NUdiehard

I think this is a very legitimate question.

How much of this is a result of Fuller simply being "uncomfortable" in a big time B1G game considering he has so little experience. I think this goes to the heart of Dimes question. The reason Fuller was not getting valuable experience during early non-conf. games or even early conf. games is b/c the focus has been so much on defense. Had Fuller received more experience early on in the season, he might be more comfortable taking that shot today. But as it stands, he is a bit of a fish out of water with so little experience this late in the season.

It's hard to look at our overall offensive/defensive numbers vs the numbers of Miles and Molinari historically and come to that conclusion. At the end of the day we're running one of the best defenses in the country complemented by one of the worst offenses. However, how can you watch Wisconsin though and believe that slow play on offense must equal passivity which then equals lack of confidence? Those guys seem to feed off the fact they can pass the ball around for 33 seconds looking for an easy shot/basket and know that whoever has the ball with 5 seconds should take a shot. By all metrics they have been a slower team than us in every year we've been in conference and yet they confidently take and make shots. Slow offensive play does not necessarily equate to lower shooting percentage. All of our players aren't shooting worse than last year. Tai Webster is shooting significantly better from FT, 2pt and 3pt though his Freshman year numbers were dreadful so this isn't surprising. Petteway has improved his eFG% the entire time he's played here. (2015 conf > 2015 non-conf > 2014 conf > 2014 non-conf) Benny's numbers are down at the 2 but he actually takes and makes 3pts Overall our 2pt% is up and our dreadful 3pt% is dragging us down to a lower overall eFG% than last year but a huge drop and better than our 2012-13 team with Gallegos and Talley. Pitchford, Webster, and Shields are dragging our 3pt percentage down. Is it because of lack of confidence or because they aren't that good at shooting 3s but have to take them due to lack of alternatives? Shooting gets the most attention but the biggest change is turnovers. Making the argument that changing Smith for Molinari is the explanation for our increased turnovers is something that can also be backed up by numbers and much more so than shooting. Why hasn't anyone made that argument yet? Is it because no has considered this or it seems illogical or what? Tossing everything I just said out the window, Miles has come out and point blank said our defense very well might be affecting our overall aggressiveness and thus our offense. While we embraced defense last year, it was at the middle of the year instead of out of the gate like this year. You've seen us press in the last couple of games though to jump start things. Miles isn't afraid to make adjustments and there is no doubt he'll keep doing so as long as we have trouble scoring. Mo might add some influence about how he wants to run things, much like every other assistant on the staff, but at the end of the day Miles makes the calls and isn't lacking for confidence or vision to make them. Dimes, I agree there are other aspects beyond Coach Mo or Craig Smith that definitely play into our struggles this year. It was not my intent to lay all the blame, or even most (any?) of the "blame" on Coach Mo for our losses and disappointing record this year. My main point was simply to state that maybe it shouldn't be that surprising that NU is very low scoring team this year considering the prominent role Coach Mo has on staff this year (note, that is different than saying it is not surprising we are losing so many games). As I mentioned in my previous post, in 2013, Molinari had a very good record at Western Illinois (granted, he was playing in a much lower conference), but his team was the SLOWEST team in the entire country! Think about that for a minute. Out of 347 teams, his team was the slowest, and it wasn't even close--his team was the slowest by a wide margin. That is astounding when you think about it. Was he able to use that strategy to win some close games in a lower conference? Absolutely. Is his defense excellent? Absolutely. Will it work for NU in the B1G? As for Craig Smith, there definitely are questions about what role he played. Based on Harriman's statements, Smith did not "run" the offense or call the plays, Coach Miles did. But to me, that doesn't mean Smith may not have had a lot of influence on Miles and how he implemented and ran his system last year and every other year Smith was here. This is what Miles had to say about Smith when he hired him to Nebraska (after working with him at CSU) in 2013: It goes without saying that others must feel Craig had an excellent basketball mind, including offensive game planning, or he wouldn't have been hired as a head coach. Of all the members on the staff, it was Craig Smith that got the head coaching gig, so I am guessing he knows his Xs and Os pretty well. He may not have implemented the offense or diagrammed the plays during a game, but he could have sat with coach Miles in his office when they were piecing it together or making adjustments throughout the season. I don't know for sure, I was not there every day, I am just going off what I do now and connecting the dots. As for Wisconsin, many on here are correct in pointing out that Bo Ryan has used a "slow pace" strategy in the past with considerable success. So I guess he is proof that it can work, even in a conference like the B1G. The one response I would have to that, though, is that Ryan recruits a distinct type of player to run his system, and I don't think NU's current roster is anywhere close to what Ryan wants for his system. Ryan like a team full of smart, skilled players who all can shoot the ball with great accuracy. They may not be the most athletic, but they make up for that with intelligence, discipline, fundamentals, and shooting ability. Right now, I would say NU's roster is almost the exact opposite. We have some pretty athletic players, but they are not extremely skilled or disciplined and they definitely are not great shooters. So is this the strategy best employed this year for this roster? Also, regarding Bo Ryan and Wisconsin, even Coach Bo has evolved in this regard. Note these statistics regarding Wisconsin's offense this year and last year: Obviously, Ryan has better players to work with than Miles this year. But the question is whether Miles' current roster is so talent deficient that it should be producing first half scores of 18, 16, 13 and 13 in 4 of its last 5 games. Those low scoring numbers are astounding. And I simply cannot accept that it is solely because NU's roster is "incomplete" or "lacks shooters" Does NU have less talent and less scoring talent than every other team in the country? Because I doubt you will find another team in all of basketball (347 teams) that has such dreadful numbers in the first half of so many consecutive ball games. And this doesn't even count some of the miserable non-conf. performances. Do you remember NU only scored 35 points in regulation against LMU. I went back and check LMU's schedule and no other team has come even close to scoring so few points in a game against LMU. And LMU has played some really, really poor teams. Does NU have that much less scoring talent than all those other teams? Really? There are aspects of the game that must be emphasized or de-emphasized in practice throughout the year based on the coach's priorities. For instance, How much time does NU work on outlet passes after getting a defensive rebound? I can't state how many times I have seen Rivers get a rebound and rather than immediately looking down court for Shields or TP or Tai, he just clasps the ball and bends over to protect the ball, only to slowly throw it to a guard after the opposing defense has already retreated. Every missed shot by the opponent should first be seen as an "opportunity" for a quick score. If that is not available, push the ball and look for a secondary score, etc. To me, this is the best strategy for the current roster b/c the current roster does struggle so much in the half court. This obviously is just one simple example, I am sure there are many more complex variables that go into it. But my point is the a coach like Coach Mo probably doesn't value or stress things like this b/c they have never been part of his core philosophy. And I would imagine some of that rubs off on the players and Coach Miles, etc. But again, with all that said, the one thing I love about Miles is that he is never content and he never sits still. He is constantly trying to innovate and improve. He is not stubborn or set in his ways. He will get this figured out, maybe not this year, but he will get it done. I am confident in that.

Just to be clear on my position on this, I am not down on Miles or questioning his long-term ability to coach at Nebraska at all. I am still very happy with Miles and all that he has done. In fact, the one thing I really like about Miles is that he is not afraid to make changes when things aren't working. He is not stubborn or set in his ways like so many coaches. It may be too late to correct it this year, but I do believe he will get this figured out for the long-term. He will find the right balance and figure out a way to implement it in the years ahead, I am confident of that. I do not believe Miles has a core-philosophy of "we love low scoring games" like Molinari does. As Miles said in his presser a few weeks back, I truly believe that he wants a team that can play with pace on offense and score a lot of points while still playing great defense and holding the opponent to the fewest points possible.

FWIW, I am not trying to suggest that Miles doesn't know his Xs and Os or that he doesn't have anything to do with devising the scheme or implementing the offense. But based on what I have heard and seen, I think he delegates a lot of responsibility in these areas to his assistants. If you attend the games, watch during timeouts. Who is in the huddle diagramming the next play or instructing the players on what adjustments they need to make. I have noticed many, many, many times where Miles approaches a referee to talk to while Molinari or another assistant is in the huddle addressing the players. If that assistant is addressing the team during the game in the heat of battle, that indicates to me that assistant played a large part, if not the primary part, in implementing the game plan for that game. Royalfan, based on what I have heard, it is my understanding that the assistant coaches (I think it is primarily Harriman, but I could be mistaken on this) handle virtually all of the substitutions in every game, not just one game. I heard early on (I mean during Miles first year as head coach) that Craig Smith was the primary Xs & Os guy. I could be wrong. My source for this may have been incorrect, but he was pretty connected with the program. This is why I was concerned before this season started at the loss of Craig Smith and how it would affect the team. Nonetheless, I think it is pretty clear that Molinari is the primary defense coach and heavily involved in the overall plan and philosophy of the team and its strategy. How could he not be? If he is in charge of the defense, that is at least 50% of the game, and since it is emphasized even more currently at NU, then Molinari would have even more influence on scheme, Xs & Os, philosophy, tempo, strategy, etc. I am not even trying to suggest that everything Molinari is bad. I want a great defense. I don't have a problem with defense being our "identity", especially now when we are lacking in talent in some areas. But I have never felt that playing slow, low-scoring games is a requirement for having a good defense. Molinari believes in slow play, and low scoring games. He has always been the underdog and felt that was the best way for him to win. It is his identity. If he has a prominent role in practice every single day (since he is the main defensive coach) and on game days (again, watch and see who is doing the coaching during games), his philosophy is going to come out and rub off on the players. It is only natural. I believe that slow play on offense eventually leads to passivity. Its takes the aggression out of the offense. It starts to affect confidence and creates some anxiety. Every shot becomes huge and the pressure on each shot mounts. Also, the lack of any transition game means less easy baskets, once again creating more pressure on the half-court offense, etc. All of this affects confidence, which affects shooting percentage. Let me put it this way, if I had players that were shooting significantly worse than they did the year before, I would be asking "why are my players shooting significantly worse than last year?" and I wouldn't be satisfied with the answer "Well, the shots just aren't falling this year." Here is a small blurb I found from a 2013 article discussing to contrasting pace of play in college basketball:

Molinari. I am convinced more than ever that this team is a product of its de facto head coach, Jim Molinari. When Craig Smith was here, he was the true Xs and Os guy. When he left, Miles replaced him with Molinari, who has 30 years coaching experience. Miles knew he needed an Xs and Os guy to replace what he lost in Smith. The thing is, that means Nebraska is in essence a Jim Molinari coached team (with respect to the Xs and Os, basketball strategy, philosophy, etc). Molinari has always been the coach of the "underdog" team and he has learned to "grind" out wins using techniques that are suited for teams with significantly less talent than his opponent. He was outgunned at Western Illinois and his other coaching gigs, so he learned to play an intense defensive style of basketball and a grind-it-out offensive style that always allowed his overmatched team to stay in the game and then hope to pull it out at the end. That is why he writes on the team board before the game "We love low scoring close games" That is his philosophy. It is part of his core--his nature. Now, it has become part of the players core. And it is a good thing---on the defensive side of the court. But it is a deflating philosophy on the offensive side of the court. I think Molinari is even more defensive oriented than Doc Sadler. It puts so much pressure on every offensive possession b/c the players know there are only going to be so many possessions and they "can't screw up". I remember writing almost this exact same post after year one of Doc because I saw it coming. The players are adopting the philosophy that they are not "good enough" or "talented enough" to truly compete. That philosophy permeates the mind over time. Miles said on his pre-game interview that every single substitution in a game is based solely on defensive match ups. Really? Is it any surprise that our offense suffers? Can't it be 50-50? of even 70-30? So if a NU player on the floor suddenly gets hot and hits a couple shots, but then the other team subs and that same player has a bad defensive matchup. Is Miles going to sub him out to get a better defensive match up? Apparently yes based on his own statements. Or the opposite, if a player is contributing absolutely nothing on the offensive end, is Miles going to sub him out to try and get some more offensive power on the court? Apparently not if the defensive match ups don't allow for it. But most importantly, IMO, is that the style of play can have an effect on energy and confidence and attitude on the court. Why do we walk the ball up the court time after time after time, allowing the defense to get set and creating a "lethargy" in our offensive sets. Playing slow creates a "slow" mindset that is not thinking about attacking. It is hard to walk the ball up, pass it around for 30 seconds, and then suddenly "turn it on" and become a full-fledged attacking mentality team. Notice how in the Penn St game when Nebraska started pressing it went on a 14-0 run. Why? Some obviously b/c Penn St. struggles against the press (much like us). But some because it created an attacking mentality in the NU players. it puts the players in an attacking mindset. It creates energy. It takes away all the standing and thinking and allows players to just play. Why do we have to walk the ball up the court every time. Why can't we push the ball after every single missed shot. I am not saying we have to "fast break" every possession, but you can push the ball and if the initial break isn't there, you can secondary break, and if that isn't there, you can pull it out and run a set or attack again. At least this puts all the players in an "attacking" mindset all game long on every offensive possession. Right now, there is too much standing around, too little energy, and it is a product the style of play created by Molinari. And Miles said after the game that NU really hasn't practiced the press that much so that is why is his so reluctant to run it in games. Well, why haven't they practiced it? Little league teams that practice one hour a week have enough time to practice the press. Come on. They have time, it is all a matter of priorities on that time. The loss of Craig Smith was dramatic. It makes me concerned about the future as well. Molinari has never been the more talented team in his career. Will he know how to run a team that has talent? Or will he try to conform those talented players into this "we are the underdog so grind it out" philosophy?

Well, it may not have technically been a "player's only" meeting, but a meeting was held before the Minnesota game with some "venting" and who knows what else. Obviously it didn't seem to increase their quality of play on the court much. http://www.omaha.com/huskers/miles-says-nu-must-jump-start-its-offense/article_3c8924d0-7b86-5bef-bed0-d6c19ae43cb1.html

After film study confirmed what was seen live Tuesday — players hesitating on open shots or passing them up — Miles dropped the following message at practice: “Listen, guys, you’re college players, you’ve put in hours and you start passing up shots — it’s ridiculous.’’ http://www.omaha.com/huskers/miles-says-nu-must-jump-start-its-offense/article_3c8924d0-7b86-5bef-bed0-d6c19ae43cb1.html

I think the main question with McVeigh is whether he will be quick enough and strong enough to guard on the defensive end. Fuller is a RS freshman on the roster who reportedly can stroke it, but can't see the floor on an abysmal shooting team this year. From the very little film I have seen of McVeigh (not muc to go by, basically playing in a pick-up game), he did not look exceptionally athletic to me. This is probably my main concern with him. A bit of a tweener. Not big or strong enough to guard the 4 and not quick enough to guard the 3. Really, really, really hope I am wrong and that he is more athletic than his limited film showed.

