:  My way or the highway...is also arguable. (ie Administration edict against 'Creaning'?)

 

 

 

[WayneFleekHoosier]

1 hour ago, Dave from Dayton said:

 Crean is an extrovert, a sunshine pumper.  "It's Indiana!!"

Archie is an introvert.   (*crickets*)   His hiring may have been an opposite pendulum swing from his predecessor in many ways.

They loved him at Dayton because he won, teams improved during the year; didn't curse loudly during games and didn't use wolf whistles at players during games like Brian Gregory.  And he won.

Fans of UD think that Archie Miller lost at IU because of lack of support by the Indiana administration.  Could be right.  I think so, too.  

That and Phin's injuries.  Losing 3 years of a seasoned and excellent PG really sucked.  

That and the unresolved locker room issues...why Archie didn't tell players:  My way or the highway...is also arguable. (ie Administration edict against 'Creaning'?)

 

 

 

I think the administration made things hard on Crean and Archie.  We weren't going to find ways to routinely get the best players paid as the other Blueblood programs were doing.  We were never going to seriously compete in the pre-NIL landscape without a superstar, extraordinary coach with a vision.   I don't believe Archie or Crean to be that. 

Crean motivated certain players to be their best selves.  He relished in the underdog role.  He needed superstars to win big.  (zeller, Yogi, Vic).  He did fairly well with those parameters.  Couldn't seize or maintain momentum.  Missed on so many recruits, probably a lot that took better offers.  

Archie works best with hard nosed players that don't need fluff, almost the opposite type of player Crean excelled with.  He didn't have enough of those types of players.  Archie had soft teams, the opposite of his style.  Who knows if he wanted to do things like his brother Sean, and if so, the FBI sting happened at the worst time for them. Lol. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by WayneFleekHoosier

[lillurk]

2 hours ago, str8baller said:

Wasn’t the timing wrong for Holtmann or am I misremembering? I thought we hired Archie then Holtmann jumped ship or vice versa. 

Holtmann sat out the hiring cycle — not sure he even really interviewed or got too far with anybody. Then Matta left really late, early June, and Holtmann succeeded him.

[BGleas]

2 hours ago, Dave from Dayton said:

 Crean is an extrovert, a sunshine pumper.  "It's Indiana!!"

Archie is an introvert.   (*crickets*)   His hiring may have been an opposite pendulum swing from his predecessor in many ways.

They loved him at Dayton because he won, teams improved during the year; didn't curse loudly during games and didn't use wolf whistles at players during games like Brian Gregory.  And he won.

Fans of UD think that Archie Miller lost at IU because of lack of support by the Indiana administration.  Could be right.  I think so, too.  

That and Phin's injuries.  Losing 3 years of a seasoned and excellent PG really sucked.  

That and the unresolved locker room issues...why Archie didn't tell players:  My way or the highway...is also arguable. (ie Administration edict against 'Creaning'?)

 

 

 

Am I the only one that thinks the Phinisee injury thing gets overplayed? He certainly had more then his share of nagging injuries over his 4 years, no doubt about that. 

But, he also never blew out a knee, tore an Achilles or really had any major injury (except the concussion). He played in 111 games over 4 years. 

Phinisee had plenty of time to show he could be a lead guard at this level, and while I like Phinisee and don't mean this as a post to bash him or anything, the results were below average. 

His shooting numbers, both from the field and beyond the arc, were pretty awful over 111 games. 

I don’t really think Phinisee's injuries had much to do with Archie's lack of success, I think it was way more his inability to recruit a better starting point guard over him. 

[Stuhoo]

21 minutes ago, BGleas said:

Am I the only one that thinks the Phinisee injury thing gets overplayed? He certainly had more then his share of nagging injuries over his 4 years, no doubt about that. 

But, he also never blew out a knee, tore an Achilles or really had any major injury (except the concussion). He played in 111 games over 4 years. 

Phinisee had plenty of time to show he could be a lead guard at this level, and while I like Phinisee and don't mean this as a post to bash him or anything, the results were below average. 

