West Virginia 89, Illinois 57 POSTGAME

#151      

Bear8287

B
Bear8287
For anyone who thinks that it's only Illini fans who think that there is enough talent on this team to be in the tourney, here's another viewpoint from cbssports:


Pretty much sums it all up right there doesn't it? :hand:

Go Illini!
 
#152      

rcataldo

R
rcataldo
While it does appear that sentiment has shifted quite a bit here, I still find it very surprising that people are defending Groce. Is the talent as strong as some of us would like to think it is? Probably not. However FOR YEARS we have never had a team that has been better than the sum of its parts, and you could even argue it's been worse. The team has never been through a slump like this in my time as an Illini fan. We fired Weber (who had to go) for missing the tourney three times in his tenure, but Groce misses 3 (maybe 4 years in a row) and there are still some who thinks he needs a chance?

Groce has shown no ability to get more from his team. We underperform against high ranked teams, we underperform against our Big Ten competition. Even in the ONE year we made the tourney under Groce we finished below .500 in the Big Ten. We started 2-7 and only through a late season push were we able to get to 8-10. A few big wins and we BARELY snuck in the tournament.

Finally, if you want to criticize the talent, then you have to look no farther than Groce. He's had 5 years now. That means he has had a class come in become seniors and yet we have not made a tournament (and looks like we won't this year). We can't allow ONE big recruit to dictate the direction of our program. I suppose you give Groce the year at this point, but if he doesn't make it he has to go. You add up the on court failures and the off court challenges, there is no defense for him anymore.
 
#153      

Deleted member 569417

D
Guest
Deleted member 569417
stlillinifan said:
Weber was a far better coach than Groce...far better
Click to expand...

This myth that Weber was a great X O guy that was simply hindered by poor recruiting is such garbage.

Does a great X and O guy lose to Tennessee State at home? Or lose to UIC in Chicago in a season in which UIC goes 7-24? Does a great X and O guy go 4-6 to Penn State over 5 years?

Groce isn't good. Period. Full Stop.

But this mythbuilding of Bruce Weber being this above average to great X and O's coach is silly. He wasn't. He isn't. He won't be.
 
#154      

JudsonFTS

J
JudsonFTS
JiroDreamsOfMcRibs said:
This myth that Weber was a great X O guy that was simply hindered by poor recruiting is such garbage.

Does a great X and O guy lose to Tennessee State at home? Or lose to UIC in Chicago in a season in which UIC goes 7-24? Does a great X and O guy go 4-6 to Penn State over 5 years?

Groce isn't good. Period. Full Stop.

But this mythbuilding of Bruce Weber being this above average to great X and O's coach is silly. He wasn't. He isn't. He won't be.
Click to expand...

Truth. We used to wonder why we couldn't even have decent inbound plays.
 
#155      

IlliniOllie

I
IlliniOllie
JiroDreamsOfMcRibs said:
This myth that Weber was a great X O guy that was simply hindered by poor recruiting is such garbage.

Does a great X and O guy lose to Tennessee State at home? Or lose to UIC in Chicago in a season in which UIC goes 7-24? Does a great X and O guy go 4-6 to Penn State over 5 years?

Groce isn't good. Period. Full Stop.

But this mythbuilding of Bruce Weber being this above average to great X and O's coach is silly. He wasn't. He isn't. He won't be.
Click to expand...

It's not like they're mutually exclusive. Weber was bad. Groce is bad. We've had two independently bad coaches in a row.
 
#156      

CoalCity

C
St Paul, MN
CoalCity
SummerofGeorge said:
The only point I would disagree with somewhat is the player development point of view. I think most would agree that Malcolm Hill and Maverick Morgan have made huge gains in their development during their time at UI. Can't argue with the other points you have made.
Click to expand...

I see people pointing to the strides Mav and Malcolm have made in their time here. No question they're both much better players now than when they were freshmen.

I have a couple of questions about how much the staff had to do with this vs how much of the improvements are due to these guys naturally getting stronger and improving their skills with hard work in the weight room and off season.

