Jump to content

Just How Good Are We, Really?


hal9000

Recommended Posts

Dirk Chatelain was interviewed in the last Husker podcast.  He said something that stuck out to me. 

“I’m not quite as high on the, quote, 'talent' in the program as a lot of people are.  I think Nebraska’s talent is pretty ordinary.  You look at Iowa, or Minnesota, or Northwestern, I don’t think Nebraska’s talent stands out from any of those programs, even its young talent.“ 

Now I’m not a Dirk Chatelain fan, and I know he’s kind of built his reputation as being more often negative, probably just to provide a counter-balance to other reporters, and to prove he is a non-homer, ‘call it like it is,’ ‘you can’t polish a turd’ type reporter.  That said, I don’t think it’s right to just dismiss his take either, because he also covers Bluejay basketball, and knows what tournament caliber talent looks like. 

I guess one could say that based on current events there is some cause for what he is saying, and he didn't elaborate on whether or not he feels our talent will get better, but to me he was implying that our current talent's ceiling is only so high, and it's just not good enough.  I know many on here believe we do have the talent in place, and the consensus seems to be (and I’m among those by the way), that despite our current record, next year we should/will make it to the NCAA Tournament.  But I also believe it behooves us to be honest with ourselves, and based on Chatelain’s opinion, I thought I’d put the question to this board.  Just how good are we, really?  Are we really good enough to make the tournament next year, even with Palmer, Coleman, and Akenten?  Do we have good enough players, individually and collectively, that will be better than the Iowa and Minnesota’s of the world?  Are we too “star struck,” relying too much on counting all of the 4 and five star players on our team? 

Curious of your thoughts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, hal9000 said:

“I’m not quite as high on the, quote, 'talent' in the program as a lot of people are.  I think Nebraska’s talent is pretty ordinary.  You look at Iowa, or Minnesota, or Northwestern, I don’t think Nebraska’s talent stands out from any of those programs, even its young talent.“ 

 

I think our big point about talent is that over the last decade we've essentially have been devoid of it (in terms of services ranking kids)

Relative to the other B1G schools we aren't out-talenting most of them. That assessment is fairly accurate.

Talent is not a guarantee of success as Indiana has illustrated this year. (It sure does help though)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you have to look at it from a relative standpoint this is the most talent we've amassed since the early 90's. Now as evidenced by our loss to the Kansas, Michigan St, and UCLA of the world clearly we have some work to do, but clearly were not in the lower tier of talent in the Big Ten we once were. The 3 teams i mentioned above were the only teams this year that simply had more talent than us and it showed in their victories. Every other game has come down to mental error or fatigue. 

 

We are good enough to make the tournament, and it will show next year. Sweet 16 type talent i think. 

Edited by bobcat402
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, hal9000 said:

Dirk Chatelain was interviewed in the last Husker podcast.  He said something that stuck out to me. 

 

 

“I’m not quite as high on the, quote, 'talent' in the program as a lot of people are.  I think Nebraska’s talent is pretty ordinary.  You look at Iowa, or Minnesota, or Northwestern, I don’t think Nebraska’s talent stands out from any of those programs, even its young talent.“ 

 

 

Now I’m not a Dirk Chatelain fan, and I know he’s kind of built his reputation as being more often negative, probably just to provide a counter-balance to other reporters, and to prove he is a non-homer, ‘call it like it is,’ ‘you can’t polish a turd’ type reporter.  That said, I don’t think it’s right to just dismiss his take either, because he also covers Bluejay basketball, and knows what tournament caliber talent looks like. 

 

 

I guess one could say that based on current events there is some cause for what he is saying, and he didn't elaborate on whether or not he feels our talent will get better, but to me he was implying that our current talent's ceiling is only so high, and it's just not good enough.  I know many on here believe we do have the talent in place, and the consensus seems to be (and I’m among those by the way), that despite our current record, next year we should/will make it to the NCAA Tournament.  But I also believe it behooves us to be honest with ourselves, and based on Chatelain’s opinion, I thought I’d put the question to this board.  Just how good are we, really?  Are we really good enough to make the tournament next year, even with Palmer, Coleman, and Akenten?  Do we have good enough players, individually and collectively, that will be better than the Iowa and Minnesota’s of the world?  Are we too “star struck,” relying too much on counting all of the 4 and five star players on our team? 

 

 

Curious of your thoughts. 

