Red team

[millerhusker]

16 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

This raises an interesting question:

 

Is there anyone from last year's roster who left with eligibility remaining who you wish was still on the team?

 

Cam Mack

Dachon Burke

Jervay Green

Kevin Cross

Samari Curtis

 

Would you bump anyone from the current roster in order to make room for any of the above? I'm thinking maaaaybe Dachon Burke, but he'd be about it. I think Coach Hoiberg has used the available scholarships very well to replace those spots.

I wouldn’t. Only player I would take off last year’s team to include on this team would be Cheatham. He’d be a nice role player.

[thrasher31]

23 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

This raises an interesting question:

 

Is there anyone from last year's roster who left with eligibility remaining who you wish was still on the team?

 

Cam Mack

Dachon Burke

Jervay Green

Kevin Cross

Samari Curtis

 

Would you bump anyone from the current roster in order to make room for any of the above? I'm thinking maaaaybe Dachon Burke, but he'd be about it. I think Coach Hoiberg has used the available scholarships very well to replace those spots.

Yeah I'm in the same boat as you. Burke is about the only guy I'd put in the rotation as of now and even then it'll be a significantly smaller role than last year. I'm pleased with the upgrade in talent as of now. LOTS of question marks still around this current roster, but I truly believe we're in a better place than we were last year and outsiders think. Lots of unknowns though. 

[hhcmatt]

1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

This raises an interesting question:

 

Is there anyone from last year's roster who left with eligibility remaining who you wish was still on the team?

 

Cam Mack

Dachon Burke

Jervay Green

Kevin Cross

Samari Curtis

 

Would you bump anyone from the current roster in order to make room for any of the above? I'm thinking maaaaybe Dachon Burke, but he'd be about it. I think Coach Hoiberg has used the available scholarships very well to replace those spots.

 

Give me Green or Burke over Wood for the scholarship I know I will have available in 2021 and the experienced depth in case of injury.

[hugh42]

1 hour ago, hhcmatt said:

 

Give me Green or Burke over Wood for the scholarship I know I will have available in 2021 and the experienced depth in case of injury.

 

It would be tempting, but I would still rather have Wood. To me he looks to have the potential to become a contributor down the road (not talking mop up duty either) and the fact that he's a 6'5" point guard is attractive too.

[aphilso1]

4 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

This raises an interesting question:

 

Is there anyone from last year's roster who left with eligibility remaining who you wish was still on the team?

 

Cam Mack

Dachon Burke

Jervay Green

Kevin Cross

Samari Curtis

 

Would you bump anyone from the current roster in order to make room for any of the above? I'm thinking maaaaybe Dachon Burke, but he'd be about it. I think Coach Hoiberg has used the available scholarships very well to replace those spots.

 

Curtis still intrigues me, but it's tough to say who I'd remove from the current team in order to get him back.  I would say Wood, but I think Wood's skill sets fit better around the rest of the roster.  I do think Cam could have thrived with all the playmakers around him this year.  But obviously the mutual ill-will would have risked poisoning the team chemistry, so I don't think I'd take him back.  Burke, Green, and Cross would've struggled to find minutes on this team, so no loss there.

 

BLUF: Would've liked to give Curtis more time to develop, wish we could've kept a non-headcase version of Mack, and I'd gladly help pack the remaining three players' bags in exchange for acquiring our current roster.

[aphilso1]

4 hours ago, hhcmatt said:

 

Give me Green or Burke over Wood for the scholarship I know I will have available in 2021 and the experienced depth in case of injury.

 

Nah.  We're planning on a bench player transferring anyway, so the value of a senior's expiring schollie is minimal.  At least Wood is young and has a chance to surprise us down the road, a la Junior Year Thor.  Green clearly is only a positive impact player when given the chance to be a volume scorer, which ain't happening given how many more talented players are on the roster.  And Burke was streakier than off-brand Windex.  I'd take Wood over either Burke or Green.

[basketballjones]

15 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

This raises an interesting question:

 

Is there anyone from last year's roster who left with eligibility remaining who you wish was still on the team?

 

Cam Mack

Dachon Burke

Jervay Green

Kevin Cross

Samari Curtis

 

Would you bump anyone from the current roster in order to make room for any of the above? I'm thinking maaaaybe Dachon Burke, but he'd be about it. I think Coach Hoiberg has used the available scholarships very well to replace those spots.

For this season I'd rather have Burke than Wood tbh, as @hhcmatt said. 

I also wish we could have kept Kevin Cross around. He had potential to be a killer by his junior/senior year. 

[aphilso1]

32 minutes ago, basketballjones said:

For this season I'd rather have Burke than Wood tbh, as @hhcmatt said. 

I also wish we could have kept Kevin Cross around. He had potential to be a killer by his junior/senior year. 

 

Cross was the guy I was least sad to see go.  Below average athleticism, shooting, ball handling, passing, and playmaking.  Average height.  Above average strength and rebounding.  I just don't see what position on the floor he was supposed to fill.  Too small to be a B1G-level post, not enough skill to be a B1G-level wing.  And no real strengths (such as if he were a deadeye shooter) to make up for these shortcomings.  Kind of reminded me of a poor man's Jeriah Horne.

 

All that being said, I really respect your analysis and I'd love to hear where you disagree. 

[busticket]

14 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

 

Cross was the guy I was least sad to see go.  Below average athleticism, shooting, ball handling, passing, and playmaking.  Average height.  Above average strength and rebounding.  I just don't see what position on the floor he was supposed to fill.  Too small to be a B1G-level post, not enough skill to be a B1G-level wing.  And no real strengths (such as if he were a deadeye shooter) to make up for these shortcomings.  Kind of reminded me of a poor man's Jeriah Horne.

 

All that being said, I really respect your analysis and I'd love to hear where you disagree. 

I’m with Jones on this one.  Cross was a true freshmen on a horrible team.  He showed flashes of bringing the ball up the court, some nice passes and the ability to score the ball.  He was thrust into a situation which would be hard for a polished freshmen.  And he still managed to drop 20+ in a game at the end of the year.

 

he is one of those players where going to a mid major should be good for him.  He has tools but needs LOTS of polish.  That comes with minutes, which he has the chance to get at a lower level.  I doubt he would get them here with Fred’s recruiting.  I think he could end up being a great mismatch forward....taking the other teams big to the perimeter or bullying a small forward with his big butt.  Will be interesting to see how he develops.  Critical for him to get consistent on his three ball, though.

[hhcmatt]

13 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

Kind of reminded me of a poor man's Jeriah Horne.

 

I think he's going to be a rich man's Jeriah Horne. You're probably right about him not being a fit here but that dude is eventually going to excel as a small ball center/PF for Ron Hunter at Tulane.

[basketballjones]

26 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

 

Cross was the guy I was least sad to see go.  Below average athleticism, shooting, ball handling, passing, and playmaking.  Average height.  Above average strength and rebounding.  I just don't see what position on the floor he was supposed to fill.  Too small to be a B1G-level post, not enough skill to be a B1G-level wing.  And no real strengths (such as if he were a deadeye shooter) to make up for these shortcomings.  Kind of reminded me of a poor man's Jeriah Horne.

 

All that being said, I really respect your analysis and I'd love to hear where you disagree. 

You gotta see something in here to say this guy could have been a player. 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by basketballjones

[hhcmatt]

2 minutes ago, basketballjones said:

You gotta see something in here to say this guy could have been a player. 

 

[Vinny]

But would Cross have been on the Red team or the White team? These are the things that keep me up at night.  

[Norm Peterson]

2 minutes ago, Vinny said:

But would Cross have been on the Red team or the White team? These are the things that keep me up at night.  

Red.

 

And then white.

 

Sleep well tonight, my friend. You're welcome.

[Norm Peterson]

I think Cross would have eventually been a lot better than he was. But if you ask me to choose between Cross, as a guy who would occupy a scholarship for three more years, or Eduardo Andre, as a guy who would occupy that spot for 4, I'd take Andre as having more upside potential in the long term.

