Commit!
- Thread starter JournCat
- Start date
I agree that our offense can be painful to watch sometimes. The so-called motion offense that we seem to be playing is predicated on having mobile, athletic players who can also stretch the floor with deadly outside shooting. It breaks down when you shoot 25-30% from three-point land. Some players like Lindsey are just streaky, and unfortunately last season he was more off than on. I don't think it was a development issue, sometimes you are who you are.
The one to watch is Nance. He clearly has the pedigree and the potential to be a superstar, and it'll be telling to see how he "develops" under the tutelage of Collins and staff.
NU has not been consistently good at making shots for a long time. They've been ok moving the ball around the perimeter but they don't convert open looks, or semi open looks very well. Law is maybe an exception because he elevates pretty well and converts at a high rate.
But they don't get it into the post very well, they don't pick and roll very well and they don't slash to the basket. It would help to have more of a big man mid range threat and Pardon showed at Purdue. I think Benson can hit that shot. That would open up a lot. I don't know if that's coaching or confidence but we don't see it much.
This year on the wings will be Taylor, Turner, Law and Kopp. Next year Turner and Kopp and whoever comes in...maybe Gaines moves to the wing. That's a fair amount of talent. We don't know, really, how Turner and Kopp will shoot....or put the ball on the floor...but they are both supposed to be capable.
At this point, why wouldn't BC have more higher rated players/ First, BC had 13 years and now 13 years worth of guys have made it through their entire time here while CCC has only not even had one class make it completely through. Also don't forget Jitim was an O'Neil recruit (as was Hardy not listed) Other than the last year when BMAC was injured would you take BMAC or Juice? I would suggest it would be real close. How about Pardon? When did BC have anyone close? Which of those guys could defend like Law?
Agree it's close. I'd take Juice over BMac. Better shooter:
Juice: 44% overall, 41% from 3
BMac: 41% overall, 34% from 3
And I would argue that Shurna did not improve that much and was basically very similar as a player throughout his time here. He only averaged 18 minutes per game as a Frosh (maybe because BC had other alternatives like Coble and Moore) and that doubled in later years as did his ppg. He was stronger, took a few more shots as alternatives were more limited, was a little better from three and maybe took on more of a leadership role. Yes he improved but I would say it was more marginal. That lack of real development was one of the issues I always had with BC. Especially with Bigs. Look at player development with WIS. Exceptions were Nash and Hearn Compare their development with Shurna's.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/michael-thompson-2.html
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/bryant-mcintosh-1.html
Assists Bmac 5.4 Juice 4.1 But Bmac (isn't that the real reason for a PG
Rebounds Bmac 2.8
Juice 2
TOV Juice 1.9 Bmac 2.5
PPG just about the same at 13
Juice 36 mpg Bmac 33.7
Really, really close though if not for injuries Sr season(to both BMac and others on the team) I think BMac would have edged out Juice.
Yep, extremely close.
Totally different styles of play between the PO and the CO make it difficult to use stats to conclude one way or the other. My eyes give the edge to Juice but I'd be delighted with either PG running my team.
That happens when you have more talent available. They have to earn their way in to starting lineup
Just that we got our first real 4 star and they expected him to WOW (walk on water) and anything else is considered by them a disappointment
Sorry but if you look at Shurna's stats through the 4 years here, he was really not all that diffferent. Difference was as a Frosh he only played 17 mpg and BC had Moore and Coble. When they were gone, his minutes went up and he shot a little more. But on a per minute played, really not all that much different. Improvement, yes. A little stronger, a little better from three and being more the focal point of the O so taking shots at a higher rate but not massively better. Had Coble of Moore not been here as a Frosh, you would have likely seen him playing 30-35 minutes, scoring 15 ppg etc. Would you be thinking he had improved as much if he had gone from 15 ppg as a Frosh to 20ppg as a Sr?
Three of the top 6 guys on one team for two years (and don't forget Cobb was a Frosh and not injured) for three BC years and they still did not get above 7 BIG wins
Yes, 14.5 to 20 is still pretty impressive improvement. There are a fair number of guys who score 15 a game in the B1G each year, but very few sustain 20 ppg, there are reasons for this —namely it’s quite difficult. And his shooting %s offensive efficiency improved despite him taking on higher volume and more defensive attention (which usually translates to more difficult shots). I feel like his defense also improved as he got stronger over the course of his time here. And he took over more control of the offense and was responsible for much more. He maintained all this impressive output while playing 35+ minutes per game in the B1G. This is all matched by the eye test improvement I saw. In my opinion, he improved quite considerably over the course of his time here. I hope we find 10 more John Shurnas.
