Our Starting Lineup 4 weeks from now

[Hoops_Legend]

Let's assume no upsets and we're staring at 5 losses in non con.

 

Predict our starting 5:

Watson

Webster

Morrow

Roby

Jordy

 

Bench minutes:

Jacobsen

Horne

Taylor (very low minutes)

 

If injury or garbage time:

Fuller

McVeigh

Gill

Walk ons

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Hoops_Legend

[mwash95]

I dont see Miles putting McVeigh and/or Gill in the "garbage time" catergory. Both have potential to score a lot of points at any given time. Plus, that starting lineup has almost ZERO 3 point shooting.

[Hoops_Legend]

14 minutes ago, mwash95 said:

I dont see Miles putting McVeigh and/or Gill in the "garbage time" catergory. Both have potential to score a lot of points at any given time. Plus, that starting lineup has almost ZERO 3 point shooting.

So does McVeigh and Gill.  Look at the stats against good competition.

 

ill take my chances with Roby from 3 over either of those two.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Hoops_Legend

[49r]

Shouldn't there be a reputation threshold below which one is no longer able to start threads?  #JustWondering

[tcp]

Gill should hold the pole position for a starting spot as he slowly catches up. We'll need him.

McVeigh had a miserable tournament, but I've been watching this stuff long enough to have seen much better players have worse tourneys.

 

Let's just see how these guys bounce back (or not) after getting back into a normal rhythm.

 

The team I'm seeing so far is likely not to have a steady starting rotation for large chunks of this season. I think there's going to be a lot of streaky play.

[uneblinstu]

Jordy's got quite a ways to go before he'll be starting, I think.

[Hoops_Legend]

43 minutes ago, 49r said:

Shouldn't there be a reputation threshold below which one is no longer able to start threads?  #JustWondering

 

As the guy here who is calling it like I see it and not happy about it.  I really don't think that is grounds to kick me out because you don't agree with me.  I've been watching Husker BBall as long as most on this board and I only think it's fair to expect better performances than we've been seeing over the past decade.  I think it's great we made a tourney, but I think it's unacceptable not to capitalize and keep up the pace.

 

I sincerely hope the down arrow thing isn't  a basis for eliminating guys who have higher expectations and aren't afraid to openly criticize.

[HB]

Just when you think this guy's posts can't get any worse.  The ones on this thread are so dumb it should answer the troll question for everyone still wondering. 

[aphilso1]

58 minutes ago, 49r said:

Shouldn't there be a reputation threshold below which one is no longer able to start threads?  #JustWondering

 

That, or the thread should have some kind of visual indicator so we know it was started by a creightonian troll.  I'm thinking maybe the font should be smurf blue.  That would make it easier to know not to click on the thread.

[cozrulz]

Roby better get a whole lot better if you expect him to start.

[Hoops_Legend]

6 minutes ago, cozrulz said:

Roby better get a whole lot better if you expect him to start.

I think he will.  Sure as heck has more upside than 2-17 from the field.

[hhcmatt]

3 hours ago, Hoops_Legend said:

I really don't think that is grounds to kick me out because you don't agree with me.

 

He didn't say anything about kicking you out. He's stating his annoyance that you continuously feel the need to make the same I know I should let this go but it's now or never because I think we hit rock bottom fellas posts that usually comes in groups way earlier in the season than you usually do.  It's not so much that it's invalid opinion as much as it's the only opinion you seem to have.

[hhcmatt]

3 hours ago, aphilso1 said:

creightonian troll.

 

Not to pick on you because it's not you but this thing where you guys think that just because someone is making any sort of critical posts they're some Creighton fan is about as tiresome.  My goodness.

[HuskerFever]

8 hours ago, hhcdimes said:

 

Not to pick on you because it's not you but this thing where you guys think that just because someone is making any sort of critical posts they're some Creighton fan is about as tiresome.  My goodness.

 

Truth. There is a difference between someone who is critical and someone who is disrespectful. However, nobody wants to hang around someone who is negative all the time. I suppose that's where some of the angst comes from.

[hhcmatt]

4 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

Truth. There is a difference between someone who is critical and someone who is disrespectful. However, nobody wants to hang around someone who is negative all the time. I suppose that's where some of the angst comes from.

 

Let me just say I pretty much know who all the sleeper cell Creighton guys are on this board and will subtly mention it or directly message them when they feel comfortable enough to forget that this is a Nebraska basketball board.  This school has a football team so there is no built-in conflict of interest to our fandom, something that might seem foreign to a group accustomed to bringing together those that do and do not root for Husker Football.

[NU Follower]

I did see a lineup in the first half of the V-Tech game that I thought might our most effective lineup later in the year.  It was Watson, Webster, Horne, Roby and Morrow.  Now, Horne and Roby have to get better, but it leads to a lot of versatility in offense and defense (once Horne and Roby get some experience).

 

This group was only together for 2-3 minutes, but I thought that grouping could be really good by the end of the year.

[hhcmatt]

12 hours ago, Hoops_Legend said:

I think he will.  Sure as heck has more upside than 2-17 from the field.