 

 

Great Post!!  I have thought a little about this also.  As far as how we will stack up against other Big 10 teams next year talent wise I think its hard to say at this point.  But if you look at past Nebraska basketball teams talent compared to what we will have on next years roster it is a big difference in top talent and ESPECIALLY Depth!!! We should be able to overcome some injuries next year if they do happen.  Gotta wonder how our chemistry will be with the new players and added depth.  Will guys be upset that they are not getting more minutes....  etc..  Guess we will know in about a year from now how we stack up for sure but at least we can look forward to it for now!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If ranking systems matter at all, you'd have to say our talent is way beyond where we've been in the past.  We go from never having had a Rivals 150 guy (in the 16 or 17 years they've done rankings) to having basically a roster full of them, almost overnight.

 

One thing EVERYBODY (including Dirk) needs to keep in mind is that the talent we have is new and young.  We didn't start landing those Rivals 150 guys until basically the class of 2015, who are currently sophomores.  We got two Rivals 150 kids in that class and 3 more the following class, which means that 5 of our Rivals 150 guys are freshmen and sophomores.  We also only have ONE SENIOR on our roster, and only 3 juniors, one of whom was hurt all year and is out now.

 

So, this talent that Chatelain is dissing (I had the chance to trip him once at the U.S. Senior Open in Omaha -- he walked right in front of my spot on the 9th fairway -- and didn't do it) is all very young talent.  Without much in the way of upperclass reinforcement.  So, who are these young, talented players?

 

 

You know how there are some kinds of bamboo that grow so rapidly (up to 3 feet per day), you can almost see them growing?  Jordy is like that.  Not in terms of his physical growth, but in terms of his basketball development.  He has come soooo far from where he was those first few games it's almost like he's not even the same guy.  (I predicted he'd have a steep learning curve, by the way.)  I'll go out on a small limb and say Jordy is going to be as good of a big man as anyone in the league by this time next year.  I think the other freshmen will take steps forward like the sophomore class did from last year to this.  It won't just be Jordy.

 

Speaking of the sophomores, Glynn Watson is 3rd in the league in steals.  He's top 14 in scoring and among the best 6 in FT%.  And we know he's clutch.  MJ and Ed are both among the best in the league in rebounding and, right now, MJ leads the league in offensive rebounds per game.  Those are all sophomores.

 

Our problem isn't that we don't have talent; it's that with the exception of Tai Webster, all of our talent is very young talent, some of whom are still trying to adjust to the speed of the college game.  If we had another upper classman who was a former Rivals 150 guy, maybe even a top 50 guy, we probably aren't having this discussion because our win/loss record would be sterling.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Conkinthecorner's post above about chemistry:

 

One of the big things Tai Webster gives us that people might not notice is leadership.  I get the sense he kind of kept some attitudes in check after some of the early losses so that we were able to come back for wins against Indiana and Maryland.  Then we lose Ed and a few more games and come back and beat Purdue. 

 

Right before the Purdue game, I had a chance to talk to one of the coaches and I asked him how the team was holding up in the midst of that losing streak and his response was basically, "well, they're young (so they bounce back was how I took it) AND we have Webster."

 

I wish that somehow we could have Tai another year.

Edited by Norm Peterson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hal9000 said:

Dirk Chatelain was interviewed in the last Husker podcast.  He said something that stuck out to me. 

 

 

“I’m not quite as high on the, quote, 'talent' in the program as a lot of people are.  I think Nebraska’s talent is pretty ordinary.  You look at Iowa, or Minnesota, or Northwestern, I don’t think Nebraska’s talent stands out from any of those programs, even its young talent.“ 

 

I like Dirk's provocative journalism for the most part.  I think he's told a lot of truths in the past when those opinions were against the grain to publish.  I respect his writing.  I also agree with his assessment, but here's what's funny about it:

 

Iowa has made the last three NCAA Tournaments, and might make it four in a row this year.

Northwestern will very likely make the tournament this year.  

Minnesota had a top 5 B1G recruiting class last season, and we were top 5 the prior season.  Minnesota currently holds the spots at #24 in the RPI.

 

So..........

 

We've recruited NCAA Tournament-caliber players.  

