basketballjones

Eh..... I for sure see what you're saying, Tony, but to win games some teams have to control the clock. You can't teach everyone to play like that. If I had Drew Homa, their point guard, and the Pritchard kid I'd probably let them go rogue too... Very few people have that. And for what it's worth, he says that, but they run a wide variety of stuff. He certainly gives them plenty of freedom on missed baskets and steals, but they for sure have a system, actions, sets, and principles in the half court. It's not like they're playing YMCA ball out there. But I certainly know what you mean. However, I warn you - if you ever thought there was a competitive imbalance in Nebraska HS basketball, it will be dramatically increased with the shot clock. Good teams will just look better. And, for what it's worth, I'm all for the shot clock, but I'm not sure even the slowest teams hold the ball for much longer than 30sec a possession. Most teams don't have the fundamentals to hold it that long. Edit: I read your post wrong, thought you were saying you want the shot clock. My bad!

In ten years were going to look back at the centers who are in the NBA right now and have a hearty laugh. 1995-1996 All-Star Centers: Kemp, Olajuwon, David Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Zo 2014-2015 All-Star Centers: Pau Gasol, Al Horford, Millisap, Marc Gasol, Aldridge, seasoned Tim Duncan. The center position died about 20 years ago and we are now seeing the ramifications of it. I personally believe we will be seeing a big man renaissance very soon. Theres a thousand reasons the position was bastardized so much, but nonetheless it still remains the second most important position on the floor in my opinion (I think a great PG is the most valuable thing anyone can have). If you have a dominant big man you will win a lot. We've failed as coaches to teach our bigs the proper skill sets to dominate the post.

TP needs to have the pressure relieved off his back. That's the only thing he needs to work on, and 90% starts with his coaches putting him and teaching him the right way to play team basketball, and his teammates picking up the slack. He has every skill and tool he needs physically and skill wise. The last 10% is him trusting his teammates and picking his spots way better.

Agreed Norm, and to what you also posted about Pitch/Kaminsky comparison. Big Frank knows his weakness is on the block, and that adding that skill makes him a lottery pick. Probably is regardless, but that will really help.

Or, dare I say, "going through the motions?"I bet if you did a board search on the in-game threads you'd get a lot of hits of people saying, "it looks like we're just going through the motions!"

