nustudent

Side benefit of Cullen Neal and Prince Ali leaving is that we potentially would have had to play against both in Anaheim next year

Guys at 24/7 Sports still think we are very much in the picture as well

Real curious as to the ACC/Big Ten Challenge. Let's be honest....we aren't winning in Phogg and we aren't trending well against Creighton. If we want to dance, we can't lose more than 4 non-con games. 2-1 in Anaheim, win the acc/big east challenge and then lose to Kansas and Creighton gives us 3 non-con losses against a solid schedule and sets us up with a chance to make a run in the conference.

Was looking at the field today and it looks like Butler is the team no longer in the field. Looking at the field: UCLA suffered about the same fate we did. New Mexico wasn't much better. Dayton is a 7 seed. A&M is a 3 seed and won the SEC regular season title. Virginia Tech was a 3 seed in the NIT. Portland & Northridge were both pretty terrible. I don't know anything about what any of these teams lose or bring in, but based of this years results, A&M and Dayton will be the favorites. NU should be competitive vs. everyone else. I'd love to see NU matchup with UCLA. A&M will pry still be good...but they do lose their top 2 players I can see VaTech being formidable as they return everyone. UCLA will always have talent and they don't lose much (outside of some early entry possibilities) I think it's a pretty solid field. If we can go 2-1.....it'll be a big boost for us.

Thought about this a lot. I'd say we need Hammond to make the leap...but I think McVeigh is the next likely. He was pretty good when he saw extended minutes. Another year of conditioning and experience and I think a few more of those 3s drop.

There were plenty of times where they were no where to be found when we needed that push this year. Let's stop pretending the last 2 nights are an accurate picture of the entire year. If you can't replace Parker....you are going to struggle. We'll see a lot of increased production from our guards next year. Shields is a very good player. But he can be replaced by committee.

We will be able to replace Shields and Parker. We may not have a guy that goes for 16.7 a game like Shields...but Gill will step in and be more than productive. Parker played well these last two games and was very good last night. But let's not forget how mediocre he was all year. Finding an undersized player who can't shoot isn't hard to do. The biggest thing for me is that we won't have as many empty minutes next year as we did this year. Our freshmen will be more experienced. We won't have an offensive liability like a Parker on the floor. Loved watching Shields....but the combination of Gill, experience, added talent and added depth will replace him.

Had we beat either one of them head to head in the last 2 weeks of the season, the roles would have likely been reversed. We didn't.

This

If we can land Tshimanga and the Louisville transfer.....watch out.

1, White 2. Shields 3. Webster 4. Watson 5. Jacobson 6. Morrow 7. McVeigh Big Gap 8. Parker (on experience only over Evelyn) 9. Evelyn 10. Hammond 11. Fuller

Very deep next year. If we make the proper strides in the offseason we have the makings of a decent club next year. Tai is going to be very good next year either in or out of the starting lineup. That's what has me optimistic. So much more depth. Miles spoke the other day about empty minutes. No offense to him...but we don't have a Benny Parker next year.

I suspect the best thing about Gill will be that he'll open things up for White. Significantly. He's that guy who can and will take an open shot or create one for himself. Defenses will be forced to account for him and won't be able to help off of him. He'll add scoring punch for sure. But, maybe more importantly, he'll allow Andrew White to get better looks because defenses won't be able to cheat on him. And it won't be just him. Guys like McVeigh and Roby will help as well.

I'm hoping for a starting lineup of Watson/Gill/White/Morrow/5th Year XFer Big Webster the first off the bench. I think he should be Watson's backup as well. He's valuable because he can be more than serviceable at two positions. McVeigh, Roby and Jacobson are the next 3.

Might be sacreligious to say this...but I find it interesting that when Shavon came back and Benny moved back to the starting point (with Webster at the two) is when you saw the downturn at the end of the year. I know we were just 1-3 without Shavon...but were a missed call on Watson's final heave from being 2-2. And the two losses (@Wisconsin, @Indiana) we seemed, at the very least, more competitive and energized than we did against Purdue and Northwestern. I think the change in the roster ruined some mojo. Coupled with the fact that we were down and out of the NCAA by that time and it was hard to get some of it back. Two big pieces, Watson and McVeigh, found their way back to the bench. I appreciate both of their efforts, but I remain convinced, we will be better off next year.

