Our offense is poor
- Thread starter go_iu
- Start date
That situation was a perfect storm for IU. Knight had taught the players in that group how to play and Davis gave them the freedom to play. I never bought into the theory that BK would have had that team in the final four. By that point in his career he was detached from his players and the program overall. He was also pissed off and negative about 90% of the time. The last few teams he coached at IU just looked damn glad to get the season over with. Under MD, the players were relaxed and able to enjoy competing and playing the game.
With that said, there is no question those upperclassmen on the final four team in 2002 had benefited greatly from Knight's teaching early in their careers.
Those were Knight’s players. They all threatened to leave when Knight was fired which is why we hired Davis in the first place.
Scott you’re lost again man.
Fife, Coverdale, Hornsby, Odle, and Newton all played for RMK. And Jeffries, Moye, and Leach committed when he was still coach.
Davis brought in Donald Perry all by himself though.
Davis was brought into recruit and he is the reason we got Moye and Newton. Leach because RMK never recruited the southeast
Our offense is in the top 40 nationwide. It's at the bottom edge of our lofty standards. It's vastly improved from last year. We'll see how next year's offense looks...but you can't just assume that we'll replace the 3 guys leaving with 3 freshman and be worse. The other 11 guys will improve, and/or get healthy. Durham has a lot of upside, if he can keep beefing up. Deron Davis has a gear somewhere that we've never seen. We might get it next year.
Considering our injury issues, the fact that we've improved is a very positive sign. Replacing Phin with Green has not been a positive so far.
I presume "he needs great talent to succeed" is phase 2 of fpeaugh's planned Archie Miller internet insurgency. He'll just ignore all that Dayton stuff...and measure him based on 40-ish games with mostly Crean's players--and then claim he's simply being objective.
Next up: If he doesn't win a conference championship by year 3, he will question whether he's not just bizarro Crean.
Considering our injury issues, the fact that we've improved is a very positive sign. Replacing Phin with Green has not been a positive so far.
I presume "he needs great talent to succeed" is phase 2 of fpeaugh's planned Archie Miller internet insurgency. He'll just ignore all that Dayton stuff...and measure him based on 40-ish games with mostly Crean's players--and then claim he's simply being objective.
Next up: If he doesn't win a conference championship by year 3, he will question whether he's not just bizarro Crean.
So you are admitting that Purdue's success in football the past two years is primarily because Darrel Hazell recruited and coached most of their players their first two years and not because of Brohm's greatness. If Hazell had not been fired, PU could have expected the same results as under Brohm.
Or you could admit that you hypocritically believe whatever suits your personal opinion regarding each head coach. Can't have it both ways.
That's twisting the facts. They didn't threaten to leave because Knight was fired ( to be fair, a couple did), they threatened to leave if Davis wasn't hired. That's an important distinction. Otherwise, they would have walked regardless of who replaced BK.
So, let me get this straight.
You say Archie's "system" relies on his having high-level talent, that he's not going to "out-scheme anyone". Yet your boy Calipari relies on the same thing (just who has he out-schemed in big games?) and Calipari's recruiting has gone down significantly the past 4 years. So you're critical of Archie but want us to be more like UK/Calipari? Huh?
At least SOMEONE gets it . . .
Edit: Listen to Archie discuss the impact of the injury situation at his press conference today:
On the team’s overall health situation right now and how it has impacted practice:
“It’s tough. I mean, practice is where we — like every coach, you want to have a great environment in practice. It’s where you get better. The ability to work hard every day prepares you to play in the game. You just can’t play in the games."
Yet, because of the injuries, Indiana has had to do just that. Just imagine how much a fully healthy Jerome and Race would have impacted this team. Just think about having them in practice could have helped Justin.
Then think of their impact on the game.
Here are the minutes played by our starters:
Morgan,Juwan 28
Langford,Romeo 32
Green,Devonte 34
Smith,Justin 35
Durham,Aljami 32
And let's be honest here - had Romeo and Morgan not gotten into foul trouble, they likely would have played 36+.
Will Archie end up being the answer? Hell, I can't guarantee that. But considering the cards he's been dealt this year only someone with an axe to grind can seriously criticize the job he's done.
Last edited:
No I’m saying he’s the same as Cal. Cal doesn’t out scheme anyone. He relies on talent and he’s been one of the most accomplished coaches in history because he gets the talent. Archie needs to do the same.
So you think Mike Davis was a better coach than RMK? He coached that team to a level that RMK wasn’t capable of?
Because I don’t think any reasonable person would argue that of Hazel vs Brohm.
You’re comparing apples to oranges.
So, Archie is ONLY going to succeed at Indiana if he recruits like Cal - namely, bring in a bunch of fringe 5 stars (from #10 to #30) and turn them over nearly every year, leaving the program perpetually young and inexperienced?
Ok @fpeaugh - just WHO doesn’t rely on talent? Huh? D. Wayne Lukas isn’t winning the Kentucky Derby with Mr. Ed. Name us WHO doesn’t rely on talent who consistently competes for championships?
No, he has noted that Cal only wins when he has solid 5 stars (from #1 - #10). And in that aspect, he is correct. Cal can't win with fringe 5 stars. It takes a better coach (like Jay Wright) to do that. I tend to think Archie is more of the Jay Wright mold. Thankfully.
Agree totally with what you say.
Yet, somehow, he’s willing to judge Archie a year and a 1/2 in. Yes, the slow starts are concerning. But considering we haven’t had a healthy squad all year, that we just played an unbeaten, #2 team in the nation on their home floor WITHOUT two of our best interior players AND our starting point guard . . . I mean, seriously?
Am curious to see who HE responds with that magically “out-schemes” other teams w/o talent . . . btw - it’s been myself and others who have had to point out Calipari has to have transcendental OAD’s to win big. Not @fpeaugh .
You're being disingenuous again. RMK did play those players but screamed when some of them shot 3s. The Mike Davis run team were given more freedom to hit streaks of 3s by all different types of players.
Also, Davis got Wright, Strickland and Josh Smith even though he was going Pro.
I remember when players had to make names for themselves as opposed to being hyped up since elementary school. And Isiah Thomas is a perfect example of the hardship you’re referring to.
What I'm saying is that it's hypocritical and illogical to give total credit to the former coach in one scenario and then turn around and give total credit to the new coach in the next scenario.
I don't think Hazell was better than Brohm. But he has to get credit for having Blough and the two running backs there for Brohm. Without those guys, PUke doesn't come close to bowling. It's a little premature to canonize the guy as the next Lombardi given that he and his staff gagged three winnable games this year and got embarrassed in a bowl by a team that lost 5 games during the regular season. In spite of big wins against Iowa and OSU, Brohm hasn't proven to be one of the game's best by a longshot. Erratic does not equal great.
Mike Davis was not a better coach than RMK, but he was a better coach for THAT team and group of players in that season. There's no way of proving the hypothetical, but my observations of the last 5 or 6 seasons of Knight's IU teams tells me that he would have had that team hyper-restrained and browbeaten and would not have made the national championship game or final four. Bob Knight at the last stage of his IU career was an entirely different person than Bob Knight the first 20 years at IU. He had become a miserable person and his coaching reflected that.
Mike Davis was responsible for recruiting most of that team's key players and giving that team the freedom to play the way it needed to play. He probably wasn't a viable long-term solution to keeping IU at the top of college basketball, but he does deserve credit for the job he did putting that team together and coaching it well.
All true... but fpeaugh has also criticized our current freshman class as not being good enough. He has said we need better classes than this to win a NC. He seems to think we need a class of TOADs to win big. Calipari needs that... we don't because we actually have a guy who can coach - not just recruit.
Will Duke win the NC this year with a class of TOADs? Possibly. But Coach K has shown he can also win with classes just like our freshman class. I'm glad we have a guy who can not only recruit - but can also coach!
RMK really became his own worst enemy and a miserable SOB around '94. I don't think RMK would have been able to get out of his own way in 2002, and he still can't to this day. He should have adapted or retired in 1994, and he is still pissed of at IU for making the decision he should have made.
Screamed when they shot 3s? Is this like 2nd grade intramurals? Or are you saying RMK didn’t like outside shooting?
I'll tell you this, Knight had a lot more to do with that final 4 than Davis did. Davis was essentially just a babysitter.
It was a fluke tourney run. It's not like that team was Weber's 2005 Illini that almost went undefeated that season.
We were what, a top 10 top 15 team.
We had two great wins in the tourney...a miracle comeback vs Duke and an impressive win vs Oklahoma in the final four.
Those trying to point to Knight as some kind of omnipotent architect of a very strategically put together team are delusional.
One guy played in the NBA. I think only 3 other guys might have played overseas (Lynch, Newton and Moye).
Knight probably doesn't do s#_t with this team other than force Haston to stay. Just like all the other teams the past 8 years with more talent than that team had, who was constantly getting pummeled in the first weekend of the tourney.
He was old, unmotivated, burnt out and players stopped playing for him.
Last edited:
While you may be right or wrong, either way is pure conjecture.
You're the simpleton star counter.
How many five stars were on that roster?
You can count to one I think and by your multitude of dumb posts that's the end all be all for you.
So using fpeaugh logic Knight failed that team, much less was able to reach through two missing years to inspire and set the foundation of a fluke tourney run.
Again, delusional.
I don’t remember every recruitment but I know Hornsby and Jeffries were all Americans. Coverdale won Mr Basketball. Newton was highly recruited. That team has a lot of talent.
Hornsby was a three star at best. Coverdale and Newton were both unranked.
Moye and Fife were the only other decently ranked players.
Forgot about Dane being a burger boy so...2.
You’re right. Fife was a McD AA not Hornsby. Had those mixed up. I don’t remember about Moye. Jeffries was a 5 star too.
I forgot about Dane being a burger boy.
Moye was around the 50-60 range on Rivals so he was a 4 star.
Newton I remember wasn't a top 150 kid but looked like he was going to be a nice surprise. I think Leach was a 50-100 recruit.
Thanks, I'm going off memory.
I remember the vibe was that Knight needed more athleticism and more lunch pail dudes since our previous string of very highly ranked recruits busted for the most part and were considered too soft and divaly for Knight (Patterson, Miller, Reed, Collier, Recker and Fife).
There were rumblings that Fife was, let's say having a very hard time adjusting to college and Knight.
Again my point was that team was good but not a legit championship team. They lost their first game in the big ten tournament to Iowa (on a last second Recker shot) if I remember.
No one thought they were talented enough to win the NCAA. They just went on a fluky run like Wisconsin did the year prior.
It was fun and memorable...but it was a fluke imo.
Ehh. I partied with fife. Pretty cool guy and hardly looked like he was struggling. Never remember hearing that.
