Player Development

[hskr4life]

1 hour ago, JeffsBBall said:

 

Creighton actually is a bigger game than our conference games for many other reasons.  The biggest one is that it is the first clear sign for the fans of this state which program is better than the other in a given year.  Then, a coach's record over a bigger sample (like 7 years) is a clear indicator of if his program has exceeded Creighton's over time.  

 

The great and bad thing about having Creighton around is that it's an accurate barometer of the state of NU's program.  Mile's has been abysmal at beating them, and sure enough the cracks in the program are now so bad that it all makes sense.  If Miles were 5-2 against Creighton over 7 years, he'd probably still have a job in 2 weeks.  Not because of his record vs Creighton, but because if you had a program capable of 5-2, you probably wouldn't be in the position you're in right now.

 

We should, at the very minimum, beat Creighton 50% of the time.  There is no reason for their dominance over us.  We have better a opportunity to build a program than they do, not the other way around.

 

 

I almost stopped reading at “Bigger game than our conference games.”  However, I kept reading to see if you made some valid points.  The whole post reads “it’s bigger than conference games because we should beat Creighton and we haven’t.”  Unfortunately, I just don’t see it, but to each their own.

[royalfan]

Well I certainly can promise you that Creighton takes the game more seriously than they do a majority of their conference games.  They have traditionally displayed much better defensive gameplans and played harder defensively than they have in their league games.   On the flip side, we sure haven't treated it as such.  

 

Hskr4life is correct from the standpoint it isn't as important as a conference game as our team has sure as hell not treated like it is.  

 

JeffsBall is correct from the standpoint that it absolutely should be treated as a more important game than a conference game.  

 

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what is considered the bigger game.  The Creighton game is a big deal.  It is time we win our fair share of them.  

Edited March 4, 2019 by royalfan

[royalfan]

Back on the subject of player development.  I agree with the OP that our staff has been very bad at this.  When it is always said how hard it can be to recruit here, then we sure as hell need the players we are getting to get better while they are here.  It is a hard thing to quantify and I hope that the decision makers have a good idea of the importance of this and can identify someone that is good at it.  If we don't get a brand name coach, this box needs to be checked.  I don't think it was a strength of any of our recent coaches.  

[jimmykc]

I think Shavon Shields and Tai Webster are examples of players who improved and developed during their times here although they could also be the "exceptions to the rule" which  may always be found.

[kldm64]

2 hours ago, jimmykc said:

I think Shavon Shields and Tai Webster are examples of players who improved and developed during their times here although they could also be the "exceptions to the rule" which  may always be found.

 

Those are both good examples but if those are the only 2 players over the past 7 years that have developed and improved under Miles (those are all I can think of as well), that is not a good sign. 

Edited March 4, 2019 by kldm64

[Silverbacked1]

I know that the red arrows are going to be coming fast and furious after this next sentence but here goes...

 

We as a collective group of fans have also been looking through rose colored glasses and the guys we have aren't really as good as we think or feel they are.

 

I have been really watching since I started knowing that Miles is gone.  I really have my doubts about how good these guys really are?

 

Truthfully how many of our starters replace starters on the teams that are the first 4 teams in the league?

 

We could just be fooling ourselves... maybe.

[brfrad]

16 minutes ago, Silverbacked1 said:

I know that the red arrows are going to be coming fast and furious after this next sentence but here goes...

 

We as a collective group of fans have also been looking through rose colored glasses and the guys we have aren't really as good as we think or feel they are.

 

I have been really watching since I started knowing that Miles is gone.  I really have my doubts about how good these guys really are?

 

Truthfully how many of our starters replace starters on the teams that are the first 4 teams in the league?

 

We could just be fooling ourselves... maybe.

The same could be said last year, yet we finished 4th with the same starting 5 minus Gill/Taylor.  The players are good.  The problem is mental.  And, I feel this team is not mentally strong.  You can see things snowball when shots aren't falling, or they get down early.  That might lead to the theory of why the team played well in the non-conference with Riggins help early on.  Then, they lose Copeland and things go downhill fast, and Riggins was no longer around.  

 

 

 

 

[dustystehl]

Our guys become better athletes, but not necessarily better basketball players.