Nebraska's Defense

[NUdiehard]

On 11/10/2023 at 1:17 PM, Breslin Petteway said:

No experience with it, but I like it. We have an identity and guys seem to know where they need to be. The way I see it is there is always someone at the rim to take away layups, and we do our best to run guys off the three point line. That leaves the mid range, the shot all teams are taught to avoid.

 

I think that our biggest issues come from quick skip passes that create long close outs, and giving up open corner threes. Games where we are just a step slow rotating can lead to open threes. If I remember rights B1G teams seemed to have some success with this last year, but when we had Bando, Gary, Sammy G flying around we were deadly. We don't have that length this year obviously, but Sam and Jamarques sure fly around and play great defense. 

 

I think teams make the baseline drive a part of their offense in today's game, and we are often in great position to make steals out of that rotation. I'm no expert, but it's just nice to have an identity on that end of the floor, one I think puts our guys in a pretty good spot to make steals and be aggressive. 

 

It's not just a matter of being a step slow (although that often is part of the problem).  The problem is that once you get in to league, the coaching is better and the scouting is better (same with Creighton), and coaches have figured out how to attack this defense.

 

In our defense, the off-ball defender ALWAYS helps in to the paint.  This makes us susceptible to the swing pass or the skip pass.  But in addition, the better coached teams in league play are positioning an offensive player behind Nebraska's off-ball defender to SCREEN him from closing out on the 3 point shooter.  This is done over and over and over again.  So even if the Husker defender was playing fast and with great effort, it is impossible for him to run through that screen and get to the shooter. 

 

Overall, I feel the coaching staff has done a good job and they clearly are trying to make the best out of the less athletic defenders on the team. But man, giving up wide-open 3 point shots from the corner over and over and over again does become a bit maddening. 

[Ron Mexico]

On 11/10/2023 at 12:02 PM, basketballjones said:

It's not sort of, it definitely is no middle, force baseline. 

 

It is, at its core, a match-up zone. They're essentially in a 2-3 and they pass off/switch screening actions (hence why I would slip/back-cut everything). But when the ball gets slotted and over, they're full forcing baseline and not allowing middle. They're kind of "icing" everything, in a way. 

 

My biggest beef is why they force themselves into rotations/scrambles before they have to. I think they can accomplish everything they want without doing that - just my opinion. 

Great description.

When we are facing a team like Iowa that doesn't have a dominant center then there is no need to double down in the paint.

If we are going to run zone then we needed to switch to 1-3-1, 3-1 and a chaser (chaser is best defender) or similar to protect against the 3.

Either Lawrence or Hoiberg needed to be on Perkins (15 assists!) like glue to force the ball from his hands. The goal is to pressure the ball.

 

I love our matchup zone as our base defense, however when we are getting beat at the perimeter we need to change it up to protect the perimeter.

[royalfan]

Message board overreactions both ways wear me out.  That being said, teams are getting into the teeth of our defense far too comfortably on the road in the league so far.  Just because we have some pretty good help concepts a lot, does not mean we don’t have to take giving resistance very seriously staying in front of our guy.  

[royalfan]

3 minutes ago, Ron Mexico said:

Great description.

When we are facing a team like Iowa that doesn't have a dominant center then there is no need to double down in the paint.

If we are going to run zone then we needed to switch to 1-3-1, 3-1 and a chaser (chaser is best defender) or similar to protect against the 3.

Either Lawrence or Hoiberg needed to be on Perkins (15 assists!) like glue to force the ball from his hands. The goal is to pressure the ball.

 

I love our matchup zone as our base defense, however when we are getting beat at the perimeter we need to change it up to protect the perimeter.

Agree with most all of this.  

[89Husker]

5 hours ago, NUdiehard said:

 

It's not just a matter of being a step slow (although that often is part of the problem).  The problem is that once you get in to league, the coaching is better and the scouting is better (same with Creighton), and coaches have figured out how to attack this defense.

 

In our defense, the off-ball defender ALWAYS helps in to the paint.  This makes us susceptible to the swing pass or the skip pass.  But in addition, the better coached teams in league play are positioning an offensive player behind Nebraska's off-ball defender to SCREEN him from closing out on the 3 point shooter.  This is done over and over and over again.  So even if the Husker defender was playing fast and with great effort, it is impossible for him to run through that screen and get to the shooter. 

 

Overall, I feel the coaching staff has done a good job and they clearly are trying to make the best out of the less athletic defenders on the team. But man, giving up wide-open 3 point shots from the corner over and over and over again does become a bit maddening. 

You are right, this is happening on the backside screen, but doing that involves 3 offensive players. That should free up a defender to cheat and be ready for this cross-court pass. But that top defender needs to recognize when his man goes to set that pick and make adjustment. 

[basketballjones]

On 1/15/2024 at 10:02 AM, Fullbacksympathy said:

Man.  I think you worded this articulately but there’s no way I’d change our defensive philosophy from the last two seasons. 
 

Teaching good m2m is about 75% help rotation, regardless of how extreme the help is.  We’ve beaten two top 10 teams in the last two seasons with this sort of defense.  I think it’s mostly awesome.  It’s definitely a variant of m2m.  Every m2m worth its salt has one on ball and four in zone after every pass.  This version has extreme help in rotation.  I agree with you that it’s difficult to sustain but it sure is a thing of beauty when it’s done right.  I also agree about offensive tempo and intention.  
 

But I’m not sick of this defensive philosophy at all.  I love watching it. 

This defense, when played at 100%, can literally beat anyone and that is an awesome thing to have in your back pocket. 

This defense, at 99% makes you liable to be beat by nearly any common opponent and even some worse opponents. 

 

That is not a gamble, risk/reward proposition, I would be willing to engage in. 

[hhcmatt]

49 minutes ago, basketballjones said:

This defense, when played at 100%, can literally beat anyone and that is an awesome thing to have in your back pocket. 

This defense, at 99% makes you liable to be beat by nearly any common opponent and even some worse opponents. 

 

That is not a gamble, risk/reward proposition, I would be willing to engage in. 

 

Hope you've seen this one before, friend-o.

 

[Huskerpapa]

I thought I would revisit this topic given our defensive breakdowns against Michigan State, Iowa and Purdue.  When our defense is on, we are very good; when our defense is awol, it has been very bad.

 

Is it lack of intensity?  Is it a schematic problem?  Are players confused as to roles?  Are Big Ten players and coaches able to easily decipher our scheme?  We are exploring line ups in a different thread, so perhaps it chemistry issue.  Is it all of the above or something else?

 

Early in the season I sort of called out the coaching staff, as it appeared we did not know how to leverage Meah on offense.  I will say the same thing about how we are leveraging him on defense.  Isn't he a shot blocker?

 

I love Juwan.  But someone let the dawg out of him.  Is he hurt?

 

Berke, a couple weeks ago, was supposed to be our highest rated defender by some sort of metric.  Really?  That still surprises me.  At times, yes.  At other times, no.  We need to be consistent. 

 

I can say that about each and every player...At times and in certain games, wow.  At other times, woof.  We need CONSISTENCY!  And folks, we ain't getting it.  

 

Intensity, focus, effort, physicality, desire, pride all have to improve.  Sh*t, our bigs get knocked to the floor more than a drunken frat boy.  

 

I expect improvement against Rutgers; but I want to know that our defense will be present each and every game here on out.  Leaders need to lead by word and example.

[hskr4life]

6 minutes ago, Huskerpapa said:

I thought I would revisit this topic given our defensive breakdowns against Michigan State, Iowa and Purdue.  When our defense is on, we are very good; when our defense is awol, it has been very bad.

 

Is it lack of intensity?  Is it a schematic problem?  Are players confused as to roles?  Are Big Ten players and coaches able to easily decipher our scheme?  We are exploring line ups in a different thread, so perhaps it chemistry issue.  Is it all of the above or something else?

 

Early in the season I sort of called out the coaching staff, as it appeared we did not know how to leverage Meah on offense.  I will say the same thing about how we are leveraging him on defense.  Isn't he a shot blocker?

 

I love Juwan.  But someone let the dawg out of him.  Is he hurt?

 

Berke, a couple weeks ago, was supposed to be our highest rated defender by some sort of metric.  Really?  That still surprises me.  At times, yes.  At other times, no.  We need to be consistent. 

 

I can say that about each and every player...At times and in certain games, wow.  At other times, woof.  We need CONSISTENCY!  And folks, we ain't getting it.  

 

Intensity, focus, effort, physicality, desire, pride all have to improve.  Sh*t, our bigs get knocked to the floor more than a drunken frat boy.  

 

I expect improvement against Rutgers; but I want to know that our defense will be present each and every game here on out.  Leaders need to lead by word and example.

6/20 boards came from two backup guards who are 6’0” and 6’4” in our last game. So you can probably answer Purdue from just that.

[millerhusker]

9 minutes ago, Huskerpapa said:

I thought I would revisit this topic given our defensive breakdowns against Michigan State, Iowa and Purdue.  When our defense is on, we are very good; when our defense is awol, it has been very bad.

 

Is it lack of intensity?  Is it a schematic problem?  Are players confused as to roles?  Are Big Ten players and coaches able to easily decipher our scheme?  We are exploring line ups in a different thread, so perhaps it chemistry issue.  Is it all of the above or something else?

 

Early in the season I sort of called out the coaching staff, as it appeared we did not know how to leverage Meah on offense.  I will say the same thing about how we are leveraging him on defense.  Isn't he a shot blocker?

 

I love Juwan.  But someone let the dawg out of him.  Is he hurt?

 

Berke, a couple weeks ago, was supposed to be our highest rated defender by some sort of metric.  Really?  That still surprises me.  At times, yes.  At other times, no.  We need to be consistent. 

 

I can say that about each and every player...At times and in certain games, wow.  At other times, woof.  We need CONSISTENCY!  And folks, we ain't getting it.  

 

Intensity, focus, effort, physicality, desire, pride all have to improve.  Sh*t, our bigs get knocked to the floor more than a drunken frat boy.  

 

I expect improvement against Rutgers; but I want to know that our defense will be present each and every game here on out.  Leaders need to lead by word and example.

I’m not sure consistency is possible. The defense is set up to make teams beat you with long twos and threes. If good shooting teams are sharing the ball and knocking down shots (like Purdue and Iowa), this defense won’t provide much resistance. Creighton made their threes last year and beat us by 30. This year they missed them, and we won. Poor shooting teams (like UCLA and Indiana) will struggle if they don’t shoot well above their average. This defense does do a good job of shutting down normally productive traditional post players. There are probably more of those in the Big Ten than in other leagues. I think the coaches know they won’t have conference champion talent here, so they’re banking on a system that most years can be successful against at least half the league. It’s just that the teams that CAN score on it, will score a whole lot if they’re on. 
 

The offense is much more of a concern. We get Illinois and Michigan at home, but we’re going to have to score points to beat those teams. Should we go with a lineup that more closely mimics last year’s (top 30 offense last year) to prioritize offense? Brice, Connor, Juwan, Berke, Morgan?

[basketballjones]

On 1/16/2024 at 10:41 AM, basketballjones said:

This defense, when played at 100%, can literally beat anyone and that is an awesome thing to have in your back pocket. 

This defense, at 99% makes you liable to be beat by nearly any common opponent and even some worse opponents. 

 

That is not a gamble, risk/reward proposition, I would be willing to engage in. 

I stand by this statement. Made almost exactly a year ago. 

[hhcmatt]

Home vs Top 100

 

Away-Neutral vs Top 100

 

[TourneyBound]

Its a very good defense against poor shooting 3 point teams nut against decent to great 3 point shooting teams that move the ball well its usually a disaster.  Not sure why we don't try something different once in awhile..  Why does it always have to be the same, It should change depending on the opponent we are playing.

[AGHANSEN]

I think a huge part of it is how good Saint Mary's, Sparty, Iowa, and Purdue are on offense. 

Specifically, the assist rankings on KenPom.

All four teams are really good passing teams.

 

Purdue ranks 3, Sparty 9, Saint Marys 16, and Iowa 41.

Those are national rankings. 

 

Sparty, Purdue, and Iowa rank, 1,2 and 4 in assist per game in conference. 