His shooting numbers, both from the field and beyond the arc, were pretty awful over 111 games. 

I don’t really think Phinisee's injuries had much to do with Archie's lack of success, I think it was way more his inability to recruit a better starting point guard over him. 

Phinisee is a great kid.

He was not a winning P5 starting point guard. An excellent defensive player at any level though.

Archie threw a lot of his eggs in the basket of a player that wasn’t up to the task. And he failed to recognize the failing situation.

 

 

[Hoosierfan2017]

21 minutes ago, BGleas said:

Am I the only one that thinks the Phinisee injury thing gets overplayed? He certainly had more then his share of nagging injuries over his 4 years, no doubt about that. 

But, he also never blew out a knee, tore an Achilles or really had any major injury (except the concussion). He played in 111 games over 4 years. 

Phinisee had plenty of time to show he could be a lead guard at this level, and while I like Phinisee and don't mean this as a post to bash him or anything, the results were below average. 

His shooting numbers, both from the field and beyond the arc, were pretty awful over 111 games. 

I don’t really think Phinisee's injuries had much to do with Archie's lack of success, I think it was way more his inability to recruit a better starting point guard over him. 

It gets so massively overplayed. And Phinisee being referred to as an “excellent point guard” just… isn’t true at all. His numbers speak for themselves. He was below average.

During Archie’s 3 seasons Phinisee played in 32/35 games, 27/32 games, and 27/27 games. He played in every game of Archie’s disastrous final season, so I’m not sure how his injuries would’ve affected Archie. 

Like you said, one of Archie’s biggest failures was being unable to recruit a better point guard to replace Phinisee in the starting lineup. It wasn’t for a lack of trying. He tried every year. He just failed.

[Dave from Dayton]

4 minutes ago, BGleas said:

Am I the only one that thinks the Phinisee injury thing gets overplayed? He certainly had more then his share of nagging injuries over his 4 years, no doubt about that. 

But, he also never blew out a knee, tore an Achilles or really had any major injury (except the concussion). He played in 111 games over 4 years. 

Phinisee has plenty of time to show he could be a lead guard at this level, and while I like Phinisee and don't mean this as a post to bash him or anything, the results were below average. 

His shooting numbers, both from the field and beyond the arc, were pretty awful over 111 games. 

I don’t really think Phinisee's injuries had much to do with Archie's lack of success, I think it was way more his inability to recruit a better starting point guard over him. 

 Archie Miller did not succeed in getting someone in 'over' Phin.    Al Durham was not the leader or a PG. And Armaan Franklin was a frosh.  And Devonte Green was Devonte Greenish.   And Lander was never ready for prime time.

Thought Phin had two concussions, an abdominal injury, and a foot injury.  The plantar fasciitis issue in his right foot had been a lingering issue.  His first concussion happened midway through his freshman year.

 With all of that, to come back and be a consistently effective shooter is asking a lot.  

I remember not understanding why he was not as quick penetrating and dishing after his first concussion.  Some thought it was a lack of confidence.  I am not sold on that.  Archie just did not play him as much.  Not sure why.

In his sophomore year some fans noted that Phin played through some pain.  I also remember him getting strep throat. 

He seemed to "have it" on defense.  And he was a steadying force on offense.  But as a starting guard he sure didn't put up the points.

Not having a great B10 capable PG year in and year out was bad.  But it was just one of many issues during Archie's coaching stint at IU.

 

 

[Stuhoo]

1 hour ago, Dave from Dayton said:

 Archie Miller did not succeed in getting someone in 'over' Phin.    Al Durham was not the leader or a PG. And Armaan Franklin was a frosh.  And Devonte Green was Devonte Greenish.   And Lander was never ready for prime time.

Thought Phin had two concussions, an abdominal injury, and a foot injury.  The plantar fasciitis issue in his right foot had been a lingering issue.  His first concussion happened midway through his freshman year.

