Jump to content

The Backups


Recommended Posts

Just an idle thought on Keisei.  He may not have length or maybe the quickness...or maybe he does.  The litmus test will be actual games.

That said, we have had some deadeyes that had significant deficiencies in the past that REALLY helped us. Three or four names pop into my head.  Does anyone know who I may be thinking of 😚

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Huskerpapa said:

Just an idle thought on Keisei.  He may not have length or maybe the quickness...or maybe he does.  The litmus test will be actual games.

That said, we have had some deadeyes that had significant deficiencies in the past that REALLY helped us. Three or four names pop into my head.  Does anyone know who I may be thinking of 😚

Some that come to mind are Cochran, Conklin, Velander, Perry and Ryan Anderson. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Huskerpapa said:

Just an idle thought on Keisei.  He may not have length or maybe the quickness...or maybe he does.  The litmus test will be actual games.

That said, we have had some deadeyes that had significant deficiencies in the past that REALLY helped us. Three or four names pop into my head.  Does anyone know who I may be thinking of 😚

Drevo, Conklin, Ray Richardson 

Edited by Handy Johnson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Huskerpapa said:

Just an idle thought on Keisei.  He may not have length or maybe the quickness...or maybe he does.  The litmus test will be actual games.

That said, we have had some deadeyes that had significant deficiencies in the past that REALLY helped us. Three or four names pop into my head.  Does anyone know who I may be thinking of 😚

 

Cochran is a very apt comparison.  I think Keisei is more athletic, a better all around offensive player, and an equal shooter.  

 

This isn't an apt comparison from a shooting standpoint, but Gallegos really helped us offensively with his ability to move without the ball and hit the occasional three.  He was a WAY better defender than Keisei but I could see Keisei getting the same shots and making a lot more than RG did.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, millerhusker said:

Some that come to mind are Cochran, Conklin, Velander, Perry and Ryan Anderson. 


Damn good list.  I’d consider scratching Anderson….for being only 6’4” he was an amazing rebounder.  But he was technically deficient height wise against some of the guys he was asked to defend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, millerhusker said:

Some that come to mind are Cochran, Conklin, Velander, Perry and Ryan Anderson. 

 

I remember having an argument with someone on this board (probably one or two iterations before the current board) about whether Paul Velander was a good shooter or not. At roughly around 38-39% from beyond the arc. I remember who it was but I'm not going to call him out because I've said stupid things too. But I just couldn't believe he was saying 38-39% was mediocre at best. And then he modified and said for your guy who's a shooting specialist.

 

The only reason I bring it up is thinking about how rare guys 40% or better have been. Sure, he wasn't as good as Conklin or Cochran. And those guys were still within recent memory at the time. But in the dozen or so years since, we'd have just about killed for a walk-on shooting guard who could come in and hit at such a clip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

I remember having an argument with someone on this board (probably one or two iterations before the current board) about whether Paul Velander was a good shooter or not. At roughly around 38-39% from beyond the arc. I remember who it was but I'm not going to call him out because I've said stupid things too. But I just couldn't believe he was saying 38-39% was mediocre at best. And then he modified and said for your guy who's a shooting specialist.

 

The only reason I bring it up is thinking about how rare guys 40% or better have been. Sure, he wasn't as good as Conklin or Cochran. And those guys were still within recent memory at the time. But in the dozen or so years since, we'd have just about killed for a walk-on shooting guard who could come in and hit at such a clip.

I miss the days where, when certain guys would catch and shoot a three, I expected it to go in. Doc and Barry seemed to almost always have a couple of those guys on their teams. 

 

Edit: I have to say, towards the end of last year, I did get that feeling whenever Kobe Webster would let it fly. Hopefully Keisei, CJ, Bryce etc will give us some more of those guys. 

Edited by millerhusker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2021 at 7:42 PM, Norm Peterson said:

The Flying Dutchman. @Kent Pavelka might like that for a nickname. And somehow he grew 2 inches by seeing a chiropractor? Long, skilled, true freshman stretch 4. About as skilled of a true freshman big as we've ever had that I can remember.

 

 

Can I have the name of that Chiropractor??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2021 at 8:13 AM, busticket said:

Agreed Norm.  Anyone north of 33% is a pretty good shooter.  A 33% three point shooter is the equivalent of a 50% 2 point shooter.  Nobody is complaining if your power forward is hitting half his shots. 

 

Kind of.  The difference is that your power forward is likely drawing a lot of fouls that aren't reflected in that 50% mark.  And (hopefully) the resultant free throws are converted at far greater than a 50% clip.  It makes it a tad difficult to accurately calculate the equivalency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2021 at 8:26 AM, Norm Peterson said:

 

I remember having an argument with someone on this board (probably one or two iterations before the current board) about whether Paul Velander was a good shooter or not. At roughly around 38-39% from beyond the arc. I remember who it was but I'm not going to call him out because I've said stupid things too. But I just couldn't believe he was saying 38-39% was mediocre at best. And then he modified and said for your guy who's a shooting specialist.

 

The only reason I bring it up is thinking about how rare guys 40% or better have been. Sure, he wasn't as good as Conklin or Cochran. And those guys were still within recent memory at the time. But in the dozen or so years since, we'd have just about killed for a walk-on shooting guard who could come in and hit at such a clip.

