Eternal Optimism

AirWalke · 03-09-2008, 06:55 PM

I think you are all right on this. Assuming no one leaves or no one gets hurt (knock on wood!)... you're not going to even recognize the team next year. I said this last year, but I never factored in Lucca getting shafted, Wes getting injured, and half the team getting mono/flu.

CyValley · 03-09-2008, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

Don't be shocked if Wes plays some of the 4 next year as well.

Oh, not me! I won't be surprised.

A few days ago I speculated that the lineup often might be three guards and two PFs because a year ago I recall Mac explaining that two PFs on the floor have certain advantages over playing a 4 and a true 5.

Mac won't shy from playing Wes and Craig down under, you wouldn't think, particularly as they get heavier and stronger with off-season weightlifting.

PG - Diante, Petey, Dom
SG - Lucca, Sean, Ike, Petey, Diante
SG - Lucca, Sean, Ike, Petey, Diante
PF - Wes, CJ, Clint
PF - Craig, Alex, CJ

C - Alex, Justin

A year ago Mac called Diante a combo guard, Dom a pure point guard. So, I listed Dom only at PG, Diante at all three guard positions.

I see I've ignored Cam; shouldn't have. Plus, there will be two new guys signed in April, Mac says. . . .

AT is more of a 4, isn't he? Could be Justin is our only true 5 so far?

CyValley · 03-09-2008, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by cyfan964

Hopefully I am wrong, I usually try to be optimistic, but I just don't see 20 wins happening.

We need to see the schedule, don't we? But, maybe you're assuming (for good reason) that Mac will work up a reasonably tough schedule again, and there are 16 league games to play. . . .

Conference, 16 games; in-state, 3 games (eiu, Drake, UNI). Who else are we committed to play next season, anyone know? Oh, yeah, the Big 12-Pac 10 series, one game. How about Minnesota? And Bradley again?

Boy, I take it back. Guess we don't need to see the full schedule to think it will be a pretty tough one based on what we know today.

ISUFan22 · 03-09-2008, 07:10 PM

AT can man the center position on the defensive end pretty well. But to expect him to provide much offense at that spot (or any spot for that matter) wouldn't be realistic.

jhill · 03-09-2008, 07:11 PM

I would hope that Haluska starts next year, rather than Petersen. My hopeful line-up to start the season would be: Brackins, Wesley, Staiger, Haluska and Garrett. I think Haluska offers a little more defensively and offensively than Petersen. As the season goes on, hopefully Buckley can take over the point and Garrett move to the 2 (especially if Buckley can hit the three to offset Diante's weaknesses out there). The biggest problem with either of those line-ups is rebounding, but I would hope their versatility, quickness, etc. would offset.

isuno1fan · 03-09-2008, 07:14 PM

I would hope neither Peterson or Haluska starts next year. Both improved during the year. Both are excellent role players.

CyValley · 03-09-2008, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

AT can man the center position on the defensive end pretty well. But to expect him to provide much offense at that spot (or any spot for that matter) wouldn't be realistic.

No, not expecting much offense from Alex. Mac says Alex is the team's best post defender, and the way Mac emphasizes defense, got to think Alex is going to get more minutes next season than he had this season. Unless Wes and Craig really click together down under.

With the outside shooting game most of us expect to have, a more experienced team setting better screens for the ball-handlers to drive and dish, I wonder if Alex might break free occasionally for layups and short shots?

SeattleClone · 03-09-2008, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by CyValley

We need to see the schedule, don't we? But, maybe you're assuming (for good reason) that Mac will work up a reasonably tough schedule again, and there are 16 league games to play. . . .

Conference, 16 games; in-state, 3 games (eiu, Drake, UNI). Who else are we committed to play next season, anyone know? Oh, yeah, the Big 12-Pac 10 series, one game. How about Minnesota? And Bradley again?

Boy, I take it back. Guess we don't need to see the full schedule to think it will be a pretty tough one based on what we know today.

We will get a Pac-10 team at home, which will hopefully be a good opportunity to get a W against a quality non-conference opponent. Who do you guys think/hope we get? USC would be an obvious choice because of Tim Floyd and they should be a quality team. How great would an early season win over UCLA, Arizona, or WSU be? A game against WSU would put Lucca up against his old semi-pro teammate, correct? A lot of interesting possibilities for this Pac 10 game if you ask me. Or they could put us up against Oregon State again or Stanford and I could give a rat's...

A-town Cy · 03-09-2008, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by SeattleClone

We will get a Pac-10 team at home, which will hopefully be a good opportunity to get a W against a quality non-conference opponent. Who do you guys think/hope we get? USC would be an obvious choice because of Tim Floyd and they should be a quality team. How great would an early season win over UCLA, Arizona, or WSU be? A game against WSU would put Lucca up against his old semi-pro teammate, correct? A lot of interesting possibilities for this Pac 10 game if you ask me. Or they could put us up against Oregon State again or Stanford and I could give a rat's...

We play Oregon State for sure. The pac-10/big 12 is a home/away series.

ISUFan22 · 03-09-2008, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by jhill

The biggest problem with either of those line-ups is rebounding, but I would hope their versatility, quickness, etc. would offset.

The biggest problem with almost any lineup we put on the floor will likely be rebounding. As you stated, we're going to need our quickness, athleticism and hustle to offset that.

Kyle · 03-09-2008, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by isuno1fan

I would hope neither Peterson or Haluska starts next year. Both improved during the year. Both are excellent role players.

I don't think it would be a bad thing for our two seniors to see some decent playing time and perhaps start.

I would echo the sentiment that it would be nice to see Haluska over Peterson, mostly for defensive reasons. After his atrocious start, it seems Haluska has been about Peterson's equal on the offensive end. However, Haluska's defense is far superior to Peterson's IMO. Peterson gets a lot of time this year because we desperately need ball handlers, but hopefully that won't be the case next year.

CyValley · 03-09-2008, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by SeattleClone

We will get a Pac-10 team at home. . . . Who do you guys think/hope we get?

I was thinking it was set up that we'd get Oregon State again. Wrong? But my memory about the arrangement isn't clear, that's for sure.

I remember thinking it would be fun to play a different team the second time around rather than OSU again. . . .

ISUFan22 · 03-09-2008, 07:20 PM

Right, we will host Oregon State next year. Our opponent for the next 2 years in the PAC-10 challenge has not yet been determined.

SeattleClone · 03-09-2008, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by A-town Cy

We play Oregon State for sure. The pac-10/big 12 is a home/away series.

Well, so much for that. We should try to bring in UCLA anyways, I'm sure they would love to come play us!

Is that how the ACC/Big Televen challenge works too? home/away same teams? I never paid that much attention to it, I just remember actually rooting FOR Iowa a couple years ago when they played UNC.

jhill · 03-09-2008, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by isuno1fan

I would hope neither Peterson or Haluska starts next year. Both improved during the year. Both are excellent role players.

I will be very pleasantly surprised if Eikmeier or Buckley is in the starting line-up at the beginning of next season. Both Haluska and Petersen have a huge advantage in terms of experience. I really liked the way Haluska came on at the end of the season and don't think it is bad if he is starting. That being said, hopefully his minutes are cut as the season progresses with Eikmeier and Buckley's increasing.