Norm Peterson

Ouch.

Numbers, at this point (in terms of team ranking), don't mean much to me. We're not the #81 team. We're probably among a group of 100 or so that are "on the bubble" so to speak. Until we prove it on the floor. But, unlike the last couple of years, I see some reason to believe they might actually be able to field a competitive team. Two years ago, it was like, no, not gonna happen. Did not have the horses. Grabbed a whole bunch of whoever was available to fill out a roster, and the only question was how bad was it going to be? Going into last year, I had the same reservations. Turned the roster over again, brought in another group of unprovens, and I remember asking why there was any more reason for optimism going into Year 2 than there had been going into Hoiberg Year 1. This year, though, we have some dudes. We have some skilled players. We have good backcourt length, some shooters, and some athletes, and you kinda look at our group and think they ought to be able to play some defense and score. Last year, we had no regular rotation guys who shot the ball better than 38% from three and just as many who were under 30% as were over 35%. Guards. In our regular rotation. Who couldn't hit at least 30% from 3. Three of them. That's terrible. And that won't happen this year. I don't know about 81. Rankings outside the top 25 or so are pretty arbitrary at this point. The computers don't have much reason to like us right now. But I do.

So, uh, about those expectations ... Trey Mac says it's NCAA or bust -- at a minimum. Their *expectation* is that they get that first NCAA win this season. But, you probably know you were picked 11th. What do you think about that? "We know how hard we work; we know the pieces we have."

And @millerhusker with his first 3-pointer of the season, GOT IT!

Great analysis. I will never forget that PSU game where Trey CLEARLY didn't want to pass the ball to Teddy who was CLEARLY begging for it and, as a result, we got a shit shot at the end. I'll be happy if that particular aspect of having Teddy on the team doesn't show up in some way with any other player this year.

@throwback was posting links in the official media thread about the OWH breakdowns of our position groups. I think the OWH dude was doing some good reporting. Depth of analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of our players was better than anyone I've seen outside of this board. We're now less than 1 week out from the first exhibition and I've been very emphatic in my belief that our reserves are a significant upgrade over last year. But, I'm curious for y'all's views on our starting 5 this year compared to last year's. At the peak of the season, when we had all hands on deck, the starters were Dalano, Trey, Teddy, Lat and Derrick. The presumptive starters going into this season are Alonzo, Trey, Bryce, Lat and Derrick. That's the apples-to-apples comparison, as far as I'm concerned. How much does it matter that we have 3 returning starters? Just in terms of system familiarity? A little? A lot? How much does it matter that each of the 3 returning starters has an added year of development? A little? A lot? So, we're swapping a true-freshman 5-star for a troubled journeyman wing. But, like him or not, Teddy was putting up 16.5 points and almost 5 rebounds on nearly 45% from the field and almost 38% from three. What can Bryce give us that Teddy didn't? What did Teddy give us that Bryce likely won't? Anything? Is this a net gain for us this year? A push? How long will it take for Bryce to get up to speed before he produces enough to fill the gap for what we lose in Teddy? Also, was Teddy a net positive or negative for the team last year? This is something we haven't really touched on, at least that I recall. But the coaches all seem to think we began playing our best basketball in the period of time, coincidentally, AFTER Teddy left the team. Is that true? If so, is it really a coincidence? Finally, Banton (definitely an NBA player) vs. Verge (purportedly offered a 2-way contract): Is this a net loss for us? Net gain? Interestingly, about the same time Teddy quit the team, Dalano was demoted to the bench and Kobe Webster was promoted into the starting lineup. And this, again, is about when the coaches were saying we began to play our best basketball. So, there is some basis to infer that whatever we were getting out of Dalano that made him an NBA-caliber player (rebounding and passing for a guy his size?) was offset by something we were able to get with Kobe Webster. But it's not Webster being mentioned as a potential starter this year, it's Verge. So, does THAT say anything very loudly? Bottom line question: Will our starters this year be a substantial upgrade, moderate upgrade, slight upgrade, no upgrade/push, slight downgrade, etc. compared to last year's starters? Thoughts?

Coin flip, you're saying?

Both came out of the 2nd round. That's ... not usual.

How about watching Isaiah Moses Hipp running all over Bear Bryant's Crimson Tide? That one was cool, too. #Iwasthere

I've heard one of his strengths is getting players to believe in themselves.

The starting lineup might only be a little better than a year ago. What's really REALLY different about this team is the next group of guys that go in. There might not be much of a step down from the top 5 to the second five. In fact, this year's second five might beat last year's starters head-to-head (if there's any way to test that hypothesis, I'd like to know what it is.)

I'm just reporting his updated comments.

Washut is now projecting that Wilhelm was just playing well while Walker was out ill and that Walker is still the presumptive starter. My world is back in balance.

Reviewing this thread, I'm reminded how, if you don't say anything, you don't have to walk back anything.

Expectation is we'll cut down on turnovers because players trust more that the next guy will make the next right play. And, also, we have more shooters, and it helps your assist numbers when shooters make shots. Nebraska Basketball: With a roster full of playmakers, simplicity is key for NU (rivals.com)

BANGARANG!

He’s more skilled ATM than Venson was at the same stage.

