Grading IUFB transfers & assessing IUBB rebounding
How good are the incoming transfers? Does Indiana Basketball really have size?
Welcome to Bite-Sized Bison: 2023 Edition!
The Big Ten has gone 5-4 in bowl games, and the Indiana Men’s Basketball team is 10-3 as it digs into Big Ten play. With such a long hiatus for the basketball team and Indiana’s absence from any bowl play, there’s not too much to discuss, in terms of on-field/on-court production, but getting the new calendar year started off with some more roster construction talk and some rebounding thoughts seemed like the best course of action.
Included in this newsletter:
Grading Indiana’s transfer portal additions
Chewing on Indiana’s rebounding in 2022
Grading Indiana’s transfer additions
Before diving into these transfer grades, here are two live links I’ve been sharing throughout the offseason as Indiana builds its 2023 roster:
Indiana isn’t quite to the deadline to bring in transfers yet. That deadline is January 19. However, defensive end transfer Andre Carter was ranked here as the No. 5 portal addition by a Big Ten team. So here are some grades from PFF and others to help contextualize Indiana’s additions.
Andre Carter
The Western Michigan product will be tasked to offer a pass-rushing presence that disappeared with the departure of Dasan McCullough. No other player on the roster, not even former four-star prospect Beau Robbins, was anywhere near effective in pass rush in 2022. Read more on that here. Indiana needs a player like Carter in 2023.
For comparison, the following are where recruiting services rank Carter and McCullough overall in the transfer portal:
Note: I have no idea what is going on over at Rivals.
He ended his 2022 season with 70 tackles, which would have finished third on Indiana. His other stats can be seen in the table below. It must be noted – and really the only noticeable drawback in adding him – that these stats are during a season playing in the MAC rather than the Big Ten, but it’s difficult to feel like there won’t be some much-needed translation as he plays for Indiana.
On top of these basic stats, all of Carter’s defensive PFF grades were above average, including an overall defensive grade of 81.3. That’s higher than any defender on Indiana’s roster in 2022. The following are also true on Carter:
His PFF pass rush grade was 90.1, tied for 11th-best in the nation among DEs with at least 250 pass rush attempts.
He hit the passer 17 times, the second-highest total in the country among all DEs.
His pass-rush percentage (pressures forced divided by pass rush attempts) was 8.7%, which ranked 25th among the nation’s DEs but is higher than Dasan McCullough (8.3%) and far higher than the next-best IU DE in 2022 (Alfred Bryant - 6.5%) and best returning DE (Beau Robbins - 2.9%).
Carter’s win percentage (wins against blocking on pass rushes) was 15th in the nation in 2022, at 20.9%. Indiana’s best DE in this category was Alfred Bryant, with 10.3%.
All of this is to say that Carter belongs in the Big Ten and will certainly provide a boost that the Hoosiers have needed for years.
Jamier Johnson
While Andre Carter has one year of eligibility and will be an addition to the 2023 team alone, Jamier Johnson fills the exact spot in the scholarship chart that Chris Keys and Lem Watley-Neeley did (two years of eligibility remaining).
I briefly mentioned Johnson here and discussed his 50-snap game against Alabama that seemed promising. But there are several reasons for concern with Johnson. Primarily, he hasn’t had much experience, which means he might not see the field as quickly as once thought. He played just 118 coverage snaps in 2022 as Texas’ fourth cornerback.
On those 118 coverage snaps, his receiver was targeted 16 times and caught the pass 12 times (and for two touchdowns). Passers are throwing a 151.0 NFL passer rating when throwing his direction. For reference, a perfect passer rating is 158.3. In the seven games he played in 2022, he did not record a single PBU.
What is encouraging about Johnson, which seems to be true throughout his development as a cornerback, is that he tackles well. On the 12 catches he allowed, the WRs only totaled 17 YAC, and his total yards per reception (15.0) was lower than Chris Keys (16.0), who had a fairly comparable season in 2022.
Source: Pro Football Focus
Bottom Line: Don’t get too far ahead with Johnson. He still needs development and will need to compete for a job in the Indiana cornerbacks room.
Max Longman
Some within the fanbase were quick to write off this addition for a few reasons: 1.) It wasn’t a lineman from a Power 5 school and was a lineman from UMass; 2.) It was a lineman who once played under Walt Bell during a seemingly unproductive tenure at UMass; and 3.) It was an OL addition in the midst of an OL departure, as Luke Wiginton entered the portal the same day.
But there is reason to be content with this addition to the 2023 roster. Max Longman was the best offensive lineman on a UMass line that was graded as the 45th-best pass-blocking line in the country, and it bears out in his statistical production. And yes, you must attach the same non-Power 5, non-Big Ten lens as I mentioned with Andre Carter when viewing these statistics.
Longman was UMass’ starting left tackle for two seasons and posted above average PFF Offensive Grades (71.7 in 2021 and 68.5 in 2022) in both years.
With Walt Bell in 2021, Longman posted a 70.3 run-blocking grade, and in 2022, he posted a 72.7 pass-blocking grade.