Timeline?

Nebraska basketball fans are unbelievably loyal. Nebraska won 19 games two years ago and it was like a religious revival. Nebraska is 11-22 in the Big Ten the last two years. That there is 9,000 fans in that arena, much less 14,000 fans, is a testament to the arena and the fans who fill it. Not the product on the court. I'll disagree slightly that it's not about the product on the floor. Everything is relative. If you look at the quality of basketball, the product on the court this year is light years ahead of the last couple years under Doc. I loved Doc but the basketball was nearly unwatchable. Slow, grind it out games and no real athleticism on the court. This year the quality of basketball was fairly good, the offensive flow was better than the last few years (including the NCAA team two years ago). The W/L results aren't what we want them to be and if that's the only way you judge the quality of the product on the court, then the quality isn't good. However, most of the games we have played have been fun to watch and the level of play and athleticism is significantly higher than the past few years (except for two years ago). I find it funny to hear all the gnashing of teeth going on about a team that essentially lived up to the preseason expectations. Nobody expected us to be in the NCAA's this year and everyone predicted us to be about a .500 team. I don't remember anyone saying the freshmen were "Fab 5" types and going to be the saviors of the program. They were definitely the most heralded class we have had in years but I don't think any of them were Top 50 players in their class (except if you include Andrew). It's comical seeing the writers comment about how the class didn't live up to the hype and how the season has been a disappointment. At the end of the day, we brought in a solid group of freshmen, played to expectations and appear to have a solid nucleus of players coming back. We clearly need more and better big men and to continue to improve but the foundation appears to have been laid for the future. Are we exactly where we want to be at this very moment - NO! Should we settle for what the results are today? ABSOLUTELY NOT! But I don't see why people are so upset/surprised by where we are right now. Maybe I'm just missing something. This is pretty spot on

Specifically moreso with Fuller than Hammond...you aren't missing a lot if he moves on. You have Gill, Roby and Horne coming in next year. Add a year of experience to McVeigh and White and Webster coming back and there are a lot of bodies you can play at the 3 and stretch 4 position. With Hammond, while I don't think he is very good and won't be...at least he has size. Fuller isn't athletic, big and for being known as a shooter, is remarkably bad at it. I would trust the coaches to have a feel for what they can get and what is out there. For example...if Tshimanga commits and they feel like they can get a quality transfer....then it may be time to have a difficult conversation. If they don't believe they can get a big guy and are iffy on Tshimanga...then don't. Which is what I was kind of saying IF and it is a big IF Tim and company could find 3 guys to come here that were upgrades then I guess you sit down and talk. But I haven't see Tim and company do that yet. So I said keep them until you know for sure that we have these new unbelievable players that will be coming in. Or are you saying dump these two and hope? Because that would be worse than what we have going now, right? Or are you saying that Fuller and Hammonds are any better than open scholarships? I'm saying we should recruit as if we have 3 open ships. If we can find some legitimate talent to come in...don't turn it away. As far as if Fuller and Hammonds are better than open scholarships. Nice to have them for practice players. I guess this is the way I will phrase it as being better than open scholarships. IMO, If both left and we replaced them with nobody, it would not cost us anything in the W/L record next year. Until it does cost you... People said the same yikity yak about Benny, and Tai, and Fuller and Hammond are now the guys who can't cut it and won't give us anything positive the next couple of years. Where would we have been this year without Benny and Tai? Because what you are saying could lead us to question where we might have gone in 1 year or two with Nick and Hammond. I think there is quite a bit of difference. For one...Fuller is at the end of his 3rd year. Not a true frosh when people were questioning Benny and Tai. Secondly....you have a deeper roster next year...so it's fair to question what type of impact they will have. Benny and Tai didn't have a lot of other talent to compete with at their spots.

