"Scrappy"? "Gritty"? Psssh....

Here's how I see the teams that I was fully aware to see, ranked in order (this year's team excluded, although I'd probably put them at #2):

1. '86-'87
2. '92-'93 (with Street)
3. '87-'88
4. '96-'97
5. '05-'06
6. '98-'99
7. '91-'92
8. '95-'96
9. '00-'01
10. '04-'05

I know I rate the Alford years lower than most, but '96-'97 is the great lost year in most people's minds, and that team was stacked (Woolridge, Millard, Bowen, Settles, Koch, Kingsbury, Glasper, Murray). Gotta put those guys over 05-06.

The Recker/Evans years are just criminally overrated by Hawk fans. Yes, they were exciting. Yes, they were capable of playing at a high level. But they were just wildly inconsistent and poorly coached. The two teams from that era that people rave about ('01 and '02) finished 6th (7-9) and 8th (5-11) in the Big Ten respectively. No way the Recker/Evans teams are even in shouting distance of the top five or so Tom Davis teams.
 
wundergrape said:
The Recker/Evans years are just criminally overrated by Hawk fans. Yes, they were exciting. Yes, they were capable of playing at a high level. But they were just wildly inconsistent and poorly coached. The two teams from that era that people rave about ('01 and '02) finished 6th (7-9) and 8th (5-11) in the Big Ten respectively. No way the Recker/Evans teams are even in shouting distance of the top five or so Tom Davis teams.
Click to expand...

^ this
 
Lester was in a class by himself, of course, but Marble/Gesell come close to matching "effectiveness". And with Oglesby, our guard combo is nearly as good as any since then.

But Ronnie would be killer on this team!
 
wundergrape said:
Here's how I see the teams that I was fully aware to see, ranked in order (this year's team excluded, although I'd probably put them at #2):

1. '86-'87
2. '92-'93 (with Street)
3. '87-'88
4. '96-'97
5. '05-'06
6. '98-'99
7. '91-'92
8. '95-'96
9. '00-'01
10. '04-'05

I know I rate the Alford years lower than most, but '96-'97 is the great lost year in most people's minds, and that team was stacked (Woolridge, Millard, Bowen, Settles, Koch, Kingsbury, Glasper, Murray). Gotta put those guys over 05-06.

The Recker/Evans years are just criminally overrated by Hawk fans. Yes, they were exciting. Yes, they were capable of playing at a high level. But they were just wildly inconsistent and poorly coached. The two teams from that era that people rave about ('01 and '02) finished 6th (7-9) and 8th (5-11) in the Big Ten respectively. No way the Recker/Evans teams are even in shouting distance of the top five or so Tom Davis teams.
Click to expand...

Kingsbury, Millard, Glasper and Murray were not on that '96-'97 team.
 
Oh man, you're right. I always think of the team that beat UCONN as the most talented late-Davis team, but that next group had even more success.
 
Ronnie was the best ever to suit up for Iowa. I was fortunate to watch him healthy (JR year) and not-healthy (SR year). Put Ronnie on this team and we don't lose again.

Back to OP's remarks....the irony is, IMO, the 79-80 final-four team, sans Lester, was not that talented. Tough, gritty, sum > parts summed it up.

86-87 is best team I've seen, individual talent wise...with 70 being a close 2nd.

This year is near, but not quite, at the pure talent level as the 86-87 squad. But this year's team has so much up side it's difficult not to get excited.
 
Magic once said Lester was the best player he ever went against in college. I think that pretty much ends all comparisons. Our guys now are damn good, but Lester is (at worst) one of the three best players to ever play for Iowa. I'd put Roy Sr. and Fred Brown in that same tier, based on all that I've been told about those guys.
 
Putmeincoach said:
Ronnie Lester was a tremendous point guard, couldn't be guarded. Magic Johnson made comments to the same. BJ and Woolridge were good, but no comparison to Ronnie.
Click to expand...

Wish I would have seen him play, was too young at that time. Stokes/Payne/etc were my growing up guys.
 
Seth53 said:
Ronnie was the best ever to suit up for Iowa. I was fortunate to watch him healthy (JR year) and not-healthy (SR year). Put Ronnie on this team and we don't lose again.

