desertshox Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 I believe Mavric posted in another thread that Ed was our most efficient player based off ESPN player efficiency ratings. Pretty tough to believe anyone can dismiss a guy who was averaging 10 and 8 in 23 mpg while being undersized and playing hurt. Jorday may end up being the better player, as he has a higher ceiling, but Ed is definitely the best 4/5 we have/had right now. I'm not exactly dismissing him, I'm saying for us to compete at a high level, he would be a back-up post player. Not our best player. So, maybe that is why we went 12-18. I went and looked at his game-logs, and he had some really nice games against high level competition (or teams that made the NCAA tournament), then he completely didn't show up in the stat sheet against some sub-par opponents that we ended up losing to. Do I wish he was staying? Yes. Do I think we are lost without him? Absolutely not. How many games did we win when he wasn't playing last year? Beat Purdue, does that count? so 1? 1 Quote Link to comment
Cdog923 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 I believe Mavric posted in another thread that Ed was our most efficient player based off ESPN player efficiency ratings. Pretty tough to believe anyone can dismiss a guy who was averaging 10 and 8 in 23 mpg while being undersized and playing hurt. Jorday may end up being the better player, as he has a higher ceiling, but Ed is definitely the best 4/5 we have/had right now. I'm not exactly dismissing him, I'm saying for us to compete at a high level, he would be a back-up post player. Not our best player. So, maybe that is why we went 12-18. I went and looked at his game-logs, and he had some really nice games against high level competition (or teams that made the NCAA tournament), then he completely didn't show up in the stat sheet against some sub-par opponents that we ended up losing to. Do I wish he was staying? Yes. Do I think we are lost without him? Absolutely not. How many games did we win when he wasn't playing last year? Beat Purdue, does that count? so 1? 1 Quote Link to comment
ScottyIce Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 I believe Mavric posted in another thread that Ed was our most efficient player based off ESPN player efficiency ratings. Pretty tough to believe anyone can dismiss a guy who was averaging 10 and 8 in 23 mpg while being undersized and playing hurt. Jorday may end up being the better player, as he has a higher ceiling, but Ed is definitely the best 4/5 we have/had right now. I'm not exactly dismissing him, I'm saying for us to compete at a high level, he would be a back-up post player. Not our best player. So, maybe that is why we went 12-18. I went and looked at his game-logs, and he had some really nice games against high level competition (or teams that made the NCAA tournament), then he completely didn't show up in the stat sheet against some sub-par opponents that we ended up losing to. Do I wish he was staying? Yes. Do I think we are lost without him? Absolutely not. How many games did we win when he wasn't playing last year? Beat Purdue, does that count? so 1? Well, Nebraska went 12-19 overall. They went 1-6 without Morrow and 11-13 with Morrow. In those 6 losses, they lost by an average of 6 points. In the 11 wins Morrow participated in, Morrow averaged 10 points per game and 6 Rebounds per game. In the 13 losses Morrow participated in, Morrow averaged 8 points per game and 8 Rebounds per game. So in theory, you could assume we would've had a strong chance to go 16-15 if Morrow had been healthy all season. Would the pitchforks still be out? Quote Link to comment
desertshox Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Well, Nebraska went 12-19 overall. They went 1-6 without Morrow and 11-13 with Morrow. In those 6 losses, they lost by an average of 6 points. In the 11 wins Morrow participated in, Morrow averaged 10 points per game and 6 Rebounds per game. In the 13 losses Morrow participated in, Morrow averaged 8 points per game and 8 Rebounds per game. So in theory, you could assume we would've had a strong chance to go 16-15 if Morrow had been healthy all season. Would the pitchforks still be out? you tell us. this is your mob to say morrow is at best a bench player when what you just posted says otherwise. EDIT: had to change a verb from was to is. Quote Link to comment
teachercd Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 16-15...NIT bound. I think a lot of fans would have looked at that as progress. Maybe. Quote Link to comment
spurs1990 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 16-15...NIT bound. I think a lot of fans would have looked at that as progress. Maybe. Lose what is clearly your best scorer and still make it to the NIT and have a winning record? With all the youth on the team I personally would have been optimistic Quote Link to comment
ScottyIce Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 16-15...NIT bound. I think a lot of fans would have looked at that as progress. Maybe. Lose what is clearly your best scorer and still make it to the NIT and have a winning record? With all the youth on the team I personally would have been optimistic Wow, really? Well, Nebraska went 12-19 overall. They went 1-6 without Morrow and 11-13 with Morrow. In those 6 losses, they lost by an average of 6 points. In the 11 wins Morrow participated in, Morrow averaged 10 points per game and 6 Rebounds per game. In the 13 losses Morrow participated in, Morrow averaged 8 points per game and 8 Rebounds per game. So in theory, you could assume we would've had a strong chance to go 16-15 if Morrow had been healthy all season. Would the pitchforks still be out? you tell us. this is your mob to say morrow is at best a bench player when what you just posted says otherwise. EDIT: had to change a verb from was to is. He is, for a good team. If he is a starter who plays 25+ minutes per game, your team goes 16-15, if he's healthy for all 31. (PS, maybe Morrow's health of his foot would improve if he was only going 10 minutes a night, maybe he could stay healthy for a whole season) Quote Link to comment
spurs1990 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 16-15...NIT bound. I think a lot of fans would have looked at that as progress. Maybe. Lose what is clearly your best scorer and still make it to the NIT and have a winning record? With all the youth on the team I personally would have been optimistic Wow, really? Yes, really Quote Link to comment
ScottyIce Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 16-15...NIT bound. I think a lot of fans would have looked at that as progress. Maybe. Lose what is clearly your best scorer and still make it to the NIT and have a winning record? With all the youth on the team I personally would have been optimistic Wow, really? Yes, really I meant to add more to that, sorry. I'm just in disbelief that 4 wins would've completely changed everyone's tune much. I mean, If Webster's jumper against Clemson falls, If Watson doesn't slip against Ohio State, If we grab a board against Rutgers, if Morrow can make a free-throw against Wisconsin.... There is your 16-15 record. You're telling me the pitchforks would be gone? I don't buy it. Maybe in your case, but this board would still be on fire as a whole. Quote Link to comment
spurs1990 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 16-15...NIT bound. I think a lot of fans would have looked at that as progress. Maybe. Lose what is clearly your best scorer and still make it to the NIT and have a winning record? With all the youth on the team I personally would have been optimistic Wow, really? Yes, really I meant to add more to that, sorry. I'm just in disbelief that 4 wins would've completely changed everyone's tune much. I mean, If Webster's jumper against Clemson falls, If Watson doesn't slip against Ohio State, If we grab a board against Rutgers, if Morrow can make a free-throw against Wisconsin.... There is your 16-15 record. You're telling me the pitchforks would be gone? I don't buy it. Maybe in your case, but this board would still be on fire as a whole. As a whole, that could be true, but a post season birth of some sort would have helped. 16-15 without an NIT would definitely still have the pitchforks out. I think the salvation would have been the 4 wins and a post season opportunity. Quote Link to comment
RedSavage Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 16-15...NIT bound. I think a lot of fans would have looked at that as progress. Maybe. Lose what is clearly your best scorer and still make it to the NIT and have a winning record? With all the youth on the team I personally would have been optimistic Wow, really? Yes, really I meant to add more to that, sorry. I'm just in disbelief that 4 wins would've completely changed everyone's tune much. I mean, If Webster's jumper against Clemson falls, If Watson doesn't slip against Ohio State, If we grab a board against Rutgers, if Morrow can make a free-throw against Wisconsin.... There is your 16-15 record. You're telling me the pitchforks would be gone? I don't buy it. Maybe in your case, but this board would still be on fire as a whole. As a whole, that could be true, but a post season birth of some sort would have helped. 16-15 without an NIT would definitely still have the pitchforks out. I think the salvation would have been the 4 wins and a post season opportunity. Personally, I would be slightly more optimistic for next season but it wouldn't do much to change my opinion as a whole. That's still pretty much where Miles' career record is (actually a little under) and I think that's who he is as a coach. Quote Link to comment
Cdog923 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 16-15...NIT bound. I think a lot of fans would have looked at that as progress. Maybe. Lose what is clearly your best scorer and still make it to the NIT and have a winning record? With all the youth on the team I personally would have been optimistic Wow, really? Yes, really I meant to add more to that, sorry. I'm just in disbelief that 4 wins would've completely changed everyone's tune much. I mean, If Webster's jumper against Clemson falls, If Watson doesn't slip against Ohio State, If we grab a board against Rutgers, if Morrow can make a free-throw against Wisconsin.... There is your 16-15 record. You're telling me the pitchforks would be gone? I don't buy it. Maybe in your case, but this board would still be on fire as a whole. It would only be Miles' 2nd winning season in his tenure here, coming off of a 16-18 season. So yes, it would be positive progress. Quote Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 I believe Mavric posted in another thread that Ed was our most efficient player based off ESPN player efficiency ratings. Pretty tough to believe anyone can dismiss a guy who was averaging 10 and 8 in 23 mpg while being undersized and playing hurt. Jorday may end up being the better player, as he has a higher ceiling, but Ed is definitely the best 4/5 we have/had right now. I will lose it if you mention this stat ever again. God damn it Mav. The player of the year and the scoring champion barely cracked the Top 100 players in the country on that list. It's a broken statistic and everyone knows that unless you're using it to twist your argument. Or .... you know ..... maybe .... and I'm just spit-balling here ..... the Player Efficiency Rating is set to to measure which players are most EFFICIENT. Which could be different that players racking up the most stats. nope. It's well known this stat is trash and that's coming from the NBA guys And I use trash very exaggerativly, personally I prefer RPM 1 Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Forgive me if 'NBA guys don't like it' isn't that convincing. Quote Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Ok well that doesn't change the fact most of the best players in the country are rated pretty poorly by this standard, are they inefficient players? Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.