Specifically moreso with Fuller than Hammond...you aren't missing a lot if he moves on. You have Gill, Roby and Horne coming in next year. Add a year of experience to McVeigh and White and Webster coming back and there are a lot of bodies you can play at the 3 and stretch 4 position. With Hammond, while I don't think he is very good and won't be...at least he has size. Fuller isn't athletic, big and for being known as a shooter, is remarkably bad at it. I would trust the coaches to have a feel for what they can get and what is out there. For example...if Tshimanga commits and they feel like they can get a quality transfer....then it may be time to have a difficult conversation. If they don't believe they can get a big guy and are iffy on Tshimanga...then don't. Which is what I was kind of saying IF and it is a big IF Tim and company could find 3 guys to come here that were upgrades then I guess you sit down and talk. But I haven't see Tim and company do that yet. So I said keep them until you know for sure that we have these new unbelievable players that will be coming in. Or are you saying dump these two and hope? Because that would be worse than what we have going now, right? Or are you saying that Fuller and Hammonds are any better than open scholarships? I'm saying we should recruit as if we have 3 open ships. If we can find some legitimate talent to come in...don't turn it away. As far as if Fuller and Hammonds are better than open scholarships. Nice to have them for practice players. I guess this is the way I will phrase it as being better than open scholarships. IMO, If both left and we replaced them with nobody, it would not cost us anything in the W/L record next year. wow that is harsh dude. It's not meant to be. Just my opinion. I look at our performance this year and don't see one game that they made the difference between a win and a loss. I think we are more talented and deeper next year so I see them having even less of a role than they did this year.

Specifically moreso with Fuller than Hammond...you aren't missing a lot if he moves on. You have Gill, Roby and Horne coming in next year. Add a year of experience to McVeigh and White and Webster coming back and there are a lot of bodies you can play at the 3 and stretch 4 position. With Hammond, while I don't think he is very good and won't be...at least he has size. Fuller isn't athletic, big and for being known as a shooter, is remarkably bad at it. I would trust the coaches to have a feel for what they can get and what is out there. For example...if Tshimanga commits and they feel like they can get a quality transfer....then it may be time to have a difficult conversation. If they don't believe they can get a big guy and are iffy on Tshimanga...then don't. Which is what I was kind of saying IF and it is a big IF Tim and company could find 3 guys to come here that were upgrades then I guess you sit down and talk. But I haven't see Tim and company do that yet. So I said keep them until you know for sure that we have these new unbelievable players that will be coming in. Or are you saying dump these two and hope? Because that would be worse than what we have going now, right? Or are you saying that Fuller and Hammonds are any better than open scholarships? I'm saying we should recruit as if we have 3 open ships. If we can find some legitimate talent to come in...don't turn it away. As far as if Fuller and Hammonds are better than open scholarships. Nice to have them for practice players. I guess this is the way I will phrase it as being better than open scholarships. IMO, If both left and we replaced them with nobody, it would not cost us anything in the W/L record next year.

Specifically moreso with Fuller than Hammond...you aren't missing a lot if he moves on. You have Gill, Roby and Horne coming in next year. Add a year of experience to McVeigh and White and Webster coming back and there are a lot of bodies you can play at the 3 and stretch 4 position. With Hammond, while I don't think he is very good and won't be...at least he has size. Fuller isn't athletic, big and for being known as a shooter, is remarkably bad at it. I would trust the coaches to have a feel for what they can get and what is out there. For example...if Tshimanga commits and they feel like they can get a quality transfer....then it may be time to have a difficult conversation. If they don't believe they can get a big guy and are iffy on Tshimanga...then don't.

