Why i'd stick with fred.

[nustudent]

Just now, cornfed24-7 said:

Because a buyout of 15mil is sooooooooo much less than 18.5. 

That's one year of salary to the new guy at the very least.  And again...considering we may have some huge payouts coming for football too....$3.5M can matter.  That's also assuming there is no reduced buyout.

[Klas3131]

1 hour ago, Chuck Taylor said:

Tryonn Lue on line 1. Erick Strickland on line 2. Eric Piatkowski on line 3 ....

 

They all impacted winning and played 10+ years in the NBA. Bryce just has the most points on one of the worst teams in school history.

 

He might be a 1st round draft pick (though not as high as Rich King). I doubt he'll be a star in the NBA or play 10+ years. 

Probably should have said that Bryce is the "highest rated recruit" they've ever had.....

 

[thrasher31]

54 minutes ago, nustudent said:

I can see Walker at the 5 again as well.  Body wise he's probably more suited for the 4.  Skill wise for the 5.  I do think he can defend the 4 better if he actually gets set in that role with another viable big next to him.

 

One thing I have been disappointed with Fred in, is the fact that we refuse to try different lineup combinations in the frontcourt.   I get that it isn't ideal and depth wise we certainly can't do it all game....but you really can't try to put a Walker and Andre combination on the floor at the same time just for spot minutes against bigger teams?

 

I'd be all for a PG too.   Just don't know if the type of PG that we need will be willing to come here.   I'm somewhat skeptical of a 6'6" PG but Lloyd has played it some through AAU and high school in addition to being you traditional wing.  

With Walker, I think he won't be relied upon as much as he has to provide quality minutes at the 5. To your question on more bigger lineups, I think it's just about availability. Andre has been decent at times this year, but given that he's the only other center option on the roster and he's gotten 11 MPG since Wilhelm went down, walker is lifting a lot there. I don't think that's a good sign for Andre personally. And he's very foul prone. So if he picks up quick fouls, you're down your second big and you have to run Walker for however long is left. Ideally in the big ten, you'd want Walker to be at about 20-25 and up to not 29 (sitting at about 26 right now during the same time span). I think we're starting to see the after effects of him playing so much as his play has fallen off a bit of late. Having Kieta with Oleg and Wilhelm should provide quality relief. And I think you'll see more "bigger" lineups next year. Whether it be Oleg and kieta or Wilhelm and Walker or some sort of combination of that, I forsee those lineups more often. Oleg from my eyes has a solid jumper in space and Wilhelm can obviously shoot a bit also. 

 

With PG, I see it as a opportunity for a transfer to come in and pretty much have a significant shot at starting next year. One thing that has bugged me was the staff early on saying "we don't like taking grad transfers since they're in it for themselves". Kavas first year, second year Kobe, then verge this year. I think grabbing a PG with some time in college left WITH some experience playing would be ideal. If it doesn't with, Quaran can do his thing. 

[cornfed24-7]

3 minutes ago, nustudent said:

That's one year of salary to the new guy at the very least.  And again...considering we may have some huge payouts coming for football too....$3.5M can matter.  That's also assuming there is no reduced buyout.

Definitely 3.5M can matter. Not sure it does in this case. I just don't buy that as a reason to keep Hoiberg. Now if there is a MAJOR restructuring of his contract I'd listen. I personally think Hoiberg is cooked. I can understand why people point to his time at ISU. I just see it the other way. ISU is the anomaly not NU.

[nustudent]

4 minutes ago, thrasher31 said:

With Walker, I think he won't be relied upon as much as he has to provide quality minutes at the 5. To your question on more bigger lineups, I think it's just about availability. Andre has been decent at times this year, but given that he's the only other center option on the roster and he's gotten 11 MPG since Wilhelm went down, walker is lifting a lot there. I don't think that's a good sign for Andre personally. And he's very foul prone. So if he picks up quick fouls, you're down your second big and you have to run Walker for however long is left. Ideally in the big ten, you'd want Walker to be at about 20-25 and up to not 29 (sitting at about 26 right now during the same time span). I think we're starting to see the after effects of him playing so much as his play has fallen off a bit of late. Having Kieta with Oleg and Wilhelm should provide quality relief. And I think you'll see more "bigger" lineups next year. Whether it be Oleg and kieta or Wilhelm and Walker or some sort of combination of that, I forsee those lineups more often. Oleg from my eyes has a solid jumper in space and Wilhelm can obviously shoot a bit also. 

 

With PG, I see it as a opportunity for a transfer to come in and pretty much have a significant shot at starting next year. One thing that has bugged me was the staff early on saying "we don't like taking grad transfers since they're in it for themselves". Kavas first year, second year Kobe, then verge this year. I think grabbing a PG with some time in college left WITH some experience playing would be ideal. If it doesn't with, Quaran can do his thing. 

Understand the point on availability.  I just find it hard to believe though that you can't periodically do it.  Even for a few minutes at a time in select moments.  I know you can't do it full time.   And I wonder if playing alongside another capable big guy helps Andre out at all.   When Andre's counterpart in the post is CJ Wilcher....he's kind of behind the 8 ball already.

 

I like Wilcher as a SG.  I don't like him having to guard Keegan Murray

[Huskerpapa]

10 minutes ago, nustudent said:

Understand the point on availability.  I just find it hard to believe though that you can't periodically do it.  Even for a few minutes at a time in select moments.  I know you can't do it full time.   And I wonder if playing alongside another capable big guy helps Andre out at all.   When Andre's counterpart in the post is CJ Wilcher....he's kind of behind the 8 ball already.

 

I like Wilcher as a SG.  I don't like him having to guard Keegan Murray

I love CJ on offense, yet he is a weak defender.  We need to find a way to help him on defense; the problem this year is that we have multiple players that need help.  Then, you also have to find a way to get those same players to drop and pick up the offensive player that your help came from.  Not sure how you fix those issues...but we've witnessed it all year.

[49r]

33 minutes ago, nustudent said:

That's one year of salary to the new guy at the very least.  And again...considering we may have some huge payouts coming for football too....$3.5M can matter.  That's also assuming there is no reduced buyout.

 

I wouldn't let that buyout number scare you honestly.  Remember, we are about to see a GIANT increase in our conference payout.  What is more important?  Saving a few million dollars on a buyout, or avoiding 4 20 loss seasons in a row?

 

 

[thrasher31]

6 minutes ago, Huskerpapa said:

I love CJ on offense, yet he is a weak defender.  We need to find a way to help him on defense; the problem this year is that we have multiple players that need help.  Then, you also have to find a way to get those same players to drop and pick up the offensive player that your help came from.  Not sure how you fix those issues...but we've witnessed it all year.

I have honestly been impressed with CJs defense as the year has gone on. Could be a matter of competition we're facing vs early on when they played top teams. I personally think his perimeter defense has improved, Minnesota stood out to me in particular. UMD I thought he was decent. Considering he was pretty slow there early, any progress is good 

[CrazyforNUHOOPS]

52 minutes ago, Blackshirt83 said:

 

I also want to see what Loesner can do with some of these guys with a more normal year of practice and development. 

Loenser

 

What hasn’t been normal about this year?

[Huskerpapa]

1 minute ago, thrasher31 said:

I have honestly been impressed with CJs defense as the year has gone on. Could be a matter of competition we're facing vs early on when they played top teams. I personally think his perimeter defense has improved, Minnesota stood out to me in particular. UMD I thought he was decent. Considering he was pretty slow there early, any progress is good 

I believe the effort has improved; but he is a tweener on defense.  He doesn't have the size to consistently defend inside ad he lacks the lateral quickness to defend the exterior.  Very similar to Teddy's issues last year.

[nustudent]

4 minutes ago, 49r said:

 

I wouldn't let that buyout number scare you honestly.  Remember, we are about to see a GIANT increase in our conference payout.  What is more important?  Saving a few million dollars on a buyout, or avoiding 4 20 loss seasons in a row?

 

 

I guess for me...the money.  Because firing Hoiberg and having another massive gut job is another pretty big step towards a 20-loss season.   We might hit again with Hoiberg anyway....but for me....I don't have a lot of hope that it turns with Hoiberg next year.   But I know it won't turn next year with a complete changing of the guard.   I can risk another year of failure to know for sure.  Plus you save money in the process.

[nustudent]

6 minutes ago, thrasher31 said:

I have honestly been impressed with CJs defense as the year has gone on. Could be a matter of competition we're facing vs early on when they played top teams. I personally think his perimeter defense has improved, Minnesota stood out to me in particular. UMD I thought he was decent. Considering he was pretty slow there early, any progress is good 

I think he's willing...which is step 1.   

 

Of course....when he has to defend the 4 in the Big Ten...it's not going to go well, no matter how willing he is.

