unelinstu's postgame chatter: vol 15, ed 15: vs. Mich St

[Swan88]

Optimism for future seasons under Hoiberg seems well-founded these days:

1. Hoiberg had prior success as a College coach;

2. While his original vision/strategy at NU failed, Hoiberg has adjusted with a different staff and a new identity;

3.  The new identity has succeeded--far beyond everyone's expectations--in the Creighton, Purdue and Iowa games, and the inexplicable failures of the past have not materialized this season (yet);

4.  The new identity is enabled by a repurposing of the old (Walker) and an infusion of well-seasoned new (Griesel, Bandoumel and Gary); and

5.  If the staff could get the right players in the door after the failures of last season, they surely can do even better after the successes (thus far) of today.

[Huskerpapa]

16 hours ago, hal9000 said:

We are a formidable team at home this year.  Away from the Vault, it’s been a mixed bag.  I’m not worried too much about how many wins we get on the road as long as we can hold serve at home.

I am not intending to be argumentative; but this scenario sounds a lot like the Doc and Tim Miles era's, does it not?  Yes, that is a vast improvement from the past two years; but my expectations are not fulfilled.   

Maybe this is our "turn around" year...maybe.  if so, we should be slightly over .500 this year and next year we should start seeing signs of the promised land!

[hskr4life]

22 minutes ago, brfrad said:

To be honest, does it rally matter if it's year 1, 2, 5, or 10?  We aren't changing years 1, 2, or 3.  Do we tear it down, hoping we catch lightning in a bottle like Kansas State?

 

You make a good point, but my biggest thoughts are this... yes, it does matter what year it is.

 

1. What are we really "tearing down"?  We haven't even really built anything.

2. How many "year 1's" do we give Fred?  At some point, a decision is going to have to be made on W's and L's.  We've had a decent season so far, but that needs to continue moving forward.

3. The core of what we do have going well for us this year is gone next year.  So we're back to "year 1" again with unknowns.  It just seems like an endless cycle at this point.

[brfrad]

51 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

 

You make a good point, but my biggest thoughts are this... yes, it does matter what year it is.

 

1. What are we really "tearing down"?  We haven't even really built anything.

2. How many "year 1's" do we give Fred?  At some point, a decision is going to have to be made on W's and L's.  We've had a decent season so far, but that needs to continue moving forward.

3. The core of what we do have going well for us this year is gone next year.  So we're back to "year 1" again with unknowns.  It just seems like an endless cycle at this point.

1.  Instead of saying tearing it down, I should say taking the improvements made as far as Fred's vision, and throwing them out. 

2. This for sure would be Fred's last "year 1"  It would be different if he was being stubborn and staying on the same path as his previous 3 years.  He really did a major reset, which should allow for another "year 1"

3. With the "core" being gone after this season, Walker was the only one who has been around more than this year (Sam and Bandomeal were here for just this year).   Who's to say Fred can't bring in other players with the same mentality.  

 

Honestly, I have no idea why I am worrying about this right now.  We could end the season like the previous 3 seasons making this point moot.

 

[basketballjones]

@Jacob Padillatweeted about it - but I too noticed this during the game. MSU was 14-22 from midrange jump shots. That’s BRUTAL for our type of defense and an abnormality for basketball in 2022-2023. 

[Jacob Padilla]

5 hours ago, basketballjones said:

@Jacob Padillatweeted about it - but I too noticed this during the game. MSU was 14-22 from midrange jump shots. That’s BRUTAL for our type of defense and an abnormality for basketball in 2022-2023. 

 

They looked like a team who had scouted Nebraska's defense and were incredibly well prepared to attack it, and they did a great job of executing their game plan. They moved the ball well with Nebraska in rotation and attacked aggressive closeouts for on-balance one-dribble pull-ups (which I noted on Twitter during the game as well). I counted 9-14 on mid-range 2-point jumpers in the first half alone during my re-watch, and I believe they went 4-4 on floaters in the game as a whole. Meanwhile, Nebraska couldn't hit wide open shots on the other end. 

[basketballjones]

16 hours ago, Jacob Padilla said:

 

They looked like a team who had scouted Nebraska's defense and were incredibly well prepared to attack it, and they did a great job of executing their game plan. They moved the ball well with Nebraska in rotation and attacked aggressive closeouts for on-balance one-dribble pull-ups (which I noted on Twitter during the game as well). I counted 9-14 on mid-range 2-point jumpers in the first half alone during my re-watch, and I believe they went 4-4 on floaters in the game as a whole. Meanwhile, Nebraska couldn't hit wide open shots on the other end. 

Their scheme to emphasize to get baseline and then swing it works very well against our defense. Creighton kept attacking the middle and trying to kick to corners, which is a turnover against us.