 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by AGHANSEN

[basketballjones]

Nebraska needs to entirely re-think it's defensive philosophy, and I imagine many of you think I am insane saying that. "But we just had one of the best years in program history last year." 

 

Was it really because of our defense? 

 

We essentially run a gimmick defense. And it, at this point, statistically only works at home. 

 

This defense requires you to work SO HARD and be 100% LOCKED-IN. When those things happen - we can literally beat anyone. When they don't (and don't can mean like 98-99%), literally anyone can beat us. And it truly does not make sense if you think about it. When it is not working, we give up so many, wide-open, barely contested 3's. If you were so worried about paint touches and being able to tag roll men - why not just sit in a packed-in 2-3 Zone? If you're willing to give up help & recover 3's all game long because you don't want to allow paint touches - then again - just sit in a 2-3 zone. Don't work as hard and exhaust your guys for the same result. At some point a coach needs to decide if he wants to just play man-to-man defense or if he just wants to play zone. When you muddy things up in there you're just a gimmick defense and people will figure that out. 

 

Also, you cannot ask your guys to work as hard as they do on defense, rotate that much, be that sound, and then give them nearly free-reign to chuck up any shot you want on the other end. That results in a lot of 28+ second defensive possessions, and 5-15 second long offensive possessions. A recipe for disaster with the athletes and shooters we see. A highly disciplined defense paired with a highly undisciplined offense (at least from a player shot selection/role perspective) is a recipe for disaster in mens college basketball. 

 

Why do we insist on pre-doubling a post player? Who is the last post player we have seen that was truly efficient enough to beat you 1on1 enough times that the offense can score enough points to beat you? 

Edited 18 hours ago by basketballjones

[cozrulz]

It seems we need at least another look or two.  Play up on the three point line and if you get beat you have Meah or Morgan inside.

 

1 hour ago, basketballjones said:

Also, you cannot ask your guys to work as hard as they do on defense, rotate that much, be that sound, and then give them nearly free-reign to chuck up any shot you want on the other end. That results in a lot of 28+ second defensive possessions, and 5-15 second long offensive possessions. A recipe for disaster with the athletes and shooters we see. A highly disciplined defense paired with a highly undisciplined offense (at least from a player shot selection/role perspective) is a recipe for disaster in mens college basketball. 

 

Some of our offensive possessions... *shakes head*

 

Anyways we are gonna have to be ready to go Thursday.  Rutgers is trying to save their season.

[hhcmatt]

3 hours ago, AGHANSEN said:

I think a huge part of it is how good Saint Mary's, Sparty, Iowa, and Purdue are on offense. 

Specifically, the assist rankings on KenPom.

All four teams are really good passing teams.

 

Purdue ranks 3, Sparty 9, Saint Marys 16, and Iowa 41.

Those are national rankings. 

 

Sparty, Purdue, and Iowa rank, 1,2 and 4 in assist per game in conference. 

 

 

Yeah, I noticed that as well and it makes sense because if you can move the ball around enough on our defense you should find a good look at a 3.

 

Next up, an 8pm game home against Rutgers and their "but we don't pass, Tina" 258th best assist offense.

[GhostOfJoeMcCray]

 

3 hours ago, basketballjones said:

Nebraska needs to entirely re-think it's defensive philosophy, and I imagine many of you think I am insane saying that. "But we just had one of the best years in program history last year." 

 

Was it really because of our defense? 

 

We essentially run a gimmick defense. And it, at this point, statistically only works at home. 

 

This defense requires you to work SO HARD and be 100% LOCKED-IN. When those things happen - we can literally beat anyone. When they don't (and don't can mean like 98-99%), literally anyone can beat us. And it truly does not make sense if you think about it. When it is not working, we give up so many, wide-open, barely contested 3's. If you were so worried about paint touches and being able to tag roll men - why not just sit in a packed-in 2-3 Zone? If you're willing to give up help & recover 3's all game long because you don't want to allow paint touches - then again - just sit in a 2-3 zone. Don't work as hard and exhaust your guys for the same result. At some point a coach needs to decide if he wants to just play man-to-man defense or if he just wants to play zone. When you muddy things up in there you're just a gimmick defense and people will figure that out. 

