NUdiehard

Copeland getting destroyed on defensive end. And someone needs to tell him there is a reason he is repeatedly open at 3 point line#can’tshoot

NU down 10 at half. Don’t have the stats in front of me but almost certain Jordy was a minus 12 (or worse) for the 6 minutes he was in. Which means NU was was a positive net rating for the 14 minutes Jordy not in game.

There seems to be a general consensus that Roby should be playing more minutes (25+), yet there also seems to be a consensus that the current rotations are fine and shouldn’t be changed. Not sure I follow this logic. Roby is averaging only 19 minutes per game (which is an abomination IMO). That is what the current rotation allows. Can’t have it both ways. Either the rotation has to change or Roby’s Minutes stay too low. If your not willing to start Roby with Copeland and your not willing to play Roby significant minutes at 5, then the minutes just aren’t there. Miles loves his guards and will not play Roby at the 3. Copeland is playing 28 minutes at the 4 and I would expect this to increase to 30+ in conference. That only leaves 10 minutes for Roby at the 4. Please explain where Roby is going to get those other 17-20 minutes

X 1000. Can’t just look at the player and his production (or lack thereof) in isolation. Having a big like Jordy or Duby that can’t shoot and can’t pound down low bogs down the entire team and the entire offense. Our wings spent the entire first half trying to ram into the paint but NW had 5 defenders sitting it paint waiting for the. THis has been happening game after game after game. If you put Roby at the 5 that could be worth 10 extra points per half even if he never scored a point himself just by opening up the lane with his gravity

It’s all about pace and space. When Miles plays lineups that can space the floor and allows them to get out in transition things go much better. Set them free and see what happens.

Crispin was absolutely drooling over that lineup. And he should because it is our best lineup against about 80% of our opponents. Maybe not Purdue, but teams like NW without a true big, absolutely yes. It seems to me everybody who follows this team and understands basketball gets this except Miles.

Best lineup is Roby and Copeland at 4 and 5. What they give up in size they make up for with length, athleticism, passing and versatility.

Roby and Gill need to get major minutes. Maybe he can plead insanity trying the same thing over and over (ie Jordy) and expecting different results.

Roby has played all of about 1 minute this entire half. Miles is a moron

There is a reason for starting your best players that goes beyond "boxscore and prestige". Unless the player at issue is an ironman, starting him is almost always the best way to maximize his minutes on the floor while also maximizing his ability to take rest periods during the game. For instance, if you never want a player to play more than 8-10 straight minutes, and if Roby sits the first 5-6 minutes of the game, that means he is probably only going to be able to play 10 minutes per half (sit 5 minutes, play 8 minutes, rest 5 minutes, play 2 minutes). In contrast, if Roby starts, he can easily play 14-16 minutes per half and still get plenty of rest (Play 8 minutes, rest 5 minutes, play 7 minutes). That is a significant difference. Roby only played 22 minutes last night. He is one of the most impactful players on the team and his minutes do not reflect that at this point. Now, can foul trouble change this up. Of course. But you don't eliminate the best possible chance to maximize minutes by not starting just because it is "possible" he may get into foul trouble. Has Roby had foul trouble in some games? Yes. But this is even more reason to start him. He needs to learn how to play more minutes in a game without fouling. He is less likely to learn that skill if he is never put in that position.

The analytics should not be ignored. The historical stats show that the long two is the most inefficient shot in the game. Very very few players can shoot it at any better than a 40% clip. Most are more in the 30%-35% clip. Since this is true, the only logical conclusion is to take the two steps back and shoot the 3 which is worth 50% more than the 2 and yet only a few % less likely to go in (if that, many players today are better 3 point shooters than long 2 because practice 3 point shot so much more)

The difference beteeen a scorer and a shooter is gravity. What you say is true if you are only looking at this from an individual level. But from a team perspective, a good shooter can make it easier for the other 4 players on the floor to score simply by being on the floor, whether he is scoring or not. That is not always true of a scorer.

