Prohm needs to get his own kids in then we will learn if he can coach.
Cyclone Fanatic Meltdown
- Thread starter IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life
- Start date
I do not think that ISU team is all that good this year. Too much hype, while not thinking about what they lost. Every single game their shots are off, they are going to lose. Their inside presence is poor, it's not even average at this point. Niang loss is just too much.
I'm not sure if this is sarcasm but I'll bite.
Prohm inherited a team of Top 10 talent last year. They finished 6th in their conference out of ten teams. In other words, they finished in the bottom half of their conference. In the NCAA tourney, they pretty much had a cakewalk to the Sweet 16 before getting walloped by Virginia.
Tom Davis inherited George Raveling's talented team in 86-87 and had a school record 30 wins, finishing 3rd in the conference behind Purdue and eventual NCAA champion Indiana. Tom Davis also took Iowa to the Elite 8 which could have easily been a Final 4 if not for a 20 pt blown lead vs. UNLV.
I don't know if Prohm can coach or not. But I think my point is obvious. If you can coach, you will find a way to win with talent. Tom Davis's problem was never coaching. He was always one of the best. His issue was recruiting. Prohm's issue last year certainly wasn't from a lack of talent on the team. The reality is Iowa State has regressed coaching-wise and will continue to see a drop off in talent from year to year. This seems to be painstakingly obvious to many ISU fans, and that's probably why you see them on their message boards losing their poop.
The "he needs his own kids" argument is strange to me. If you are a good coach, you can coach up whatever roster is handed to you. The "own players" bit is a copout and an excuse.
As Bum Phillips said about Don Shula: "He can take his'n and beat your'n and take your'n and beat his'n." He also said the same line about Bear Bryant.
As Bum Phillips said about Don Shula: "He can take his'n and beat your'n and take your'n and beat his'n." He also said the same line about Bear Bryant.
Yeah from the outside looking in, it would appear that there's not a lot of structure to what Iowa State is doing now. Prohm appears stuck on getting what he wants done implemented and maintaining trust with players who already had a lot of success before he got there, in trying to get them to do things his way.
Don't really feel sorry for him, as it's his job to figure this out.
Iowa has had Iowa State on the ropes the last two times we've played them in Ames. Both times we've blown big second half leads. This time, our youngsters, who obviously have no memory of the last two collapses in Ames, played all the way through. Yes ISU is not as good as the teams we should have beat in Ames. But I love the fact that we finally didn't collapse against them. Maybe that is why they had an abnormally high level of confidence. Our weak minded teams in the past crumpled.
I've noticed that all the usual suspects, who populate this board whenever anything Clownlike is posted, are all suspiciously absent today.
This. Those 2 losses were some of the biggest meltdowns in Iowa history. Don't remember all the particulars, but Uthoff disappearing in the 2nd half after torching them in the 1st, and of course MG with the ball in his hands and at the line late in games, especially against them. The fact is they individually and collectively Choked. Twice. In some very small time increments to boot.
Now if I'm an Iowa State player, I Expect that to happen, since I've already lived it not once but twice. Just a matter of time.
Well, that didn't happen with Iowa's new players for 2016 for the most part calmly stepping up and making free throws and rebounding the ball. They did what you are supposed to do to close out games. Hope it's a trend. We shall see. They have to get the lead first and keep it to see how it goes.
I don't necessarily see it as a season changer, but good to see regardless. Pemsl, Moss and Bohannon have really come on as of late, so good to see that of course. Just to see someone consistently make bunnies in the paint like Pemsl does is refreshing as hell. The kid gets it in the hole. Period.
One game does not a season make, but if you're going to win just one, this was as good a choice as any.
Wait until they lose their entire starting lineup after this season. The rest of Hoiberg's core guys - Burton, Morris, Thomas, Naz - are all gone after this season. Have had Cyclone fans tell me they have so much talent coming in though that there won't be a dropoff. Randy Peterson said on some insider show they are recruiting like Duke of the Midwest and will be fine.
I don't want to get into a pissing match. You guys deserve to revel in this. Big upset, big win against a hated rival whose players mouthed off ahead of time. Enjoy.
