Another conference win.

[Alan Smithee]

I have to disagree with you. At least on these boards, Lumpkin is hardly under-appreciated. He's almost legendary.

Lol! I would assume you showed up on these boards for the first time three weeks ago, but I know better.

 

[hdhntr1]

If you can provide some sort of analysis to support your claim, I'd look at it.

Otherwise I think we are midpack in talent, especially talent that we didn't bring in via transfer portal.

I did not say that they were in the bottom third of teams., I said their talent is bottom third. That is totally different. Their work ethic is top notch, they are more mature, they have good leadership and they are playing well together. But talent wise, they are bottom third. There are not four or 5 teams with less talent Maybe two in Minn and NEB (and both are in the process of improving that talent.

Just look at their recruiting info. While we have two current 4 stars that had significant number of offers Berry and Behran with Roper being the next highest rated. With the rest you are challenged to find P5 offers. Nicholson, the guy you championed last year for example, had zero other P5 offers, Buie none Barnhizer Xavier and maybe Butler, Martinelli none. Hunger has a couple but he is out for the year Audige (William and Mary) and Verhoven (UTEP)?. If you think that there are at lest 4 teams with less overall talent in the BIG, I don't know what to tell you.

That is what makes it so easy to root for this team. They are undermanned, but they work their butts off and are fun to watch.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I did not say that they were in the bottom third of teams., I said their talent is bottom third. That is totally different. Their work ethic is top notch, they are more mature, they have good leadership and they are playing well together. But talent wise, they are bottom third. There are not four or 5 teams with less talent Maybe two in Minn and NEB (and both are in the process of improving that talent.

Just look at their recruiting info. While we have two current 4 stars that had significant number of offers Berry and Behran with Roper being the next highest rated. With the rest you are challenged to find P5 offers. Nicholson, the guy you championed last year for example, had zero other P5 offers, Buie none Barhizer Xavier and maybe Butler, Martinelli none. Hunger has a couple but he is out for the year Audige (William and Mary) and Verhoven (UTEP)?. If you think that there are at lest 4 teams with less overall talent in the BIG, I don't know what to tell you.

That is what makes it so easy to root for this team. They are undermanned, but they work their butts off and are fun to watch.

The star ratings don't reliably indicate talent outside of perhaps the top 30-50 guys - I'm sure you would agree.

Do Audige and Buie not have talent because nobody knew who they were in high school? The better evaluation of talent is "Would other Power 6 teams take our top 7 guys thru the transfer portal?" And the answer is yes, practically across the board. At least in my opinion.

I am quite confident that we have more talent than Nebraska, Wisconsin and Minnesota. At least as much talent as Iowa and Penn State and Maryland.

Same level of talent as Rutgers.

I know Indiana has a lot of highly rated young players, along with Michigan State, Illinois, Ohio State and Michigan. But, amazingly, when we play them it doesn't look like we are particularly out-talented.

Purdue is "out-talented" by Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio State and Michigan State, according to their recruiting stars. And yet...

 

[DaCat]

On paper, we have less "talent" than last year's team. Don't matter.

 

[ThatkidfromHolland]

Maybe I misread what you wrote about Buie and Audige, but I thought you said something like "they're both in the top x percent" or "top 4" or something like that.
I'd rate them both "above average" for Big Ten starters.

I just think we go 7 deep with Big Ten calibre players and that Hunger and Martinelli will also be up to that standard. I think Buie is better than Audige, just not as much as last year, because Audige is playing better.

People tend to overlook how good Berry, Roper and Barnhizer are - and obviously Nicholson's limitations are easy to complain about. But they all make significant contributions on both ends of the floor.

I have no idea how it’s unhealthy for a program to not have the best talent they can available to them. If two of the better guards in the conference want to play for my team I’d welcome them with open arms. I don’t care how old they are. If I have a player the size of 3 as my depth at the 4 there’s no way I’m turning down a player the caliber of Beran.

Why would I not want 3 returning starters? Ridiculous. This is like the take that this is a better team without Nance…. Ridiculous.

Your attitude is ridiculous. Its a college team. If any of those guys were my kid, I would tell them to graduate and follow their chosen career path.

And you are using the phrase "better guards in the conference" a little loosely, wouldn't you say?

I'm still rooting for you, though.

I brought up the %’s to argue that they were better guards in the conference. You refuted before I even gave it a definition.

 

[phatcat]

Beran was +25 in 24 minutes.
Not sure how anyone can complain.

As far as I can tell, its still a team game, where the team that scores more points is declared the winner.

Ty had a positive +/- in the game where he had 5 fouls in five mins

 

[phatcat]

Phatty insulting our players. Don't act surprised. That and hating Michigan is his entire schtick.

No. You left out incessant complaining and negativity

 

[Hungry Jack]

I have to disagree with you. At least on these boards, Lumpkin is hardly under-appreciated. He's almost legendary.

Lol! I would assume you showed up on these boards for the first time three weeks ago, but I know better.

I don't know. The dynamic duo of Sanjay and Cher is forever engrained in Wildcat lore...

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Ty had a positive +/- in the game where he had 5 fouls in five mins

Uh huh. He was +2. Were you trying to make a point?

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I brought up the %’s to argue that they were better guards in the conference. You refuted before I even gave it a definition.

I didn't "refute" your claim that both Buie and Audige were "better guards in the conference"

I simply questioned it, implying that I didn't think that was true.

Obviously, it depends on what that phrase means.

 

[hdhntr1]

I

I personally see the recovery from Covid as a much bigger deal than the lack of depth. I am, of course, heavily influenced by my own Covid experience: it was super easy, 1 day of feeling fluish, one day of feeling a bit crummy, and feeling normal after that. Except I felt tired super easily, for like 3 weeks, doing very meaningless stuff.

The depth problem is real, of course. But we still have 7 on rotation, the magic number for me to be able to sustain being competitive. One interior and one exterior player off the bench.

On top of this, it's not like we are going up against super healthy teams. Or teams that, while healthy, have a deep rotation. I don't want to go into a rabbit hole of digging up who is injured in other teams. Or what teams, just never rotated more than 7. But, from memory:

1) Indiana - 2 starters were out, 1 is back, yesterday used 29 bench minutes
2) MSU - Hall has played very little, still rotates 3 players
3) Minny - top scorer is out, used 2 players off the bench yesterday, one for just 5 minutes
4) Rutgers - Really only heavily uses 1 bench player, not deep
5) IL - using 2 players heavily off the bench, not deep
6) IA - using 2 players heavily off the bench, not deep
7) MD - using 2 players heavily off the bench, not deep
8) WI - using 2 players heavily off the bench, not deep
9) UNL - 2 injured

That leaves, with minimal problems or a having a deep roster use:
1) Purdue
2) MI
3) PSU
4) OSU

This is a superficial analysis and there's probably stretches there. But my point is that, yeah I'd rather have Roper and Hunger available, but this is what (close to) what every team is going through and goes through every season.

It is a combination of all three. Losing a player meaning shorter rotation of only 7 or 8 (with Verhoven being one of them and Martinelli getting a couple minutes which really means 6.5) recovery from COVID and 6 games in 13 days. They work together against us and while some other teams might have a short bench, no other team has the combination of things working together against them

 

[hdhntr1]

The star ratings don't reliably indicate talent outside of perhaps the top 30-50 guys - I'm sure you would agree.

Do Audige and Buie not have talent because nobody knew who they were in high school? The better evaluation of talent is "Would other Power 6 teams take our top 7 guys thru the transfer portal?" And the answer is yes, practically across the board. At least in my opinion.

I am quite confident that we have more talent than Nebraska, Wisconsin and Minnesota. At least as much talent as Iowa and Penn State and Maryland.

Same level of talent as Rutgers.

I know Indiana has a lot of highly rated young players, along with Michigan State, Illinois, Ohio State and Michigan. But, amazingly, when we play them it doesn't look like we are particularly out-talented.

Purdue is "out-talented" by Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio State and Michigan State, according to their recruiting stars. And yet...

