Jump to content

Another Poll: Where is the Breakdown?


Where is the breakdown?  

52 members have voted

  1. 1. Which element are we most lacking?

    • Talent. We have some good players but we just don't have enough thoroughbreds and it seems like nearly every one of our guys has a big hole in their game. We just don't have Big Ten level players up and down the rotation.
      21
    • Scheme. Fred's small-ball, NBA approach might have worked in the Big 12, but the pace-and-space approach where we're giving up size and rebounding doesn't fit the Big Ten.
      10
    • Coaching (applying scheme to talent.) We have way more talent than our win/loss record would suggest and the scheme is also better than the results. We're just not executing.
      21


Recommended Posts

I've said this before (and I'm probably not the first person to come up with this idea) but I think there are three dimensions to success in a team sport: talent, scheme, and the ability of the coach to apply the scheme to the talent.

 

What "talent" means is pretty self-evident. It's a combination of skill and athleticism, apropos to a particular sport, position or athletic endeavor.

 

Scheme is the structure given to the strategy and philosophy of the coach.

 

Application of scheme to the talent could also be called "coaching" but it relates specifically to that portion of the coach's job outside of recruiting and scheming. It involves educating players on their role within the scheme, training them, drilling them, motivating them, and leading them so that the players you have execute the scheme you've chosen.

 

You might also call this last factor "leadership" because leadership encompasses all the elements of training, educating, developing, motivating, etc.

 

So, our record speaks for itself. There's a breakdown here somewhere. At least one of the legs of this three-legged stool is failing to function optimally.

 

Where is the biggest breakdown occurring? Is our biggest limitation talent? Is it scheme? Is it leadership/coaching?

 

Thoughts, folks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, I know.   That was a tongue in cheek response, attempting at least some levity.   And, to be clear, I think it is a bigtime failure in all 3 areas.   But because you made me choose, I picked #1.   We have only a couple of guys who could start on most Big 10 teams, at most.   Our talent level is consistently overrated on here, due to recruiting rankings.   Those don't mean they are really that good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, HB said:

And, to be clear, I think it is a bigtime failure in all 3 areas. 

I agreed with your entire post, but want to highlight this sentence because this is what I would have chose if it was an option. Since we had to pick though I went with Coaching. Lazy play, bad shots, poor spacing, quitter mentality, not calling timeouts appropriately (or at all), seemingly no consequences for continual questionable decisions, your super senior player calling you out on the radio, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HB said:

I know, I know.   That was a tongue in cheek response, attempting at least some levity.   And, to be clear, I think it is a bigtime failure in all 3 areas.   But because you made me choose, I picked #1.   We have only a couple of guys who could start on most Big 10 teams, at most.   Our talent level is consistently overrated on here, due to recruiting rankings.   Those don't mean they are really that good. 

 

I hear ya, but see what Wyoming is doing with a buncha nobodies who are at least on the same page.

 

I'm not saying our talent level is great. But even Doc Sadler could take the mighty-mites and nearly get them into the NCAA tourney.

 

Is the problem the talent? Or in whose hands the talent is being developed? Would Kevin Cross be playing as well if he'd stayed here? Is there any reason for us to think that he would be given what we've seen of the other players on this roster? I really question it.

 

We've got the opposite of synergy going on here: the whole is WAY less than the sum of the parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nearly impossible to only pick one response, but I went with #2 barely over #1 - the talent is way overrated, but it is good enough to have won a couple of conference games by now. The scheme/system is an utter and complete failure. Either FH just got lucky at ISU and he's always been overrated or FH's time in the NBA altered his approach/philosophy so much that he can't "unsee" what he's seen.

 

Either way, he is not the guy and is about to stubborn his way right out of a job. And why not - even if the buyout gets reduced, he has set his family up for life.

 

Dammit - I hate this so much. I would have bet a lot of money that this was going to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going with talent as the biggest offender, because just about everyone on our roster has glaring weaknesses. We have two potential stars that can improve through coaching (Bryce and Verge) and one well-rounded but not star quality player (Trey).  Other than that, we have a bunch of one-dimensional players or guys with huge holes in their ability.

