Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/27/2021 in all areas

  1. 49r

    Next seasons players

    I will never understand this type of thinking. There are few people anywhere as invested in the fortunes of the Husker hoops program as Thor. We need more guys on the team like him, not less, IMO.
    8 points
  2. Just for clarification Thor and/or Kobe can come back next year and it doesn't count towards our scholarship limit. This is an exception only for the school on which a guy is currently on the roster. If Luka Garza transferred here, we would need a schollie.
    4 points
  3. If you're really trying to impress as a MWC beat writer you describe him as "former Craig Smith employer"
    3 points
  4. 49r

    Next seasons players

    Exactly. He's a high BBIQ guy that the coaches like, he has stuck with the program through highs and lows and a coaching change, so you know he is a loyal Husker, AND he doesn't count against our scholarship limit? I would argue that not only do we *want* Thor to return for an extra year...we almost *need* him to. Same goes for Kobe really.
    3 points
  5. Back in the day when I did basketball recruiting, we had a tool that we used to evaluate players and how much we would give in scholarships. How would you guys evaluate our current team or our recruiting class? By the way, this tool forced us to go beyond watching highlight tapes or open gyms. Makes you go see them in person or watch full game film. You can't analyze a lot of this by just open gyms or highlight tapes. 5 Areas: 1. Basic Fundamentals - Self explanatory. Dribbling, shooting, catching, 3rd grade basketball camp stuff. Grabbing the ball with two hands, outside hand passing. Being shot ready. Jump stops, pivots, proper finishing footwork. Head up while dribbling. Things like using ball screens, Euro-Steps, both hand finishes, etc... have kind of become basic fundamentals at the college level. Basic man2man principles. Common (2-3, 1-3-1) zone fundamentals. I could list more but I think you all get it. 2. Secondary Fundamentals - Knowing score and situation. Naturally spacing the floor. Knowing when to be selfish and when to not even hesitate about passing to the next guy. When/where to move on drives and give passers windows. Knowing what you're doing with the ball before you catch it. Executing at a snap of a finger whether you're going to rim drive or create drive based off of close-outs and teammates positioning. Passing while moving full speed into help. Hitting skips and opposite corners while driving. Executing different close-outs on moments notice and switches. Understanding of what other teams are trying to do offensively and defensively. 3. Size - Somewhat more complicated than just pure height, but obviously positionally related. Does the player have a "college athlete body," i.e., can they put weight on and get stronger (broad shoulders, long levers, big hands can be indicators). But Length plays a factor here, as does strength (in a way). For example, if you're 5'11" but you've got a 6'5" wingspan, usually something a coach can do with that. Or if you're short, but you're an absolute bowling ball, it can all factor in. 4. Functional Athleticism - Lots of guys are fast, quick, and can jump high. Can the player use it in the game? This can help "by the measurable" unathletic player too. Iowa and Wisconsin have had a ton of guys that wouldn't impress at a combine - but they have no problem finishing, driving by, getting their shot off, guarding, or getting rebounds. It actually works the other way too. I've been around many dudes who could put their face on the rim, but never dunked in a game because they just functionally did not know how to use their athleticism in a live situation. 5. Intangibles - Do they want it? Are they disciplined? Do they understand the weight room isn't a voluntary participation thing? How do they respond to criticism and hard coaching? How do they communicate with their teammates? Do they do well in school and treat people with respect? Do they bring energy or do they suck energy? Can they execute offensive sets, and those that have been drawn on the marker board?
    2 points
  6. Minnesota's hoops message board has about 10 different threads about axing Pitino and who their next coach should be. Many of which are interested in Musselman, Beilein, etc. But also very adamant about not wanting an up-and-comers, nor Tim Miles. Oh, I'm so glad not to be in those shoes any time soon again.
    2 points
  7. I believe Michigan State had issues.
    2 points
  8. Game cancelled
    2 points
  9. What about Grant Gibbs? Does he get an extra year due to COVID?
    2 points