Sorry but when you had Coble and Moore, you are not taking as many shots when they are alternative. If they were not on the team as they were not his Soph Jr and Sr years, he would take more shots per minute as well as more minutes. As a Frosh, he averaged 5.7 shots per game in those 18.5 minutes. The next year without Coble and Moore, he doubled the minutes to 36 but just as important, shots did not just go to 11.4 but to 13.9. The result is he went not to 14.6 ppg but to 18.2 Based on his minutes and shots his Soph year if he had played similar minutes and similar shots his Frosh year he would have been at 17.6 ppg. I stand by my statement that while he did get somewhat better as he went along, it was really a marginal improvement. Basically he went from 17.6 his Frosh year to 20 (and even that is based an an extra minute and shot per game.
I stand by my statement that while he did improve some during his time at NU it was marginal improvement and he was basically the same player as a Sr as he was as a Frosh. It was a big complaint I had about BC that his players did not really improve much. If they did not start as Frosh, it was rare that they improved enough to get meaningful minutes during their time at NU. Some regressed. Remember Pelujic and Freundt ? Pelujic got about 14 mpg as frosh and then ... I did not see how we would get beyond a certain point without the player development that other teams like WIS enjoyed.
Throw out the stat book.
I watched him all four years, and he became a dominant Big 10 player and team leader. The kid became an All American for cripes sake, to say he was the same player as a skinny First Year is just ludicrous.
As far as his overall stats, they were basically the same per minute played. He tightened up his game some and did make some improvements but those improvements were not huge. At that level marginal differences can be the difference between 3rd team all BIG and first team. For example, what would you say were the differences between his Soph and Sr seasons?
Did he improve? Yes. But stats bear out that he was pretty similar between Soph and Sr, I would suggest that the real difference between his frosh year and the rest were more opportunity than significant improvement. More minutes played. More shotstaken. But that was largely because of who was no longer on the team. For example, do you think if Coble had come back for his last year that Shurna's output would have been the same?
Yep. Oh well. I think the stat book and the eye test tell the same obvious story that Shurna evolved from a good freshman to an incredible player. But no point in arguing further with him......
I don’t think you read my post... his stats were not the same per minute played! He increased output on a per minute basis across a large number of categories, and became more efficient per shot taken on offense despite much higher volume and more defensive attention! And improved on defense at the same time.
PS if Coble had returned he prob would have scored fewer ppg but been yet even more efficient... that doesn’t change the fact that he was a significantly better player than he was as a freshman on both offense and defense. Ppg stats tell some of the story, but far from the full story.
Here are the stats I was using
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/john-shurna-1.html
No one saying he was not better. Just suggesting that the gain was not as massive as you suggest. Look at the per 40 minute stats. Between Soph and Sr year, basically the same with the exception of blocks and turnovers/steals and a little better 3 pt shooting (2 pt shooting % actually went down so overall shooting about the same) A bit better than as a Frosh but how much of that was just taking another couple less shots per 40 minutes? Yes he tightened up his game and did improve. I am just suggesting it was not as massive an improvement as you seem to think
Shurna a is the best player that has played at NU that I have witnessed. It is too bad that he played in the Carmody system because with Collins system and Vic Law as well as Scottie Lindsay at the wings I think we would have been top 2-3 in the BT
I'd put him behind Billy McKinney and Esch, but I'm probably a lot older than you. Your point is well taken though.
I thought Jim Stack was a better all around player than Shurna. Thought Shurna was a better shooter.
Stack was tough as nails and really solid on both ends of the court. He was drafted by Houston, I believe, and was their final cut.
Overall, it's Esch and McKinney.....or McKinney and Esch....and then a long distance before you get to the third best (who finished at NU....talking to you Walters).
Fair point about Stack, who is very underrated. His '82-'83 team had some very solid players. Unfortunately, only 6....zero bench. Jenkins, Rathel, Stack, Aaron and Goode were a solid starting 5.
There also was a pretty good guy, Named Joe Rucklick. Think he was a back-up C for quite a few years in the NBA.
I think if you look pre 1972 and the adjust for the difference in eras, quite a few players will be identified who complicate the top 15-25 NU players.
Shorter response is: yes, you're right.
Wow!
CC and staff are really digging deep into the recruiting list (very limited offers, no rating by 247) - are they already onto the C-list?