 

Kevin would not have seen as much PT this season, if he'd stayed, as he saw last year. I think he made the right call to leave.

[REDitus]

18 hours ago, millerhusker said:

I’m confident you can pencil in Banton, McGowens, Teddy and Lat. Will be interesting to see if we go big with Yvan or Walker, small with Thor or Shamiel, or smaller with Kobe at that 5th spot. 
I think our 9 man rotation is pretty set, unless Andre surprises me. 

 

This is where I'm at.   I am pretty set on the top 8.  I am thinking you could go Banton,McGowens,Teddy,Shamiel and Lat  to start or  Banton McGowens Teddy Lat Yvan which I am leaning towards.   Webster and Thor will be in the rotation and get major minutes.  Shamiel or Yvan no matter what the role will get their minutes

 

It's that  9th player I am not sure of.  It probably is Walker like you say.  (Based off experience in the program and prior to NU).  As you say Andre is an unknown factor so I want to see what kind of talent he has.   Also maybe Arop can come into play for that 9th spot.  I want to see how he has developed.    I'm probably more intrigued about the 9th guy than all the other stuff.   Puzzle. 

Edited October 6, 2020 by REDitus

[millerhusker]

4 minutes ago, REDitus said:

 

This is where I'm at.   I am pretty set on the top 8.  I am thinking you could go Banton,McGowens,Teddy,Shamiel and Lat  to start or  Banton McGowens Teddy Lat Yvan which I am leaning towards.   Webster and Thor will be in the rotation and get major minutes.  Shamiel or Yvan no matter what the role will get their minutes

 

It's that  9th player I am not sure of.  It probably is Walker like you say just based off experience in the program and prior but as you say Andre is an unknown factor.   Also maybe Arop can come into play for that 9th spot.

I'm probably more intrigued about the 9th guy than all the other stuff.   Puzzle. 

I could be wrong, but I don’t think that 9th guy is such a mystery. There was that starters vs. scout team scrimmage last year where Walker went 9 for 9 from the field, while matched up against Yvan. Jervay Green said he was the best defensive presence in the post on last years roster. And I know the Tennessee coaches really liked him and didn’t want him to leave. 
Regardless, it sounds like he’s a great teammate and leader and will accept whatever role is given to him. 

[Art Vandalay]

Walker, Webster, and Shamiel were on the red team on the video I watched today. Just an FYI. Count me in the jersey color does not mean much yet

[aphilso1]

23 hours ago, basketballjones said:

You gotta see something in here to say this guy could have been a player. 

 

 

 

Not really.  I see a guy who was the #5 scoring option when he was on the court, and a defense that is sagging off of him.  Yes, he had a couple of games where the ball actually went through the bottom of the net enough times to make a highlight real, but that was definitely not the norm.  We were historically bad last year and he was the worst offensive option on a historically bad team.  Cross was dead last among our scholarship players in both FG% and 3pt FG% (unless you count Yvan going 0-for-0 from 3 as worse).  Defense is obviously more subjective, but he was also a minus defender in my eyes.  Not Matej Kavas bad (no one else was that bad on D), but suffering from similar shortcomings -- not big enough to defend the post, and not quick enough to defend one of the other spots on the floor.  Cross would've had a chance to be less abused on defense if we could've played him more minutes at the 4 rather than 5, but even still I think he would've struggled because the skills aren't there. 

 

Anyway, that's my two cents.  I felt that way pretty early just based on the eyeball test, and as the year progressed his lack of efficient productivity cemented my opinion of him.  He could very well be a stud for a school like Tulsa, where he will actually have a size advantage most nights rather than disadvantage.  

[nustudent]

I think Cross could've been someone who was a decent contributor here.   But to me, he seemed to already be at his physical peak.   Not sure how much better he would've got.   I think the team around him could have got a lot better which would've made his role interesting, but that's about it.   Cross is probably a safer bet than Andre.   But Andre's upside is way higher.

