We have seen our share of opinions as to why the Huskers seemed to collapse after a truly great start to the season. The reasons vary from the loss of Copeland or Harris, to elimination of an outside consultant who was working with the team, and even because of what amounts to a prolonged shooting slump. While there is no denying we started off pretty well, I'd suggest we look a little more carefully at signs very early on that the shortfalls of our program the last several years, were still deeply embedded in the team.
I just want to clear the air and say, without a doubt, we had some pretty good wins early in the year...at least at first glance. There were definitely some dogs on that schedule, and frankly ones we should have really focused on getting some of our bench time with the starters, not as an entirely different 5 guys, but that's another topic. But you have to give credit where credit is due, and those guys got some solid wins in some tough situations. Let's breakdown those wins we feel were the most meaningful:
-Clemson, a good ACC team, with a 19-12 record, but currently sitting at 9th in the conference, and no guarantee to make the tourney, but also someone people don't want to face in their conference tourney.
-Seton Hall, another decent team, with a 18-12 record, sitting 6th in the Big East, but absolutely a down year for the conference. We were also fortunate to get this very young team, on the road, very early in the season.
-Creighton, currently 4th in the Big East with an 18-13 record, but barely over .500 a month or so ago. They are finishing the season well, with 5 wins in their last 7 games after a slow start.
-Oklahoma State, 12-19, second to last in the Big 12. Not a good team, but a name in a P5.
Our one big name loss was Texas Tech, and they are simply a really solid team. Top 10, well coached, not flashy, but they just don't make mistakes and play some darn good defense.
So, if we look back on some of the conversations in the game threads, there were things that had me concerned about the look of this team:
-First and foremost, a lack of quality shooters. There isn't a guy on the team most of us feel confident in when they pull up. And there sure as heck isn't anyone making opponents sweat. It's been a fact of life for nearly a decade.
-Miles fascination with shooting more 3s. The first time I heard Miles quoting 'the world according to KenPo', I knew we were in trouble. If the first game of 4-26 against Wayne State didn't concern you, then you weren't paying attention. Deciding you are going to focus on 3s with our shooters is like focusing on being a team that pounds the ball inside without a start over 6'8...you can say it, but it's just lip service.
-A complete lack of getting easy looks. This wasn't just because we don't pass well, but we also don't work to get our teammates open. Screens are almost nonexistent. And when we do pass, how often did you marvel at how smooth and perfect the pass, catch and shoot were?
-We didn't make defenses work. Think of what makes playing D tough; getting through screens, keeping Man/Ball relationship, teams that crash the offensive boards, those are the things that make defense hard. We did none of this. Playing against us was easy for most decent defensive teams.
-Putting the 'Alpha' label on Watson, who hadn't been able to hold up an entire season, and Palmer, who just doesn't make guys around him better, was idiotic. Copeland was a far better player when we consider his entire game, and he didn't struggle in adjusting his game when he wasn't hitting, the type of thing we expect from a leader.
-The complete mismanagement of personnel putting Roby (or Copeland) as a 5. It's one thing to use a players like those two in a manner that creates a complete mismatch, and likely gets the opponent's big man in foul trouble trying to keep up with the smaller, faster player, but Miles slaps those guys on the blocks and neutralizes any speed advantage they may have had.
-Zero effort to create a deeper bench. I thought Miles had chances to get guys rolling through the first 15 games, but was caught up in getting Palmer scoring 30 instead. It's only when we've been backed into a corner do we see Miles getting players meaningful minutes, but it's conference play, and that raises the stakes. And when you are developing depth, it's not about playing the bottom of the bench together during scrub time, it's about getting those guys minutes with the top 6 or 7. When your 10th guy can play with your top 4, you have something very special.
Every single thing I've mentioned here, are typical traits of Tim Miles teams. When I pointed them out during those first 15 games, I was being negative in some minds, I didn't give the team credit...which isn't true at all. I saw signs of some pretty intriguing play. What I was concerned about were the areas I just listed, and frankly, it wasn't a brilliant basketball mind seeing them, it's pretty basic basketball stuff.
Hey, we all get a little caught up in seeing the ESPN Highlights of one amazing individual play after another. We all dream of being Duke, Kentucky, NC, whoever, but the fact remains, out of the 68 teams playing in the tourney, only a half dozen or so do it purely on incredible talent. We need to try to be Iowa, or Wiscy, or even Creighton. That's the type of game we need to develop. I was talking some Husker Hoops with a friend who I used to play some ball with, and some guy who was listening, starts chirping in a little. He popped off that if we got rid of Miles, all we'd have is some lame coach like Collier, to which I replied, if we had Collier coaching this group, we'd be absolutely dancing in March. Barry may have sucked as a recruiter, and no, we weren't winning the B1G with a roster full of guys from Filly or Plattsmouth, but he could coach.
If we have this roster and a stronger coach, we have 20+ wins, even with the loss of Copeland. We have the type of players that would be a total pain to play, if we did the little things good teams do. Think of what Syracuse was like a few years ago: couldn't shoot a lick, but they were LONG, great defensively, rebounded like madmen, and created mismatches on offense for easy buckets, which were predominantly dunks or two footers. Good team, good coaches all adapt.