 

Not counting games vs Div II schools he's 2-10 from the field and 0-3 from 3 point range.

He certainly has more upside than 2-17 or even 2-10 from the field.  So does McVeigh who shot 12 for 24 and 8 for 16 from 3 point range in the prior 3 non-Mary games.

[colhusker]

14 hours ago, 49r said:

Shouldn't there be a reputation threshold below which one is no longer able to start threads?  #JustWondering

Was trying to remember what the record for down arrows in a post is.

[49r]

9 hours ago, hhcdimes said:

 

He didn't say anything about kicking you out. He's stating his annoyance that you continuously feel the need to make the same I know I should let this go but it's now or never because I think we hit rock bottom fellas posts that usually comes in groups way earlier in the season than you usually do.  It's not so much that it's invalid opinion as much as it's the only opinion you seem to have.

 

It's not even the posts themselves that are tiresome.  It's the incessant need to start a new thread every time just to state the same thing.  It clutters the board.

 

We all got it, man.  "8 man rotation, start the guys who are on the bench because we lost, coach is obviously an idiot because he doesn't do it they way *I* would do it, yadda yadda".  We don't need a whole new thread for that.

 

Also @Hoops_Legend take a look at who is giving you neg rep on here.  Some of it is coming from some of our most valued and knowledgeable members who contribute a HELL of a lot more to the conversation than you ever have...and yet they don't feel the need to start new threads constantly (FWIW, I have rarely if ever neg repped you myself).  But if those guys are giving you down arrows, maybe you should try to relax and not click on that "Start New Thread" button.  Consider it constructive criticism.

 

[uneblinstu]

13 hours ago, Hoops_Legend said:

but I think it's unacceptable not to capitalize

They did, actually.

[atskooc]

16 minutes ago, uneblinstu said:

They did, actually.

I think he was just explaining why he capitalized "starting lineup" in his thread title. 

 

[bball23]

12 hours ago, hhcdimes said:

 

Not to pick on you because it's not you but this thing where you guys think that just because someone is making any sort of critical posts they're some Creighton fan is about as tiresome.  My goodness.

Its not just that.  Its the fact that until some started calling him out, every single post of his had a mention of Creighton being the measuring stick of Nebraska basketball.  It became pretty obvious at some point.  Especially when they were occurring 2-3 weeks ago when we have NUMEROUS important games on the schedule before we play them. 

[aphilso1]

18 hours ago, hhcdimes said:

 

Not to pick on you because it's not you but this thing where you guys think that just because someone is making any sort of critical posts they're some Creighton fan is about as tiresome.  My goodness.

 

I don't equate a critical post with being a creighton fan.  However, when someone:

 

a. frequently measures Husker success in terms of how we perform against creighton,

b. screws with the overall layout of the board by incessantly creating variations of the same topic,

c. is relatively new, and

d. is the most critical poster on the board,

 

then yeah, I jump to the conclusion that they've got a closet full of blue sweater vests.  Using some bigger picture context, namely that 100% of our previous trolls were creighton fans and the Huskers are performing better than expected by objective standards, and I'd say my jumping to conclusions isn't that crazy.  

[Hoops_Legend]

3 hours ago, aphilso1 said:

 

I don't equate a critical post with being a creighton fan.  However, when someone:

 

a. frequently measures Husker success in terms of how we perform against creighton,

b. screws with the overall layout of the board by incessantly creating variations of the same topic,

c. is relatively new, and

d. is the most critical poster on the board,

 

then yeah, I jump to the conclusion that they've got a closet full of blue sweater vests.  Using some bigger picture context, namely that 100% of our previous trolls were creighton fans and the Huskers are performing better than expected by objective standards, and I'd say my jumping to conclusions isn't that crazy.  

 

Regarding Creighton, yes, consistently (not once every 5 years) beating them is critical to the legitimacy of our program.  To lose year after year by 15pt margins deflates our fan base, hurts in state recruiting, and forces guys like you to pretend they are just another game.  Feels better I guess??

 

How about this question:. Why shouldn't we beat them 50% or more of the time?  What advantage do they have year in year out?  If you say talent, then you've identified a coaching problem.  If you can't beat Creighton, how do you expect to be good enough to win in the B10?  It's more of a bigger picture thinking than an individual game.  Comprende?

Edited November 30, 2016 by Hoops_Legend

[bball23]

2 hours ago, Hoops_Legend said:

 

Regarding Creighton, yes, consistently (not once every 5 years) beating them is critical to the legitimacy of our program.  To lose year after year by 15pt margins deflates our fan base, hurts in state recruiting, and forces guys like you to pretend they are just another game.  Feels better I guess??

 

How about this question:. Why shouldn't we beat them 50% or more of the time?  What advantage do they have year in year out?  If you say talent, then you've identified a coaching problem.  If you can't beat Creighton, how do you expect to be good enough to win in the B10?  It's more of a bigger picture thinking than an individual game.  Comprende?

We lost to them last year and they were an NIT team and yet we went on to beat Wisconsin a much, much better team. The point being 1 game doesn't make or break a season. 

 

Comprehende? 

 

(You can respond after getting home from the Century Link after CU beats Buffalo)