Just any old big man right? It doesn't matter if they can play right? You make it sound like it's an easy position to recruit. 6'11"+ quality guys just go on trees and we just need to pick one...right. Lets not go back in time where we waste scholarships on guys who make Hammond look like an AA. I don't want to see anyone transfer. Both of those guys, Hammond and Fuller, are at the very least serviceable, if not in games then in practice, who can give you good minutes and spark off the bench. They are also going to be upperclassman which provides our team with some stability and leadership. We need an off season of stability...for once. If anybody where to leave it should be Molinari since he coaches our big men, but even then I like to see us have some stability in our coaching. We have got to stop this revolving door of coaches and players and just stick with who we've got for better or worse. Miles took over a program that was an absolutely disaster. It is going to take much more than 4 years to get us to a spot where we have some stability and move us out of the bottom of the conference. With all that said Miles has to find a way with a smaller lineup to play against teams like Purdue. When you front a big men like Hammons or Haas you better make sure that that the guy who is passing the ball in to him has someone in his face. Several times our center rotated to help on defense against a penetrating guard when it wasn't necessary leaving the Purdue big man wide open for the dunk. A player like Hammons should always have a defender stuck to his hip. We also failed on rotating our defense leaving wide open 3pt shots. Early in the game all the wrong people where taking shots. Shields and AWIII were MIA and we looked like a team without any answers. Miles called TO a couple of times during that early Purdue run and it didn't help. Give credit to Purdue because they looked very polished. We have at least 2 more games left to play this season and in the NCAA isn't over until its over. This team is very capable of putting together a run. Until this game against Purdue we had played everybody in our conference tough, even in our losses. I grow tired of our entitled whinny fan base and our local hack media. We are becoming our own worst enemy. Lost me at Hammond and Fuller are serviceable. Because outside of the random game each...neither has shown that and they aren't exactly playing behind a ton of McDonald's All Americans. Neither could find a lot of time on a team that was very thin and very inexperienced and very inconsistent in the front court. That doesn't scream serviceable. They have both had more than just a random game. Each of them has had moments in games this year. That is the very definition of serviceable. Serviceable means role player and that is exactly the future I see for each of them. They also provide some real game time experience which means depth to our roster, something that has been lacking on our team for a very long time. These guys couldn't log serious minutes on a very frontcourt depleted roster. They combined for 0 points and 2 rebounds in 19 minutes the other night. Not my idea of serviceable. At least as it pertains to being a good team. My idea of a serviceable player is a guy who is consistently solid. Guys like Jacobson and Morrow this year were serviceable. They weren't great...they were freshmen who have ability and went through growing pains. At times they were good. Other times...not so much. Fuller and Hammond could barely even challenge them. And were bad far more often than they were good.

You probably weren't around earlier when we had this exact same discussion, but as I explained quite in depth at the time, this is absolutely one of the lamest narratives out there. Let's not go there again. I'm not going there. Which is why I said, I'm waiting for some personnel issues to clear up for making a decision. Just saying I think that's why there is dislike for him. We seemingly had momentum and positivity moving forward in the program then he steps in and we've had two poor years. From a 30,000 foot view perspective....I can see some would gravitate towards that conclusion. There is clearly more to be considered.

I'm waiting to see us get some personnel in before I blame him. But I think people are quick to because we've seen the drop off take place correspond with his tenure.

Just any old big man right? It doesn't matter if they can play right? You make it sound like it's an easy position to recruit. 6'11"+ quality guys just go on trees and we just need to pick one...right. Lets not go back in time where we waste scholarships on guys who make Hammond look like an AA. I don't want to see anyone transfer. Both of those guys, Hammond and Fuller, are at the very least serviceable, if not in games then in practice, who can give you good minutes and spark off the bench. They are also going to be upperclassman which provides our team with some stability and leadership. We need an off season of stability...for once. If anybody where to leave it should be Molinari since he coaches our big men, but even then I like to see us have some stability in our coaching. We have got to stop this revolving door of coaches and players and just stick with who we've got for better or worse. Miles took over a program that was an absolutely disaster. It is going to take much more than 4 years to get us to a spot where we have some stability and move us out of the bottom of the conference. With all that said Miles has to find a way with a smaller lineup to play against teams like Purdue. When you front a big men like Hammons or Haas you better make sure that that the guy who is passing the ball in to him has someone in his face. Several times our center rotated to help on defense against a penetrating guard when it wasn't necessary leaving the Purdue big man wide open for the dunk. A player like Hammons should always have a defender stuck to his hip. We also failed on rotating our defense leaving wide open 3pt shots. Early in the game all the wrong people where taking shots. Shields and AWIII were MIA and we looked like a team without any answers. Miles called TO a couple of times during that early Purdue run and it didn't help. Give credit to Purdue because they looked very polished. We have at least 2 more games left to play this season and in the NCAA isn't over until its over. This team is very capable of putting together a run. Until this game against Purdue we had played everybody in our conference tough, even in our losses. I grow tired of our entitled whinny fan base and our local hack media. We are becoming our own worst enemy. Lost me at Hammond and Fuller are serviceable. Because outside of the random game each...neither has shown that and they aren't exactly playing behind a ton of McDonald's All Americans. Neither could find a lot of time on a team that was very thin and very inexperienced and very inconsistent in the front court. That doesn't scream serviceable.