1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
Fair enough, but I'd like to see them work on not getting down by 25.
That's a deep deficit for ANY team to come back from. I agree that a great shooting team can pretty quickly erase a deficit, though.
3 things for next year
- Thread starter Iceman
- Start date
Fair enough, but I'd like to see them work on not getting down by 25.
That's a deep deficit for ANY team to come back from. I agree that a great shooting team can pretty quickly erase a deficit, though.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
I didn't say that.
In fact, if you reread my post, I flat out said (copy/paste): "I'm not saying it can't or won't happen, though."
But it sounds like we agree: If the team doesn't improve next year, a Sweet 16 is not likely.
I didn't say you did. The guy I was originally talking to did. You said you agreed with him that it doesn't work that way, so I had to explain the context of why I said it, which you now agree with. I think we're all caught up now.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
It’s makes you wonder, will people ever stop complaining about the lack of PG? Probably not. I’m sure if we landed Carton people would say he’s overrated. I agree our guard play has lacked under Fran, but I’m hopeful it’s on the upswing.
As far as all the guys coming in next year, I’m hopeful, but Fran is going to need to manage the rotation and minutes. We can’t go back to the 11-12 man rotation and expect to be successful. Part of me wants some attrition, but it has to be the right attrition. If we lose Cook and Moss, my outlook for the season will change significantly. Dailey and Pemsl I think we could afford to lose, and I’d wish them well wherever they went. With Joe T coming in, Connor I wish would focus on baseball but that’s not happening. The roster kind of sorted itself out for Fran this year, but he’s going to have a lot tougher decisions with it next year.
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
Honestly, most years it works itself out through attrition, red-shirts and injuries. It definitely didn't 2 years ago. I am hopeful Fran and the staff learned a lot that season about what worked and what didn't. It appears they have. I would imagine there will be some attrition this season. Possibly Cook for reasons stated. I don't know why Isiah would leave, he's the starting 2 for a B1G team on the rise and plays a big role. Dailey would definitely make sense not only because of lack of minutes, but meaningful ones. If Pemsl stays (and he appears to be a big team guy), maybe we RS Patrick & Joe T? I dunno, good depth actually played a significant role for this team this season and they should have it again next year.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
I don’t think you want to redshirt a guard like Joe T. Either he has it or he doesn’t.
Most people think Pat should redshirt. Fran kind of avoided the question but also said he needs to put on weight, so it’s something on the radar. If I were to bet I’d say he does not redshirt.
The Cook situation will be interesting. If he leaves that’s 30 minutes a game to replace along with Baer’s 20 some. If he somehow decided to return, there really aren’t a lot of minutes to go around for newcomers.
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
the nice thing is - I am (pretty much) ok with the Cook situation and I couldn't have said that last season. If Cook goes, we'll be fine. Not better by any means, but fine. It's a huge void, don't get me wrong, but if he's gone - Iowa is strong in 4 and 5 spots. If Dailey leaves, fine. Those are 2 spots that if they decide to leave, it's not great, but not the end of the line for Iowa's ceiling. IMO, the ceiling is higher if they both stay obviously.
If Moss leaves? Eh, I wouldn't like that. At all. If Connor wants to do baseball more and not hoops? Ughh. Not good IMO. That leaves Iowa with just Jordan and a true Frosh? Scary. IMO
It's all gonna be how it shakes out.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
I’m pretty much with you there.
Nunge is intriguing, so if Cook leaves he might bring a little more defensive presence, rebounding, along with another shooter. Not that he’s a better player than Cook, just that he might provide some things we kind of lack (defense & rebounding).
As much as Moss has been an enigma at times, we need to keep him. I really want to see another year of JBo, Moss, and Wieskamp sniping from the outside. A penatrating guard like Toussaint could open them up for even more looks.
I guess I can get your point about keeping Cmac for at the very least PG depth, in case of injury. My fear is that Fran would likely play him, and there is really no reason to play 3 PGs. Fran has mentioned Frederick as a potential spell PG who would probably be our third guy without Connor, but he also said C Williams and Dailey could handle the position and we know how that all went.
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
I think having Connor this season just took so much of the pressure off Jordan. I wouldn't wish to put him right back in that spot next season. We need ball handlers with our bigs. Guys that are confident with the ball and can get them into the post. Connor is very important IMO. He's a stud. His stats didn't show it, but I think his play will continue to ascend. His attitude and his leadership will be huge moving forward. I love having a kid that can take a 90+ fast ball on his off days. I want competitors, he's one and an important one moving forward. That's JUST my opinion. If Joe T ends up being the real deal he'll STILL be just a freshman and you don't want to lean that hard his way, but then you have the luxury of playing Jordan even more at the 2.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
My thought (hope) is that Joe T should be able to take the pressure of JBo as Cmac did at times this year, but also provide much more. I don’t think that’s too lofty of an expectation for a borderline 4* PG. Heck if he’s slightly better than Anthony Clemmons was as a freshman he’d be a major upgrade for our team.
