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!

Stuhoo

IUBB Players in the Portal/Draft Exploratory Status

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, Alford Bailey said:

really hope our season doesn’t depend on Race Thompson coming back. We need to be upgrading if we ever want to get better.

Are there any players in the transfer portal Race Thompson's size who are better than Race Thompson? Not many, if any. IU is not likely to land a big who is better than Michael Durr much less better than Race Thompson. If TJD goes pro and Race moves on, IU has nobody to play the middle. Maybe we get a transfer but how good? The transfer portal is a mirage in most cases. If Race is thinking about transferring, Woodson should persuade him to stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do we really want to look like a stereotypical big ten team with a 7 footer in the paint with limited mobility? We’re seeing how well that has fared in the ncaa tournament for the past 20+ years. I’d much rather have Geronimo/Kopp at the 4, TJD/whatever athletic big at the 5, and beef up on wings and guards. Under Beilein, Michigan did not look like a traditional big ten roster, and was able to have consistent success in the tournament. I would much rather look like them than like a Purdue or a Wisconsin. 

Idk. Look at Duke’s roster. Duke goes 7’, 6’10”, 6’6”, 6’5”, 6’4”. Roach at 6’2”. Michigans roster looked like this, this year too. But Michigan didn’t have good enough guard play but they were close. Purdue looked like this and they were close. Auburn too.

I also think going big is an advantage so long as you don’t sacrifice too much athleticism. (Durr for example).


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Hippopotamo said:

Do we really want to look like a stereotypical big ten team with a 7 footer in the paint with limited mobility? We’re seeing how well that has fared in the ncaa tournament for the past 20+ years. I’d much rather have Geronimo/Kopp at the 4, TJD/whatever athletic big at the 5, and beef up on wings and guards. Under Beilein, Michigan did not look like a traditional big ten roster, and was able to have consistent success in the tournament. I would much rather look like them than like a Purdue or a Wisconsin. 

Baylor and Villanova also comes to my mind.

Share this post


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

Do we really want to look like a stereotypical big ten team with a 7 footer in the paint with limited mobility? We’re seeing how well that has fared in the ncaa tournament for the past 20+ years. I’d much rather have Geronimo/Kopp at the 4, TJD/whatever athletic big at the 5, and beef up on wings and guards. Under Beilein, Michigan did not look like a traditional big ten roster, and was able to have consistent success in the tournament. I would much rather look like them than like a Purdue or a Wisconsin. 

This is what we were kind of expecting under Woodson, a 4 in 1 out, with mobility, p&r, outside shooting with Kopp - Stew. Didn’t materialize, but may see things more like this next season 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WayneFleekHoosier said:


Idk. Look at Duke’s roster. Duke goes 7’, 6’10”, 6’6”, 6’5”, 6’4”. Roach at 6’2”. Michigans roster looked like this, this year too. But Michigan didn’t have good enough guard play but they were close. Purdue looked like this and they were close. Auburn too.

I also think going big is an advantage so long as you don’t sacrifice too much athleticism. (Durr for example).


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app

And Duke will be sitting at about the same next year or taller. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2022 at 10:25 AM, LamarCheeks said:

I know nothing more than anybody else -- but I just cannot see this happening.

My guess is he's ready for something different, or that when Woody laid out what he sees happening next year for Rob (probably an even more diminished role than this past season), he decided to move on. Last year was a little different, with Woody just coming aboard and so many in the transfer portal, but my guess is now that he's been around for a year, if you're in the portal, you're leaving. 

I just sorta hope that after all he's been through, Rob had the option to stay if he wanted -- and that he wasn't "forced" out. 

I hope he had the option too, and I would bet he did. It could be the number (and talent) of incoming/returning guards making him want to leave, but I can also see him eyeballing a great Masters Degree someplace with a strong program in his field of interest. There’s life after basketball. He seems like a smart kid, and with all the injuries he has dealt with, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s looking for a specific graduate program for academics. IU has great programs, and I’m not sure what his area of study is, but he seems to have his head on straight and could be looking for specific academic opportunities (and a chance at more playing time) elsewhere.

Dane is gone and he was the man building Rob up as the best defender in the conference, but Woody was also seemingly behind Rob 100%. So, I doubt it has as much to do with coaching relationships or decisions as it does with playing time…or like I said, academic opportunities (which people sometimes fail to consider). He could surely find more playing time at a smaller school with an exceptional Masters program in his area of interest. I think it’s a smart move by Rob and I hope he excels wherever he ends up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hippopotamo said:

Do we really want to look like a stereotypical big ten team with a 7 footer in the paint with limited mobility? We’re seeing how well that has fared in the ncaa tournament for the past 20+ years. I’d much rather have Geronimo/Kopp at the 4, TJD/whatever athletic big at the 5, and beef up on wings and guards. Under Beilein, Michigan did not look like a traditional big ten roster, and was able to have consistent success in the tournament. I would much rather look like them than like a Purdue or a Wisconsin. 

Problem is that the B1G wants the games reffed like this is just standard post play:

sumo-sumo-fight.gif

 

Teams will not be successful in the big ten playing small.  Hopefully the B1G sees the complete failure in the tournament this season and starts to shift to 21st century basketball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hippopotamo said:

Do we really want to look like a stereotypical big ten team with a 7 footer in the paint with limited mobility? We’re seeing how well that has fared in the ncaa tournament for the past 20+ years. I’d much rather have Geronimo/Kopp at the 4, TJD/whatever athletic big at the 5, and beef up on wings and guards. Under Beilein, Michigan did not look like a traditional big ten roster, and was able to have consistent success in the tournament. I would much rather look like them than like a Purdue or a Wisconsin. 

Michigan usually deployed a traditional big. But Beilien had an emphasis on them being to pass, shoot, or both. Whereas teams like Purdue put one out there emphasizing strength or athleticism for defense or bullying their way to the basket.  
 

Zeller wasn’t much of a shooter but he was a good passer. We’d be crazy to ignore recruits like him. But I’m definitely fine if we pass on the Edey’s or even Cockburn types. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need a 7 for bruiser in today's game, but I'd also prefer to not have some 6'7 or 6'8 playing the 5 either.  They're not mutually exclusive.  I'd love to have an Anthony Davis type at the 5, a difference maker (especially defensively) that opponents have to account for on every play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JSHoosier said:

You don't need a 7 for bruiser in today's game, but I'd also prefer to not have some 6'7 or 6'8 playing the 5 either.  They're not mutually exclusive.  I'd love to have an Anthony Davis type at the 5, a difference maker (especially defensively) that opponents have to account for on every play.

Villanova tallest player is 6'7

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

×