NUdiehard

ESPN top 100 Draft rankings came out yesterday. Roby at #33. Palmer #68. Copeland did not make top 100. ESPN Top 100 Sam Vecenie of the Athletic came out with his 2019 NBA Draft Big Board and Roby listed at #47 and Palmer at #55. Copeland did not make top 100.

Consider me concerned. Plantar is not something that goes away quickly or easily. Anyone remember Marcus Perry? He battled plantar his entire senior year at NU and if I recall he almost never practiced that whole year and simply played in games when he could. Roby has had numerous nagging injuries since the day he stepped foot on campus and such injuries may just be his kryptonite. Hopefully he can shake it and be at full health the rest of the season but not off to a good start.

Norm, all of your points are fair. I actually agree that Roby's efficiency most like would have gone down with a higher usage rate. But I still think his efficiency would have been tops on the team even with a much higher usage rate, and I feel if he is healthy and on his game this year, the same will hold true. One thing in talking about Roby's low usage rate is not only his lack of shooting per minutes on the floor, but for me, a huge frustration last year was him limited minutes actually playing for so much of the season. Roby ended the season averaging only 24 minutes per game. For the first half of the season (until Jordy quit and came back), Roby was averaging about 19 minutes per game. I said it then and I will say it again now, that is absurd! For those who know me on this board, you will know that I was making this same argument in real time early in the season last year (and to be fair there were many others on this board or felt strongly that Roby should be starting over Jordy). Imagine if Jordy had never quit, would Roby have ever been inserted into the starting lineup? Something so painfully obvious and beneficial to the team should not take so long to be discovered by its head coach. I can't find the game by game statistics off-hand, but I am quite certain that in the 2nd half of the year, as Roby's minutes went up he continued to be the most efficient player on the floor on average. As to basing his usage last year on his freshman year, all I can see is it was apparent to my naked eye from the first game that Roby was a much stronger, much more polished player right from the start of his sophomore year. I would have to imagine this would be visible to Miles as well since he sees him everyday in practice and in games. Plus, efficiency is much more than just 3 point percentage. Roby's unique profile allows him to get off midrange shots and drives to the basket that few players can and he was extremely efficient in those areas all year last year. I have to believe this was pretty evident in practice as well. The speech Miles gave Roby this summer frustrates me. Not because it is wrong, but because it is a year too late. That same speech should have been given to Roby last summer before his sophomore year. Yes, Roby was (and always has been) reluctant to shoot the ball. But we have all watched the games and seen how Roby was handled, right? Again, if one were to go back to Roby's freshman year, I was expressing my frustration with Miles constantly yelling at Roby and pulling him out of the game for every little mistake while other players seemed to be allowed to get away with much more sloppy play. Miles continued to do this early in the season last year. In one game, Miles went ballistic and yanked Roby for getting called for an illegal screen when replays clearly showed he didn't touch anybody and that two Minnesota players ran into each other. l Is there any wonder Roby was reluctant to be aggressive and take chances? Roby by nature is reluctant. Yelling and having a fit every time he makes a mistake is not the way to boost his confidence and encourage him to take chances and be aggressive. Roby was probably worried if he missed a shot he would be yanked--and he was probably right! I went to every single game. I rarely rarely saw sets which were designed around Roby (at least not until the very end of the season). Roby should have been made the focal point much earlier and much more often. I hope to see that this year. For what its worth, my goal is not to be hyper-critical of Miles. I have never advocated for Miles to be fired and I was fully supportive of him coming back this year. In fact, I think Moose should have given him a longer contract and am not thrilled with how he is being handled. But that doesn't mean I won't call it the way I see it on particular players or issues. And I am sure others will disagree (I imagine Dean has a response waiting for me As a long-suffering Husker Hoops fans, each year we just hope to see something special. Something to make it all worth it. That can be in the form of a successful record, but also being able to watch a special player. Since first signing Roby I felt he had that something special. I watched a video of him dunking from the free throw line in a HS dunk contest. There are only 10 or so players in the entire NBA who can do that! Guys like Roby come around about once every 20 years at NU, and here MIles was benching him and constantly taking him out of games and yelling at him. I just didn't get it and still don't get it. I am hopeful that will change this year, but Miles is going to have to make it clear to guys like Palmer that he doesn't need to shoot 15-20 times each game.

