11/18/2012 - UNO Report Card

Coach Miles' tie? N/A...couldn't watch the game. Anyone sitting closely enough to get a proper look?

Hopefully this is the game that gets Andre going. He really kept after it today.

Thought we had good looks and had to take wide open threes against that tight zone. Those will fall.

The thing that disappointed me most about our first half defense was that we were consistantly beaten to the spot. We were a half step slow and, to me, it appeared we were lethargic. We improved or the Mavs got tired, perhaps a bit of both. On offense, we struggled with our outside game, a lot. We seem to have a different player stepping up each game...so far, so good.

Dave, I think in one of the earlier report cards, you were using a sliding scale for your grading and basing grades on what you could reasonably expect out of this particular team. IIRC, HB commented at the time that he agrees with that approach, as do I. However, it seems you've based your offensive and perhaps even defensive grades on what you might expect from Nebraska teams over the last couple of years.

For instance, if this squad hits 75 points in any game this year, you'd have to consider that a good performance. We didn't even reach 70 in the exhibition. And, while you felt we should have gotten more out of our bigs, we got 30 points combined out of Almeida and Ubel, plus a ton of second chance points, which is pretty darned good for them. Yeah, we jacked up way too many 3s, and that should bring the grade down, but permit me to respectfully suggest that calling that a D+ performance is pretty tough grading.

If 75 pts in a win merits a D+ for this squad, I shudder to think what kinds of grades they'll get as the season progresses. I hate to say that our current roster sucks, but keep in mind that our current roster ... doesn't NOT suck.

Dave, I think in one of the earlier report cards, you were using a sliding scale for your grading and basing grades on what you could reasonably expect out of this particular team. IIRC, HB commented at the time that he agrees with that approach, as do I. However, it seems you've based your offensive and perhaps even defensive grades on what you might expect from Nebraska teams over the last couple of years.

For instance, if this squad hits 75 points in any game this year, you'd have to consider that a good performance. We didn't even reach 70 in the exhibition. And, while you felt we should have gotten more out of our bigs, we got 30 points combined out of Almeida and Ubel, plus a ton of second chance points, which is pretty darned good for them. Yeah, we jacked up way too many 3s, and that should bring the grade down, but permit me to respectfully suggest that calling that a D+ performance is pretty tough grading.

If 75 pts in a win merits a D+ for this squad, I shudder to think what kinds of grades they'll get as the season progresses. I hate to say that our current roster sucks, but keep in mind that our current roster ... doesn't NOT suck.

Assigning a grade point based on point total tells none of the story.

How did they make it to 75?

By bricking up 3pts all game long. By not making it to the free throw line, again.

Given their lack of depth I can't blame them for not wanting to run all game even against an inferior program but they simply struggled against one of the worst teams in Division I. Yeah they put up 75...but Dylan Talley and Ray Gallegos had to play the entire game to do that.

"How did they make it to 75?"

They got there by scoring 75 pts somehow. And that's with a lineup of returning players that posted scoring averages of ...

8.9 ppg (Talley)

6.7 ppg (Ubel)

5.2 ppg (Almeida)

2.8 ppg (Gallegos)

1.1 ppg (Rivers)

24.7 ppg

in the last season in which they played before this one. (And only one other player besides those 5 scored against UNO.)

I'd say getting to 75 pts, no matter how this group managed to do it, is an accomplishment. Yeah, they bricked some 3 pointers. As bad shooters are wont to do. Talley averaged 36.9% from 3 last year, but Ubel shot only 25% from beyond the arc. In Gallegos' last season, he averaged 14.3% from 3 and Rivers shot 10.5% from beyond the arc last year. So, those are the returning shooters we have on the roster. That's what we've got to work with. Should they have taken so many 3 ptrs? Probably not. And downgrade them for that. But D+? For a group as offensively limited as this group is?

If you're not grading on a sliding scale, I'm sure a D+ can be justified. But then you have to ask yourself what's the best this group is capable of doing on a regular basis? I mean, they don't get extra credit for being open when they launch a brick from three and you have to take into consideration that Coach Miles is trying to get them to feel a little more comfortable with trying to shoot earlier in the shot clock. He doesn't want them so reluctant to pull the trigger and a byproduct of that is a bunch of missed threes. The alternative, I suppose, is that we could always go back to running the weave for 25 seconds at the top of the key before trying to get it into Ubel or Almeida for a hook shot from just outside the lane.

It looks from the angle of the last photo that the photographer was sitting near the usual TO seats. Was our AD there? Since I no longer have my long time seats, it made me sad to recognize the back of most of the heads in the front row and know who they belong to.

I talked to Andre Saturday morning at practice. I can only assume the "give em' hell" speech I left him with has finally made the "Light" come on for the young man. I might ease up on the Van Polgeist jokes from now on...

I agree with you Norm, and wondered this myself. It seems that based on the current grading scheme, we’re due for a lot of F’s in the future. Dave is certainly at liberty to grade how he wants, but if it were me, I would have to factor in the level of talent we have on our roster. Not trying to knock our guys mind you.

They do need to be down-graded for the amount of three’s they took ( and missed), but FWIW, UNO did give us a lot of open looks.

Yeah, Miles said in his comments, which Dimes posted in another thread, that UNO was playing the perimeter soft basically trying to get us to launch the bricks they knew we'd launch.

We had 6 players score. Aside from Parker the newcomer, the other 5 guys who scored each chipped in significantly more than their career average.

And, true, Dave can grade it however he wants to. But I would submit that a D+ for the UNO game for this group is not grading on a scale.

I agree. It is easy to say we shot too many 3's when you go 3-22. But those were the shots they were giving us and there were not too many occassions where we took a 3 and I thought it was a bad shot - a couple maybe but most of those were shots we need to take when they are there. The fact that we were 3 for 22 is a reflection of a poor shooting team having a poor shooting night. Downgrade us for not shooting to our potential - but if your are grading on a scale take into account what we are working with. There are going to be alot of games this year where we have to make those shots to stay in the game. Sometimes we will make enough to keep the score close and maybe steal a couple wins. Sometimes we will shoot poorly and when facing a quality team we will get blown out as a result. Credit us for finding a way to score 75 points and still get a win when our shots were not falling.

My sentiments exactly, BB.

I guess I was taking into account not only our talent, as I mentioned in an earlier report card, but also, our competition. I am quite disturbed that even on a down year, we're going to be content putting up 75 points against UNO. 75, not 95, mind you. 75 is not that impressive. Just my thoughts.

It looks from the angle of the last photo that the photographer was sitting near the usual TO seats. Was our AD there? Since I no longer have my long time seats, it made me sad to recognize the back of most of the heads in the front row and know who they belong to.