Specialization, defined roles, responsibilities, job descriptions. All things any great organization needs - from a Fortune 500 to your local YMCA league team. Some people just naturally do things better than others - they have different skills, weaknesses, and things they prioritize personally. It is vital to your success to get those people in their best fit more times than not. The NBA is nearing an age of play where these things are almost scientificly determined. They are using numbers and thousands of hours of play/data to determine the best role and thing to do for every individual on the court. Their advantage? There are thousands of available data points and players available to enter in. They play 82 games at a minimum a year, summer league games, and some players have been on the same team, with the same coaches, or within similar organizations/conferences for 6+ years. They can determine these best roles, movements, strengths, and shot selections almost definitively. Then, they can pick, choose, and pay for exactly what they want. And last, 5-10 games off toss-up, win or lose, doesn't really matter over that many games and with play-offs (hell, teams with losing records make the playoffs every year). Sounds great, doesn't it? Sure, if you are dealing with a massive sample size, unlimited player options, the lack of emphasis on an individual game, and licensed-professional-assassin caliber players. But how about when every game matters and you are dealing with 18-21 year old young men? Ya know, those same kids who a lot of you have been parents of on this board - who will go at any length to not be labeled, prove you wrong, and go against the grain? Yeah, that kid. They are undefinable at this age, subconsciously so, matter of fact. My theory? Our roles got too defined and we forgot all 5 dudes on the court need to be playing basketball where all of the necessary skill-sets are available and on display. It is not about the system, it is probably not about playing, "motion basketball," (as I've beaten into our collective heads) -- it is about dudes (and coaches probably too) doing and emphasizing certain things that all 5 players must do from a basketball skill-set that the basketball gods have proven over and over again players need to be able to do. Example #1: Walter goes HAM last year shooting 3's and popping off of ball-screens. One could argue he was our MVP last year based on the fact that we went as Walter went. We were unstoppable if Walt was hitting 3's while popping (instead of rolling) on ball screen action. So naturally what would any logical person think needs to happen to Walt's game this summer? Needs to get GREAT at shooting those shape/pop shots off ball-screens so we are always good, right? Right? Bueller.... Bueller? Wrong. He still needed to develop his overall game. He still needs to be a 5-tool-offensive basketball player. Shooting, passing, driving, screening, and cutting. Does he need to be great at all those? Absolutely not! There are going to be plenty of things your average role player does not excell at - however - the Basketball Gods have proven time and time again there are just certain movements and actions every player must do based off of how the defense guards you. Do I know for fact this happened? Absolutely not. But I did see Walt misread ball screens this year and do the same thing nearly every time. Always looking for the same shot. Instead of rolling hard, unselfishly, to create spacing and lanes for his teammates. Because now what happens when the thing he worked the hardest on and focused on fails him? Confidence = gone. Do you have your fundamentals to fall back on? Example #2: TP and Shavon's driving angles. Two best players on the team right? Need to get the most shots and most attempts right? Ball needs to be in their hands right? Yes - if it happens naturally. Doesn't work if you force it. First off - you do not score as many points in the Big 10 as these two have without having incredible instincts, skills, and ability. But here is the problem, as our roles got too defined, these guys thought they had to carry the weight by themselves because they are the guys who should score the most. Therefore, if they got the ball kicked ahead to them, but their instincts looked ahead and saw they did not have a direct line to the hoop, we got NOTHING out of transition opportunities and kick-outs. Those transition kicks should have been our go to offense. With 6'7", multi-talented, bruisers of wings, you pray to get them in the open court. However, with their roles being too defined, they were not making the proper reads in transition, and on kick out opportunities to create for their teammates, the unselfish drives, if you will. Are they selfish people/players? No. They are great teammates. Unfortunately, too defined of roles can make you look that way, and not allow you to do the necessary, unselfish actions required on the basketball court. My solution - open it up, and get rid of the highly-specific individualized workouts basketball society has gravitated towards. Emphasize to your players to get their bodies in their best shape through your S&C program, and let them have some autonomy in figuring out the parts of their game they want to work on and develop. Emphasize workouts that all players should get good at regardless of position. Players will always naturally find a way to evolve what they are already good at. The key thing to remember- if you are good at something, it will probably naturally work its way into your game. Your subconscious is a good thing to always have in shape. But you have to remember that the game of basketball is played by 5 guys moving in unselfish, beneficial ways for their teammates based off of how the defense chooses to guard you. As a coach and as a player, those options must be available for both to adjust. We did not get that this year. Just my theory, could be way off. But after taking some time off from bball and putting some thought into the season, this is what I came up with.

The answer was, "no." +5 points for those who answered that.

If Webster hits a 3 you have to keep him in and hope he's getting ready to get hot.... Who knows I guess

I feel so bad for Leslee. He's a great dude, very mature, super intense. You're getting about 75% of his capabilities because of all the injuries he's had. Guy has good hands, smooth moves at times, and good smarts. You just get zero of his athleticism and explosiveness he once had. What could have been....

Well, here's the thing, as a coach you only run what you know and what you know you can comfortably teach and adjust. Obviously at the college level you've got to recruit the type of players that fit what you want to do. I think Pitino is one of the best at this. I also think Coach K is the best at adjusting what he does based off of what the culture of basketball is at the time. I think HS coaches are much more at the mercy of adjusting to what they have.

I can still hear Coach Eichoff teaching! Went to his basketball camp every year I could. Great coach, best camps ever.

I haven't seen Tyler play in a couple years - how has he progressed since his sophomore year? Has his foot speed and guard skills improved?

Ah hold on stop typing, I forgot one of the other arguments - "Why didn't anyone else recruit them then!?!?!?" Simple answer - I've recruited in Nebraska. If Creighton (which a lot of kids don't like) or Nebraska doesn't sniff at a kid - you might as well put a fence up because no one will step foot in the state. TRUST ME. And kids just aren't feeling UNO yet... Not sure why.