Give me 20 minutes of good perimeter defense, initiating the offense, some drive and kick, and limited turnovers and I think Joe T will be a huge addition.
Here’s the issue. You’d have a hard time giving Joe T 20 minutes and Connor minutes without cutting into someone else’s minutes in the backcourt.
I do think Connor helped us this year, but his stats indicated he’s closer to a dud than he is to a stud. I don’t think you can simply just throw statistics out. I understand that they aren’t the full story but they are certainly a part of it. At the end of the day he will be getting minutes next year I’m sure, so I do hope he continues to improve.
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
If you only go off stats, he was absolute dud. No argument for me. You can't throw them out, nor do I in my assessment. He's never going to be a big time scorer, but they don't need him to be. He can be a long and plus defender, a ball handler, a plus post distributor and a vocal leader. I watched the games and he had plenty of "freshman" moments but he brought a toughness to this program that has been lacking and his attitude and play reflected it. He's a stud and a competitor, sometimes that's something that doesn't get measured.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
We both have our opinions, and discussed them a bunch on this one. I don’t see any reason why we wouldn’t be hoping that Joe T is simply much better than Connor and can provide everything he provides and more. That being the case it wouldn’t make sense for Cmac to get many minutes, but I’m sure with Fran as the coach he will get minutes.
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
I do want Joe T to be great. If he is, he's your starter and Connor is the back up and Jordan and Moss are your 2's. I just don't THINK that's gonna happen with a freshman PG. We instead have the luxury of bringing him into the fold at a pace that can be advantageous to all parties.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
Again... why? Why would Jordan not continue to spend minutes at the PG where he has the last three years? In that scenario you’d now be taking away minutes from Moss to get Cmac on the floor? Is there rule that Connor needs to play?
Or put another way. If JBo, Moss, and Joe T are all better players than Cmac, and two of them can play the 1 spot, why would Cmac deserve minutes?
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
No, there's no rule, but I expect him to get better. That would be my assumption for him if his name was Connor McCfro. That was your assumption for Dailey last year. Mine too. It didn't go that way. But I expect Connor to mature and take on a larger role as he develops in the program. You're the one trying to completely replace a guy, which is I think is unlikely knowing Fran's program. Very unlikely.
Don't we do this every year? You replace guys who aren't even here yet with guys already in the program? I expect him to mature and I expect that he'll be the best option for the team at back up PG at least early on and Iowa has a very difficult Non Con. He's a key to Iowa's success moving forward IMO - he's not to you and that's ok you think that, I think you're wrong.
STILLBUSTER
Well-Known Member
1) If TC returns, STOP having him set picks at top of key. He's zero threat 20' away from the basket - zero jump shot and a liability if he tries to dribble that distance. TC doesn't leave the blocks and refocuses his game on rebounding (positioning and trajectory anticipation are 100% coachable skills; effort is on him.) and dunking. He is NEVER going to develop any reliable jump-shot, so, unless his role changes to strictly this, I hope he leaves.
1a) If you insist on high screens, Nunge / Garza / Kriener / Pemsl are who should be doing it. If they role out, they do offer a jump-shooting threat. If they actually use it appropriately - role the screener toward the basket - these guys can handle it and finish better than Cook. Not to mention, if Cook is where he should be (on the block) they are more capable passers to him.
2) 99% zone defense.
3) Unless they are just crapping the bed, leave starters in for first 8 minutes. STOP the f-ing scripted, platoon rotations at the 4-minute TV timeout. It usually looks like a cluster-F the first few possessions as they get acclimated - especially on offense. This is no time to be squandering the game flow.
1a) If you insist on high screens, Nunge / Garza / Kriener / Pemsl are who should be doing it. If they role out, they do offer a jump-shooting threat. If they actually use it appropriately - role the screener toward the basket - these guys can handle it and finish better than Cook. Not to mention, if Cook is where he should be (on the block) they are more capable passers to him.
2) 99% zone defense.
3) Unless they are just crapping the bed, leave starters in for first 8 minutes. STOP the f-ing scripted, platoon rotations at the 4-minute TV timeout. It usually looks like a cluster-F the first few possessions as they get acclimated - especially on offense. This is no time to be squandering the game flow.
StanziUSA
Well-Known Member
Keep it simple. How about a half court offense that sends guys through the paint and put the team in position for more offensive rebounds. That killed us as much as poor defense
One question. Did you watch the Wofford v Kentucky game and if so, were you awake to catch glimpses of what a real pg can do for a team? Ie: the Wofford pg
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
I like all of these especially 3. 2. IMO I would move that percentage a little but you're right, Zone is Iowa's best option. Iowa did have some success this season changing up D's on teams and causing some confusion and were able to slow down some teams by doing it.
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
I watched, he's quick but got eaten alive on defense. He was also a 5'10" 2 star with no other offers, if Iowa brought in that kid on paper Fran would take more heat. Instead he's bringing in a 4 star and that has some of us at least hopeful.