Back to OP's remarks....the irony is, IMO, the 79-80 final-four team, sans Lester, was not that talented. Tough, gritty, sum > parts summed it up.

86-87 is best team I've seen, individual talent wise...with 70 being a close 2nd.

This year is near, but not quite, at the pure talent level as the 86-87 squad. But this year's team has so much up side it's difficult not to get excited.
Click to expand...

You know, there's nothing I despise more than the adjectives described in the first post; classic INTANGIBLES! My definition for this woe of a sports term is: Something that announcers describe as "something that doesn't show up on the stat sheet" when a crappy player is on the floor. Those little things are nice but you wanna know what's REALLY nice? Things that *do* show up on the stat sheet! Whenever you hear an announcer utter this cliche during a game, you will see somebody on your TV who sucks.

ALL that said, that comment you made about 1970 reminds me a lot of that '96 team that Woolridge headed up. Lose that '95 nucleus, replace it with JR Koch and Ryan Bowen and what do you get? A better finish than the year with all the raw talent. We even had a freshman that year who I eventually described as combining the size and laziness of Earl and Worley, with a limited time offer of Sonderleiter clumsiness. Yes, obviously I'm talking about Guy Rucker. It wasn't like Mr. Davis to have such promise fade into oblivion like that, but I'm seeing a ton of his player development skills in our current program. Either way, that '96 team should be studied and copied as long as the University has tapes.

Finally, one question: What are the odds our upside helps close the small gap in talent between now and '87? Sophomore is THE year where guys develop most of their skills that you'll see in their final two seasons. How much better will Uthoff, Gesell, Woodbury, Oglesby, Olaseni and Jok get? I realize those last 3 weren't sophomores but they're all projects in their own unique way. Personally, I want to see Gesell and Uthoff soar. Even if it means stagnancy elsewhere. If they do, how close are we to that last excellent team?
 
wundergrape said:
Here's how I see the teams that I was fully aware to see, ranked in order (this year's team excluded, although I'd probably put them at #2):

1. '86-'87
2. '92-'93 (with Street)
3. '87-'88
4. '96-'97
5. '05-'06
6. '98-'99
7. '91-'92
8. '95-'96
9. '00-'01
10. '04-'05

I know I rate the Alford years lower than most, but '96-'97 is the great lost year in most people's minds, and that team was stacked (Woolridge, Millard, Bowen, Settles, Koch, Kingsbury, Glasper, Murray). Gotta put those guys over 05-06.

The Recker/Evans years are just criminally overrated by Hawk fans. Yes, they were exciting. Yes, they were capable of playing at a high level. But they were just wildly inconsistent and poorly coached. The two teams from that era that people rave about ('01 and '02) finished 6th (7-9) and 8th (5-11) in the Big Ten respectively. No way the Recker/Evans teams are even in shouting distance of the top five or so Tom Davis teams.
Click to expand...

You've gotta put the 1990-91 team on that list, IMO. They beat UCLA by 17 that year, and won @ #4 Indiana late that season. 7 seed in the tourney. I'd say maybe #8 on your list.

I'd probably put the 95-96 team at #7, and drop the 91-92 team to #9.. 91-92 was a bit of a disappointment after 1990-91, from what I recall.

04-05 gets bumped off the list with the addition of the 90-91 squad.
 
libradawg said:
You know, there's nothing I despise more than the adjectives described in the first post; classic INTANGIBLES! My definition for this woe of a sports term is: Something that announcers describe as "something that doesn't show up on the stat sheet" when a crappy player is on the floor. Those little things are nice but you wanna know what's REALLY nice? Things that *do* show up on the stat sheet! Whenever you hear an announcer utter this cliche during a game, you will see somebody on your TV who sucks.

ALL that said, that comment you made about 1970 reminds me a lot of that '96 team that Woolridge headed up. Lose that '95 nucleus, replace it with JR Koch and Ryan Bowen and what do you get? A better finish than the year with all the raw talent. We even had a freshman that year who I eventually described as combining the size and laziness of Earl and Worley, with a limited time offer of Sonderleiter clumsiness. Yes, obviously I'm talking about Guy Rucker. It wasn't like Mr. Davis to have such promise fade into oblivion like that, but I'm seeing a ton of his player development skills in our current program. Either way, that '96 team should be studied and copied as long as the University has tapes.

Finally, one question: What are the odds our upside helps close the small gap in talent between now and '87? Sophomore is THE year where guys develop most of their skills that you'll see in their final two seasons. How much better will Uthoff, Gesell, Woodbury, Oglesby, Olaseni and Jok get? I realize those last 3 weren't sophomores but they're all projects in their own unique way. Personally, I want to see Gesell and Uthoff soar. Even if it means stagnancy elsewhere. If they do, how close are we to that last excellent team?
Click to expand...

Andre Woolridge was the guy who made that 96-97 team go. Of course it didn't hurt that Kent McCausland led the country in 3 point shooting percentage, and Ryan Bowen turned into a pretty nice player by that year. But 'Dre Woolridge was phenomenal as a senior and made everyone around him all the better.

The next year, replace Woolridge with a Dean Oliver (freshman), and what do you get? NIT. And that's adding Ricky Davis to the mix, who led the team in scoring. That's not a knock on Oliver or Davis, those guys had talent. But they were freshmen. Being led by a freshman PG in the Big Ten is no easy chore.

Was it any coincidence that players like McCausland and Rucker dropped off in 97-98 from where they were the previous year, without Woolridge getting them the ball when they were open? I think not.

I can only imagine that 96-97 team if Jess Settles had stayed healthy that year.
 
Last edited:
1977Hawkeye said:
You've gotta put the 1990-91 team on that list, IMO. They beat UCLA by 17 that year, and won @ #4 Indiana late that season. 7 seed in the tourney. I'd say maybe #8 on your list.

I'd probably put the 95-96 team at #7, and drop the 91-92 team to #9.. 91-92 was a bit of a disappointment after 1990-91, from what I recall.

04-05 gets bumped off the list with the addition of the 90-91 squad.
Click to expand...

Good points all. Seth53, your observation of 79-80 being the opposite of how I defined them is also very well taken. They were "scrappy". '56, '68, '70 and '87 were the "talented" teams.
 
I'd say this year's team is neither "scrappy" nor "talented" -- the '87 and '96 teams had more talent (at least the seven-man rotation in '96 -- two mcdonald's and two parade all-americans, and a top 100 guy in millard).

this team is efficient -- really, really well-coached. a bunch of 3-star recruits who are just killing people with the combination of tempo and execution.

if fran starts bringing in serious hs talent, and gets them to buy in to his ethos, we could see something the likes of which haven't been seen in IC since miller's six pack.

(except fran would run a full 12)
 
PalmettoHawkFan said:
I'd say this year's team is neither "scrappy" nor "talented" -- the '87 and '96 teams had more talent (at least the seven-man rotation in '96 -- two mcdonald's and two parade all-americans, and a top 100 guy in millard).

this team is efficient -- really, really well-coached. a bunch of 3-star recruits who are just killing people with the combination of tempo and execution.

if fran starts bringing in serious hs talent, and gets them to buy in to his ethos, we could see something the likes of which haven't been seen in IC since miller's six pack.

(except fran would run a full 12)
Click to expand...

I don't want to belabor this point, because this discussion is repeated daily ad-nauseam in every corner of the internet, but we're not talking about how talented they were perceived as being when they were seniors in high school.

Devyn Marble? Aaron White? Mike Gesell? Melsahn Basabe? Gabe Olaseni? Jarrod Uthoff? Josh Oglesby if he can keep it up? Peter Jok?

Talented dudes.
 
uihawk82 said:
hawkeyebob62 said:
No doubt. This team is as good as any I have witnessed, including 1980 and 1987. Not saying they will get to Elite 8 or Final 4, but right now we have the depth of 1987 and Marble/Gesell/Oglesby/Clemmons as "composite" equals Ronnie Lester of (pre-injury) 1980.