[basketballjones]

1 hour ago, aphilso1 said:

 

Not really.  I see a guy who was the #5 scoring option when he was on the court, and a defense that is sagging off of him.  Yes, he had a couple of games where the ball actually went through the bottom of the net enough times to make a highlight real, but that was definitely not the norm.  We were historically bad last year and he was the worst offensive option on a historically bad team.  Cross was dead last among our scholarship players in both FG% and 3pt FG% (unless you count Yvan going 0-for-0 from 3 as worse).  Defense is obviously more subjective, but he was also a minus defender in my eyes.  Not Matej Kavas bad (no one else was that bad on D), but suffering from similar shortcomings -- not big enough to defend the post, and not quick enough to defend one of the other spots on the floor.  Cross would've had a chance to be less abused on defense if we could've played him more minutes at the 4 rather than 5, but even still I think he would've struggled because the skills aren't there. 

 

Anyway, that's my two cents.  I felt that way pretty early just based on the eyeball test, and as the year progressed his lack of efficient productivity cemented my opinion of him.  He could very well be a stud for a school like Tulsa, where he will actually have a size advantage most nights rather than disadvantage.  

I mean if you can't see anything in those highlights that show how a freshman could turn into a highly productive Junior/Senior, then I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Because we're not coming to a conclusion. 

[basketballjones]

1 hour ago, nustudent said:

I think Cross could've been someone who was a decent contributor here.   But to me, he seemed to already be at his physical peak.   Not sure how much better he would've got.   I think the team around him could have got a lot better which would've made his role interesting, but that's about it.   Cross is probably a safer bet than Andre.   But Andre's upside is way higher.

I think he would have gotten a lot stronger and his body would have been cleaned up a lot. But agree, not like he was ever going to be flying high or whatever. In other words, general athleticism wasn't going to change. But I thought he was the type of guy who didn't need to be that, because he seemed to understand shot fakes, changing speed, and body positioning. 

I really liked KCross. Would never want him to be the 1-2 option on a team, but having him as a multi-position dude as a junior/senior would have been nice. 

I certainly HOPE Andre's upside is way higher, hahaha!

[49r]

21 minutes ago, basketballjones said:

I mean if you can't see anything in those highlights that show how a freshman could turn into a highly productive Junior/Senior, then I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Because we're not coming to a conclusion. 

 

It's a story as old as time.  Kid comes in as a freshman and isn't immediately an impact player, and fans want to jump all over him, calling him a bust and hoping he transfers.

 

That same kid by the time he's a senior develops into a pretty decent player, maybe even all-conference type, and some of those same fans are saying "man, we're really gonna miss that guy next year".

 

Case in point:  Ubel, Brandon.

[aphilso1]

4 minutes ago, 49r said:

 

It's a story as old as time.  Kid comes in as a freshman and isn't immediately an impact player, and fans want to jump all over him, calling him a bust and hoping he transfers.

 

That same kid by the time he's a senior develops into a pretty decent player, maybe even all-conference type, and some of those same fans are saying "man, we're really gonna miss that guy next year".

 

Case in point:  Ubel, Brandon.

 

Ubel was a scrawny, long 6'10" kid who got outmuscled as a frosh because he had never seriously hit a weight room.  He had tons of growth potential in his game (and no, I'm not just saying that in hindsight...I actually liked him even as a freshman).  In contrast, Cross's problems aren't easily solved by off-season conditioning.  He was the worst shooter on a horrible shooting team and not long enough to defend the post.  Unless his arms grow a few inches before he graduates, or he improves his shot by several orders of magnitude, he would never have been a consistent producer for us. Guys that walk in the door with a mature body and below average athleticism, like Cross, just don't have as much growth potential as guys who are natural raw athletes.

[hhcmatt]

1 hour ago, nustudent said:

I think Cross could've been someone who was a decent contributor here.   But to me, he seemed to already be at his physical peak.   Not sure how much better he would've got.   I think the team around him could have got a lot better which would've made his role interesting, but that's about it.   Cross is probably a safer bet than Andre.   But Andre's upside is way higher.

 

I'm not sure if you meant it this way, but we could have had Andre and Cross (or pick your one scholarship player from  above).  It was Trevor Lakes who signed later that one would have to choose between in this exercise.