When I try to think of a player comp for Roby, I keep coming back to Kawhi Leonard. Kawhi is 6'7", 230lbs with a 7'3" wingspan. Roby is 6'8", 230 lbs with a 7'3" wingspan. Kawhi also registered a 32.5" verticle (surprisingly low to me) while I think Roby's is much higher than that. On the flip side, Kawhi has freakishly huge hands and while Roby appears to have very large hands, I am not sure is in full freak mode like Kawhi. What makes Kawhi so special is his athleticism combined with his wingspan and great anticipation and quick hands. I see so much of these same attributes in Roby. Roby is excellent at getting deflections and being disruptive on defense. Obviously Kawhi has elite athleticism, but when I watch Roby and the way he is able to move his feet at his size and to move laterally as well as straight away when defending. He can cover so much ground so quickly can really wreak havoc on the defensive end. As for his shooting, Roby's efficiency numbers were off the charts last year, but they were on a very low volume and most likely unsustainable. Nonetheless, it is clear that Roby should be much, much more of a focal point in the offensive scheme this year. Roby's efficiency is so much better than Palmer's its not even comparable and I feel Roby is just beginning to tap his potential on that end. Royalfan, I hear what you are saying about Roby needing to prove his efficiency on the offensive end with higher volume to be a lottery pick, but take a look at Kawhi's numbers out of college (San Diego State) where he shot an abysmal 32% on catch and shoot jumpers and 28% on pull-up jumpers. Kawhi did average more points per game, but on much higher usage rates. Roby is a far better shooter in college than Kawhi ever was and i think he has good shooting form right now. Kawhi relentlessly worked on his shooting form after college and remarkably has turned himself into one of the better jump shooters and 3 point shooters in the league and it is impossible to speculate if Roby can do that. But if we are comparing where they both were at the same point in their college careers there is little doubt Roby had the better stroke in his sophmore year than Kawhi (Kawhi only played 2 years at San Diego St.). Roby needs to tighten his handle in traffic, but he has shown promise with his dribbling and passing, especially for a 6'8" player. When healthy, Kawhi is a top 5 player in the league (and maybe higher), so I am not saying that Roby is that or will ever be that. But Roby's profile is similar enough that it does make one wonder if he might just be the steal of the draft if he does fall out of the lottery as most project that he will. It is also why I feel (and have felt and been vocal about) that Roby has been vastly underutilized during his 2 years here and I am hoping that changes significantly this year. Palmer is good, but he shot under 31% on 3s last year. Roby can be a 3-level scorer, was by far the most efficient scorer last year, and should be put in position and given every opportunity to score this year.

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that whenever HuskerHoops has these short video clips of practice that Roby is never participating in the actual basketball activity (and I don't see him in this picture of the entire team sprinting either). I could be wrong about this, I just know that everytime I see one I look for him and cannot ever seem to find him as part of the drill or workout. Does anyone know anything about his status? Is he 100%? Do they hold him out of some drills and sprints as a precaution?

For those who didn't listen, both "analysts" ranked Roby as their #1 NBA prospect in the entire B1G. (I have no idea the credibility of these guys, but I do think The Stepien is a pretty reputable scouting service and I know a different The Stepien podcaster was recently hired as a scout by the Sixers. They definitely had considerable and advanced stats to support their positions.) They both basically said they could do an hour-long podcast "gushing" on just him they like his potential so much. They both ranked Roby as a 1st round lottery pick and one of them considered ranking him as a top 10 pick in next year's draft. They went on to name Palmer as their #12 B1G prospect (Copeland did not make their list of about 20 prospects).

