Indiana’s scouting report featured a lot of Jordan Taylor and plenty of Jared Berggren. There wasn’t as much on there about Rob Wilson.
“We knew he could shoot the ball,” said Indiana forward Christian Watford.
But how well could he really shoot it? The Wisconsin sixth man entered Friday’s game averaging just 3.1 points per game with a season high of 11. There was no way he was going to beat the Hoosiers.
Until he did.
Wilson went off for a career-high 30 points, including seven 3-pointers. When Taylor struggled to find his offensive game, Wilson put the team on his back.
“I think the reason he got so hot was he hit open shots and then even if we got there, it was going in anyway because he was feeling it,” said Indiana guard Victor Oladipo.
Even as Wilson hit shot after shot, you had to figure he was going to cool off sometime. And the Hoosiers played him that way. They couldn’t afford to leave Taylor, even as he struggled and Wilson got hot.
Even though Oladipo and Will Sheehey each got a turn guarding Wilson, Jordan Hulls and Matt Roth also spent time on him. Crean didn’t always use his top defenders on the hot hand.
To be fair, though, it didn’t really matter who guarded Wilson. The Hoosiers repeatedly got caught under screens and could only offer a flailing arm in the direction of the man hitting daggers.
“We were miscommunicating, overhelping, and he hit wide-open shots,” said Indiana forward Derek Elston. “Someone would drive the lane, and whoever was guarding Wilson would overhelp when he really didn’t need to.
“We didn’t expect him to go off for 30, but when you’re giving him wide-open looks at it, who knows what you can do.”
As hard as it had to be for Indiana fans to watch a little-known player knock the hot Hoosiers out of the Big Ten tournament, Indiana can use Wilson’s play as inspiration. His performance is what March and postseason basketball is all about.
Indiana seemed to be out of sorts Sunday in Iowa City.
This is what Indiana-Purdue is supposed to be: Two teams right in the thick of the Big Ten race, both desperately needing a win to put themselves in the best position for the postseason.
That’s A Wrap: Derek Elston
Welcome to “That’s A Wrap,” our player-by-player recap of the 2011-2012 Indiana Hoosiers. Today: Derek Elston.
Final stats (34 games): 4.5 ppg, 2.4 rpg, 49.5% FG, 57.9% FT in 12.3 minutes per game.
With Cody Zeller’s addition to the Hoosiers in 2011-12, Derek Elston played (15.5 minutes per game in 2010-11) and scored less (4.9 points per game in 2010-11). And though we noted him as an x-factor heading into this season, it was the improvements of sophomores Will Sheehey and Victor Oladipo that were more of a difference maker in Indiana’s Sweet 16 run.
Still, the Tipton native showed more maturity to his game in his junior season. While mental mistakes often plagued him during his freshman and sophomore campaigns, Elston cut down on those this year. Part of this was apparent on the defensive end of the floor. Elston committed 5.7 fouls per 40 minutes last season, as he struggled to defend without drawing contract and committed silly, unnecessary fouls. This season, Elston clocked in at 4.1 fouls per 40 minutes, a marked improvement.
Elston started the season strong scoring in double figures twice (11 points vs. Stony Brook, 10 points vs. Gardner-Webb) and nine twice (Evansville, Savannah State) on a blistering 69.5% shooting. But the injury bug hit, as he missed the Kentucky game in December and a broken nose suffered in practice kept him out against UMBC 12 days later. (Though, these were the only two games Elston missed in his junior campaign after he admitted before the season he was playing at less than 100 percent in 2010-11 due to a hernia.)
He had his best offensive Big Ten games against Iowa, scoring 11 points on 4-of-5 shooting in Indiana’s home win against the Hawkeyes on Jan. 29. Elston also scored 13 points on 4-of-6 shooting in Iowa City, a game the Hoosiers lost 78-66 on Feb. 19.
The junior was also a contributor to Indiana’s strong 3-point shooting this season, as he hit 55.2% (16-of-29) from distance.
Continue reading this post »