• 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.

MBB Game #15, (L, 93-84), Sun, 1/6 @ Iowa (#44) (11-3) (0-3), 4:30pm CT, BTN

Husker Eponymous

Scout Team
10 Year Member
The team looks tired already; how anyone thinks this team is going to turn it on down the stretch is a mystery.

On a bright note, other players did get some minutes as foul trouble forced it.

Lastly, a point thats hard to argue with: They peaked against Creighton and have gotten progressively worse. NU will not match their statistical performance against Creighton this year.
 

MBinMO

Recruit
5 Year Member
If I’m Tim Miles, I don’t foul at the end and lose by 5. And then they kept fouling the guy who couldn’t miss a 3 or a FT. Losing by 5 is a lot better than 93-84.
 

HUSKER HOT SAUCE

Music Soothes My Soul
5 Year Member
Just finished watching the DVR, and we looked like crap from about the 10 minute mark of the first half on. Just ice cold and no D at all to speak of tonight. That was very disappointing. I hope that we can curtail a tailspin here, because it's suddenly not looking so good.
 

LarstheRed

Junior Varsity
5 Year Member
Tough day against a team that is kind of a polar opposite of the Huskers. The Hawkeyes play a pretty dull, fundamentally sound brand of basketball. They rebound like their next meal depends on it, they have a great inside game, but I'd point out that it's not one that's predicated on great athleticism. They have guys who know where to spot up, and catch the ball ready to shoot from those spots. Defensively, because they aren't freakish athletes, they play really smart, and I loved how they knew when and who to double to create problems for Palmer and Watson.

I know some think our defense was our weakness, and it might have been to some extent, but I can't really fault Roby or Copeland who spent the entire prior game wrestling a couple of beasts, and were battling fouls again. I know foul trouble is up to them to stay out of, but it's hard to stay clean when you are having to cover guys who are getting great position on you, have great footwork, and know how to get shots off when they aren't the best athletes on the floor. It's also hard when you have rebounders coming in who aren't necessarily inside players. Our wings did not do the best job in keeping their perimeter people from getting into rebounding position. Nothing pisses off an inside guy more than getting good position on your man for a rebound, then having some twit fly in from the wing to tip the ball away, all because your guy didn't put a body on him.

As for our offense, well, I think it's fair to say that being reliant on shooting a certain percentage of 3's is pure folly. We simply don't have that club in our bag. 4 for 23. If you aren't math people, that's 17%. We lost by 9, to a team that plays within itself. They don't try to do things they aren't good at. 9 points, shooting 17% from 3's. Does that suggest anything to anyone? Try this: Palmer is 6-10, Watson 3-5, Allen 2-4, Copeland is 7-12 and Roby is 7-9. We shot 62.5% from the field last night and got beat by 9. I'll stop there and let others tell me their thoughts.
 

LarstheRed

Junior Varsity
5 Year Member
If I’m Tim Miles, I don’t foul at the end and lose by 5. And then they kept fouling the guy who couldn’t miss a 3 or a FT. Losing by 5 is a lot better than 93-84.
No offense, but the only reason you think that's a better strategy is if you have money on the spread. Their mistake was not completely overplaying the FT shooting Wiz, forcing someone else to hit late.
 

djlhuskerfan

Junior Varsity
10 Year Member
I hated when miles said early in year that he wanted to shoot more 3s. We haven't consistently shot well from perimeter since forever especially when we get bringing ball up and only get into our offense with less than 10 seconds on shot clock. We need to be able to play uptempo and halfcourt as well. Iowa worked to get open and got their shots
 

ColoREDo

REDo posts matter!!!
10 Year Member
As for our offense, well, I think it's fair to say that being reliant on shooting a certain percentage of 3's is pure folly. We simply don't have that club in our bag. 4 for 23. If you aren't math people, that's 17%. We lost by 9, to a team that plays within itself. They don't try to do things they aren't good at. 9 points, shooting 17% from 3's. Does that suggest anything to anyone? Try this: Palmer is 6-10, Watson 3-5, Allen 2-4, Copeland is 7-12 and Roby is 7-9. We shot 62.5% from the field last night and got beat by 9. I'll stop there and let others tell me their thoughts.
If we are going just by math, if we shoot our regular three point percentage we hit 4 more.

Last night was disappointing. We played poorly. No need to panic yet.

The worst thing is that we are wasting our opportunities to get conference road wins.
 

NUinID

Scout Team
2 Year Member
Tough day against a team that is kind of a polar opposite of the Huskers. The Hawkeyes play a pretty dull, fundamentally sound brand of basketball. They rebound like their next meal depends on it, they have a great inside game, but I'd point out that it's not one that's predicated on great athleticism. They have guys who know where to spot up, and catch the ball ready to shoot from those spots. Defensively, because they aren't freakish athletes, they play really smart, and I loved how they knew when and who to double to create problems for Palmer and Watson.

I know some think our defense was our weakness, and it might have been to some extent, but I can't really fault Roby or Copeland who spent the entire prior game wrestling a couple of beasts, and were battling fouls again. I know foul trouble is up to them to stay out of, but it's hard to stay clean when you are having to cover guys who are getting great position on you, have great footwork, and know how to get shots off when they aren't the best athletes on the floor. It's also hard when you have rebounders coming in who aren't necessarily inside players. Our wings did not do the best job in keeping their perimeter people from getting into rebounding position. Nothing pisses off an inside guy more than getting good position on your man for a rebound, then having some twit fly in from the wing to tip the ball away, all because your guy didn't put a body on him.