Funny that you mention that because I have recently been pondering whether Roby could develop into a (very) poor-mans version of the Greek Freak? (other than not being Greek of course)

Since we are talking about referees, the thing that drives me mad is that refs have no clue what a flop is and how to call it. These guys watch and ref games for a living. It is their livelihood, yet they repeatedly are clueless on the games (and acting) that the players play and they fall for it time and time and time again. Basically, if a player falls down, the refs almost always blow their whistle, and 90% of the time the guy that falls down gets the benefit of the call. It has become absurd. Now, shooters fall down after every shot. Defensive players fall down (or fling their head back) when running around a screen. Offensive players throw their head back if the defender grazes their hip (as if touching your hip makes your head violently sling your head back!?). Certain players do this much more than others, and those that do have their "regular" go to flops game after game after game. Yet the refs are clueless. They fall for it every stinkin time. If I was a ref, the rule would be simple. If you fall down I am not only not going to give you the benefit of the doubt, I am going to assume you flopped unless the contact leading to the fall was so clear and egregious and convincing as to prove that assumption wrong. If all refs did this all the flopping would go away real quick. Why is this so complicated? Frankly it is shocking to me that refs can't figure this out and how can it not make one question their competency?

This is because IU went to zone. For 5 years we have all watched Huskers be completely befuddled by zone.

That was a clear goaltend of Tais shot

Pretty sure new rules allow coaches/teams to share information about the scrimmage after it is done. Didn't Huskers actually post an article about the scrimmage last year with select statistics and everything?

Smith is a lock one-and-done so that won't help us

bball23 did compare our situation to MSU. That was the initial post that I responded to. And as for '13-14, that kind of proves my point. We lost 4 games to name teams and won ALL of our cupcake games. Imagine if we had lost to just one of our non-conf cupcakes. We would not have made the NCAA (or similarly if we had played that 13th game vs. a cupcake and lost it). We just don't have room to lose cupcake games like many other powerhouse teams do. And even if we all know we don't have a great team this year, it is much more fun going into conf. with at least the hope that we could make a run and maybe land on the bubble. Losing to teams like Samford (without any really good upset wins to counter it) almost dashes any hope before the conf. season even starts, and that is a downer and, frankly, is unnecessary. Look, I also did not have grand expectations this year. I knew this was most likely not a tourney team coming into this season. Heck, I was talking about this after the end of last year when we lost Tarin Smith and Pitchford in addition to Petteway. Many on here were claiming we would be even better this year without those guys and I predicted their losses would hurt more than we know. I am not a "sky is falling" person in regards to Miles or even this season. I do not think Miles is on the hot seat nor do I think he should be on the hot seat. Not even close really. I am still a Miles supporter and I really like Roby and have hopes for Horne. Have also heard good things about Gill, but I also think we desperately need a big man, maybe this TAM transfer. As said above, I had pretty low expectations for this year and I am fully aware of our 5 freshman. For me personally, the biggest frustration with the past few weeks has been seeing issues that have seemingly plagued us for the last 2 years, or even last 4 years. Like our press break, or zone offense, the lack of confidence of our role players, etc. I think our quality and style of play has gone down since Craig Smith left, so that is a concern. Many other people have pointed these things out as well, but then they are told they are overreacting to 1 single game. No, its not. If we had been a dominate press breaking team the past 4 years and just had one bad game, then it would be disappointing, but not a big deal. For many frustrated fans, its not about just one game, its about issues that have plagued Miles' teams for the past 2 years or longer. And I guess I think those are fair points to discuss. I disagree with those who couch it in "Miles needs to get it together or else", but I can at least respect their right to feel that way if they want. I certainly won't tell them they are making rash and childish posts based on just 1 game. We are in year 4 and right now Miles has a worse win/loss record that Doc Sadler had at this point, so I think it is just as rash to say people are overreacting to 1 game and compare us to MSU. That is my main point.

We also have to remember the good and the bad. Though we have lost the big ones, we were toe to toe with Cincy and Miami. Very well could have beaten both of them. We have been in games that mean something. We have won two games that were toss ups, and have lost one we really had not business in losing. We are one game from where a lot of people thought we would be sitting at this point in the year. The Big 10 doesn't scare me as much as it did before the season started either. You make a good point, but it actually leads to my last thought on this subject. I actually feel that in many ways, NU basketball games are much like football is some ways in that one game can be a huge difference maker. Especially non-conf cupcake games. Just one loss to a cupcake can be the difference between dancing and not dancing when it comes to NU BB, so let's be honest, every game counts for us. At this stage, Nebraska is not anything like Mich St. or Ohio State, or Wisconsin, or any of those types of teams. We just aren't. If we are going to get into the dance, it is going to be by the hair of our chinny chin chin. NU's margin is razor thin. We all know this, right? Even in '13-14 we were sweating it out until our name was called. I don't have the schedule in front of me, but I don't think we lost to a cupcake in the non-conf. I could be wrong. But imagine if we had lost just one more game in the non-conf to a bad team. We almost certainly would NOT have made it. This simply is our reality and it is why losses like Samford hurt so much. It is just one loss, but for Nebraska one loss could easily be the difference. If we win 9 or 10 games in conf, the NCAA committee is not going to give us the grace it gives powerhouse schools like this mentioned above. We just don't have that luxury. Which again is why I don't understand comparisons to those types of schools, they are not apples to apples and I think we all know it.