QUOTE]

OK, I will bite. A healthy Ronnie Lester on this team and last year's team (since you mentioned players on last years team) and they would have been in the NCAAs last year. They would not have probably lost a game this year and been ranked top 5. Lester would be slicing up these defenses. Nova put some extra pressure on the hawks in the 2nd half this year which resulted in turnovers but Lester would have beaten that pressure to set up layups.

Hawkbob62, I think you watched Lester play, and even though I like gesell and marble, I dont think they could consistently weave their way through a whole team, consistently, whenever they want to.

Both Marble and Gesell can beat one guy and get to the rim when they see and opening but Lester could just plain eat people up.
Click to expand...

Before his injury Ronnie was the absolute MASTER of getting into the area just below the free throw line but above the bottom of the circle and shooting a teardrop over anyone. After his injury, he was still very good, but not nearly as explosive.
Click to expand...
 
1977Hawkeye said:
Andre Woolridge was the guy who made that 96-97 team go. Of course it didn't hurt that Kent McCausland led the country in 3 point shooting percentage, and Ryan Bowen turned into a pretty nice player by that year. But 'Dre Woolridge was phenomenal as a senior and made everyone around him all the better.

The next year, replace Woolridge with a Dean Oliver (freshman), and what do you get? NIT. And that's adding Ricky Davis to the mix, who led the team in scoring. That's not a knock on Oliver or Davis, those guys had talent. But they were freshmen. Being led by a freshman PG in the Big Ten is no easy chore.

Was it any coincidence that players like McCausland and Rucker dropped off in 97-98 from where they were the previous year, without Woolridge getting them the ball when they were open? I think not.

I can only imagine that 96-97 team if Jess Settles had stayed healthy that year.
Click to expand...

Something hit me like a sledgehammer when you brought up replacing ABT Woolridge with a green Oliver. It was, well, still Dean Oliver, only when he was a senior. People wondered how on Earth we swept through into the NCAAs with that BTT run without Luke Recker. Alford even continuously lied to the media about it hoping for Tourney votes. POINT IS: How is Dean-O so forgettable? He played second fiddle to Ricky Davis that year they played together and he just wasn't good enough to get the confidence of fans and his OWN COACH! Luckily, Alford wasn't UTTERLY pathetic, he was totally on this *replacing Dean Oliver* situation. He went out, recruited a JUCO PG because we couldn't waste the final year of Recker-Evans. He got a ball handler, a distributor who didn't make many mistakes.

Just kidding, he gave the job to freshman Pierre Pierce and we had the most disappointing season I think in my lifetime. Even crossing sports into Drew Tate's Jr and Sr years. 2 and a half more years of Gesell and Clemmons so this post is strictly reminiscing about stupid things passed. All I know is when we make our stretch run, it'll be with a Mike Gesell that is a night-day variation on the recruit that he came in as. Those ISU free throws probably still haunt him, his drive to improve is obvious and his defensive intensity is off that charts. I don't care how these Michigan games turn out, Mike Gesell's eventual emergence will decide whether or not we take a top 10 Final Four contender into the NCAA Tournament.
 
wundergrape said:
I don't want to belabor this point, because this discussion is repeated daily ad-nauseam in every corner of the internet, but we're not talking about how talented they were perceived as being when they were seniors in high school.

Devyn Marble? Aaron White? Mike Gesell? Melsahn Basabe? Gabe Olaseni? Jarrod Uthoff? Josh Oglesby if he can keep it up? Peter Jok?

Talented dudes.
Click to expand...


get back to me when the above group logs as many NBA minutes as lohaus, armstrong, horton, gamble, jones, and marble.

just don't see that happening.
 
PalmettoHawkFan said:
get back to me when the above group logs as many NBA minutes as lohaus, armstrong, horton, gamble, jones, and marble.

just don't see that happening.
Click to expand...

Well, of course. That was one of the most talented teams in the last thirty years of the Big Ten.

I'll get back to you when they log more NBA minutes than the '96 team that you proclaimed "had more talent" than this team. No problem. I'll just go ahead and call it right now.
 
well played, sir

I'd still take woolridge-kingsbury-settles in a game of 3-on-3 vs marble-gesell-white

(only if kingsbury is buzzed -- sober, dev smokes him)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top