As for our offense, well, I think it's fair to say that being reliant on shooting a certain percentage of 3's is pure folly. We simply don't have that club in our bag. 4 for 23. If you aren't math people, that's 17%. We lost by 9, to a team that plays within itself. They don't try to do things they aren't good at. 9 points, shooting 17% from 3's. Does that suggest anything to anyone? Try this: Palmer is 6-10, Watson 3-5, Allen 2-4, Copeland is 7-12 and Roby is 7-9. We shot 62.5% from the field last night and got beat by 9. I'll stop there and let others tell me their thoughts.
I didn't watch a lot of the game, but Bohannan was the difference in the game. He really hasn't been playing all that consistent this year and he goes off for 25 and is 5-8 from the 3's. I think he had 3 pts in the first half. He gets his 11 pt average and they don't win the game.

I do agree that they try to rely on the 3 too much. I don't know what you do about rebounding. Nebraska is just not a good rebounding team. I don't know why they don't get better at it.

I think their big problem is that they really don't have any true inside players on the team other than Tanner B. Roby has grown into a 4 kind of, Copeland is kind of a 4, Brady H is going to be a stretch 4 someday. They don't have that guy or guys that can post up and score and get rebounds. I am not a fire Miles guy like most people on this board yet, but it seems like he is really in love with the 6'6"-6'7" 210 lb slasher wing type player. I would love a couple of true big men for this team. They don't have to be double double guys every night, but it sure would be nice to see someone get 8-9 boards a night. I don't know if he doesn't want to recruit them or if he can't recruit them. Jacobson and Marrow would be so useful on this team.
 

All 'N' 011808

Former Walk-on
2 Year Member
If we are going just by math, if we shoot our regular three point percentage we hit 4 more.

Last night was disappointing. We played poorly. No need to panic yet.

The worst thing is that we are wasting our opportunities to get conference road wins.
This is so true.
 

djlhuskerfan

Junior Varsity
10 Year Member
If we are going just by math, if we shoot our regular three point percentage we hit 4 more.

Last night was disappointing. We played poorly. No need to panic yet.

The worst thing is that we are wasting our opportunities to get conference road wins.
9-9 in conference wont get us to tourney unless we win conference tourney. We have to win a couple on the road and win all at home
 
Last edited:

LarstheRed

Junior Varsity
5 Year Member
If we are going just by math, if we shoot our regular three point percentage we hit 4 more.

Last night was disappointing. We played poorly. No need to panic yet.

The worst thing is that we are wasting our opportunities to get conference road wins.
I'm not in a panic, I just want to see some better thought process from game to game. When our guys are hot, fine, get your shots and roll. But it doesn't take 40 minutes of flinging a ball in the air to figure that out. Just for fun, look at this side by side comparison.

3Pt Just 2 Pt
15% 55%

40% 72%

32% 76%

34% 45%

39% 64%

21% 48%

20% 58%

31% 57%

42% 50%

33% 52%

52% 54%

44% 48%

45% 43%

46% 43%

40% 52%

17% 62%

KenPo developed the notion that shooting 3s made more sense because the historical averages say that teams usually shoot about 50% from the field, and if you could shoot 33% from 3s, you can actually score better...this is a bit of a simplified version, but it works for our discussion. Here's the problem using this formula can create. First, saying a team 'averages' 33% may work for teams that are pretty consistent shooters, but can be a huge problem for teams that lack consistency. I may have a team that is smoking hot one game (Creighton), and stink it up another (Iowa), and we still average about 34%, so that's good, right? No, it's not. Second, take a minute and notice the 'non 3 shooting percentage'. I have to say, for a team to average as high a percentage as we do is pretty darn good. In games we've lost, had we leaned harder on our ability to score inside the line, we would have likely won at least 2 of those games, and possibly 3. That isn't saying we shouldn't shoot 3s, that's saying adapt your game according to the night. Play within yourself, and use what is working. We spend far too many games looking like we don't know what to do, and continue to try what hasn't worked, and that just baffles me.
 
Last edited:

LarstheRed

Junior Varsity
5 Year Member
I didn't watch a lot of the game, but Bohannan was the difference in the game. He really hasn't been playing all that consistent this year and he goes off for 25 and is 5-8 from the 3's. I think he had 3 pts in the first half. He gets his 11 pt average and they don't win the game.

I do agree that they try to rely on the 3 too much. I don't know what you do about rebounding. Nebraska is just not a good rebounding team. I don't know why they don't get better at it.

I think their big problem is that they really don't have any true inside players on the team other than Tanner B. Roby has grown into a 4 kind of, Copeland is kind of a 4, Brady H is going to be a stretch 4 someday. They don't have that guy or guys that can post up and score and get rebounds. I am not a fire Miles guy like most people on this board yet, but it seems like he is really in love with the 6'6"-6'7" 210 lb slasher wing type player. I would love a couple of true big men for this team. They don't have to be double double guys every night, but it sure would be nice to see someone get 8-9 boards a night. I don't know if he doesn't want to recruit them or if he can't recruit them. Jacobson and Marrow would be so useful on this team.
Jacobson has said he wanted to be more of an offensive option, and he didn't feel that was going to happen at Nebraska. He simply wasn't willing to be the guy hammering the boards, and getting his token 6-8 a game. Looking at his production so far at ISU, he was probably right in his decision.
 

NUinID

Scout Team
2 Year Member
Jacobson has said he wanted to be more of an offensive option, and he didn't feel that was going to happen at Nebraska. He simply wasn't willing to be the guy hammering the boards, and getting his token 6-8 a game. Looking at his production so far at ISU, he was probably right in his decision.
I guess, hadn't he just played his freshman year when he transferred? Hard to say what he would have developed into.
 
Top