'15 INTL SF Neils Bunschoten (4/5/2015)

[Southgrad07]

Guys given the current roster I'm not sure why you thought we would sign a big bruiser. Bell, Murphy,and Rickman can ONLY play the 5 spot... Can't defend wings and can't shoot a lick..So you want to sign a 4th player who plays around the basket??...if one of those 3 had left I would advocated to go after a truer 5, but the staff obviously feels like they can be sufficient at the 5.

I mean yes in an ideal world you get a 6'9 PF who can guard wings, shoot 3s, and rebound like crazy..let's be realistic for a minute, we aren't going to get that..Hell Wichita can't seem to net one of those guys at the moment.

I think the staff wanted a stretch 4 who in a pinch could play the 5. It is yet to be seen if this is a good signing, but I don't fault them for going after this type of player. He gives us something none of our guys over 6'6 does ( perimeter shooting) and hopefully allows us some versatility in playing him at both the 4 and 5. My biggest worry is if he can hold up against opposing 4s. Prusator could shoot, but you couldn't play him due to his defense...if this guy can at least hold his own in that department I could see him being a valuable piece.

 

[sycamorebacker]

Guys given the current roster I'm not sure why you thought we would sign a big bruiser. Bell, Murphy,and Rickman can ONLY play the 5 spot... Can't defend wings and can't shoot a lick..So you want to sign a 4th player who plays around the basket??...if one of those 3 had left I would advocated to go after a truer 5, but the staff obviously feels like they can be sufficient at the 5.

I mean yes in an ideal world you get a 6'9 PF who can guard wings, shoot 3s, and rebound like crazy..let's be realistic for a minute, we aren't going to get that..Hell Wichita can't seem to net one of those guys at the moment.

I think the staff wanted a stretch 4 who in a pinch could play the 5. It is yet to be seen if this is a good signing, but I don't fault them for going after this type of player. He gives us something none of our guys over 6'6 does ( perimeter shooting) and hopefully allows us some versatility in playing him at both the 4 and 5. My biggest worry is if he can hold up against opposing 4s. Prusator could shoot, but you couldn't play him due to his defense...if this guy can at least hold his own in that department I could see him being a valuable piece.

Some of us on here have stated before that we think he is a 3. I don't think you should plan on him playing much 4 or 5.

 

[Southgrad07]

Some of us on here have stated before that we think he is a 3. I don't think you should plan on him playing much 4 or 5.

Fair enough.. I don't think you should plan on him playing the 3 much. Lol Our roster makeup makes wayyy more sense for him to be a 4 and pinch 5 man. Plus everything I've seen says that's where he's best suited.

His strength is stretching the defense and that is negated if he's guarded by 6'3-4 wings..they don't have to respect his driving ability and have the quickness to recover to him on the perimeter.. think if gant was that spot, very comparable quickness wise. Also I'm not convinced he's going to be able to guard opposing 3s. It really just makes sense all around for him to be a 4 and pinch 5.

 

[sycamorebacker]

Fair enough.. I don't think you should plan on him playing the 3 much. Lol Our roster makeup makes wayyy more sense for him to be a 4 and pinch 5 man. Plus everything I've seen says that's where he's best suited.

His strength is stretching the defense and that is negated if he's guarded by 6'3-4 wings..they don't have to respect his driving ability and have the quickness to recover to him on the perimeter.. think if gant was that spot, very comparable quickness wise. Also I'm not convinced he's going to be able to guard opposing 3s. It really just makes sense all around for him to be a 4 and pinch 5.

Sorry, but I don't agree with much of that. It's true that it will depend on who he can guard. As far as our roster, I see no need for a 4 or 5. I think he was added as an outside shooter (3). If he gets stronger his SR year, then we'll have to see.

 

[Southgrad07]

Sorry, but I don't agree with much of that. It's true that it will depend on who he can guard. As far as our roster, I see no need for a 4 or 5. I think he was added as an outside shooter (3). If he gets stronger his SR year, then we'll have to see.

Outside shooters don't necessary have a position, thus I don't see how that makes him a 3 just because he can shoot....but we'll agree to disagree here and see this fall.. As long as he's effective I could care less where he plays,just don't see him guarding people on the perimeter..

 

[SycamoreStateofMind]

I rarely agree with sycamorebaker but he is good for this forum, he has an opinion - he speaks it and he is usually respectful in doing so. We need more people like him.

For the record, I don't see this kid at the 3. We have seen what poor passing and ball handling do for this team in this offense. If he plays the 3 who you playing at the 4 and 5?? Murphy and Bell? Come on... That lineup will turn it over 35 times a game. It doesn't work with him at the 3.

 

[sycamorebacker]

I rarely agree with sycamorebaker but he is good for this forum, he has an opinion - he speaks it and he is usually respectful in doing so. We need more people like him.

For the record, I don't see this kid at the 3. We have seen what poor passing and ball handling do for this team in this offense. If he plays the 3 who you playing at the 4 and 5?? Murphy and Bell? Come on... That lineup will turn it over 35 times a game. It doesn't work with him at the 3.