You are dreaming. We have had guys improve their play through hard work and working better together. Are they playing above their talent level? Absolutely. But talent is a different measure as it is more of a measure of innate ability. Ever seen a movie named Gattaca? Society belonged to genetically enhanced and superior humans . THere was one scene where one of the enhanced humans had a brother who was genetically inferior and they swam together. The genetically superior one always one as the inferior one had to stop and turn back but one time the not enhanced guy won. Not because he was better but because he went all out with the idea of holding nothing back for the return trip. The genetically enhanced brother turned back

That is sort of what I see here. It isn't because they have more talent. It is because they are more mature, have worked harder and are working better together and believe in and trust each other. They have found their identity. So while they have a currently top half quality team, talentwise they are in the bottom third. They are the junkyard dogs of BIG. Not saying that they are without talent. Just that their talent is in the bottom 1/3 of the conference. (couple years ago with guys like Nance, Young Kopp Simmons, I would give you middle third but not now) Three of the teams you mentioned are also development and culture programs. Wisconsin does it in a similar way but still tends to have a higher level of talent than NU. Ia again identity and system basketball but still a slightly higher level of talent (hard to know how they will fare after he runs out of sons) PSU would seem pretty close in talent with them being about same level as NU.

That is not a slam. It is recognizing what they have done and how they have accomplished it. Nance, for example, had more talent than anyone on this team. But overall, they are playing better without him even though they have less overall talent than last year.

 

[EagerFan]

Talent only takes you so far unless you also have the work ethic and the hunger to go along with it. Having any two of those is usually enough to rise above the crowd. Reggie Hearn, anyone?

 

[hdhntr1]

Talent only takes you so far unless you also have the work ethic and the hunger to go along with it. Having any two of those is usually enough to rise above the crowd. Reggie Hearn, anyone?

Exactly. And this year, they have it more than they did with more talent. Don't forget guys like Nash and could go on with other names.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

You are dreaming. We have had guys improve their play through hard work and working better together. Are they playing above their talent level? Absolutely. But talent is a different measure as it is more of a measure of innate ability. Ever seen a movie named Gattaca? Society belonged to genetically enhanced and superior humans . THere was one scene where one of the enhanced humans had a brother who was genetically inferior and they swam together. The genetically superior one always one as the inferior one had to stop and turn back but one time the not enhanced guy won. Not because he was better but because he went all out with the idea of holding nothing back for the return trip. The genetically enhanced brother turned back

That is sort of what I see here. It isn't because they have more talent. It is because they are more mature, have worked harder and are working better together and believe in and trust each other. They have found their identity. So while they have a currently top half quality team, talentwise they are in the bottom third. They are the junkyard dogs of BIG. Not saying that they are without talent. Just that their talent is in the bottom 1/3 of the conference. (couple years ago with guys like Nance, Young Kopp Simmons, I would give you middle third but not now) Three of the teams you mentioned are also development and culture programs. Wisconsin does it in a similar way but still tends to have a higher level of talent than NU. Ia again identity and system basketball but still a slightly higher level of talent (hard to know how they will fare after he runs out of sons) PSU would seem pretty close in talent with them being about same level as NU.

That is not a slam. It is recognizing what they have done and how they have accomplished it. Nance, for example, had more talent than anyone on this team. But overall, they are playing better without him even though they have less overall talent than last year.

The issue of "talent" becomes pretty subjective when you start applying vague rules about hard work and maturity.

I think of talent as being what a player is capable of doing if he puts in the work. But the willingness to put in the work is part of the individual's talent, along with his mental makeup.

It sounds like you are focusing purely on physical gifts.

 

[TheC]

You are dreaming. We have had guys improve their play through hard work and working better together. Are they playing above their talent level? Absolutely. But talent is a different measure as it is more of a measure of innate ability. Ever seen a movie named Gattaca? Society belonged to genetically enhanced and superior humans . THere was one scene where one of the enhanced humans had a brother who was genetically inferior and they swam together. The genetically superior one always one as the inferior one had to stop and turn back but one time the not enhanced guy won. Not because he was better but because he went all out with the idea of holding nothing back for the return trip. The genetically enhanced brother turned back

That is sort of what I see here. It isn't because they have more talent. It is because they are more mature, have worked harder and are working better together and believe in and trust each other. They have found their identity. So while they have a currently top half quality team, talentwise they are in the bottom third. They are the junkyard dogs of BIG. Not saying that they are without talent. Just that their talent is in the bottom 1/3 of the conference. (couple years ago with guys like Nance, Young Kopp Simmons, I would give you middle third but not now) Three of the teams you mentioned are also development and culture programs. Wisconsin does it in a similar way but still tends to have a higher level of talent than NU. Ia again identity and system basketball but still a slightly higher level of talent (hard to know how they will fare after he runs out of sons) PSU would seem pretty close in talent with them being about same level as NU.