I don't know about Prohm, either. But Faultless had some teams that seriously under-achieved at times, too. Remember UAB? And although I don't follow recruiting closely, and am skeptical of ratings, anyway, I think the recruits Prohm has signed (or gotten commitments from) are generally better than the ones Fred got.
In other words, I'm not ready to stop buying season tickets because they stank up the place Thursday night.
I don't know about Prohm, either. But Faultless had some teams that seriously under-achieved at times, too. Remember UAB? And although I don't follow recruiting closely, and am skeptical of ratings, anyway, I think the recruits Prohm has signed (or gotten commitments from) are generally better than the ones Fred got.
In other words, I'm not ready to stop buying season tickets because they stank up the place Thursday night.
Lone I usually do not fall on your side but I am not sure how anyone can say Prohm is not a very good coach at this point. He has come into a very, very tough situation inheriting some other coaches players who happens to be a school legend. Talk about having the deck stacked against you from a coaching standpoint. As others have said, yourself included, he has recruited very well but is still operating this season with this last core group of Fred's players. Let's see how the next year or two look.
I just finished watching the replay since I watched the game in person. My thoughts on ISU during the game was he had your guys trying to play good D and I thought they did play D very well for the most part (or at least better than Fred's teams). Sometimes Jok just hits difficult/contested shots that for most guys you go 'bad shot' or 'no'! ISU also missed some open looks from 3 and they really missed the human mismatch of Niang. Niang's absence was very, very noticeable. The difference for Iowa is we played better overall D than we had been playing, the intensity level was excellent (got the 50-50 balls) and they shared the ball. It was our best game by far on both ends.
I got on a game tangent but what I wanted to say is I noticed during a couple of late game time outs (less than 3-4 minutes to go) that Naz long huddled the guys up and ordered them to the bench where he was talking while coach Prohm was standing on the outside of the huddle. I know he's a leader and all but it kind of shows that Prohm is dancing a funny line with Fred's old guard players. I was kind of thinking shut the heck up and let your coach direct the dang huddle. It's not like you are an all-American like you think you are.
One thing I have learned the last week is that Lone Clone is good shit. Props for showing up the day after the loss and also being a logical poster before that.
I sense the holdovers are just doing there thing, but no McCay and no George gives them little room for error. I don't sense a buy in from returning guys who have experience under Fred.
Prohm has to create his culture and be the unquestioned leader.
There's a lot of the season to go and as a Hawk fan I'm going to be pretty cautious about blowing our horn until we prove we can consistently defend. Until we prove we have the desire to work every game for 40 minutes, each game is a potential loss.
Prohm has to create his culture and be the unquestioned leader.
There's a lot of the season to go and as a Hawk fan I'm going to be pretty cautious about blowing our horn until we prove we can consistently defend. Until we prove we have the desire to work every game for 40 minutes, each game is a potential loss.
Niang's presence created many match up problems for opponents. No McKay to defend the rim. These two made everyone else look better. Not a huge surprise seeing fall off. As for Prohm, I think he's a control freak that inherited a team that's used to being given carte blanc under Hoiberg. The fun is gone for these guys. Plus, he wants to build a program with freshman, when their fans are used to the reload with transfers. He may need to get his own guys in there before we know about his coaching ability. The question is can the Clone Heads deal with this given their over inflated view of themselves.
to me, part of coaching is preparing your kids to speak to the press
Obviously Prohm did not do this well----witness the suggestions from his players that Iowa State would kill Iowa in Iowa City which appeared in the Register
Perhaps they found the way to the IOWA players locker room bulletin board
Is this an indication of his coaching ability?
Obviously Prohm did not do this well----witness the suggestions from his players that Iowa State would kill Iowa in Iowa City which appeared in the Register
Perhaps they found the way to the IOWA players locker room bulletin board
Is this an indication of his coaching ability?
I am surprised we beat ISU ... but after watching ISU you see nothing has really changed since Hoiberg led ISU ... if the 3s aren't falling this team is done. And this year, without Niang (spelling?) ... ISU has absolutely no inside presence and that will hurt them come Big 12 time ... I don't see anything special about Prohm ... and I absolutely don't see him having the success Hoiberg experienced ...
