Parker Stewart

[HoosierX]

Can someone please explain to me why Parker Stewart played 37 minutes tonight?  He's now 5-27 from 3 in our last 8 games. I will give him credit for playing decent defense and not fouling against Maldanado, but he got beat off the dribble often and Maldanado could have had more than 21 if he'd hit a few more shots when he was backing Stewart down close to the bucket.

I understand the concept of spacing, but put a guy like Bates in and it's not as if teams are going to sag off of him. Plus Bates is dynamic enough to get past a defender off the dribble if they overplay the three, which Stewart can't do. I also thought Bates played excellent defense the few minutes he was in.

Most of our best runs in the BTT were when Stewart was on the bench, and I don't understand why we don't go with what has proven to work lately. I'm very happy we won but Wyoming is honestly just not that good. In my mind, we have very little chance of advancing if Stewart is playing major minutes.

[Stuhoo]

5 minutes ago, HoosierX said:

Can someone please explain to me why Parker Stewart played 37 minutes tonight?  He's now 5-27 from 3 in our last 8 games. I will give him credit for playing decent defense and not fouling against Maldanado,

Right at the start of your post you answered your own question.

[BottomLine]

Stewart was there to keep Jackson-Davis and Thompson out of foul trouble.  He had enough bulk to knock with the big guy and then our shot blockers could come from the back side.

 

[RaceToTheTop]

9 minutes ago, HoosierX said:

Can someone please explain to me why Parker Stewart played 37 minutes tonight?  He's now 5-27 from 3 in our last 8 games. I will give him credit for playing decent defense and not fouling against Maldanado, but he got beat off the dribble often and Maldanado could have had more than 21 if he'd hit a few more shots when he was backing Stewart down close to the bucket.

I understand the concept of spacing, but put a guy like Bates in and it's not as if teams are going to sag off of him. Plus Bates is dynamic enough to get past a defender off the dribble if they overplay the three, which Stewart can't do. I also thought Bates played excellent defense the few minutes he was in.

Most of our best runs in the BTT were when Stewart was on the bench, and I don't understand why we don't go with what has proven to work lately. I'm very happy we won but Wyoming is honestly just not that good. In my mind, we have very little chance of advancing if Stewart is playing major minutes.

I've been very, very critical of Stewart.  But tonight I thought he did a very good job defensively on Maldanado.  Never thought I'd see him on the court because he was providing defense.  Basically Maldanado was half their possessions -- 16 shots and 10 turnovers plus 6 or so free throws.  That's like 29 possessions that results in just 21 points.

If it's about making shots lately, he's only made 8 of his last 31 shots. 

So it was more of a matchup thing.  Wyoming never has more than one player under 6'7" on the floor.  

[IU - Kaulie]

3 minutes ago, HoosierX said:

Can someone please explain to me why Parker Stewart played 37 minutes tonight?  He's now 5-27 from 3 in our last 8 games. I will give him credit for playing decent defense and not fouling against Maldanado, but he got beat off the dribble often and Maldanado could have had more than 21 if he'd hit a few more shots when he was backing Stewart down close to the bucket.

I understand the concept of spacing, but put a guy like Bates in and it's not as if teams are going to sag off of him. Plus Bates is dynamic enough to get past a defender off the dribble if they overplay the three, which Stewart can't do. I also thought Bates played excellent defense the few minutes he was in.

Most of our best runs in the BTT were when Stewart was on the bench, and I don't understand why we don't go with what has proven to work lately. I'm very happy we won but Wyoming is honestly just not that good. In my mind, we have very little chance of advancing if Stewart is playing major minutes.

I have been a big critic a number of times regarding P Stew but his defense was more than decent.  He played damn hard and he was by far our best defender on Maldonado.  It would be nice if he could find his stroke again but we don’t win this game without him playing all those minutes.  I love Galloway and Bates has a lot of potential but they couldn’t do what Parker did in this game against Maldonado.  I have to give him credit for the effort on that end of the floor and his minutes were justified in my opinion.
 

[KzooHoosier82]

Honestly, I can’t believe P Stew has his own hate thread after the way he played tonight. If there’s a sh*t list, he’s below Kopp, Race and Galloway on it. I do agree Bates deserves more minutes but for all we know he’s in Woody’s dog house

[HoosierX]

Just now, IU - Kaulie said:

I have been a big critic a number of times regarding P Stew but his defense was more than decent.  He played damn hard and he was by far our best defender on Maldonado.  It would be nice if he could find his stroke again but we don’t win this game without him playing all those minutes.  I love Galloway and Bates has a lot of potential but they couldn’t do what Parker did in this game against Maldonado.  I have to give him credit for the effort on that end of the floor and his minutes were justified in my opinion.
 

I don't agree, Bates played excellent defense the minutes he was in as well. And some of Maldanado's poor play was just poor execution vs. great defense by Stewart. Like I said, Stewart did a good job keeping Maldanado in front of him and not fouling, but he still had 21 points.  I don't understand the whole "we don't win this game without him"  because we can also win by scoring points, which Parker doesn't help us do.

[HoosierX]

1 minute ago, KzooHoosier82 said:

Honestly, I can’t believe P Stew has his own hate thread after the way he played tonight. If there’s a sh*t list, he’s below Kopp, Race and Galloway on it. I do agree Bates deserves more minutes but for all we know he’s in Woody’s dog house

Kopp played 21 minutes, Thompson 20, and Galloway 12.

We just played the best we played all year with Stewart mainly on the bench in the BTT, and tonight he plays 37 minutes. He offers damn near nothing on offense at this point, and is a below average defender most nights.

[IU - Kaulie]

3 minutes ago, HoosierX said:

I don't agree, Bates played excellent defense the minutes he was in as well. And some of Maldanado's poor play was just poor execution vs. great defense by Stewart. Like I said, Stewart did a good job keeping Maldanado in front of him and not fouling, but he still had 21 points.  I don't understand the whole "we don't win this game without him"  because we can also win by scoring points, which Parker doesn't help us do.

We must have been watching a different game.  Parker was very good and I don’t think your giving him enough credit.  He had a lot of help.  I thought our team defense was very good as well but Stewart was the primary defender and he was much better than anyone else we had on him.  Don’t agree that they just didn’t execute.  Their was a reason they didn’t execute and Parker is the biggest reason.  I thought I would be the last person defending Parker but have to give him some love for that effort.

[KzooHoosier82]

10 minutes ago, HoosierX said:

Kopp played 21 minutes, Thompson 20, and Galloway 12.

We just played the best we played all year with Stewart mainly on the bench in the BTT, and tonight he plays 37 minutes. He offers damn near nothing on offense at this point, and is a below average defender most nights.

Bates is the only kid who could (or at least should) have taken some of his minutes and honestly, I don’t think Woody trusts him yet. In a big, win or go home, game…I’m good with PStew getting the minutes he got with how he was playing. He may not of helped much on offense but he didn’t hurt us on that end either. 

[eddy4iu]

41 minutes ago, HoosierX said:

Can someone please explain to me why Parker Stewart played 37 minutes tonight?  He's now 5-27 from 3 in our last 8 games. I will give him credit for playing decent defense and not fouling against Maldanado, but he got beat off the dribble often and Maldanado could have had more than 21 if he'd hit a few more shots when he was backing Stewart down close to the bucket.

I understand the concept of spacing, but put a guy like Bates in and it's not as if teams are going to sag off of him. Plus Bates is dynamic enough to get past a defender off the dribble if they overplay the three, which Stewart can't do. I also thought Bates played excellent defense the few minutes he was in.

Most of our best runs in the BTT were when Stewart was on the bench, and I don't understand why we don't go with what has proven to work lately. I'm very happy we won but Wyoming is honestly just not that good. In my mind, we have very little chance of advancing if Stewart is playing major minutes.

Joining late and won't read the rest of the thread before responding so.....in a nutshell
1) Defense on Maldonado with his height and bulk and
2) Spacing the floor with his ability to shoot (at least as far as the scouting report would show)

[Jeff_Boy_Ardee]

I was probably
Known As an archie pumper, however my stance was
Never that archie was the guy. It was alwasy that firing archie gets us nowhere unless
We have a homerun. And then came along someone forming out $10 million to kick him to the curb. TnTs all fine. But I was never and still am not on the Woodson train. You can’t fork over $10million on a toy that’s was nationally labeled a great hired unless you have a homerun. We hired a 60 something year
Old man that’s never touched the college game. I do not Hate woodson but I have a lot of concerns. One being he seems to think he’s the smartest man in the room. I am not doubting his pedigree, but college is not the nba. Our defense is stellar no doubt, that’s all him. But our offense is atrocious. He came
In cloning an open free flowing offense,
Which would work great if you had 1-2 NBA caliber guards on the team that could create
and get whenever they needed. But we don’t. We need a system. Run whatever sets out of that you want, but we need these guys to learn 2-3 continuity offenses that have set plays run out of them based on what the defense gives you. Woody has a long lonnnnnnng way to go. Am I super discouraged No, but I still think that $10,000,000 could have been better spent. I am very hopeful that once he gets a couple classes we truly see his vision. My concern is he thinks he’s the smartest man in the room (with no experience) and is too stubborn to take suggestions and change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Magnanimous]

The guy he was covering had 10 turnovers. If it wasn’t for that and Jordan stepping up offensively we likely lose last night.

[rayl456]

4 hours ago, Jeff_Boy_Ardee said:

I was probably
Known As an archie pumper, however my stance was
Never that archie was the guy. It was alwasy that firing archie gets us nowhere unless
We have a homerun. And then came along someone forming out $10 million to kick him to the curb. TnTs all fine. But I was never and still am not on the Woodson train. You can’t fork over $10million on a toy that’s was nationally labeled a great hired unless you have a homerun. We hired a 60 something year
Old man that’s never touched the college game. I do not Hate woodson but I have a lot of concerns. One being he seems to think he’s the smartest man in the room. I am not doubting his pedigree, but college is not the nba. Our defense is stellar no doubt, that’s all him. But our offense is atrocious. He came
In cloning an open free flowing offense,
Which would work great if you had 1-2 NBA caliber guards on the team that could create
and get whenever they needed. But we don’t. We need a system. Run whatever sets out of that you want, but we need these guys to learn 2-3 continuity offenses that have set plays run out of them based on what the defense gives you. Woody has a long lonnnnnnng way to go. Am I super discouraged No, but I still think that $10,000,000 could have been better spent. I am very hopeful that once he gets a couple classes we truly see his vision. My concern is he thinks he’s the smartest man in the room (with no experience) and is too stubborn to take suggestions and change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Our offense is as good as you're going to get from this roster that Coach Woodson mostly inherited from our previous coach.  Talk about $$$ wasted.  Give Woodson the time he deserves.  He's managed to get IU back to the tournament...beaten Purdue, Michigan, Illinois... so I think we should be pretty damn happy.  BTW...he's quite a bit smarter than all of us when it comes to basketball either college or NBA.  

[IUc2016]

4 hours ago, Jeff_Boy_Ardee said:

I was probably
Known As an archie pumper, however my stance was
Never that archie was the guy. It was alwasy that firing archie gets us nowhere unless
We have a homerun. And then came along someone forming out $10 million to kick him to the curb. TnTs all fine. But I was never and still am not on the Woodson train. You can’t fork over $10million on a toy that’s was nationally labeled a great hired unless you have a homerun. We hired a 60 something year
Old man that’s never touched the college game. I do not Hate woodson but I have a lot of concerns. One being he seems to think he’s the smartest man in the room. I am not doubting his pedigree, but college is not the nba. Our defense is stellar no doubt, that’s all him. But our offense is atrocious. He came
In cloning an open free flowing offense,
Which would work great if you had 1-2 NBA caliber guards on the team that could create
and get whenever they needed. But we don’t. We need a system. Run whatever sets out of that you want, but we need these guys to learn 2-3 continuity offenses that have set plays run out of them based on what the defense gives you. Woody has a long lonnnnnnng way to go. Am I super discouraged No, but I still think that $10,000,000 could have been better spent. I am very hopeful that once he gets a couple classes we truly see his vision. My concern is he thinks he’s the smartest man in the room (with no experience) and is too stubborn to take suggestions and change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WAIT..... you posted this in the middle of the night.... after an NCAA tournament win....in a tournament game in which WOODY was the coach.... in the Parker Stewart thread....

HUH?

[Kentuckysucks]

6 minutes ago, IUc2016 said:

WAIT..... you posted this in the middle of the night.... after an NCAA tournament win....in a tournament game in which WOODY was the coach.... in the Parker Stewart thread....

HUH?

I have a good feeling he's going to wake up this morning with a massive headache. 

[NashvilleHoosier]

7 hours ago, HoosierX said:

I don't agree, Bates played excellent defense the minutes he was in as well. And some of Maldanado's poor play was just poor execution vs. great defense by Stewart. Like I said, Stewart did a good job keeping Maldanado in front of him and not fouling, but he still had 21 points.  I don't understand the whole "we don't win this game without him"  because we can also win by scoring points, which Parker doesn't help us do.

You keep answering your own question. Poor execution vs. great defense? Yeah, great defense tends to affect execution. And yeah he had 21 points, but he had the ball in his hands for about 95% of their time of possession. And he had 10 turnovers!! He could have easily scored 30 and dished out 3 or 4 more assists. 

Parker isn't shooting well right now, no question. And he's most valuable when he's hitting 3's. But what do you want from a player when they struggling doing things they normally do well? Affect the game in other ways. That's exactly what Parker did last night in playing great defense on arguably their most important offensive player. X wasn't scoring like he has been last night, but he also had 7 assists to only 2 turnovers. Exactly what you need from your PG when he's not scoring at the level we've come to expect. Affecting the game in other ways. 

 

[Trish]

It was discussed last night in the game thread, but strong possibility Parker is blackmailing Woodson!  Parker must have some real dirt on Woodson.

LOL

 

 

[CSP]

Parker guarded maybe the toughest mismatch we had all year and did it incredibly well. 6'7 PGs that play in the post aren't exactly normal. Not saying the Wyoming kid was the best player we've played.. but the toughest match, yeah him or Murray, I'd say. 

Parker was really good last night. Really good. 

I was glad we took him out w/what 40 secs to go against their pressure? He looked not comfortable in that situation. 

Not really seeing any need to complain about subbing/who played what mins. It was an odd game and we only had two guys that played "well". To be fair, I think basically most complaints about subbing and rotations are outlandish. 

[HoosierHoopster]

I think this highlights that we as fans mostly focus on offense and not on an individual player's D, and how important it can be, the D often gets overlooked. 

Stew's D on Maldanado last night was one of the keys to the W. He was brought in for shooting and did next to nothing offensively, but in that game that's not what was important. 

Same is often true of Rob (generally), often doesn't get credit for how important he is.

We need D just as much as we need O, and, really, for this team it all starts on the defensive end.