For better or worse, I think Bell and Murphy are the 5's. MVS, KS, and BB are the 3-4. And, sometimes, a guard at 3. I don't understand how it could be any other way. Isn't it obvious?
I wouldn't predict much PT for NB now, anyway.

 

[sycamorebacker]

I rarely agree with sycamorebaker but he is good for this forum, he has an opinion - he speaks it and he is usually respectful in doing so. We need more people like him.

.

Thanks, but I don't know what we have disagreed about that much. I usually don't say anything that controversial; and I usually don't say anything that is wrong.

I think the main source of this discussion with Southgrad07 is that I think he is quicker than he does. It all boils down to that. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what his total skill set is to see if he can help us.

 

[SycamoreStateofMind]

Thanks, but I don't know what we have disagreed about that much. I usually don't say anything that controversial; and I usually don't say anything that is wrong.

I think the main source of this discussion with Southgrad07 is that I think he is quicker than he does. It all boils down to that. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what his total skill set is to see if he can help us.

I rest my case, your disagreeing with me about disagreeing.

It was a compliment more than anything, take it and run I don't hand them out often. It is good to have someone on this forum who offers a different perspective or opinion - thank you for sharing what you have to say.

 

[bigsportsfan]

For better or worse, I think Bell and Murphy are the 5's. MVS, KS, and BB are the 3-4. And, sometimes, a guard at 3. I don't understand how it could be any other way. Isn't it obvious?
I wouldn't predict much PT for NB now, anyway.

Why not? I know we only have a few old clips of him, and MVS is going to get a ton of minutes, but my hope is that he's better than what else we have.

 

[sycamorebacker]

Why not? I know we only have a few old clips of him, and MVS is going to get a ton of minutes, but my hope is that he's better than what else we have.

Did you watch any of the JUCO games? Given the 3 forwards we have, I don't think he will make a major contribution and I think we might be using 3 guards some.

 

[bluestreak]

I look at it this way. We traded a 6'5" small forward that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the outside, but with high upside and apparent attitude problems for a 6'9" forward that has a very good outside shot and whatever else you can glean from a 2 or 3 year old video. Its anybody's guess how it will turn out, but I'd take the trade.

 

[EvilleSycamore]

I guess call me old school, but a 6'9" or bigger needs to at least be able to play with his back to the basket I an not concerned if you call him a 3 or4or5. I did not see it a lot in the tapes he wanted to hang out a three point land. We had this issue last year with a 6'10" player who really wanted to be a 2 guard and put a hole in our rebounding when other teams had a big in the game. I really want to see versatility can do both inside and play big as it is needed or out and mobile. That hurt us a lot this past year trying to match up, and right now we are the team forced to match other teams style not other teams forced to match what we are playing. There are games bigs are the game and games quickness is. A guy who can do both is powerful in the MVC. I think similar to a 5'11". Guard against a 6'6" guard does not work. I also think Lansing may be thinking this is a bandaid for next year and maybe the year after knowing Bronson is going to redshirt. A lot of risk to play Bronson next year even if he says he is ahead of plan. Give him the redshirt to heal more learn the college game and come in strong. jus my thoughts

 

[sycamorebacker]

I guess call me old school, but a 6'9" or bigger needs to at least be able to play with his back to the basket I an not concerned if you call him a 3 or4or5.

It would be pretty stupid for a coach to play someone a certain position based on his height and disregarding his skill set.

 

[EvilleSycamore]

Missed the point Backer. I should have stated it the clips did not show much down low play just outside shooting highlights. And to your missed point so if size does not matter then let's start Puersuator or the new guard we just signed who is a defense specialist at center against Cotton when we play WSU. I don't want to fight about this so let's not. I just didn't see the typical skills a 6'9" or bigger player usually has developed down low simply cause it's not on the clips is all I ment.

 

[sycamorebacker]

Missed the point Backer. I should have stated it the clips did not show much down low play just outside shooting highlights. And to your missed point so if size does not matter then let's start Puersuator or the new guard we just signed who is a defense specialist at center against Cotton when we play WSU. I don't want to fight about this so let's not. I just didn't see the typical skills a 6'9" or bigger player usually has developed down low simply cause it's not on the clips is all I ment.

Sorry, still not sure about your point. But you're correct, he doesn't look like an inside guy to me. I guess we'll see if he can help. I still don't see much PT for him.

 

[sycamorebacker]

I guess call me old school, but a 6'9" or bigger needs to at least be able to play with his back to the basket I an not concerned if you call him a 3 or4or5.

Sorry I missed your point, but I am old school too. We might as well accept the fact that basketball has changed forever. Teams are not going to pound the ball inside for a 55% shot when they can shoot over 40% on the 3. Current players have practiced the 3 for many years now and they are making them like layups.
I think this kid was signed for his outside shooting. With Brown, Clemons, Smith and Burnett being only average outside threats; I think the desire was to bolster our 3 game.

 

[SycfromBirth]

Judging from his first year professional highlights from overseas, it appears that maybe we should have used him outside a little more.

 

[Jason Svoboda]

I'm sure we would have if Valley defenders would have given him 5-7 feet like those trash dudes did. I've seen better defense being played in the ISU rec center.

 

[BrokerZ]

Did Niels ever really play inside?