2014 JUCO PG Trey Dickerson

[uneblinstu]

 

 

I really wonder if Miles thinks Tai is gonna play more of the 2 guard. Does that push Shields to the bench? Tai has to get so much better in so many ways.

Again, Shields is the second leading scorer on the team. He's not gonna suddenly be the sixth man.

 

"We're a big away."  If we recruit that big, someone who started this year is going to sit next year.  It's not going to be Petteway.  Could be Pitchford.  Probably not Shields.  So, I agree.  Sort of.  Shields, though, is caught in a position game.  We need another big, a guy who can come in and start either at the post or at the PF position.  If it's this Atwood guy, well, Shields ain't a 5.  Which means Shields either starts at 3 and Petteway moves to the 2, or Shields comes off the bench.

 

Whatever big we get -- assuming we get one who can be that "one big away" guy -- is going to supplant a returning starter.

 

Not necessarily. With Ray graduating, that opens a spot in the lineup. Slide the BTBNL in there and then you've got a more conventional lineup anyway on the floor. Tai, Terran, Shavon, BTNBL, Walt.

[Concrete]

 

I really wonder if Miles thinks Tai is gonna play more of the 2 guard. Does that push Shields to the bench? Tai has to get so much better in so many ways.

Again, Shields is the second leading scorer on the team. He's not gonna suddenly be the sixth man.

 

Webster would go to the bench waaaay before Shields.

That said, i expect both of them will be starting next season

[Norm Peterson]

 

 

 

I really wonder if Miles thinks Tai is gonna play more of the 2 guard. Does that push Shields to the bench? Tai has to get so much better in so many ways.

Again, Shields is the second leading scorer on the team. He's not gonna suddenly be the sixth man.

 

"We're a big away."  If we recruit that big, someone who started this year is going to sit next year.  It's not going to be Petteway.  Could be Pitchford.  Probably not Shields.  So, I agree.  Sort of.  Shields, though, is caught in a position game.  We need another big, a guy who can come in and start either at the post or at the PF position.  If it's this Atwood guy, well, Shields ain't a 5.  Which means Shields either starts at 3 and Petteway moves to the 2, or Shields comes off the bench.

 

Whatever big we get -- assuming we get one who can be that "one big away" guy -- is going to supplant a returning starter.

 

Not necessarily. With Ray graduating, that opens a spot in the lineup. Slide the BTBNL in there and then you've got a more conventional lineup anyway on the floor. Tai, Terran, Shavon, BTNBL, Walt.

 

Yeah, I guess I was thinking the package deal thing, both of whom would expect to start and, if we go after them, we should expect it too.  In which case, someone who started this year will sit next.  And that could only mean the talent level is climbing upward for us.

[Norm Peterson]

When the hot topic on the board involves a debate over whether recruits who haven't even committed here yet will start over returning players, you know there's not much else going on that we want to talk about.  Hey, how about the Runzas at PBA?  Good, huh?

[doc1394]

I thought that Hammond was our "one big away"?

[Cybrrmonky]

We're recruiting a PG because there is concern with the one(s) we have.  I'd also be concerned that Tai will be here next year.  A guy that comes halfway around the world to go to school & play ball, homesickness always comes into play.  We're recruiting Dickerson b/c we have a need & also as a backup plan in case Tai would decide to stay in New Zealand.

[Section_316]

Tai & shields both. Agree 100% about signing a juco. If they're coming, they're coming to start. I think Dickerson, deng, and Atwood could all start

[uneblinstu]

 

 

 

 

I really wonder if Miles thinks Tai is gonna play more of the 2 guard. Does that push Shields to the bench? Tai has to get so much better in so many ways.

Again, Shields is the second leading scorer on the team. He's not gonna suddenly be the sixth man.

 

"We're a big away."  If we recruit that big, someone who started this year is going to sit next year.  It's not going to be Petteway.  Could be Pitchford.  Probably not Shields.  So, I agree.  Sort of.  Shields, though, is caught in a position game.  We need another big, a guy who can come in and start either at the post or at the PF position.  If it's this Atwood guy, well, Shields ain't a 5.  Which means Shields either starts at 3 and Petteway moves to the 2, or Shields comes off the bench.

 

Whatever big we get -- assuming we get one who can be that "one big away" guy -- is going to supplant a returning starter.

 

Not necessarily. With Ray graduating, that opens a spot in the lineup. Slide the BTBNL in there and then you've got a more conventional lineup anyway on the floor. Tai, Terran, Shavon, BTNBL, Walt.

 

Yeah, I guess I was thinking the package deal thing, both of whom would expect to start and, if we go after them, we should expect it too.  In which case, someone who started this year will sit next.  And that could only mean the talent level is climbing upward for us.

 

Could be. Get them on campus and work it out. I'd expect anyone that is good enough to get a scholarship would expect to start. I doubt they'll promise a starting spot. That's not a box you want to open up.

[FredsSlacks]

finally watched some highlights of trey. he seems like the real deal. most impressed with his shooting. He shoots 3s with ease for a point guard.

[Huskerpapa]

A lot of programs are jumping on Trey's bandwagon...

 

Robin Washut ‏@RobinWashut 11m

#Nebrasketball recruit—> RT @JucoRecruiting: Washington State has offered Trey Dickerson (6-1/PG/2014) of Williston State.

[hhcmatt]

Hammonds probably won't redshirt but he's going to take a while to adjust to life in the B1G.

Whether or not Deng, Atwood, or Dickerson would start is a lot more relevant if they actually commit here.

[uneblinstu]

Hammonds probably won't redshirt but he's going to take a while to adjust to life in the B1G.

Whether or not Deng, Atwood, or Dickerson would start is a lot more relevant if they actually commit here.

Interesting point.

[lanigan123]

So discussing recruits in the rotation if they sign is not ok? I fail to get the point. Not like we are talking about unrealistic recruits.

[ajb5856]

So discussing recruits in the rotation if they sign is not ok? I fail to get the point. Not like we are talking about unrealistic recruits.

Discuss whatever you want. Apparently some posters have their panties in a wad about what should and shouldn't be discussed. This is what I've learned to be the buttons:

1. Talking about poor officiating if the game is not close. Someone needs to set a point spread that the game needs to be within so we know when it's legal to complain.

2. Discussing post season tournaments that are still possible but just a slight reach too soon. Someone needs to make a checklist on the front page with both NIT and NCAA or maybe the words can just turn green when it's okay to discuss.

3. And now talking about potential lineups if we were to get certain recruits.

My god. Untwist the panties and just realize that one of the risks associated with reading the board is that your eyes might see something that you don't agree with. People can post what they want, within reason. Deal with it.

[hhcmatt]

So discussing recruits in the rotation if they sign is not ok? I fail to get the point. Not like we are talking about unrealistic recruits.

 

Show me where I said it "wasn't ok"  

My point is that the starting lineup talk isn't nearly as relevant as whether or not they sign.

Would it have been more on-topic for me to say that I don't think any of these guys will start initially because JUCOs always have a tough time adjusting to this level?

 

So people sometimes say that talk doesn't matter, it's too early, etc.  Disagree or disregard.

[doc1394]

I'd go:

Webster - Dickerson

Petteway - Hawkins

Shields- Fuller

Pitchford - Atwood

Hammond - Smith

Why recruit two backups? If they're coming in as juco transfers they should either be expected to start or pass on them. I'm sure they would expect to start and I doubt they'd be interested in going anywhere to sit the bench. And I suspect they think they're good enough to start immediately at whatever school they end up signing with.

So, if you want them, you should be willing to pencil them in as starters. If you can't pencil (not pen, but pencil) them in as starters, then we should look elsewhere. Like 2015.

I see what you are saying, but then why would we be recruiting Deng, if he's a SF? He wouldn't start over Shields, I wouldn't think. I would say Deng should be a plan B-.

I love the Hammond signing, like the recruitment of Dickerson if he is as good as you guys say. Love Atwood if his stats are even half as good for next year. Just not sold on Deng.

[Norm Peterson]

I thought that Hammond was our "one big away"?

Hammond isn't going to come in and perform on an All Big 10 level his freshman year.  In that case, Serge is our one big man away and he's already on the roster.  Oh, wait.

 

No, I don't think you can count Hammond.  I think you have to say we're one contributing big away.  I guy who is starter-worthy.  Not just any big.  And, heck, maybe Hammond comes in right off the bat and is the guy we need him to be but that's not likely unless he's a 5-star, future lottery pick.

[atskooc]

 

I thought that Hammond was our "one big away"?

Hammond isn't going to come in and perform on an All Big 10 level his freshman year.  In that case, Serge is our one big man away and he's already on the roster.  Oh, wait.

 

No, I don't think you can count Hammond.  I think you have to say we're one contributing big away.  I guy who is starter-worthy.  Not just any big.  And, heck, maybe Hammond comes in right off the bat and is the guy we need him to be but that's not likely unless he's a 5-star, future lottery pick.

 

Shields was starter-ready last year as a freshman, but he wasn't a five-star, future lottery pick.

 

I realize he's not a big (per se), but to think the only type of guy who could contribute as a freshman would have to be a five-star is a bit of a stretch.  Brandon Ubel contributed as a freshman (though he didn't start, unless my memory is foggy).  He wasn't anything near a five-star.

[Norm Peterson]

 

So discussing recruits in the rotation if they sign is not ok? I fail to get the point. Not like we are talking about unrealistic recruits.

Discuss whatever you want. Apparently some posters have their panties in a wad about what should and shouldn't be discussed. This is what I've learned to be the buttons:

1. Talking about poor officiating if the game is not close. Someone needs to set a point spread that the game needs to be within so we know when it's legal to complain.

2. Discussing post season tournaments that are still possible but just a slight reach too soon. Someone needs to make a checklist on the front page with both NIT and NCAA or maybe the words can just turn green when it's okay to discuss.

3. And now talking about potential lineups if we were to get certain recruits.

My god. Untwist the panties and just realize that one of the risks associated with reading the board is that your eyes might see something that you don't agree with. People can post what they want, within reason. Deal with it.

 

You forgot not talking about players leaving early for the NBA.  There are more important things for us to be wasting our time on a message board talking about than the potential of one of our players to leave early for the NBA.  Like Deverell Biggs getting dismissed from the team.

 

Oh, wait ... 

[nebrasketball10]

I thought that Hammond was our "one big away"?

Hammond isn't going to come in and perform on an All Big 10 level his freshman year. In that case, Serge is our one big man away and he's already on the roster. Oh, wait.

No, I don't think you can count Hammond. I think you have to say we're one contributing big away. I guy who is starter-worthy. Not just any big. And, heck, maybe Hammond comes in right off the bat and is the guy we need him to be but that's not likely unless he's a 5-star, future lottery pick.

Shields was starter-ready last year as a freshman, but he wasn't a five-star, future lottery pick.

I realize he's not a big (per se), but to think the only type of guy who could contribute as a freshman would have to be a five-star is a bit of a stretch. Brandon Ubel contributed as a freshman (though he didn't start, unless my memory is foggy). He wasn't anything near a five-star.

But we are not a freshman-Brandon-Ubel-caliber big away.

[ajb5856]

I thought that Hammond was our "one big away"?

Hammond isn't going to come in and perform on an All Big 10 level his freshman year. In that case, Serge is our one big man away and he's already on the roster. Oh, wait.

No, I don't think you can count Hammond. I think you have to say we're one contributing big away. I guy who is starter-worthy. Not just any big. And, heck, maybe Hammond comes in right off the bat and is the guy we need him to be but that's not likely unless he's a 5-star, future lottery pick.

Shields was starter-ready last year as a freshman, but he wasn't a five-star, future lottery pick.

I realize he's not a big (per se), but to think the only type of guy who could contribute as a freshman would have to be a five-star is a bit of a stretch. Brandon Ubel contributed as a freshman (though he didn't start, unless my memory is foggy). He wasn't anything near a five-star.

But we are not a freshman-Brandon-Ubel-caliber big away.

You're right. We are not a freshman-Brandon-Ubel-caliber big away from doing huge things. But think of where we would be if we just had an average post up man this year. Not even one thats a huge offensive threat, just a back to the basket man that could catch the ball on the low block to run the offense inside-out. Yes we want an impact big, this much is obvious. But if we only had an average one this year that could give us minutes we might be closer to making the tournament.

[Norm Peterson]

 

 

I thought that Hammond was our "one big away"?

Hammond isn't going to come in and perform on an All Big 10 level his freshman year.  In that case, Serge is our one big man away and he's already on the roster.  Oh, wait.

 

No, I don't think you can count Hammond.  I think you have to say we're one contributing big away.  I guy who is starter-worthy.  Not just any big.  And, heck, maybe Hammond comes in right off the bat and is the guy we need him to be but that's not likely unless he's a 5-star, future lottery pick.

 

Shields was starter-ready last year as a freshman, but he wasn't a five-star, future lottery pick.

 

I realize he's not a big (per se), but to think the only type of guy who could contribute as a freshman would have to be a five-star is a bit of a stretch.  Brandon Ubel contributed as a freshman (though he didn't start, unless my memory is foggy).  He wasn't anything near a five-star.

 

When Miles said "we're one big man away" I think there was an implicit "good" in there.  As in "we're one good big man away."  I don't think we should expect a true freshman -- especially at that position -- to come in and be an impact player.  What I'm saying is that the "one big away" is probably going to have to be a transfer of some sort.  Elbert Robinson probably could have been that guy.  Hammond might be.  But it's too early to pencil Hammond in as a difference maker at the post.

[doc1394]

I thought that Hammond was our "one big away"?

Hammond isn't going to come in and perform on an All Big 10 level his freshman year. In that case, Serge is our one big man away and he's already on the roster. Oh, wait.

No, I don't think you can count Hammond. I think you have to say we're one contributing big away. I guy who is starter-worthy. Not just any big. And, heck, maybe Hammond comes in right off the bat and is the guy we need him to be but that's not likely unless he's a 5-star, future lottery pick.

So we've been one big man away for over ten years

[FredsSlacks]

we need atwood. I'm assuming he will be able to at least give us the same amount of what leslee has, which is more than enough.

 

we are now also in the position where we badly need trey. Losing biggs created a huge need for a point guard.

 

I think Hammond will probably play from day 1, but most likely as a backup center. If we land atwood and trey, we could afford to redshirt hammond though.

[Norm Peterson]

 

 

I thought that Hammond was our "one big away"?

Hammond isn't going to come in and perform on an All Big 10 level his freshman year. In that case, Serge is our one big man away and he's already on the roster. Oh, wait.

No, I don't think you can count Hammond. I think you have to say we're one contributing big away. I guy who is starter-worthy. Not just any big. And, heck, maybe Hammond comes in right off the bat and is the guy we need him to be but that's not likely unless he's a 5-star, future lottery pick.

So we've been one big man away for over ten years

 

Brandon Ubel as a senior or junior would have qualified.  I'm not saying he has to be all-world.  But he does have to be ready to contribute starter's kind of minutes.  I don't think we can expect that out of Hammond.  Expect.  Maybe he does it, but he's not the "one big away" I've been pinning my hopes on.