11/7/2012 - Exhibition: Midland Report Card

[hhcdave]

OFFENSE: C+

One common dominator that you'll find throughout this report card is that Nebraska came out tight and a bit sluggish, just like 95% of teams in America do on November 7th.

However, as the game progressed, and most notably in the second half, the Huskers looked much more comfortable and were able to do whatever they wanted with Midland.

Offensively, its a bit of a change seeing less structure and more motion. With that said, I'm not implying Nebraska doesn't have a plan offensively, because they most certainly do. But, I think players are allowed more creative freedom and on some nights, that will be a very, very good thing.

One reason I feel like it won't is because the Huskers solely lack shooters that they need to win against most competition, let alone the Big 10. Its hard to see where the long distance success is going to come from, outside of Dylan Talley, on a consistent basis. Ray Gallegos looked a little more smooth tonight shooting, and we know Brandon Ubel will have nights where he goes Robbie Hummel on us and lights it up from mid range on out, but those will likely be the exceptions more than the norms.

For the game, Nebraska shot 40% (47% in the second half) but way too many three's for a team that isn't good at shooting from downtown (22 attempts, only 6 connections).

Nebraska was awful at the free throw line, going 12-22.OFFENSE: C+

One common dominator that you'll find throughout this report card is that Nebraska came out tight and a bit sluggish, just like 95% of teams in America do on November 7th.

However, as the game progressed, and most notably in the second half, the Huskers looked much more comfortable and were able to do whatever they wanted with Midland.

Offensively, its a bit of a change seeing less structure and more motion. With that said, I'm not implying Nebraska doesn't have a plan offensively, because they most certainly do. But, I think players are allowed more creative freedom and on some nights, that will be a very, very good thing.

One reason I feel like it won't is because the Huskers solely lack shooters that they need to win against most competition, let alone the Big 10. Its hard to see where the long distance success is going to come from, outside of Dylan Talley, on a consistent basis. Ray Gallegos looked a little more smooth tonight shooting, and we know Brandon Ubel will have nights where he goes Robbie Hummel on us and lights it up from mid range on out, but those will likely be the exceptions more than the norms.

For the game, Nebraska shot 40% (47% in the second half) but way too many three's for a team that isn't good at shooting from downtown (22 attempts, only 6 connections).

Nebraska was awful at the free throw line, going 12-22.

DEFENSE: B+

The Huskers were able to defend Midland at an acceptable level, but it was a bit disconcerning seeing James Parrott break the Big Red down as often as he did. Of course, he's a good player, but probably no more than a role player at the upper Division I level.

The Huskers were very vanilla tonight on defense and I'm sure a lot of that is taking baby steps with the fact in mind that this is a marathon, not a sprint.

I was impressed by Nebraska's perimeter defense, especially Benny Parker. I think he will give quite a few point guards fits this year fits.

Parker had a team high 4 (of 12) steals tonight, which helped spearhead NU in forcing 24 turnovers. Plus, 40 points is really good, even against NAIA competition.

REBOUNDING: C

A bit disconcerning was Midland's work on the boards, especially the 12 offensive rebounds garnered.

Much of that was due to Ubel being in foul trouble and the aforementioned fact that NU was a bit timid in the first half.

But its pretty clear that the Huskers are going to be a bad rebounding team this year, between little depth down low, a freshman that makes Brian Conklin look like a body builder and an oft-injured redshirt senior.

Oh, and the fact that David Rivers will likely play quite a bit of "4".

BALL HANDLING: B

14 turnovers, 13 assists. Not great but not awful, especially considering that Nebraska mainly had two players making their college debut handling the rock.

COACHING: B

A solid job by coach tonight in working everybody in the game and trying several different combinations.

I like the offense having more freedom and I think with time, and on nights that NU knocks down some perimeter shots, it will be able to score more than we think.

Defensively, the Huskers looked really good - probably a bit better than I thought. The stats backed that.

Miles has officially gone on record (after the game) as saying Deverell Biggs will redshirt. That's a bit of a blow for this year, but not for year three of this program. Biggs was probably the best player on the floor tonight.

OVERALL GRADE: B

A solid victory over a solid NAIA school.

Nebraska won by 28, which is right in the range that we would have hoped for.

More importantly, an exciting era of Nebraska basketball kicked off tonight! And things get going "for real" on Sunday!

PLAYER OF THE GAME:

DYLAN TALLEY

2012-2013 TOTALS:

DYLAN TALLEY

Click here to view the article

[Huskerpapa]

Umm, I respectfully disagree. At best, at best, I would give us a C-.

[tcp]

I mostly disagree on the defensive scoring here.

We played slow in the paint, and played with our hands everywhere else. Against a respectble Div 1 team, that's going to equate to a steady march to the foul line for opponents. Our assignments weren't especially sharp, either.

I think it was a C effort for defense, but some siginificant concerns going forward.

When Parker plays more with his feet than his hands, he has potential to be a pretty good player. It'll be interesting to see him develop or not this season,

Man, I am mixed about Biggs' decision. He's legit. That has to be giving Miles reflux.

[hhcmatt]

Man, I am mixed about Biggs' decision. He's legit. That has to be giving Miles reflux.

He'd definitely be starting on this team.

This isn't about winning more games this year though...it's about winning tourney games

[Norm Peterson]

I hope Biggs does what Gallegos did during his year off and works on his outside shot. His perimeter shooting -- like many guys on the team -- needs some work.

[hhcdave]

Just a note that many report cards this year might be a little higher than they were last year, for example, simply because we have a first year coach with limited amounts of numbers to play with. Thus, I'm going to try to grade these guys on how they do in regards to their situation - i.e., amount of players available, injuries, skill level, talent, etc.

AKA, some games they may lose by 30 and I give them a "C", but that's because I can't get them an "F" every game based on what they aren't. I try to relate these grades to what an "average night" would be for the team, based on the above and expectations. I think we are going to have an awful lot of nights like tonight this year.

What are your thoughts? Do you like me grading based on what we have in year one or what we want to be? I just think being overly negative and unrealistic does us no good.

[tcp]

Just a note that many report cards this year might be a little higher than they were last year, for example, simply because we have a first year coach with limited amounts of numbers to play with. Thus, I'm going to try to grade these guys on how they do in regards to their situation - i.e., amount of players available, injuries, skill level, talent, etc.

AKA, some games they may lose by 30 and I give them a "C", but that's because I can't get them an "F" every game based on what they aren't. I try to relate these grades to what an "average night" would be for the team, based on the above and expectations. I think we are going to have an awful lot of nights like tonight this year.

What are your thoughts? Do you like me grading based on what we have in year one or what we want to be? I just think being overly negative and unrealistic does us no good.

I think over time you can grade to a curve and say so. But generally you should grade what you see. Is it good ball or not. Big difference between being critical and being mean. It's the latter that can become an issue. But this disgreement was minor, and not about the grade, but about how we saw something play out. It's a new team, so there's no preconceptions coming in and we'll see a wide array of personal takes on the action ntil a larger narrative forms and we become comment lemmings...

[tcp]

He'd definitely be starting on this team.

This isn't about winning more games this year though...it's about winning tourney games

At the risk of a hijack, that might be for a lot of fans, but I'd argue that the players themselves matter as well. Not comfortable with sacrificing some and saying they're not good enough to save while this one is. Coach obviously wouldn't if given his druthers. I wouldn't trust a coach that would think that instrumentally anyway. Anyhoo, my bad. Enough said on the grading thread. By the way, am I going to sty a post count newbie forever?

[Huskerpapa]

It is what it is Dave. I go on the premise that the exhibition game will (and should) be the worst game of the year. From that baseline, we should grow and get better. Hence, my thought that at best, this was a C-

[hhcmatt]

It is what it is Dave. I go on the premise that the exhibition game will (and should) be the worst game of the year. From that baseline, we should grow and get better. Hence, my thought that at best, this was a C-

We are going to get better. The problem is that so is our competition....especially over this team.

[nustudent]

Just a note that many report cards this year might be a little higher than they were last year, for example, simply because we have a first year coach with limited amounts of numbers to play with. Thus, I'm going to try to grade these guys on how they do in regards to their situation - i.e., amount of players available, injuries, skill level, talent, etc.

AKA, some games they may lose by 30 and I give them a "C", but that's because I can't get them an "F" every game based on what they aren't. I try to relate these grades to what an "average night" would be for the team, based on the above and expectations. I think we are going to have an awful lot of nights like tonight this year.

What are your thoughts? Do you like me grading based on what we have in year one or what we want to be? I just think being overly negative and unrealistic does us no good.

I thought the grading was kind last year.

I'd say do the grading based on what we see. Don't adjust it because it's year 1. If we improve in the coming years, which I expect us too, that will take care of the grading as well.

[HB]

Just a note that many report cards this year might be a little higher than they were last year, for example, simply because we have a first year coach with limited amounts of numbers to play with. Thus, I'm going to try to grade these guys on how they do in regards to their situation - i.e., amount of players available, injuries, skill level, talent, etc.

AKA, some games they may lose by 30 and I give them a "C", but that's because I can't get them an "F" every game based on what they aren't. I try to relate these grades to what an "average night" would be for the team, based on the above and expectations. I think we are going to have an awful lot of nights like tonight this year.

What are your thoughts? Do you like me grading based on what we have in year one or what we want to be? I just think being overly negative and unrealistic does us no good.

I like your approach, Dave, for this year