[Blackshirt83]

3 minutes ago, cornfed24-7 said:

Definitely 3.5M can matter. Not sure it does in this case. I just don't buy that as a reason to keep Hoiberg. Now if there is a MAJOR restructuring of his contract I'd listen. I personally think Hoiberg is cooked. I can understand why people point to his time at ISU. I just see it the other way. ISU is the anomaly not NU.

This makes no sense. Just last season Nebraska was a disciplined, tough team that played really good defense. They just couldn't score enough and didn't have anyone to take the shots to win games late.

 

They got dismissed early because they lost unexpectedly early in the noncon to Nevada by 3 points and got blown out by 8 straight ranked teams to open conference play. But it turned out that Nevada was pretty good and by the end of the year Nebraska was too. Despite missing a month of the season and playing a crazy schedule where they weren't even allowed to practice between games. Their last 4 weeks, outside of one blowout loss to 8th ranked Iowa they lost by 3 against Penn State, were not outmatched and actually looked good in a 15 point loss to #2 Illinois, beat Minnesota, blew out Rutgers, lost a 1 point heartbreaker to Northwestern and almost upset #11 Penn State in the conference tournament before losing in the final minutes.

 

So it was a fluke at ISU and lthe end of ast year and what happened in the first year and this year is the real thing? That's what you're going with?

[thrasher31]

1 minute ago, nustudent said:

I think he's willing...which is step 1.   

 

Of course....when he has to defend the 4 in the Big Ten...it's not going to go well, no matter how willing he is.

Yeah, which is why I noted perimeter. He can try against 4s in the league, and might succeed in some battles due to not a huge size disparity. But it's not an ideal situation for him to defend those guys. 

[cornfed24-7]

9 minutes ago, Blackshirt83 said:

This makes no sense. Just last season Nebraska was a disciplined, tough team that played really good defense. They just couldn't score enough and didn't have anyone to take the shots to win games late.

 

They got dismissed early because they lost unexpectedly early in the noncon to Nevada by 3 points and got blown out by 8 straight ranked teams to open conference play. But it turned out that Nevada was pretty good and by the end of the year Nebraska was too. Despite missing a month of the season and playing a crazy schedule where they weren't even allowed to practice between games. Their last 4 weeks, outside of one blowout loss to 8th ranked Iowa they lost by 3 against Penn State, were not outmatched and actually looked good in a 15 point loss to #2 Illinois, beat Minnesota, blew out Rutgers, lost a 1 point heartbreaker to Northwestern and almost upset #11 Penn State in the conference tournament before losing in the final minutes.

 

So it was a fluke at ISU and lthe end of ast year and what happened in the first year and this year is the real thing? That's what you're going with?

Yeah their 7 wins really support this.

[HuskerFever]

16 minutes ago, 49r said:

I wouldn't let that buyout number scare you honestly.  Remember, we are about to see a GIANT increase in our conference payout.  What is more important?  Saving a few million dollars on a buyout, or avoiding 4 20 loss seasons in a row?

 

I think I know some of the answers, but just throwing it open for dialogue.

 

What's the difference between a 20+ loss season and a 17 loss season?

 

We've had 10 of those in the last 13 seasons.

[49r]

1 minute ago, HuskerFever said:

 

I think I know some of the answers, but just throwing it open for dialogue.

 

What's the difference between a 20+ loss season and a 17 loss season?

 

We've had 10 of those in the last 13 seasons.

 

Well, with a 17 loss season, you are most likely going to be at least having the conversation in February about making a run at an NIT berth.  20+ losses means you have most likely lost hope of any chance of .500 or better by Christmas.

 

That right there is probably worth $3.5 million.

[Klas3131]

14 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

I think I know some of the answers, but just throwing it open for dialogue.

 

What's the difference between a 20+ loss season and a 17 loss season?

 

We've had 10 of those in the last 13 seasons.

I get what you are saying.  But we are looking at a 25 loss, 20 loss and 25 loss season in Fred's 3 seasons.  If he was at 17 losses, as 49r said, you are looking at being within a few games above or below .500 and possibly be in the conversation for a post season tourney of some kind.  

[Klas3131]

27 minutes ago, Blackshirt83 said:

This makes no sense. Just last season Nebraska was a disciplined, tough team that played really good defense. They just couldn't score enough and didn't have anyone to take the shots to win games late.

 

They got dismissed early because they lost unexpectedly early in the noncon to Nevada by 3 points and got blown out by 8 straight ranked teams to open conference play. But it turned out that Nevada was pretty good and by the end of the year Nebraska was too. Despite missing a month of the season and playing a crazy schedule where they weren't even allowed to practice between games. Their last 4 weeks, outside of one blowout loss to 8th ranked Iowa they lost by 3 against Penn State, were not outmatched and actually looked good in a 15 point loss to #2 Illinois, beat Minnesota, blew out Rutgers, lost a 1 point heartbreaker to Northwestern and almost upset #11 Penn State in the conference tournament before losing in the final minutes.

