When your “frustration” is based on faulty logic, and revision of history, it’s definitely a you thing.
To all the Prohm Haters...
- Thread starter ISUChippewa
- Start date
When your “frustration” is based on faulty logic, and revision of history, it’s definitely a you thing.
That was borderline open letter!
This thread has gone full manifesto!
#1
We are a little bit more inconsistent at Hilton under Prohm then under Hoiberg, but I think that's actually a tribute to the overall better consistency of the team. Hoiberg's teams often needed runs of shooting to get themselves back into games, which were easier to get at Hilton where momentum swings were more likely to go in their favor. The Prohm playing style travels better, which is why we play better on the road. I'd rather have a chance in every road game and have a couple home losses than have no chance in nearly all of the road games and beat everyone at home, besides for Kansas. The ceiling under Prohm is a lot higher than under Hoiberg.
#2
I'll admit, as an in game coach, Prohm is not as good as I would like. However, I think part of the end game problems is simply a result of Prohm putting a lot of trust in his players. Long term, that can help the team a lot. Also, I'd much rather have a coach who is elite in development and in practice and average in game to one who is really good in game but struggles some in those other areas.
#3
I don't really get why this matters. Plus, if Hoiberg was still here, he'd be struggling more with transfer recruiting than he was at the beginning, too. With bigger programs going after the blue-chip transfers, it's harder to get them. Also, it's more difficult to develop team chemistry with grad-transfers. Since Prohm is more defensive minded, team chemistry is more important, since a lot of good team defense is about communication. Once again, thinking long term, Prohm's high school recruiting gives the team a much higher ceiling (due to the chemistry piece) than recruiting transfers heavily.
Everybody has to be the “I told you so guy”.
I don’t understand why people can’t be critical of coaches on here (a minority of people) and their comeback is “we won, didn’t we?!”. There’s so many things/plays in a game that makes that argument really lazy.
The Babb bucket at 61-61 had people standing around with little movement with him hitting a jumper. Awesome it went in, but in another game that goes the other way and people complain why a better play wasn’t drawn up or why were we settling for an iso play in the biggest moment of the game. It’s been a criticism of Prohm that they take the air out and drain the clock out in those situations. It happened but it went in so who cares I guess.
Criticism like the above is seen as somebody taking personal shots at coaches. Criticizing the coach for a play call is not the same as saying I want him fired or that he’s a ****** human being. It’s dangerous when it gets portrayed as that by some people.
Last edited:
What led up to that shot was an incredibly stagnant possession. Kudos to Nick for hitting the shot but that was a really bad possession.
I was always critical of Hoiberg when ISU had like a 4 point lead with 45 seconds left and shot quick 3s instead of at least being patient enough to either get to the hoop or work it around a bit to take some time off the clock but not sure how much of that was his direction.
The result tended to be quick missed 3>long rebound for the opponent>lay up or 3 at the other end>me slamming a beer.
THAT is the game of basketball. Same can be said of KSU, Baylor, or pretty much every close game played....by any team.....ever.
And if Kansas State had missed just one of the 3-4 desperation shots they hit with no time on the shot clock, we’d be 4-1.
This ignores the reality of when we got our absolutely best looks at the basket, transition. You can't tell me that the looks we were getting from the 3 minute mark down were better than the offense we were running in the first half, with the ball swinging, players driving, kicking out, etc. We got sub-par looks for the final 3 minutes, until the lead was completely gone. How did we win this game? As soon as it was tied, we quite looking to run out the clock and worked for better shots. Babb hits a shot he has missed a lot of, and Wiggy gets a transition bucket.
While this rings true, the other side of it you could argue, well they also closed out the half pretty well, which hasn't always been there. That's a positive.
I am not the world's biggest supporter of Prohm, however, I don't post about how mad I get, nor complain.
My frustration is simple, We are a far better team when we are running and controlling tempo. We lack half court sets and struggle when tempo is not in our favor. So why when we have a lead do we take our biggest strength away and play a style of ball that isn't in our favor case in point Kstate game and last night with our last four points to win..
THat is all.
There is a big difference between taking a quick 3, and having a good offensive possession.
I grew up in Boone and was a student in Ames from 2005 to 2010.
Nobody gets to lecture me about the McDermott era. He took the best years of my life.
Dendy just missed another jump shot.
The Hoiberg era, its personalities, and its stories (and its echo for two years) were great -- but Fred only won four tournament games during his tenure.
Last edited:
I don't know the answer but I do wonder if this is a product of running a shallow bench. At the end of the game we have our main group on the floor for extended periods. If the idea is to have the energy to defend those last few minutes, I can see why we may give the guys a slight breather on offense. I think things will improve once we have more half court sets that can utilize Wigginton and Shayok on the floor at the same time or at least more synergy with the ones they use now. Down the road hopefully we'll be able to run clock and score efficiently. Clearly we aren't there just yet.
Well...duh.
Every single college basketball team plays better when they can control their own tempo; whether that means a slower half-court set type of offense or more of a "run and gun" fast break kind of style. The best defensive teams (like Texas Tech) are the kind of teams that force you to play the kind of tempo they want you to play. The good teams (like we were last night) can make adjustments as needed and still pull off the victory, even while playing out of their "comfort zone". For all the talk last night about how we beat the season average of points allowed by Tech they also held us to well below our season average. Didn't matter in the end; we still got the W.
See? This is the kind of total crap that just pisses me off to no end; this "cherry picking" of certain elements of the game to keep on driving home an agenda. "Our offense slowed down in the end against a really good defensive team...so that means Prohm's a bad coach" or "We had a couple of turnovers on the out of bounds plays, so Prohm can't coach". It's completely unfair and asinine and frankly is chock full of "Derp".
Compare the endgames of the last two contests - against KSU, we had 5 point lead with about 4 minutes to play, and scored only 2 points the rest of the way and ended up losing. This was at home, to an unranked team. (Though I will admit after last night, KSU should probably be ranked.)
Last night, we had a 10 point lead about midway through the second half, let Tech tie the score, and ended up winning by 4. This was on the road, to the #8 team in the country.
Sure looks to me as though our guys learned something.
Last night, we had a 10 point lead about midway through the second half, let Tech tie the score, and ended up winning by 4. This was on the road, to the #8 team in the country.
Sure looks to me as though our guys learned something.