 

Our shooters are all incredibly slow footed on defense and have very little ability around the rim -- Lat, Keisei, and Wilcher

Our starting Big is too small to effectively guard opposing centers -- DW

Our backup Big fouls so much that he can't play starter's minutes even if he were to earn the job -- Ed

 

The majority of our rotation is filled with guys that don't have the physical ability to play their role well on a consistent basis.  That tells me that talent identification is our #1 problem.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

I hear ya, but see what Wyoming is doing with a buncha nobodies who are at least on the same page.

 

I'm not saying our talent level is great. But even Doc Sadler could take the mighty-mites and nearly get them into the NCAA tourney.

 

Is the problem the talent? Or in whose hands the talent is being developed? Would Kevin Cross be playing as well if he'd stayed here? Is there any reason for us to think that he would be given what we've seen of the other players on this roster? I really question it.

 

We've got the opposite of synergy going on here: the whole is WAY less than the sum of the parts.

All good points.    However, I think Wyoming has more talent compared to the rest of its league, then we do compared to the rest of our league.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Huskerpapa said:

I voted #2. 

But i do believe there is a #4.  Character and effort.  Not just the players but the staff as well.  The team (coaches and players) lack focus, effort, basketball IQ, et al, to do the little things that is required to be winners.  

 

I would fold this into #3.

 

When I was going through leadership training in the Army many decades ago, I remember learning about great leaders and the attributes that made them great.

 

Getting players to buy-in is a responsibility of leadership. Setting a standard and enforcing it is a responsibility of leadership. Motivating your troops to accomplish the mission is a responsibility of leadership.

 

I was always told there's no such thing as bad soldiers, only bad leaders.

 

If there's a lack of focus or effort or commitment to doing the little things to be successful, that is totally a fault of the leaders under #3, in my opinion.

 

I kind of envisioned #3 to include everything a coach should be, know and do to get his players to execute his plan to the best of their talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

I'm going with talent as the biggest offender, because just about everyone on our roster has glaring weaknesses. We have two potential stars that can improve through coaching (Bryce and Verge) and one well-rounded but not star quality player (Trey).  Other than that, we have a bunch of one-dimensional players or guys with huge holes in their ability.

 

Our shooters are all incredibly slow footed on defense and have very little ability around the rim -- Lat, Keisei, and Wilcher

Our starting Big is too small to effectively guard opposing centers -- DW

Our backup Big fouls so much that he can't play starter's minutes even if he were to earn the job -- Ed

 

The majority of our rotation is filled with guys that don't have the physical ability to play their role well on a consistent basis.  That tells me that talent identification is our #1 problem.  

 

That's what happens when you put a glad-handing schmoozer who doesn't really know the game in charge of assembling your roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

I hear ya, but see what Wyoming is doing with a buncha nobodies who are at least on the same page.

 

I'm not saying our talent level is great. But even Doc Sadler could take the mighty-mites and nearly get them into the NCAA tourney.

 

Is the problem the talent? Or in whose hands the talent is being developed? Would Kevin Cross be playing as well if he'd stayed here? Is there any reason for us to think that he would be given what we've seen of the other players on this roster? I really question it.

 

We've got the opposite of synergy going on here: the whole is WAY less than the sum of the parts.

 

I responded to this notion in another thread.  Doc coached a lot of highly talented perimeter defenders.  They were smaller than we have now, but they were much more talented and intuitive defenders.  They loved defense as much as offense.  

 

We don't currently have the physical strength in the front court or backcourt to wear down opposing D1 athletes on either end.  I think Keita and Lloyd are bringing B1G bodies with them which will be helpful.  Wilhelm will also be a very good front court player with a little more strength.  Fred's offensive scheme should work with a competent PG.

 

The problem with our roster is that we don't have the ability to send out a group of five DOGS to play defense.  We literally have Trey and a bunch of guys who were brought here for their okay shooting.  No one else is an above average defender.  That's crazy.  If you swap out a couple of our current starters with great defenders who are good enough on offense, I think it's a completely different team.  So I still think roster is the #1 problem.

 

The 1a problem is an obvious and complete lack of accountability for the effort of players.  We have assistant coaches who want to cuss kids out for their shit effort and lack of toughness in practice and aren't allowed to do so.  This is something Fred has to change about himself.  Tom Osborne used to leave the room and let McBride rip them to shreds.  TO knew the importance of having disciplinarians on staff if his gentle, articulated approach didn't break through.  It's an enormous problem, and it's not the first time Fred has had is own player go public with it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, it all boils down to coaching. They're not bringing enough talent or not developing the guys they brought in. They're not teaching the offensive/defensive schemes properly or not holding guys accountable in practice to make sure that their schemes work. They're not putting guys in the best position to succeed or forcing them to grind in practice.

 

95% of D-1 coaching staffs would have this team at better than 6-16/0-11 ... and that's probably lowballing the percentage. And I'm sure roughly that same percentage of coaching staffs would not have assembled this roster this way, either in terms of personnel or in terms of the way one person primarily handles putting the roster together, because of the huge number of holes that should've been obvious to anyone who studied the film on this group of players and/or has had some of them in practice for a year or two.

 

At least we always have the memories of the Colorado game.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty ironic that so many choose coaching and specifically reference how Doc Sadler got so much out of his "mighty mites" when Doc Sadler is literally on this staff right now

 

The answer is talent and its not even close.  Does anyone really believe Fred's "scheme/system" cannot work if it has the right collection of players to run it?  Seriously?

 

And as for coaching, apparently when Fred went to 4 straight NCAA appearances and a sweet sixteen that was purely by happenstance.  Fred's coaching had nothing to do with it.  In fact, those players got there in spite of Fred and his massive incompetence.  Amazing!

 

Edited by NUdiehard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fullbacksympathy said:

 

The 1a problem is an obvious and complete lack of accountability for the effort of players.  We have assistant coaches who want to cuss kids out for their shit effort and lack of toughness in practice and aren't allowed to do so.  This is something Fred has to change about himself.  Tom Osborne used to leave the room and let McBride rip them to shreds.  TO knew the importance of having disciplinarians on staff if his gentle, articulated approach didn't break through.  It's an enormous problem, and it's not the first time Fred has had is own player go public with it.  

 

You have said this a couple of times now.  Do you have any proof of this?  How do you know this as a fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NUdiehard said:

Pretty ironic that so many choose coaching and specifically reference how Doc Sadler got so much out of his "mighty mites" when Doc Sadler is literally on this staff right now

 

The answer is talent and its not even close.  Does anyone really believe Fred's "scheme/system" cannot work if it has the right collection of players to run it?  Seriously?

 

And as for coaching, apparently when Fred went to 4 straight NCAA appearances and a sweet sixteen that was purely by happenstance.  Fred's coaching had nothing to do with it.  In fact, those players got there in spite of Fred and his massive incompetence.  Amazing!

 

So coaching ability is a constant that never changes? One can never get better or worse apparently. Amazing! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NUdiehard said:

Pretty ironic that so many choose coaching and specifically reference how Doc Sadler got so much out of his "mighty mites" when Doc Sadler is literally on this staff right now

 

The answer is talent and its not even close.  Does anyone really believe Fred's "scheme/system" cannot work if it has the right collection of players to run it?  Seriously?

 

And as for coaching, apparently when Fred went to 4 straight NCAA appearances and a sweet sixteen that was purely by happenstance.  Fred's coaching had nothing to do with it.  In fact, those players got there in spite of Fred and his massive incompetence.  Amazing!

 

 

You say that as though Doc Sadler has ANY control over this team or how it plays.

 

You've gone on record wanting to blame Doc (whom you apparently hold more responsible than Fred for some reason) for the team's lack of success even though he's not even an assistant coach and doesn't have any coaching responsibilities. At all.

 

Or, we can play your game of "prove it" like you did in your next post upthread and you can explain what involvement in coaching you think Doc has and how it is you know this as fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talent: with a *caveat*
1. If you’re not here to win a B1G Title this isn’t the place for you. Our goal should be competing for B1G Titles, if that’s not the goal every year what’s the point? I don’t care about our History or winning “one” Tournament game, those are losers laments.

2. If you don’t understand when you pull on that Red jersey you’re representing everyone from Scottsbluff to Fall City this probably isn’t the place for you either. If those sound like silly antiquated notions so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, NUdiehard said:

The answer is talent and its not even close.  Does anyone really believe Fred's "scheme/system" cannot work if it has the right collection of players to run it?  Seriously?


if this is true, then you would have to agree that our highest paid assistant in program history, whose only real responsibility is recruiting, has been a catastrophic failure in his job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Norm Peterson said:


if this is true, then you would have to agree that our highest paid assistant in program history, whose only real responsibility is recruiting, has been a catastrophic failure in his job.

It's been a massive failure. I can see why st John's was a struggle with Mullin despite the talent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...