Nebraska's 1-3-1

[basketballjones]

@Dean Smith Care to provide a breakdown? It certainly didn't seem like a conventional 1-3-1. I couldn't rewind or replay any of it - what was the traditional personnel formation?

 

What seemed unique about it was how much roaming room Jacobson had in the middle. Seemed like he was asked to do a lot and performed admirably in it. It was a very high extended 1-3-1 also. 

 

Edit: NO, I DONT THINK THIS SHOULD BE IN THE POST GAME CHATTER DISCUSSION BECAUSE ITS GOING TO BE SOMETHING WE SEE IN THE FUTURE. 

Edited January 1, 2017 by basketballjones

[royalfan]

I am looking forward to watching this back and checking out our defense in more detail as it has me curious as well. 

[throwback]

Agree on it being a bit different - so many teams trap aggressively out of 1-3-1, but seems like we are looking more to deflect passes out of it. With our length, that's not a bad way to operate out of it though. MD got some open looks against it, but seemed hesitant, it definitely threw off their timing and offensive flow. And it seemed like we rebounded out of it pretty well, which is always a concern.

 

Miles mentioned Xavier's coach helped them figure out the nuances - I assume this summer - but they didn't put it in till after Gill's injury. I think we used it one possession vs Indiana and they got a bucket against it. But it was the perfect antidote to MD's big run today.

Edited January 1, 2017 by throwback

[Bugeaters1]

At the half of the Iowa Michigan game the halftime report talked about the 1-3-1. One guy don't know who it was had the opinion that the Huskers shouldn't abandon it. He thought that it was the turning point in the second half.

[aphilso1]

Well it worked, therefore it was great coaching. 

 

In seriousness, there were some things that looked odd to me, too.  We didn't jump as many passing lanes as I'd expect to see in a 1-3-1.  Also, particularly when Maryland passed out on the wings, I felt like our opposite wing didn't pinch inside enough.  That left the center with a lot of real estate to cover.  Placing Ed in the "warrior"/man-under-the hoop role was interesting.  He didn't cover nearly as much ground as I've seen that defensive position traditionally cover in a 1-3-1.  Instead, he kinda stayed home more, which kept him as a shot blocking and rebounding threat.  So there were definitely some principles that were different than what I was taught in a 1-3-1.  But who knows, that may have been what confounded the Terps so much, since it was likely different than anything they'd ever seen before.

[HuskerBB]

Yes we do play this differently than I would have seen before.  I think the main reason it worked today was Maryland simply was not prepared for it.  As Miles said in his postgame this is now something teams will put in their game prep and we need to take that into account.  I don't see the 1-3-1 ever working as our base defense but it is interesting to have it to throw in once in a while.  The other point Miles made in the postgame was that he does not think our personnel fits a 2-3 zone very well - which is why he went looking into the 1-3-1.  I do think he maybe views it as a primary zone option for now anyway with this team.

 

[rr52]

I've always been a fan of switching defenses. Even if it just for a possession or two. Gives the other team something to work on. And even if you only have 1 guy on other team get confused it helps. And maybe Miles thought why not try it. Huerter was killing it from 3 and that 1 possession he stepped in and shot jumper from just behind elbow and missed. And maybe that got his mind to wondering instead of shooting. Had a coach tell me years ago the best way to slow down a talented player is to make him think. That split second of thinking can be huge.

[basketballjones]

11 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

Well it worked, therefore it was great coaching. 

 

In seriousness, there were some things that looked odd to me, too.  We didn't jump as many passing lanes as I'd expect to see in a 1-3-1.  Also, particularly when Maryland passed out on the wings, I felt like our opposite wing didn't pinch inside enough.  That left the center with a lot of real estate to cover.  Placing Ed in the "warrior"/man-under-the hoop role was interesting.  He didn't cover nearly as much ground as I've seen that defensive position traditionally cover in a 1-3-1.  Instead, he kinda stayed home more, which kept him as a shot blocking and rebounding threat.  So there were definitely some principles that were different than what I was taught in a 1-3-1.  But who knows, that may have been what confounded the Terps so much, since it was likely different than anything they'd ever seen before.