 With all of that, to come back and be a consistently effective shooter is asking a lot.  

I remember not understanding why he was not as quick penetrating and dishing after his first concussion.  Some thought it was a lack of confidence.  I am not sold on that.  Archie just did not play him as much.  Not sure why.

In his sophomore year some fans noted that Phin played through some pain.  I also remember him getting strep throat. 

He seemed to "have it" on defense.  And he was a steadying force on offense.  But as a starting guard he sure didn't put up the points.

Not having a great B10 capable PG year in and year out was bad.  But it was just one of many issues during Archie's coaching stint at IU.

 

 

All players fight through injuries.

If Phinisee was that damaged? His defense would have suffered too. He was a consistently tentative offensive player with a large sample size to prove it.

 

[CSP]

I see "Crean and Archie" grouped together a lot, and I certainly understand why..... but to be clear, Crean is about 10x the coach as Archie and I enjoyed our teams play under Crean 100000x more than I did under Archie. 

As some mentioned, Phinisee is just not a good player, the same should be said about Archie. He isn't a good coach and he certainly developed no one. 

[go iu bb]

8 minutes ago, btownqb said:

I see "Crean and Archie" grouped together a lot, and I certainly understand why..... but to be clear, Crean is about 10x the coach as Archie and I enjoyed our teams play under Crean 100000x more than I did under Archie. 

As some mentioned, Phinisee is just not a good player, the same should be said about Archie. He isn't a good coach and he certainly developed no one. 

Yep.

"Get old, stay old" only works if players improve with experience. That just didn't happen under Miller. The only player I can recall who made a big jump year over year was Franklin and from reading articles about that it sounds like it had nothing to do with Miller.

Crean did have many players improve significantly under him. Of course, one of his big problems was constantly looking for the diamond in the rough that he could turn into a star. He had some great successes with this but way more wasted scholarships. 

Between the two, I'd take Crean over Miller every day of the week. At least his teams weren't painfully boring to watch and they played with effort.

[CSP]

Just now, go iu bb said:

Yep.

"Get old, stay old" only works if players improve with experience. That just didn't happen under Miller. The only player I can recall who made a big jump year over year was Franklin and from reading articles about that it sounds like it had nothing to do with Miller.

Crean did have many players improve significantly under him. Of course, one of his big problems was constantly looking for the diamond in the rough that he could turn into a star. He had some great successes with this but way more wasted scholarships. 

Between the two, I'd take Crean over Miller every day of the week. At least his teams weren't painfully boring to watch and they played with effort.

I could at least understand what the goal was with Crean's teams. For Archie it was "pray the other team doesn't reach 60" as a consistent game plan. 

[8bucks]

5 hours ago, BGleas said:

Am I the only one that thinks the Phinisee injury thing gets overplayed? He certainly had more then his share of nagging injuries over his 4 years, no doubt about that. 

But, he also never blew out a knee, tore an Achilles or really had any major injury (except the concussion). He played in 111 games over 4 years. 

Phinisee had plenty of time to show he could be a lead guard at this level, and while I like Phinisee and don't mean this as a post to bash him or anything, the results were below average. 

His shooting numbers, both from the field and beyond the arc, were pretty awful over 111 games. 

I don’t really think Phinisee's injuries had much to do with Archie's lack of success, I think it was way more his inability to recruit a better starting point guard over him. 

When we had Romeo and on offense Archie would have him stand in the corner without the ball for 5 to 10 seconds most every “play” told me a lot.  I could understand if you have a true center, he may not get the ball some as he works the post.  He could have had him roam the baseline ala Will and that would have been something. No, Archie chose to have him stand to the side and called that offense. 
 

Rob not developing may have hurt, Archie’s recruiting weakness did hurt but to me this Romeo standing thing told me we had a major problem with our coach. 