ISU fans got spoiled during Hoiberg's brief tenure ... and now many of them consider their program to be "elite." ... No, ISU had a nice run ... but it is not an elite program ... Prohm will do "okay" ...
ISU fans got spoiled during Hoiberg's brief tenure ... and now many of them consider their program to be "elite." ... No, ISU had a nice run ... but it is not an elite program ... Prohm will do "okay" ...
Actually that is a fallacy about Hoiberg's teams. Although they did shoot plenty of 3s, they were always great in 2 pt FG% because they relied heavily on getting looks in the lane. So it really wasn't live by the 3 die by the 3.
2010: #17 in 3 point attempts (Hoiberg)
2011: #15 in 3 point attempts (Hoiberg)
2012: #2 in 3 point attempts (Hoiberg)
2013: #16 in 3 point attempts (Hoiberg)
2015: #120 in 3 point attempts (Prohm)
I have always felt Lone Clone was insightful and always brought a respectful and objective outside perspective to the board. Don't shoot me Hawk fans, but I root for the Clones when not playing the Hawks. I am a guy that is "all in" for anything Iowa versus out of state (UNI and Drake as well).
As far as Prohm is concerned, IMO he has done about the best he can do with Fred's players. I think he will be just fine in the future.
Apparently you didn't understand what I was saying. (also I don't know how you are using the years but usually you go by when the season ends. So Prohm coached the '16 team not the '15 team)
They didn't live by the 3 die by the 3. They could have bad games shooting the 3 and still win because of the usually great looks they got in the lane. They eliminated the midrange jumper from the game for the most part so they weren't shooting contested jump shots. There is a reason his teams were so good offensive efficiency wise his last 3 years. 8th, 10th and 12th.
Were there games they shot horrible from 3 and lost? Of course but I would bet in those same games they also did horribly from 2 and that was the real reason they lost. Because if you aren't getting great looks in the lane, then your 3s won't be as open.
Seems like the burden of proof is on you. He showed where they were very dependent upon the 3, you rebutted with a bunch of guesses. Why don't you go back and look at those years, games they lost, then show where they were also horrible from 2 point range when they were terrible from 3.
Learn the game Relishing. It is pretty obvious. You don't have an efficient offense simply from chucking 3 pointers. If you are efficient and shooting a bunch of threes,it means you are getting good looks from 3 which means you are most likely getting in the lane and hitting on a high percentage. Why did Iowa beat Iowa State? ISU wasn't getting in the lane and putting pressure on the defense. Most of the 3s they were taking were not good looks and not coming through good offense. Iowa did a good job of not letting ISU get in their early offense using the press to slow them down and not letting them get looks in the lane. Go look at Villanova's team from last year. They shot a ton of 3s but I guarantee you they also were one of the top teams in the country in 2p fg%.
Hoiberg's last year 14-15: 46th in 3pt attempts 14th in 2 pt FG%
When shooting less than 33% from 3 the team was 7-5 (iowa was 7-7). In 3 of the 5 losses they shot under their average for 2. The two losses they had when they shot well from two but bad from 3 the games were more defensive failures than failure to make shots. Both teams had a much better Effective FG% and offensive efficiency rating than ISU. The teams shot over 45% from three.
ISU had two wins where it show below 33% from 3 and below their average from 2.
Lastly, ISU lost 4 games when shooting above 33% from 3. In all of those games, they shot below their average from 2.
In conclusion: 7 of the 9 losses that Iowa State had, they shot below their average from 2.
2013-14 6th in 3pt attempts and 13th in 2p FG%.
8-4 (Iowa was 7-8) when shooting below 33% from 3.
6 of their 8 losses they shot below their average from 2
4 of the losses they shot below 33% from 3.
one loss when they shot well from 3 and from 2 because of horrible defense.
One loss when they shot below 33% from 3 and above their average from 2 and that was a only a 5 point loss on the road at Oklahoma.
2012-13: 1st in 3pt attempts and 31st in 2pt FG%.