Norm, I understand your response to my post. I game it a little more explanation above, but I will elaborate. I just don't understand when people say "it is only one game" when we have played 13 games. I don't think anyone here is making a judgment based on that one game alone. This was my same feeling last year after the Incarnate Word game, which followed the absolutely abysmal game against Creighton, which followed very poorly played games against cupcakes even if we did squeek out a win, which followed the disappointing loss against Rhode Island, which followed the horrid exhibition game where we were losing at halftime. It's not just one game unless that one game is the first and only poor performance of the year. That is what I don't get. If NU was 12-1 (ala Mich St) do you think anyone would would be so disappointed? Honestly? Heck, we would be ranked in the top 10 probably. All I am trying to say is that when it is game 12 or game 13, its not one game. I know you have been doing this a long time, just like I have. I feel like I have reached a point where I can trust my eyes. After 13 games, I feel like I have a pretty good idea of a good (NCAA bubble) team when I see it. I am sure many on here feel the same. If anyone is basing their complete an entire opinion on just that one game, then I agree, that is nonsense. But I don't think that is the case for most posters on this board who watch all the games just as we do. If you and others want to disagree with posters who have a less positive view, that is absolutely fine. I just don't think it should be premised in "its just one game, this isn't football' when it is based on 12 or more games. That is all.

UNO has one starter, maybe two that could start for NU, hyperbole is OWH strong suit. Thurman, Patterson and White could, in theory, all start, though Thurman plays Shields' position, in a sense. That may not be true a few years, but it is right this minute. And Hollins would play some minutes, too. Remember, Hollins and Thurman were part of the greatest HS team in state history. None of them ended up at Nebraska. Or Creighton. Or anywhere else good.Pretty sure Agau's at Georgetown. He was on that team, too.Thurman wasn't any better or worse a HS player than Shields. Maybe they'll shake out differently in college. Thus far, they're about equal. But there's Edward Chang, and we'll see where he goes in a few years. I have 0% doubt in my mind - from all my basketball experience - that Treshawn Thurman and Tradeon Hollins would start for Nebraska. Treshawn is better than Morrow, better than Jacobsen, better than any 4/5 we have on our roster. Tradeon would be an upgrade of Benny's defense, on and off ball, and he can finish at the rim. Our line up of:1. Hollins 2. White 3. Shields 4. Thurman 5. Whatever crap 5 you put in Would be better than any line-up we currently have. These "Central Superstars" have lost to UC Santa Barbara, Eastern Michigan, a BAD Missouri team and a pretty awful Wyoming team. Took powerhouse UMKC to OT at home to win the game. Squeaked out a win over Montana State. OT vs Grand Canyon. Look, maybe individually you can look at a guy and think he is pretty good. But they are losing to a lot of cupcakes. It humors me how many on here will compare these guys when in reality, how good are they really? They may look "decent" vs LOWER level competition, but how the hell do we know they can go night in an night out in the B10? We lost a game we shouldn't have and all hell breaks lose. Oakland just took Michigan State to OT tonight! OAKLAND! Maybe Izzo has lost it? The point is, teams lose games they shouldn't, teams have great nights, teams have awful nights....THAT'S BASKETBALL!! Again, this is NOT football! Its a 32 game marathon, not a 10 game sprint! One team gets hot in basketball and can beat anybody on any given night! Every night I could literally give you an upset of a team that shouldn't have won. Its what makes basketball great! Anything can happen! The key is to try and not get too excited for great wins, and not too down after bad losses. I wondered when "It's only one game! This isn't football!" guy would appear. I distinctly remember you guys last year after the Incarnate Word game telling everyone they were completely overreacting. I wondered when the this season is lost guys would appear one season. It happened really the first few games of conference. I remember telling everyone to calm down, that we were decent, and we could still win some games after that Penn State loss in '13-'14 dropped us to 9-9 (1-5). Just saying that that argument works both ways. Yes, you do have '13-14 on your side. But you must admit, in the last 20 years "the season is lost guys" have been right 95% of the time! Ha. Actually, I am not one who thinks this season is absolutely lost for the record. I am wait and see but not holding my breath. I've been doing this a looong time and I just feel like I know what I see with my own 2 eyes. I will admit '13-14 fooled me, but more often than not when it comes to having a legitimate NCAA type team, "you know it when you see it". We have pieces this year, but we also have some killer holes and it is going to be really tough. Right now, after that brutal loss, I would say we have to win 10 games in conference just to be on the bubble. Do you want to put your money on that happening? That is the problem with losses like that for a team like NU. We simply have no margin for error against lesser teams because we aren't good enough to typically overcome being in such a hole. That is the disappointment. Some of us have been doing this a long, long time and we have seen this deal repeat again and again and again.

