They were, lots of doom and gloom concerning this year and next.
-
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 .
MBB Game #26, (W, 58-57), SAT, 2/18 @ OHIO STATE, 5:00 pm CST, BTN
- Thread starter Red Don
- Start date
They were, lots of doom and gloom concerning this year and next.
He must have forgotten everything that got OSU to two final fours.
Just because it didn't work doesn't mean there wasn't an actual structure to to the play or that the concept wasn't sound. they had the ball going to the right guy. NU played it well, he missed his handoff and OSU had to improvise. Thats bball.
But its not bball when Nebraska looks bad?
There is good sound x/o basketball, and there's not. the results one gets from doing either may not always line up. you can't simply say that sound x/o principles ALWAYS equals a positive outcome. cause that how bball goes sometimes. you don't see the difference because you only base your opinion on what works. However, the odds of success when structuring a sound x/o play out of a timeout are greater, when the concept makes sense, the players understand it, they've seen it before, and they execute it.
had OSU drawn up a play to have their bigman run from the block to 5 ft past the 3pt line, try to accept the inbounds pass, with the hopes that he could then hand off to someone and let them do their thing, then ya, you should wonder how many fans would be upset. I'd wonder too. now could that play work? sure. What are the odds of success considering how many times in a game a bigman gets to simulate running from the block up to 5 ft past the 3pt line to accept an inbounds pass, then hand off? Thats what Tim miles drew up right before the half at Penn St. it was a poor concept, and the result was a layup the other direction.
I would say that in both instances, the defense did something that wasn't prepared for in the timeout. Thats basketball. It seems you want to condemn one team while excusing another. We don't know what the actual plan was in either case. They both looked bad.
I'm not excusing anything. I'm simply pointing out the difference in what was called. thats the important concept here. not the end result. I'm accounting for odds in my analysis, while you're just looking at the end result and drawing a conclusion. odds of success when having a big man do what was asked of Jordy after the TO vs PSU ,vs what was asked of the OSU team at the end of the game. despite what it may seem, i'm not TRYING to find things to nit pick about. i know bad basketball when i see it, and i see poorly designed, or completely unscripted concepts after TO from Tim Miles team, dating back years now. I didn't just pull this out of the sky. He may be the best fit for NU, that can be debated. i offered an opinion in my Nutshell thread about his ability as an x/o coach.
If its 4th and 1, and 45 yard fade pattern is called, is that a bad call? if you can't answer that without knowing the end result, then hindsight is all you're using to form an opinion. Thats simple. same circumstance, and instead of the 45 yard fade, a QB sneak is called. Unfortunately, the QB fumbles the ball. Is it still a bad call, or was that just football being football?
Last edited:
Watched the end of game again tonight with my son, the final 8 points (1 was Watson's FT to complete the 3 point play) came off of out bounds plays. McVeigh attacked the basket on first one, Watson flipped ball to McVeigh for a three in the corner, and Watson drove down middle creating contact for the "and one". Basketball bounced our way on those leading to the win.
Recorded the replay at 3 am last night, and just got through watching the game. I have to give our Huskers so much credit to come back and win this game. OSU well into the Bonus+ and Nebraska not even in the Bonus, says we should have never won this game. For all of my bitching and concerns about this team and especially Miles, these kids are gritty gamers and I think that guys like REDo and a few others may be right about next season. Miles keeps his contract for at least one more season, and depending how that goes, maybe much longer. GO BIG RED! Helluva win for these guys.
While all of these close games are bad for the heart, it can be beneficial for a young teams' development. I always thought that no matter how a close game ended, you learn the most from it. Basketball, football, baseball, it doesn't matter, often times it comes down to a few plays. You learn the types of plays that it takes to win and and the types of plays that it takes to lose.
At any level, in any sport, most teams will self-destruct if you stay out of their way and apply pressure. For many years now, both our football and basketball programs would beat themselves if teams stayed the course against us. Martinez or Armstrong would have a crucial turnover. We would get a dumb penalty that would end a need-to-score drive. We would go on a 7 minute scoring drought in the 2nd half. We would miss free throws. We would leave a sharp-shooter wide open in transition. I could go on and on.
My point is, all of these close games could be a very valuable lesson for these players. Doesn't matter if it's Miles or another coach next year, these players will be battle tested and know exactly what it takes to win.
At any level, in any sport, most teams will self-destruct if you stay out of their way and apply pressure. For many years now, both our football and basketball programs would beat themselves if teams stayed the course against us. Martinez or Armstrong would have a crucial turnover. We would get a dumb penalty that would end a need-to-score drive. We would go on a 7 minute scoring drought in the 2nd half. We would miss free throws. We would leave a sharp-shooter wide open in transition. I could go on and on.
My point is, all of these close games could be a very valuable lesson for these players. Doesn't matter if it's Miles or another coach next year, these players will be battle tested and know exactly what it takes to win.
Wow, just wow, I can't believe your dislike of Tim Miles can make you so single minded. I must say that you certainly can talk around things to your liking.
i don't understand what is so complicated or hard to grasp about what i'm saying. Good play designs increase odds of success. bad ones don't. track his play call tendencies after TOs and you'd see the same thing. I want him to be successful. Miles must have read my Nutshell OP and agreed with my assessment cause he ran the exact same play that he did at the end of the half vs PSU, but this time he re-worked design of the play, and it made more sense.
1. He wanted the ball in Watson's hands so he inbounded the ball directly to him. Check.
2. He wanted a high ball screen so he had the screener, Jacobsen, waiting at the free throw line. all he had to do was take a few steps out. Check.
3. the other players were spaced to spread the floor. check.
makes perfect sense. It was a sound concept, the players understood the plan, and executed. end result was a 3pt play and NU ends up winning the game. Perfect. Is that better?
Sorry, I guess I am looking at REDo's response to the OSU inbound play. Quoted the wrong thing. You dismiss Miles inbound play against PSU as being stupid because it doesn't work, but give the OSU inbound play at the end of the game a pass, even though it doesn't work. That is what I am wowing.
you're wowing because you didn't bother to read anything that i said. So the simple comparison you're making is to assume that I'm saying that NU's play didn't work, dumb, OSU play didn't work, pass. Thats not what i'm doing. go back and read what I said.
the PSU inbound play was stupid, not because it didn't work. the REASON it didn't work, was because the play was poorly designed. Thats why it was a stupid play. Having a bigman run all the way up from the block to accept an inbounds pass, something he's probably NEVER done, then hand it off to the person who inbounded the ball, while at the same time setting a ball screen....why? why do all of that when the exact same concept can be achieved in a much simpler, and logical way. (see NU last play vs OSU - i outlined the differences between NU's PSU play and NU's last play vs OSU above)
OSU drew up a play that was spaced well, made logical sense, but just didn't work cause NU played it well. Tai jumped over the top of the screen beyond the 3pt line, not a completely common thing to do and was risky because he set himself up for a backcut, but him doing that disrupted the hand off OSU was trying to get. Their play broke down, OSU chucked it up, and they lose. thats bball and credit to NU.
So to summarize, neither the NU vs PSU play, or the OSU vs NU play worked. That doesn't mean each play was equal in thought process and design.
Last edited:
