Hoiberg's "Scheme"

[NUdiehard]

Many of you have suggested that you do not think Hoiberg's "Scheme" can work in the B1G.  Honest question.  What do you mean by this? 

 

In order to answer this, I think you first need to describe what you think Hoiberg's scheme is, and then explain why you think it could maybe work in a different conference (such as the Big 12), but not in the B1G.  And does your definition of "scheme" include the type of players Hoiberg recruits? 

Edited February 25, 2022 by NUdiehard

[Art Vandalay]

23 minutes ago, NUdiehard said:

Many of you have suggested that you do not think Hoiberg's "Scheme" can work in the B1G.  Honest question.  What do you mean by this? 

 

In order to answer this, I think you first need to describe what you think Hoiberg's scheme is, and then explain why you think it could maybe work in a different conference (such as the Big 12), but not in the B1G.  And does your definition of "scheme" include the type's of players Hoiberg recruits? 

I personally do not believe that. When we have guys actually moving without the ball and looking for others we normally get good shots. It’s more about execution to me or more like complete lack of execution. Also I think our offense would look a lot better if we actually played defense and rebounded.  Taking the ball out of the net all the time really helps the other teams defense.

[nustudent]

16 minutes ago, Art Vandalay said:

I personally do not believe that. When we have guys actually moving without the ball and looking for others we normally get good shots. It’s more about execution to me or more like complete lack of execution. Also I think our offense would look a lot better if we actually played defense and rebounded.  Taking the ball out of the net all the time really helps the other teams defense.

I agree with this.   

 

I think the problem is as much about personnel as it is anything.  Ultimately if rolls up to Fred...but if you have a good point guard and leader who can keep the offense moving rather than simple freelancing when things get tough...things would look a lot different.

Edited February 25, 2022 by nustudent

[HuskerFever]

Notice how reliant they are on the outside shot in these plays (especially in Big Ten play):

 

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by HuskerFever

[HuskerFever]

Pace and Space, positionless basketball, etc.

 

http://www.dailynebraskan.com/sports/fred-hoiberg-s-pace-and-space-offense-part-one-guards-and-pace/article_4c7ff3f8-f07a-11e9-bc24-033eca86a0a0.html

[aphilso1]

The offensive scheme is not the problem.  The problem is that too many of our guys aren't able to execute the scheme, and therefore the disadvantages we have on the defensive end of the floor outweigh our advantages on the offensive end. 

 

We knew that we would get outrebounded most nights and that the opposing team's bigs would fill the stat sheet against us.  Granted, I don't think any of us realized how bad the team's effort would be, and thus just how big those disadvantages would be.  But ultimately I think most of us expected to be a below average defensive and rebounding team.  What really hurts us is that we don't do the things this system was built to do -- make outside shots.  We are at 30.6% from three on the year.  That's 315th out of 358 teams, and that's the thing we were supposed to do well.  if we actually could make outside shots at a high enough clip, the other teams would have to respond to that.  They'd need to pull bigs off the court and sub in smaller, quicker defenders to keep up. Being better at our own scheme would actually help us stink less at our shortcomings, because the other team couldn't just throw out lineups that beat us up inside and kick out for open threes.  But instead we're terrible at the things our system is built around, which means the other team can be 100% the aggressor and stick with their preferred rotation.  They never have to react to what we are doing.

 

None of that is a scheme shortcoming.  Every scheme has its advantages and disadvantages, and ours is no different.  The thing that is different about us is being so inexplicably awful at the things we were supposed to be good at.  Maybe that's a talent identification problem, or maybe it's an issue of recruiting talented kids that are a bad fit.  Not sure it really matters, because either way that falls on the coaches when it's Year 3 of not being able to run your own system.

Edited February 25, 2022 by aphilso1

[Handy Johnson]

1 hour ago, NUdiehard said:

Many of you have suggested that you do not think Hoiberg's "Scheme" can work in the B1G.  Honest question.  What do you mean by this? 

 

In order to answer this, I think you first need to describe what you think Hoiberg's scheme is, and then explain why you think it could maybe work in a different conference (such as the Big 12), but not in the B1G.  And does your definition of "scheme" include the type of players Hoiberg recruits? 

His scheme had a name: Royce White 

[HuskerFever]

12 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

We knew that we would get outrebounded most nights and that the opposing team's bigs would fill the stat sheet against us.

 

If you concede on losing the rebound battle every game, you better hope you shoot lights out, win the turnover battle, and take advantage of the foul line.

 

There's a low margin of error if you can't shoot that night.

[cipsucks]

Scheme schmeme.  Moe Iba's offensive scheme was right out of Hoosiers.  He had Jerry Shoecraft passing up wide open 15 footers to get Jack Moore a chance to get to the foul line.  Yet he never sniffed 20 losses in a season.  It's all about heart.  His 6'7" centers not only held their own, but actually kicked ass.  I realize it's different today, but this team has shown no heart.  Is that a reflection of the head coach, the assistants or the players on the roster?  We will find out next year.

[hhcmatt]

Is the punchline here that Fred Hoiberg didn't think his scheme was working mid-season so he changed it?

[Handy Johnson]

1 hour ago, HuskerFever said:

 

If you concede on losing the rebound battle every game, you better hope you shoot lights out, win the turnover battle, and take advantage of the foul line.

 

There's a low margin of error if you can't shoot that night.

Or any night…

[thrasher31]

I personally think regardless of the scheme you run, as long as the execution is there you can succeed with it.

 

Defensively, I'd say our scheme is too force turnovers due to being a glass deficit team. The caveat with that, you NEED to take care of the ball. They've struggled in that department. So there's why the defense is a mess. 

 

On offense I'd say in a perfect world, we move the ball around the court to get the best shot possible. Whether it be off dribble drives or dump offs. Also, play with some urgency. The issue for this during the season, the ball has stuck far too often. So I'd say execution has fallen short here. Which led to a more low post/high post oriented offense. At least, that was the idea. I personally really like Fred's offense and think it could be successful. Just needs to be executed. Ball can't stick like it has this year. That's at least how I see things.  

[Norm Peterson]

2 hours ago, hhcmatt said:

Is the punchline here that Fred Hoiberg didn't think his scheme was working mid-season so he changed it?

The punchline here is that it would be easier to assess Fred’s scheme if his players actually followed it.

[BannedAccount]

Dont think the scheme works.  Much like Frost if you arent out recruiting your opponents like Ohio St, it isnt going to work.  I thought it may, but the reality is you need a dominant post player much like you need a dominant run game in fb in this conference.  Unless you are getting elite shooters I find it hard to believe Fred's scheme will work.  Especially when you are getting out rebounded almost every night.  

[brfrad]

30 minutes ago, coughunter said:

Dont think the scheme works.  Much like Frost if you arent out recruiting your opponents like Ohio St, it isnt going to work.  I thought it may, but the reality is you need a dominant post player much like you need a dominant run game in fb in this conference.  Unless you are getting elite shooters I find it hard to believe Fred's scheme will work.  Especially when you are getting out rebounded almost every night.  

Imagine replacing Walker with Roby.  I bet it would make the scheme look like a well oiled machine.  There's a reason Roby is getting playing time in the NBA.

 

Another need for this scheme is a PG

 

Here's a line-up that would probably work :

 

PG Glynn

SG Palmer

SF Bryce

PF Copeland

C Roby

 

Bench

Wilcher

Walker

Wilhelm

Banton

 

[BannedAccount]

6 minutes ago, brfrad said:

Imagine replacing Walker with Roby.  I bet it would make the scheme look like a well oiled machine.  There's a reason Roby is getting playing time in the NBA.

 

Another need for this scheme is a PG

 

Here's a line-up that would probably work :

 

PG Glynn

SG Palmer

SF Bryce

PF Copeland

C Roby

 

Bench

Wilcher

Walker

Wilhelm

Banton

 

Well thats never happening so its moot.  Roby playing the 5 in this league this year is not going to make it that much better.  What if Dave Hoppen was playing center?  Final 4?

[thrasher31]

5 minutes ago, brfrad said:

 

Another need for this scheme is a PG

 

I've been pounding this point for the past few months.

 

With Banton, you saw glimpses because he was looking to move the ball at all times. You could see it, then COVID happened.

 

With Mack same thing. 

 

A need in the portal is a guard who doesn't look for his own shot, but others. If Quaran can be a ball pressure guard off the bench, that's perfect also. 

 

With Verge you get stretches of him looking to move the ball, but far too often in my eyes he dribbles into the paint and throws something up. It's why his leash has been kinda short this year (been pulled to close games this year when stuff like this happens)

[brfrad]

1 minute ago, coughunter said:

Well thats never happening so its moot.  Roby playing the 5 in this league this year is not going to make it that much better.  What if Dave Hoppen was playing center?  Final 4?

The ? was could Fred's scheme work.  It wasn't if it would work next year, with the players we have coming in or back.  All those players I named went to Nebraska in the last 7 years.  So, realistically, they would come to play here, and I think we would have a very good team with Fred as a coach.

[tcp]

any scheme can work if it's executed well enough and better than an opponent can execute theirs. this is especially true in college. 

 

scheme's are only important inasmuch as they represent a moment of innovation. after that, all schemes lose their unique magic as all schemes can be and will be "solved". 

 

there are limitations to this notion if you intentionally go looking for historical extremes, but in the realm of reality, schemes have limited utility in and of themselves. I think most programs choose schemes primarily as a result of what 'system' may give them the best chance at victory relative to the types of recruits they're able to draw, hence playing Doc Ball against superior athletes, or Pistons ball against teams shy of physical contact, etc. 

 

As pretty much most others have remarked, I don't really have an issue with Hoiberg's scheme per se, I have an issue with his total inability to recruit players to make it work OR his utter inability to coach it properly. 

 

 

[hhcscott]

Part of the "scheme" issue is that we are recruiting players who did not work out in their prior stop and hoping they will work better here.  Nothing against any one of them. IF we were bringing in one or two athletic/skilled recruits each season to fill roles on a team with an established culture this could be a dynamic system.

 

One of the reasons the Senate staggers terms is so that 2/3 of the Senate and 1/2 of each state has institutional consistency so that everyone isn't new and trying to figure out where the dining hall is while trying to do their jobs. 

[Ron Mexico]

16 hours ago, hhcscott said:

Part of the "scheme" issue is that we are recruiting players who did not work out in their prior stop and hoping they will work better here.  Nothing against any one of them. IF we were bringing in one or two athletic/skilled recruits each season to fill roles on a team with an established culture this could be a dynamic system.

 

One of the reasons the Senate staggers terms is so that 2/3 of the Senate and 1/2 of each state has institutional consistency so that everyone isn't new and trying to figure out where the dining hall is while trying to do their jobs. 

 

[Ron Mexico]

On 2/25/2022 at 3:03 PM, NUdiehard said:

Many of you have suggested that you do not think Hoiberg's "Scheme" can work in the B1G.  Honest question.  What do you mean by this? 

 

In order to answer this, I think you first need to describe what you think Hoiberg's scheme is, and then explain why you think it could maybe work in a different conference (such as the Big 12), but not in the B1G.  And does your definition of "scheme" include the type of players Hoiberg recruits? 

You can't talk about his scheme w/out talking about his player personnel philosophy as they are inter-twinned together.

First thing to know is that FH believes in positionless basketball : https://www.denverstiffs.com/2020/7/17/21328531/nba-positionless-basketball-the-future-or-a-waystation-denver-nuggets-jokic-bol-bol

https://nebraska.rivals.com/news/what-to-expect-from-the-hoiberg-era-at-nebraska

I know some people get their knickers in a wad over this scheme or that scheme and which is one is the best. To me it doesn't matter. What matters is a coach committed to that system and I believe FH was committed to that scheme although that chanced sometime in January.

In the end it doesn't really matter. What ultimately wins games are basics that are reinforced in practice.

1. Rebounding

2. Turnovers

3. Crisp passing

4. Team defense

5. Hustle

Those are inherent in every single shceme.

 

The more accurate question is not what is FH's scheme but does he spend time reinforcing fundamentals in practice.

You play how your practice.

 

 

 

[uneblinstu]

The first two years I saw them get a lot of shots they wanted in almost every game they played. They just didn’t execute at a very high level. This year, I didn’t see as much of that. I don’t think the scheme is the issue. 

[royalfan]

From my perspective, the offense in a vacuum is not the problem.  Fred can find ways to generate points.  He can certainly have a mix that blends together better to make it more consistent.  The offensive problems are mostly due to throwing a bunch of ingredients in a blender and hope it turns into a delicious mix, rather than following a recipe.   

 

The biggest problem with the offense are the problems his perceived offense parts he likes to use on offense. They create massive problems on defense for us.  He takes an offense first approach when plugging lineups together.  This is where it all begins in this league.  You have to be able to hang your hat on your defense.  Even more so for a program like ours that doesn't get as many great recruits.  If your strength is coaching offense, start with the d when getting personnel assembled.  Then teach them how to generate points.  

 

By having an undersized 5 and soft 4, and not having hard nosed guys at the top of the defense to fight the pick and roll and not let them get into sets like swiss cheese, we have no shot to defend at a high level.  I love how Fred values not taking long 2 pointers.  I hate long two pointers more than anyone.  I love how we strive to get stuff at the rim and outside the line.  The problem is that by starting the whole thing predicating the offense on having those pieces, it has resulted in giving up even higher quality looks involving those things for our opponents.  To win, you have to be getting a little better shot quality than the other team over the course of the ballgame.  In this league to accomplish this we MUST flip around the focus and begin with defense.  

 

I know it is a matter of semantics.  Some here want to suggest that Doc is not involved with the defense because he isn't a "coach."  The reality is he has a lot to do with coordinating it, if not the biggest part of coordinating it.  We can't win on defense if we don't have a strong focal point of our defense not coaching that focal point during the ballgame.  It is absurd.  For that reason, I think we need to move on from Doc as he is too limited in what he is able to provide us.  We have absolutely got to get a defensive mastermind on board that is pretty much in charge of the defense in game planning and in game.  

 

Fred is decent at coaching fast breaks and getting out after we secure a board.  By focusing on defense and actually securing the boards it can make our offense more efficient in a way that he is not even considering IMO.   I also think we would find that by having good defenders on the court, we would radically improve our offense rebounding, another source of quick points and open threes.  Guys that play hard and are athletic enough to play good defense are likely to be better on the glass in general that a bunch of shothunters with different agendas on offense trying to do those things.  

Edited February 27, 2022 by royalfan

[Fullbacksympathy]

Scheme isn’t just offense.  

Defense is the central problem.  Defense creates offense.  Our offense is run 5x better than our defense, which is the worst I’ve ever seen at Nebraska.  
 

There aren’t a ton of genius half-court offensive minds in basketball, period.  Fran is up there with the absolute best of them.  Fred isn’t a bad half court coach, but his system is so predicated on transition that you HAVE to get stops/steals/defensive rebounds in order to make true transition basketball possible.  As a tempo offense, this system can absolutely work, but my god… you have to play some semblance of defense or it implodes on itself.  
 

Hopefully the wing players and bigs we’ve recruited (and please, a functional true PG) can help.