Long time lurker. Finally started posting.
Spent a long time on the other board but there are some real weirdos who spend all their time insulting each other and bad mouthing our players and coaches.
Illini Basketball 2017-2018
- Status
Long time lurker. Finally started posting.
Spent a long time on the other board but there are some real weirdos who spend all their time insulting each other and bad mouthing our players and coaches.
Anyone know when Alstork will be on campus with the team?
Dan
Admin
Tevo
- Wilmette, IL
Sounds to me like he recruits wings and posts, and wants a balance of skills across those groups. Everyone has to handle, everyone needs to pass. Penetrating, rebounding, lock down defense, deep shooting, shot blocking, post offense, leadership, etc. sound like they all are skills he wants, obviously, but not necessarily in any one position or another, and his recruiting will depend on what skills he already has in those groups.
Meh... Tupper is a hypocrite on this one. Just last year, Jaylon Tate's senior year (already had seen Tate for 3 years), when things started to well, Tupper wrote articles praising Tate and was going to programs saying that Illini fans were wrong and could not understand Tate's contributions. Then he turned on him. Shame, no need to bring Tate into this to feel good about the current team.
http://herald-review.com/sports/ill...cle_cef624be-ecfa-570f-9ca1-cf0d42a1730f.html
Deleted member 8213
D
Guest
I agree that recent article is pretty shabby work by Tupper... maybe some someone should have told Groce not to play him, or maybe they did and he didn't listen... or "it's possible" Lucas wasn't ready... what the hell is the point of all that other than drag Tate through the mud once more for old times sake?
I mean I understand the point is to say that Alexander needs to offer Underwood a second opinion even if it runs counter to his own. But the Tate example he uses to support this premise, he seems to have no idea whether anyone actually did or did not do that... so why talk about it?
Last edited by a moderator:
well said goldie....agree article is "shabby"..there's even a typo.
alexanders position I believe mostly is an analyst and its up to head coach to apply (or not) the analysis inputs. the 7 second rule and defense changes he made at OSU (lighten up perimeter defense) gives me great confidence that BU is good at applying analytics and adjusting game plans. I also expect him to apply analytics wisely to lineups and player development.
jcgoldie, I understand your point that it may not be worthwhile to bring up old criticisms of a player who is gone and whose coach was fired....BUT...I would like to make a point about the "rules of engagement" for critical discussion on this forum: It seems like there are those who don't want us to criticize current players for fear of discouraging them and not showing the proper support for our currently-playing basketball warriors; THEN, there are those who say we shouldn't criticize recruits for fear of chasing them away; THEN there are those who say it is pointless to criticize players after they leave because we are just "dragging them through the mud".
Well, geeeezzzz, when are we supposed to express blunt opinions about Illini players...never????
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this board was pretty blunt about Tate for the last 4 years.
This Tupper article and JG & Tate reference was extremely weak argument.
There is no evidence referenced in the article at all that an assistant coach actually advised JG on TJL playing earlier...just a writer speculating that JG may not have listened to an assistant on the subject.
BU is different in many ways ...analyzing starting lineups may be the least important of the improvements we see in the coming years.
Last edited by a moderator:
If Tupper's framing device had been a post here on IL that would be one thing, but it was not that thing. It was a published article that he was paid for and that a company is looking to profit from. One would hope that forum posts would take their cues from professionals, and not the other way around, which looks to have happened here. Not only was Tupper's article needlessly disrespectful, it was also misleading and unfair.
According to Tupper, any bumbling F@#$ other than John Groce could see the obvious fact that Te'Jon should have gotten the minutes! Apparently everyone knew, but why, Mark? Based on what? When did the switch flip for Groce, and when should it have? That's a different, much more interesting article than the one written here, but i doubt any of the former assistants are interested in chatting with Mark at this point, and it doesn't sound like he is worried about maintaining those relationships anyway.
John Groce knew he was on the hot seat and knew that he had to win or he would be fired. He had a senior point guard, a sixth year senior point guard, and a talented freshman coming off an injury. He did not have the luxury of being able to play for the future because he had to first make sure he had one. I think everyone agrees that, in his situation, he was right to play the players he thought had the best chance of winning this game. The disagreement is over who did give him that best chance to win.
Tupper creates the illusion that Groce thought that player was Tate until he thought that player was Lucas. Tupper writes, "Finally, but long after the fan displeasure with Tate’s playing time reached an audible level at the State Farm Center, and probably because even Groce could no longer deny the plain truth, Tate was given a seat and Lucas was given a spot in the starting rotation." Thank goodness Lucas finally replaced our terrible guard in the starting lineup - Tracy Abrams! While Tupper does not say "Lucas replaced Tate in the staring lineup", he does make it sound that way. You would think Groce was such a dummy he was starting Tate all that time while poor Lucas waited, but in fact Tate hadn't started since game eight against N.C. State. The starting lineup since that point had been a stable Abrams, Hill, Black, Coelman-Lands, and Morgan. Lucas had already passed Tate, and Abrams disastrous funk in conference play finally lost him his starting spot in game 21 against Iowa. Lucas had played more minutes that Tate by game seven vs Florida State.
Now some stats. Unfortunately i can't easily break down stats for non-confernce games. Full season and in conference are the options available. I would also love to do a blind comparison between Tate, Abrams, and Te'Jon, but there are categories that give them away. Any 3PT columns and it's all over.
So let's take a look at what Te'Jon's minutes got us. These lines are conference games only, per 40 minutes stats.
Rk Player_______G__MP__FG__FGA__FG%__2P_2PA_ 2P%__3P_3PA__3P%__FT_FTA__FT%_TRB_AST_STL_BLK_TOV__PF_PTS
1 _Jaylon Tate 11 127 1.6 _4.1 .385 1.6 3.5 .455 0.0 0.6 .000 0.9 0.9 1.00 3.5 5.7 1.3 0.3 2.5 2.5 4.1
2 _TeJon Lucas 17 423 2.7 _7.3 .377 2.0 5.2 .382 0.8 2.1 .364 3.4 6.0 .571 3.5 5.6 2.4 0.1 2.6 3.9 9.6
4 Tracy Abrams 18 380 3.3 11.1 .295 1.7 4.9 .340 1.6 6.1 .259 1.4 2.3 .591 4.4 3.4 1.5 0.1 1.7 3.4 9.5
Provided by CBB at Sports Reference: View Original Table Generated 7/16/2017.
Lucas and Tate are statistically even in many categories; rebounding, blocks, turnovers, and assists. Lucas was more of a 'scorer', but only a better shooter from range, where he was merely acceptable. The point differential comes down to an additional (rounding up from .8) three pointer a game and Lucas' best-on-the-team ability to draw fouls (FTr). Unfortunately Lucas only capitalized on those free throws 57% of the time.
On defense Lucas was good for another steal every 40 minutes over Tate, but at the expense of 1.4 more fouls.
But Abrams, who escapes mention in the article, deserves some mention. In conference play, Tracy logged three times as many minutes as Jaylon, while shooting an even worse percentage. Even factoring in made threes (Effective FG %), Tracy shot .36.7% to Jaylon's 38.5%. While Abrams was a better rebounder and took better care of the ball, Tate had enough assists that his assist to turnover ratio is slightly better that Abrams'. If we are going to examine Groce's doling out of the minutes, wouldn't it be wise to talk about the people who actually got the minutes? Focusing on poor punching bag Tate when Abrams played at a similar level and was on the court three times as much is mistake. Not even mentioning Abrams swoon is a failure. Mentioning either of them in an article introducing someone completely unrelated betrays either pandering or fixation neither of which are becoming.
So yeah, I personally do not think a professional should set up their article by insulting a former coach, all his assistants and one of his players, while apparently not looking too closely at the details involved.
According to Tupper, any bumbling F@#$ other than John Groce could see the obvious fact that Te'Jon should have gotten the minutes! Apparently everyone knew, but why, Mark? Based on what? When did the switch flip for Groce, and when should it have? That's a different, much more interesting article than the one written here, but i doubt any of the former assistants are interested in chatting with Mark at this point, and it doesn't sound like he is worried about maintaining those relationships anyway.
John Groce knew he was on the hot seat and knew that he had to win or he would be fired. He had a senior point guard, a sixth year senior point guard, and a talented freshman coming off an injury. He did not have the luxury of being able to play for the future because he had to first make sure he had one. I think everyone agrees that, in his situation, he was right to play the players he thought had the best chance of winning this game. The disagreement is over who did give him that best chance to win.
Tupper creates the illusion that Groce thought that player was Tate until he thought that player was Lucas. Tupper writes, "Finally, but long after the fan displeasure with Tate’s playing time reached an audible level at the State Farm Center, and probably because even Groce could no longer deny the plain truth, Tate was given a seat and Lucas was given a spot in the starting rotation." Thank goodness Lucas finally replaced our terrible guard in the starting lineup - Tracy Abrams! While Tupper does not say "Lucas replaced Tate in the staring lineup", he does make it sound that way. You would think Groce was such a dummy he was starting Tate all that time while poor Lucas waited, but in fact Tate hadn't started since game eight against N.C. State. The starting lineup since that point had been a stable Abrams, Hill, Black, Coelman-Lands, and Morgan. Lucas had already passed Tate, and Abrams disastrous funk in conference play finally lost him his starting spot in game 21 against Iowa. Lucas had played more minutes that Tate by game seven vs Florida State.
Now some stats. Unfortunately i can't easily break down stats for non-confernce games. Full season and in conference are the options available. I would also love to do a blind comparison between Tate, Abrams, and Te'Jon, but there are categories that give them away. Any 3PT columns and it's all over.
So let's take a look at what Te'Jon's minutes got us. These lines are conference games only, per 40 minutes stats.
Rk Player_______G__MP__FG__FGA__FG%__2P_2PA_ 2P%__3P_3PA__3P%__FT_FTA__FT%_TRB_AST_STL_BLK_TOV__PF_PTS
1 _Jaylon Tate 11 127 1.6 _4.1 .385 1.6 3.5 .455 0.0 0.6 .000 0.9 0.9 1.00 3.5 5.7 1.3 0.3 2.5 2.5 4.1
2 _TeJon Lucas 17 423 2.7 _7.3 .377 2.0 5.2 .382 0.8 2.1 .364 3.4 6.0 .571 3.5 5.6 2.4 0.1 2.6 3.9 9.6
4 Tracy Abrams 18 380 3.3 11.1 .295 1.7 4.9 .340 1.6 6.1 .259 1.4 2.3 .591 4.4 3.4 1.5 0.1 1.7 3.4 9.5
Provided by CBB at Sports Reference: View Original Table Generated 7/16/2017.
Lucas and Tate are statistically even in many categories; rebounding, blocks, turnovers, and assists. Lucas was more of a 'scorer', but only a better shooter from range, where he was merely acceptable. The point differential comes down to an additional (rounding up from .8) three pointer a game and Lucas' best-on-the-team ability to draw fouls (FTr). Unfortunately Lucas only capitalized on those free throws 57% of the time.
On defense Lucas was good for another steal every 40 minutes over Tate, but at the expense of 1.4 more fouls.
But Abrams, who escapes mention in the article, deserves some mention. In conference play, Tracy logged three times as many minutes as Jaylon, while shooting an even worse percentage. Even factoring in made threes (Effective FG %), Tracy shot .36.7% to Jaylon's 38.5%. While Abrams was a better rebounder and took better care of the ball, Tate had enough assists that his assist to turnover ratio is slightly better that Abrams'. If we are going to examine Groce's doling out of the minutes, wouldn't it be wise to talk about the people who actually got the minutes? Focusing on poor punching bag Tate when Abrams played at a similar level and was on the court three times as much is mistake. Not even mentioning Abrams swoon is a failure. Mentioning either of them in an article introducing someone completely unrelated betrays either pandering or fixation neither of which are becoming.
So yeah, I personally do not think a professional should set up their article by insulting a former coach, all his assistants and one of his players, while apparently not looking too closely at the details involved.
It is not so much what is said, but how it is said. I appreciate critical posts and rational debate, but there is a difference between being honest and being an a_$. An opinion doesn't have to be "blunt" to be accurate or interesting.
Didn't Lucas have an injury right before the season that limited his time early on?
It seems Groce was left with no good choices at PG (which is basically the story of his tenure here).
Never would be perfect! All responsibility resides on the shoulders of the very highly paid coach, not the 18-22 year old kid that is pouring his heart and soul into the program while adjusting to being away from home, trying to keep grades up, adjusting to independence and the transition to adulthood and being held to a higher moral standard than most other students on campus.
Found this channel on YouTube. Has a ton of Spread offense videos. Lots of breakdowns as well. Includes practice and game footage. If it's been posted already I aplogize, but I think it's a good resource for people who are still trying to familiarize themselves with the offense.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9SmM03BVt9CnrgvXvySxnojY3wjJErMQ
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9SmM03BVt9CnrgvXvySxnojY3wjJErMQ
His injury happened during his high school season, but it was severe enough that he was not cleared to play until the first day of practice in October. He missed all of the spring and summer workouts.
Clayton Jones just finished a season ending surgery.
Just a really dirty play. My first time seeing it. No place for that.
Never??? Really ? Okay, let's close down the Illinois Loyalty basketball forums right now.
Deleted member 8213
D
Guest
I mean there's another option... those of us who don't equate talking basketball with slinging mud at teenagers could go on talking about basketball... and you could... whatever.:noidea:
foby
- Bonnaroo Land
Yes, my first thought also. Just from that one clip, it appeared the guy was trying to take him out.
Tate was not a shooter, and I don't think it's controversial to say so. I can see why a fan might not want to dwell on it though. Was Groce good at listening to his assistants? Beats me. Is Underwood better at it? Don't know yet, but Tate seems to think so.
You're not going to see many good articles about the Groce years --he didn't do a lot of good for the program overall. I also don't think it's controversial to say that Groce was poor at motivating players through PT opportunities. And finally, I don't think it's controversial to say his game coaching didn't work well. Why? We can't be sure, but it's encouraging to see a different style coming on board with Underwood.
- Status