Darius Garland eliminates Duke from his finalists.... down to 4 schools.... IU, Vanderbilt, UCLA, and Kentucky.
Garland
- Thread starter IUCharlie5
- Start date
I heard it is pretty much down to IU and Vanderbilt. UK has already got a top point guard committed so I wouldn't think they would be a big option.
This is great news. We need this guy more than Romeo. Hoosier Hysteria will seal the deal. Maybe Archie already locked him up at the in-home visit.
The Rivals experts disagree but things can change. Hoosier Hysteria will be huge. The crowd needs to be energetic and show him the love. Few schools can match the intensity of our fanbase.
I trust Archie to knock it out of the park during his official visit.
I trust Archie to knock it out of the park during his official visit.
Anyone here actually seen him play? Looks pretty smooth on tape, appears to see the floor very well and have range, but highlight reels are just that...
If we lost Garland to VU and Romeo to KU, it wouldn't be the end of the world, but it would certainly be gut wrenching.
Perhaps a poor choice of words. I mean the rebuild would take a year longer.
Stop acting like the team is a bunch of walk-ons. Most schools would kill for the talent we have.
How did you get that from what I said...we're rebuilding our identity after Crean let it fall apart...never did I say we lack talent...Crean brought in talent...he just didn't coach it very well...
Didn't know I needed to specify anything...a rebuild can encompass many different aspects of a program...
When people look at the team's current talent level, I believe there is a tendency to evaluate it through the prism of what the team is likely to have accomplished with Crean at the helm. It may not measure up on paper, especially if you had Crean's leadership to look forward to, but I choose to take a wait and see approach with Archie now in charge. It may surprise, or it may meet lower expectations, but I do believe the guys will play hard and get maximum benefit from their skill levels.
Who cares if most schools would kill for our talent. There are 300+ teams in D1. I would hope we have more talent then most of them. Archie is rebuilding the the program (its been mediocre for 20+ years for IU standards) and it needs it. The goal is to be a top 5 program and we needs guys like Garland & Romeo to get there.
My only complaint about Hoosier Maniac's comment is I assumed it would take until 2019 class before we started getting 5 star players. It's been impressive how quickly Archie has changed the perception of IU and made inroads to elite recruits that were not seriously considering IU 6 months ago.
Last edited:
Thinking about what a Garland commitment would mean to our current players and recruits. First, I believe it is good to have two good PGs and another competent backup. Most see Durham and Green as PGs. If we get Garland and Phinisee, do we have too many at that position? Would Phinisee change his mind? I hope not. If Garland is a one and done, Phinisee would come back as a sophomore splitting time with the other PGs. With Green's shooting, we could have two PGs playing together like Yogi an Hulls did.
My only issue with recruiting one and ones or 2 year players is having enough depth to account for them leaving early. We would have that if all stay. Hopefully they all see the bigger picture.
My only issue with recruiting one and ones or 2 year players is having enough depth to account for them leaving early. We would have that if all stay. Hopefully they all see the bigger picture.
You say this as if it's something other programs don't deal with every year.
And the bigger picture would be getting drafted and starting to make money for themselves and not sticking around because the message board poster, iubud appreciates roster continuity.
Last edited:
The vast majority of people don't think "identity" when you use the word "rebuild."
Speaking only for myself (might try it), imagine that the "vast majority" read context as well as words. HM's post was spot on - if replacing the head coach/staff doesn't certify a rebuild then what does? Fact is, the "rebuild" is basically complete save for restoring IU's rep, i.e., "identity". Doesn't mean that time isn't required to overwrite the past in terms of former teachings/strategies, but the Sophomore class is killer, Cam thought enough of TC's recruits to keep them and add another, there's plenty of talent on staff and the Floor for IU to compete and perhaps at a high level depending on Team chemistry and 'uptake'.