It's been interesting/amusing to read the recent commentary on recruiting; frankly, not surprised to what has transpired.
There was the inevitable 2-3 year bump in recruiting when CC was hired, but after that, recruits wanted to see tangible results on the floor/scoreboard - which is why the '16-17 Tourney season was crucial to revive some momentum.
After a disappointing '17-18 season, not surprisingly, recruiting has gotten tougher.
There is where finding the diamond-in-the-rough (talented players who are overlooked for whatever reason) becomes key (granted, some higher profile recruits are still in play).
Not much on Buie, but from what I have read/seen (granted, only so much can be taken from video highlights) - seems like the kid has promise (felt the same way about Pardon even tho some thought he would be nothing more than a bench player).
Might be telling that CC and staff didn't offer any other point guards (according to VC and 247); did offer a CG.
Maybe they know exactly what they are getting.
Are you kidding me!!
This is what you post after all your posts about that great/talented 2014 class?
BMac re-opened his recruitment and hence, got offers from Purdue, Iowa, Auburn, FSU, Vandy, Mizzo, Cincy, Clemson, UVA, Marquette, Oregon St., Xavier, Creighton, Memphis, Dayton
As for development, BMac was pretty much a finished product when he joined the program (helped being an older frosh).
BMac's 2 best statistical seasons were his first 2.
He regressed in overall FG%, 3P% and TO's (his assists were also down from his soph season).
BMac avg'd 11.8 ppg his SR yr; pretty much the same he avg'd his FR season - 11.4 ppg (where he had a .421 FG% as opposed to .333).
Juice, otoh, went from 11.6 ppg as a frosh (.434 FG%) to 16.3 ppg as a SR (.452) - a noticeable improvement.
BMac's eFG% slipped from .484 his FR year down to .448 his SR season.
Juice's eFG% rose from .512 his FR year up to a whopping .566 his SR season.
While I agree that Pardon, Law and others have developed, not so much for BMac (his D did improve some).
That injury-plagued team the year before also had Swop and Hearn (OK, Cobb was serving his suspension, but if he had been eligible...) - that team arguably would have had the best defensive talent (only weakness at center w/ Cobb playing the point).
LOL!
What a bunch of crock.
Shurna's eFG% went up from .539 his FR year to .560 his SR season (highest was during his JR year - .583).
His point total per 40 mins went from 15.8 ppg his FR year to 21.5 ppg is SR year - and that's despite opposing defenses focusing to stop him.
Shurna not only improved on D and working around the basket as he got stronger and gained experience, his 3P% shot up from .347 to a blistering .440 (BMac's 3P% regressed his last 2 seasons).
As already noted, Juice's eFG% was much higher than BMac's.
Also, ppg per 40 mins for their respective SR years.
BMac - 15.0
AST - 6.6
TOV - 3.3
STL - 0.6
Juice - 17.4
AST - 4.6
TOV - 2.0
STL - 1.5
BMac had a higher apg (helped by having more talent around him, particularly a center who could jam it; in addition, the PO was conductive to making the extra pass), but that was offset by having a higher turnover rate and lower steal rate.
You watched Eschmeyer play and you think Shurna was better? Really? Eschmeyer had three opponents perpetually hanging on him and he was still the best pure post player in the Big Ten for many years.
And that's no exaggeration. Tough as nails and skills. And he would've been even better minus the injuries.
Yep. He was first team All Big 10 not once, not twice, but three consecutive years. Only NU player to be first team more than one season. Great NU player.
While that team had a lot of potential for D, BC was never known for fielding a good D.
Sorry but effective FG % going from .54 to .56 is not what I would call a massive improvement over 4 years. And much of the difference in points per 40 minutes. is because he took fewer shots (only 12.4 per 40 minutes vs 16 as a SR) because there were other major options his Frosh year (Coble and Moore) that were gone after that year. With an effective FG rate of .54, it would have resulted in an additional 3.888 ppg. So the number comparison would have been 19.7 as a Frosh to 21.5 as a SR. Points are not everything and tightening up his game did lead to SR year improvement in other areas as well. I would just suggest that the improvement, while there, is not as massive as you suggest.
Regarding comparing BMac as a Sr vs Juice, BMac was injured pretty much most of his Sr Season. I would suggest that while there games are different, they are more similar in value than different. Juice was better in some areas and BMac better in others. Overall they were of similar value to the team. Did Juice improve more? Not sure whether either really improved that much but Juice likely has a little edge there.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/bryant-mcintosh-1.html
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/michael-thompson-2.html
Last edited:
