Jake Kelly and Matt Gatens turned in solid seasons for the Hawkeyes, but what about the rest of the team? Here’s my personal assessment of each player. I gave higher grades to players who showed improvement either throughout the course of the season or from last season. I also took into account level of experience, injuries and production. There’s obviously a large degree of subjectivity to it as well. Feel free to argue with me.
Matt Gatens: A-The Good: Gatens played with consistency and always hustled. Few freshmen exhibited both the leadership and ability shown by Gatens. His shooting and durability gave the Hawks a much needed lift. His physical and mental maturity are advanced beyond his years.
The Bad: He needs to be more aggressive in looking for his own shots. He’s too good not to have the ball in his hands more often. He should work to improve his ball handling and explosiveness.
Jake Kelly: B+The Good: Kelly’s late season surge proved how much talent he has. Kelly really showed his ability to create and put the ball in the hoop over the last 7 regular season Big Ten games. He was Iowa’s best scoring option. He also did a great job as a defender, often drawing the opponents best backcourt player.
The Bad: Kelly had an unremarkable first two-thirds of the season. Part of that could possibly be explained by the passing of his mother in the off season and a broken finger. Still, his play as the point guard makes you wonder why he doesn't play that well more often.
Cyrus Tate: BThe Good: When healthy, Tate gave Iowa a steady inside presence. At times he showed great tenacity on the glass and scoring ability in the low post. He had a monster 22 point, 11 rebound performance against Indiana before suffering the ankle injury.
The Bad: Tate’s unfortunate injury rendered him unable to play for a large portion of the Big Ten schedule. He ended up averaging 7.0 points and 5.7 rebounds--underwhelming totals. Who knows what he could have done with a little more luck.
Jeff Peterson: BThe Good: Peterson made tremendous strides from his freshman to sophomore season. He cut his turnovers, improved his handle and started to look like a Big Ten point guard. He also became a credible scorer, shooting 39.7 percent from 3.
The Bad: He still turns it over more than you’d like for a point guard. He still has a ways to go in becoming a more consistent scorer. His defense is far from lock-down material.
Jarryd Cole: C+The Good: Cole had several quality performances in the second half of the Big Ten season. His 14 point, 11 rebound effort against Penn State was key in Iowa getting a victory. Cole plays with a lot of drive and physicality. He has a lot of upside.
The Bad: He was virtually non-existent the entire first half of the season. He deserves a break though for coming back quickly from an ACL tear, but he needs to be more consistent and become a better overall rebounded and low post scorer.
Aaron Fuller: CThe Good: Fuller expressed the ability to play in the Big Ten despite some experts opining that Fuller was best-suited for a mid-major conference. He can step out and shoot the 3. His stroke looks as smooth as any on the team. He has the capability of being a reliable scorer.
The Bad: Fuller is a ‘tweener. He doesn’t have the skills to be a guard nor the strength and size to play in the low post. He needs to shoot a high percentage from 3 to be valuable in this offense as a wing player.
Devan Bawinkel: CThe Good: Bawinkel was a great weapon when he was hot. His 8-for-13 3-point shooting display against Ohio State exemplified the kind of ability he has. He placed second on the team with 51 made 3-pointers.
The Bad: He appears to be a very one-dimensional player. Offensively, he looks to shoot 3’s and that’s about it. Defensively, he’s ok. He should be a role player, and he needs to shoot better than 36.7 percent from 3.
Jermain Davis: CThe Good: Davis showed flashes of brilliance. He was a big factor in Iowa’s drubbing of the Cyclones, scoring 16 points and dishing out five assists. Davis fashioned that athleticism to penetrate and score at the rim. He is quick and a decent defender.
The Bad: His play was inconsistent, however, and so were his minutes. His decision making with the ball was questionable. He needs to improve his ball handling and passing as a guard. He doesn’t shoot well enough for this system.
David Palmer: DThe Good: Palmer surprised everyone by scoring 40 points and grabbing 15 rebounds in a two-game stretch. He shoots well from the outside for a big man.
The Bad: He was basically a non-factor for all but two games. He appeared to be a revelation in the middle of the season, but he quickly came back to Earth. His defense is suspect. He’s not in Lickliter’s plans.
Andrew Brommer: DThe Good: Brommer is a warm body with size. He is capable of becoming an alright rebounder.
The Bad: He was touted as a big man with a nice mid-range game. That clearly was not the case. Brommer is extremely raw as an offensive player. He must improve a lot.
J.R. Angle: DThe Good: Angle displayed a decent outside shot in his Iowa career.
The Bad: He doesn’t have the athleticism to play significant minutes in a major conference.
Anthony Tucker: FThe Good: Tucker led Iowa in scoring before falling from grace as a result of the alcohol incident. He nailed 38-of-89 3-point attempts. He looks to be the best pure shooter on the team. He can flat fill it up. He has a bright future if he can clean up the off-the-court issues.
The Bad: Tucker earned an ‘F’ by letting his teammates down and not performing in the classroom. On the court, Tucker needs to improve his defense, work on his shot-selection and improve his handle and court vision.
It's a simple question really. It's just that the answer is much more complicated.
Is the sky falling on the Iowa Basketball program? Cuz it feels like it.
AP Photo 
(Getty Image)
(Getty Image)
(USA Today)
(Hawkeyesports.com)