Here's the problem 3pt % in the B1G 3PM-3PA Pct Tai Webster 2-5 40.0% Terran Petteway 21-59 35.6% Walter Pitchford 8-28 28.6% Benny Parker 3-12 25.0% Tarin Smith 1-6 16.7% Shavon Shields 4-25 16.0% The numbers during the regular season don't look all that much better. There is a reason guys in general aren't heavily guarded between 15-20 ft. Hitting 35-40% of 3pts is doing well. Hitting that percentage in 2s isn't. I understand the point you're trying to make but at the end of the day you're advocating for us to move from being a poor shooting team to a poor long 2 or long 3 pt shooting team. I do think help is coming next year and in the future in terms of shooting. But my whole point is asking: How much are their current shooting percentages skewed by their bad shot selection. They are making the game more difficult than it has to be by taking difficult or contested shots when they could be taking wide open shots. If they improve their shot selection by taking the wide open opportunities when they present themselves, I am confident their percentages would go up. Besides, for a guy like WP, he shot 41% on 3s all of last year, and even better in conference. Did he forget how to shoot over the summer? Law of averages says he is due to go on a run. I would rather him catch and shoot the 3 when he is wide open than pump-faking no one and then have to try some sort of step back shot. I am also confident that TS can hit a better percentage if he is open and shoots with confidence.

In general I agree with this. If you are referring to my post, I don't believe I ever said that we should take a bunch of long two pointers. I did say this: Regarding Walt, I said this: My point was definitely to emphasize the guards (Tarin, Benny and Tai) being wide open for 3 pointers, as well as Walt. That is why I specifically mentioned Tarin shooting the 3 and that I hate when WP does that pump fake when no one is close to him. If you watch the games, you would know that WP almost always catches the ball behind the 3 point line (unless he is doing one of his very, very rare attempts in the post, which would mean of course that he would not be wide open). If you are referring to my reference to hitting shots within 15-20 feet, I mentioned that mainly because of Rivers, who is quite good at hitting that shot while the 3 point shot is clearly out of his typical range. SS is also a guy who is very solid from 15-17 feet when he is open and can get his feet set. And there have been many, many times that he has caught the ball at the elbow, turned and been wide open, only to pump fake and drive into multiple defenders. Even Miles has said SS needs to take that shot. Plus, there are times when it is not so terrible to step in 3 or 4 feet and shoot a 16 foot shot if you can get in that close and still be open. A 16 foot shot is basically a free throw. Players should be able to hit that shot 60% of the time if they are open. That is going to be more the exception than the norm, but sometimes for a guy like BP, that may be the best option.

I would prefer that Walt shoot whenever he is open. Even though he has been off, he is still one of our best (if not our best) pure shooter. He could get hot at any time. Last year he led the entire team in 3 point shooting percentage (over 40%). He won the 3 point shooting contest. That wasn't an accident. If Walt refuses to shoot when he is open (I hate the pump fake when he is wide open and could just catch and shoot), then he should sit and Leslee should play instead. If WP isn't scoring, then it is hard to justify his minutes. If he is going to play starters minutes, then he should shoot at least 10 times per game IMO. If he won't shoot, then he shouldn't play.

As we all know, Miles has been pushing the mantra "like the 3, love the rim" ever since he arrived at NU. This mantra has been pounded into the minds of fans and players alike. Well, call it heresy if you will, but I think it is time to scrap that mantra and adopt the following new mantra: Like the rim, love wide open shots! I am tired of watching player after player turning down wide open shots, only to either: (1) drive into the lane which is packed with 5 defenders b/c they are all playing the "pack" defense rather than guard the perimeter, or (2) pass the ball off and then watch TP or SS struggle to find an open shot with the shot clock winding down, only to result in a flailing drive to the basket or an off-balance, fade to the side 3-pointer. The problem with the current mantra "like the 3, love the rim" is that is doesn't take into account what the defense is doing. If the opponent is placing all 5 defenders in the paint and completely taking away the rim, is it still prudent to bang your head against a brick wall and try to pound the ball into all that traffic time and again? I realize none of us like it when the opponent dictates what we do, but there must be some level of reason in this. Opponent after opponent is simply not guarding half our players on the court. I just read a post in another thread complaining that Miles doesn't run good enough sets against zone defenses. That may be true, to me it is irrelevant. What is the whole purpose of running a set play? Answer: TO GET AN OPEN SHOT! Thing is, against most teams (none more exemplified than last night vs. Mich.), NU is GIFTED wide open shots on virtually every single possession without having to run any sets or motions whatsoever. Opponents simply do not guard Benny or Tarin or Rivers or Tai. On most every possession those players have a 5 foot cushion to shoot almost whenever they want. So new mantra: If you are wide open, shoot the ball! I would rather see Tarin Smith shoot 11 wide open 3 pointers than see SS or TP force extremely difficult shots late in the shot clock when the defense can crank up the pressure b/c it knows the shot clock is winding and one of those 2 is going to shoot it. It is 2 on 5, and the 5 is usually going to come out on top. This mantra also needs to be applied to Walt P. If Walt is going to be on the floor, then he needs to shoot whenever he is open. Period. If Walt is not out there to shoot, then he has no purpose being on the floor. His defense is atrocious. Last night he shot only 5 times for 4 points and some no-name "center" scored 12 points and had 9 rebounds against Walt. That is a major net negative. Walt has been averaging about 4 to 5 shots over his last 10 games or so. I haven't gone back and checked, but I would bet anything he was shooting more than that last year when he was critical for NU down the stretch. I know WP has been off with his shooting this year, but part of that is b/c he is not shooting when he is open. I am sooooo tired of seeing him catch the ball at the top of the key and then immediately pump-fake even though there is no one within 5 feet of him. Who is he faking out? Plus, Walt is 6'10". He can get his shot off even if the defender is closing b/c he is so tall. When was the last time his outside shot was blocked? Ever? If Walt is open, he needs to shoot. Period. If he won't shoot it, then put him on the bench and put in Leslee who will as least play good post defense and set good screens and maybe even score a bucket or 2 in the paint. In short, I think this team and all the so-called "role" players have been too defined into their alleged "roles". They are deferring too much to TP and SS and it is hurting the team. Just like you cannot let a team press with impunity (by failing to attack the press), you cannot allow a team to simply not guard 2-3 offensive players every time down the court. That is ridiculous. This is div. 1 college basketball, not 4th grade YMCA rec ball. If you are a guard or a wing and you can't hit at least 35%-40% of your WIDE OPEN shots from 15-20 feet, then you shouldn't be playing. I don't care how good your defense is NU cannot consistently win playing 2 on 5 on offense. It just can't work on a consistent basis. If you are wide open, shoot the ball with confidence and live the results. It is better than playing tentative and constantly deferring until the shot clock is expiring and a difficult and contested shot is the only remaining option.

The rules were slightly changed last year (with most emphasis on block/charge and a little emphasis on hand-checking). However, the new rules were somewhat enforced early in the season and then basically were disregarded during conf. play. Do you remember last year in non-conf when NU was fouling at a ridiculous rate? And scores were much higher during many of their non-conf games. However, coaches and fans bitched and moaned and ultimately won the day and by the time conf play rolled around, the officiating went back to its regular ways (at least regular as of the past 5-10 years, the period of the decline of scoring and pleasing basketball). This year, the new block/charge rule was eliminated and we are now playing under the old rule again. So that experiment only last one year (and really only 1/2 a year b/c it wasn't properly implemented in conf play last year). This issue was addressed on College Gameday this past Saturday morning. Jay Bilas was absolutely adamant that the current state of college basketball, with slow play and low scoring games, is because of the officiating in college basketball. He said that the officials this year are right back to where they were before last season began and the game is more physical than ever. He challenged anyone to go back and watch games from the mid 80s, even the title games involving so-called physical teams like Georgetown, and he said they look like "ballet" compared to today's games. He said that the game has changed in many ways over the years and various rules have been changed (ie, 3 point shot, shot clock, etc.) and scoring has changed over the years, but the one thing that has remained the same year after year after year is the average number of fouls called per season. He said that number has remained flat (on average) for the past 30+ years. Knowing this, coaches are not dumb. If refs are only going to call X number of fouls each game, what is the obvious way to get an advantage for my team? Easy! Foul the crap out of the opponent knowing the refs will not call close to every foul. In the end, the the number of foul called will average out the same even though the teams are fouling at a much higher clip. Bilas talked at length about "freedom of movement". You wonder why teams can't run Motion offense. Well, if the player off the ball is getting hand check and body checked every other step, then it is hard to get to the next spot. Motion is about crisp and hard cuts and getting to the next point. If the defender hand-checks. grabs, pulls, tugs, bumps, elbows, pushes, etc. that player on his way to the next spot, everything is going to get mucked up. It is no different than a receiver in FB who gets crabbed, pushed, pulled, etc. Ironically, the NBA has cleaned up much of this issue by simply enforcing the rules as they should be called. Even in college, they don't really need to "change the rules". The refs simply need to call all fouls when they see them rather than "letting it go" b/c they don't want to slow down the game. We talked about this issue at length early on last season and this was all discussed at length. The problem is that as soon as refs start calling a lot of fouls, coaches whine, bitch and moan along with most fans. I remember many people on this board complaining early last year about the fouls and how it ruined the game, etc. Of course having a bunch of fouls called makes the game less appealing. But the alternative is to simply let the play continue to get more and more and more physical until it really isn't basketball. There is no freedom of movement, no incentive to try and implement a true "motion" offense b/c players will just get held and grabbed, etc and it just won't work. If we truly want the game cleaned up, then refs need to be told to call ALL fouls and continue to call them until players and coaches adjust. That could take 2 or 3 seasons. And yes, that would be a brutal 2-3 seasons, but after we got thru it, and coaches and players finally realized refs are going to continue to call it correctly, then they would adjust, players would quit fouling so much, and college basketball would come out as a much better sport and have much more entertainment value.