UNO has one starter, maybe two that could start for NU, hyperbole is OWH strong suit. Thurman, Patterson and White could, in theory, all start, though Thurman plays Shields' position, in a sense. That may not be true a few years, but it is right this minute. And Hollins would play some minutes, too. Remember, Hollins and Thurman were part of the greatest HS team in state history. None of them ended up at Nebraska. Or Creighton. Or anywhere else good.Pretty sure Agau's at Georgetown. He was on that team, too.Thurman wasn't any better or worse a HS player than Shields. Maybe they'll shake out differently in college. Thus far, they're about equal. But there's Edward Chang, and we'll see where he goes in a few years. I have 0% doubt in my mind - from all my basketball experience - that Treshawn Thurman and Tradeon Hollins would start for Nebraska. Treshawn is better than Morrow, better than Jacobsen, better than any 4/5 we have on our roster. Tradeon would be an upgrade of Benny's defense, on and off ball, and he can finish at the rim. Our line up of:1. Hollins 2. White 3. Shields 4. Thurman 5. Whatever crap 5 you put in Would be better than any line-up we currently have. These "Central Superstars" have lost to UC Santa Barbara, Eastern Michigan, a BAD Missouri team and a pretty awful Wyoming team. Took powerhouse UMKC to OT at home to win the game. Squeaked out a win over Montana State. OT vs Grand Canyon. Look, maybe individually you can look at a guy and think he is pretty good. But they are losing to a lot of cupcakes. It humors me how many on here will compare these guys when in reality, how good are they really? They may look "decent" vs LOWER level competition, but how the hell do we know they can go night in an night out in the B10? We lost a game we shouldn't have and all hell breaks lose. Oakland just took Michigan State to OT tonight! OAKLAND! Maybe Izzo has lost it? The point is, teams lose games they shouldn't, teams have great nights, teams have awful nights....THAT'S BASKETBALL!! Again, this is NOT football! Its a 32 game marathon, not a 10 game sprint! One team gets hot in basketball and can beat anybody on any given night! Every night I could literally give you an upset of a team that shouldn't have won. Its what makes basketball great! Anything can happen! The key is to try and not get too excited for great wins, and not too down after bad losses. I wondered when "It's only one game! This isn't football!" guy would appear. I distinctly remember you guys last year after the Incarnate Word game telling everyone they were completely overreacting.

Barfknecht weighs in on this question. And it does not appear that he believes the talent level is so great as LK1 and many others on this board think: http://www.omaha.com/huskers/barfknecht-improving-talent-level-essential-for-struggling-huskers/article_f5e3e3a2-4054-5aba-a080-c02e752925dd.html EDIT: I see that Dimes beat me to this link

One other coaching issue I have noticed but didn't mention in the OP is our defense when the opponent is inbounding the ball from under the hoop. As much as I can remember, Miles teams have always played man-to-man in defending the inbounds. Maybe this is standard at the college level, but man have we been killed by it time and time again. I challenge anyone to go back and watch the Creighton game and count the number of times CU burned us on inbounds plays from under their own hoop. I seriously think they scored on about 80% of their inbounds plays (and there were a lot of them, probably 10 or so). Most times it was Shields or someone else chasing a guy around 3, 4 or even 5 screens and always getting caught up in traffic only to give him man a wide open 10-15 foot jumper. Why not go zone for inbounds plays? Heck, why not go zone the entire possession whenever they inbounds, it would be a nice change-up anyway. Regrettably, in contrast, I rarely recall Nebraska scoring an easy basket off our inbounds plays.