Unless you develop a reliable inside game one of the big men, Kipper at 4 will not be effective, cut certainly we will be forced out of necessity. It is not that we have many options. Kipper at the 5 with AJ/Jones at 4 will not be adequate. We may still improve from 4-14 due tot he bar being very low (and our backcourt being much improved) but certainly not adequate for making the NCAA tournament. Any hope of making the tournament relies on one (or more) of our big men developing as consistent inside players.
Illini Basketball 2018-2019
- Status
Unless you develop a reliable inside game one of the big men, Kipper at 4 will not be effective, cut certainly we will be forced out of necessity. It is not that we have many options. Kipper at the 5 with AJ/Jones at 4 will not be adequate. We may still improve from 4-14 due tot he bar being very low (and our backcourt being much improved) but certainly not adequate for making the NCAA tournament. Any hope of making the tournament relies on one (or more) of our big men developing as consistent inside players.
Last year our guards lacked the ability to consistently hit open shots. I stand by my premise that if we really did get better shooters for this year we will have more success if we manufacture the same shoots. This isn’t even addressing our passing deficiencies the first half of the year, or our free throw issues.
But the biggest issue which has been pointed out about last year’s team was the defense. Worst fouling team in the country and 60% allowed isn’t gonna get it done.
It could only work if you have a consistent inside player besides him. If one develops or emerges, sure. Without one (or more) it won't be adequate to make NCAA.
IlliniDent
- Chicago, IL
O I agree, and honestly never said we were making the NCAA (not saying you said I was). Guess my point is that the 4 isn't the issue if we have Kipper playing it. The 5 is going to be our biggest issue. If we get a reliable presence at the 5 and can actually run the offense, we should be much improved. That being said, still no idea how our interior defense is going to be...just crossing my fingers that our play improves there but really putting a lot of hope on freshmen and a repaired knee.
Deleted member 8213
D
Guest
You are what you can guard. :noidea:
Last year we did not have success as a team, we finished one of the worst seasons 20+ years. We did have some glimpses of hope on individual play (specifically Frazier). So honestly I do not know what you mean "more success," it is certainly very vague but not sure if you mean it intentionally or unintentionally. If you just mean "better record" that is certainly possible based on backcourt improvement, but without one (or more) of the aforementioned big men developing as a consistent inside presence alongside Kipper (who obviously will play 4 out of necessity) I do not believe NCAA is even possible. That what success means to me, not just improving on 4-14 because we set the bar so low last year.
Relevant to shooting, if we manufacture the same shots we did last year, we should make a higher percentage of them if we truly have better shooters (games will tell). That obviously impacts some next level things like helping us set our defense, confidence, willingness to make the extra pass, defenses hesitant to help etc, but really just meant it in the context of more makes. More offensive possessions that end in points=More success.
Well Trent was already pretty high volume/hero ball-esque last year. Kipper let the game come to him for the most part. So lets assume those two remain essentially the same wrt to offensive shooting percentages (though if I had to guess, I'd imagine Trent sees a bump, Kipper sees a small regression, though then again they both could see an increase). Ayo will certainly have a better shooting percentage than Smith, not to mention making the offense more efficient. Feliz will also be an upgrade offensively to Tejon. AJ will probably regress a bit, though again with the increased skill around him, not crazy to think he could maintain a high percentage. DMW has a stroke that looks like he shoots over 500 from the field, would be utterly shocked if his numbers dont see a large jump.
Griffin by all accounts should be lights out. Realistically (at this point) a 35%ish deep threat, he's still something we didn't have last year. Jones could be a difference maker for the other guards to feed, not sure what his stroke is supposed to be like.
The real issue is the same as on defense. How offensively gifted will all our slotted 5's be? Honestly, Finke was lack luster, Ebo had hardly any offensive moves (may be too generous), and Black shot (and made) many low percentage looks. In all, I find it hard to believe our offense will be worse than last years.
IlliniDent
- Chicago, IL
Being how many close games we lost, it's not hard to imagine that "more success" would be the difference between wins and losses. That being said, for our team and what we lost, being a bubble team would be a significant upgrade based on our youth. Most people would consider that "more success." I agree with you in that NCAA is truly the measure of success, but all things considered, a bubble team would definitely be a much more successful team than last year.
