• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


aphilso1 last won the day on November 6 2016

aphilso1 had the most liked content!

About aphilso1

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    La Vista

Recent Profile Visitors

410 profile views
  1. Yes, Watson did wear down by the end of the year. But this isn't me saying how I would build the rotation, it's my speculation with what Tim Miles will do (hence the use of the words "projected depth chart"). And Miles has played his best player(s) very high minutes every season...so yeah, 33 mpg to Glynn.
  2. My current projected depth chart, with minutes in parenthesis: PG: Allen (24) / Watson (16) / Taylor (spot minutes) SG: Watson (17) / Gill (11) / Palmer (7) / Taylor (5) SF: Taylor (15) / Palmer (8) / Roby (7) / Nana (5) / McVeigh (5) PF: Copeland (20) / Roby (15) / McVeigh (5) C: Jordy (24) / ? Backup (12) / Copeland (4) / Borchardt (spot minutes) Total minutes per game projections: Watson (33), Allen (24), Jordy (24), Copeland (24), Roby (22), Taylor (20), Palmer (15), Backup Center (12), Gill (11), Jack (10), Nana (5)
  3. I agree that we have most of the pieces in place, especially with the addition of Allen. It certainly makes it easier to be more optimistic about next season. That being said, I don't think our post problem automatically gets fixed by adding a backup for Jordy. A few of the concerns I still have for next year: 1. Who's going to rebound? That was one of the few things we actually did well last season, and the two biggest reasons why just left. Also, Jordy was much more effective in this area when playing alongside either Ed or Michael. Can Copeland be an above average rebounder at the 4? Can Roby? We know Jack isn't. So if we're not getting boards from our 4, then either A. our 5 has to be a beast on the glass, or B. our guards need to give serious production. Not sure we're really built for either of those things. 2. Will the team gel? Yes, we've added some players that, on paper, appear to be good. We've heard that story before, but unfortunately increases in talent haven't resulted in more wins. Gotta play better as a team. 3. Will our most important players come back for the '18-'19 season? Every team has transfers. I'm OK losing young guys that don't want to wait for more PT (Horne in '17, Bakari in '16, etc). Those transfers are a part of today's environment. But we can't keep losing guys with 30+ games of starting experience and remaining eligibility. Teams that do this usually either are sending guys to the NBA (good thing), or are a dumpster fire (bad thing). 4. Can we shoot? It sure seems like we've added the necessary pieces to be significantly better from deep. This is probably the question I feel most confident that we'll be able to adequately answer. 5. Can we defend the three point line? Yeah...about that... 6. Will the guys we're expecting to play be able to do so? Copeland (health & first semester eligibility), Palmer (academics), and Gill (health) are all expected to be key pieces of the rotation. With the addition of Allen, it makes a potential blow like Gill not fully recovering or Palmer being ineligible easier to recover from. But what if Copeland can't play until January? Who get minutes at the 4 then? 7. What do we do if we can't sign a backup for Jordy? Play Copeland at the 5? Roby? Both seem like nightmare scenarios.
  4. Very true. I'm hoping Allen can come in and give us something in the neighborhood of 24 quality minutes per game right away. At this point you pencil Glynn in for 32-35 minutes until someone else earns more PT. So give him the remaining 16 mpg at point, and around 17 mpg playing next to Allen at SG. That leaves 23ish minutes up for grabs from Gill, Palmer, and Taylor (when he's not playing the 3). And that's why the Allen addition is so huge. We go from needing to squeeze Nana into a SG role out of necessity (which I see as a square peg/round hole scenario), to letting him develop in a more natural wing role.
  5. I'm with you. I though Evan was the only player on our team that actually got better during our end of season meltdown, while everyone else's game went down the toilet. I think he will be a decent outside shooter for us next year. And now that Ed and Michael have exited stage left, I'm guessing Evan is the front runner to be team captain. All those things put together tell me that he's got the inside track to be a starter.
  6. My apologies if I wasn't clear, but I wasn't implying Nana will be a starter. Simply stating that his playing time should occur when there's two true guards on the floor with him. I don't like his film as a 2; I don't think he's quick enough for extended minutes at that position, and I'm not convinced he can consistently get his shot off with a speedy guard in his hip pocket. I do like his film as a 3, especially with distributors like Allen and Watson on the floor with him. But yeah, I agree it would be shocking if he was in our starting lineup.
