hskr4life 6,802 Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 1 hour ago, LK1 said: This is a hell of a class. Agreed! LK1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hhcscott 983 Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 58 minutes ago, hskr4life said: Agreed! I just wish one year we could make it to February before we start consoling ourselves with how things will be better next season. Husker Hoops Penitent 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jacob Padilla 442 Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 10 hours ago, millerhusker said: It has improved since last year. Last year, we were 353rd in the country for that metric. As of today, we’re 196th. Opponents are blocking 9.2% of our shots and we’re blocking 8.9% of theirs. It’s reasonable to expect these numbers to worsen as the year goes on, as there aren’t many McNeese St’s left on the schedule. Minnesota, Rutgers, etc are waiting with some big athletic dudes. Where did you see those numbers? What I see on Sports-Reference is Nebraska has had 30 out of 627 shots blocked this season (4.4%). Still needs to get better, but it's not nearly as bad as last year (8.3%). Nebraska has blocked 35 of its opponents' 619 shot attempts this season (5.7%). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
millerhusker 595 Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 7 hours ago, Jacob Padilla said: Where did you see those numbers? What I see on Sports-Reference is Nebraska has had 30 out of 627 shots blocked this season (4.4%). Still needs to get better, but it's not nearly as bad as last year (8.3%). Nebraska has blocked 35 of its opponents' 619 shot attempts this season (5.7%). https://barttorvik.com/team.php?team=Nebraska&year=2021 These numbers don’t include the Doane game, but I’m not sure why the discrepancy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Husker Hoops Penitent 79 Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 (edited) Agree, hhcscott! Take heart, I worked out the simulations and the computer vomited out the following: NU will actually be a near-bubble team (in February) in 2044, so take your vitamins! Edited January 1 by Husker Hoops Penitent Dead Dog Alley 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BjoeHusker 155 Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 3 assists? 3 damn assists?! Puke. Zero offensive flow. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Red Don 2,680 Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 Well as someone pointed out elsewhere; the ball has to go IN the basket to count as an assist. LK1 and hskr4life 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hskr4life 6,802 Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 (edited) 1 hour ago, Red Don said: Well as someone pointed out elsewhere; the ball has to go IN the basket to count as an assist. I know there is some funny sarcasm in here, but it's more truthful than what you lead on as well. Like literally... we could have had a ton more assists had we just made some baskets. We only made 17 baskets, so we tecnically assisted on about 18% of baskets. Still low, but not as low as what could have been had we just made some shots. Edited January 1 by hskr4life Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Red Don 2,680 Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 No sarcasm was intended, rather just wanting to point out the realities. hskr4life 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hhcmatt 13,356 Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 17 hours ago, Jacob Padilla said: Where did you see those numbers? What I see on Sports-Reference is Nebraska has had 30 out of 627 shots blocked this season (4.4%). Still needs to get better, but it's not nearly as bad as last year (8.3%). Nebraska has blocked 35 of its opponents' 619 shot attempts this season (5.7%). The KenPom block percentage Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Norm Peterson 9,752 Posted January 2 Report Share Posted January 2 There's a difficult line to walk between needing to upgrade the roster and needing to develop roster stability. One of the old adages about success in basketball is to get old and stay old. And that's impossible to do if you flip a significant chunk of the roster every year. The best news on the recruiting front is that all three of our signed recruits will have at least 3 years of eligibility and all of them *appear* to be players who are legit at this level. The fact that one is a pro prospect who might not be here more than a year or two isn't necessarily a bad thing because you offset him leaving early with the fact that he's just damn good. But the $2.7 million dollar question is who do you roll the dice on to let them stick around and develop? Ugh. Not a decision I think I could make. But I guess that's why they aren't paying me the big bucks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LK1 1,677 Posted January 2 Report Share Posted January 2 22 hours ago, Norm Peterson said: There's a difficult line to walk between needing to upgrade the roster and needing to develop roster stability. One of the old adages about success in basketball is to get old and stay old. And that's impossible to do if you flip a significant chunk of the roster every year. The best news on the recruiting front is that all three of our signed recruits will have at least 3 years of eligibility and all of them *appear* to be players who are legit at this level. The fact that one is a pro prospect who might not be here more than a year or two isn't necessarily a bad thing because you offset him leaving early with the fact that he's just damn good. But the $2.7 million dollar question is who do you roll the dice on to let them stick around and develop? Ugh. Not a decision I think I could make. But I guess that's why they aren't paying me the big bucks. Fred is a dude. I'd expect at least one more surprise by way of a transfer or grad transfer. Zero inside info, but I think he will ruthlessly upgrade the roster every season he can. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.