Illini Basketball 2018-2019

Status
Not open for further replies.
#327      

illini80

illini80
Forgottonia
illini80
Newman said:
It’s outdated in that the 4 isn’t your traditional power forward. Our ideal 4 isn’t a banger it’s a tweeter that can stretch the floor and guard smaller players almost as well as bigger players. Kipper could be capable of doing that but I don’t think AJ or Jones can this season.
Click to expand...
It would depend on the matchup, but it seems to me DW would be strong enough to guard some smaller 4's and be a matchup nightmare. Maybe that just doesn't work, but I'm looking for more ways to get him on the floor.
 
#328      

Ratskin

R
Ratskin
FiveStar said:
An inside presence can look different in this offense though. Last year, our 4-14 year, we had a consistent inside presence in Leron. Everyone knew he was a threat when he caught the ball in the low/mid post. Often times a tough shot from our consistent inside presence was a more likely score than a wide open rhythm shot from one of our guards. We still went 4-14.

However, in this offense, an inside presence can be someone who facilitates and scores from the high post (because in a lifted set nobody is between them and the basket, just like the low post in a “traditional” offense). It can also be a guard on the second cut catching in the block against another guard who doesn’t practice post defense a whole lot. Scoring from a big man in the low post is not the only way to score at the rim.

Literally nobody is saying a great big is unwanted or wouldn’t help. We are just saying it is actually possible to still be effective offensively with the right lineup while not having that guy.
Click to expand...
I think what you’re saying, and some seem to be forgetting, is that on offense the “5” is not necessarily going mano a mano against another 5. With all the cutting, you’ll end up with all kinds of matchups, and the most favorable matchup is where the shot/play comes from. Perhaps I’m not understanding correctly, but I’d like to be straightened out if I’m wrong.
 
#329      

FiveStar

F
FiveStar
Ratskin said:
I think what you’re saying, and some seem to be forgetting, is that on offense the “5” is not necessarily going mano a mano against another 5. With all the cutting, you’ll end up with all kinds of matchups, and the most favorable matchup is where the shot/play comes from. Perhaps I’m not understanding correctly, but I’d like to be straightened out if I’m wrong.
Click to expand...

That definitely happens, no doubt. If you get a switch a big guarding on the perimeter or a mouse in the house is definitely possible. In those situations we gotta be good enough in one or those two places to capitalize.

A lot of people like the traditional numbers on offense. I think if I was gonna put traditional numbers on our positions, the outside 4 would be any combinations of 1s, 2s and 3s. The high post guy would have a skill set of a traditional 4. Good at the midrange and capable enough down low, but not a “pure big.”
 
#330      

Illwinsagain

Illwinsagain
Cary, IL
Illwinsagain
Obelix said:
Actually, the measure of success for Illinois should be higher than that for the overall program long term. Groce overachieved his first year, but other than that we were a steady NIT team pretty much his entire era, which was not enough. Taking a steady NIT team and make it a steady NCAA team should be expected as a short term measure of success.

I seems that posters are now even hesitant to even define what "success" is as far as record and goals (NCAA tournament and/or beyond).
Click to expand...
For me, success is making the NCAA tourney 9 out of 10 years, allowing for injuries. We should expect to make the second weekend most years. It doesn't mean it will happen, but we should expect it. In special years, or when the stars align, yes a final four.
 
#331      

FeelYourPaign

FeelYourPaign
So Cal
FeelYourPaign
For this one year I would define success as finishing the B1G in 10th place or better. Not a tie for 10th, but rather 10th outright or better. Hoping for 8th, which would be bubble territory.

Next year it would NCAA.

After that it would be a 5 seed or better.

I won't elaborate, although it's possible, because my definition of success is simple and measurable. If it isn't simple and quantifiable, you can't be sure you did it.
 
#332      

Epsilon

Epsilon
M tipping over
Pdx
Epsilon
We should also be top 4 or 5 in B1G year in year out and have a realistic chance of competing for a B1G regular season and/or B1G championship each year.
 