I've said in the past Wilhelm is the most talented big man we've recruited since at least Dave Hoppen, but I'm still surprised to hear him and "starting lineup" mentioned together. I was thinking he'd be an ideal 6th man, coming off the bench for either Walker or Mayen. But he's only gone through a summer of college strength and conditioning and he's like a high school kid, skinny as a bean pole. If he jumps over Walker, that's a big statement, I don't care what anyone else says. Walker is more than just a returning starter. As @millerhusker said above, Derrick was one of our steadiest, most consistent players a year ago. He's strong as hell. He can defend the post. Remember, he gave Kofi Cockburn fits. He shot 60% from the floor. And he contributed about 12 pts and 9 1/2 rebounds every 40 minutes. So, I mean, if Heem is good enough to leap over Walker to jump into the starting lineup, regardless what the rationale is, that's a big statement. Big statement. Don't downplay it. JMO.

I’m pretty surprised. I mean, if he’s good enough to leapfrog Walker and climb into the starting lineup, that obviously says something really good about our talent level. But I did not see that coming.

One thing Tim Miles has mentioned that he has learned and will be implementing in his new position is more of an outside-in offense rather than an inside-out offensive philosophy. In other words, he used to say "like the 3; love the rim." He's changing that to loving the 3 and liking the rim and the reason is that defenses can shut your drivers down by helping off other offensive players if you don't have anyone on your roster that can make them pay by draining a 3 when you leave them open. That year he took us to the dance, we had Walt Pitchford draining 3s and opening the driving lanes. And a guy like James Palmer Jr can use his exceptional skill to get to the rim even when defenses would try to help off. But Texas Tech shut him down his senior year because they focused on stopping him and we didn't really have anyone who could make them pay. I look at this roster and think we're not so easy to defend with these guys. You better not leave anyone open. We have some guys who are adept at penetrating. But we also have guys that can open driving lanes by hitting outside shots. And, if you watched the scrimmage, one of the last shots of the night was Derrick Walker hitting a 3. And the shot looked really pure. And that's kind of fun thinking that even Derrick Walker might get the 3-bug.

Speaking of what other teams have done in the past, the following group was a 6-seed in the NCAA tourney: 6'7, 232# Sr F 6'7, 215# Sr G 6'6, 191# So G 6'3, 210# So G 5'11, 180# Sr G 6'6, 205# So F 6'8, 235# Jr F 6'9, 232# Sr F 6'5, 197# So G Yeah, sure, they lost to Penn in the 1st round, but they were a 6-seed in the tourney.

Nope. It was Oklahoma with Buddy Hield in 2016. And, just so there's no misunderstanding with anyone, I'm not saying we're as good as that OU team. They had a guy in Buddy Hield who could score 25 ppg and shoot 3 pointers at about a 45% clip or better. And, even though their big man was not that big, he still averaged almost a double-double. Do we have guys who can do that? Yeah, probably not. But I agree with @basketballjones in a sense. We have horses this year. We have decent players at every spot on the floor and some really, really good players in a couple of spots. There might be one or two positions where you'd think maybe it'd be nice if that guy was just a little bit better or whatever. But we don't have a real weak link anywhere and we have a few guys who are better than just solid. The tourney ought to be the expectation with this crew. If we don't dance, we should be disappointed.

Let me add some details and include the Rivals star rating for each of the players described above, just so people can see this wasn't a Final Four team that was just loaded with a bunch of 5-star talent. Just so you know.

The teams who play really REALLY tough schedules early are typically mid-majors or lower who play a bunch of buy games early and finish with the kinds of teams we start with. Since the larger part of our schedule is conference, we shoot up the strength of schedule rankings while teams like East-West Carolina A&M plummet once they hit the conference part of their schedule and start playing the West-East Carolina Techs of the world. So it makes sense to me that we could go from a soft non-con and shoot up to near the top of SOS as the season goes along. We're going in the opposite direction from 2/3 of the rest of the country.

Are we big enough? Are we long enough? Do we have a guy who's big and strong enough to hold down the paint? Can we rebound? The following team (top 8 rotation listed), from a Power 5 conference, reached the Final Four just a few years ago: Sr. 6'8, 231#, 32.8 min/gm, 10.2 ppg, 9.0 rpg So. 6'9, 200#, 22.0 min, 5.6 ppg, 5.3 rpg Sr. 6'4, 187#, 33.4 min, 12.6 ppg, 4.5 rpg Sr. 6'4, 209#, 35.4 min, 25.0 ppg, 5.7 rpg Jr. 6'0, 186#, 29.8 min, 13.0 ppg, 3.0 rpg Fr. 6'7, 208#, 12.3 min, 3.5 ppg, 1.8 rpg Sr. 6'1, 193#, 12.1 min, 3.3 ppg, 1.4 rpg Fr. 6'4, 213#, 9.7 min, 2.9 ppg, 1.7 rpg FG% = 45.9; 3pt% = 42.6; FT% = 72.8 What we probably look like: Jr. 6'9, 239# Jr. 6'9, 217# Fr. 6'7, 179# Jr. 6'4, 196# Sr. 6'3, 163# Fr. 6'10, 227# So. 6'2, 177# Fr. 6'5, 221# Fr. 6'7, 204# I'm guessing our FG% will be mid-40s and our 3pt% will be upper 30s. FT% might be low-70s.