 

It's possible this person conflated Velander's shooting percentage with his 3pt %.  His overall shooting % was a pedestrian 38.9% because he only attempted 28 two point shots in his entire career.  On a side note, Velander shot an amazing 83 FTs during his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2021 at 1:21 AM, LK1 said:

 

Cochran is a very apt comparison.  I think Keisei is more athletic, a better all around offensive player, and an equal shooter.  

 

This isn't an apt comparison from a shooting standpoint, but Gallegos really helped us offensively with his ability to move without the ball and hit the occasional three.  He was a WAY better defender than Keisei but I could see Keisei getting the same shots and making a lot more than RG did.   

 

Cary would think you're short changing him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Picking back up on this topic.

 

The projected starters this year/starters last year:

 

Derrick/Derrick

Lat/Lat

Trey/Trey

Bryce/Teddy

Alonzo/Dalano

 

The three returning starters should, of course, be incrementally better than they were a year ago. A year stronger. A year more experienced. A year more familiar with the system. A year more developed in their skill. Etc. Those might be minor, marginal improvements in each category, but they should still produce an overall better player. I will say that I suspect Trey's shooting numbers from a year ago might have been an aberration. He's a low-volume perimeter shooter who had an uncharacteristically good 3-pt% a year ago. Don't be surprised if that drops back a couple percentage points this year, but it won't matter because a) he's a low-volume perimeter shooter and b) we have plenty of other guys this year to pick up the slack.

 

I don't expect Bryce to put up the offensive numbers Teddy did but he'll probably be a better fit in terms of overall game and buy-in. Dalano is an NBA-level guard now, but he wasn't that so much for us a year ago. Verge is a more explosive athlete and his game is probably more suited to play primary ball handler in this program than Dalano's was. Still, you're subtracting an NBA-caliber player from the lineup.

 

So, comparing starting lineups this year vs. last year, you probably don't look at that and think, wow, we're gonna be so much better. On paper, it might even be somewhat of a push, although there's a lot of potential that it could be a much more successful combination of parts.

 

But then compare the subs.

 

Subs this year/subs last year:

 

Kobe/Kobe

Trevor/Trevor

Eduardo/Eduardo

 

Yeah. That's probably not moving your needle much either, is it? Kobe might be a *little* better than a year ago, but he's probably close to his ceiling. Sounds like Trevor is healthy and shooting lights out, but we haven't seen him prove it in a game. Eduardo put on 20 pounds, and he really ought to be light years ahead of where he was when he emerged from his bout with Covid last year, but it sounds like he still has a ways to go.

 

But, if that's not moving your needle, how about this:

 

Keisei/Thor

CJ/Shamiel

Wilhelm/Yvan

Keon/Elijah

Quran/Nobody

Oleg/Nobody

 

I understand that a lot of those guys will get not much more than garbage minutes. There are only so many minutes to go around and we are NOT going to go 14 deep. I get that completely.

 

But here's why it matters:

 

Last year, we had a top 6. And then a BIG drop off in talent after that. I don't think anyone outside the top 6 last year was realistically contending for a starting spot.

 

This year, the starters will need to keep an eye over their shoulders because there will be other players challenging for their minutes. And maybe even their starting jobs. But that challenge isn't likely to come from our returning bench. No, our returning subs who were rotation players a year ago are at risk of being relegated to the end of the bench in favor of guys like Keisei, CJ and Wilhelm, who all have tools that will almost certainly help them see the floor and maybe even get them out there for the opening tip.

 

If Lat hasn't stepped up his overall game, for example, I bet Wilhelm would be more than willing to jump into that starting lineup in his place. Or CJ. And, if you're any of our backcourt starters, you better bring some offense to the table and not be a liability elsewhere, because Keisei can shoot it and he's probably not going to do anything to hurt you in other aspects of his game.

 

The talent level drops off at some point, but that point is a lot further down the bench this year than it was a year ago.

 

There probably isn't a single starter whose job is so secure that he has no fear of losing it to one of our newcomers. And that simply wasn't the case a year ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

The projected starters this year/starters last year:

 

Derrick/Derrick

Lat/Lat

Trey/Trey

Bryce/Teddy

Alonzo/Dalano

 

The three returning starters should, of course, be incrementally better than they were a year ago. A year stronger. A year more experienced. A year more familiar with the system. A year more developed in their skill. Etc. Those might be minor, marginal improvements in each category, but they should still produce an overall better player.

Derrick/Derrick should be more than “incrementally better” because, (i) he didn’t play the first half of last season, (ii) he played only two games before COVID hit him, and (iii) he should be healthy and playing the entire season this year (hopefully).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Swan88 said:

Derrick/Derrick should be more than “incrementally better” because, (i) he didn’t play the first half of last season, (ii) he played only two games before COVID hit him, and (iii) he should be healthy and playing the entire season this year (hopefully).

 

Well, yeah, and not only that but also we have 3 vet starters (and 3 more vet reserves) who have played together before this year. That's a first under Hoiberg. So, it's not just that HE is individually ahead of where he was a year ago; THEY are collectively ahead of where THEY were a year ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...