  10. That is a really interesting way to look at it. I haven't seen enough tape of our recruits to grade them in this manner. And I'm not going to grade every current roster player in detail because that would take all day. But here is how I view the general makeup of our team: 1. Basic Fundamentals - poor. I am having a hard time thinking of any player on the team that I would say is above average fundamentally for B1G-level play. Relative to their position, I would actually say our centers are closest. Walker does some really nice things fundamentally in the post, and Andre looks like he is focusing hard on trying to make that a strength going forward. Kobe also seems to be in the 'average' range for a B1G guard. Other than that? seems like a lot of below average fundametal players. I know some people will add Thor to this list...but just watch him dribble. Oof. 2. Secondary fundamentals - actually pretty good. I think we have quite a few guys on this team that could be called 'crafty' or 'wily' and understand spacing well. Unfortunately, those same guys go from 'pretty good' to 'atrocious at inopportune times (see Exhibit A: final 10 second of regulation in the first Illinois game). But in general, I think Trey, Walker, Kobe, Teddy, and Dalano are all pretty good in this department. 3. Size - probably our biggest strength out of these 5 criteria. We have length at every position, a couple stout wrecking balls like Shamiel, and even three true post players. What we are still missing here is elite size like Cockburn at Illinois or Garza at Iowa or the pipeline that Purdue has had for the past decade. 4. Functional Athleticism - we suck in this category. We have a bunch of guys that look great stepping off the bus and can do some insane things athletically, but in a game that athleticism doesn't translate to high level basketball abilities. Trey and Dalano in particular come to mind here, with their flashes of freakish athletic ability surrounded by lots and lots of plays that that athleticism doesn't translate. Teddy probably is the guy that squeezes the most juice from his natural athleticism orange, but I wouldn't call him athletic. is anyone on our team a plus in this category? I guess Walker is when graded on a scale relative to other centers. 5. Intangibles - this is tough to grade since I don't see these guys in any capacity other than when they play for 40 minutes on TV. But from what I can see in games, Trey, Dalano, and Walker have it. Teddy does at times, but too often is a negative in this category. I don't know though. This is pretty tough to judge when a team loses us much as we do, because I think disciple, attitude, and hunger are going to naturally suffer for most players when you continue to see loss after loss after loss.
    2 points
  11. That is a really cool thing to do for DW, and quite an accomplishment especially considering the transfer in the middle of his academic career. Congrats to Derrick and the whole Walker family
    2 points
  12. Nebraska Cornhuskers (11-10, 9-9 Big Ten) vs. Michigan State Spartans (12-7, 7-7 Big Ten)Saturday, Feb. 27, 2021, 1 p.m. (CT)Pinnacle Bank Arena - Lincoln, NebraskaLive Video: B1G Network+Live Radio: Husker Sports Network (12:45 p.m.) Matt Coatney (PBP), Jeff Griesch (Analyst) Lincoln (B107.3 FM), Omaha (ESPN 590 AM), Huskers.com, Huskers App, TuneIn
    1 point
  13. Here's to a Husker win today. Enjoy today's video.
    1 point
  14. Could it possibly be that Michigan St really didn't want to play us. They lost to us at home. Don't match up well. It's senior day which is always big. They have a couple of players hurt. Are tied with us in standings. Have never faired very well in games at Lincoln. Suzy Merchant who has never been one of my favorites now drops to the bottom of the barrel.
    1 point
  15. I know he's a MWC beat writer, but "former Colorado State coach" is the qualifier? He accomplished more at Nebraska and was here longer and more recently.
    1 point
  16. Cockburn 4-of-8 from the line in the first half against Wisconsin. Of course, the Illini still up by 11 at the break. On edit: Here's what I'd love to see, with the probability we're the No. 14 seed in the tournament. We beat either Minnesota or PSU in the first-round game, then get matched up with No. 6 Wisconsin and beat them in the second-round game. That would be a tasty little pickle on what otherwise has been a shit sandwich of a season.
    1 point
  17. MInnesota had positive tests today, since we just played them that could be why this is cancelled.
    1 point
  18. Yep, no game https://huskers.com/news/2021/2/27/womens-basketball-nebraska-vs-michigan-state-game-off.aspx
    1 point
  19. We're getting Garza next year? That will make us a lot better!
    1 point
  20. Some addins from the first part of the article HCFH's coffee mishap Thor's list of teammates at Nebraska
    1 point
  21. Only 5 threes attempted by Nebraska and they still put up 97. Not too shabby
    1 point
  22. I agree he can play a role, but if you are relying on a guy like Thor to go above his ceiling which he has hit, its not gonna happen. You hope you have more talented players then him playing moving forward
    1 point
  23. Dead Dog Alley

    In state kids?