Let's be happy we got a nice win for the seniors, and let's hope we keep these guys on the current roster around for at least another year, and let's see what we can do with someone who is a true, deep down, teacher of basketball. Tomorrow is the last game of the season, and I hope it's the beginning some new energy and opportunity for Nebraska Basketball.
I just want to clear the air and say, without a doubt, we had some pretty good wins early in the year...at least at first glance. There were definitely some dogs on that schedule, and frankly ones we should have really focused on getting some of our bench time with the starters, not as an entirely different 5 guys, but that's another topic. But you have to give credit where credit is due, and those guys got some solid wins in some tough situations. Let's breakdown those wins we feel were the most meaningful:
-Clemson, a good ACC team, with a 19-12 record, but currently sitting at 9th in the conference, and no guarantee to make the tourney, but also someone people don't want to face in their conference tourney.
-Seton Hall, another decent team, with a 18-12 record, sitting 6th in the Big East, but absolutely a down year for the conference. We were also fortunate to get this very young team, on the road, very early in the season.
-Creighton, currently 4th in the Big East with an 18-13 record, but barely over .500 a month or so ago. They are finishing the season well, with 5 wins in their last 7 games after a slow start.
-Oklahoma State, 12-19, second to last in the Big 12. Not a good team, but a name in a P5.
Our one big name loss was Texas Tech, and they are simply a really solid team. Top 10, well coached, not flashy, but they just don't make mistakes and play some darn good defense.
So, if we look back on some of the conversations in the game threads, there were things that had me concerned about the look of this team:
-First and foremost, a lack of quality shooters. There isn't a guy on the team most of us feel confident in when they pull up. And there sure as heck isn't anyone making opponents sweat. It's been a fact of life for nearly a decade.
-Miles fascination with shooting more 3s. The first time I heard Miles quoting 'the world according to KenPo', I knew we were in trouble. If the first game of 4-26 against Wayne State didn't concern you, then you weren't paying attention. Deciding you are going to focus on 3s with our shooters is like focusing on being a team that pounds the ball inside without a start over 6'8...you can say it, but it's just lip service.
-A complete lack of getting easy looks. This wasn't just because we don't pass well, but we also don't work to get our teammates open. Screens are almost nonexistent. And when we do pass, how often did you marvel at how smooth and perfect the pass, catch and shoot were?
-We didn't make defenses work. Think of what makes playing D tough; getting through screens, keeping Man/Ball relationship, teams that crash the offensive boards, those are the things that make defense hard. We did none of this. Playing against us was easy for most decent defensive teams.
-Putting the 'Alpha' label on Watson, who hadn't been able to hold up an entire season, and Palmer, who just doesn't make guys around him better, was idiotic. Copeland was a far better player when we consider his entire game, and he didn't struggle in adjusting his game when he wasn't hitting, the type of thing we expect from a leader.
-The complete mismanagement of personnel putting Roby (or Copeland) as a 5. It's one thing to use a players like those two in a manner that creates a complete mismatch, and likely gets the opponent's big man in foul trouble trying to keep up with the smaller, faster player, but Miles slaps those guys on the blocks and neutralizes any speed advantage they may have had.
-Zero effort to create a deeper bench. I thought Miles had chances to get guys rolling through the first 15 games, but was caught up in getting Palmer scoring 30 instead. It's only when we've been backed into a corner do we see Miles getting players meaningful minutes, but it's conference play, and that raises the stakes. And when you are developing depth, it's not about playing the bottom of the bench together during scrub time, it's about getting those guys minutes with the top 6 or 7. When your 10th guy can play with your top 4, you have something very special.
Every single thing I've mentioned here, are typical traits of Tim Miles teams. When I pointed them out during those first 15 games, I was being negative in some minds, I didn't give the team credit...which isn't true at all. I saw signs of some pretty intriguing play. What I was concerned about were the areas I just listed, and frankly, it wasn't a brilliant basketball mind seeing them, it's pretty basic basketball stuff.
Hey, we all get a little caught up in seeing the ESPN Highlights of one amazing individual play after another. We all dream of being Duke, Kentucky, NC, whoever, but the fact remains, out of the 68 teams playing in the tourney, only a half dozen or so do it purely on incredible talent. We need to try to be Iowa, or Wiscy, or even Creighton. That's the type of game we need to develop. I was talking some Husker Hoops with a friend who I used to play some ball with, and some guy who was listening, starts chirping in a little. He popped off that if we got rid of Miles, all we'd have is some lame coach like Collier, to which I replied, if we had Collier coaching this group, we'd be absolutely dancing in March. Barry may have sucked as a recruiter, and no, we weren't winning the B1G with a roster full of guys from Filly or Plattsmouth, but he could coach.
If we have this roster and a stronger coach, we have 20+ wins, even with the loss of Copeland. We have the type of players that would be a total pain to play, if we did the little things good teams do. Think of what Syracuse was like a few years ago: couldn't shoot a lick, but they were LONG, great defensively, rebounded like madmen, and created mismatches on offense for easy buckets, which were predominantly dunks or two footers. Good team, good coaches all adapt.
Let's be happy we got a nice win for the seniors, and let's hope we keep these guys on the current roster around for at least another year, and let's see what we can do with someone who is a true, deep down, teacher of basketball. Tomorrow is the last game of the season, and I hope it's the beginning some new energy and opportunity for Nebraska Basketball.
Last edited:
