Latest ESPN Top 100 - Woody and Gesell still there

aaronzuriel said:
Good points. If AW & MG can combine for 14 points and 6 RBS and 4 Assists they can make up for Matt Gatens, barely (less leadership)

If some combination of the 3 other newbes... a few or more minutes, a couple of buckets, rebounds, an assist and some floor burns...

AND the current roster can improve... say by 10 or 15 percent of production and toughness... willing to win

the Hawkeyes will finish in the top half, or better, in the Big Ten next year. Post season absolutely.. dreams of sweet 16 and beyond...

OH yeah.
Click to expand...

If we do the math in your scenario, we have a roster of returning contributors scoring an approximate 62 ppg. If we add your 10% increase in production, that is bumped up to 68 ppg. Add on 14 points by the two marquee frosh, and we are looking at 82 ppg. Of course, we could assume that the rest of the freshmen score as well, but let's assume they don't. (If we assume the roster improves in scoring 15%, the total rises to 85 ppg).

So your baseline expectation is that Iowa scored 82 ppg, which is a 10 point increase over their season total, and a 14 ppg increase over their conference totals. This would put them #5 in the nation in scoring for this season, and top the Big 10 by over 5 ppg.

That's probably not going to happen.
 
if gesell and woodbury can cover the lose of gatens's points along with 6 rebs and 4+ assists. then the 3 other recruits cover the lose of archie, cartwright, brommer numbers. then the players already on the roster increase their numbers just a little. i can see between 77-80 pts per game. remember we averaged 72 pts a game and that was with some games that we really struggled in. we wont have the valleys we had this yr next yr and i think we will have more peaks. that should account for a good increase in pts per game.
 
Foval21 said:
if gesell and woodbury can cover the lose of gatens's points along with 6 rebs and 4 assists. then the 3 other recruits cover the lose of archie, cartwright, brommer numbers. then the players already on the roster increase their numbers just a little. i can see between 77-80 pts per game. remember we averaged 72 pts a game and that was with some games that we really struggled in. we wont have the valleys we had this yr next yr and i think we will have more peaks. that should account for a good increase in pts per game.
Click to expand...

No offense, but the whole "if player X can score this much and player Z can grab this many rebounds" scenarios are fun conversation but are way oversimplified.

To me, take the stats out of it and look at the pieces of the puzzle and what they each bring to the table as far as skill sets and shortcomings. Then step back and look what you have as a whole. When i do that, i like what I see on the horizon. I like it next year and love it 2 seasons from now.
 
IATrainMaster101 said:
Foval21 said:
if gesell and woodbury can cover the lose of gatens's points along with 6 rebs and 4 assists. then the 3 other recruits cover the lose of archie, cartwright, brommer numbers. then the players already on the roster increase their numbers just a little. i can see between 77-80 pts per game. remember we averaged 72 pts a game and that was with some games that we really struggled in. we wont have the valleys we had this yr next yr and i think we will have more peaks. that should account for a good increase in pts per game.
Click to expand...
No offense, but the whole "if player X can score this much and player Z can grab this many rebounds" scenarios are fun conversation but are way oversimplified. To me, take the stats out of it and look at the pieces of the puzzle and what they each bring to the table as far as skill sets and shortcomings. Then step back and look what you have as a whole. When i do that, i like what I see on the horizon. I like it next year and love it 2 seasons from now.
Click to expand...

i wouldnt make those statements if i didnt think the combination of skills warranted those theories. i feel that this incoming team is as good of a compliment of skills as we have seen in iowa in awhile. the only offensive area that i feel they may need help is 3 pt shooting with only 1 true 3pt threat but others may develop. defensively still could be a struggle but jo has a lot more upside defensively than other guards and basabe and white add weakside shot blockers. woodbury and meyer should alter shot if not block with their height.
 
Foval21 said:
if gesell and woodbury can cover the lose of gatens's points along with 6 rebs and 4+ assists. then the 3 other recruits cover the lose of archie, cartwright, brommer numbers. then the players already on the roster increase their numbers just a little. i can see between 77-80 pts per game. remember we averaged 72 pts a game and that was with some games that we really struggled in. we wont have the valleys we had this yr next yr and i think we will have more peaks. that should account for a good increase in pts per game.
Click to expand...

Well, keep in mind that Iowa only scored 68 ppg in conference play, which put us a 5th out of 12. There is this fallacy around here that we were some kind of offensive juggernaut (probably a hangover from the Lick era), but we were fairly average offensively last year.

We lead the Big 10 in possessions per game last year, but we were 7th in points per possession.

If your prediction of 77-80 ppg come true, we would be among the top 20 scoring teams in the country next year. Don't see it happeneing
 
GhostofBTT said:
Foval21 said:
if gesell and woodbury can cover the lose of gatens's points along with 6 rebs and 4 assists. then the 3 other recruits cover the lose of archie, cartwright, brommer numbers. then the players already on the roster increase their numbers just a little. i can see between 77-80 pts per game. remember we averaged 72 pts a game and that was with some games that we really struggled in. we wont have the valleys we had this yr next yr and i think we will have more peaks. that should account for a good increase in pts per game.
Click to expand...
Well, keep in mind that Iowa only scored 68 ppg in conference play, which put us a 5th out of 12. There is this fallacy around here that we were some kind of offensive juggernaut (probably a hangover from the Lick era), but we were fairly average offensively last year.We lead the Big 10 in possessions per game last year, but we were 7th in points per possession. If your prediction of 77-80 ppg come true, we would be among the top 20 scoring teams in the country next year. Don't see it happeneing
Click to expand...

I' m hoping a quality pg that can maximize possessions will help this. I know we get 2 freshmen, but we played most of last season with 1 hurt and 1 playing out out if position. I think it is possible to improve next season on pts per possession and am very confident that number will shoot up by the year after.
 
IATrainMaster101 said:
I' m hoping a quality pg that can maximize possessions will help this. I know we get 2 freshmen, but we played most of last season with 1 hurt and 1 playing out out if position. I think it is possible to improve next season on pts per possession and am very confident that number will shoot up by the year after.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying we can't improve, but some people have a BASELINE expectation of scoring 10 more points per game. That number is HORRIBLY unrealistic.

If we do the math, that would raise Iowa's points per possesion from 1.01 to 1.21, which would easily top the nation. Like I said before, people have this idea that we were an offensive juggernaut last year, and we were not.
 
Foval21 said:
if gesell and woodbury can cover the lose of gatens's points along with 6 rebs and 4 assists. then the 3 other recruits cover the lose of archie, cartwright, brommer numbers. then the players already on the roster increase their numbers just a little. i can see between 77-80 pts per game. remember we averaged 72 pts a game and that was with some games that we really struggled in. we wont have the valleys we had this yr next yr and i think we will have more peaks. that should account for a good increase in pts per game.
Click to expand...

You can't replace one player with two players. If you're talking about replacing Gatens' numbers with the combined output of a guard and a center, you actually have to replace Gatens plus last year's center's numbers (usually Basabe, McCabe or White). Gesell and Woodbury might be able to do that as freshmen, but certainly not by much.
 
GhostofBTT said:
Well, keep in mind that Iowa only scored 68 ppg in conference play, which put us a 5th out of 12. There is this fallacy around here that we were some kind of offensive juggernaut (probably a hangover from the Lick era), but we were fairly average offensively last year.

We lead the Big 10 in possessions per game last year, but we were 7th in points per possession.

If your prediction of 77-80 ppg come true, we would be among the top 20 scoring teams in the country next year. Don't see it happeneing
Click to expand...

When Iowa had good point guard play out of Cartwright it was a different team offensively.

Iowa is capable of scoring the way they did in the NIT as long as Gesell can make those same long passes Cartwright was to get easy baskets in transition.
 
RocknRollface said:
When Iowa had good point guard play out of Cartwright it was a different team offensively.

Iowa is capable of scoring the way they did in the NIT as long as Gesell can make those same long passes Cartwright was to get easy baskets in transition.
Click to expand...

There wasn't a lick of defense played in the NIT. I'd refrain from basing your offensive expectations on those two games.
 
tm3308 said:
There wasn't a lick of defense played in the NIT. I'd refrain from basing your offensive expectations on those two games.
Click to expand...

I didin't mean I expected to score that much, but in that manner. Meaning lots of transition buckets.

You can run in the big ten if you wan't, its just that most don't recruit that type of player or coach that way.
 
RocknRollface said:
I didin't mean I expected to score that much, but in that manner. Meaning lots of transition buckets.

You can run in the big ten if you wan't, its just that most don't recruit that type of player or coach that way.
Click to expand...

Transition buckets? It helps to have a defense if you're going to rely on transition buckets.
 
GhostofBTT said:
Well, keep in mind that Iowa only scored 68 ppg in conference play, which put us a 5th out of 12. There is this fallacy around here that we were some kind of offensive juggernaut (probably a hangover from the Lick era), but we were fairly average offensively last year.

We lead the Big 10 in possessions per game last year, but we were 7th in points per possession.

If your prediction of 77-80 ppg come true, we would be among the top 20 scoring teams in the country next year. Don't see it happeneing
Click to expand...

Iowa was #1 in the Big Ten in tempo per KenPom, so if the shots actually fall, the scoring will increase.
 
JonDMiller said:
He did catch my eye in that all star game. Real active...a nuisance type player, ala White
Click to expand...

Tough not to catch your eye:
dekker.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top