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).
Last edited:
ILL in IA
- Iowa City
What would you define as success this year?
IlliniDent
- Chicago, IL
Ok was trying to agree with you and say that truly being successful can only happen if you are in the NCAA tournament, and anything less automatically isn't a successful season but guess that was a problem...
Anyway, I believe that success for Illinois historically and success for Illinois in the next year or 2 are very different things. Right now, it is a successful season if we make the tournament as it pushes us in the direction we need. Historically, we should expect to make the NCAA tournament every year and success should be making it out of the opening weekend give or take.
Last edited:
Well you asked what "more success" meant, not what success meant. You can have 0% success and go to 1% success, and you have achieved "more success." Now, whether that is successFUL is a different argument.
I would agree that becoming a steady NCAA Tourney team would be a successful goal.
But I'm sure you'll still find a way to argue with me...
Last edited:
Making the NCAA tournament.
100 out of 100 fans would consider that to be a successful outcome of the season but what would be considered satisfactory growth for this year? That’s more difficult to answer. I would argue that making the NIT could still show that we’re on our way up depending on who’s helping us in the frontcourt. If De La Rosa is tearing it up this year but we don’t recruit a good enough replacement, we could still be in trouble for the following year.
I think you are coming back to consistent inside presence (De La Rosa) as a prerequisite to a successful year, which is exactly my point. If not De La Rosa, it has to be someone else from the big men (Giorgi/Kane/Higgs).
As far as success, if you have been a bubble/NIT team during the previous regime and you are not satisfied, success has to include making the NCAA tournament. If you set the bar yourself very low (4-14), it is hard to claim success just based on improvement from that. Otherwise, it makes your previous dissatisfaction with NIT/bubble a little hypocritical. Certainly, not many would have agreed at the time of the hiring with a new regime coming in and taking 3 years just to make the tournament and last year's predictions/expectation reflected that.
So if we do not make the tournament, I do not think we can claim success. But if we do not make the NIT, I think it would raise serious concerns about the direction of the program, which is a different issue. I also stated at the end of the season last year and throughout the summer that IMO we also needed a very strong Fall recruiting class, without many misses and empty scholarships getting carried over in the Spring. So currently, I do have recruiting concerns but Fall recruiting is not done yet. I would really be encouraged if the staff turns it around on that front, I think they still can but time is not a friend. We have to make up ground.
IlliniDent
- Chicago, IL
Agree with the above but with the caveat that direction of a program matters too. Last year was partially a large result of the direction the program was headed. This year we need to show that that direction has been significantly reversed. So while you say that we can't be satisfied with NIT, improving to a bubble team would be a significant change in direction of the program with so many young players on the roster. Wouldn't be quite a successful season but definitely would show some hope.
There is a difference between obtaining "more success" and having a successful season. Keeping it to just the overall record, we can go from 4 wins to 5 wins. That would be more success, but I doubt anyone would say that is a successful season. It's not really vague.
Yeah, having more success after last year is setting a really low bar and not one that I think the team should be satisfied with, but the original discussion was purely about "more success."
Yeah, having more success after last year is setting a really low bar and not one that I think the team should be satisfied with, but the original discussion was purely about "more success."
It is very vague because we are talking in the context of playing an Illini lineup that has no consistent inside presence, a very specific scheme not a philosophical discussion. Going from 4 to 5 wins will absolutely do nothing to prove that such scheme works, especially in the presence of what many (myself included) believe is a very competent and improved backcourt. The example you just gave would be a huge failure.
To show you how much of a failure it would be (as far as system/approach), if we do not make the NIT this year (let alone go 5-13), it would be the first time in non-probation years (certainly Henson's "young guns" team in 1991 would have made the tournament) since 78-80 that the Illini would not reach either NIT/NCAA. A new low in our modern history.
Yes, it would be a huge failure. But it would also be more success.
The schedule this year is more difficult than last , so having the same record an not making the tourney can not be viewed the same way
Deleted member 643761
D
Guest
Sure hope he's not tweeting during the game.
Actually, the last Groce year of 18-14 felt worse, because there were so many blowouts. You could feel the ship filling with water. Last years' team was in almost every game until the last minute or two. She held ballast. IMO
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.
- Status