It's always intriguing when the Husker Hoops team photo comes out because the photo doesn't lie about height (unless some players cheat and stand on tip-toes :). The one big take away from this year's photo is that our new "big" is really not-so-big. Chan is listed at 6'8" on the roster and was recruited to be a potential backup big after the departure of Jordy. Ummm, I sure hope his wing-span is about 8 feet because he is the exact same height as our new PG Amir Harris and our new SG Karrington Davis (and 5 lbs lighter at that). He stands right next to Copeland and is dwarfed by him. On the flip side, it does appear Harris and KD are legit 6'6", which is pretty solid for a PG and SG. Roby looks like he has bulked up nicely.

Miles doesn’t have to listen to anybody. He is the head coach. He can do whatever he wants. Never meant to suggest otherwise.

1. For the first half of the season Roby was only playing 19 minutes per game on average. He averaged just 24 minutes per game for the entire season, which is less than Anton Gill and Evan Taylor. 2. If Roby didn't have the "confidence" to be more of a playmaker, gee, I wonder why? Roby would get pulled out of the game and ripped on time and time again for any small mistake. We all saw it. If you were Roby, and you knew you were going get benched and ripped if you made a single mistake, would you be overly-aggressive in attacking the basket or trying to shoot or create or make things happen? Heck, one time he got yanked and ripped for being called for an illegal screen when two Minnesota players simply ran into each other. And the argument that he couldn't play longer because of fouls doesn't hold water because by the end of the year was playing over 30 minutes a game which proves he could. 3. I don't have much inside info to share with this board, but I do happen to know that there were prominent people around the basketball program who were imploring Miles last season to make Roby a more prominent part of the offense and to quit pulling him out of the game every time he made a little mistake 4. I agree that more shots will decrease his efficiency, that is going to be true with any player. But the odds are that he will still be more efficient than average. Palmer finished the year shooting under 31% from 3. That is not efficient at all. Palmer is awesome. He was awesome last year and carried the team though a stretch in the middle of the season. But then when his shot quit falling towards the end of the season, there was no plan B. Roby should have been groomed to be plan B or even A throughout the entire season, but he was not. There were very few sets that were run through Roby. My observation was that mindset was never instilled into Roby by Miles or the coaching staff. 5. Somebody above said Copeland was our most efficient offensive player, but that is not correct. Copeland shot 37% from 3 and 47% overall. Roby shot 40.5% on 3 (granted on much lower volume, but that is partly my point) and a whopping 56.5% overall. And this may surprise some, but Roby actually shot and made more free throws than Copeland on the year even though Copeland played 31 minutes/game and Roby only 24/game. Oh, and Roby averaged more rebounds than Copeland per game even though he played 7 minutes less per game. Not to mention twice as many blocks. 6. I hope all of this is water under the bridge. Last year is over. The hope is that lessons have been learned and Miles and staff now understand what they have in Roby and tailor their offense (and defense) to maximize his production and involvement in every aspect. Roby is not just "potential". He is the best player on the team right now. The best player should be the focal point, but we'll have to see if it plays out that way.

Roby is the best player on the team. Last year he was woefully underutilized on offense. Roby was by far the most efficient scorer on the team and was one of the most efficient scorers in the B1G. He should be the focal point of the offense and most sets should run through him. The days of Palmer shooting 15-20 times every game should be over and Miles should be exhorting Roby to be more aggressive and looking to both score and create for others. He also should have the green light to bring the ball up the court on a good portion of his defensive rebounds.

Norm on this one I 100% agree with you (and LadyHusker) and frankly I am shocked by how poorly Moos handled his situation and am just as shocked that all true Husker Hoops fans can’t see that. Thers were only 2 viable options for Moos after the end is the season: 1. Immediately give Miles at least a 2 year extension; or 2. Fire Miles and hire “his” coach Playing the waiting game and putting out feelers and then giving just a token 1 year extension was the worst thing he could do and if I/we/you have to take the time to repeatedly explain why then it’s not worth the effort because some will just never get it.

