The Backups

[NoladrianSephier]

I feel like you see these guys in the B1G all the time where you go "how is that guy beating us?" Keisei could be one of those guys for us. He can shoot, he's a crafty passer, and he's scrappy, which I think is a great combination.

[Huskerpapa]

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

[millerhusker]

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. 

[Handy Johnson]

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 August 22, 2021 by Handy Johnson

[millerhusker]

41 minutes ago, Handy Johnson said:

Drevo, Conklin, Ray Richardson 

Drevo was very skilled for his size, but I wouldn't call him a "deadeye" shooter. 

[Handy Johnson]

5 minutes ago, millerhusker said:

Drevo was very skilled for his size, but I wouldn't call him a "deadeye" shooter. 

Ask the Golden Gophers...

[millerhusker]

1 hour ago, Handy Johnson said:

Ask the Golden Gophers...

I’ll never forget that game. He and Nate Johnson were a fun duo. 
 

Drevo was a career 31.9% three point shooter and made 1.3 per game.

[Fullbacksympathy]

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.   

[busticket]

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.

[Norm Peterson]

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.

[millerhusker]

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 August 22, 2021 by millerhusker

[busticket]

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. 

[Huskerpapa]

Let's not forget Chris Cresswell and Tom Wald.

If I recall correctly, Danny tried to run Chris off and Chris stayed and performed pretty darn well.

[Norm Peterson]

11 hours ago, Huskerpapa said:

Let's not forget Chris Cresswell and Tom Wald.

If I recall correctly, Danny tried to run Chris off and Chris stayed and performed pretty darn well.

 

Without Chris Cresswell, we lose to KU.

[Faux Mike Peltz]

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??

[Handy Johnson]

On 8/22/2021 at 9:16 AM, Huskerpapa said:

Let's not forget Chris Cresswell and Tom Wald.

If I recall correctly, Danny tried to run Chris off and Chris stayed and performed pretty darn well.

Plus he had that sweet Dorothy Hamill hairdo, AND let's not forget Henry T. Buchanan!   

[aphilso1]

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.

[Dead Dog Alley]

On 8/22/2021 at 9:16 AM, Huskerpapa said:

Let's not forget Chris Cresswell and Tom Wald.

If I recall correctly, Danny tried to run Chris off and Chris stayed and performed pretty darn well.

 

Regarding Tom Wald, he supposedly took over the role of Jose Ramos in terms of off-the-court performance.

 

[hhcmatt]

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.

[hhcmatt]

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.

[Norm Peterson]

31 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

 

Cary would think you're short changing him.

 

Who are you calling "short"?

 

Heh heh

[Norm Peterson]

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.

[Swan88]

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).

[Norm Peterson]

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.

[75unlgrad]

I think Keon Edwards will impress us this year -- he is my 'sleeper' pick.  I don't think most fans realize how talented he is.  He won't be a starter but should get more and more playing time as the season goes on.