A few years back I drew some serious heat when I said we desperately need to start taking more chances on in-state kids instead of taking chances on kids from out of state (that weren't that heavily recruited in the first place). I was beaten down, flogged, and my family received death threats (I might be exaggerating). The main argument against this was, "if there's such good players here then why aren't they doing anything else when they go other places?" It's a solid argument, and I my counter was along the lines of bringing them in as specialists vs where the D2/NAIA teams are bringing them in as stars, thus different roles and different evaluations on how their careers go. Let me make one thing clear - I am not bashing our current players and I wouldn't trade them for the world. However, I will use them for comparison purposes. But if you've seen Connor Beranek and Ethan Brozek play for UNK (in the MIAA, one of the best D2 conferences out there), there's NO WAY, you could tell me we shouldn't have these two on our squad. Both 1st team all MIAA, and Connor was the POY in the conference. Again, I am not bashing our dudes - but if Nick Fuller and David Rivers are 3stars, Connor Beranek and Ethan Brozek are also. I have 0.0 doubt in my mind of that. As a redshirt JR, Brozek would have been in the Josiah Moore, Corey Hilliard, David Rivers, and Dylan Talley class. Hilliard and Moore making my point about taking chances on average players from out of state (both unrated 3 stars). And while I LOVE what DRivers brings and would trade him for the world - as a comparison, Brozek is just as big and moves just as well (he might be bigger, I'm not sure), and might handle the ball even better. With Connor, it's a no-brainer for me. Dude is a flat out stud. They list him at 6'6", but that cannot be true, he's closer to 6'8" than he is 6'6". They list Brozek at 6'7" and Connor looks taller than him. He's long, he's very athletic (Dunks with ease, and some of them are thunderous). He shoots the 3 well, has an incredible midrange game, and finishes at the rim with both hands easily. Deceptively quick, very fast in transition, and just has a perfectly developed feel for the game. Not to mention he is a fierce, very fierce competitor that wants the ball. He's unguardable at the level he's at now, you can't tell me he couldn't at least be effective on this squad being 6'7"ish and a lights out shooter. I don't care who was in his class, it was a no-brainer for me at the time and it still is. So, in general, my point is that we should grab the low hanging fruit from in-state vs going out of state to get low hanging fruit. Do I have a spacific example for this year or last? No, but I'm not as close to the recruiting scene as I used to be. But this should be a part of our philosophy and thought process IN MY OPINION. Man I waited a long time to make that post.... Phew, that's a weight off my shoulders, flog away my friends, flog away.

Awesome post Dean thanks for the insight. The what vs why issue is something you bring up a lot and I love it - what's your foundation for teaching this and getting this through to kids?

I realized my last post spent way more time on discussing what isn't motion. Hopefully I can shed some light on what is a motion offense in this post. Keep in mind, the reason I have time to chill out and write some stuff on the internet is because my team isn't playing anymore Motion Offense The fundamental principle behind motion offense is fluidity and freedom. 5 guys working very hard, changing speeds, spacing the floor, screening for one another, and taking advantage of what the defense gives them. "The defense is always wrong," is a popular thought among motion coaches. You can run motion out of any formation in the books, you can give guys certain roles, and you can implement other parts of basketball offenses into your offense. The Bobby Knight motion was focused hard on screening for one another away from the ball, and reading those actions. Other great coaches along the way have added their wrinkles and philosophies to it. One could argue that all other offenses that have been designed are just coaches trying to robotically teach their kids the perfect adjustment or counter to everything the defense does, without having to call it out. However, motion is about freedom, and letting players roles and strengths reveal themselves (not labeling them to fit what you want to do). Here are some popular motion offenses and formations that have been used throughout the years. Hope you all enjoy and I look forward to discussing this with you guys! ----------------------------- 5-Game This is what I call it. You could call it freelance, or just basic motion. By 5-Game I mean, anyone can post, anyone can screen, anyone can be screened for, and out of any formation. Remember that town team that is still good into their 40s that wins all the alumni tournaments? Bet ya $10 they implore some sort of 5-Game. This requires the most instinctive movements and players. Guys have really got to have a feel for one another and get the heck out of each others way (especially the guy with the ball). But it can be incredible because you never know what you are going to be hit with. Coaches really only have control over this by emphasizing certain screens they want to see set, or certain people taking mismatches to the block. Do not confuse 5-Game with 5-Out. 5-Out is when you operate out of 5, spaced out, spots on the perimeter. No one starts in the post, yet anyone could post. Back-cuts and doubles for shooters are really popular in 5-Out offense. You could, however, have a 5-Out/5-Game offense - which would imply that anyone can post-up after finishing their cut, and that anyone could screen/be screen, etc... (no one in the state teaches 5-Out offense better than Coach Beranek at Ravenna, by the way) Read and React Motion Please do not go buy those DVDs. Just watch a couple YouTube clips and you'll get the point and be able to build off of this. Read and React is just a way of teaching kids how to space the floor and react to action. Lots of the same principles of Dribble Drive Motion. This stuff is great for kids and youth teams. It teaches the most simple concept and most important concept of the game - spacing and moving with the ball (especially on drives and back cuts that would typically ruin the flow of an offense). Read and React has what the creators call, "layers," to it. These layers are more of an effective way to sell DVDs than they are complicated. They start with the most basic spacing and cutting action off of drives or cuts. God please let me reiterate, do not buy the DVDs, you can figure this out on your own. This stuff is good, because as poster DeanSmith has mentioned, you could operate your youth programs based off of a lot of these principles, then by the time they get to middle school and into your own high school program, you could team more of a freelance motion with off ball screening. Dribble-Drive-Motion Goodbye screening part of motion! Somewhat the answer to high-pressure, switching defenses. They wanna switch screens? Fine, just do not screen. Space out your guys and put your post player opposite of the ball. Have your dudes line up their guy and try to take him off the bounce. As long as your guys do a great job of moving when the ball is driven, this can be highly effective. Guys must find the line of the drive and be open for the kick. They must get to the drivers, "crack-back," in case he is cut off, so that the ball can be kicked out and continued to be reversed. And you must have a post player who is unselfish and willing to get out of the way - yet be ready to catch some wild passes off of drop downs and lobs. Omaha Central was fantastic running this. So they had the dudes, that's for sure. But they really moved well on the drives, and their post players (even before Akoy) did an incredible job of catching and finishing. They were even masterful against zones in this. Drive gaps, get the defense off balance, create for your teammates. They were also highly unselfish (almost to a fault) with their shot selection. I think every single offense, whether it be a pattern, motion, etc..., should have fundamentals of the dribble-drive offense in their game. If you do not, your offense breaks down if a guy decides to take his guy off the bounce (especially if he does not get too far). Formation Game with Roles/Emphasis This is where you could go 4out-1in with a dominant post player, and just have your perimeter players pass and screen away, with emphasis on getting post touches, while still leaving driving angles open. You could go 3out-2in, with your post players having the option to screen for one another, flash to high posts, etc... Or even go 5-out, which I describe above, where you could designate a multitude of players to be allowed to post after finishing their cut. I don't like these, too much confusion and too many questions per possession. Who should screen for who? When do I screen? Etc... That's why I much more prefer this next one ------> Mover-Blocker My favorite. Popularized (I hate to use invented) by Tony Bennett, Knight used a lot of it, and Don Meyer employed it quite a bit. Mover-Blocker has a lot of possible formations to it that you could use. But primarily, you are going to have very defined roles (especially to start initial positions). Typically you will have two post type players who will be your "blockers." Their job is to screen for "movers," until they get the basketball. If you have a good post player, that player will typically screen until his guy gets open, then try to seal hard on the catch (because his defender had to help the cutting action). One of my favorite parts about Mover-Blocker is that you can designate different formations for what they strengths of your big men are. In theory, you could set your offense up in any formation and designate who the movers are and who the blockers are. However, my favorite way to do this is called, "Wide-Lane," Formation, out of a quasi 3out, 1.5in that quickly can become a 4out 1 in. Your "Lane" post only screens and works on getting guys open on his side of the hoop, close to the block and hoop. He's