    Is this what this board has degenerated to??? People speaking positively of former Creighton players??? Although I'm sure your description of Latrell Wrightsell Sr. is correct; from what I remember he was no Grant Gibbs. And he did play in the single greatest college basketball game of all time.
    1 point
  24. 1. I think the basics are really only alarming in the shooting realm. Defensively, I'd say we're in decent shape moving forward. We just struggle with post defense. I think Trey, for example, is an elite on ball defender. Walker and Yvan are good defenders as well. Andre knows what he is supposed to do on both ends, but doesn't have the body yet. But, shooting alone makes this category a challenge for a decent grade. I think the team is relatively skilled in general outside of that category. We've recruited three guys that can shoot the ball. Boxing out and defensive rebounding from all 5 players has been maddening. 2. Two players concern me here: Teddy and Delano. Teddy takes some awful shots even for a "green light" player. Delano, in my opinion, is not a point guard, but a skilled 4 or 5 with some size shortcomings. We should be treating him more like we treated Roby because he isn't our best point guard at all. We have improved our passing as the season has gone on with a complete roster. That will improve more when the defense actually has to guard someone on the perimeter besides Lat. 3. Size is fine. We have a giant, skilled, skinny PG (kinda what Dalano would be if he could shoot from outside consistently). Wilhelm will give us some length and help in the post, but his height/ability to shoot should provide more room in the lane. Only concern here is Tominaga, but he's 6'1" and dunking in games so his athleticism may very well be enough. Kobe hurts us here. 4. I think our functional athleticism at the wings is fantastic. There are very few players in the country who can stay with Trey, Teddy, or Dalano in a one on one situation. They just rarely have one on ones because we cannot currently stretch the floor. Thor hurts us here on both ends a bit (more on offense). Teddy and Lat hurt us here defensively. The three recruits are all pretty athletic/coordinated. 5. I like the kids and they have played pretty hard all year. I think they have been relatively disciplined according to the quality of shots we get as a team. They just can't shoot. I actually think that's the only real problem. They can't shoot. We're bringing in guys that can help us shoot better, which will also create more lanes to the basket in isolation.
    1 point
  25. aphilso1

    Recruiting Philosophy

    Except that Trey and Shamiel don't finish at the rim at a terribly high rate, they just look really good while missing layups. And both give memorable highlight finishes that I would gladly trade for a more consistent/less glamourous finish. Trey in particular is very inefficient in the paint. While they are both quite athletic, it's not really "functional" athleticism when the ball clanks off the rim or gets swatted away.
    1 point
  26. I think you've forgotten how good Northwestern's free-throw defense is. (8-of-30, remember?)
    1 point
  27. Regarding #4, I would say that Trey and Shamiel have it, it's just the decision making at times that limit it. Trey's drives to the hoop at times are as good as you will see in college basketball in terms of finishing and Shamiel is a very good finisher on the break with the ability to hang and utilize either hand to finish. I don't necessarily consider Delano to be a freak athlete, rather a tall one with some guard skills that makes him somewhat unique. Regarding #5, Yvan has the intangibles, but lacks certain skill sets.
    1 point
  28. aphilso1

    Recruiting Philosophy

    Yeah, that could be a bit of semantics. I am grading these guys on a Big Ten scale though, so someone who is a great shooter compared to the average human can still be atrocious compared to B1G shooting guards. And looking at the makeup of our roster, we only have a couple guys who are above average shooters compared to other B1G players at their same position (Teddy and Lat), zero above average ballhandlers in my opinion (again, graded relative to other B1G players at the same position), and the number of lazy passes that we produce each game is baffling. Post players have a slightly different set of core fundamentals, and I do think Andre and DW both box out well, front bigger post players well, and use their feet (rather than hands) pretty well to defend, among other traits. Those are the two guys that strike me as the most fundamentally sound on our roster, relative to their position. Regarding all the dumb turnovers, maybe I just am not paying attention to the stats enough but I don't feel like we are turning it over at an alarming rate. It's just that when we do turn it over, those turnovers seem more punitive this year in terms of taking points off the scoreboard or creating auto-buckets on the other end.
    1 point
  29. No we have plenty of guys who arent very good like him and that's why we have 1 conference win.
    -1 points
  30. Hopefully Thor leaves
    -5 points
×
×
  • Create New...