Fullbacksympathy

I think both Akenten and Palmer will be able to take it to the rack, but neither one will be reliable to bring the ball up the court or run the offense. I would've trusted Roby to bring it up this past season based on what I saw. As for Roby > McVeigh, I could definitely see that happening. Based on the film I've seen, I think it could be very plausible that Copeland and Roby play completely interchangeably on the court at the same time, position-wise. In fact, I think Roby is more of a 4 than Copeland defensively. Copeland is quicker. Roby is stronger/longer. I like the idea of Roby taking on a Shields role to some extent, but Roby is so much more talented as a passer, I just have trouble seeing that skill not being utilized. Thinking more about pick and roll, I'm thinking the best possibility is going to be Watson/Copeland. Both can shoot, both have a midrange game, and Copeland is extremely agile at 6'9". Basically, you either need 3 other 3p threats on the court or a 5 who wreaks havoc on the glass and bloodies up the baseline. I think Watson will improve as a passer, but he has a lot of Stockton in his game. Copeland lives for that midrange jumper. God I'd love to see Roby get that shot and a serviceable 3pt shot in his holster. We'd be terrifying. I actually think Jordy has potential to eventually knock down a 15 footer as well. He has a soft touch as a free throw shooter.

Thanks. Yup. I'm encouraged as well. He's not far behind Glynn. Watching the Duke/GTown game on youtube from 15-16, it's pretty clear Copeland has a stretch-4 game. He doesn't like to bang, but he is tall enough/quick enough create big matchup problems, even for Duke. He also has a hell of a midrange game with no hesitation at various spots inside the arc, and he runs the court extremely well. Defensively he's nothing special, but I think he's the kind of player that's almost always going to outscore his matchup. He's just an infinite difference from MJ/Ed at the 4. He's a face-the-basket wing first, post player second. I also think he'll be serviceable from 3.

Thanks for this. Curious if you have Georgetown's 15-16 kenpom stats.. I'd like to see how Copeland shakes out.

Good post. Offensively, I'm looking mostly at spacing as the biggest indicator of improvement. Last year, our starting lineup was usually: Glynn Tai Evan MJ Morrow Of that lineup, there is literally one player who I'm comfortable kicking the ball out to as a very good 3pt shooter, and that is Glynn (Tai was serviceable though). Well, that doesn't work, because Glynn is the PG. He can't kick it out to himself. Tai was a very good one on one scorer, but he had to get to the rim to do so, and Evan was a liability from 3. Neither Morrow nor MJ could shoot from anywhere on the court, nor had any one on one scoring ability, so all a defense had to do to stop us was either 1) play zone or 2) pack in m2m. We couldn't drive, kick out, or throw it into the post. There were no options except really difficult shots. Compare that to next year's starting lineup (with a couple of big assumptions): Watson Akenten McVeigh Copeland Jordy The first glaring difference is that if Watson, Akenten, McVeigh, and Copeland stand outside of the 3pt line, all four of them HAVE to be guarded. This leaves the possibility of a two-man game or one on one matchups with Watson (hello 18-20ppg) or Jordy (hello 10 free throws a game). If we swap Roby for McVeigh or Copeland, we can run the same 2 man game through Roby and have Watson camp out from 3. If they help, we kick to whoever for a 3, if not, we score at the rim. Suddenly, we're Wisconsin.

I keep thinking about Akenten and AWIII... I'm really struggling to see how, if Akenten can shoot at a similar 40% clip, he doesn't end up putting up double figures for us. He has all the athleticism in the world to guard at the D1 level. And, like White, he doesn't like to handle the ball, and is a good rebounder for his size. I just don't see a skill White has that Akenten doesn't already have in his arsenal. I think there are guys like Roby who have to develop an all around game in order to end up a great one, but Akenten and White have very specific skillsets that don't require a ton of development.

This would be marvelous.

In games where Jordy got 18+ minutes, he averaged double figures. He'll get 25min a game next year.

Don't forget McVeigh. He's on pace to average 11. I'm not convinced with Isaiah as a pure scorer. I think he's more of a stat filler, but if we're going to utilize him offensively, I'd love to see some 2 man pick and roll sets for him with the ball in his hands. He is a great passer, and at 6'8" and leaping ability, he can pass the ball over bigs either as a kick out or dumpoff. This is my dream for Roby/Jordy or Roby/Copeland. I agree that he was passive last year, and I think that's because he didn't have the ball in his hands enough as a distributor. I'd like to see sets where Glynn is more of an Iverson roll and Roby runs the show. A point forward totally screws with opponents defensive strategy:

Predictions on averages: Watson = 16 Jordy = 12 Copeland = 12 McVeigh = 10 Taylor = 8 Roby = 6 Akenten = 4 Palmer = 4 Gill = 3 ------- That's an optimistic 74 I guess, but I do see points being spread around on this squad beyond Watson, Jordy, and Copeland. I think Akenten and Palmer are major wild cards from a scoring standpoint. The rest of the jumps in scoring are pretty standard scoring jumps with the exception to Jordy. Akenten shoots as well as AWIII, though, so I think there are going to be some games where he goes off and gets us 20.

I think TB gets minutes, and I think they'll be because he's a skilled player. Hopefully he can slim down to around 250. I wanted him to get minutes this past season to guard the post on occasion, but he probably wasn't in good enough shape.

I stopped at the top 5... but here are a couple more: Iowa = 40% (Baer) Northwestern = 47% (Taphorn), 40% (Law) ... No. 1 and 2 on the team So, what are you talking about? 7 of the top 9 teams have at least one forward who is a three point threat. 77%. MSU and Minnesota are your outliers, big time. Lastly, just because two of those players can also bang inside does not negate the fact that they have to be guarded at the 3 point line. A 30+% 3pt shooter has to be guarded on the perimeter whether you personally think those are good percentages or not. Swanigan and Hayes are unicorns because they can play inside or outside. They are also future NBA players.

I've never pulled for a kid more.

I don't think we can lump these two losses at all. Morrow is a true loss. He was a game changer when healthy and a true enforcer. Jacobson was a body that we all wanted to be better than he was, but he's easily replaceable. Having said this, neither of them are good perimeter defenders, and both of them were offensive liabilities because Miles' offense relies on open driving lanes and neither player could stretch the court. Morrow is a very good finisher and such a general disrupter on both ends of the court that he made up for it, but Jacobson simply missed jumpers all over the place. The jury is definitely out. No question about that. But I think it actually is out. I don't look at the current returning players and pieces and panic. I'm still pretty optimistic about it.

No doubt about that. Losing makes recruiting a hell of a lot harder. I look at more as "...coming off a losing season" would be an indicator that our talent needs to be upgraded. That's pretty easy to do with Jacobson's departure and, in the right system, Ed's departure, but I say that hesitantly because I loved Ed and I believe his usage was a shitshow.

Seriously? If we're defining B1G stretch 4s as 3pt threats who stretch the defense? Here are your top 5 teams' forwards 3pt shooting percentages. All of these guys logged significant minutes: Purdue = 45% 3pt shooter (Swanigan) Wisconsin = 31% (Hayes), 31% (Brown), 33% (Thomas) Maryland = 44% (Jackson) Minnesota = 34% (Coffey) Michigan = 50% (Donnal), 42% (Robinson), 40% (Wagner), 37% (Wilson) ---- That's just the top 5, but pretending this is the B1G from 1988 is silly. We need a stretch 4 to open up driving lanes and isolate the post. We also need one who can guard and switch on the perimeter. The only team that looks like a "traditional" B1G is Minnesota. Most of the other teams' best 3pt shooters are forwards.

MJ was a low 3* whose only power 5 offer came from Nebraska. His numbers, skill, and athleticism reflect that. I don't know what else to say. I didn't think he should've been starting last year.

OK. I think your concerns are valid, but we had 100 power forwards on the roster for next year. We need a backup center and a backup PG. Nothing really changes from a recruiting perspective with these losses. If Miles fills those two spots, we're a better team than last year because we can actually score with the newcomers and put out a roster who can spread the floor offensively. We'll be better at the 4 defensively because Roby and Copeland can both switch on the perimeter.

Am I crazy that I keep counting 9, man? Which one is the walkon I am unaware of? 1. Watson 2. Akenten 3. Copeland 4. Roby 5. Tshimanga 6. Gill 7. Palmer 8. Taylor 9. McVeigh As for Jacobson, I've always said I liked the kid, and I still do, but I think we all wanted him to be better than he was because he was such a hard worker. He didn't just struggle a tad on offense--he was a bonafide liability. He just had decent shooting form and good footwork, so it didn't look as bad when the ball clanked off the front of the rim. But he was a worse shooter than Morrow--even from midrange--and shared his FT percentage.

I think losing Morrow was a bad loss no matter how you slice it. Jacobson? No.

We're 9 deep right now and actively recruiting. Our starting front court center is back and prepped for a breakout season. Our PF position was always going to be a logjam, and we have a player coming in who is better than either of the guys who left. Now we lose Watson? Fire Miles. That would be inexcusable because of the playing time he's going to garner. Losing Morrow (and his usage when he was here) was a big enough mistake. I'm not really worried about MJ though. Both of those guys were going to have trouble with sharing minutes next year due to newcomers (Jordy, Copeland). Also, I thought Roby was every bit as good as Jacobson at the 4 last year. They are different players, but it was only a matter of time before Roby was going to be seeing the court with big minutes. It probably happens next year for him as a utility player. But yeah, we're 9 deep.