working very hard to set good screens, then seal hard when he sees the guy he's trying to get open has gotten the ball. He typically does not have ball-screen responsibilities. Only to screen to get dudes open, then post hard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKDeyq-wawQ Your "Wide" post operates in the short corners, elbows, block, and pinch-post (the NBA loves the pinch-post - think Kobe, MJ, Dirk getting one on one looks from inside the perimeter, but not in the post). This "Wide" post has the same responsibilities as the "Lane" post, except he's not trying to seal on the low block on the catch of his teammates. He is trying to do one of two things - 1. Flash to the ball and slip on switches or against zones (into high post, short corner, etc...), or 2. He is following the passes to go set ball screens. If you have a guy like we do in Walt, you could have him be your wide post and go follow passes with ball-screens. He can do what the defense gives him, roll hard, pop, slip, etc... If you have a stud that is getting face guarded and having trouble getting the ball, putting him at the "Wide" post with Blocker responsibilities can work wonders. Really stretches out the defense and gives you a great pressure release. I'm getting angry typing this because I feel bad for Walt that his shots just are not falling. The key to Mover-Blocker is finishing your cuts. You can't have players hesitate behind screens, not knowing what to do. They have to finish the cut all the way through, then if they did not get the ball, go back through another action. Can't live 1/2 way between cuts. Before the season started and before Leslee Smith got injured, I was really hoping to see this lineup: 1. Webster (pg, mover, emphasis on straight-cuts for reversal, and back-cuts) 2. Petteway (mover, emphasis on curls and straight-cuts for shot) 3. Shields (mover, emphasis on curls and back-cuts) 4. Pitch (wide-blocker) 5. Smith (lane-blocker) I think Tia Webster is still full of potential. I love what his game could be. When he learns to go hard with reckless abandon, he might explode. With wings that have the size of Shields and Petteway, I was hoping to really see a ton of action to them off of wide-blocker curl cuts. I would think a defense would really have to pick their poison. And I had seen enough of Leslee to think that he actually does have some pretty savvy, smooth post moves with his back to the basket. The Problem With Motion So you're asking yourself - if Motion is such a great offense to run, then why doesn't everyone primarily run it as their half-court offense? Three things basically, athleticism, shot clock, and the nature of the NCAA. Athleticism In my opinion, a defense that switches a lot of off-ball screens effectively will kill a motion offense and make it very stagnant. One of the foundations of a motion offense is reading off-ball screens. If your man goes under the screen, you pop/flare/change your cut. If they try to chase you around it, you run them into your screener by curling/tight-cutting off the screen. If they over-play and try to jump on top of the screen, you change your screen angle and back-cut. What do you do if they just switch the screen? Well, as a cutter, you've only got a couple options: 1. You just pop to the ball (straight cut), but this isn't going to allow you catch for a shot or drive very often, just be able to continue swinging the ball, 2. You really force curl/tight cuts (which is the best option in my opinion), but again, you're not going to catch this is position to score very often, but what it will do is force a defender to jump you and deny the cut - which creates for others. But the point is, you're not going to get much direct shooting or drive angles off of your off-ball screens. What screeners are taught to do if they see switching defenses is to slip the screen. Which is a great option, but as far as efficiency goes, hitting that slip is a difficult pass to be attempting possession after possession. Especially if you're playing a quality team that does a good job of getting under the switch. As athletic as teams and individual players have become, motion is more and more difficult to run. Athleticism and length allows you to switch screen after screen because you are much less worried about mismatches now. What are you really giving away if a 6'6" 220 guy with a 7ft wingspan switches with a 6'8" 240 post player? Especially if that post player can hold his own on the perimeter for a while. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12273986/how-golden-state-warriors-built-nba-best-defense (read this article about Golden State switching) Shot Clock The NCAA did not introduce a shot clock until '85-'86, where it was a 45 second shot clock. And while it might seem like it has been around forever, the NCAA did not go to the 35 second shot clock until '93-'94. Tough to feel like you are under much control as a coach of an offense that is limited by time every single possession. Motion is notorious for looking off every once in a while, for no real reason. I'd argue that this is a fruitless worry, because it is all about how you practice and how you mentally condition your guys to think about a possession... but nonetheless, it really has had an impact. Nature of the NCAA So think about this for a second - you're an NCAA D1 coach - you make an absurdly unjustifiable amount of money to coach basketball. Because of that, you're job is on the line from the second you sign that contract. Every year you have kids leaving early, recruits bailing, transfers coming in and out -- are you going to bank your career on an offense that requires a certain flow and freedom to it? Especially if you only get around 25-28 seconds (assuming a few seconds to get the ball up the court, and a few left on to not have to rush a shot) to get a good shot off? Don't forget - you get very little communication and work with your guys in the off-season. Half of them go play elsewhere over the summer or go back home. Oh yeah, and the kids you're getting? Most of them have never navigated themselves through an off-ball screen and basically none of them have back-to-the-basket post moves because of the nature of AAU basketball culture. I'd be willing to bet you get real used to cashing those 6-digit paychecks and you try to do everything you can do control what types of shots and when you get them... ------------------- But nonetheless, I've always really enjoyed motion basketball and teaching it. However, again, not about X's and O's, it's about Jimmy and Joes. You get the right type of dudes in your system and you could run whatever the heck you want to run - just get out of their way. But again, that is why I like motion offense, because as Dick Bennett said, "there's nothing wrong with the offense, just with your player's fundamentals." So, if you build your squad the way you want - why not trust them to use their skills? Anyway, just my thoughts and opinions. Hopefully next year I'll do a better job of teaching all of this and I won't be here typing on a Sunday!

