Purdue 63, Illinois 58 POSTGAME

No I don't want you to do that, but at the same time don't come tell me not to recruit Brunson, Evans, DJax in favor of some 3-star PG without knowing who that would be. There is a reason that a PG is rated as a 3-star (e.g. Tate).

I have absolutely no problem with Groce going after Brunson, Evans, D Jax, three PGs that we ended up as runner ups. Eventually, I think Groce's success at the position will depend on getting a B1G quality PG, who will most likely be a highly ranked player (5 star or 4 star). It is OK to say recruit 3-star PGs as backup plans but at the same time there are no infinite scholarships. For example (before AC left), who do you not want to recruit (from our commits) in favor of a lower ranked PG? Tough decision. And they would be better than Tate?

I do not disagree on PG skills. I have mentioned many times that in my experience, ballhandling and PG skills are the hardest to develop. You have either developed those before HS or not. But I did see a little of Abrams and thought he would be better as a PG, contrary to what I had posted when we recruited Luther and DJ.
I don't believe that I did tell you not to recruit Brunson or Evans or DJax. I will tell you that you absolutely have to win a PG recruitment though so it might pay to put more attention on the next level of guys as well. We made a lot of offers but it appeared that we held out for better compared to the kid from Kansas who would have been really solid (just as an example) relative to Tate.
 
Yes, someone did (and listed Groce's 1st 3 years of Kenpom #'s) & I thought it was ridiculous to argue that Weber left a strong foundation. Though the post has disappeared. :confused:

But yes, I'd say on the court results are the best representation of the talent level of a team. I think a team is what they do on the court--.

In the end I think we (and most fans) probably agree on the appropriate outcome--Groce will get another year and should be seriously evaluated/maybe fired if he has another poor year. Right?
Missed that post. Thanks for the clarification. Yes. I agree he absolutely should get one more year. More if we get into the NCAA's this year somehow. Getting to the tournament would be a huge milestone that could not be ignored when evaluating him at the end of this year or next IMO.
 
I don't believe that I did tell you not to recruit Brunson or Evans or DJax. I will tell you that you absolutely have to win a PG recruitment though so it might pay to put more attention on the next level of guys as well. We made a lot of offers but it appeared that we held out for better compared to the kid from Kansas who would have been really solid (just as an example) relative to Tate.
I believe my post (that you responded to) was directly disputing the notion of "I wish we would stop targeting McDAA point guards (Evans, Brunson, Jackson) until we can land a couple high 3-star, low 4-star PGs," which I even bolded.

Again, it's easy to say not to recruit 5 star PGs that we end up as runner ups, but if you indeed recruit them, it will unavoidably affect lower ranked players. It is not that these two things are not related. Players care who you recruit.

There is also a reason that a PG is rated lower. Yeah, I want a true PG with good shooting skills and excellent handles. Thanks, but he is likely not a low ranked PG. Same as C/post players. I want to recruit a lower ranked center/post player with height, strength and good post moves. Good luck, but this player is ranked higher. :)

Identifying the 3-star PG (a priori) is not as easy as it seems. Especially one that does not care about you recruiting other higher ranked players at his position.
 
I think our rating of PGs varies so much because it really is based on team success. Most would say that London Perrantes is a really good, true point guard for Virginia. He has very modest stats (without looking them up, something like 7 or 8 points and maybe 5 assists..) If he were our starting point guard right now, he likely wouldn't be considered nearly as good, because we'd need him to score in our system, something he probably can't do very well.
 
It was well known that he was not a PG at that time. It was reported widely that he didn't even play PG.
I saw TA play a few times on cable TV his SR year at Mt. Carmel. He was in fact MC's starting 2 guard. I mentioned this here well before TA arrived at UI. Having said that, he's definitely the best PG on our current roster and his absence this season cost us at least 2 wins imo, not that being the best PG at UI right now is worth bragging about at this time.
 
It's depressing that we're arguing the degree to which we stink. Fact is, we had some flashes, but weren't a tournament team. We either don't have a good system, or we don't have the personnel. I like what we have coming in, but I'm really surprised we are looking at back to back seasons missing the dance (barring a miracle).
 
I believe my post (that you responded to) was directly disputing the notion of "I wish we would stop targeting McDAA point guards (Evans, Brunson, Jackson) until we can land a couple high 3-star, low 4-star PGs," which I even bolded.

Again, it's easy to say not to recruit 5 star PGs that we end up as runner ups, but if you indeed recruit them, it will unavoidably affect lower ranked players. It is not that these two things are not related. Players care who you recruit.

There is also a reason that a PG is rated lower. Yeah, I want a true PG with good shooting skills and excellent handles. Thanks, but he is likely not a low ranked PG. Same as C/post players. I want to recruit a lower ranked center/post player with height, strength and good post moves. Good luck, but this player is ranked higher. :)

Identifying the 3-star PG (a priori) is not as easy as it seems. Especially one that does not care about you recruiting other higher ranked players at his position.
I think it is not unreasonable to assume that there were more than 3 really good PG's this year. I suggest you not wait on a 5 star that you might have a chance with when there are lesser rated kids that you can get. It's fine to reach for the stars when failure means a Sweet 16 or Round of 32 team. When failure means .500 in the B1G and yet another bubble season I think you have to be a bit less picky. That's just my opinion though. If I am wrong, I get to tout how great Groce was at recruiting a 5 star. If he's wrong, he gets another crack at coaching in the MAC. He has a lot more riding on it than I do.

The guy that I would have made a much stronger effort to get was the BU PG that we showed initial interest in but then seemed to cool on. That may because we thought it would hurt us with Evans (a silly reason IMO) or maybe there was some flaw in his game or transcripts that I am unaware of. But that was the guy that I thought would get us where we need to be with the wings we have and have coming in. I said so at the time.
 
It's depressing that we're arguing the degree to which we stink. Fact is, we had some flashes, but weren't a tournament team. We either don't have a good system, or we don't have the personnel. I like what we have coming in, but I'm really surprised we are looking at back to back seasons missing the dance (barring a miracle).
I'm a little miffed by all you guys saying "we aren't a tournament team".
 
It's depressing that we're arguing the degree to which we stink. Fact is, we had some flashes, but weren't a tournament team. We either don't have a good system, or we don't have the personnel. I like what we have coming in, but I'm really surprised we are looking at back to back seasons missing the dance (barring a miracle).
Obviously, the possibility of missing the NCAA tournament for a second straight year is not a pleasant thought, but some of us are still optimistic about the future of our program. That is not about specific teams, record next year, etc. but I think we have a much stronger foundation as a program moving forward, and pretty confident that we have the right coach as well.
 
I think it is not unreasonable to assume that there were more than 3 really good PG's this year. I suggest you not wait on a 5 star that you might have a chance with when there are lesser rated kids that you can get. It's fine to reach for the stars when failure means a Sweet 16 or Round of 32 team. When failure means .500 in the B1G and yet another bubble season I think you have to be a bit less picky. That's just my opinion though. If I am wrong, I get to tout how great Groce was at recruiting a 5 star. If he's wrong, he gets another crack at coaching in the MAC. He has a lot more riding on it than I do.

The guy that I would have made a much stronger effort to get was the BU PG that we showed initial interest in but then seemed to cool on. That may because we thought it would hurt us with Evans (a silly reason IMO) or maybe there was some flaw in his game or transcripts that I am unaware of. But that was the guy that I thought would get us where we need to be with the wings we have and have coming in. I said so at the time.
I can't wait to hear you tout how great Groce is :D

We disagree on strategy. I think Groce's success depends on successfully recruiting and getting a quality commitment from a 5/4 star PG (assuming he has a chance to recruit them, i.e., not every player is interested in Illinois) rather than focusing on 3-stars who may potentially prove to be diamonds in the rough.

I liked the BU PG as well, but the excuse that we had a really good chance but we did not want to ruin our chances with Evans is more board hearsay IMO than reality.
 
Obviously, the possibility of missing the NCAA tournament for a second straight year is not a pleasant thought, but some of us are still optimistic about the future of our program. That is not about specific teams, record next year, etc. but I think we have a much stronger foundation as a program moving forward, and pretty confident that we have the right coach as well.
I thought that a year ago. I accept that we had more injuries than most teams, but I still am still disappointed with the season and how the team didn't seem to come together
 
I thought that a year ago. I accept that we had more injuries than most teams, but I still am still disappointed with the season and how the team didn't seem to come together
It's been a head scratcher how KN and MH have struggled since RR returned. Part of it could be the ball sticks a bit more now on O, but KN especially has just plummeted offensively, and MH hasn't been the same, either.
 
New York
It's been a head scratcher how KN and MH have struggled since RR returned. Part of it could be the ball sticks a bit more now on O, but KN especially has just plummeted offensively, and MH hasn't been the same, either.
Sean Harrington's theory, which seems like it could be at least partially correct, is that teams started to scout KN and MH more after they had success -- and started taking away their go to moves. You've especially seen ppl not bite on MH's pump fake nearly as much anymore.

I think it's a combo of that and a reversion to our sort of default offense being Ray taking the ball to the basket. We'd be much better if we could work the ball inside out, the problem is that we don't have big man personnel for that. In light of that, I would have liked to see us try to invert Ray or MH to the low block sometimes and work it inside out that way. Would be another look, and would potentially either (a) collapse their D; (b) draw their big man away out of the lane and give RR or MH some room to work or (c) create a mismatch with a big man jump taking a midrange jump shot over a guard - which is basically what our big men can do offensively.
 
I think it's a combo of that and a reversion to our sort of default offense being Ray taking the ball to the basket. We'd be much better if we could work the ball inside out, the problem is that we don't have big man personnel for that. In light of that, I would have liked to see us try to invert Ray or MH to the low block sometimes and work it inside out that way. Would be another look, and would potentially either (a) collapse their D; (b) draw their big man away out of the lane and give RR or MH some room to work or (c) create a mismatch with a big man jump taking a midrange jump shot over a guard - which is basically what our big men can do offensively.
I feel pretty strongly that MH is much better at the 3--where he was a match-up nightmare for other teams on the offensive end. His ability to get his own shot and shoot over other 3's seemed to open up the offense some. Ray coming back pushed him to more minutes at the 4.

I have no idea on Nunn--he missed a ton of open looks the last few games.
 
There's more than one way to work the ball inside. If we had more plays set up to clear and cut, we might get an easy bucket more often. We are just so weak getting those interior baskets.
 
Sean Harrington's theory, which seems like it could be at least partially correct, is that teams started to scout KN and MH more after they had success -- and started taking away their go to moves. You've especially seen ppl not bite on MH's pump fake nearly as much anymore.

I think it's a combo of that and a reversion to our sort of default offense being Ray taking the ball to the basket. We'd be much better if we could work the ball inside out, the problem is that we don't have big man personnel for that. In light of that, I would have liked to see us try to invert Ray or MH to the low block sometimes and work it inside out that way. Would be another look, and would potentially either (a) collapse their D; (b) draw their big man away out of the lane and give RR or MH some room to work or (c) create a mismatch with a big man jump taking a midrange jump shot over a guard - which is basically what our big men can do offensively.
Teams seem to be forcing Nunn right, and I think he's trying to go that way more to make them pay for it, but most of his struggles to me lie in just missing open shots. MH just seems to have dropped down a gear at times lately, whether he was sick or slightly injured I don't know. He had a few shots blocked in one of the recent games (Iowa, I think), and it seems since that he's a bit leery of pulling the trigger. He has a very good shot fake and, though teams seem to be aware of it, they still bite often enough. What I'm seeing is too much reliance on trying to draw the foul off the fake -- to the point of obviously leaning in and/or to the side to get contact -- instead of just taking the shot. Getting a feeling the word is out to the refs not to give him those fouls on his leans off the fake.

Agree on inverting, and would throw Leron in there too.
 
Sean Harrington's theory, which seems like it could be at least partially correct, is that teams started to scout KN and MH more after they had success -- and started taking away their go to moves. You've especially seen ppl not bite on MH's pump fake nearly as much anymore.

I think it's a combo of that and a reversion to our sort of default offense being Ray taking the ball to the basket. We'd be much better if we could work the ball inside out, the problem is that we don't have big man personnel for that. In light of that, I would have liked to see us try to invert Ray or MH to the low block sometimes and work it inside out that way. Would be another look, and would potentially either (a) collapse their D; (b) draw their big man away out of the lane and give RR or MH some room to work or (c) create a mismatch with a big man jump taking a midrange jump shot over a guard - which is basically what our big men can do offensively.
It would seem relatively easy to do from the sets we run already. Nnanna alreadys runs up to set the hbs, so instead of rolling him to the hoop he could stay up and let RR or MH run off a pick down to the block and try and post up a smaller guy. Has to be a reason why we don't do it.
 
free throws

Both teams got 26 free throws. If we made as many as they did (21), and they missed as many as we did (8), we come out 1 point ahead.
 
Yep we missed crucial FTs down the stretch in the face of the homely PU student section and missed some wide open shots.

Coaches scout well in this league and have negated some of our strengths.

We'd probably see Hill at the 3 more if Black could stay on the freakin court