That is not a slam. It is recognizing what they have done and how they have accomplished it. Nance, for example, had more talent than anyone on this team. But overall, they are playing better without him even though they have less overall talent than last year.

I'm not sure I followed this, but I think what you are saying is that the team is better this year because Uma Thurman came by and inspired them!

 

[EagerFan]

The issue of "talent" becomes pretty subjective when you start applying vague rules about hard work and maturity.

I think of talent as being what a player is capable of doing if he puts in the work.

Hmmm

I see talent as the natural athletic gifts and ability an athlete possesses, separate from how hard they might work, how well they might be coached, how much experience they might have, or even how interested they might be in improving.

I don't think anyone would make an honest argument that Matt is suddenly more talented this year than the two prior or that Hearns grew more talented every year he played at NU - and beyond.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Hmmm

I see talent as the natural athletic gifts and ability an athlete possesses, separate from how hard they might work, how well they might be coached, how much experience they might have, or even how interested they might be in improving.

I don't think anyone would make an honest argument that Matt is suddenly more talented this year than the two prior or that Hearns grew more talented every year he played at NU - and beyond.

I'm sure we all define talent differently. How talented was Wayne Gretzky? Not the most talented player... or was he?

For me, the willingess to work hard is a talent, just like intangibles on knowing where the ball is going. Take your pick - Dennis Rodman or Wayne Gretzky.

 

[TheC]

I'm sure we all define talent differently. How talented was Wayne Gretzky? Not the most talented player... or was he?

For me, the willingess to work hard is a talent, just like intangibles on knowing where the ball is going. Take your pick - Dennis Rodman or Wayne Gretzky.

I feel like talent is a generic word we all throw around that represents an amalgamation of things that ultimately result in making the right play at the right time. There is athleticism, skill, effort, mental capacity, aggressiveness... all those things. I look at a guy like Chase and I think he is right up there with any guard in the BIG in terms of athleticism and effort. I think his skill level, though not bad, is not quite as high as others and his decision-making had been, until this season, horrible. It is not perfect this year, but much improved. So, I would argue Chase Audige is as talented as just about any other guard I've seen in the BIG. But I wouldn't have said that last year.

So, my conclusion is that talent is hard to judge. I thought last year he wasn't as talented, but that was probably because he was making decision to do things that he didn't have the skill to pull off. That came across as lacking talent, but it really meant bad decision-making. This year, he is playing within himself more and his strengths (talent) is being utilized better.

I presume everyone else here is thinking the real conclusion is that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about when I post on here. That's probably fair. 😕

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

The star ratings don't reliably indicate talent outside of perhaps the top 30-50 guys - I'm sure you would agree.

Do Audige and Buie not have talent because nobody knew who they were in high school? The better evaluation of talent is "Would other Power 6 teams take our top 7 guys thru the transfer portal?" And the answer is yes, practically across the board. At least in my opinion.

I am quite confident that we have more talent than Nebraska, Wisconsin and Minnesota. At least as much talent as Iowa and Penn State and Maryland.

Same level of talent as Rutgers.

I know Indiana has a lot of highly rated young players, along with Michigan State, Illinois, Ohio State and Michigan. But, amazingly, when we play them it doesn't look like we are particularly out-talented.

Purdue is "out-talented" by Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio State and Michigan State, according to their recruiting stars. And yet...

It’s calling coaching

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

I'm sure we all define talent differently. How talented was Wayne Gretzky? Not the most talented player... or was he?

For me, the willingess to work hard is a talent, just like intangibles on knowing where the ball is going. Take your pick - Dennis Rodman or Wayne Gretzky.

Seriously. Are you saying Gretzky wasn’t the most talented player to step on the ice in every game?