  7. Allen will absolutely contribute. And if by chance the Palmer grades issue is legit, then Allen will play A LOT. I think Nana's chance at being a solid contributor actually goes up with the addition of Allen. Granted, I know they are both indirectly competing against each other for back court minutes. But that is more than offset by bringing in a great distributor like Allen. The highlights I've seen of Nana tell me he will be a very good spot-up shooter, but likely needs some space to get his shot off cleanly and consistently while adjusting to the speed of the college game. I'm also not sure he'll be immediately adept at creating his own shot. But his three strengths from what I've seen (shooting open 3's, transition offense, and pump fake/drive/dunk) will absolutely be maximized by having two guys in the back court that can create space for him. I think he'll be most effective playing in a lineup like: Allen Watson Nana Copeland Jordy I know a lot of people on here have penciled him in as a regular at SG, but I think his skills would translate best in a lineup with two other guards and him playing SF. Just my two cents.
  8. I think we could defend really well using a zone and that lineup. My concern would be rebounding though, and I don't think going zone would help that aspect any.
  9. Definitely a big pickup. I was out of town this week without my computer, so was anxious to see if there were any additional changes to our roster. Very pleasantly surprised to see that the change was a major addition, rather than a major subtraction. It also seems that with the season further and further in our rear window, that hopefully that means we will be keeping the rest of the band together. I still have reservations about this coming year, which honestly will only be sated with wins. But if the coaches can re-tool our offense and defense around the talent we have, and if they can find a way to get buy-in from the players for a full season, then we've at least got a chance at a good year. And that's far more optimistic than I felt a week ago. If nothing else, this shows that Miles and Hunter can recruit in any situation, even when handicapped by a lame-duck contract. My concerns about Miles remain, but I'm happy to see us land a major piece to next year's (and hopefully the following three years') puzzle.
  10. Well then I guess we're quibbling over semantics. Because I would consider questioning whether someone is a "team first" player as part of questioning their character. If you find those two things mutually exclusive, that's fine too. No worries.
  11. In spite of that, yes. He does still strike me as a team-first guy. For two years he's been asked to play hurt, come back from injury before he's 100%, play undersized in one of the most physical leagues in the country, and be our resident tough guy. He's a Nebraska kid at heart, the son of two Husker letter winners, and has always carried himself in a mild-mannered, unassuming way. The fact that he is transferring shouldn't make you question his character; his transfer should make you question what is going on behind the curtain of this program.
  12. Potentially even a bigger factor than how many guys prefer to score at the rim vs. the perimeter, is how many guys are more comfortable on the ball vs. off the ball offensively. Using our end of year starting lineup, Tai and Glynn were far more dangerous with the ball in their hands. Taylor also was a guy that didn't wow me off the ball. Jordy did some nice work to position himself in the post, but usually still needed a dribble or two to put himself in a comfortable shooting situation. Jacobson too. Coming off the bench, we did have three guys who were skilled offensively off the ball: a streaky catch and shoot guy (McVeigh), a pick and roll guy with loads of starting experience (Morrow), and a guy who showed a knack for finding open spots on the floor via back cuts (Roby). Using what seems to be the most commonly accepted starting lineup, we're more balanced as far as who needs the ball in their hands to maximize their effectiveness. Projected starters, with how I perceive their strength: Glynn (on-ball) Nana (off) / Palmer (on) Roby (balanced) Copeland (off) Jordy (off...assuming some improvement over the summer) Granted, I had to make some pretty big assumptions here, since I've only seen highlight videos of Nana, Palmer, and Copeland. Their skill sets could very well be substantially different than how I perceive them. But at least from a first glance, it appears that we've now got more guys comfortable working the offense without the rock in their hands. Which is good.
  13. Thanks. That's certainly a better source than idle speculation. Still a chance that things got lost in translation, but at least fans aren't blasting the kid based exclusively on message board fodder. He still strikes me as a team-first high character kid though, so odds are I will never be one of the ones throwing shade at him.
  14. Serious question: where did the whole Ed-wants-to-be-a-wing "fact" come from? I don't recall reading it anywhere other than on this message board. Did someone with inside info leak it? And if so, was the info from Ed's camp or Miles'? Because I still have a hard time believing that things went down the way that people in the Pro Miles Camp say it did. Morrow seemed to be a high character kid cut from the same cloth as Tai, Shavon, etc. As for the OP - Yes, at least 2 of the 4 transfers would still be here if we had won more. Look at our transfer history under Miles, and compare that with our record during that same span of time. The outlier year for wins was followed by the one year where we didn't lose significant players via transfer.
  15. http://huskercorner.com/2017/04/10/nebraska-basketball-10-candidates-to-replace-tim-miles/ Granted half of those names are completely unrealistic, but not all. And for the third time I'll say why not just name Lewis an interim coach? I've yet to see a response.