If Fuller can't get minutes against Wisconsin, then I'm not sure what other team he can get minutes against. Wisconsin is very fundamentally sound, but it is not the most athletic team in the conf. by a long-shot. At one point we got down by almost 20 in the second half, yet still no Fuller. Wisconsin was shooting at a 60% clip for much of that game. Is Fuller so much worse on defense? Would Wisconsin have shot 75% if Fuller was in the game? I find that unlikely. The problem with Rivers and Benny last night was not so much that they didn't score, it was that they are not even a threat to score. In comparison, Pitchford might miss a few shots, but UW is going to guard him all the way to the 3-point line and beyond every possession even if he misses 10 in a row. This at least opens the lane for SS and TP and TS, etc. The other (probably even more significant) problem with DR and BP last night is that they combined for 3 rebounds and 1 assist in 57 combined minutes. If they are not rebounding or getting assists, what is their "role". Most role players have a role other than scoring, what is their role? If Fuller was in the game, UW would respect him. If it didn't, then I think Fuller could hit enough shots to make them respect him. That is a significant difference. I also think Tarin Smith should play more minutes (probably start) and should be given more of a green light. Again, it isn't always just about how many points he scores. The issue is can he make just enough baskets to force opponents to guard him. I think he can, and this would open up driving lanes for the others. Frankly, I believe he could be a decent scorer if he approached the game with more of a scorers mindset, but I am not sure he feels that is his role at this point. Should it be? And what about Leslie and Moses. So many want to justify our earlier losses on their injuries. Yet their combined minutes (20) were less than Rivers (28). In their combined 20 minutes, Moses and Leslie pulled down a combined 7 rebounds and 4 of those rebounds were offensive rebounds. This means that even though their combined shooting was not good (1 for 6), they actually provided the team 4 extra possessions, so in light of that their efficiency isn't as bad as it initially appears (personally, I think Miles should tell Moses that whenever he gets an offensive rebound he should immediately kick it out to a wing rather than try to put it back in unless he has a wide open dunk). They also provide more of a presence in the paint on defense and offense. This team does not have great options, but it does have some reasonably viable options. I would like to see those options explored a little more rather than always staying with the status quo simply because it is safe and simple.

Other than Watson, it seems like all of Miles' current recruits are rather uniform (not sure if this is good or not) Watson 5'11" White 6'7" Marrow 6'7" McVeigh 6'7" Jacobson 6'8" Agua??? 6'8" 2016 Roby 6'8" Pinder 6'8"

If they have the "green light", then there must be failure of communication or understanding between coach and player. Anyone who has been attending or watching the games must understand that Benny, Tai and Tarin pass up open look after open look only to pass to SS or TP late in the clock leaving a very difficult contested shot. Last game vs. Indiana BP was WIDE OPEN to the point of ridiculousness (because Indiana blatently didn't even guard him) and yet he didn't even look at the basket. That does not appear to me to be a player who thinks he has the green light (or does not understand what green light means). If he has the green light, then he must be told that he "must" shoot it if he is open. He must be instructed that he must shoot it and that he is hurting the team by not shooting it when open.

Yep, we're just rolling in talent. That's why Crean chose not to guard 2 or 3 talented players every time we had the ball. I don't see how not having guys who can shoot should remotely affect our offensive production. Any decent coach should be able to get around that problem.... HB, I agree with you in many respects. There is no doubt NU still has some major deficiencies. However, I am not completely convinced those "deficient" players are quite as "deficient" as they have been performing (at least on the offensive end). I started another thread on this issue, but is Benny such a terrible shooter that other coaches shouldn't have to guard him at all? I mean this in all sincerity. BP is shooting 42% on 3s for the year, yet I watched him completely pass up open shot after open shot in that Indiana game. Is that 100% a lack of "talent" on BP's end, or is there some issue with him feeling that his "role" on the team is to not shoot and to only play defense. If BP feels that defense is his only role, then where did that feeling come from? I would imagine that how he is coached day after day after day plays in to that in some respect. I am a huge Miles guy and support him 100%, and I am very confident he is bring in better talent (which we definitely need) and that he will get it done in the end. But that doesn't mean there aren't times I am left scratching my head. I think it is OK to raise questions at times, it doesn't mean we aren't supporting the team or the coach. This may be just me, but at this point, based on all I have seen, I would rather have BP shooting a wide-open uncontested shot than TP or SS shooting an off-balance contested 25 footer. The role players must feel like they are an integral part of the offensive game plan as well as the defensive end. That doesn't mean they have to shoot 15-20 times, but when they are open they need to let it fly IMO.

Many people are claiming that the loss of Ray Gallegos is looming large because, even though he only made 33% of his 3 pointers, he was at least a "threat" to shoot the 3 ball that had to be guarded. This has me thinking, can NU re-create that "threat" this year without Ray Gallegos? Looking back, the "threat" of Gallegos shooting a 3 should not have carried much weight b/c he was a below average 3 point shooter in the end. Nonetheless, he shot 161 three point shots last year (making 54 of them for a 33.5% average). Apparently, his relentless attempts forced opposing coaches to feel compelled to guard him. So, why can't NU recreate that threat this year? If I were coach Miles, I would be very tempted to tell Tai, Benny and Tarin that "if you are open and have a good look at the 3, let it fly. And if you miss, don't worry about it. Every time you get a good look, just let it fly and we will support you no matter what happens." The three of them combined (Tai, Benny and Tarin) have currently shot 58 three pointers combined (making 15 for a 27.5% average). This average is not good at all, and is heavily weighed down by Tai's abysmal average of 16.7% (5 for 30). Smith is at 33.3% (3 for 9) and Benn is at 42.1% (8 for 19). The question is, between the three of them, if they were given the green light, could they average 33.5% or better for the remainder of the season on 3s? If so, wouldn't giving them the green light in essence "re-create" the "threat" that Gallegos gave us last year? If they just keep launching, and hopefully have at least 1 or 2 games in which they get hot and make a string of them, then would opposing coaches feel "compelled" to guard them at that point? They did for Gallegos even though he was only shooting 33.5%, so why not these 3 players? Now, Tai has got to pick it up for this to work. With that said, I think Tai's biggest problem (as we all know by now) is between the ears. He simply doesn't have confidence, so he is hesitant to shoot and when he does shoot he is more "hoping" that it goes in than believing it will go in. I have heard many reports that in practice he shoots the 3 ball at a high percentage. We know for a fact that he was 3 for 3 in the K St. Scrimmage. We also know for a fact that as a 17 year old on the New Zealand national team he made a lot of 3 point shots as one of the youngest players ever to play on the national scene. I believe he has the ability to make at least 30% of his shots, but he needs confidence. If Coach Miles were to give him the green light and say "shoot it, and just keep shooting", this may be just what he needs. All it takes it one game where he makes 3 or 4 of them, and then other teams will have to "respect" him and start guarding him. The same is true for Benny and Tarin. If they shoot enough, they will eventually get hot and make a string of them. That will increase their confidence and it will force other teams to guard them. Heck, Benny is already shooting 42% this year, but teams still don't guard him b/c he is still afraid to shoot it. To me that is crazy! Why do we make Petteway shoot a contested 25 foot fade away 3 pointer after Benny passes up 2 wide open 3 pointers? I wouldn't guard him either if he isn't even going to look at the basket. The fact is that our "scorers" aren't that much better anyway under the current system (of being forced to take so many difficult shots). Petteway is shooting 33.7% on 3s and 41.8% overall. Shavon is shooting 26.5% on 3s and a respectable 47.7% overall. Walt P is shooting 33% on 3s and a poor 27.8% overall. The reality is NU is shooting a very poor percentage overall even when we consistently funnel almost every shot through the big 3. So why not change it up? Why not roll the dice and allow the "role" players to play a more prominent role on the offensive end and live with the results. The reality is that what we are doing isn't working, so why not change it up and see what happens. Now, I am NOT saying that Tai, Benny and Tarin should shoot as much or more than the Big 3. I am not saying that at all. That would be ridiculous. What I am saying is that when they have an open look, then they should not only have the green light, but should be told to shoot it and not worry about whether it goes in or not. That way, they don't have to feel like they missed their one and only shot if it rims out. If they shoot it more frequently with the backing of the coach and team, someone is going to get hot and that will force other teams to guard them and that will open things up more and more for the Big 3.

Not sure what posts you are reading to compare my position to Dean's. This was Dean's post on the subject: This was my post: I wasn't even going to reference the "hard dribble drive" but I included it as an option b/c I respect Dean's knowledge and he had already referenced this as his strategy of choice. My emphasis was clearly on using the dribble or (more likely) the pass to push the ball up the floor and attack the press. As HB just said, getting the ball past half court just so you can set up your offense should not be the main goal when being pressed. The goal should be to attack and try to get a scoring opportunity at the basket, whether by pass or dribble or both. That was my point.

But Smith played 15-20 minutes at a position we don't have anyone to play. And Ray was a role player only for the casual fan who doesn't watch defense. And running the offense. He may be the first 30 minute a game role player, I guess. HB, I can understand your position on this to a point. However, if losing two role players makes NU so much worse, then almost every other team in the country should be MUCH worse this year than last year (and every year). Most teams (and I would venture virtually every team we have played this year) lost MUCH more than NU lost. That is why many media members and prognosticators picked NU to do well. It is always a function of how you did last year and what you return versus what other teams return. If anything, I felt Nebraska should do quite well in the non-conference because it would be returning 5 starters and 6 of its top 8 players from a team that went to the NCAA tourney last year. And although we lost Leslee, we also added Moses who played in all of the games except the last 3 (so his injury cannot be the excuse for NU's struggles this entire season). In contrast, most teams are breaking in 2,3 or 4 new starters this year. NU's experience from last year should carry over. NU should not have to start over every year when it is returning 5 starters. That is why I cringe whenever people on this board bring up "last year we started this way and we know what happened." This is not last year. It is understandable why NU struggled early last year--It was breaking in 4 new starters. Now, the shoe should be on the other foot. NU is returning 5 starters and other teams are breaking in new starters. If anything, it was in conference play that I felt we might begin to struggle, because that is when other teams "new" players begin to hit their stride and teams with more "talent" begin to take over.

My biggest problem with the game last night was that NU did not attack the press. Miles said they spent the 9 days off working on the offense and press break. What???? The offense was horrid and the press break was a disaster. When a team presses, you must make them pay. You must attack the press. Let me repeat. When a team presses, you MUST make them pay. When a team presses, you MUST ATTACK!! I HATE. let me repeat HATE when we are content to throw it sideways repeatedly against the press and then just walk into double teams at half court. ATTACK the press with a hard dribble drive or maybe, just maybe, pass the ball DOWN THE FLOOR!!! Think about it. If Hawaii is putting 3 defenders to guard 2 ball handlers in the back court, what does that mean? It means that NU has 3 offensive players on its side of the court being guarded by 2 Hawaii defenders. So why don't we pass it to one of our 3 players on our side of the court? Why do we keep passing it sideways? Never attacking. Never trying to make them pay! If you allow a team to press with impunity, then they will press you all game and get the better end of the stick b/c eventually the press will cause some turnovers resulting in points the other way. That is why you must make a team pay for pressing. Let me state it another way by asking a question. Why doesn't NU press other teams? The reason is b/c usually the advantage gained is not worth the risk. Yes, you might get create some turnovers, but you will also (unless we are playing ourselves) give up easy baskets. The press is always susceptible to giving up easy baskets. That is why most teams don't press. It is high risk/reward. BUT, if a team like Nebraska does not attack the press, then it is all reward with no risk.

Not to be argumentative, but I disagree with that assessment. I think you can run motion with anyone you have because it's so flexible. 5 out, 4 out & 1 in, 3 out & 2 in, you can focus on cutting or screening or ball screens or handoffs or dribble drives. You can go from very basic to very complicated based on your personal. And we run lots of set pieces or quick hitters if you will, double low picks for the pop followed by the curl cut, the back pick someone was talking about as a secondary. There are lots of ways to be successful at basketball. I like motion. They way it looks and feels, they way it makes the defense guard all 5 players all the time, the freedom it gives the players to be creative which makes it harder to guard. You can win running the Flex (Sorry flex guys but I see it as the antithesis to the motion). You don't have to run a motion to be successful. I just wish they would. I do agree with you when you said "we seemed to have more movement and better natural flow, cutting, passing, etc last season." We don't have that now and I am wishing we could get it back. Regarding the motion offense, Miles commented on his radio show just a couple weeks ago that he thought/expected this team would be much further along in that regard than we actually are. He said he has tried to implement the motion offense every year since he has been here but the players struggle grasping the concept and in the end has had to go to more sets instead. Miles taught the motion in the preseason and tried to have the team run motion in a couple of the early non-conf games this year and it was bad, the players did not execute it well at all. In the end, he basically said that "players today" really struggle to run motion concepts and so he has to install and run more sets even though his preference would be to run more motion.

I had some time to think about the game this morning....what is our record in games where we shoot under 10 fts? We don't have an inside offensive presence...we don't currently have a defacto outside presense....if we aren't getting to the FT line then not many of our points are going to be easy. Creighton is a team that doesn't put people on the line. We typically require FTs to win against anyone except truly inferior opponents. Until that changes, they are going to cause us problems no matter how good of a team we have and how poor of a team they have. One thing to keep in mind. Last year there was the big emphasis on "freedom of movement" which led to historic highs in the number of defensive fouls called. This may have been a contributor to our success last year since we just kept driving it in the lane time after time and often got the foul call to put TP or Shavon to the line. Based on the games I have seen so far this year, that whole emphasis seems to be out the window. For instance, last night Shavon did try to drive it on a few occasions and when he collided with 4 CU defenders who were just standing in the paint waiting for him its almost like the refs were saying "he just tried to drive it against 4 guys and I am not going to bail him out even if there was a little contact. Play on."

There has been a lot of talk about Tai's defensive "lapses" and letting his man free, but I think this is more a product of the new defense this year under Molinari than Tai (or any other player) in particular. Molinari runs a "pack the paint" defense. Ironically, it is very similar to what McD runs against NU (although I don't think it is their standard defense, more of a NU specialty). In a pack the paint defense, the defender who is guarding the man with the ball extends out to the ball-handler. Every other defender falls into the paint area in almost a zone type concept. You might think it of it as having one man on the ball, with the other 4 covering "elbow, elbow, block block". Doc actually ran a version of this, but he had a slight twist on it. Anyway, the irony is that a pack the paint defense works best against athletic teams that are not great shooting teams (ie, Nebraska). It does not work so well against good shooting teams because while it does clog the lane it leaves 3 point shooters open, especially on the weak side (the side opposite the ball). For instance, if the Ball is on the right wing, and Tai is guarding a CU player who is on the left wing, Tai is taught to fall off his man and "sag" clear into the paint area (probably around the elbow area, maybe even all the way to the middle of the paint). That is what he is drilled to do day after day after day in practice. And that is what he did in the game. The problem is that Creighton is a good passing team and they would either quickly swing it to Tai's side or they would simply throw a long "skip" pass clear across court. The result is an open 3 with Tai trying to close out the distance but unable to make up the ground b/c he is so far off his man. I am using Tai as an example, but the same principal applies to all the players b/c it is the scheme that Molinari runs. The problem I have is that Miles and Molinari did not adjust this game plan for Creighton. As we all know (and obviously Miles and Molinari know full well), CU is not particularly athletic, but they do have a few 3 point shooters. So why did we stay in the pack the paint concept? Miles even admitted in his post game comments that he thought we could just do "what we always do" and be fine and he admitted after the fact he was wrong. It is clear that CU adjusted its defensive scheme to play a style "just for Nebraska". In fact, McD has done this every year, and he has mastered it. It almost appears that he knows our team better than Miles knows our team. I just don't understand why NU didn't adjust its defensive scheme to the personnel on CU's roster rather than just running our standard stuff. Frustrating. And I won't even get into to our offensive "scheme".