Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

Trish

Rate The 2021-2022 Season! Staff + Players

Recommended Posts

This is how I ‘grade’ seasons: 

A = successful regular season + successful postseason 

B = successful regular season OR successful postseason. 

C = neither successful regular season nor successful postseason (early tournament exit).

D = no NCAA tournament 

F = no NIT appearance

Maybe that’s optimistic and not in line with where we are as a program, but I think it’s a reasonable grading scale for the kind of program I want us to be. Within each grade band is wiggle room depending on the circumstances of a season. For example, 2013 may be an A- because we underachieved in the tournament while 2016 may be an A because we didn’t underachieve. But, it’s subjective.

For a blueblood program, 21-14, 9th in the conference, and a first round exit is a down year.  Given our circumstances it’s the best season we’ve had in a number of years, but I can’t give it better than a C-. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

Wasn't expecting this grade from you! Good point bringing up the transfer portal too. How would you grade player development?

X finally saw the light, TJD upped his game, Galloway (limited by injury) and Geronimo both showed improvement as did Race.

Phinisee, Durr, Kopp and Stewart no different in March '22 than they were in Nov. '21.

Lander, Bates, Leal didn't get enough minutes for me to make a judgment on these 3.

With 5 players showing improvement and 4 with no improvement I'll go with a low B- or a high C+ for player development.

 

Side comment on portal players.  I wonder just how much impact a coach can truly have on a 3-year or grad transfer player.  Seems to me they are what they are and any changes to their game at that point will be minimal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Class of '66 Old Fart said:

X finally saw the light, TJD upped his game, Galloway (limited by injury) and Geronimo both showed improvement as did Race.

Phinisee, Durr, Kopp and Stewart no different in March '22 than they were in Nov. '21.

Lander, Bates, Leal didn't get enough minutes for me to make a judgment on these 3.

With 5 players showing improvement and 4 with no improvement I'll go with a low B- or a high C+ for player development.

 

Side comment on portal players.  I wonder just how much impact a coach can truly have on a 3-year or grad transfer player.  Seems to me they are what they are and any changes to their game at that point will be minimal.  

Interesting.

Definitely like the trend we saw from X over the season. I do wish he would have been molded a little quicker in the cupcake noncon which is probably the best time to do it. TJD had a tremendous Big 1.o tourney but it felt like I was always left wanting more leadership from him. Watching the post-game pressers from the Big 1.o tourney you can see that he's not in the mold of a leader, wish we could have had X leading from last summer. Gallo needs that jumper to be a complete player but he has the e and e set. Geronimo had some great highlights this season, hopefully, the consistently is there next season. Race did some nice things too but his game alongside Trayce doesn't work well with what we're trying to do. Gallo and him in Cook Hall finding jumpers could go a long way. Race could be a better Gillis from purdoodoo.

I'm afraid we don't see much time from Leal unless he becomes and absolute lights out shooter. He could impact the program by dragging his teammates into Cook and whooping them in shooting contests until they reach his level. A Phin, Gallow, Bates, etc. that is consistently shooting better than Leal would be fantastic for this program.

I believe they can change. I felt like X was ripe for being molded early but was allowed to do 100 in a 25 for long stretches. How long did X play at Pitt before transferring? The overall point makes sense and aligns with recruiting in general. I feel we did a rather poor job of defining roles and playing to our strengths. This needs to be corrected moving forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

This is how I ‘grade’ seasons: 

A = successful regular season + successful postseason 

B = successful regular season OR successful postseason. 

C = neither successful regular season nor successful postseason (early tournament exit).

D = no NCAA tournament 

F = no NIT appearance

Maybe that’s optimistic and not in line with where we are as a program, but I think it’s a reasonable grading scale for the kind of program I want us to be. Within each grade band is wiggle room depending on the circumstances of a season. For example, 2013 may be an A- because we underachieved in the tournament while 2016 may be an A because we didn’t underachieve. But, it’s subjective.

For a blueblood program, 21-14, 9th in the conference, and a first round exit is a down year.  Given our circumstances it’s the best season we’ve had in a number of years, but I can’t give it better than a C-. 

I remember when all of the cbb talking heads were so wrong where IU would finish in the Big 1.o. It's crazy how we go at these talking heads and even have players going social with it and then we prove them right time and again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

I remember when all of the cbb talking heads were so wrong where IU would finish in the Big 1.o. It's crazy how we go at these talking heads and even have players going social with it and then we prove them right time and again.

7th and 8th was what I remember most saying 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall B-
Staff C+
Roster C

I think Woody needs only 8 or 9 players so that he can't put in an all 2nd unit. Seriously though if that's a strategy he wants to use he's going to need a lot better talent and/or better development. Really interested to see where we go next year. If we don't have a Trayce and Race type do we open things up more? If so he needs to go get like 3 guys that can create their own shot and make them consistently as I'm sure players like that grow on trees and can be easily acquired.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Class of '66 Old Fart said:

X finally saw the light, TJD upped his game, Galloway (limited by injury) and Geronimo both showed improvement as did Race.

Phinisee, Durr, Kopp and Stewart no different in March '22 than they were in Nov. '21.

Lander, Bates, Leal didn't get enough minutes for me to make a judgment on these 3.

With 5 players showing improvement and 4 with no improvement I'll go with a low B- or a high C+ for player development.

 

Side comment on portal players.  I wonder just how much impact a coach can truly have on a 3-year or grad transfer player.  Seems to me they are what they are and any changes to their game at that point will be minimal.  