Miles needs to recruit some guys who can shoot the ball. The modern game is all about space and pace and shooting 3s and driving to the rim. Need shooters do space the floor get easy points and open the paint. As for this game: Copeland played 31 minutes and had 2 rebounds and poor defense. Watson. 3-12 Palmer 5-15 (including a meaningless cheapy at end) Didn’t look like a tourney team tonight in any respect. At some point a program like NU has to earn respect rather than whining about adversity

Copeland has played 24 minutes and has 1 rebound

Coaching incompetence. Quit guarding him so far out on the perimeter

Why are they guarding that guy so tight way out on the perimeter? Why?!?

Copeland’s defense has been atrocious so far

What’s the point of having a wider 3 Point Ln. if you’re not going to call three seconds?

Everyone is focusing way too much on Nebraska's non-conference schedule. What doomed NU from the start is the collective poor performance of OTHER Big 10 teams in the non-conf. The most important factor in having a chance to get into the dance is having ALL Big 10 teams do well in the non-conference. Those bad losses by teams like PSU and Iowa, Illinois, were absolute killers, not only for those teams that lost, but for ALL teams in the B1G. When those other B1G teams lose in non-conference, they bring their poor RPI into the conference, and that brings down every conference team because even beating those teams can actually drop your RPI. It makes it impossible to get multiple Quad 1 wins, etc. If every team in the Big could come into conference with an RPI of 75 or better, that would allow all teams multiple, multiple, multiple changes at Quad 1 wins. And apparently it doesn't matter how many you lose (ie, Oklahoma) as long as you rack up a few wins. Thus, no more laughing when Iowa or Illinois loses to Sisters-of-the-Poor in non-conference because that loss could potentially hurt us as much as them.

This X 1000. The lesson we need to all learn from this year is that what matters most is the collective success of ALL Big 10 teams in the non-conference. When our fellow B1G teams struggle or have bad losses in the non-conference, it absolutely crushes the chances of teams like Nebraska trying to get into the Dance because even 13 wins in conference play don't mean a thing because the conference is seen as being full of bad teams. Once league play starts, all the low (or even average or middle) RPI Big 10 teams hurt all the other teams and the cycle never ends. The factor of most importance is to have ALL (or as many as possible) Big 10 teams do well in non-conf. and all have good RPIs going into to conference play because if they don't then it is almost impossible for a team to move up in RPI no matter how many wins. Those terrible losses by teams like Iowa and Penn State this season in non-conf. were killers, for all teams in Big except the top 3 which just were so good and had such good non-conf. wins to overcome it.

Nobody is legislating anyone’s earning power. Nobody is forcing them to go to college. If you think they have more value then you should start a new league and sign them and make millions.

