nustudent

I still think we get him.

Non-conference RPI is bad...but IMO..Iowa should be in. .500 conference record and 20 wins in what is BY FAR the best conference in America is good enough for me. They win 2 in the conference tourney and they should be a lock.

Hill was bad....he wouldn't have helped us. Young would've. Solid player. Sadler was behind the 8 ball there as he was already committed to Creighton when he started. Eikmeier....eh. He's a solid Mountain West guy. Not sure how effective he wouldve been here. We saw what he did at Iowa State. I think he's a quality high mid-major guy. Not sure how good he would've been consistently at the Big 10/12 level. Greg Smith....we could use him. Long, athletic. Eliason...much better than I expected. He'd help us quite a bit. Agau and Gesell...both will be losses. But the with the situation the program was in...we weren't going to get them over current better D1 teams. Had Miles had time with either one...maybe....but the previous staff did us in on both.

I understand on Sergei. He can add weight and we will have holes in the front court. Parker is another story though. He has one issue effecting him that he will never be able to fix. Even a guy like Rivers had some physical attributes that allow him to be pretty good. He just had to develop his game. Parker is fighting much more of an up hill battle.

Ok that brings up another question. Since Menke has been both what happens if he doesn't graduate? Is it a ding to our APR even if he only had a scholarship for 1 of his 4 seasons? Not 100% sure but pretty sure he does not count since he was not a recruited athlete.

Know a few people who think he was the best D1 football prospect in the state this year outside of Banderas.

Tough to nail down one. I think the votes for Shields, Rivers and Talley are all spot on.

The Vault?

Not with a losing record overall though

I've always said on here I was positive if I was given a reason to be.

Don't think it's a false rumor. If it is...it's very well done. Please explain. I take it you've heard this from others also? From a few people. Two of which are pretty well connected.

This Coaches with only 5 league wins don't win CotY awards. Doesn't mean he didn't do the best coaching job in the league this year though

I think we will be better. If for nothing else...we will be longer, more athletic and have depth. We won't miss Almeida at all. Ubel plays hard and is a decent, solid player but not spectacular. Talley is a good player. But I don't think any of those are irreplaceable. Shields will only be better. Rivers will only be better. Gallegos will only be better. We add to them a supposed top 50 recruit in Webster. Fuller is highly touted. Hawkins has potential. Petteway, Biggs and Pitchford are well regarded. Looks like we will get Atewe. I'm not ready to write off Vooch yet either. I can easily see Atewe/Pitchford/Vooch > or = Ubel/Almeida this year. Add in more experience and depth at the 3 in guys like long bodies like Fuller, Petteway and Rivers and you can easily be better in the front court. I think Webster/Biggs/Gallegos/Petteway/Rivers/Hawkins/Shields is > or = Gallegos/Talley/Peltz/Shields/Rivers/Parker. Also doesn't consider the growth you take in year 2 as a program under the new coach

Don't think it's a false rumor. If it is...it's very well done.

If ball skills are simply things that take practive to develop...why hasn't he developed them after 4 years at a BCS basketball school and in approximately 15 years of basketball overall. As I said...I think a player can fine tune some things. I don't think he can overhaul or change his entire game at this point. Also safe to say...if he does focus on the ball skills...does his shot take a step back as a bi-product? Not sure the BYU situation is relevant here.

I think a player can refine and improve slightly on his skills. But at this stage, it's highly unlikely you see a total overhaul. Using Martinez as an example...you saw him look drastically different against lesser competition but he took steps back and reverted back to form at times against. Gallegos has been playing ball for probably 15 years now and is a finishing his 4th season as a division1 basketball player. If he's not a good ball handler now...he won't be next year. Can he improve? Sure. But I don't think it's realistic to expect wholesale changes at this point.

This is fair enough. No, his game will probably not be appreciably different next year, but the team will. That may prove to be what makes the difference for him. I also still believe in intangibles, and senior leadership. Those are the guys who are usually the least likely to get rattled in tough situations. In the B1G that's extremely important, we may be more talented next year, but we're going to be sorely lacking in that leadership and experience. That's why I believe Ray is going to be important to the team next year. Possibly...but its not the end all be all as we saw last. We had an extremely veteran squad and it had little leadership. As I said earlier in this thread...the safe money would be on Gallegos to start more than he doesn't. But I don't think it'd be the upset of the century to see Webster and Biggs win starting roles.

Exactly. Rey Gallegos is playing 38 minutes a game and is the only senior on the team next year. Unless he's in some prolonged funk or not put in a position to maximize his talents, Ray Gallegos will start every game he's healthy next year. To think that he wouldn't start almost every game next year is to focus solely on his weaknesses vs what he brings to table. What does he bring to the table that others don't? Experience That doesn't necessarily beat out pure talent though.

rey is who he is. He's finishing up his 4th year on campus. He's not going to be a different player next year. Jeter improved but he had only been on campus one year, not 4...and safe to say he was the exception not the norm. Rey isn't going to suddenly become some great player. He's going to be a guy who plays solid defense, doesn't handle the ball well and will have some nights where he melts the nets and others where he couldn't make a lay-up. The key is going to be if we can surround him with enough help so that when he does have his off-nights..they don't impact us so heavily.

I'd say it's unlikely. Don't think it is a 100% given.

I could see your point more if he gained the weight while here. He was overweight before he ever got here which is it was a questionable (at best) offer to begin with

Wow! You're really counting on a freshman being ready to play the 2 at the start of B1G season? I think you're crazy. Isn't Shields starting this year, without the benefit of most of the non-conference? Isn't Gesell starting at the point for Iowa? I can name a few other freshmen that start in this league. Not a given, but it's not like we are uber-talented in front of them

Agree with HB on Standhardinger & Miles

Dont want to see a makeover. 1-2 leaving isnt a makeover though and may not be a bad thing. Parker and Vucevic are the obvious two. Id prefer keeping Vucevic over Parker. Wouldnt bother me at all if Parker leaves...in fact...probably a good thing. I guess I should also say...that I don't mind if Parker comes back for 2013-2014 and then leaves for the next year freeing up a spot

Webster or Pitchford. Pitchford is going to be our only interior option. He'll get a lot of minutes. Webster will have the ball in his hands the most and if the hype is legit, he can create and shoot.