Next Years Starting 5

[49r]

I don't think I've ever thought that we had a B1G caliber depth chart top to bottom, at most we've had 3 *maybe* 4 B1G level guys at a time.  Probably this year we're deeper than we have ever been in the B1G era, but I still believe there's a way to go.

Edited September 18, 2017 by 49r

[AuroranHusker]

33 minutes ago, 49r said:

I don't think I've ever thought that we had a B1G caliber depth chart top to bottom, at most we've had 3 *maybe* 4 B1G level guys at a time.  Probably this year we're deeper than we have ever been in the B1G era, but I still believe there's a way to go.

 

NU isn't seriously competing for a conference crown with this roster necessarily, but the Huskers seem to have a legit Big Ten depth chart.

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by AuroranHusker

[Navin R. Johnson]

 

57 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Personally, I don't ever remember looking at our roster and thinking it was a legit Big Ten depth chart.  To me, there have always been missing pieces.  We've had a couple of good players and a role player or two, but there's always been that spot in the lineup where I've always kind of had the "if only" sentiment.  If we just had a quality whatever to go along with what else we have.  So, even the year after our tournament trip, when everyone was giddy about bringing back the bulk of the talent from the year before, who would claim we had a legit center on that squad?

 

I was hoping Moses Abraham would fill that void, but that did not work out at all.  That is why I am tempering my excitement about this year's team.  I had really high hopes for that team as I thought we did have a well rounded roster and we would roll that year. I really hope this year we play to our potential and get a few breaks along the way.   

[uneblinstu]

1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Personally, I don't ever remember looking at our roster and thinking it was a legit Big Ten depth chart.  To me, there have always been missing pieces.  We've had a couple of good players and a role player or two, but there's always been that spot in the lineup where I've always kind of had the "if only" sentiment.  If we just had a quality whatever to go along with what else we have.  So, even the year after our tournament trip, when everyone was giddy about bringing back the bulk of the talent from the year before, who would claim we had a legit center on that squad?

To you, sure, I'm sure you  believed that. Not doubting you. But there have been a handful of times over the years where that was said (not ascribing to any one inparticular...). Foolhardy or otherwise. We tend to get wrapped up into these optimistic states before the season starts (I've been guilty of this) and think we're better than we actually are. Until I see it on the court, I'm not gonna do that. That's all I'm saying.

 

And if Pitchford had built off that sophomore season instead of turtleing up, you'd have had something to work with at the 5.

Edited September 18, 2017 by uneblinstu

[uneblinstu]

1 hour ago, AuroranHusker said:

 

By the way, my full quote was: "Nebraska finally has a legit Big Ten depth chart, in my opinion, for Miles to use various lineups depending on matchups within a ballgame."

Doesn't really change my point.

[AuroranHusker]

12 hours ago, uneblinstu said:

Doesn't really change my point.

 

Partial quotes to others, who then may miss my point, though.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by AuroranHusker

[uneblinstu]

2 minutes ago, AuroranHusker said:

 

Partial quotes to others, who than may miss my point, though.

 

 

That's fair. I'll adjust it.

[Norm Peterson]

3 hours ago, uneblinstu said:

To you, sure, I'm sure you  believed that. Not doubting you. But there have been a handful of times over the years where that was said (not ascribing to any one inparticular...). Foolhardy or otherwise. We tend to get wrapped up into these optimistic states before the season starts (I've been guilty of this) and think we're better than we actually are. Until I see it on the court, I'm not gonna do that. That's all I'm saying.

 

And if Pitchford had built off that sophomore season instead of turtleing up, you'd have had something to work with at the 5.

 

Just so we're clear, the discussion was about the Big Ten, so my comment was also limited to Big Ten.  There might have been times before we joined the Big Ten where I felt we had solid players up and down the roster and a kid for every position.  But I don't recall that happening since we joined the Big Ten.   And not for a long while before that, either, frankly.

