Share This Post


Delicious Digg Google+
  • Adam B

    Fact is though, which starting lineups in the Big 10 would you take over IU’s for this season only? All of them except Michigan and Iowa?

    • GC

      I’d throw Northwestern in there as well, and I’d go as far as to say that our 8-man rotation is middle-of-the-pack quality. There is enough talent on this team to compete for 7th in conference. Which is completely realistic, considering we finished tied for 9th last year at 4-14 in conference, brought back everyone of substance, and added two dynamic athletes who can score.

  • Mike Petry

    As always Galen, you create a strawman by overstating the opposing argument. No one has argued that no one on the IU roster is a capable Big Ten player. But top to bottom, IU has not been as talented as most of the Big Ten foes. Whether you think Christian Watford or Jordan Hulls is the best player on IU’s roster, on how many other teams would they be the best player?

    On one hand, you say that IU’s players will get better, but onthe other hand dismiss the impact of other programs being more experienced.

    The answer isn’t all one or the other. Could Crean be using the players better? Could the players stand to make themselves tougher mentally? Will the incoming players be more talented than the players they will replace? The answer to all these questions is yes.

    • GC

      Really, now. I “always” create a strawman? I’m surprised you waste time even debating such indefensible positions with me, then.

      Mike, as usual, you take your moderate stance and project it over the whole fan base, when the reality is far different. If you actually read the comments on the ITH articles, Peegs’ premium board, Scout board, and elsewhere, you’d notice these things. No, I’m not overstating anything.

      Are we too untalented to compete in the conference? You apparently think so. I disagree.

  • Matt

    There is no homogeneity of ideas at http://www.crimsoncast.com.

  • hgdownunder

    One factor is a lack of personnel in certain roles – we are playing without a true center. Sure, GMM would have been great – as a backup. And do we have anyone happy playing the point? This isn’t the team’s fault.

    Too many eggs were put into one basket and it went to Duke.

    • GC

      Well, that’s poor recruiting, then. I have to hand it to Crean…he’s recruited two washout big men and a third that was never even eligible. That’s a hell of a record in 2 1/2 years.

      Great point about Irving. He was never, ever coming here. The fact that he didn’t should not have created such disarray.

      What’s frustrating is the lack of normal progression. A player here, a player there, it happens. But the lack of progression has been team-wide and longitudinal, and the only common denominator is the coaching staff. The easy response to this has been “Oh, the players aren’t talented enough, they’ve progressed as far as they can, we just need better guys!”, and we saw that argued a lot in the last month. Yet I think it’s pretty obvious that’s not the case.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The No-Talent argument stops here « CrimsonCast -- Topsy.com()

  • dbmcubs21

    pick a side, you write an article about no talent argument being proven wrong then comment on how crean has not recruited talent and there is no progression? what the hell are you trying to get across? Is it that we both have very solid talent that Crean isn’t using well or is Crean can’t bring in talent to compete? Can’t have both in your Crean bashing.

    • GC

      No…I made a comment based upon the “lack of a big man” concept that HG stated. It’s true that Crean has failed to recruit a big…but I also don’t think a big is particularly necessary to the success of a well-coached team that knows its roles. The much-vaunted, world-beating Marquette teams that Crean coached all lacked big men as well.

      Crean’s recruited plenty of talent at the other four positions, and then has done a poor job of bringing the majority of that talent along in a natural progression. My point is that many fans have argued that the players at those positions aren’t talented to begin with, which I think is obviously untrue and is being used as cover for inadequate coaching.

  • Ross

    This team’s talent is like trying to play War without an ace in your deck. Most of the cards are comparable to the opponents’, but to win, everyone needs to play one rank over their heads. We have several Big Ten cards without having a Big Ten deck. Or, as a previous coach might say, all we need is a Tim Duncan.

    This raises two questions in my mind:

    1) It’s Indiana; why don’t we have any aces? [They’re coming, we think.]

    2) Why aren’t we developing our jacks into kings, our sevens into nines, etc.? [uncomfortable silence]

  • RS

    I don’t see why someone needs to be blamed here. It doesn’t have to be either the players or Crean.

    The team does have talent, that is true, but it’s young talent. It’s kinda raw and raw talent is volatile. They’re gonna have games where they look great and games where they look really bad. Because while they do have young talent they don’t have the kind of young talent that is dominating and overcome it’s youth.

    IU has virtually no talent at the 5. If you want to put that on Crean, then that’s a pretty fair criticism.