That was pretty cool... Be nice to get a few kids who could play with his skills and savvy

Don't disagree there. I'd say there's a few things that could be changed to get us more in games, expo facto creating energy because it's competitive, but nonetheless, correct, X's and O's only matter when the intangibles have been taken care of. Jones you probably know a lot more about basketball than I do...but just going off the eye test it appeared our action was improved on offense last night. But, we are a poor shooting and passing team..combine those two and it leads to trouble. We can only hope that an added year of experience, and the incoming talent can change that next year. I did not get a chance to watch last night, was at district hs games. Good to hear, though (I trust your eyeball). Question to ask yourself -- assuming these guys are all capable basketball players and were solidly recruitable division one talent - what all of the sudden made them unable to shoot a basketball or create for others?

Don't disagree there. I'd say there's a few things that could be changed to get us more in games, expo facto creating energy because it's competitive, but nonetheless, correct, X's and O's only matter when the intangibles have been taken care of.

Correct. Except last year we played out of our a**es and just had a special attitude and aura about ourselves. We snuck up on teams, played with an unmatched passion and energy, and played as a team. This year it's seems like we thought we were completely different and could just get by being a normal team. When, quite frankly, it required everything we did last year from an intangible perspective. Subtract the one dude who seemed to be able to make an open 3, take away our mental/passion edge, and just go through the motions - you're 13-15 with no shot at decent post season play. However, neither team is/was particularly impressive offensively, fwiw.

There we have it folks. The final circle of Nebraska Basketball Hell. The stage where we start to bring back names from our torrid past. "If only we would just have this guy and this guy from that team and that era, we'd be fine."Obviously we've been talking about missing Rey all year, but that's not uncommon for any team to miss a senior from the year before. But when we start bringing up the Conk's name, you know the season is over. Took us a while this year, proud of everyone. You miss my point jones. I was merely pointing out (in a thread talking about how nobody wants or is capable of shooting a three), that in the past we've had guys that were capable of shooting and more than willing to shoot the three. I've seen plenty of other threads where people have made comparisons to players from the past. Didn't know we were only allowed to talk about previous year's players, and after that it puts us in a circle of basketball hell. Why is bringing up Conklin's name to you a sign that our season is truly over? The guy shot 56% his Senior year from distance (66-118) and shot 65% from the outside in Big 12 play. Statistically he ranked 1st in the nation amongst all players with at least 20 3 point attempts. Yeah, talking about that sad sap surely means we're all doomed to hell. It was a joke my man... Chill the jets

Sorry but I disagree with you. No one should take away from all this that I'm questioning Miles or the staff, or bashing our players. We have some pieces... A lot of our issues are mental. But it's up to a team and the coaches to take the pieces they have and do the best with what we have. We shouldn't be getting beat like we are, regardless of personnel. It's the 6" between the ears that is getting us beat by 20+ and only scoring in the teens in the first half.

