I don't care for hockey, but that is one slick jersey. For the haters of Black in the uni's, look how AWESOME this looks. You're welcome.
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Ed Morrow transferring
- Thread starter ShortSideOption
- Start date
Look I don't mean to be critical, but this whole 'in game coaching moves' idea is fine, but that's not where a real coach makes his mark. I played for a guy with over 500 wins, and I promise you, his in game changes were minimal. A good coach has you prepared. A good coach teaches you what to run and how to run it before the tip off. There might be a few times in a season a coach tosses in a defensive change in the middle of the game to try to break an opponent's momentum, but that's pretty overrated.
Good coaching begins and ends in practice. Good coaches also help develop leadership on the floor, leaders that can make the right adjustments on the fly. If Miles' teams need constant in game help, then the coaching failure is during practice.
I agree and well said. I've said on here many times that players will do in games, what they are allowed to get away with in practice. NU looks unprepared quite often, almost as if there was no scouting report discussed in practice leading up to the game. safe to assume that Miles inability to gameplan and implement strategy is because none of those things are being discussed or worked on during practice. I don't see evidence of teaching, instruction, preparedness, thoughtful gameplanning.....
you're right. a real coach makes his mark in practice, so he can pull out his sharpened tools for the game. Well many posters are seeing that he's got no tools, so an obvious conclusion to make is that he's not a good practice coach either. end result is still the same.
On one hand I'd say I totally agree...and for the most part you are right.
But that does minimize actual in-game coaching. There are any number of scenarios that can come up...
Managing the game itself...call a time out like Callipari should have after tying the game against UNC, fouling up 3 with seconds to go (somebody messed this up last weekend but survived the mistake...I think it was florida), using all your fouls at the very end of the game (Oregon messed this up...although Altman had told them to foul but the on ball defender didn't...giving Michigan a good look to tie). Lot's of coaches will call a time out without even thinking about it in the situation UNC was in after UK tied the game...Roy said in the press conference that they know that if there is 7 seconds or more they are NOT calling a TO. Now is that "in game" or "in practice". Probably in practice but still...he could have wet himself and screamed for a TO trusting his own instincts to draw up a brilliant play. Do you go with your star on a final shot or do you guy with a guy that might be hot that particular day. The in game scenarios and decisions a coach has to make are infinite.
Substitutions...this is under rated IMO. Some guys just won't sit a star player down when he's going off the handle. McDermott is very guilty of this IMO with Foster. That guy takes some of the worst shots at bad times...yet never gets benched for it. While other guys make one turnover or miss a decent shot and they are instantly benched never to be seen again that day (Mintz or Harrell). Some coaches "trust" their "trust instinct" too much. No player is above getting sat down for a few minutes.
Again, I acknowledge the point of your post....all these "in game" things are easier/look more brilliant when everything is well prepared for in the practice gym. But there's no doubt that some guys are just better "in the moment" than others.
I agree with all the above but when you have NBA talent like UNC or Kentucky things are different. Completely different than the Nebraska situation.
If you're talking about "in game" stuff it's not really different.
NU may be completely out-talented top to bottom a few times a year where no amount of practice brilliance or in-game wizardry will make a difference. There are 28 other games.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I have seen, so, so many times, a coach calling time out and things change for the good. Apparently, practice is not the same as real time. Just a thought.
A player knows when to call a time out, and frankly, most coaches look for the players to let them know they need one. The substitution part is probably the biggest input a coach can have during a game. Some coaches believe in letting a guy play his way through a cold spell, or tell the PG to run a particular set that will likely allow the slumping player a good look at an easier shot. The same is true if you have a team really struggling. You have to take advantage of certain sets that can give you the best looks without a player having to get overly creative or go against one of the stronger defenders. However, if you have mismatches that are hurting you, and someone of a different size or skillset on the bench can reduce that, those are the game time decisions a coach really earns his money.
The play call for a last shot, or whether to press, or possibly go zone, honestly, that's not really amazing clairvoyant gifts only great coaches know. I promise, there were many times we were discussing switches in who covered who, or how to defend certain plays, or if we should press after a made basket before the coach actually got in the huddle after chatting with the assistants.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I have seen, so, so many times, a coach calling time out and things change for the good. Apparently, practice is not the same as real time. Just a thought.
A coach can have the most influence by making a lineup change. We all knew if we were getting eaten alive playing man, we needed to shake it up with a zone or a gimmick (triangle and 2, or box and 1).
Even Tim Miles did some of this when he went to a 1-3-1 at times to cross things up. Worked in a couple games
The one thing a coach needs to know is the rotating X zone defense. You have to know when you call it. This is a zone that starts in a 2-1-2, then as the possession proceeds the outside players slowly rotate clockwise to make the zone into a 1-3-1, and then they keep rotating to create a 2-1-2 again, and so on. It's called the rotating X and it keeps the offense guessing. If you have tools like that in your arsenal, in-game coaching can be a critical advantage.
I've been around a ton of basketball (since I was 5 years old) and its probably my favorite sport. I honestly have never heard of this zone you describe. I like that it is deceptive but I don't like the backside block vacating the paint area to guard the backside wing. It would leave you very vulnerable in the post I think.
Last edited:
