Possible Reason For The 2 Year Slide--The Failed Movement

[Five Prime 1,076]

I'd like to add to this conversation, one of the better basketball conversations I've seen on here for awhile.  There is a marked difference in my mind between developing players and developing teams.  Crean seems to have a knack for developing players, namely developing the shooting, ball handling, and slashing skills of players with innate athletic ability.  That's Crean's MOP.  Get raw or underutilized athletic wings and invest practice and game time into getting them comfortable with the ball in their hands and creating for themselves and, sometimes, teammates.  This creates a team full of players trying to fill the same role.  There is no room for a defensive stopper (Buss), or a rebounding ball screener (Jurkin), or a pick and pop 4 (HMP), or whatever Hollowell was supposed to be.  I'm not saying those guys came in with the skillsets to fill those roles, but it is certainly possible they could have developed into those roles had things broken differently.  There are no clear role players.  Our 3-4 guards in the lineup all essentially try to do the same things.  

 

Developing teams requires more foresight.  The players recruited are brought in to fill specific roles, either in the next year or 2-3 years down the road.  Players learn from upper classmen who fill similar roles and hierarchies within developmental paths are established (Butch>Leuer>Berggren>Kaminsky).  Clearly there is always room for those transcendent "one and done" talents, but instead of kicking guys out who can't slash and shoot at a high enough level you plan and reserve spots for them in other ways (like winning a national title with 8 scholarship players).  Teams that develop declare themselves in February and March.  That team that couldn't beat Texas Southern at home in December suddenly finds themselves in the Final 4 in April.  

 

In short, future recruits may have a vested interest in the meteoric rise of Oladipo or DWade, or look at Troy Williams trajectory and have similar aspirations.  Maybe they see the lottery picks or Zeller and Vonleh and look to replicate their success.  But until there is some indication that these collective parts can become a team that sacrifices for each other and does the little things that are required to win at the highest level, IU will see 2-3 "busts" for each successful recruiting story.  Crean has one more shot at this.  Not for one great year in 2015-2016, but for sustained success with whatever construct he can harness.  

[JSHoosier 19,706]

So essentially, if Luke would have stayed, would many iu fans have taken back their rage about Tom Crean and would he have been liked better as a coach if Luke Fischer had led us to 4 more wins than without him?

For me, not really.  My feelings on him have nothing to do with one player or one year, they are cumulative based on what I've seen the last 7 years and looking at his coaching record spanning the better part of 20 years.

[IU Hoosier41 14,465]

So essentially, if Luke would have stayed, would many iu fans have taken back their rage about Tom Crean and would he have been liked better as a coach if Luke Fischer had led us to 4 more wins than without him?

4 more wins, so 24-9... Yea I'd say most would have been quite happy with that. Losing LUke kept us out of the NIT last year, and the Sweet 16 this year.

[8bucks 6,297]

And do not forget we had a big man in Luke Fisher that left us high and dry. If he had stayed this season should have been much better.

That has been included in this discussion.

[Old Friend 8,389]

4 more wins, so 24-9... Yea I'd say most would have been quite happy with that. Losing LUke kept us out of the NIT last year, and the Sweet 16 this year.

This is probably right...or very close; but the bigger picture is we keep losing kids.   That prevents the building of units and teams that can consistently succeed.   As much as I agree with you about Fischer's impact in particular, I think the bigger problem is the absolute epidemic of losing kids year after year, or maybe better said, not getting and keeping the right kids.   We had to add Zeisloft, a senior transfer this season, just to have an experienced shooter who could play off the ball and take some pressure off Yogi.   Blackmon and Johnson were able to do that some, but they're freshmen and I don't always rely on them...even as much as I love Blackmon's game.  I was surprised Hartman showed as much as he did...good for him.  

 

But why wouldn't - in a drive and kick offense - Tom Crean spend every single scholarship he has on kids who can shoot?   Why does he waste time on guys like Perea, Jurkin, Robinson, Hollowell, etc (and I know Hollowell was okay, but he didn't move much).   Look at WIsconsin for example.  All 5 starters are deadly and all 5 are multi-skilled.  How does a kid like Sam Dekker look in Crean's offense?   He's just that much more versatile than Williams is.   How does Josh Gasser look?  Never turns it over, shoots a high percentage, guards like hell, and he's very smart.   Just that much more efficient than Johnson..and he can shoot.   Etc.   Michigan State was similar.  Notre Dame was similar.  If you can recruit dominant big men like Duke or UK, they don't have to be shooters, necessarily; but Crean would be FAR better if he had a group of kids like the kids who just finished up at Wisconsin.   Other than Okafor, Duke's players can shoot, and they're all "scorers" if needed.  Think "Mike Woodson."  

 

I would love to see (if he's going to be here) Tom Crean improve just like I want to see players improve.   I would like him to recruit to his system and get kids who know how to move without the ball, find open areas, and simply play like they understand the flow of a basketball game.   I personally don't care for a guy needing the ball so he can "make his move."   Stanford Robinson made me want to throw things.  Like a very under-talented Travis Best.

[Big Bad Wolf 101]

I agree that Crean is better at developing players than teams.

Fisher went to Crean with a legit problem and nothing was done about it.

Crean struggles at teaching individual and team defense.

He struggles at teaching kids to value and protect the ball.

He favors flashy over consistent.

[Five Prime 1,076]

This is probably right...or very close; but the bigger picture is we keep losing kids.   That prevents the building of units and teams that can consistently succeed.   As much as I agree with you about Fischer's impact in particular, I think the bigger problem is the absolute epidemic of losing kids year after year, or maybe better said, not getting and keeping the right kids.  Absolutely agree.  We had to add Zeisloft, a senior transfer this season, just to have an experienced shooter who could play off the ball and take some pressure off Yogi.  Blackmon and Johnson were able to do that some, but they're freshmen and I don't always rely on them...even as much as I love Blackmon's game.  I was surprised Hartman showed as much as he did...good for him.  

 

But why wouldn't - in a drive and kick offense - Tom Crean spend every single scholarship he has on kids who can shoot?   Why does he waste time on guys like Perea, Jurkin, Robinson, Hollowell, etc (and I know Hollowell was okay, but he didn't move much).   Look at WIsconsin for example.  All 5 starters are deadly and all 5 are multi-skilled.  I agree, they are.  They didn't arrive on campus that way though.  They were developed based on the needs of the system.  How does a kid like Sam Dekker look in Crean's offense?   Dekker probably doesn't see his Junior year under Crean, one way or another.  He's just that much more versatile than Williams is.   How does Josh Gasser look?  On the bench?  Never would have been given the chance.  Over-recruited, underdeveloped and underutilized.  Never turns it over, shoots a high percentage, guards like hell, and he's very smart.   Just that much more efficient than Johnson..and he can shoot.   Etc.   Michigan State was similar.  Notre Dame was similar.  If you can recruit dominant big men like Duke or UK, they don't have to be shooters, necessarily; but Crean would be FAR better if he had a group of kids like the kids who just finished up at Wisconsin.   Other than Okafor, Duke's players can shoot, and they're all "scorers" if needed.  Think "Mike Woodson."  

 

I would love to see (if he's going to be here) Tom Crean improve just like I want to see players improve.   I would like him to recruit to his system and get kids who know how to move without the ball, find open areas, and simply play like they understand the flow of a basketball game.   I personally don't care for a guy needing the ball so he can "make his move."   Stanford Robinson made me want to throw things.  Like a very under-talented Travis Best.

 

It seems we agree on most of the areas of frustration.  I think they are all systemic problems with the way Crean runs his program.  I will give Crean the benefit of the doubt one last time, not that my opinion matters much.  However, I have very little confidence Crean will fix all the issues, or any of the issues, with his team building strategy (if there is one).  Not saying I could even begin to do his job, but I see other coaches around the country doing their jobs much better than him.  

[Old Friend 8,389]

It seems we agree on most of the areas of frustration.  I think they are all systemic problems with the way Crean runs his program.  I will give Crean the benefit of the doubt one last time, not that my opinion matters much.  However, I have very little confidence Crean will fix all the issues, or any of the issues, with his team building strategy (if there is one).  Not saying I could even begin to do his job, but I see other coaches around the country doing their jobs much better than him.  

i don't think you have to be "able to do the job" to see the flaws in any coach.   There are plenty of people who couldn't do my job whom I could learn a thing or two from.  Hell, the president of the United States has a cabinet for a reason....he doesn't have all the answers, and sometimes, those outside the immediate circle are the ones who can teach the most.  Bob Knight learned things about coaching from a horse trainer, Army generals, and baseball managers.    

 

This coming season, we have 3 players coming in.   2 of whom are essentially the same player with very similar skill sets; and none of them are shooters.    Crean is filling one immediate need, but with the 3 kids, odds are VERY good that at least 2 will be gone before they play 3 seasons at IU, let alone 4; and none are really program builders.   Take Morgan and Ogunoby (I'm sure I mis-spelled that) They're space fillers and not skilled at much beyond athletic ability with the ball in their hands.   Neither are bad, but both are similar to Troy Williams and have similar skill sets.   There's no backup for Yogi in the fold.   There's no big beyond Bryant, and we'll lose Perea next year, too.   It's like Hans Brinker filling holes in a dyke...  Frustrating.

[HoosierHoops1 5,024]

Jurkin was a three star on ESPN and rated as the 26th best center in that class. No where near a high four star.

Currently, Jurkin is unranked by Rivals and Scout but is ranked #37 in his class by ESPN.  as per an 8/10/10 story.

 

 

You can't look up past rankings on espn now and see where they were at some point.

[HoosierHoops1 5,024]

the only people that missed was IU. Nobody else had as much skin in the game as IU. Recruiting services have thousands of kids To rank, fans look at recruiting services, it's up to the coaches to get it right on the few guys they take. They got it wrong

eh.

 

Coaches don't have thousands of kids to evaluate?

[HoosierHoops1 5,024]

If our staff is relying on what recruiting experts say and just picking guys who have x-number of stars, they're not doing their job.  Even Kentucky, who was incredibly talented and may have had as many collective stars as any team ever assembled, lost to a "team" of kids who played terrific roles and who probably didn't have 20% of the collective "stars" when they were recruited that Kentucky had.   UK had better players, Wisconsin had a much better "team," and the team - smart kids who played roles - won.    This is sort of my point re: Crean.  He can get certain kids to say yes, but he struggles to build consistent teams and struggles to get kids who can gel and play well together for multiple years.   That's why it's hard for me to really get excited for next year.  We'll have good players, but will we have a great team?  Will we have another good team in 2016-2017?    I can't say that.    "Stars" don't make a kid a valuable player on a given team...the pieces still have to fit.

No one intimated that the staff was relying on stars.

Stars only served to show that the pieces were individually highly regarded. Our circumstances were such that beggars couldn't be choosers, at that point. There was no such thing as a .500 Indiana team before those guys committed. We were bad and needed to bite the bullet on some guys. FEW, if any, Indiana fans said pass.

 

I'm hopeful that Thomas plays with the passion that he is known for and that it rubs off on the rest of the team. I agree, we'll have the pieces to be special, but it remains to be seen if we will become a special team.

[OliviaPope40 6,353]

OT whoever put Troy and Luke together for roommates had to have been high when that happened. 

[Old Friend 8,389]

No one intimated that the staff was relying on stars.

Stars only served to show that the pieces were individually highly regarded. Our circumstances were such that beggars couldn't be choosers, at that point. There was no such thing as a .500 Indiana team before those guys committed. We were bad and needed to bite the bullet on some guys. FEW, if any, Indiana fans said pass.

 

I'm hopeful that Thomas plays with the passion that he is known for and that it rubs off on the rest of the team. I agree, we'll have the pieces to be special, but it remains to be seen if we will become a special team.

Didn't really mean it that way.  The post I replied to discussed where the players were ranked, so I said "if we're relying on that, then they're not doing their job."   Didn't mean to imply that's what's actually happening.  Kind of like someone saying "if you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you."    Unless you really DO have a bridge to sell....

 

The context is we seem to get plenty of kids who are rated relatively highly, then do nothing with them, so it looks like we're just taking anyone without regard for what they can do to help our program.  To use your analogy, it seems we were and that we're STILL playing the "beggars can't be choosers" card.

[Old Friend 8,389]

OT whoever put Troy and Luke together for roommates had to have been high when that happened. 