 

Also, you cannot ask your guys to work as hard as they do on defense, rotate that much, be that sound, and then give them nearly free-reign to chuck up any shot you want on the other end. That results in a lot of 28+ second defensive possessions, and 5-15 second long offensive possessions. A recipe for disaster with the athletes and shooters we see. A highly disciplined defense paired with a highly undisciplined offense (at least from a player shot selection/role perspective) is a recipe for disaster in mens college basketball. 

 

Why do we insist on pre-doubling a post player? Who is the last post player we have seen that was truly efficient enough to beat you 1on1 enough times that the offense can score enough points to beat you? 

 

I've been thinking about this too. We are trapping the post/baseline just like we did last year. So what was the point of getting a 7-1 statue to protect the rim only to play the same way? 

 

Our 2pt FG% allowed right now is 48.3% and 3pt FG% allowed is 32.6%.

Last year those numbers were 45.2% and 32.5%. 

 

So our opponents are shooting the 3 at the same efficiency as last year but are actually shooting better inside the arc.

 

At the end of the day, we were 309 out of 362 teams in 3-point attempts allowed last year and this year we are 358. If our opponent is hitting 3s, we are toast. I wish it didn't have to be that way and we had an alternative plan for teams like Iowa and Purdue, but it seems like we are who we are and we're content with trying to win our home games and hope our strategy works in a road game or two against someone who goes cold (like Creighton did). 

 

However as was posted above, Purdue (7) and Iowa (10) are elite 3pt shooting teams. Rutgers (223), Maryland (60) and USC (321) have not been. In fact, the next closest 3pt% teams behind Purdue (7) and Iowa (10) are Ohio State (33), Michigan (33) and Maryland (60). 

 

Perhaps it was just a horrible week against two horrible matchups for us, both on the road. Let's go out and win some. 

Edited 15 hours ago by GhostOfJoeMcCray

[aphilso1]

4 hours ago, basketballjones said:

Nebraska needs to entirely re-think it's defensive philosophy, and I imagine many of you think I am insane saying that. "But we just had one of the best years in program history last year." 

 

Was it really because of our defense? 

 

We essentially run a gimmick defense. And it, at this point, statistically only works at home. 

 

This defense requires you to work SO HARD and be 100% LOCKED-IN. When those things happen - we can literally beat anyone. When they don't (and don't can mean like 98-99%), literally anyone can beat us. And it truly does not make sense if you think about it. When it is not working, we give up so many, wide-open, barely contested 3's. If you were so worried about paint touches and being able to tag roll men - why not just sit in a packed-in 2-3 Zone? If you're willing to give up help & recover 3's all game long because you don't want to allow paint touches - then again - just sit in a 2-3 zone. Don't work as hard and exhaust your guys for the same result. At some point a coach needs to decide if he wants to just play man-to-man defense or if he just wants to play zone. When you muddy things up in there you're just a gimmick defense and people will figure that out. 

 

Also, you cannot ask your guys to work as hard as they do on defense, rotate that much, be that sound, and then give them nearly free-reign to chuck up any shot you want on the other end. That results in a lot of 28+ second defensive possessions, and 5-15 second long offensive possessions. A recipe for disaster with the athletes and shooters we see. A highly disciplined defense paired with a highly undisciplined offense (at least from a player shot selection/role perspective) is a recipe for disaster in mens college basketball. 

 

Why do we insist on pre-doubling a post player? Who is the last post player we have seen that was truly efficient enough to beat you 1on1 enough times that the offense can score enough points to beat you? 

I actually really like our defense, which is set up to force a very specific series of events.

1. Ball goes to the corner.  Husker defender closes out in a way that intentionally gives up baseline penetration.

2. Offensive player puts ball on floor, dribbling along the baseline with the closeout defender trailing on his non-baseline side hip.

3. Husker post slides over to cut off the dribble penetration, intentionally doing so before the driver can make it all the way to the paint.

 

This sequence is designed to force the offensive player into a split second passing decision, and the beauty of it is that the individual making the pass is typically not their point guard.  The offensive player can either take an out of control pull up jumper, or try to challenge Meah (with an extra defender on his hip and the baseline acting as a third defender), or can pass to the area that Meah vacated (which already has a third Husker defender crashing into the newly created passing line), or can skip pass over the trap entirely.  That's really it, since any other passing lanes are already shut down by the trailing defender.

 

It's easy to see why when it is working well, it works REALLY WELL.  It puts a disproportionate burden on the opposing team's wings, who are often great athletes but mediocre passers. And we have some players that execute their defensive role very well due to their specific strengths (like Meah's wingspan and Hoiberg's ability to perfectly time when he crashes into the passing lane).

 

So what are the weaknesses in this defense?

1. Opponents with multiple great decision makers/passers.

2. Opponents who prioritize getting the ball to 3pt shooters quicker than we can set up this sequence.

3. Opponents that play in a phone booth ignoring the corners (Texas A&M last year is the best example).

 

There are weaknesses in any defense.  I think the novelty of ours, which puts teams in situations that they don't see very often, is worth dealing with its shortcomings.

Edited 14 hours ago by aphilso1

[basketballjones]

4 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

So what are the weaknesses in this defense?

1. Opponents with multiple great decision makers/passers.

2. Opponents who prioritize getting the ball to 3pt shooters quicker than we can set up this sequence.

3. Opponents that play in a phone booth ignoring the corners (Texas A&M last year is the best example).

So, basically anyone good haha. Or anyone kinda good on the road. 

[aphilso1]

10 minutes ago, basketballjones said:

So, basically anyone good haha. Or anyone kinda good on the road. 

 

Lol, I think the list is quite a bit shorter than you're implying.  But yes there are certainly teams that can use our defensive scheme to their advantage.

 

There was a Navy football coach that was once asked why he ran the triple option, and his response was essentially "if you're not better than your opponent then you need to be different." Wish I could recall the specific quote (or even whether it was Niumatalolo or Johnson that said it), but the point is still valid even paraphrased.  Nebraska isn't going to compete in the B1G based purely on talent.  We have to find a different way if we want to be competitive.  And Hoiberg has tapped into a formula to achieve that by running a unique defense and recruiting older players who are smart enough and experienced enough to run it.

[thrasher31]

8 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

 

Lol, I think the list is quite a bit shorter than you're implying.  But yes there are certainly teams that can use our defensive scheme to their advantage.

 

There was a Navy football coach that was once asked why he ran the triple option, and his response was essentially "if you're not better than your opponent then you need to be different." Wish I could recall the specific quote (or even whether it was Niumatalolo or Johnson that said it), but the point is still valid even paraphrased.  Nebraska isn't going to compete in the B1G based purely on talent.  We have to find a different way if we want to be competitive.  And Hoiberg has tapped into a formula to achieve that by running a unique defense and recruiting older players who are smart enough and experienced enough to run it.

Any defense can be exploited by running out doing the right things. We so far have had a top 20ish defense nationally. Have gotten burnt a few times, which will happen to any defense. But more often than not, it's a very good defense. 

[Vinny]

We’ve been torched from deep the last two games, but we know that it is a possibility. I feel though like we’re being a bit harsh on our defense because right now it’s the only thing that can win us games. We need work every where and it’s mostly going to come from effort and all five guys working together for 40 minutes, not just for parts of games.

[hhcmatt]

1 hour ago, Vinny said:

We’ve been torched from deep the last two games, but we know that it is a possibility. I feel though like we’re being a bit harsh on our defense because right now it’s the only thing that can win us games. We need work every where and it’s mostly going to come from effort and all five guys working together for 40 minutes, not just for parts of games.

 

Even after giving up all those 3s in Iowa, feels like our FT shooting and inability to dictate tempo was what cost us the game.

[Huskerpapa]

Yeah, a lot of good takes here. 

 

I guess I go back to something that a pretty good coach explained to me many, many moons ago.  That is, you can play the same exact scheme as your opponent, and in all probability, the team with the best players, who play with the best focus, best execution and greatest intensity will win.

 

In the games where we were blown out, scheme was not the fatal bullet.  Plus, I think individually (especially when you factor in experience) we have the players...so I guess sh*t happens.