Future

[pinstripers]

We return a lot of talent (junior and above)..

above? No

[pie n eye]

above? No

JRS14 and the other Bush are both seniors. Might not be as talented but they are valuable leadership.

[pie n eye]

We seem to be on different pages.

The defense carried this year's team and was probably close to its ceiling, but the offense was not close at all. Especially in March, we saw offense that was only a hint of what it could have been if they truly reach their potential.

I'm not arguing next year's squad won't possibly win more games and maybe even make a deeper run. I'm arguing next year's ceiling can not possibly be considered as high as this past year's. There is no way to measure that precisely. It is an opinion. I just think it seems so wildly obvious that I'm amazed there are some here who actually disagree. It's like someone saying they predict Fred VanVleet will become the greatest NBA player of all time. I can't prove them wrong, but it just seems like a crazy opinion to hold.

STRAW MAN!

I don't want to argue the semantics of the word ceiling.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

It is not just semantics if we have an entirely different definition of the word. The whole debate hinges on what the word "ceiling" means. I took it one way. If Kennedy, or you, or anyone else took it another, that's fine. To me, ceiling means upper extent of potential. If we don't even agree on the definition of the word, then further conversation isn't going to be very fruitful.

[Steeleshocker]

I think both teams have the same ceiling.

National Title.

Is there any chance we could get a postseason exhibition against the Thunder? That might make for a possibly higher ceiling for this team. I mean, they are within a short bus ride.

[ShockingButTrue]

I could see Shamet and McDuffie becoming FVV and Bakeresque as a duo. Granted, they aren't exactly the same positions, but we'll see what happens.

Why not? 14.0 & 12.2 is not an unattainable number to be replaced, considering the group of players on hand next year.

My area of focus, as always, is who's gonna' crash the boards?

[AZ Shocker]

Any news on Shamet? Wondering if that vertical will come back and holding out hope for the young man.

[SB Shock]

I'm not arguing next year's squad won't possibly win more games and maybe even make a deeper run. I'm arguing next year's ceiling can not possibly be considered as high as this past year's. T

We know what the ceiling of last year team was - it got an play-in, at-large bid and won two games. If next year team has the potential to do better than that, then I would say their ceiling is higher than last year team. If you believe they can't do better than that, then I guess their ceiling is lower.

[AndShock]

Last year's team didn't hit their ceiling.

[wusphlash]

Any news on Shamet? Wondering if that vertical will come back and holding out hope for the young man.

Last seen at Cessna Stadium helping with the state track and field meet. He was responsible for replacing the crossbar for the pole vault. Vertical seemed pretty good.

[ShockingButTrue]

We know what the ceiling of last year team was - it got an play-in, at-large bid and won two games. If next year team has the potential to do better than that, then I would say their ceiling is higher than last year team. If you believe they can't do better than that, then I guess their ceiling is lower.

Nothing hypothetical about that.

[proshox]

It is not just semantics if we have an entirely different definition of the word. The whole debate hinges on what the word "ceiling" means. I took it one way. If Kennedy, or you, or anyone else took it another, that's fine. To me, ceiling means upper extent of potential. If we don't even agree on the definition of the word, then further conversation isn't going to be very fruitful.

Last year's offense was too weak to have a high ceiling. A lot of that is on the returning players being inconsistent, but I thinks HCGM and many others expect the offense to emerge during the upcoming season. The variability in HCGM's defense from year to year is very small; therefore, I think it is reasonable to hope for a higher ceiling.

[Cdizzle]

Last seen at Cessna Stadium helping with the state track and field meet. He was responsible for replacing the crossbar for the pole vault. Vertical seemed pretty good.

This is good posting.

[WSUwatcher]

Last year's team didn't hit their ceiling.

Exactly right, AndShock. The reason SB is wildly off the mark is that he doesn't know the difference between a result (what the Shockers actually achieved) and a ceiling (the result they COULD have achieved with their team intact, which it wasn't, as a consequence of which they didn't even approach their ceiling). I suppose you could make the case that they approached their ceiling with the team they actually DID end up having, and maybe that's what SB is really saying -- that your ceiling changes, rising or falling, as you lose guys or get them back. But that's a pretty idiosyncratic definition for "ceiling," and besides, after watching those games against the UNIs and IllSt, I don't even believe last year's team really reached their ever-changing ceiling as dictated by who they actually had at any given time.

As for the "Future," to quote the thread title, I've said it before and will say it again: next year's Shocks don't have to be better than this season's team to have a better record -- just healthier. If this past season's team had enjoyed the illness / injury luck of The Undefeateds two seasons earlier, they have been a lot better than 26-9, and they'd have only needed to win twice (not 3x) to make it to the NCAA second weekend, which they probably would have done, if not beyond.

So next year's team could easily win 27 or 28 and still not be as "good," in the sense of not having as much theoretical potential, as the 2015-16 bunch. But after watching life under the Marshall regime, I'm not prepared to assume they won't be as "good," either. Better size in the rotation, better shooting potential, real defensive potential with guys like DShamet, McD, and maybe Keyser too. l

[ShockingButTrue]

I too, from looking at past success under Marshall, think the '17 team could eclipse '16's highest point. It's been a long time since we've had 4 top 100 recruits (even Z. Brown was) on the same team. The '13 team had one. The '14 team had one.

Would I wager on it? No.

Would I be surprised? No. It's not out of the question. And there are some pollsters out there who agree.