In other words did these guys get better because of specific skills the staff taught them or did they get better primarily because they got older amd more physically mature? If the staff did such a great job with these two, where are the big strides with the rest of the players that have been getting instruction from the staff?
 
#157      

alexander58

A
alexander58
Bear8287 said:
For anyone who thinks that it's only Illini fans who think that there is enough talent on this team to be in the tourney, here's another viewpoint from cbssports:


Pretty much sums it all up right there doesn't it? :hand:

Go Illini!
Click to expand...
ISU coach Muller has had a high roster turnover rate since he took the job. It seems he has been steadfast in sticking to a plan and players that fit the mold of what he wants to do. It hasn't really gone smoothly. The Illinois program under Groce has spun it's wheels for a variety of reasons ( one of those reasons a rash of injuries). He has stuck with he learned at his previous stops, but it hasn't resulted in wins. I see a consistent lack of toughness in his teams. That was the one thing that has impressed me by Self's teams ( including at Illinois). They don't get out toughed. Illinois still has the ability to have a good 2017 season. Groce needs to put the right combination of players on the floor to make that happen.
 
#160      

Calvin

C
Calvin
Obelix said:
Just because Groce has done a very poor job coaching, does not mean that this team is very talented.
Click to expand...

I find this position very odd. In college basketball, talent level is subjective, same as coaching. You can reference other people's opinions, say for example rankings, to say someone agrees with your opinion, but it's still just that.

What a good coach does has nothing to do with these subjective things. They win games. Sometimes they do it without much "talent". Sometimes they do it with lots of "talent". But what they do is win games. Cupcakes don't really count to the committee, and neither should they mean much to fans. Win games that matter and build a tournament resume.

Great coaches also tend to have a formula, where as a fan, you can really enjoy watching the team because you've learned all the benchmarks of their progress, in addition to what you can witness on the court.

In the end, it's kind of a chicken and egg argument. Did the coach help make a player great, or was that player great all along due to their talent? Was that player truly a top-50 kid, or was he a 150 kid that played like a top-50? It's a fruitless argument except as an excuse for not doing what good coaches do. I won't speak for Second/Chalmers, but I think our reaction is basically the same. What's the point? It's either bad coaching, bad development, bad evaluation, bad recruiting, or make up your own list.

What we do know overwhelms the talent/coaching argument. Label it any way you want. For me personally, the eye test says, and has for 3 seasons, that he doesn't know how to get his guys prepared. That means we'll lose a lot of games even if the talent is upgraded. And honestly, I'd rather watch a bunch of guys play their hearts out, play smart, and lose a close game, then watch the garbage I've seen this year.

Anyway, I don't think we need to argue the point because once you lose a team, it's really hard to get them back, and that will dictate a change regardless of silly arguments like this one.

The only way I see this team turning it around, is if someone like Tracy takes over and coaches them on the floor despite our current staff. LOVE to see it, but it's a longshot.
 
#161      

Second and Chalmers

S
Second and Chalmers
Obelix said:
Just because Groce has done a very poor job coaching, does not mean that this team is very talented. If it was, it would not have been ranked that low, especially by computer programs that do not have the "Groce is just a terrible coach" parameter.

Again, look at the 2010-11 team. That team was ranked #13/#16 in pre-season. It is not that Weber by the time was considered a genius (his shine was long gone), but it was a much more talented team.
Click to expand...

I really strongly disagree that preseason projections are so closely tied to "how talented is the roster?". There are a whole host of other factors that make up a significant part of that analysis.

I also feel you're conflating "how good are the players" with "how talented are the players" which are not the same thing.

I'd agree that the 10-11 team was more talented than this one, for whatever that's worth. That was probably our high water mark for talent post-05 and should have been competing for a conference title and a deep tournament run.

But we've had tournament level talent every year since then except for 08, and then last year obviously after being decimated by injury.
 
#162      

Ulysses Everett McGill

Ulysses Everett McGill
Ulysses Everett McGill
Obelix said:
The team was unprepared and clueless today. That is on the coaching staff, there is no excuse for losing to Winthrop and getting trounced the way we did today.

But the talent on this team has been greatly exaggerated.

Abrams brings leadership, but he is not a PG. His ball handling skills are not that great when guarded closely and it was obvious today that he waited too long to make decisions with the ball, making the WVU trap even more effective. Not fluid in press situations, not just today.

Tate has actually better pure ball handling skills, but lacks the decision making ability and rest of skillset on offense. He was actually better escaping the first trap on the WVU press, but worse on the subsequent pass and decisions.

JCL has a beautiful stroke, but so far in his career has been one dimensional. He needs some space, he has difficulty creating "with the ball."

Hill has carried the team but lacks quickness. He has developed his step back move, but is difficult to pull it through when opponents focus on just stopping him. Even against Winthrop, he was called again for the arm push trying to create space. Yet, we'll go as far as he gets us.

Mav has improved, even under Groce. But he is not the "scoring big man at C" that people repeatedly made him out to be in the off-season. He also has a problem defending the post and preventing second-chance opportunities in the paint.

Thorne is better in the post IMO, he needs to start. Force the defense to pull back. But because we beat KU and Kentucky for his services, primarily due to offering much more PT, it does not mean that he is a 5-star player. He was not that player at Charlotte.

Black continues to pick up silly fouls and gets off rhythm. Just because he played well against some low level local town teams in Belgium-France two summers ago, it does not mean he has proven his potential so far as a Div. I player.

DJW has shown flashes of potential. But I have watched him extensively since freshman year at Simeon. Even in HS, his biggest problem had been consistency, and it was under a different coach, not Groce. He struggled then, he struggles now.

Personally, based on what I have seen from the team so far and in previous years, I think Finke may be our most talented player. Good catch and shoot, has range, can make the entry pass. But he is a stretch 4, it is difficult for him to take over games.

It does not mean that this team in untalented, or does not have the talent to beat Winthrop, or that it has to get embarrassed like that today and look so clueless against WVU. But for those that say that this team "is very talented" or "very deep" where do you see it? Specifics, not generalities.
Click to expand...

I agree with the notion that the talent on this team is not as advertised based on whatever rankings the players came in with, and also agree pretty much with your comments on individual players skillsets above. I'd note that, save for a brief mention for Mav, there was no commentary regarding the defensive games of each player. Not going into detail for each, but in general, none of our perimeter players are above average at staying in front of their man, and none of our bigs are anywhere close to above average in any defensive category, including rebounding on that side of the ball. Don't even think about rim protection. I think athleticism is a problem. Look at our base starting lineup so far this year; which of those guys is above average solely as a BB athlete (speed, hops, and, especially, quickness) for the position they play? I think we'll-roundedness is a problem. I'll give you Malcolm, but who else on the team is a well-rounded player, at least a bit above average in all phases? When you add a sober analysis of the talent level to a coaching staff that can't seem to mesh any of it into anything that appears reasonably collectively cohesive, you get Winthrop. We are really bad at holding second half leads, because when other teams wake up and start making some shots and stop beating themselves, we tighten up and have no defensive ability to stem the tide.

Very freakin' discouraged at this point with Illini hoops.
 
#163      

bigruss22

B
bigruss22
Second and Chalmers said:
I really strongly disagree that preseason projections are so closely tied to "how talented is the roster?". There are a whole host of other factors that make up a significant part of that analysis.

I also feel you're conflating "how good are the players" with "how talented are the players" which are not the same thing.

I'd agree that the 10-11 team was more talented than this one, for whatever that's worth. That was probably our high water mark for talent post-05 and should have been competing for a conference title and a deep tournament run.

But we've had tournament level talent every year since then except for 08, and then last year obviously after being decimated by injury.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that 2013-2014 season didn't have tournament talent but otherwise I agree.
 
#165      

Second and Chalmers

S
Second and Chalmers
Ransom Stoddard said:
I'm interested in hearing the distinction.....
:popcorn:
Click to expand...

Chester Frazier: Not a ton of talent, became a very good player.

Jereme Richmond: Loads of talent, not a good player.

The distinction is how you can exploit your talents and compensate for your weaknesses in real game situations.

Talent stays relatively constant, how good you are can change.
 
#166      

Ransom Stoddard

Ransom Stoddard
Ordained Dudeist Priest
Bloomington, IL
Ransom Stoddard
Second and Chalmers said:
Chester Frazier: Not a ton of talent, became a very good player.

Jereme Richmond: Loads of talent, not a good player.

The distinction is how you can exploit your talents and compensate for your weaknesses in real game situations.

Talent stays relatively constant, how good you are can change.
Click to expand...

I view BB IQ (which contributes to the ability to exploit your talents, IMO) as a talent. Not everyone agrees, so I see your point.
 
#168      

Joel Goodson

Joel Goodson
respect my decision™
Joel Goodson
JiroDreamsOfMcRibs said:
This myth that Weber was a great X O guy that was simply hindered by poor recruiting is such garbage.

Does a great X and O guy lose to Tennessee State at home? Or lose to UIC in Chicago in a season in which UIC goes 7-24? Does a great X and O guy go 4-6 to Penn State over 5 years?

Groce isn't good. Period. Full Stop.

But this mythbuilding of Bruce Weber being this above average to great X and O's coach is silly. He wasn't. He isn't. He won't be.
Click to expand...

+infinity on all points
 
#169      

TruIllini89

TruIllini89
Prime Сasual Dating - Genuine Ladies
Usa
TruIllini89
Calvin said:
I find this position very odd. In college basketball, talent level is subjective, same as coaching. You can reference other people's opinions, say for example rankings, to say someone agrees with your opinion, but it's still just that.

What a good coach does has nothing to do with these subjective things. They win games. Sometimes they do it without much "talent". Sometimes they do it with lots of "talent". But what they do is win games. Cupcakes don't really count to the committee, and neither should they mean much to fans. Win games that matter and build a tournament resume.

Great coaches also tend to have a formula, where as a fan, you can really enjoy watching the team because you've learned all the benchmarks of their progress, in addition to what you can witness on the court.

In the end, it's kind of a chicken and egg argument. Did the coach help make a player great, or was that player great all along due to their talent? Was that player truly a top-50 kid, or was he a 150 kid that played like a top-50? It's a fruitless argument except as an excuse for not doing what good coaches do. I won't speak for Second/Chalmers, but I think our reaction is basically the same. What's the point? It's either bad coaching, bad development, bad evaluation, bad recruiting, or make up your own list.

What we do know overwhelms the talent/coaching argument. Label it any way you want. For me personally, the eye test says, and has for 3 seasons, that he doesn't know how to get his guys prepared. That means we'll lose a lot of games even if the talent is upgraded. And honestly, I'd rather watch a bunch of guys play their hearts out, play smart, and lose a close game, then watch the garbage I've seen this year.

Anyway, I don't think we need to argue the point because once you lose a team, it's really hard to get them back, and that will dictate a change regardless of silly arguments like this one.

The only way I see this team turning it around, is if someone like Tracy takes over and coaches them on the floor despite our current staff. LOVE to see it, but it's a longshot.
Click to expand...

Great Post!
 
#170      

Second and Chalmers

S
Second and Chalmers
Ransom Stoddard said:
I view BB IQ (which contributes to the ability to exploit your talents, IMO) as a talent. Not everyone agrees, so I see your point.
Click to expand...


I do too, but it's not like Chet had preternatural court vision or anything. He had good defensive instincts (which is definitely a natural talent as well), he was a pretty good ballhandler, and he built those strengths and sanded down his weaknesses into a pugnacious floor general who could impose his will on Big Ten games where he was the least physically gifted guy out there.


Illini1221 said:
Jereme Richmond would've have been a good player. He showed flashes, but was just an idiot off the court
Click to expand...

Eh, he was a bit of an idiot on the court too. Small sample size and as a true freshman, he might have figured it out eventually, but he was less that the sum of his gifts when he was here.

Brian Randle was a good player, but he had the talent to be a great one, that would be another example.

So player development is one level, team cohesion is another, and deploying those things in actual games and executing game plans is a third.

Throw recruiting in there too, it's all "coaching". Other than perhaps injuries, there's nothing that happens in a college basketball program that doesn't ultimately fall under "coaching".