#333      

rcjord1

R
rcjord1
Last year was a fun brand of basketball. I can count atleast 7 more wins that could have gone our way. (Wake Forest-7, Northwestern-4, Maryland-1, UNLV-7, NM State-5, Nebraska-1, Ohio State-8 up by 20 in the first half) thats 4 more conference wins with just a little more effort. I truly believe the team is better this year, the key is going to be how well the young cats get a handle on the defense. Like coach said last year, I am not concerned about scoring, we will score points....all we need to do is stop the other team from scoring MORE points than us!
 
#334      

Deleted member 29907

D
Guest
Deleted member 29907
rcjord1 said:
Last year was a fun brand of basketball. I can count atleast 7 more wins that could have gone our way. (Wake Forest-7, Northwestern-4, Maryland-1, UNLV-7, NM State-5, Nebraska-1, Ohio State-8 up by 20 in the first half) thats 4 more conference wins with just a little more effort. I truly believe the team is better this year, the key is going to be how well the young cats get a handle on the defense. Like coach said last year, I am not concerned about scoring, we will score points....all we need to do is stop the other team from scoring MORE points than us!
Click to expand...
We were 5 points away from 4 wins - 3 OTs and 1 2 pt loss. That close to 18-14 rather than 14-18. If we can get Adonis sooner rather than later, I am thinking we're at least mid pack and up this year.
 
#335      

FiveStar

F
FiveStar
rcjord1 said:
Last year was a fun brand of basketball. I can count atleast 7 more wins that could have gone our way. (Wake Forest-7, Northwestern-4, Maryland-1, UNLV-7, NM State-5, Nebraska-1, Ohio State-8 up by 20 in the first half) thats 4 more conference wins with just a little more effort. I truly believe the team is better this year, the key is going to be how well the young cats get a handle on the defense. Like coach said last year, I am not concerned about scoring, we will score points....all we need to do is stop the other team from scoring MORE points than us!
Click to expand...

Assuming you’ve seen some practices...

1) how do the new guys look on defense?
2) do we look like we’ll be a better shooting team?
 
#336      

rcjord1

R
rcjord1
FiveStar said:
Assuming you’ve seen some practices...

1) how do the new guys look on defense?
2) do we look like we’ll be a better shooting team?
Click to expand...
Defense is going to be a work in progress, remember its not just about the ability the stay in front of a guy. Underwoods defense is a scheme...so knowing where to be is just as important as being infront (probably more so)
Yes we will be a much better shooting team
 
#337      

Obelix

Obelix
Obelix
rcjord1 said:
Last year was a fun brand of basketball. I can count atleast 7 more wins that could have gone our way. (Wake Forest-7, Northwestern-4, Maryland-1, UNLV-7, NM State-5, Nebraska-1, Ohio State-8 up by 20 in the first half) thats 4 more conference wins with just a little more effort
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you claim that Illinois would/could have won all of their games decided by 10 points or less, by the same token we could have also lost all games that we won buy 10 points or less (i.e., Tennessee-Martin, DePaul,, Missouri, Grand Canyon, Indiana, Nebraska). That is at least 6 more losses. The same claim can be made both ways :)

If every team in the NCAA makes a claim that they could have won all of their games decided by 10 points or less, yet they get to keep all of their close wins, then last NCAA season did not even happen. The vast majority of records would be a lot different.
 
#338      

oldman

O
oldman
Considering we did not win all of our exhibition games last year, would it be considered a success if we sweep our exhibition games?
 
#339      

rcjord1

R
rcjord1
Obelix said:
Yes, but if you claim that Illinois would/could have won all of their games decided by 10 points or less, by the same token we could have also lost all games that we won buy 10 points or less (i.e., Tennessee-Martin, DePaul,, Missouri, Grand Canyon, Indiana, Nebraska). That is at least 6 more losses. The same claim can be made both ways :)

If every team in the NCAA makes a claim that they could have won all of their games decided by 10 points or less, yet they get to keep all of their close wins, then last NCAA season did not even happen. The vast majority of records would be a lot different.
Click to expand...
The first sentence was the most important. "Ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a Merry Christmas"
 
#340      

Obelix

Obelix
Obelix
FiveStar said:
An inside presence can look different in this offense though. Last year, our 4-14 year, we had a consistent inside presence in Leron. Everyone knew he was a threat when he caught the ball in the low/mid post. Often times a tough shot from our consistent inside presence was a more likely score than a wide open rhythm shot from one of our guards. We still went 4-14.

However, in this offense, an inside presence can be someone who facilitates and scores from the high post (because in a lifted set nobody is between them and the basket, just like the low post in a “traditional” offense). It can also be a guard on the second cut catching in the block against another guard who doesn’t practice post defense a whole lot. Scoring from a big man in the low post is not the only way to score at the rim.

Literally nobody is saying a great big is unwanted or wouldn’t help. We are just saying it is actually possible to still be effective offensively with the right lineup while not having that guy.
Click to expand...

We disagree if you think that we had great consistent inside presence last year with Black. While Black had more inside skills than other players on the current team (e.g., Kipper) I thought our froncourt and inside game last year was weak and one of them most obvious deficiencies that even BU stressed on some post conferences. This year, we unfortunately lost even Black.

I do not think anyone is claiming that a big consistent inside presence would not help, just that our view of what happens IF one of our bigs (Giorgi/Kane/Higgs/De La Rosa) does not develop as a consistent inside presence is different. You think we can be effective, I say we can't. At least in contending for NCAA, which IMO is really the measure, because just improving on 4-14 is meaningless since we set the bar so low ourselves having one of worst seasons in 20+ years. If we just marginally improve on last year, it would be the worst 2-year stretch in B1G since 1973-1975 (Harv Schmidt and Gene Bartow). We are talking pre-Henson years.
 
Last edited:
#341      

Obelix

Obelix
Obelix
rcjord1 said:
The first sentence was the most important. "Ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a Merry Christmas"
Click to expand...

Totally agree, last year (Christmas as well) actually happened, our record was what it was. These coulda, woulda, shoulda scenarios with more wins (or losses) are fantasyland.
 
#342      

FiveStar

F
FiveStar
Obelix said:
We disagree if you think that we had great consistent inside presence last year with Black. While Black had more inside skills than other players on the current team (e.g., Kipper) I thought our froncourt and inside game last year was weak and one of them most obvious deficiencies that even BU stressed on some post conferences. This year, we unfortunately lost even Black.

I do not think anyone is claiming that a big consistent inside presence would not help, just that our view of what happens IF one of our bigs (Giorgi/Kane/Higgs/De La Rosa) does not develop as a consistent inside presence is different. You think we can be effective, I say we can't. At least in contending for NCAA, which IMO is really the measure, because just improving on 4-14 is meaningless since we set the bar so low ourselves having one of worst seasons in 20+ years. If we just marginally improve on last year, it would be the worst 2-year stretch in B1G since 1973-1975 (Harv Schmidt and Gene Bartow). We are talking pre-Henson years.
Click to expand...

Give me a name of a consistent inside presence we saw last year so I can know where your perspective lies on that.
 
#343      

Deleted member 643761

D
Guest
Deleted member 643761
I'm optimistic for the year, but I almost always am.

I think being successful and being satisfied can be two different things in different seasons. I agree with Obelix. We are never "successful" if we're not dancing. At the same time, a 9-9 season after last year and with this rebuild would be satisfying and make me happy. It would point the arrow up for me.

I was really hoping that Underwood's superior coaching would result in more wins last year. Hopefully, last year was more of a fluke and not an indication of his ability or how those abilities translate to the B1G.

Three keys to the season in my mind.

One is whether he can put together an offense that punishes the other team for going bigger. Good coaches turn match up problems into opportunities.

Two, what can he do with his wings to help the big guys on defense so as to avoid foul trouble and huge games from opposing 4s and 5s.

Three, can we get some good productivity out of our 8-9 guys and hopefully win some games by having fresher legs throughout the game.
 
#344      

FiveStar

F
FiveStar
rcjord1 said:
Defense is going to be a work in progress, remember its not just about the ability the stay in front of a guy. Underwoods defense is a scheme...so knowing where to be is just as important as being infront (probably more so)
Yes we will be a much better shooting team
Click to expand...

Would you put us at better, equal, or worse than where we were this time last year based on what you’ve seen or heard?
 
#345      

Elgin7680

E
Elgin7680
Last year we had a lot of one dimensional players. I think this is going to be a fun team to watch and will be much better than last year because they have more athletes and players that can actually shoot. So I think they will find a way to get into the tournament this year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.