Rebuilds take place to some extent virtually every year at every program what with changes in personnel (e.g., KY, MSU & Duke) - nature of the beast. Some may contend that IU needs time to replace TC's recruits with CAM's and secure better/top drawer talent (consistent with IU's glory days of yore) - that's not illegitimate but pretty sure CAM never had nearly as much talent at Dayton as he commands right now, or as much support on every level for his program as he enjoys right now. So what rebuild? IU's reconstruction is all but complete.
Would guess that CAM the last person affiliated with IU's Hoops program making excuses or that anyone will hear him pleading that he just needs more time if (and when) the Team drops a game this Season.
Get it on Hoosiers.
CAM has dealt with one and done players as an assistant at Arizona and OSU. I would like to see CAM manage our roster by class and position better than Crean did. The bigger picture I was referring to was players seeing that there would be future opportunities even if they were playing behind players that will be in college a short time. or ahead of them in class.
Speaking only for myself (might try it), imagine that the "vast majority" read context as well as words. HM's post was spot on - if replacing the head coach/staff doesn't certify a rebuild then what does?
So, every team that gets a new coach is "rebuilding"?
(rolleyes)
You guys act like Archie is taking over the same team Crean had when he took over.
You mean like NOT using up every single roster spot nor having 8 forwards on a team?
Seems you missed the point, but to respond I'd say yes. Anything empirical or material to refute that or just the unqualified dismissal? Also nothing here bespeaking similarities between CAM's start at IU with TC's or any comments that support your assessment of "you guys", but no surprise there.
Theirs of course. How would would I be involved with it? The bigger picture is their development. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
I don't understand the hate on one and done's. If you get a player that isn't considered a one and done but plays well, then he is going to be done anyways. There are one and done's that come in and don't fully play to the one and done level so they return (ala Blackmon). You get the best players that will fit what CAM is looking to do each and every year and go at it. In the perfect world, you get a team of players that stay all 4 years and the last two years are dominant but by the time you start getting dominant, usually one or two of those players gets the credit and decides to leave.
I just don't want a roster full of one and done players and have to turn over your roster every year. One or maybe two in a class but no more than that is what I prefer.
Oh I would understand that but I don't see us ever getting to that point. Duke has a great model (in comparison to Kentucky). You have a lot of consistency year over year and you get some top talent to mix in annually. That's how you compete every year.
I'm okay using the last roster spot on a quality transfer that has to sit out or a kid that will develop in year 3 or 4 as a starter. It is good leaving a spot for a late transfer or recruit. We got Race Thompson because we had an open spot. He can redshirt and come in next year as a freshman with a year of practice behind him.
You shouldn't play a pack line with a short guy on a wing, it either creates a driving gap, or open threes. I doubt very much you'll ever see a 6'0, 6'1 backcourt again.
Ever notice how tall and long the 2 guards are at Virginia and Arizona? There's a reason they're on average 6'4 to 6'6.. it has everything to do with the pack line.
I agree with everything you wrote here except for the part on Blackmon. Not a hater, but JBJr had several holes to his game I'm not sure even Archie/Eddie could fix in one year, let alone Crean.
Well he wouldn't have to worry about getting beat on the drive as much and could concentrate on overplaying and not so much containment. It would have helped him considerably to play a team oriented defense, though he was probably a bit too slow footed to to be great at it.
Crean had a thing about over helping, which is fine against a team like Wisconsin who uses dribble penetration more for set up, but not fine with a team like MSU or others that use it to score.
fwiw - JB might have been bad on defense, but he didn't get burnt on it constantly like Hulls did. The JB defense is 1/2 myth, 1/2 truth, but the majority of the blame goes to the coach and not the player.
Crean was just weird, and confusing. Defense needs to be habitual, the less thought required the better. Arch has a complicated D but he has a well defined set of rules with it. Crean changed defensive rules like a 9 year old girl changes Barbie clothes. Confusion was the only norm.
One year he switched everything, even though we had a 6'0 guard. The next year he switched defenses in the middle of possessions and confused our own players more than the opposition...
Arch's defensive rules will stay consistent year after year. Crean was just a weirdo ...
Last edited:
Similar threads