I think the transfer portal should be used to fill in those unexpected losses, not build a team.  Team, cultures, etc. are built from the ground up -- recruits.  You can add a transfer if you loose someone unexpectedly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

I remember many picking higher than that in the upper middle half tier. There is/was a thread on the topic. It would be interesting to see where people were at on that.

https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/Big-Ten-basketball-rankings-Preseason-media-poll-announced-Michigan-Wolverines-172506483/
I was talking about preseason media and other outlets no IU fans.   I always expect fans on a message board are going to view their team better then what others project.  Just the way that goes 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

I remember many picking higher than that in the upper middle half tier. There is/was a thread on the topic. It would be interesting to see where people were at on that.

Wouldn’t expect anything less then fans of a team on a free message board picking their team higher then what the preseason polls.    Water is wet and the sky is blue 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/Big-Ten-basketball-rankings-Preseason-media-poll-announced-Michigan-Wolverines-172506483/
I was talking about preseason media and other outlets no IU fans.   I always expect fans on a message board are going to view their team better then what others project.  Just the way that goes 

Gotcha! Interesting we finished worse than projected and some still have high marks for the season.

https://www.insidethehall.com/2021/10/06/indiana-picked-to-finish-7th-in-big-ten-in-official-unofficial-media-poll/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

 

For a blueblood program, 21-14, 9th in the conference, and a first round exit is a down year.  Given our circumstances it’s the best season we’ve had in a number of years, but I can’t give it better than a C-. 

Personally, if I'm going to grade it isn't in the context of being a 'blueblood program' because what happened in the 1980s is irrelevant today. To me, I'm going to grade it in context of where we started and where we ended.

Last year we won 12 games all year.  This year we won 12 games in the conference + BTT + NCAA tournament.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, rcs29 said:

Overall B-
Staff C+
Roster C

I think Woody needs only 8 or 9 players so that he can't put in an all 2nd unit. Seriously though if that's a strategy he wants to use he's going to need a lot better talent and/or better development. Really interested to see where we go next year. If we don't have a Trayce and Race type do we open things up more? If so he needs to go get like 3 guys that can create their own shot and make them consistently as I'm sure players like that grow on trees and can be easily acquired.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 

To this point I wonder if Coach Woodson is establishing an expectation for current and future players.  Going 10 deep and allowing most of the scholarship players significant playing time will keep bench players from jumping into the transfer portal early.  Also provides roster continuity and time for player development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Staff B+
roster c-

overall C+
given what they had to work with the staff did fine. We were a top defensive team and a bunch of guys who couldn’t score. Imperative the staff upgrades talent offensively. This staff owns it now and must make the needed improvements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Alford Bailey said:

Staff B+
roster c-

overall C+
given what they had to work with the staff did fine. We were a top defensive team and a bunch of guys who couldn’t score. Imperative the staff upgrades talent offensively. This staff owns it now and must make the needed improvements.

Some fair points. Coaches C-, Players C-. Overall C-. I'm not as generous with the staff. They have one of the top 20 players in the country and some other pieces. Obviously, it didn't all mesh, but that is literally their job. Glad they made the tourney and got the Purdue albatross off their neck. Still way too many no shows and inexplicably flat performances. IU needs a major culture overall to shake the stink of mediocrity. Interested to see how the roster shakes out for next year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

I remember many picking higher than that in the upper middle half tier. There is/was a thread on the topic. It would be interesting to see where people were at on that.

Part of that was on the talking heads saying how bad Iowa and Wisconsin would be.  Personally I thought we would be a 10-10 type of team in the Big Ten and the hope was to make the tournament.  We were 9-11 and made the tournament by getting a couple of wins in the BTT.

When I look at what the talking heads said, Michigan would be an extremely disappointing team since they were top 5 preseason.  Maryland would be disappointing as the media had them top 4 in the conference.  Iowa and Wisky overachieved.  Everyone else was pretty par for the predictions.  I push the rating on us to a B because we made the tournament which IMO was the realistic goal for us to achieve this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was hoping that Phin would have a phenominal year and he just didn't. But he played hard and shared the ball.

Was unsure about Xavier and his record of turnovers and his temper. It took him so deep into the season to get that under control.

All of the players had need of improvement. The easy non-conference was not a help in my opinion. And the lack of a seasoned upperclass nucleus of a team really sux.

The coaching staff seemed unable to either make proper adjustments at the half or fix the slow starts until lately.

A lot of the challenge was due to the lack of a great guards until Xavier matured or due to poor shooting. And the team just wasn't clicking.

But the team did end well. And the team and coaches implemented a really good to excellent defense!

I discount the last game because they were fatigued. They were learning to win. The coaches are learning, too, I hope.

There are too many needs for recruiting and transfers to list.

I am reluctant to grade the team and coaches because of this being such a transition from before. Regardless, Due to the team being inconsistant early in conference play but jelling for a few at the end...so a pre- final grade of B-. Bonus for beating PU, and defense, and staying, and being Indiana! Final team grade: B!

And the coaching did seem professional, did a decent job improving play at the end, with marginal successes.  I wonder why Fife sits separate from Woody.   With a flawed roster did improve record from previous year.  Wondered about substitutions; but we always wonder. Pre-final grade: B-. Bonus for not being Archie, for giving hope, for the defense, and generally meeting goals for Woody's first year: B.

Good with lots of room for improvement. * However evaluation and ratings are on a curve...and each successive year for the coaches will get tougher. Recruiting should improve over time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HoosierAloha said:

We need to replace the shooters with makers! It's been forever since we've had a lights out maker. When was the last time a maker developed at IU?

Certainly never in the Archie era.  IMO, that guy did little more than tread water when he was here and left behind a sub-mediocre situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×