Freshman Coffee Talk

[hskr4life]

Well then isn't the "lottery tickets" that we are talking about free?  Technically we didn't buy the tickets, we got them for free.  So therefore shouldn't we at least look at the numbers when they are drawn to see if we hit the lottery?  That doesn't mean we have to become an avid player of the lottery, but is it really in our best interests to just throw away the ticket we received for free without giving it a shot at some chance that we might win.  Also when you play the lottery, its not go big or go home.  Shoot... I would be happy with just winning a million bucks.  This kid doesn't have to be a jackpot.  Shoot... maybe he is a losing ticket, but he was a free ticket and there is no sense in at least checking the numbers to see if ya hit something because that something could just be a million bucks.

[Dean Smith]

My point was that we should appreciate what walk ons bring to the program. If we are going to make it to the next level program their contribution need to be overwhelmingly in practice. If you watched the two games where they received extended playing time you could see the gulf between their athleticism and abilities compared to the scholarship players. I take exception to those saying those two will contribute on the floor before they are done. My point is they were free tickets and it's not fair to compare them to the scholarship players or have overinflated expectations of what they can offer a top level program IN games. I appreciate all the hard work and effort they give to make the team better. Players on the floor are expected to fill different roles and a walk on's role 99 out of 100 times needs to be that practice player or you will not be able to maintain a high level program. So I am saying there's a chance.

[bball23]

My point was that we should appreciate what walk ons bring to the program. If we are going to make it to the next level program their contribution need to be overwhelmingly in practice. If you watched the two games where they received extended playing time you could see the gulf between their athleticism and abilities compared to the scholarship players. I take exception to those saying those two will contribute on the floor before they are done. My point is they were free tickets and it's not fair to compare them to the scholarship players or have overinflated expectations of what they can offer a top level program IN games. I appreciate all the hard work and effort they give to make the team better. Players on the floor are expected to fill different roles and a walk on's role 99 out of 100 times needs to be that practice player or you will not be able to maintain a high level program. So I am saying there's a chance.

But the question was "Who will improve the most" Not "Who will improve and CONTRIBUTE the most."  So people saying Johnny Trueblood could improve the most is fair.  Doesn't mean he ever contributes a ton, but say he goes from bench warmer to playing 4-5 spot minutes a game because he does enough little things to give the starters a break? 

 

I understand your point that you don't want to be building a program around the hope that a walk-on has to play a ton of minutes.  But it doesn't mean they can't improve the most.  I believe a few years back when we were in the B12 Texas Tech had a player (Jackson I believe?) that by the time he was a senior had earned a scholarship and I want to even say lead the team in scoring?  Not saying Johnny Trueblood is all of as sudden going to be putting up 15 PPG, but who knows, maybe by his senior season he does improve a lot and comes in from time to time and knocks down a couple 3 balls, ala Drake Beranek, Paul Verlander.

[49r]

Suffice it to say that this was a pretty damn good haul of a recruiting class with guys totally off the radar being picked as maybe the best of the group (potential for greatest improvement) when two other of those freshmen have already locked down spots in the starting lineup.

Glynn Watson has potential star power; Michael Jacobson has the tools and the grit to be another special player; Ed Morrow gives us athleticism in a 6-7 package we haven't seen in many years; but it's Jack McVeigh who at least a few posters would credibly argue could be the best of them all.

If that comes to pass, we're going to be pretty effing good.

 

Yeah, while watching a little of the Wisco/PSU game last night, and thinking to myself how bad NU would probably wax either team (especially seeing how terrible they were both playing) I remember hearing the ESPN announcer talking about how bright the future for PSU was going to be because they are bringing a "top 70 guy" in with their recruiting class next year.

 

I thought to myself, "man we got like 4 of those guys on our team already, and another one who is pretty close coming in next year".

 

This really is an overall level of talent we haven't seen around here in a long, LONG time!

[Norm Peterson]

 

My point was that we should appreciate what walk ons bring to the program. If we are going to make it to the next level program their contribution need to be overwhelmingly in practice. If you watched the two games where they received extended playing time you could see the gulf between their athleticism and abilities compared to the scholarship players. I take exception to those saying those two will contribute on the floor before they are done. My point is they were free tickets and it's not fair to compare them to the scholarship players or have overinflated expectations of what they can offer a top level program IN games. I appreciate all the hard work and effort they give to make the team better. Players on the floor are expected to fill different roles and a walk on's role 99 out of 100 times needs to be that practice player or you will not be able to maintain a high level program. So I am saying there's a chance.

But the question was "Who will improve the most" Not "Who will improve and CONTRIBUTE the most."  So people saying Johnny Trueblood could improve the most is fair.  Doesn't mean he ever contributes a ton, but say he goes from bench warmer to playing 4-5 spot minutes a game because he does enough little things to give the starters a break? 

 

I understand your point that you don't want to be building a program around the hope that a walk-on has to play a ton of minutes.  But it doesn't mean they can't improve the most.  I believe a few years back when we were in the B12 Texas Tech had a player (Jackson I believe?) that by the time he was a senior had earned a scholarship and I want to even say lead the team in scoring?  Not saying Johnny Trueblood is all of as sudden going to be putting up 15 PPG, but who knows, maybe by his senior season he does improve a lot and comes in from time to time and knocks down a couple 3 balls, ala Drake Beranek, Paul Verlander.

 

If he never contributes, how will you know if he's improved the most?

 

I agree with Dean.  It's nice to think about walk-ons developing into players down the road, especially at Nebraska where our success in football involved some very famous walk-ons over the years, some of whom went on to pro careers.

 

But, in basketball, it's different.

 

In football, you could easily see 50 or more players take the field during a game.  The two-deep, alone, would comprise 44 players. 

 

Our rotations in basketball this year have been 8-10 players. That's a totally different animal than football.

 

And I cannot remember a successful Nebraska basketball team that saw any sort of significant contribution from a walk-on.

 

Rare, indeed, would be the basketball walk-on who commands minutes.

 

And if we're hoping that some walk-on ends up being the most-improved of all the freshmen in some meaningful, measurable way, we're probably hoping for a Husker team that doesn't retain its coach.

[AuroranHusker]

 

 

My point was that we should appreciate what walk ons bring to the program. If we are going to make it to the next level program their contribution need to be overwhelmingly in practice. If you watched the two games where they received extended playing time you could see the gulf between their athleticism and abilities compared to the scholarship players. I take exception to those saying those two will contribute on the floor before they are done. My point is they were free tickets and it's not fair to compare them to the scholarship players or have overinflated expectations of what they can offer a top level program IN games. I appreciate all the hard work and effort they give to make the team better. Players on the floor are expected to fill different roles and a walk on's role 99 out of 100 times needs to be that practice player or you will not be able to maintain a high level program. So I am saying there's a chance.

But the question was "Who will improve the most" Not "Who will improve and CONTRIBUTE the most."  So people saying Johnny Trueblood could improve the most is fair.  Doesn't mean he ever contributes a ton, but say he goes from bench warmer to playing 4-5 spot minutes a game because he does enough little things to give the starters a break? 

 

I understand your point that you don't want to be building a program around the hope that a walk-on has to play a ton of minutes.  But it doesn't mean they can't improve the most.  I believe a few years back when we were in the B12 Texas Tech had a player (Jackson I believe?) that by the time he was a senior had earned a scholarship and I want to even say lead the team in scoring?  Not saying Johnny Trueblood is all of as sudden going to be putting up 15 PPG, but who knows, maybe by his senior season he does improve a lot and comes in from time to time and knocks down a couple 3 balls, ala Drake Beranek, Paul Verlander.

 

If he never contributes, how will you know if he's improved the most?

 

I agree with Dean.  It's nice to think about walk-ons developing into players down the road, especially at Nebraska where our success in football involved some very famous walk-ons over the years, some of whom went on to pro careers.

 

But, in basketball, it's different.

 

In football, you could easily see 50 or more players take the field during a game.  The two-deep, alone, would comprise 44 players. 

 

Our rotations in basketball this year have been 8-10 players. That's a totally different animal than football.

 

And I cannot remember a successful Nebraska basketball team that saw any sort of significant contribution from a walk-on.

 

Rare, indeed, would be the basketball walk-on who commands minutes.

 

And if we're hoping that some walk-on ends up being the most-improved of all the freshmen in some meaningful, measurable way, we're probably hoping for a Husker team that doesn't retain its coach.

 

 

It's an opinion, and there are plenty of examples of teams that have a contributing walk-on (see Iowa, 2015-16). It's "found money," why be so quick to discard the notion that a walk-on could have the "most improvement" on the team. It's actually a very fine compliment that the already contributing FROSH are 'ready-made' players! Think about it from the reverse angle, it's a VERY GOOD THING for Nebrasketball that the 1st-year rotation players don't have a ton of room for improvement! Sign of a very good team, in fact. GBR

 

[Norm Peterson]

Auroran, that's a nice, hopeful sentiment on behalf of the walk-ons.

 

But I rather hope that the scholarship freshmen aren't anywhere close to reaching their potential. 

 

And, in truth, I think they do have a lot of room for improvement, all of them.

 

But, for the scholarship kids, I think the ceiling is much higher.

 

If one of them doesn't become that most-improved player among the freshmen, it probably won't be good news.

[AuroranHusker]

Auroran, that's a nice, hopeful sentiment on behalf of the walk-ons.

 

But I rather hope that the scholarship freshmen aren't anywhere close to reaching their potential. 

 

And, in truth, I think they do have a lot of room for improvement, all of them.

 

But, for the scholarship kids, I think the ceiling is much higher.

 

If one of them doesn't become that most-improved player among the freshmen, it probably won't be good news.

 

Like I wrote, it's an opinion. No one claimed "the same ceiling" so that comparison isn't valid. Of course they all have room for improvement, the question is who was the MOST room for improvement while seemingly ignoring that Nebraska has.two pretty good walk-on players from Nebraska who could have had decent full schollies elsewhere if they had desired.

[Norm Peterson]

I've seen some discussion on this forum about whether Glynn Watson is a good shooter or not and whether our perceptions of his shooting ability have been influenced by some of the big shots he's hit at clutch moments, which might give us an unduly positive view of his shooting ability.

 

It has been argued that Glynn is really no better than a freshman Benny Parker was at shooting from deep.

 

I would like to just throw out there that we know Glynn had some freshman jitters in his first two games as a Husker.  Including our loss to a ranked Villanova team on the road in a noisy environment.

 

In the 18 games since then, Glynn is shooting 37.5% from beyond the arc.

 

Just thought I'd throw that out there.  I suspect the most-recent 18 games are a better indication of his ability than the first two games of his college career.

[AuroranHusker]

I've seen some discussion on this forum about whether Glynn Watson is a good shooter or not and whether our perceptions of his shooting ability have been influenced by some of the big shots he's hit at clutch moments, which might give us an unduly positive view of his shooting ability.

 

It has been argued that Glynn is really no better than a freshman Benny Parker was at shooting from deep.

 

I would like to just throw out there that we know Glynn had some freshman jitters in his first two games as a Husker.  Including our loss to a ranked Villanova team on the road in a noisy environment.

 

In the 18 games since then, Glynn is shooting 37.5% from beyond the arc.

 

Just thought I'd throw that out there.  I suspect the most-recent 18 games are a better indication of his ability than the first two games of his college career.

 

I'm all 'N' favor of that sentiment, Normy! - Watson had 3 turnovers in his 1st game, hasn't had a game with more than 2 since (including 8 games with ZERO!). Glynn is a great player who needs some more work on his arc (which he can & will do).

[Norm Peterson]

No matter who has the most upside in this class, I'd like to repeat something I said back in probably August:  The talent upgrade that this recruiting class represents just blows me away.  I think I called it the most significant recruiting class in program history.  And I include Andrew White within the recruiting class because he committed roughly the same time as and became eligible to play along with these freshmen.

 

The talent upgrade is clear and undeniable.

[AuroranHusker]

No matter who has the most upside in this class, I'd like to repeat something I said back in probably August:  The talent upgrade that this recruiting class represents just blows me away.  I think I called it the most significant recruiting class in program history.  And I include Andrew White within the recruiting class because he committed roughly the same time as and became eligible to play along with these freshmen.

 

The talent upgrade is clear and undeniable.

 

Certainly of the past 20 years. Great work by Miles & Co. Just need to keep the recruiting momentum going & snag that 'big'! GBR

[hhcmatt]

I've seen some discussion on this forum about whether Glynn Watson is a good shooter or not and whether our perceptions of his shooting ability have been influenced by some of the big shots he's hit at clutch moments, which might give us an unduly positive view of his shooting ability.

 

It has been argued that Glynn is really no better than a freshman Benny Parker was at shooting from deep.

 

I would like to just throw out there that we know Glynn had some freshman jitters in his first two games as a Husker.  Including our loss to a ranked Villanova team on the road in a noisy environment.

 

In the 18 games since then, Glynn is shooting 37.5% from beyond the arc.

 

Just thought I'd throw that out there.  I suspect the most-recent 18 games are a better indication of his ability than the first two games of his college career.

 

How about just his in conference play?

I'm not sure exactly the breakdown between his midrange shot and takes the rim but his 2pt shooting percentage has significantly increased in conference play. His 3pt, not so much though he's taking less of them.

 

 

He's already adjusted based on how he was shooting over the non-con....the kid is smart and/or listens to the coaches. He's certainly been more selective on the offensive end and doesn't need to shoot for the rest of his game to be effective.

 

He's one of the few guys on the team that can get a shot whenever he wants...I have zero issues with him shooting at the end of the game regardless of how many shots he's made or missed previously.

[AuroranHusker]

 

I've seen some discussion on this forum about whether Glynn Watson is a good shooter or not and whether our perceptions of his shooting ability have been influenced by some of the big shots he's hit at clutch moments, which might give us an unduly positive view of his shooting ability.

 

It has been argued that Glynn is really no better than a freshman Benny Parker was at shooting from deep.

 

I would like to just throw out there that we know Glynn had some freshman jitters in his first two games as a Husker.  Including our loss to a ranked Villanova team on the road in a noisy environment.

 

In the 18 games since then, Glynn is shooting 37.5% from beyond the arc.

 

Just thought I'd throw that out there.  I suspect the most-recent 18 games are a better indication of his ability than the first two games of his college career.

 

How about just his in conference play?

I'm not sure exactly the breakdown between his midrange shot and takes the rim but his 2pt shooting percentage has significantly increased in conference play. His 3pt, not so much though he's taking less of them.

 

 

He's already adjusted based on how he was shooting over the non-con....the kid is smart and/or listens to the coaches. He's certainly been more selective on the offensive end and doesn't need to shoot for the rest of his game to be effective.

 

He's one of the few guys on the team that can get a shot whenever he wants...I have zero issues with him shooting at the end of the game regardless of how many shots he's made or missed previously.

 

 

 

Looking over all of those numbers, and it's pretty clear how Nebraska was improved in these past 7 games compared to the non-conf. Great to see the 'guts' behind the results on the court.

[bigFRED]

I personally think Watson could end up being one of the best Huskers of all time

[AuroranHusker]

I personally think Watson could end up being one of the best Huskers of all time

 

Welcome to HHC. Love that line of thinking. Greatness is within these guys. GBR

[hhcmatt]

I think you put undue expectations on the walk ons to say they will be contributing players. 

 

Like more undue expectations than the scholarship guys who don't play? Relatively speaking there are little to no expectations for our walkon players to see minutes.

 

And I cannot remember a successful Nebraska basketball team that saw any sort of significant contribution from a walk-on.

 

I can't remember a Nebraska team that has won a NCAA tournament game.

 

 

The contributing non-scholarship athlete exists but you can't build a program doing that. Its possible Iowa won the lottery with that kid. I have high expectation/wishes for nebrasketball and you can't get to where I would love to see the program by playing walk ons significant minutes. 

 

I'm not saying this. No one is saying this at all. Truthfully we need players than we have now.

I don't think anyone here is thinking that Tanner is playing 30 minutes a game as a Senior. Could he play 5 minutes in a critical conference game when our post players are in foul trouble in a few years?  That's what I'm talking about.

 

Is it the use of the phrase "significant minutes"? Would it come across more clearly if I used "Minutes of signifcance"?

I'm saying that I could see one of these guys at some point in their career playing a few minutes in a part of the game that isn't garbage time. That's it.

[hhcmatt]

The talent upgrade is clear and undeniable.

 

Easily and it's still going up.

[AuroranHusker]

 

The talent upgrade is clear and undeniable.

 

Easily and it's still going up.

 

 

#BANGARANG

[Hooper]

I'm going to have to go with Jack. As others mentioned, he's just scratching the surface of what he can do. Aside from his shooting just getting more consistent, I feel his dribble-drive and post game will continue to evolve by leaps and bounds, in addition to his strength and physical presence overall.

 

Jack's arms are so long that he's able to be really crafty around the basket. That layup he made against MSU, when he appeared to be trapped on the boundary with nowhere to go, is just a glimpse of what he can become. The way he was able to extend to get that layup off cleanly is something that a lot of guys wouldn't have been able to do. A 7' wingspan is very useful.

 

Ed would be my second choice. His offensive game is only at a bare foundational level right now. Imagine a guy two years from now who could consistently hit an 8-10' jumper, or who had a legit dribble-drive and post game. Using his explosive athleticism to put in garbage around the basket or catch a pass and dunk the ball are nice tools to build from, but he's capable of much more. There's a ton of untapped potential there, but he's a PF, not a center.

 

There are no busts in this recruiting class, and the amount of unrealized potential in that group is pretty exciting to think about.

[Fullbacksympathy]

I wouldn't pick Jack.  That Australian academy really coached him well.  He had good ball skills, defense, and toughness before he got here.  He's going to get stronger and more explosive, and he'll be a great one regardless, but if you can already shoot, pass, have good footwork, and are crafty around the basket, then you already have a lot of the tools you need.  I think he'll average low double-digits and be a Shields-type of stat stuffer (rebounds, assists) before he's out of here.  

 

I wouldn't pick Glenn.  He's already very good.  He'll just contribute more and more.  If he focuses on becoming a lock down defender down the road, I might take this back, but I don't see much that needs to be improved offensively.  The kid is a stud.  He'll average just under 20 a game at some point, and he'll get some double doubles because he's that efficient of a passer.  It's going to be his team in the future, and that's exciting.  

 

Michael is another one that's been extremely well coached before he got here.  He has good footwork and fundamentals already.  Athletically, I think he's the one with the most challenges ahead of him.  I don't see a ton of upside there, but I see an 8pt, 8rb average down the road as he builds strength on an already good frame.  He even looks like the next Chubbick/Reid.  Great get.  

 

This leaves me to my choice, Ed.  I've been high on him since he committed, and I'm not wavering there.  If he ever gets to play the 4, he's going to dominate some games.  As his coaching and practice reps catch up to his length and raw athleticism, he's going to figure out how to use his gifts under control.  I thought the Illinois game was indicative of what we're going to see regularly down the road.  There's just too much athleticism, toughness, and will for this kid to not break through.  It's only a matter of time.  The cool thing with Ed is, I don't know if he'll ever be a stat stuffer, but he'll be a game changer if he can learn to stay on the damned court.  

 

The dark horse would be Evelyn.  I think this kid's future is bright as a 6'3" true point guard.  He has great handles and passing instincts, and he has the body to be a pesky defender.  I think he'll develop into a legitimate 3-point threat as well.  I'm pretty excited about his future from what I've seen.  If we didn't have Glenn, I think he'd be getting minutes, and I think he'll play a lot next year off the bench.