6-5 (Iowa was 10-9) when shooting below 33% from 3.
7 of 12 losses they shot below their average from 2.
6 of 12 losses they shot below 33% from 3.
3 losses they shot above their average from 2 and above 33% from 3, i.e. played horrible defense.
Only two losses when they shot below 33% from 3 and at or above their average from 2.
Over Hoiberg's last 3 years they were 21 -14 when shooting under 33% from 3. Of the 29 losses over those three years, ISU shot below their average from 2 20 times. 4 losses in 3 years where they shot below 33% from 3 and at or above their average from 2.
I disagree. You're also not taking tempo into account. ISU won a lot of games when they didn't shoot great from three in the past few years. The difference this year is they are basically inefficient all around. It's the 2 point percentage that is the big difference. The tourney teams under Hoiberg 3pt %, and 2 pt%. They used the 3 to open up to the 2, especially after McGee graduated.
2014: 110th/9th (Hoiberg)
2015: 87th/11th (Hoiberg)
2016: 21st/4th (Prohm)
2017: 196th/106th (Prohm)
The offense just isn't good. I attribute it to a lack of inside presence.
My point being when you rely on the 3 as much as ISU did under Hoiberg .... and those shots aren't falling
The entire point of my response ... Under Hoiberg, when ISU wasn't making 3s those are games they either lost or really struggled. I'm not saying they never won a game when they didn't make 3s. They depended on the 3 A LOT under Hoiberg ... and when they were off ... so was ISU.
I don't have the time to go back every single year, but just going back to 14-15, ISU shot 46% FG and 36% 3pt.
In 6 of their 9 losses they shot below their season average from 3.
Maryland 22% 3pt, 30% FG
South Carolina 6% 3pt, 35% FG
Texas Tech 20% 3pt, 43% FG
KU 33% 3 pt, 42% FG
Baylor 25% 3pt, 43% FG
UAB 26% 3pt, 37% FG
Games they won while shooting under their season average 3pt%:
Georgia State 30%
UMKC 29%
Southern 17%
Miss Valley St. 32%
Okie State 33%
WVU 35%
KSU 32%
Okie State 30%
Kansas 13%
Four of those teams were garbage in which superior talent was the difference where rebounding, steals, etc were the difference. That leaves 5 games where they shot below their season average from 3 and won, and only one of those games they shot below 30% from 3 and still won.
16-3 when shooting above their 3pt%
9-6 when shooting under, including those 4 gimmes.
Seems like 3 pt% ties pretty close to how they performed from these stats. Then again, that could apply to any team who shoots that bad, but with as much as ISU shot compared to other teams, it does seem like they were more dependent on the 3 pointer.
But again, that is wrong as pointed out above. If you want to say they relied too much on offense, yeah then that is true. Their real deficiency was not being better on defense, not shooting a lot of 3s.
I included it, was it too hard to follow? I think you're trying to hard to relate 2 point FG%, defensive pressure, etc, to their wins/losses, when someone is strictly pointing out that they shot a lot of 3's, with Hoiberg's system. "Live by the 3, die by the three" is a simple saying, referring to teams that shoot a lot of three pointers. You're taking it too literal, which is not surprising. Putting all else aside, the above samples I listed show that if ISU had simply shot better from 3, they would have won more games. If they simply would have settled for just a couple more two point jumpers, they wouldn't have died against UAB.
The statement they shoot of lot of 3s is now what was being said. It is true of every team that if you shoot better from 3 you win more games regardless of how many they shoot.
Again, you show your lack of knowledge thinking that two point jumpers would have won the UAB game.
I think it is time you LTG before speaking about it.
What? It was his entire argument where he pointed out the # of 3's ISU shot under Hoiberg. Sounds like you are still bitter about that UAB loss. If they take just two less 3's in that game and instead, take a couple 2's, they win. Hypothetically speaking of course, but coming from the person whose every argument is based off of hypotheticals, you probably get this.
Fred had a couple of philosophies that are so obviously true it's odd they aren't universally applied.
One of them was that the worst shot in basketball is the one just inside the three-point arc. His players very, very seldom attempted that shot.