6pts, 6rebs per game. 17% 3pt shooting. 65% FT shooting. Not quick enough to guard stretch 4s. Too small to guard the 5. Couldn't make a shot from 5 feet. I'm a little baffled by everyone freaking out on this one. The kid wasn't even going to start next year. Compare it to a healthy Copeland during his sophomore campaign at GTown: 6'9", 11pts, 5rebs, 30% 3pt shooting, 80%FT. I loved Jacobson's contributions, but I don't remember a more Role Player! role player than him in recent memory. He's getting replaced by a 5*. Relax. The more I think about MJ and Ed, the more I think they both might be transferring because they weren't going to get minutes because of the way the roster is shaking out. Ed's made a lot less sense to me because he was always going to be good enough to get on the court. But Jacobson? He's going to be behind a guy who can score 15-25 points on any given night at the 4 and a true center at the 5. Again, it still shakes out well, imo: Watson/Taylor Akenten/Gill McVeigh/Palmer Copeland/Roby Tshimanga/?? Again, 1-4 can shoot the ball. I'm sorry. That matters.

Does opportunity cost fall anywhere into your math here? Are all college kids exploited despite the fact that a college education still overwhelmingly results in higher incomes? Is the monetary value you're giving that education seriously only over a four year period? No blue sky value? I'm working on my 4th degree at the moment, and each of the prior ones I've earned increased my income significantly. That's a value of hundreds of thousands--even millions--over the span of a career. I don't disagree that serving the institution's interest is the primary purpose of the college athlete. That doesn't make the agreement between player and institution any less consensual, nor does it necessitate their education to be worth less than a minimum wage worker. I feel like that insinuation is a little dishonest, though I do enjoy reading what you have to say overall. I agree with all of this. I believe you're making a false dichotomy here. It should absolutely be a profit motive for an institution to have good player development. That's how games are won, programs are built, and money is made. Therefore, player development is a mutual benefit to the institution and the player. Yeah, I'm not sure how this could be quantified, but a lot of fans are selfish, insecure assholes. There's no question about that. I agree there is dissonance here. As a slightly connected tangent, I look at radio programming as incredibly dissonant. The AM stations that cover Husker athletics are loaded with hate radio at all times besides games where athletes who look like the people they demonize regularly are suddenly the darlings of our community. Unless, of course, as you point out, the athletes aren't winning games. That said, I'm probably just a little less cynical. I think the athletes who stick it out and show growth are pretty much universally celebrated and can win over most fans on a personal level. Sure. The college athlete thinking independently and the transfer "epidemic" is definitely chickens coming home to roost in many respects. My personal concern is that today's obsession with victimhood on both sides of the isle has contributed to a lack of grit among the backend of my generation. I don't believe this to be a theory or a different lens. I think there is a noticeable difference between this generation's inability to handle adversity compared to the ones prior. Having said this, the main reason for this lack of grit has as much to do with apathy as toughness (I should've said that earlier), and the apathy is the result of cynicism derived from growing up such glaringly hypocritical times. The apathy is the fault of generations prior. All are punished.

Good post. I have a few thoughts: I think exploitation is beyond a stretch, and I tend to land fairly left on the political spectrum. College athletes aren't minimum wage or outsourced factory workers. If skilled players are the only thing giving college basketball value, then the D-League should be killing college basketball revenues. Like all commercial products, college basketball's value will always be determined by the consumer dollar. Therefore, there must be something about the amateurish nature of college athletics that is meaningful to the consumer. But even that is a non-argument because most athletic programs lose money on every sport besides football--which funds the other sports. So, when you are referring to college athletes, I can only assume you're referring to women as well, who lose tens of millions of dollars a year for most major universities. Who is being exploited in that situation? Lastly, an extremely low percentage of college athletes turn pro, so how is a college education, food, housing, tutors, trainers, etc., not adequate payment for what the vast majority of players are bringing to the table? Now, do players have rights within their contract that they are using? Absolutely, and more power to them for using the limited contractual freedom they have to maximize their value as they see fit. I agree that loyalty in college athletics is, indeed, hypocrisy, but only because other universities' donors are willing to buy out contracts. I also don't believe that consumers can be summed up so simply. Yes, there are the blue hairs that want players to essentially be unquestioning, patriotic yesmen to their alma matter, which is basically a stupid, conservative, lingering baby boomer ideal. But I think a lot fans--be them older or younger (me, a millennial)--are concerned for the players and their lack of toughness and grit in their willingness to face adversity rather than transfer. It's usually more about seeing potential squandered due to a player being too mentally soft to learn. We look at the Tai Websters of the world as what so many players could be if they just stick to the plan for four years, and so many aren't doing that because, quite frankly, they aren't as tough as Tai Webster, and we worry about those kids. Changes that I think should be made: 1. High end players should be able to receive endorsements from non-conflicting brands. 2. All players should be allowed to have jobs, period. 3. Individual players should be allowed to split money with universities on the use of their likeness. 4. Any player should be allowed to have an agent.

I'm not sure you could find a better bizarro Morrow. FT % is a concern, but he's definitely tough and super athletic. I don't mind this offer at all.

I think Costello is similar to a Paul Velander. I would be surprised if he doesn't end up having a similar impact, but I hear ya. If I was betting, I'd bet against both, but I'd be holding my breath while I placed it.