 

Thanks for the insight, Dirk.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for reference, here are current conference rankings from VerbalCommits.com

They aggregate rankings from Rivals, Scout, and ESPN

 

Here it was from Aug 2013

Name Mascot Average Stars
Michigan State Spartans 3.81
Ohio State Buckeyes 3.7
Indiana Hoosiers 3.6
Michigan Wolverines 3.49
Purdue Boilermakers 3.36
Wisconsin Badgers 3.15
Illinois Fighting Illini 3.13
Iowa Hawkeyes 2.97
Minnesota Golden Gophers 2.7
Penn State Nittany Lions 2.65
Northwestern Wildcats 2.59
Nebraska Cornhuskers 2.5

 

Here it is today

Name Mascot Average Stars
Michigan State Spartans 3.583
Illinois Fighting Illini 3.403
Indiana Hoosiers 3.385
Maryland Terrapins 3.333
Ohio State Buckeyes 3.321
Michigan Wolverines 3.269
Nebraska Cornhuskers 3.205
Northwestern Wildcats 3.167
Purdue Boilermakers 3.111
Penn State Nittany Lions 3.097
Minnesota Golden Gophers 2.769
Iowa Hawkeyes 2.744
Wisconsin Badgers 2.718
Rutgers Scarlet Knights 2.625

 

 

You can see

1. We have raised that sort of talent level a ton since Miles has been here

2. Wisconsin and Illinois illustrate how HS rankings aren't a guarantee of success or failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hhcdimes said:

Just for reference, here are current conference rankings from VerbalCommits.com

They aggregate rankings from Rivals, Scout, and ESPN

 

Here it was from Aug 2013

Name Mascot Average Stars
Michigan State Spartans 3.81
Ohio State Buckeyes 3.7
Indiana Hoosiers 3.6
Michigan Wolverines 3.49
Purdue Boilermakers 3.36
Wisconsin Badgers 3.15
Illinois Fighting Illini 3.13
Iowa Hawkeyes 2.97
Minnesota Golden Gophers 2.7
Penn State Nittany Lions 2.65
Northwestern Wildcats 2.59
Nebraska Cornhuskers 2.5

 

Here it is today

Name Mascot Average Stars
Michigan State Spartans 3.583
Illinois Fighting Illini 3.403
Indiana Hoosiers 3.385
Maryland Terrapins 3.333
Ohio State Buckeyes 3.321
Michigan Wolverines 3.269
Nebraska Cornhuskers 3.205
Northwestern Wildcats 3.167
Purdue Boilermakers 3.111
Penn State Nittany Lions 3.097
Minnesota Golden Gophers 2.769
Iowa Hawkeyes 2.744
Wisconsin Badgers 2.718
Rutgers Scarlet Knights 2.625

 

 

You can see

1. We have raised that sort of talent level a ton since Miles has been here

2. Wisconsin and Illinois illustrate how HS rankings aren't a guarantee of success or failure.

 

Great points.  If I was a recruiting service, I would literally add or take away a star if the player recruited fit the system they were recruited for.  I'm pretty sure Frank Kaminsky had one major conference offer, and that was from Wisconsin, because they knew he'd eventually be a 5* in their system.  I feel the same way about Iowa.  If you can't shoot really, really well and play into a their team system, you aren't getting recruited.  I respect that a lot, though I think it puts a ceiling on the caliber of athlete you can get and might create defensive liabilities.  

 

To be honest, literally no team's talent in the B1G has stood out to me this year.  With a healthy lineup, we were every bit as talented as Maryland and Indiana.  That's why we were able to keep up with the likes of UCLA and Creighton (for a half) and not get embarrassed by KU.  Those were teams with top 15 talent.  We don't have that this season... but we do next season, which is why Miles needs to prove he can coach them into the tournament next year.  

 

What stands out in the B1G, every season, is Wisconsin's system of basketball, which has taken decades to develop into a dominant force that is very difficult to prepare for or beat, regardless of the athleticism they roll out.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, hhcdimes said:

Just for reference, here are current conference rankings from VerbalCommits.com

They aggregate rankings from Rivals, Scout, and ESPN

 

Here it was from Aug 2013

Name Mascot Average Stars
Michigan State Spartans 3.81
Ohio State Buckeyes 3.7
Indiana Hoosiers 3.6
Michigan Wolverines 3.49
Purdue Boilermakers 3.36
Wisconsin Badgers 3.15
Illinois Fighting Illini 3.13
Iowa Hawkeyes 2.97
Minnesota Golden Gophers 2.7
Penn State Nittany Lions 2.65
Northwestern Wildcats 2.59
Nebraska Cornhuskers 2.5

 

Here it is today

Name Mascot Average Stars
Michigan State Spartans 3.583
Illinois Fighting Illini 3.403
Indiana Hoosiers 3.385
Maryland Terrapins 3.333
Ohio State Buckeyes 3.321
Michigan Wolverines 3.269
Nebraska Cornhuskers 3.205
Northwestern Wildcats 3.167
Purdue Boilermakers 3.111
Penn State Nittany Lions 3.097
Minnesota Golden Gophers 2.769
Iowa Hawkeyes 2.744
Wisconsin Badgers 2.718
Rutgers Scarlet Knights 2.625

 

 

You can see

1. We have raised that sort of talent level a ton since Miles has been here

2. Wisconsin and Illinois illustrate how HS rankings aren't a guarantee of success or failure.

 

Do transfers count in those numbers?  The "standings" could vary depending on whether they do or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, 49r said:

Do transfers count in those numbers?  The "standings" could vary depending on whether they do or not.