Ok that's what I was wondering - Ed being on the bottom changes a lot. Typically, you put a quicker guard on the bottom that's tasked with going corner to corner. 

 

So I'm guessing the way the thwart leaving corner 3's open was Jacobson showing on the wing allowing our wings to recover? 

[Dean Smith]

Ed, on the baseline, stayed at the basket allowing Jacobson to play up to and slightly beyond the FT line in the middle. Maryland didn't look to get it there a lot but it looked like our wings went all the way out to the baseline corner which is usually the baseline runner's responsibility. They did not look to trap but tried to get into the passing lanes which confused Maryland. At times they didn't seem to know where to go with the ball. With our length and sagging into the passing lanes, it took away the traditional skip passes that you use to attack a 1-3-1 with. I know it is a completely different level but if anyone ever saw Syracuse (that's the town in Nebraska not the university in New York) when they were on their state tourney runs, that is the way they played the 1-3-1. This isn't something you can play the majority of a game, especially against good perimeter shooting teams but it's was a great offspeed pitch that got us over the finish line. I would continue to use it sparingly as the year goes on in conjunction with the other zone they have played this year. If nothing else, its something that takes up opponents practice time to prepare for us.

[aphilso1]

3 minutes ago, basketballjones said:

Ok that's what I was wondering - Ed being on the bottom changes a lot. Typically, you put a quicker guard on the bottom that's tasked with going corner to corner. 

 

So I'm guessing the way the thwart leaving corner 3's open was Jacobson showing on the wing allowing our wings to recover? 

 

Honestly, I think Maryland just wasn't prepared to attack the zone.  They could have tried attacking the corners, because it wasn't clear which of our players was responsible for the corners.  It clearly wasn't Ed, and he was playing the position that would usually have that responsibility.  I don't recall Maryland passing into the corners much, but if they did I would think that our ball-side wing would shift down to the ballhandler, and the center (Jacobson) would temporarily come up and out to the area vacated by the on-ball defender.  But our opposite-side wing didn't really help inside much, so that would leave a giant hole in the middle.  That forces the warrior/rover (Ed) to step up, leaving a huge gap for Princeton-style backdoor cuts.

 

I think the game tape will show that the way to beat our zone is to work the offense through the corners, and make the player in the center of our zone decide whether to stay home or cover the wing.  Kind of like how we destroyed Indiana's 2-3 by running the offense through the high post.

[rr52]

A hs coach who liked to run a 1-3-1 said the best way to attack it is at the elbows because you are forcing 3 guys to make a decision. If those 3 aren't working in sync or understanding  what others are doing it can leave people wide open. Before the 3 pointer was introduced teams would pack it in with 2-1-2 or 1-2-2 defenses and force teams to beat them with long 2 pointers. But If you noticed when Roby got ball versus Indiana he created problems with his length and ability to put ball on floor creating openings in the zone or finding open outside shot. A zone needs to be attacked from inside out.

[Huskerpapa]

Maybe this was mentioned elsewhere, but in his post-game Coach Miles specifically gave credit to Coach Chris Mack from Xavier for his 1-3-1 philosophy.  And in a subliminal message he provided credit to posters on Husker Hoops Central for their very valuable input

 

Edited January 1, 2017 by huskercwg

[HuskerFever]

1-3-1, 2-2-1, 1-2-2, 2-1-2...whatever the formation, it takes 5 players working together to pull out a win in Big Ten play. We are gelling!

[Huskerpapa]

1 hour ago, HuskerFever said:

1-3-1, 2-2-1, 1-2-2, 2-1-2...whatever the formation, it takes 5 players working together to pull out a win in Big Ten play. We are gelling!

I am not 100% convinced this is accurate.  Not at all trying to be argumentative, especially with your take that it takes 5 players working together.  That is very true.  But Coach Miles specifically stated he did not believe our players fit into a 2-3 zone.  He stated he and his staff knew the 1-3-1 would be the better fit.  And after some debate Coach Lewis suggested that Coach Miles contact Xavier.  The defense was first practiced on December 26th.

[HuskerFever]

9 minutes ago, huskercwg said:

I am not 100% convinced this is accurate.  Not at all trying to be argumentative, especially with your take that it takes 5 players working together.  That is very true.  But Coach Miles specifically stated he did not believe our players fit into a 2-3 zone.  He stated he and his staff knew the 1-3-1 would be the better fit.  And after some debate Coach Lewis suggested that Coach Miles contact Xavier.  The defense was first practiced on December 26th.

 

I'm really curious to see how it will play out throughout the season. I'm sure coaches will put in some 1-3-1 reps in preparation for us going forward.

[Huskerone]

I would think giving a team additional things to prepare for against us can't be bad.  Show it just enough to make'em think.

[KZRider]

In his postgame BTN interview Miles says they put the 1-3-1 in after Gill went down. Perhaps someone has an idea why that mattered. Or perhaps it was just a coincidence of timing.

[MandRHusker]

14 minutes ago, KZRider said:

In his postgame BTN interview Miles says they put the 1-3-1 in after Gill went down. Perhaps someone has an idea why that mattered. Or perhaps it was just a coincidence of timing.

In that same segment didn't Miles also say that without Gill we would lose quickness/be a step slower on defense? Thus the zone idea. That was my take.

[hhcmatt]

16 hours ago, MandRHusker said:

In that same segment didn't Miles also say that without Gill we would lose quickness/be a step slower on defense? Thus the zone idea. That was my take.

 

Yes. Thought we lost some speed defending without Gill on the court. They put it in the day after Gill was injured.

[hhcmatt]

21 hours ago, Dean Smith said:

Ed, on the baseline, stayed at the basket allowing Jacobson to play up to and slightly beyond the FT line in the middle. Maryland didn't look to get it there a lot but it looked like our wings went all the way out to the baseline corner which is usually the baseline runner's responsibility. They did not look to trap but tried to get into the passing lanes which confused Maryland. At times they didn't seem to know where to go with the ball. With our length and sagging into the passing lanes, it took away the traditional skip passes that you use to attack a 1-3-1 with. I know it is a completely different level but if anyone ever saw Syracuse (that's the town in Nebraska not the university in New York) when they were on their state tourney runs, that is the way they played the 1-3-1. This isn't something you can play the majority of a game, especially against good perimeter shooting teams but it's was a great offspeed pitch that got us over the finish line. I would continue to use it sparingly as the year goes on in conjunction with the other zone they have played this year. If nothing else, its something that takes up opponents practice time to prepare for us.

 

 

Tai at the top, Ed in the post. 

You can read about Xavier's version of the 1-3-1 here.

 

The reason it fits us so well is that our rebounding center is basically a forward and Tai has the length to pick up guys at half court. Taylor might work in a pinch at the basket and I could see Roby filling in for Tai here.

 

I don't think we'll see this much at all vs Iowa or especially Northwestern as they'd pick it apart.

[Dean Smith]

12 minutes ago, hhcdimes said:

 

 

Tai at the top, Ed in the post. 

You can read about Xavier's version of the 1-3-1 here.

 

The reason it fits us so well is that our rebounding center is basically a forward and Tai has the length to pick up guys at half court. Taylor might work in a pinch at the basket and I could see Roby filling in for Tai here.

 

I don't think we'll see this much at all vs Iowa or especially Northwestern as they'd pick it apart.

The write up is written at a fan level and doesn't get into too many technical details. It doesn't mention who guards in the corner. It does talk about cover downs but not it's basic post defense principles. I'm sure Miles got a much more detailed report from Xavier. ?

[rr52]

Wahoo and coach Kevin Scheef use a lot of 1-3-1 and have had success with it. Somehow they make it look like cross court pass is open but get a kid to step in front and steal it. Humphery St. Francis and coach Eric Kessler use it and are so quick that when someone tries to penetrate they tip the ball away or get dribbler in a bad position that creates turnover. Both teams use their athleticism and fundamental skill set to their advantage. I realize I'm talking high school and they don't have the length and athleticism that division one schools have but they have adavantage (I believe) because most schools play man-to-man at high school level in Nebraska. Teams may have played a lot of games seeing strictly man-to-man and all of a sudden they are playing against a well run 1-3-1 and struggle because their scout team doesn't imitate it even close. Sorry to turn this into a high school thread.