 

So it was a fluke at ISU and lthe end of ast year and what happened in the first year and this year is the real thing? That's what you're going with?

Fred has had 3 seasons.  7-25.  7-20.  And unless they pull a big upset, probably 7-25 again in year 3.  The close losses last year gave us some hope.  And having arguably one of our best recruiting classes coming in this year, with some good transfers, had us hoping for a possible tourney berth.  Or at least in the conversation for 1.  Instead, this is the worst of the 3 years, with the best players.  The team seems disinterested.  Watch the bench.  Fred has the 1000 yard stare.  Doc is asleep in his chair.  Matt A stares into pace.  Armon is the exception as he appears to be the most engaged.  To me, the 1 thing you can control each night is effort and playing hard.  There is not excuse not to.  They haven't played hard the last half of the season.  That's on the coaches.

 

We are all Husker hoops fans.  Why else would we be here?  I don't understand the angst between a few posters towards each other.  I understand that some thing it's best to give Fred another year.  I don't agree, but I understand the sentiment.  But to be told that "we just don't get it" doesn't sit well with me.  I know what I'm seeing from Fred, and it's not good.  

[Norm Peterson]

1 hour ago, nustudent said:

That's one year of salary to the new guy at the very least.  And again...considering we may have some huge payouts coming for football too....$3.5M can matter.  That's also assuming there is no reduced buyout.

 

I'm not sure what difference it makes whether we pay a year's salary spread out in monthly payments or all at once. I mean if we're paying a buyout, what difference does it make if he gets it all at once or spread out? When we're talking about just a difference of one year of pay, I guess I don't see what difference it makes whether he would get it all at once or monthly.

[nustudent]

Just now, Norm Peterson said:

 

I'm not sure what difference it makes whether we pay a year's salary spread out in monthly payments or all at once. I mean if we're paying a buyout, what difference does it make if he gets it all at once or spread out? When we're talking about just a difference of one year of pay, I guess I don't see what difference it makes whether he would get it all at once or monthly.

I'm assuming we'd pay it out in installments.  If so...we're essentially paying two coaches for another year.   On top of that...we may be doing that in football as well soon too.   Saving a few million maybe needed.  It also may be more than a few million if you can negotiate a lower buyout as well.

[Norm Peterson]

2 hours ago, nustudent said:

I'm assuming we'd pay it out in installments.  If so...we're essentially paying two coaches for another year.   On top of that...we may be doing that in football as well soon too.   Saving a few million maybe needed.  It also may be more than a few million if you can negotiate a lower buyout as well.

 

I am reliably informed that money is not an obstacle in this situation. If Trev feels the need to pull the trigger, the trigger will be pulled. Simple as that. And it doesn't affect what we can do with football if we need to do anything with football at all.

[nustudent]

27 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

I am reliably informed that money is not an obstacle in this situation. If Trev feels the need to pull the trigger, the trigger will be pulled. Simple as that. And it doesn't affect what we can do with football if we need to do anything with football at all.

Which is a concern for me.  Money was supposedly an issue with football.   But now we can easily afford $18.5M for basketball.   Quite the double standard there.

 

And I'm not saying that Fred deserves to keep his job...but I don't like the moving goalposts.

[hhcmatt]

4 minutes ago, nustudent said:

Which is a concern for me.  Money was supposedly an issue with football.   But now we can easily afford $18.5M for basketball.   Quite the double standard there.

 

And I'm not saying that Fred deserves to keep his job...but I don't like the moving goalposts.

 

Frost cut his buyout and fired half his coaching staff.

If Fred wants to make his buyout affordable after next season and fire the assistant that none of the beat writers will say by name on the radio, that would change how I'd feel.

[nustudent]

1 minute ago, hhcmatt said:

 

Frost cut his buyout and fired half his coaching staff.

If Fred wants to make his buyout affordable after next season and fire the assistant that none of the beat writers will say by name on the radio, that would change how I'd feel.

He did.  But you're going to have a hard time convincing me that was 100% Frost's choice.   I know the public coach speak comments from Frost and Alberts indicate as such...but I think that was as much Frost saving his own neck rather than some noble move and actually seeing the issue.

 

And I think Hoiberg should be allowed to do the same.