 

I don't mean to pick on David Rivers, because I think he was a good kid overall, but anytime you have David Rivers in your starting lineup, you cannot say that you have a legit Big Ten level player at every spot.  And he was a starter on 3 Big Ten teams for us, including one that danced.  So, even if Pitchford had built off that sophomore season, we still had David Rivers starting 25 games.

[49r]

Very true, @Norm Peterson.  Last time I think we really had a roster built to compete at the top of league level would have been somewhere in the mid-90's.  Here's to getting back to that level - hopefully soon!

[uneblinstu]

3 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Just so we're clear, the discussion was about the Big Ten, so my comment was also limited to Big Ten.  There might have been times before we joined the Big Ten where I felt we had solid players up and down the roster and a kid for every position.  But I don't recall that happening since we joined the Big Ten.   And not for a long while before that, either, frankly.

 

I don't mean to pick on David Rivers, because I think he was a good kid overall, but anytime you have David Rivers in your starting lineup, you cannot say that you have a legit Big Ten level player at every spot.  And he was a starter on 3 Big Ten teams for us, including one that danced.  So, even if Pitchford had built off that sophomore season, we still had David Rivers starting 25 games.

Coming off the tournament run, we were picked to be 2nd in the Big Ten. There were a lot of people, here and otherwise, saying that was the most complete team NU's fielded since the 90's. A lot of people were saying that. You can probably dig up instances where you said you had concerns, but a lot of people were flying high after the magic carpet ride.

[Jacob Padilla]

14 hours ago, aphilso1 said:

 

From the people that you talk to, have they given you any indication on how the Copeland eligibility will effect playing time for other players?  Are there specific combinations of players that work really well with Copeland around them?

 

I'd say it's too early for something that specific. I think it's safe to expect Watson and Copeland to get starter's minutes, and they're hoping Roby and Tshimanga progress enough to get those minutes as well. After that, I think they're still sorting things out.

 

I think Copeland's athleticism and potnetial shooting ability make him pretty easy to play with pretty much any combination of players on this roster. Roby, Copeland and Tshimanga could form a pretty fun front-line though.

[hskr4life]

1 hour ago, uneblinstu said:

Coming off the tournament run, we were picked to be 2nd in the Big Ten. There were a lot of people, here and otherwise, saying that was the most complete team NU's fielded since the 90's. A lot of people were saying that. You can probably dig up instances where you said you had concerns, but a lot of people were flying high after the magic carpet ride.

 

Honestly they weren't wrong in their thinking how it was one of the most complete teams we have fielded.  Doesn't mean we had all the pieces to the puzzle though.  People weren't wrong intheir thinking either about being excited.  There were a lot of intangibles that didn't work out that year.  We had players regress instead of progress.

[uneblinstu]

8 hours ago, hskr4life said:

 

Honestly they weren't wrong in their thinking how it was one of the most complete teams we have fielded.  Doesn't mean we had all the pieces to the puzzle though.  People weren't wrong in their thinking either about being excited.  There were a lot of intangibles that didn't work out that year.  We had players regress instead of progress.

No one's claiming they had all the pieces. My point is we've felt similar to this before and had it all come crashing in on us. I'm just wanna see it on the court a bit first.

[big red22]

9 hours ago, Jacob Padilla said:

 

I'd say it's too early for something that specific. I think it's safe to expect Watson and Copeland to get starter's minutes, and they're hoping Roby and Tshimanga progress enough to get those minutes as well. After that, I think they're still sorting things out.

 

I think Copeland's athleticism and potnetial shooting ability make him pretty easy to play with pretty much any combination of players on this roster. Roby, Copeland and Tshimanga could form a pretty fun front-line though.

You know we can't say specifics, because the unknowns on this team are through the roof.

 

1. Copeland... will his back be okay, and how will he mesh with this new team.  Will he go all Terran Petteway and think he has to do everything, or will he play within the system?

 

2. How much PT will Thomas Allen get and will he be even remotely close to his shooting % in high school.  How many minutes will he get, and where will he spend the majority of his minutes?

 

3. James Palmer does anyone know what his strengths are?  We he be a 2 or is he more of a 3 type player.  I don't know if anyone know what we are going to get out of him.

 

4. Nana Akenten will he get minutes?  Will he play his true 2 position if he does?  Does he just redshirt this year?

 

5.  Anton Gill the biggest mystery of all.  Does he get meaningful minutes? Does he play anywhere near to what he was like coming out of high school?  How many minutes does he get if he gets any at all?  Do he mesh better with his North Carolina team mates Copeland and Allen?

 

6. Does Roby progress enough to be the player we all think he can be... A 6'8 forward with guard like abilities?  Does his shot develope enough to make him a legit outside threat?

 

7. How many meaningful minutes can we get out of Tshimanga.  Does he take his game to the next level?

 

8.  Is Duby a legit back up to Tshimanga, and how many minutes will be needed from him?

 

9.  Will Watson be more of a facilitator this year, because of the talent around him?

 

10. What is Evan Taylor new role on this team?  How many minutes does he get and at what position?

 

There are probably a dozen more unknowns, but there is a reason for the hype.

 

The hype is coming from the fact we have a legit 1, 3, 4, and 5 and the possibilities at the 2 position are ridiculous.  

 

Go back to every year before this and you will not see a team that is a complete as this one as far as legit talent for specific positions... that actually get to play their position of strength.  

 

Go to the team the year after we made the tournament we had a LOT of talent on that team, but we had no true post and we had role playing point guard.  So as talented as that team was we played some players out of their natural positions... Pitchford and Rivers come to mind on that team

Edited September 19, 2017 by big red22

[nustudent]

If we don't consider this team to be a Big 10-caliber roster....I don't know if we ever will/should.

 

How many Top 150 players do we have....6? 7? 8?   And while some have yet to play here....we aren't trotting 5 true frosh out there.   We can put a legit player at 4 of the 5 starting positions and have reasonable depth for each spot.  The only question remains the shooting guard and we have 4 different former Top 150 players who could step in to that role. 

 

I'd venture to say there are only 3-4 teams that match us in terms of Top 150 rated players in the conference.   I think we stack up pretty well in terms of pure talent.   I think there are a legitimate 2-3 teams that are clearly more talented.   I think there are a legitimate 2-3 teams that are clearly less talented.  The other 6-8 teams are all on the same level and coaching and team chemistry make the difference.

[49r]

59 minutes ago, uneblinstu said:

No one's claiming they had all the pieces. My point is we've felt similar to this before and had it all come crashing in on us. I'm just wanna see it on the court a bit first.

 

You mean we've felt the same way Minnesota Gopher fans feel right now about their team?

 

They went from 2-16 in 2016 (we went 5-13 in 2013) to 11-7 in 2017 (we went 11-7 in 2014).  People have called our run in 2014 a fluke, getting hot at the end of the season blah, blah but the run Minnesota went on last year was probably at least as fluky as ours...the schedule really REALLY helped them out too...much moreso even than ours in 2014 did.

 

I mean if you look at the two situations, they are shockingly similar.  Now they're talking about competing for the league title and sweet 16's or more this year.  Will they fall flat on their face like we did in 2015?  Probably not.  But all it takes is an injury here or there and things can change quickly.  What if Reggie Lynch's recovery doesn't go as expected, or he suffers an early season injury?

 

Point is, you can project all you want about how a season is going to go, but how the hell can you really know until it's all over?  If you look at Minnesota's current roster and compare it to our 2015 roster can you really say they look the same?  I dunno.

[49r]

19 minutes ago, nustudent said:

I

I'd venture to say there are only 3-4 teams that match us in terms of Top 150 rated players in the conference.   I think we stack up pretty well in terms of pure talent.   I think there are a legitimate 2-3 teams that are clearly more talented.   I think there are a legitimate 2-3 teams that are clearly less talented.  The other 6-8 teams are all on the same level and coaching and team chemistry make the difference.

 

 

Wow, I mean I think that's being extremely generous.  I haven't looked at it in that much depth, but I'd be shocked if it weren't AT LEAST half the conference with more "talent" on their roster than ours.  Honestly, in terms of Rivals 150 type talent, we're probably in the bottom third of the league right now.

[Cowboy Kermit]

46 minutes ago, nustudent said:

I'd venture to say there are only 3-4 teams that match us in terms of Top 150 rated players in the conference.   I think we stack up pretty well in terms of pure talent.   I think there are a legitimate 2-3 teams that are clearly more talented.   I think there are a legitimate 2-3 teams that are clearly less talented.  The other 6-8 teams are all on the same level and coaching and team chemistry make the difference.

2

This sounds a little bit generous to me. Care to name said teams and what categories you feel they fall into.

[khoock]

We have 8/12 players who were Top150 (by one recruiting service or another) out of high school:

-Anton Gill G

-Isaac Copeland F

-James Palmer G

-Glynn Watson G

-Jordy Tshimanga C

-Isaiah Roby F

-Thomas Allen G

-Nana Akenten G/F

 

I would guess that, at best, puts us in the middle of the pack of the Big Ten.

Edited September 19, 2017 by khoock
Clarity*

[hhcmatt]

12 minutes ago, khoock said:

I would guess that, at best, puts us in the middle of the pack of the Big Ten.

  

Quick and dirty from verbal commits

Middle of the pack seems about right especially when you're able to lay out the other teams.

 

BTW, Wisconsin is generally low and proof that team chemistry, roster composition, and coaching can take you further than what the numbers might project.

 

 

 

[49r]

29 minutes ago, khoock said:

We have 8/12 players who were Top150 out of high school:

-Anton Gill G

-Isaac Copeland F

-James Palmer G

-Glynn Watson G

-Jordy Tshimanga C

-Isaiah Roby F

-Thomas Allen G

-Nana Akenten G/F

 

I would guess that, at best, puts us in the middle of the pack of the Big Ten.

 

You've almost got that right.  Nana was not in the Rivals 150.

 

https://n.rivals.com/content/prospects/2017/nana-akenten-181266

[49r]

Okay so I did a quick look on Rivals to see how many top 150 guys each B1G roster has, and since it's difficult to track transfers I could only quickly find players on current rosters that were recruited out of HS as a 150 guy.  Here's how it stacks up:

 

Michigan State	9
Ohio State	9
Illinois	8
Michigan	8
Maryland	6
Wisconsin	6
Indiana	5
Minnesota	4
Nebraska	4
Northwestern	4
Penn State	4
Purdue	4
Iowa	2
Rutgers	1

 

These are HS ONLY numbers, not including transfers.  If you add NU's transfers in they would be #5 in the league against all other teams' non-transfer numbers.  I'd venture to guess that Maryland down to Purdue would have similar numbers of top 150 guys transferring in, but I didn't have the patience to go track that down.

[khoock]

3 minutes ago, 49r said:

 

You've almost got that right.  Nana was not in the Rivals 150.

 

https://n.rivals.com/content/prospects/2017/nana-akenten-181266

Top150 in 247 sports. He was 143 i believe. Not a consensus Top150 recruit.

[49r]

2 minutes ago, khoock said:

Top150 in 247 sports. He was 143 i believe. Not a consensus Top150 recruit.

 

 

Yeah, borderline for sure.  But I think we're going with Rivals as kind of the standard for the sake of this discussion.  

[nustudent]

54 minutes ago, NebrasketballJake said:

This sounds a little bit generous to me. Care to name said teams and what categories you feel they fall into.

Michigan State, Maryland, Minnesota seems to be a level above.   Illinois, Ohio State and Rutgers seem to be a level below. 

I think everyone else falls into a big pot.  That's not to say a team from the one level can't rise or fall... but just how I see the talent bases as each school.