The question of whether college athletes should be paid is certainly not new, but it has resurfaced in a significant way due to the recent leaks of FBI investigations and wiretaps, etc. Based on the responses in twitterverse, this issue seems to be almost as divisive and polarizing as many of the significant political and social issues of our day. But as with most such discussion in the social media realm, it seems to be couched in absolutes with little room for discussion or nuance. This post is an attempt to bring legitimate thought and debate to this issue--hopefully without hostility and condescension. First, I will buck the usual format and state my current (personal) position/conclusion before getting into the basis/reasons for that conclusion. The reason is because I anticipate some hostility from the "players are being exploited and should be paid" crowd. I am not against players being paid in the absolute, even though many of my thoughts may seem that way. In fact, I would completely support a "cash stipend" being paid to college athletes (much like they have already started in football), but with this said, my feeling is that it should be a universal stipend that is binding on all schools and is the same for all players in that sport. For instance, all div. 1 college basketball players could be paid a stipend of $10,000 per year (the number could be debated and I am open to more or less, as long as it is within that range; but I don't believe it should or could be a whole lot (ie, $100,000 or $1,000,000 ). This would be in addition to their scholarship, training table access, athletic hear, travel, and all the other perks they receive. Now onto the basis for that position. There are some common themes that are often cited in this debate, but the question is "are they really true". Those in support of paying players often argue that the players are being exploited and it is unfair. There may be some truth to this, but the question is to what extent. The "pay the players" supporters frequently make the blanket argument that "it is the athletes that are generating all this money and therefore they should get their fair share of the money." They also argue that the "college athlete" is a sham and we need to just accept that college is now the minor leagues of professional sports and therefore college players should be paid accordingly. The pay-the-players supporters see the huge contracts being signed by NBA players (including the infamous one-and-dones) and conclude that since those athletes are worth millions in the NBA that each college team's star players must be worth a similar amount for their one or two years in college. But is this really correct? When valuing talented players, it seem to me that most people just look at all the money being earned by the schools and the "NCAA" and simply conclude it must be due to the players. But they fail to properly account for the value of the "brand". Is it the players that are worth so much and draw all those eyeballs to arenas and TVs? Or is it really the brand? By the brand, I mean the school/team in college and the team/organization in the NBA. For reasons I will explain, it seems to me the true value is much more a result of the brand than the individual players. Let's take our own favorite school good ol' Nebraska as a prime example. Nebraska has virtually sold out its 15,000 + seat arena every year for the past 5 years. Nebraska fans also watch the games on TV and support their program and cheer on their favorite players. Yet, in those past 5 years, how many NBA quality players has Nebraska had? Answer: None (at least to this point). So, if players were to be paid their "intrinsic worth", how much would the players on Nebraska have been paid in 2012/13? 2013/14? 2014/15? and so forth? Excluding this year, the best player at NU in the past 6 years was Terran Petteway. So should he have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. I mean, he 'packed the vault" right? So wasn't he largely the reason for bringing in all that revenue . . . or was he? As we all know, Terran left early for his shot at the NBA, and after a year in the D-League (in which he probably "earned" about $45,000 (which just happens to be very similar to what a full-ride scholarship with all the perks, training table, etc. is probably worth at NU). And what is the D-league anyway? It is a developmental league for the NBA. I have not researched it, but I highly doubt the D-league self-generates enough money to pay its players even those rather meager salaries--it is subsidized by the NBA (which has an established "brand" to generate value. When Terran as at NU, 15,000+ would pack the house to watch him play. How many people went to watch him play on his D-league team? Based on my (admittedly very quick google search) research, D-league games average a couple thousand fans per game. But wait! Wouldn't we all agree that even the worst D-League team has FAR more talent than any team Nebraska or even almost any other college team ever has. The D-League is full of players like Terran who were "the show" on their college team, but not quite at NBA talent. I highly doubt there is a college team today that could beat even the worst D-League team. Yet the college teams are generating 15,000+ attendance while the D-league teams are generating a couple thousand. And this doesn't even factor in TV, radio, etc. Has anyone on this board ever watched an entire D-League game? Can you even name 3 teams in the D-league (and as a note I know it is now called the G-League but we all know it as D-League so Gatorade will just have to deal with it). Let's look at this another way. If elite players who have just graduated from high school are really so intrinsically valuable and are being exploited, then why doesn't someone (how about champion of the cause Jay Bilas) simply form a new league called the "We're not going to take being exploited any more" league and then get all these intrinsically valuable high school graduates (who don't yet qualify for NBA) and make millions and millions of dollars off of their intrinsic value that has for too long been exploited. Wouldn't this be the American Way. In fact, Lavar Ball actually suggested he was going to do this very thing. But the reality is he hasn't and he never will. And neither will anyone else IMO. Why? Because it would fail miserably and lose money and be bankrupt within 2 years. Why? Because "fans" don't pay real money for season tickets or game tickets, etc, to see the latest high school kid who they have never heard of but are told he can really dunk well but happens to play on a team they have never heard of in a league they have never heard of. Why? because the fans have no affiliation with that "brand" . The reality is that the fans are loyal to the brand, not the high school recruits. I am a Nebraska fan first and foremost, not a Terran Petteway fan, or David Rivers fan. Do I become a fan of the player once they play here? Absolutely. But that is only because they came to play for my "team" The team, the program, the brand is always first and foremost. This is why I am a huge fan of Ed Morrow when he steps on the PBA court with a Husker jersey on. But as soon as he switches that jersey and goes to Marquette, I don't follow him, cheer him, or really think about him anymore. Who do I cheer for? Whoever is wearing the Scarlet and Cream. Heck, I have cheered more for Mike Peltz than I ever have for Jahlil Okafor, Lonzo Ball, or any other high draft pick who played on another team. And certainly more than a D-league player on a team I have never heard of. One more thought. Most of the pay-for-pay supporters use high NBA draft picks and one-and-done type players to argue their point. Yet there are over 350 Div 1 college basketball teams at 13 players per team equals over 4,500 Div 1 college basketball players. And yet people are basing their arguments on a very, very small and select few of those players. Now I will explain why even those elite players do not significantly bring value to the brand. Let's say Lavar Ball did form his "exploited players" league and the top 30 high school recruits all went and played in this league (and I don't know the exact number but I am quite confident that on average there are less than 30 one-and-dones draft into the NBA each year). If this happened, according to the pay-the-players supporters, this should significantly reduce the value of college basketball programs and the NCAA. But would it? I don't think it would have much effect at all, if any. In fact, it might even increase the value. Why? Because it would bring more parity to all the teams. As mentioned, NU has not had a single NBA player in almost 20 years. Yet Husker fans keep coming and coming and coming. College basketball fans don't need NBA caliber talent to enjoy and support and pay to watch their team. Why? Because we support the brand not the players. If a new league sucked up all the one-and-dones, it would simply mean that all schools would be similar to Nebraska and have to find ways to recruit the "not quite NBA" talented players, coach them up, and compete. Plus, it might actually result in they players staying in school longer, which builds up even more brand/team/player loyalty. The value is in the brand and the fan loyalty to the brand, not the individual elite players. One more thought. Some people say "why not just let the players sell their "likeness" or identity like pro players can. I can see why people would think this way from a players stand point. But IMO, this could be winning the battle but losing the war. I believe this type of approach might be the one thing that could kill the brand loyalty that has been built up for so many years. We all know what would happen, right? Those schools that have huge big dollar donors would get all the best players. Why? Because those donors would pay the best prospects huge money for "advertising" or "marketing" or whatever just to get those players to come to "their" school. It is already bad now, but this would end any semblance of parity. The same 10 teams with the big booster would get the best every year and win every year. Coaches wouldn't even have to recruit. Just send an email saying how much T-Boone will pay and it will be a done deal within minutes. Nothing to do with the school, or coach, or academics, or teammates, etc. Just a paycheck. There would be no way the lesser schools without those big donors could complete, and eventually the impending doom of futiliy would catch up with even the most ardent fans and they would just give up. This would result in 340 of the 350 teams having little or no hope and therefore no support and no fans and ultimately the end of college basketball altogether. Well, I may have set a record for longest post ever so I will stop. But I am open to thoughts, counter-arguments, etc. And mods, please don't move this to another forum. I think it relates to Husker Hoops as much as many topics and it is a issue of interest to almost all Husker Hoops fans I am sure.

And since you live by this philosophy I’m sure you have never had an opinion or taken a negative stance on a decision made by our president or representatives in congress since you don’t know how to write a legislative bill or executive order.

X 1000. Been saying this for weeks. Roby should be shooting, driving and and having plays run for him to score at least 10+ times every game. Plus, this team needs to learn how to pass. Roby is open on his rolls off pick n rolls 70% of the time and teammates never find him. Unfortunately for Roby he is best passer on team and he can’t pass to hinself. This is also on Miles. He needs to communicate this and make it part of the game plan

Roby uses his length, athleticism and quick hands to get his hands (cleanly) on the ball and refs call a foul not because they actually see a foul but simply because they see something they rarely if ever see which results in a loose ball and conclude it must be a foul because no one else is able to swipe a ball like that without fouling. This is why I can’t stand refs because they don’t call what they actually see they call what they anticipate seeing. Then, after he picks up early quick fouls he has to play more “cautious” to avoid fouling out.

Copeland didn’t box out againCopeland didn’t box out again