In 2022, Longman allowed just one sack and only 13 QB pressures. Among the nation’s tackles with at least 542 blocking snaps (Longman’s total in 2022), this ranks 38th. Indiana’s only tackles with at least 500 snaps – Luke Haggard and Parker Hanna – allowed 20 and 40 QB pressures, respectively. Josh Sales allowed 12 in just over 300 snaps.
In his last two seasons, he’s played 1,264 snaps and allowed just 29 QB pressures. Only two tackles on IU’s 2022 roster had two years of starting experience – Luke Haggard and Matt Bedford. Haggard played 1,608 snaps and allowed 47 QB pressures, and Bedford played 1,365 snaps and allowed 43 QB pressures.
In UMass’ two toughest games in 2022 – Tuane and Texas A&M – Longman allowed just one QB pressure. He also posted a stellar 79.1 PFF Offensive Grade against Tulane but a poor 55.3 against Texas A&M, due to some poor run blocking.
The concerns with Longman are his length, as he is only 6-foot-4, and his history with injuries. The good news, however, is that Indiana now has some depth at the position, after Josh Sales showed improvement at right tackle as 2022 came to an end. That means some sort of combination of Matt Bedford, Longman, and Sales will be platooning the tackle positions – most likely Bedford at LT, Longman at RT, Sales backing up.
There’s always the possibility that Longman plays inside, given his size, but with one year of eligibility remaining, that seems unlikely.
Source: Pro Football Focus
IU rebounding
Mike Woodson had a quote Monday that was interesting:
This is somewhat true. Indiana has a lot of size and length across the entire roster. It ranks 26th in the country (6th in the Big Ten) with an average height of 78.4 inches. Its opponents average 77.1 inches, which would tie for 169th in the country as a team, and the Hoosiers have been out-rebounded in three of their 13 games so far this season (Arizona, Kansas, Rutgers). In two other games, IU out-rebounded its opponent by one (North Carolina, Jackson State).
In most other games, though, Indiana has out-rebounded its opponents by a high margin (as it should), leading to a season-long 483-421 margin.
So why isn’t Indiana’s size translating to more rebounds? Well, as always, it’s more than one reason, but one quantifiable reason is because its size is in the backcourt, not the frontcourt. Yes, this is obvious if anyone has taken a look at the roster, but it’s worth diving into statistically.
KenPom.com does a convenient ranking of team height differentials at each position, which aids in showing where Indiana struggles, in terms of rebounding.
Center: -0.3 inches
Power Forward: +0.6
Small Forward: +1.3
Shooting Guard: +2.2
Point Guard: +2.6
Source: KenPom.com
Trayce Jackson-Davis, at 6-foot-9, gives up significant size at the 5. Among the five games mentioned above, only Kansas and Jackson State did not have a starter best Jackson-Davis in height. Arizona had two starters (three contributors) with more size than Jackson-Davis; Rutgers had a starter (two contributors) taller than Jackson-Davis; and North Carolina had two starters with more height than Jackson-Davis.
It seems unfair to pile on Jackson-Davis at times because he has and does shoulder much of the load for this program, but a team with aspirations for a top-10 season would likely hope that its center would rank higher than No. 287 in defensive rebounding percentage and that its starting power forward would rank higher than No. 437 in offensive rebounding percentage.
Where Woodson was likely pointing his thoughts directly was toward the backcourt, where IU typically has the advantage. The North Carolina game is a good example of this.
North Carolina’s bigs dominated the boards in that game, as Armando Bacot and Pete Nance – both 6-foot-11 – combined for 22 rebounds. Jackson-Davis had 10, and Thompson had 2. Indiana was not out-rebounded, however, because Xavier Johnson came down with 8 and Jalen Hood-Schifino added 6.
In a very similar situation against Arizona, who had two starters taller than Jackson-Davis, TJD only recorded 5 rebounds to Thompson’s 9. Missing Hood-Schifino in this game hurt Indiana because of his 6-foot-6 advantage at point guard, and only Trey Galloway reached 4 rebounds in the backcourt.
And at Kansas, Jackson-Davis was the tallest starter in that game, and Thompson, at 6-foot-8, was among three 6-8 starters behind TJD. Yet, Indiana was out-rebounded 34-30. Jackson-Davis and Thompson combined for 11 rebounds (unacceptable) and Hood-Schifino added 6. The eight other contributors tallied just 13.
Missing Hood-Schifino in some of those games certainly hurt Indiana; however, he is not the only member of the backcourt with size. And Indiana would probably expect more from its backcourt, particularly in terms of offensive rebounding, where Xavier Johnson, Miller Kopp, Tamar Bates, and Hood-Schifino all have disappointing offensive rebounding percentages (in addition to Thompson in the frontcourt).
Source: CBB Analytics (on Jan. 2, 2023)
This is why Jordan Geronimo must continue to improve because he is Indiana’s best offensive rebounder after Jackson-Davis, Thompson, and Malik Reneau, with a 6.4 offensive rebounding percentage.
Woody is correct when he says Indiana needs to figure this out before more Big Ten play because when compared to its schedule, the Hoosiers have just a +0.1 effective height advantage, according to KenPom.com. That’s 155th in the nation and 12th in the conference.