[BGleas]

18 minutes ago, 8bucks said:

When we had Romeo and on offense Archie would have him stand in the corner without the ball for 5 to 10 seconds most every “play” told me a lot.  I could understand if you have a true center, he may not get the ball some as he works the post.  He could have had him roam the baseline ala Will and that would have been something. No, Archie chose to have him stand to the side and called that offense. 
 

Rob not developing may have hurt, Archie’s recruiting weakness did hurt but to me this Romeo standing thing told me we had a major problem with our coach. 

I have some thoughts on that as a Celtics fan. Before I get into it, I understand college and the NBA are completely different. I understand that it's different playing on a team when you're the leading scorer (IU) vs a team where you're a role player (Celtics).  I get all of that and probably could have listed more. 

But with that said, I watched Langford for three seasons in Boston constantly hoping he would break out. Constantly hoping he would improve his offensive game. 

What I saw for three seasons was Romeo Langford literally standing in the corner doing basically nothing offensively every time he went into the game. 

You could say that it's because it was his role in Boston, but during those same years guys like Semi Ojeleye and Javonte Green (an undrafted rookie in the same class) would come in and make things happen and get involved offensively. They'd find ways to be aggressive and get involved in the offense. All while Langford just stood in the corner and would actually run to the opposite corner if the ball came to his side. It was puzzling. 

I don't mean this as some big defense of Archie. Not really the intent. Just saying after watching Langford closely for 4 years (1 at IU and 3 in Boston) the standing in the corner seems to be a "him" thing as opposed to a coach thing. 

[Stuhoo]

34 minutes ago, BGleas said:

I have some thoughts on that as a Celtics fan. Before I get into it, I understand college and the NBA are completely different. I understand that it's different playing on a team when you're the leading scorer (IU) vs a team where you're a role player (Celtics).  I get all of that and probably could have listed more. 

But with that said, I watched Langford for three seasons in Boston constantly hoping he would break out. Constantly hoping he would improve his offensive game. 

What I saw for three seasons was Romeo Langford literally standing in the corner doing basically nothing offensively every time he went into the game. 

You could say that it's because it was his role in Boston, but during those same years guys like Semi Ojeleye and Javonte Green (an undrafted rookie in the same class) would come in and make things happen and get involved offensively. They'd find ways to be aggressive and get involved in the offense. All while Langford just stood in the corner and would actually run to the opposite corner if the ball came to his side. It was puzzling. 

I don't mean this as some big defense of Archie. Not really the intent. Just saying after watching Langford closely for 4 years (1 at IU and 3 in Boston) the standing in the corner seems to be a "him" thing as opposed to a coach thing. 

Romeo Langford is quite simply a very passive person by nature. It would’ve taken an excellent coaching job to turn him into a bad @$$. Archie didn’t accomplish that goal.

[BGleas]

21 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

Romeo Langford is quite simply a very passive person by nature. It would’ve taken an excellent coaching job to turn him into a bad @$$. Archie didn’t accomplish that goal.

Yup, I think it's just his personality, which doesn't lend itself well to being a star pro player. 

Changing someone's mentality towards the game would be tough to do for any coach in just 1 season. Stevens and Udoka couldn't do it either. 

[CSP]

30 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

Romeo Langford is quite simply a very passive person by nature. It would’ve taken an excellent coaching job to turn him into a bad @$$. Archie didn’t accomplish that goal.

 

7 minutes ago, BGleas said:

Yup, I think it's just his personality, which doesn't lend itself well to being a star pro player. 

Changing someone's mentality towards the game would be tough to do for any coach in just 1 season. Stevens and Udoka couldn't do it either. 

He never played a minute without the ball growing up... and when he did, he was just waiting on the ball to get passed back to him. 

Never learned to play without the ball. 100% a skill imo. 

Troy Williams learned how. I don't think his HS or college coach taught much movement at all. I know when I have coached against New Albany.. they literally just ball screen and stand, pressure you defensively because they have such superior athletes. (Rondale Moore went there too)  

And to be fair Stu... he avged 17p 6r as a FR with extremely limited help. 

But yeah, Romeo doesn't move a lick lol