A friend of mine has a son who really wanted to play football at a private high school.  It was expensive, but my friend would have invested for his kid.   His son goes to shadow at the school, and the admissions department, none of whom know a damned thing about sports, had him (a football player) hosted by a homosexual golfer.   Couldn't answer a single question, and had no friends who could.  Kid went to school somewhere else and became an all-state defensive back.   Point?   There are idiots everywhere.

[OliviaPope40 6,353]

A friend of mine has a son who really wanted to play football at a private high school.  It was expensive, but my friend would have invested for his kid.   His son goes to shadow at the school, and the admissions department, none of whom know a damned thing about sports, had him (a football player) hosted by a homosexual golfer.   Couldn't answer a single question, and had no friends who could.  Kid went to school somewhere else and became an all-state defensive back.   Point?   There are idiots everywhere.

Interesting. 

[MikeRoberts 6,877]

eh.

Coaches don't have thousands of kids to evaluate?

eh, no. Not even close. You have needs and connections and a coach can whittle down his prospect list to a smaller number very quickly. If you need a PG, you can narrow it down to like 10 options pretty quickly and then do your recruiting and due diligence from there. Good god, if Crean is evaluating thousands of players each year we are in trouble. I guess that would explain his recruiting bill

[HoosierHoops1 5,024]

I know. Recruiting gurus see thousands, but they all have the same 200 kids shuffled closely among their top 150.

 

Gotta remember, we still sucked at this time 16 wins in 2 years at the time of these commits.

 

Yogi was top rated PG in state. Pretty easy choice.

 

Jeremy was top rated SF in state. Pretty easy choice (and Glenn Robinson 3 had already verbaled to Michigan)

 

Hanner was top rated PF in state. Had loads of athleticism and potential. Def intriguing. Next best in state Jay Simpson. Not much to be gained there.

 

PJ first commit in the class (before Cody, before Lyles, before Davis and Hartman (Looked ok compared to Bawa, Pritchard and Capo)) and we needed a big. While rail thin, seemed like a rim protector. Was a friend of Hanner.... Next best in state was Alex Olah. Would have been a definite flyer also.

 

Patterson was a decently regarded SG (Dunham had already commited to Butler and we were still after Gary Harris)

Yogi, Patterson and Hollowell were all buddies and seemed to play well and mesh together.

[Five Prime 1,076]

I know. Recruiting gurus see thousands, but they all have the same 200 kids shuffled closely among their top 150.

Gotta remember, we still sucked at this time 16 wins in 2 years at the time of these commits.

Yogi was top rated PG in state. Pretty easy choice.

Jeremy was top rated SF in state. Pretty easy choice (and Glenn Robinson 3 had already verbaled to Michigan)

Hanner was top rated PF in state. Had loads of athleticism and potential. Def intriguing. Next best in state Jay Simpson. Not much to be gained there.

PJ first commit in the class (before Cody, before Lyles, before Davis and Hartman (Looked ok compared to Bawa, Pritchard and Capo)) and we needed a big. While rail thin, seemed like a rim protector. Was a friend of Hanner.... Next best in state was Alex Olah. Would have been a definite flyer also.

Patterson was a decently regarded SG (Dunham had already commited to Butler and we were still after Gary Harris)
Yogi, Patterson and Hollowell were all buddies and seemed to play well and mesh together.

Why did only one if them develop into anything here at IU? Either terrible luck or systematic problems with Crean's development of teams with guys that have diverging talents. It seems, at least to some, terrible luck follows Cream everywhere.

[sddowning 146]

Currently, Jurkin is unranked by Rivals and Scout but is ranked #37 in his class by ESPN. as per an 8/10/10 story.


You can't look up past rankings on espn now and see where they were at some point.

I just read on story from when he transferred out of Indiana and in the article it says he was a three star recruit. So are you now going to tell me ESPN and ITH went back and changed there info after they realized he wasn't very good

[SixSigma 12]

One thing that I find troubling is that Jurkin was primarily recruited to land Perea. Let's just be honest about that. So you offer a kid who has no business in the B1G and will never see the floor to get the "prized" recruit who is immensely raw and unprepared to see major minutes until he's forced to do so as a Junior.

 

Thta's wrong-headed all the way around.