That's not the plan but the point is that when that situation presented itself we didn't get Thorne out of luck.
Also, even if we didn't get Thorne our roster could've competed in the big ten. Hell it is now.
John Groce at Illinois
- Status
That's not the plan but the point is that when that situation presented itself we didn't get Thorne out of luck.
Also, even if we didn't get Thorne our roster could've competed in the big ten. Hell it is now.
Those projections were because of the unknowns of the newcomers. Knowing what we know now about Thorne and the freshman, specifically finke and JCL, along with the jumps hill and nunn have made we (likely) would have outplayed our projections
The question wasn't about the greatness of this team. The question was what has been "great" about anything he has done with Illinois basketball during his time here. Yes, he has picked up some nice players, all at the same position. And, yes, he has done a few good things here and there but I'm not sure he has done anything you could regard as "great". I honestly really like the guy and assuming he can somehow get all the guys back next year that we would like to see playing, we are likely to have one decent season under his direction. I know, he did a great job of bringing that first team along and was probably the perfect guy to handle them emotionally after an awful year prior but is he doing all the things that give you confidence this thing is moving in the right direction so Illinois can get back to where Illinois basketball should be... and, that shouldn't be middle of the pack or below in the Big 10.
That is what I was looking for! Great response!
I can agree with a number of your points and would like nothing more than to see Groce succeed. However, I don't share your optimism about our young players. It is not because I don't think they are good, rather, it is because I still think we are lacking in two important areas. Until Groce can fix that and/or show an ability to identify role players that can fill those positions, I just think we are doomed to be in the middle of the big 10 at best. Fortunately, that can turn around quickly with the addition or development of a big man or two. I personally think we have serviceable PG play now.
I'd agree with you that we'd be better this year and most likely a tournament team but when you look at the sum total of what Groce has accomplished over his 3 and half years it's pretty mediocre. Also it doesn't take away from the fact that next year we would still have roster problems related to two key positions that we've had since day 1 of Groce's tenure.
Obelix has brought this up multiple times but bringing in 5th year transfers is a band-aid solution to roster problems. That fact that we're in year 4 and still relying heavily on 5th year transfers is a huge problem that needs to be rectified immediately.
We would be a bubble team, very similar to every year Groce has been her so far.
Without injuries we are a top 25 team and probably a 4/5 seed, very comparable to many of the Illinois teams of the late 90s/early 2000s. Imagine having a point guard and two big guys? We would realistically be 13-2 or 14-1 in a weaker conference this year. How could we really be lower?
Didn't look like a bubble team first half vs Iowa State. The only time we had KN, LB & MT playing close to full strength together.
That half will forever be "what could have been" for this season, unfortunately.
I don't know about every year, but it struck me as I watched hoops over the weekend that a lot of pretty good programs are relying on mid major and grad transfers these days. MSU and Louisville both had mid major guys in key roles. And Louisville is going back to that well once again.
Epsilon
M tipping over
- Pdx
That's actually a fair point. Unfortunately, this kind of data is kind of hard to come by. Further to your point, if the D gets set, it's no longer a transition stat, further reducing the denominator. So if you hustle back on on D and get set, it kind of follows that more points in transition would be as you describe. Ironically, teams that partially crash might have more transition-related instances. not sure what to think, because I also suspect that there have been enough of these situations through 15 games for the stat to be reliable enough.
:noidea:
icengineer
- Southern Illinois
Ummm, not a Groce transfer.
I just don't think Mike Thorne moves you from the lowest tier of the Big 10 to the top tier of the Big 10 and that is exactly what you are suggesting. Leron Black hasn't had enough of an impact yet to project making much difference and with his propensity to foul, he wouldn't get enough minutes to make that difference anyway.
We wouldn't have been in the lowest tier of everyone else was healthy and we never had Thorne. We would have been middle of the pack. I also think you're de-emphasizing just how significant a loss Thorne was. Dude was averaging close to a double-double for us and was a big help on D around the rim.
Couldn't disagree more here.
Last year was the first year I thought his team underachieved. His previous two teams exceeded expectations and this year is a wash. Recruiting has gone well also and we have a PG coming next year.
Add in a legit PG in Abrams with Thorne/Black and you don't think we're in the top tier of the conference?
Adding a healthy Abrams, Thorne, and Black would make all the difference in the world if we had them this year. The future does look bright, though.
FeelYourPaign
- So Cal
I'll say no, based on my personal definition of "top tier". Top tier is top quartile, or top 4. Add those players and we still are not challenging MSU, Maryland, Iowa and Purdue for this year's top quartile. We move from 3rd quartile to 2nd quartile, imo. That is a legitimate bubble team, maybe better. But not a lot better than bubble. one man's opinion
lstewart53x3
- Scottsdale, Arizona
It's impossible to quantify how much better we'd be with those guys. But I will say:
We're actually a fairly good team this year, we're just terrible at two things:
1.) rebounding
2.) protecting the rim
And all of three of those guys would help with both of those things. With them, we would be a much better team.
Not only would their presence instantly make an impact, but we'd also be a much deeper team. So players like Hill would have fresh legs going down the stretch. Players like Austin would never see the floor.
We'd be a lot better.
Can't disagree that Abrams, Black, and Thorne would add much-needed depth. I'm not sure, though, that any of the three are good enough to get the Illini "over the hump."
It's true that Abrams is an almost mythical figure in C-U, a point guard (!), but he's also a point guard who shot 33% in his last season, and averaged about 3 assists. And now he's been out of basketball for years, and suffered serious injury. This likely did not make him better.
Thorne's size and strength would suggest that he should have been a dominant force in in a mid-major conference, but he wasn't. He was a solid contributor on a 14-18 49ers team. He joined a depleted Illini roster because he knew minutes were going to be scarce at the other Power 5 schools that were interested in him. He was a good pickup, without question, but he wasn't any more likely to push Illinois to the next level than he did Charlotte.
To me, Black's the wild card. He often played out of control last season, but had periods of tremendous productivity. The productive version is Leron is missed this year.
There's no doubt that Illinois would be a deeper, bigger team with all three playing. They would make us better. But there's not much evidence that we've lost any individual talent that would have pushed us near the top of the Big Ten standings.
lstewart53x3
- Scottsdale, Arizona
Right. We know for sure we'd be better with those three, but we don't know exactly how much better we'd be, and there's really no way for us to quantify that.
However: your post only mentions the impact those 3 would have on the offensive side of the court.
We aren't losing because of offense. We're losing because we can't rebound and we can't keep people from scoring in the paint.
Those three would help with that dramatically. As others have mentioned, we got a taste of how good we could've been this year in the first half of the Iowa St. game.
We'd be better but it is hard to evaluate how much better. Personally, I think some posters exaggerate in their expectations.
In an lot of posters minds, Abrams got a lot better by not playing. A totally healthy Abrams did not lead the team to the NCAA tournament, many thought his lack of true PG skills was one of the reasons that team did not make the tournament. Abrams as a totally healthy junior not only did not make any All-B1G teams (1st, 2nd, or 3rd), but was not even honorable mention. Yet, with a major injury (ACL), and now two (add Achilles Tendon), people expect Abrams to become better than he was as a totally healthy upperclassman. Abrams will help, and would have helped, especially with his toughness, but his game does have flaws, even when healthy. Now with major injuries...
Black has potential. But so far in his career has struggled, even more than expected. There is not much evidence, so far, that he will become a consistent player. There is hope but it is not that Black had already made a Bentil kind of improvement and all of sudden got injured. He had a long way to go to reach expectations. Some of it is physical (recovery from injuries) but a lot of it is still mental and keeping himself under composure when in the game.
Very unfortunate that Thorne got injured, we finally had an inside player and post presence. The one concern with Thorne and impact on the team was, however, that he did not look like a player who can give a consistent 30+ minutes. In his games this season, he was only able to average 23-24 mins. These were competitive games as well, it is not that we were totally killing teams and we were resting him. With our lack of depth at the position, that is a concern. I hope he comes back, but there are still question marks IMO how the NCAA will rule. Not a sure thing as others believe, but there is definitely hope.
ILL in IA
- Iowa City
The three of them individually are not amazing, but the sum of the parts would make a big difference for this team.
Tevo
- Wilmette, IL
And Michigan has a DIII transfer as a part-time starter, getting 12ppg.
Beilein on Duncan Robinson: "We wouldn't have offered him a scholarship if we didn't think he could play, on the other hand nobody in their right mind saw this coming."
Duncan Robinson is supposedly the one UM offered their last scholarship to, thus not having one available for JCL and so JCL moved on.
I agree. Many fans' expectations involve Abrams, Thorne, and Black all playing better than they ever have before. There's no reason this couldn't have been true with Black, but Abrams is coming off injuries and inactivity, and Thorne is making a transition into a tougher league. Realistically, I'd expect Abrams to be a step slower than he was during his last season, and I'd expect to see Thorne's productivity slip from his time at Charlotte due to matching up against bigger and stronger inside players than he saw in C-USA.
It's probably true that IF we had all three players healthy, and IF they all had the best year of their career, we'd be a likely tournament team. It's also true, though, that IF I were lying on a Caribbean beach with my head in Halle Berry's lap, and IF she were gently rubbing my temples, I'd be asleep and not posting from my desk in my office. And yet, here I am.
- Status