Go on record now.

[hal9000]

From an offensive standpoint I'll be surprised (and disappointed) if Palmer, Copeland, and Okeke don't end up being a a big net gain on the faux trade.  The four players that transferred averaged a combined 20 ppg.  I think Copeland and Palmer alone will be well over that.  

 

Gads, I hope so anyway...

[Norm Peterson]

21 hours ago, hhcdimes said:

Seems like this was phrased better under 'will this team be better than last year's' because this trade as structured is intellectually dishonest.

[snipped]

 

Palmer and Copeland were already part of the team before the other 4 guys left.

[snipped]

 

12 hours ago, nebrasketball10 said:

My memory is poor... wouldn't we have had Palmer regardless of those guys leaving? And wouldn't we have had a scholarship available for Copeland either way? 

 

I don't get why you two are off in the weeds over this.  Perhaps I've over-estimated some people on this board.  I figured 99.9% of the people here would realize that there was no quid-pro-quo trade by which we gave up Morrow et al in order to get Copeland et al.  I didn't figure it even needed to be reiterated.  There's nothing "intellectually dishonest" about the way I phrased the poll when I made clear in the OP to "just PRETEND that we swapped" these players for those. This implies that I understand we didn't actually, directly swap them.

 

Could I have phrased it the way Dimes thinks I should have?  Sure. I suppose. Or he could have started such a thread himself. But it wouldn't have captured what I was more interested in discussing, which was whether the transfers who will now be eligible are a net gain over the transfers who left.

 

To me, there was a certain symmetry in having two people transfer out of the lineup from the sophomore class and having exactly two others step into the lineup as juniors the following season. And the one player who would have been in this year's senior class is replaced by another senior.  So the class sizes have essentially remained the same as far as the players who would have been available to take the floor. Other than Jeriah Horne. 

 

I could have phrased the poll any number of ways. It seemed most interesting to me to describe it in terms of a fictional trade.  I grant the analogy doesn't fit perfectly. I never said it did.  I thought I made that clear in the OP when I said "just PRETEND that we swapped" etc. It seems most people understood what I was getting at.

[Red Don]

In my simple mind  , it seems to come down to;  'Are we better off now than we were last season?   It seems to me; Yes! 

 

(We're just about to find out!  )

[nebrasketball10]

7 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

 

I don't get why you two are off in the weeds over this.  Perhaps I've over-estimated some people on this board.  I figured 99.9% of the people here would realize that there was no quid-pro-quo trade by which we gave up Morrow et al in order to get Copeland et al.  I didn't figure it even needed to be reiterated.  There's nothing "intellectually dishonest" about the way I phrased the poll when I made clear in the OP to "just PRETEND that we swapped" these players for those. This implies that I understand we didn't actually, directly swap them.

 

Could I have phrased it the way Dimes thinks I should have?  Sure. I suppose. Or he could have started such a thread himself. But it wouldn't have captured what I was more interested in discussing, which was whether the transfers who will now be eligible are a net gain over the transfers who left.

 

To me, there was a certain symmetry in having two people transfer out of the lineup from the sophomore class and having exactly two others step into the lineup as juniors the following season. And the one player who would have been in this year's senior class is replaced by another senior.  So the class sizes have essentially remained the same as far as the players who would have been available to take the floor. Other than Jeriah Horne. 

 

I could have phrased the poll any number of ways. It seemed most interesting to me to describe it in terms of a fictional trade.  I grant the analogy doesn't fit perfectly. I never said it did.  I thought I made that clear in the OP when I said "just PRETEND that we swapped" etc. It seems most people understood what I was getting at.

I wouldn't call it intellectually dishonest, but perhaps just incomplete, since the two options you posed weren't mutually exclusive. To me, it's like we're trying to say we're better off with Copeland, Palmer and Okeke... but we obviously could've had them plus some (or all) of the others. 

[49r]

If it helps any, Norm, *I* understood the point of your thread.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Fullbacksympathy]

Well, consensus is that Copeland didn't play well at all, and he put up Jacobson numbers in his poor performance, so... 

 

Same with Roby... 

[Huskerpapa]

I would like to chime in on the phrase "poor performance."  If someone has a bad offensive outing, they are said to have a poor performance.  But I would like to contest that thought process.  Total performance has to reflect upon total game.  That includes some measurables, and some intangibles. 

 

In the exhibition outing, we had two players with poor offensive performance.  One of those individuals also had a number of turnovers that does not bode well for overall performance.  But that same player disrupted shots, played good on and off ball defense and rebounded well.  The other player did a number of little things that helped the team to a successful outcome. 

 

We are going to have players throughout the year that will have a bad offensive performance.  But in those instances, we need others to pick up that offensive slack AND those players performing poorly on offense must pick up and/or maintain the other elements of their game. 

 

 

[colhusker]

1 hour ago, huskercwg said:

I would like to chime in on the phrase "poor performance."  If someone has a bad offensive outing, they are said to have a poor performance.  But I would like to contest that thought process.  Total performance has to reflect upon total game.  That includes some measurables, and some intangibles. 

 

In the exhibition outing, we had two players with poor offensive performance.  One of those individuals also had a number of turnovers that does not bode well for overall performance.  But that same player disrupted shots, played good on and off ball defense and rebounded well.  The other player did a number of little things that helped the team to a successful outcome. 

 

We are going to have players throughout the year that will have a bad offensive performance.  But in those instances, we need others to pick up that offensive slack AND those players performing poorly on offense must pick up and/or maintain the other elements of their game. 

 

 

I will also add to what you've said here, all of which I agree with, that it appears we have enough depth that IF one has a "poor performance" there is enough depth to over come it.  Last year if Webster and or Watson had a bad game, and it happened, we were screwed.

[hhcmatt]

On 10/22/2017 at 8:54 AM, Norm Peterson said:

I don't get why you two are off in the weeds over this.  Perhaps I've over-estimated some people on this board.  I figured 99.9% of the people here would realize that there was no quid-pro-quo trade by which we gave up Morrow et al in order to get Copeland et al.  I didn't figure it even needed to be reiterated.  There's nothing "C" about the way I phrased the poll when I made clear in the OP to "just PRETEND that we swapped" these players for those. This implies that I understand we didn't actually, directly swap them.

 

I get the intention of this thread. Bulldozing me doesn't really change my opinion though.

[Handy Johnson]

On ‎10‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 8:17 PM, aphilso1 said:

 

Morrow was the best off-the-ball offensive player we had by a HUGE margin.  No one else positioned themselves for easy buckets in an even remotely comparable way.  That skillet will be sorely missed this year, unless someone on the current roster drastically changes their approach on the offensive end.

Not saying they won't be missed, I'd rather still have them on the roster than not, but it isn't like Dr. J & George Gervin left the program...

[Fullbacksympathy]

On 10/23/2017 at 7:55 AM, huskercwg said:

I would like to chime in on the phrase "poor performance."  If someone has a bad offensive outing, they are said to have a poor performance.  But I would like to contest that thought process.  Total performance has to reflect upon total game.  That includes some measurables, and some intangibles. 

 

In the exhibition outing, we had two players with poor offensive performance.  One of those individuals also had a number of turnovers that does not bode well for overall performance.  But that same player disrupted shots, played good on and off ball defense and rebounded well.  The other player did a number of little things that helped the team to a successful outcome. 

 

We are going to have players throughout the year that will have a bad offensive performance.  But in those instances, we need others to pick up that offensive slack AND those players performing poorly on offense must pick up and/or maintain the other elements of their game. 

 

 

 

Fair!  I was being a bit cheeky with my word usage, which is my fault.  My point is that Copeland is clearly a better player than Jacobson, and that his poor offensive performance still resembled Jacobson's averages.  

 

I've also said all along that Roby should've been getting Jacobson's minutes last year.  MJ just wasn't as good as he deserved to be.  

[tcp]

Morrow was a real loss. Granted, his insistence on misplacing himself probably led to his transfer in the first place so his potential would probably have been wasted by his own lack of realism. 

 

But at the level of talent, athleticism and ceiling, losing Ed hurts. 

 

But of that group he's the only real loss. 

 

I think the swap in and out favors the Huskers, although since this is college, it would be better still to have those new players AND still keep Ed...:) 

[hskr4life]

32 minutes ago, tcp said:

Morrow was a real loss. Granted, his insistence on misplacing himself probably led to his transfer in the first place so his potential would probably have been wasted by his own lack of realism. 

 

But at the level of talent, athleticism and ceiling, losing Ed hurts. 

 

But of that group he's the only real loss. 

 

I think the swap in and out favors the Huskers, although since this is college, it would be better still to have those new players AND still keep Ed...:) 

 

Serious question for the board.

 

If we do not lose Ed, we probably do not take Okeke correct?  That would leave the following... Glynn, Palmer, Taylor, Copeland, Jordy as the starting 5 with Ed playing backup minutes at the 5.  He probably does not want that correct?  Does he try his best playing backup minutes at the 5?

 

Say we do take Okeke... Glynn, Palmer, Taylor, Copeland, and Jordy start.  Since Okeke takes minutes at the 5, Ed is fighting Roby for minutes at the 4 and Okeke for minutes at the 5.  Does Ed like that situation where a couple of hot guys and he doesn't nearly play as much?

 

In hindsight, now that Copeland is eligible, I think Ed's minutes go down and he might not even start.  If Copeland were ineligible, then it would have been nice to have Ed at the 4 to start the season, but his PT probably drops off.  Everything worked out... probably for the better... for both parties.  Ed was at a position where he either plays out of position OR has to fight with really good veteran and young talent (Copeland and Roby) for minutes at his preferred spot.

[uneblinstu]

Here's a fun fact: NU doesn't have any conference home games over Christmas break, but two road games when they travel to Northwestern and Purdue. Can't expect there to be a ton of atmosphere at Allstate Arena for the NW game. I'd expect it will still be a decent environment in West Lafayette, but I honestly have no idea.

 

Also, it's kinda bad timing for the Wildcats to be playing off campus now that their games will be all the rage. Really curious to see if this has any impact on them this season. Welsh-Ryan Arena would have been a vipers den this year.

Edited November 8, 2017 by uneblinstu

[big red22]

Who is the guy that voted "Not a good trade. Not good at all. We really got the short end of the stick on this one."

 

Show your profile pic so we can call you out later in the year