Yes I've watched that and I've seen the 1-4 high playbook we have."Coach Tim Miles shows the various alignments he uses in order to control his motion offense. The five alignments include 4-out/1-in, high post set, one and two-guard fronts, 3-out/2-in, and a five-out set. He also includes four drills he uses in order to teach motion. Coach Miles also discusses motion rules and the trademarks of his motion offense. Each alignment has various options and is demonstrated on-court and with game footage. Coach Miles emphasizes touching the post, shot selection, and crashing the offensive boards." We rely heavy on what (I believe) he calls his high-post sets and/or what I would call his 3 out 2 blockers (a bastardized version of mover and blocker with just ball screens). Typically our possession goes 1. High post set into 2. Ball-screen revolving pattern into 3. TP calling for a high ball screen to chuck up a prayer. If any of you guys could implement the ideal offense for the Huskers, what would it be and why? In my opinion, that's not the right question. Tim Miles is an incredible coach and he knows more about basketball and the different options he has than I do x10.Our problem threefold in my opinion. 1. Fundamentals - DeanSmith nailed it about TP (I'd even say Shavon too). What vs Why is the biggest difference in OK teams and good/smart teams. But we go through the what our motions are supposed to be, but do not know why, and do not read and react to what our teammates are doing and what the defense is giving us. I don't know if these guys could play motion basketball if Miles wanted to... Which might be the answer to all of this. Personnel. 2. Spacing - our spacing is jacked for 75%-90% of the possession. You've GOT TO get guys spaced in the corners and in the low post (ball side or even away from the ball). But we go through the motions and do not read and react to what our teammates are doing and what the defense is giving us. Of course, back to personnel, we don't have a guy or two who can sit in the corners and knock down 50% of their corner 3's on kick-outs... Which is saaaaadddd.... (Take note, I'm not saying shooting 50% from 3, I'm saying - on standing in the corner, with a kick out pass, you should hit nearly 50-60% of those) 3. Transition Offense - Benny actually does a fairly decent job of getting some high outlet passes, on the move, and kicked ahead to players with an advantage. Problem is we NEVER take advantage of those opportunities. This happens because SS and TP only seem to know how to drive as if they are playing one-on-one. They're the guys who get the ball kicked ahead to them, but if they see they do not have open lanes to the hoop, they'll stop their drive and pull back, which stops everything you got because of the kick ahead. And stalls us, allowing the defense to take hold and push back. Sometimes you have to drive knowing you are not going to score, and you have to take a different angle that draws other defenders. Webster actually does a good job of this in theory, but he's not confident yet and his pace and pound of the ball is too slow and hesitant right now. TW is actually the guy who has shown me a ton this year, but has just not capitalized on much. All potential at this point, but I feel like the instincts and thought process are there.

Yes I've watched that and I've seen the 1-4 high playbook we have. "Coach Tim Miles shows the various alignments he uses in order to control his motion offense. The five alignments include 4-out/1-in, high post set, one and two-guard fronts, 3-out/2-in, and a five-out set. He also includes four drills he uses in order to teach motion. Coach Miles also discusses motion rules and the trademarks of his motion offense. Each alignment has various options and is demonstrated on-court and with game footage. Coach Miles emphasizes touching the post, shot selection, and crashing the offensive boards." We rely heavy on what (I believe) he calls his high-post sets and/or what I would call his 3 out 2 blockers (a bastardized version of mover and blocker with just ball screens). Typically our possession goes 1. High post set into 2. Ball-screen revolving pattern into 3. TP calling for a high ball screen to chuck up a prayer.

You did a really good job. Doc attributed his offense to Eddie Sutton. I will ask: You think Doc's offense was worse than what you've seen this year? When Nebraska scores this year, it's usually because Petteway went off or Shields had a matchup. Impossible question for me personally to answer, swmckewon. Doc's talent was so poor. Docs offense had much better spacing to the wings and corners, and was built to have much more action to the hoop off of screens. I will say, I think TP and SS would have a lot more success coming off of Doc's backside (2 man side) down screen. Make defenders decide how they're gonna guard that gives us a ton of option.The biggest issue in my opinion? Both are terrible at creating advantages and help situations right away in transition... That's a whole other post.