 

They do. So do Jucos and international players.

I don't think Nana and his (LOI) status is currently counted. (currently a 2 star)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hhcdimes said:

Just for reference, here are current conference rankings from VerbalCommits.com

They aggregate rankings from Rivals, Scout, and ESPN

 

Here it was from Aug 2013

Name Mascot Average Stars
Michigan State Spartans 3.81
Ohio State Buckeyes 3.7
Indiana Hoosiers 3.6
Michigan Wolverines 3.49
Purdue Boilermakers 3.36
Wisconsin Badgers 3.15
Illinois Fighting Illini 3.13
Iowa Hawkeyes 2.97
Minnesota Golden Gophers 2.7
Penn State Nittany Lions 2.65
Northwestern Wildcats 2.59
Nebraska Cornhuskers 2.5

 

Here it is today

Name Mascot Average Stars
Michigan State Spartans 3.583
Illinois Fighting Illini 3.403
Indiana Hoosiers 3.385
Maryland Terrapins 3.333
Ohio State Buckeyes 3.321
Michigan Wolverines 3.269
Nebraska Cornhuskers 3.205
Northwestern Wildcats 3.167
Purdue Boilermakers 3.111
Penn State Nittany Lions 3.097
Minnesota Golden Gophers 2.769
Iowa Hawkeyes 2.744
Wisconsin Badgers 2.718
Rutgers Scarlet Knights 2.625

 

 

You can see

1. We have raised that sort of talent level a ton since Miles has been here

2. Wisconsin and Illinois illustrate how HS rankings aren't a guarantee of success or failure.

Wow this doesn't say very much for John Groce does it....??????  Hopefully Illinois keeps him around so Timmy can keep pulling Top 150 recruits from up there!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LK1 said:

 

Great points.  If I was a recruiting service, I would literally add or take away a star if the player recruited fit the system they were recruited for.  I'm pretty sure Frank Kaminsky had one major conference offer, and that was from Wisconsin, because they knew he'd eventually be a 5* in their system.  I feel the same way about Iowa.  If you can't shoot really, really well and play into a their team system, you aren't getting recruited.  I respect that a lot, though I think it puts a ceiling on the caliber of athlete you can get and might create defensive liabilities.  

 

To be honest, literally no team's talent in the B1G has stood out to me this year.  With a healthy lineup, we were every bit as talented as Maryland and Indiana.  That's why we were able to keep up with the likes of UCLA and Creighton (for a half) and not get embarrassed by KU.  Those were teams with top 15 talent.  We don't have that this season... but we do next season, which is why Miles needs to prove he can coach them into the tournament next year.  

 

What stands out in the B1G, every season, is Wisconsin's system of basketball, which has taken decades to develop into a dominant force that is very difficult to prepare for or beat, regardless of the athleticism they roll out.  

 

 

Will be interesting to see how much Wisconsin falls off after this year when they lose Koenig, Brown, and Hayes....  Will still have Happ unless he goes pro but they might fall off some next year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, Wisconsin fan here just visiting for a few days. A few things to add as it relates to UW:

 

  • Kaminsky had a Northwestern offer, I believe - his dad went there and he's from the Chicago burbs.
  • I think the highest rated guy on Wisconsin's roster from his HS days is Brevin Pritzl, who is starting to crack the rotation, but he's a minor contributor at this point (broke his foot and sat out last year).
  • Showalter is now on scholarship, but he started out as a walk-on - his dad (who was his HS coach) played for Bo Ryan when he was at UW-Platteville. There have been other examples of walk-ons contributing, too
  • Happ committed rather early before other offers came
  • OSU decided to concentrate on getting Marc Loving instead of Nigel Hayes (both Ohio guys). How'd that work out, Thad?

UW makes recruiting mistakes, too, but they've had a pretty good hit rate compared to others. The system gets them pretty far, but when they get high-rated guys like Dekker, the ceiling gets pretty high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if Dirk is right, and our talent, while better than it has been from a ratings standpoint over the past 15 years, is still not at a high level compared to or Big 10 peers:  Do we have confidence that our AD can find someone who will get better talent than what we have been recruiting the past 2 years?   I do not.  I'm also not confident we can get a better group of assistants than the current ones from a recruiting standpoint.   A change to get Dirk better talent is not without considerable risk.   I hope next year we aren't cursed with injuries and can get over the hump, and let the current staff see if they can up the talent level even more.  Regardless, I hope we can wait until Eichorst/Behm aren't doing the hiring.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ConkintheCorner said:

Will be interesting to see how much Wisconsin falls off after this year when they lose Koenig, Brown, and Hayes....  Will still have Happ unless he goes pro but they might fall off some next year

They lose Showalter, too. The great thing about Happ for UW is his game doesn't translate to the pros - he has hit a grand total of one shot outside the lane in his entire college career (and I think he may have attempted only 2). I'm not exaggerating, that's the truth.

 

That being said, going into last year, Wisconsin had to replace two first round draft picks (Kaminsky & Dekker), a third player who got a cup of coffee in the NBA (Dukan, who didn't even start for UW), a four year starter at G (Gasser), and another player who started most of his career (Trae Jackson, who was hurt most of his senior year - Koenig replaced him). The guys that they need to replace after this year are good, but they're not at the same level. Having Happ back is a huge piece to the puzzle, but even I have to question whether they'll be able to maintain the 4th place streak. There is a pretty good incoming class, but UW rarely depends on frosh.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, formerlybis said:

They lose Showalter, too. The great thing about Happ for UW is his game doesn't translate to the pros - he has hit a grand total of one shot outside the lane in his entire college career (and I think he may have attempted only 2). I'm not exaggerating, that's the truth.

 

That being said, going into last year, Wisconsin had to replace two first round draft picks (Kaminsky & Dekker), a third player who got a cup of coffee in the NBA (Dukan, who didn't even start for UW), a four year starter at G (Gasser), and another player who started most of his career (Trae Jackson, who was hurt most of his senior year - Koenig replaced him). The guys that they need to replace after this year are good, but they're not at the same level. Having Happ back is a huge piece to the puzzle, but even I have to question whether they'll be able to maintain the 4th place streak. There is a pretty good incoming class, but UW rarely depends on frosh.  

Welcome!!  Appreciate your Input!!  From an outsider, what is your view of our roster??  Just curious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, formerlybis said:

They lose Showalter, too. The great thing about Happ for UW is his game doesn't translate to the pros - he has hit a grand total of one shot outside the lane in his entire college career (and I think he may have attempted only 2). I'm not exaggerating, that's the truth.

 

That being said, going into last year, Wisconsin had to replace two first round draft picks (Kaminsky & Dekker), a third player who got a cup of coffee in the NBA (Dukan, who didn't even start for UW), a four year starter at G (Gasser), and another player who started most of his career (Trae Jackson, who was hurt most of his senior year - Koenig replaced him). The guys that they need to replace after this year are good, but they're not at the same level. Having Happ back is a huge piece to the puzzle, but even I have to question whether they'll be able to maintain the 4th place streak. There is a pretty good incoming class, but UW rarely depends on frosh.  

 

I just think the UW brand of basketball will eternally keep them from beating themselves.  Good team defense, excellent passing, great shooting, and a high team IQ will always get you, at least, on the bubble with decent enough athletes.  Sure you'll get beat by some more talented or hot teams, but you'll win nearly every single one of the matchups the other team isn't playing their best ball.  It's fun to watch.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ConkintheCorner said:

Welcome!!  Appreciate your Input!!  From an outsider, what is your view of our roster??  Just curious

In the past, you've had one or two guys that were really good, but the role players were, well, not. It also seems to me that you've generally had those guys be "ballhogs" - you want your best players to have the ball, but you get too dependent on them (e.g. Petteway, Shields/White). Even this year, Webster/Watson might fit that description. However, it does seem like the role player guys like Morrow/Jacobsen/McVeigh talent levels are better than in the past. Is it better than some of the other programs in the league? Hard to say - each team has got some pieces, but it's how you put those pieces together that matters, and I think guys like Crean and Groce are just awful at that. 

 

I've liked Miles from before he was with you guys, but I can't say he's done a fantastic job here. When you made the NCAAs a couple of years ago, I thought you played a nice brand of hoops, but you haven't been able to recapture that run consistently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...