What are some mind sets you feel we must adopt to be successful?

[basketballjones]

Open question for the forum. I'm not necessarily asking for X's and O's philosophies we feel would make us successful (but I'd love to talk about those if we want to).

But what are some mindsets we feel the Husker Basketball program must adopt to be successful. And for the sake of discussion - to me - successful means winning a tournament game and getting to the tournament 3 times in a 5 year period. That's really all I care about, which I'm sure is sad if you're a Duke/Carolina fan... But, baby steps here my friends. I just want us to be consistently competitive and win a tournament game or two every once in a while.

Here's a couple of mine:

1. As I alluded to in my preface for the question, getting to the tournament and winning a game is the result we are looking for. I could not care less how we do in the B1G, just as long as it's good enough to get us in the tournament. I think adopting this mindset would help, because it would allow the coaches the ability to pick and choose the games they really need to focus on and gameplan for. And allow us to properly schedule our non-conference in a way that our record is solid. I think, and correct me if I am wrong - but TM and staff already sort of think like this. At least that's what I remember from when he was hired.

2. Create and environment where the 3pt shot is accepted and cherished. Doesn't mean we need to be chucking things up at a rate of the Houston Rockets, but teaching spacing, ball movements, and what good 3pt shots look like is vital to our success. We need to be shooting the 3-ball well, and it starts from the head man allowing his team to subconsciously feel confident shooting it when they feel they are ready to shoot it. I don't think we feel that way right now. Especially with TM's, "like the 3, love the rim," philosophy. Let's just get our basketball players to be confident and love open shots, ok?

3. Rid ourselves of the "defense first," mindset. I've been around the game long enough to have learned that teams that bash defense constantly into the heads of their squads, and obsessively-specific gameplan defensively just find a way to lose games closer and upset people from time to time. It's about scoring the ball and it always has been. If you need an example of this look no further away to our football, program. Yeah, we have the blackshirts, gag me, but when we were dominant it was because we were unique, smart, dynamic, and powerful on offense. Our defense was fast, aggressive, and tough. If you recruit the right players, they'll D up in crunch time. They'll make plays. But you have to score the basketball and that's gotta be the focus. Again, if you disagree with me - look at Creighton. Sorry guys, they're our daddy and it's because they can score and they find dudes who can score. Then they play smart D and mix in a few individual defenders who can really crank it up when need be.

4. Recruit kids who do not pass the eye ball test. Be Gonzaga, be Wichita State, be Creighton. Again, if you stop worrying about uber-success in the B1G, then you don't worry about matching the same type of kid Ohio State has. I THINK, think, Miles has a vision of this, based on the type of kid he recruited for this cycle.

That's all I got for now... What say you?

[49r]

We tried that once.  It was known as the Barry Collier era.

 

And what it proved is you can't be Gonzaga (or Butler) in a power 5 conference.  Just doesn't work.

[basketballjones]

We tried that once.  It was known as the Barry Collier era.

 

And what it proved is you can't be Gonzaga (or Butler) in a power 5 conference.  Just doesn't work.

I don't think we could disagree anymore. If you think what Barry Collier did fit what I just said... Well then there's no point in continuing the discussion because we're just on complete opposite spectrums.

Gonzaga and the really good Butler teams would finish in the top 5-6 of our conference of our old conference every year.

[49r]

Okay.  Fair enough, but if you want to watch mid-major ball why not just watch Creighton?  They are the epitome of the style you're talking about.

[AuroranHusker]

Nebraska needs kids who aren't afraid to fail. The kid has to be willing to take the shot, be the man (but not be selfish). It's a fine line... Wichita State has those type of players like Fred VanVleet & Ron Baker. Need that swag. Play relentless. Never give an inch.

[basketballjones]

Okay. Fair enough, but if you want to watch mid-major ball why not just watch Creighton? They are the epitome of the style you're talking about.

Because I love Husker basketball and was in Devaney while I was in the womb. I like Husker basketball more than I like football. And 13-and-whatever-the-hell-we-were this year is f-ing pathetic and embarrassing. Now that our athletic department, state, and city have made a strong commitment to this program with the facilities and support - crap like this year should NEVER happen. That was a sad, pathetic, excuse for a season we just put together. So I'm grasping at straws trying to do whatever I can to get the discussion started so that this crap quits happening.

Stupid question/comment.

[49r]

But why do you want to be like Creighton then?  They were 13 and whatever and finished next to last in their inferior conference this year.  I'm not sure where you're going with this.

[hhcmatt]

 

We tried that once.  It was known as the Barry Collier era.

 

And what it proved is you can't be Gonzaga (or Butler) in a power 5 conference.  Just doesn't work.

I don't think we could disagree anymore. If you think what Barry Collier did fit what I just said... Well then there's no point in continuing the discussion because we're just on complete opposite spectrums.

Gonzaga and the really good Butler teams would finish in the top 5-6 of our conference of our old conference every year.

 

 

Gonzaga, Butler, and Wichita St work because they built up a basketball culture in non-power basketball conferences.

We hired Barry "I invented the Butler Way" Collier. It didn't really work.

We hired Doc Sadler who attempted to coach up a bunch of guys. It didn't really work. Building a culture with guys who get beat up in conference gets you fired.

 

I get what you're saying about the eye-ball test thing. That's why people talk about being Wisconsin. That's not a program built on 5 star recruits...it's built on having an identity, knowing what it's looking for in players, etc. 

[hal9000]

2. "....but teaching spacing, ball movements, and what good 3pt shots look like is vital to our success. We need to be shooting the 3-ball well, and it starts from the head man allowing his team to subconsciously feel confident shooting it when they feel they are ready to shoot it."
I definitely agree with this thought.  As I watched Wisconsin and Notre Dame last night, what stood out to me most was how five players on the floor did so well will spacing.  Players without the ball moved well, always working to get to open spots on the floor.  These teams just seemed to always be able to find an open player with ball movement, dribble penetration, and kicking back out for the open 3.  Also, part of the reason they were able to do this so successfully is because they always had five guys on the floor who could hurt you from anywhere.  I think Miles is trying to address this with current recruiting.  Obviously we can't just have 5 spot shooters out there, but it seems like he is trying to get versatile players in.  For this reason, my hopes are high on McVeigh, as they were with Fuller last year.

3.  At the end of the day, the object to winning basketball games is to outscore the opponent.

[Huskerpapa]

I believe it was Doc who once said that he recruited scorers, not shooters, he could teach shooting.  Hey, maybe I am wrong...but I heard or read that somewhere.  Where am I going with this, well, it has been and will always continue to be about the jimmy's and joe's.  You need players who compliment each other, if you have them and play to their strengths you can be successful. 

 

- On offense, having player(s) that penetrate is great IF they have a threat that they can kick the ball to...and shots are knocked down.

- On offense, having a post player is great IF you have players on the outside that are a threat so that defenses do not sag

- Any type of defense can look better than it is IF you hold the ball on offense and limit possessions

- Any type of defense can look better IF you have an eraser in the paint.

 

I am not making light of anything...we have to reform our team and create a chemistry where we play off of the strengths of others.  We had wings and guards who penetrated this year, and when defenses collapsed, we either had to force shots or we kicked the ball out...and when the ball was kicked out...well, we all know what happened.

[basketballjones]

But why do you want to be like Creighton then?  They were 13 and whatever and finished next to last in their inferior conference this year.  I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Where did I say I want to "be like Creighton" in the sense you're alledging? I'm saying there's certain aspects of their program and philosophies, especially with recruiting, that would greatly benefit us. I'm not saying rename the PBA the Link and put on some sweater vests.

You're just miffed because 1. I can rational recognize that Creighton has utterly dominated us, 2. and still be a Husker fan. We've lost 7 out of the last 10 to them, and a lot haven't been close. That ain't luck on their part.

[49r]

Okay, I'll go back to your OP then and I'll try to clarify some.  We'll skip the first half because it's somewhat irrelevant to my response originally.  To recap:

 

 

 

3. Rid ourselves of the "defense first," mindset. I've been around the game long enough to have learned that teams that bash defense constantly into the heads of their squads, and obsessively-specific gameplan defensively just find a way to lose games closer and upset people from time to time. It's about scoring the ball and it always has been. If you need an example of this look no further away to our football, program. Yeah, we have the blackshirts, gag me, but when we were dominant it was because we were unique, smart, dynamic, and powerful on offense. Our defense was fast, aggressive, and tough. If you recruit the right players, they'll D up in crunch time. They'll make plays. But you have to score the basketball and that's gotta be the focus. Again, if you disagree with me - look at Creighton. Sorry guys, they're our daddy and it's because they can score and they find dudes who can score. Then they play smart D and mix in a few individual defenders who can really crank it up when need be.

4. Recruit kids who do not pass the eye ball test. Be Gonzaga, be Wichita State, be Creighton. Again, if you stop worrying about uber-success in the B1G, then you don't worry about matching the same type of kid Ohio State has. I THINK, think, Miles has a vision of this, based on the type of kid he recruited for this cycle.

 

 

Okay.  Let's dive in.

 

Rid ourselves of the "defense first," mindset.

​You do realize that "defense first" is pretty much the way the game is played these days right?  Wisconsin, Virginia, West Virginia, and really, innumerable other college teams are preaching defense.  It's they way the game has evolved.  Hell, even Calipari is fanatic about getting his kids to play with a defensive mindset.  It is the single biggest part of what he wants them to do.  The fallacy of composition applies some here.  We have to play the game the way it wants to be played.  And right now that's pretty much "defense first".

 

It's about scoring the ball and it always has been

To a certain extent you have a point.  But scoring has been down across the board.  Defense has been the trend across the board.  You don't have to like it - I don't - but we aren't gonna Loyola Marymount it up and get to the elite 8...or at least we won't be able to as easily as we might if we Wiscorginia'd it.

 

Yeah, we have the blackshirts, gag me,

Forgive me here, but you do know you sound like one of those self-loathing Husker fans here, right?  Blackshirts is one of college football's great traditions like it or not and we should embrace that, not mock it.

 

but when we were dominant it was because we were unique, smart, dynamic, and powerful on offense

You may not remember that it was a philosophical change (from the 4-3 to 3-4) on defense that put us over the top in the 90's from contender to champion.  It was that smart, dynamic and powerful defense that made the difference.

 

---

 

But despite the fact that I fundamentally disagree with what you wrote above, really these following bullets are most germane to explaining why I responded the way I did:

 

---

 

Again, if you disagree with me - look at Creighton. Sorry guys, they're our daddy

This is the first of your mentions of Creighton - which is why I went back to it.  I have to wonder why we're even talking about them.  It's one game a year and really in the grand scheme of things not all that important, IMO.  We can build a team to beat Creighton (whoop-de-doo) or build a team that can compete for and maybe win B1G championships.  Which do you choose?  Personally, my aspirations are much higher than just winning that one game.

Recruit kids who do not pass the eye ball test. Be Gonzaga, be Wichita State, be Creighton

There is that mention of Creighton again, sorry if it seems like I'm the one obsessed with them.  But to get more to the point here, this is why I said we tried that already with Collier.  He went so far as to talk at length after we hired him about how he was going to build a program the way he did at Butler with under the radar guys that he didn't have to compete with the Kansas' and Texas' for.  He was gonna get the mid-major type kids and coach 'em up.

 

He tried to be exactly what you said we need to be...it didn't work...and it won't work.  If you want proof of this philosophy not working at a high level look no further than the program down the road that you would like to see us try and emulate.  Creighton has a roster loaded with MVC types and no matter how much McDermott tries to coach 'em up, it just didn't matter, they were this close to finishing last in the Big East this year.  Their year was eerily similar to a lot of the Doc/Barry years for us.

 

The reason why I went with the Creighton comparisons is because it is a nearly perfect test case for us to look at.  Namely, how do mid-major gutty high effort kids do at a higher level on a night in and night out basis?  Answer?  Not that great, unless you have a 3 time All American and Wooden Award winner on your team.

 

if you stop worrying about uber-success in the B1G

So I guess I'm not sure what you're saying here.  You don't want to win the B1G?  Man, I tell you I do for sure!  I couldn't give a crap less about beating Creighton in the grand scheme.  What I want is a league title.

 

then you don't worry about matching the same type of kid Ohio State has

Why not?  I want to match and beat the same type of kid Ohio State has

 

I THINK, think, Miles has a vision of this, based on the type of kid he recruited for this cycle

I think it's the opposite.

[Norm Peterson]

1.  I think we have to be tough.  Offensively, defensively, our approach to rebounding, to going after loose balls, even grabbing the opening tip.  We give no quarter.  We don't back down.  We don't EVER give up.  No quit.  Have to be tough.

 

2.  I think we have to be fundamentally sound.  If you set a screen, then dammit set a screen.  A solid one.  Not somewhere in the vicinity of the opposing team, but at a spot where the screen really accomplishes something.  If it's a ball screen, then the ballhandler needs to run his defender into the screener.  The cuts needs to be crisp and precise.  The opposing team should never be able to cross the lane without getting bumped off their line of travel.  Until the refs start calling it, throw hips at opposing defensive players trying to chase your teammate around your screen.  Get him open.  That's how.

 

3.  Commit to doing the little things right.  Don't cut corners.  Don't half-ass closing out on shooters.  Sprint in transition even if the ball is ahead of you.  The little things make a difference between a 1 point win and a 1 point loss.  If a team has a lot of close games, the little things can make a difference between a lot of those being wins or a lot of those being losses.

 

4.  Accountability to your teammates.  I think the players should grade each other.  And the results of the grading should be posted in the locker room for all the players and coaches to see.  Score effort, score attitude, score mental focus or whatever else you want.  But have the team score the other players and make the scoring (not necessarily the votes themselves but certainly the results of the voting) public within the team.  The guy who grades low on attitude and effort needs to see that his teammates notice that he half-asses it down the floor.  Accountability means you don't let your teammates down.  But it also means it's made known and there is a consequence if you do.

 

5.  I think you have to find athletes who can score.  I want to out-athlete the teams we play.  But you can't just sell out to athleticism without regard to skill.  If you have to choose between the two, I'd rather have a guy who's a better athlete, because the skilled guy doesn't see the floor.

 

JMOO.

[Huskerone]

G...A....T....A  

[Huskerone]

and what Norm said.

[Dean Smith]

 

2.  I think we have to be fundamentally sound.  If you set a screen, then dammit set a screen.  A solid one.  Not somewhere in the vicinity of the opposing team, but at a spot where the screen really accomplishes something.  If it's a ball screen, then the ballhandler needs to run his defender into the screener.  The cuts needs to be crisp and precise.  The opposing team should never be able to cross the lane without getting bumped off their line of travel.  Until the refs start calling it, throw hips at opposing defensive players trying to chase your teammate around your screen.  Get him open.  That's how.

 

4.  Accountability to your teammates.  I think the players should grade each other.  And the results of the grading should be posted in the locker room for all the players and coaches to see.  Score effort, score attitude, score mental focus or whatever else you want.  But have the team score the other players and make the scoring (not necessarily the votes themselves but certainly the results of the voting) public within the team.  The guy who grades low on attitude and effort needs to see that his teammates notice that he half-asses it down the floor.  Accountability means you don't let your teammates down.  But it also means it's made known and there is a consequence if you do.

 

 

The key to the pick has a lot to do with the cutter. You want to set a fat screen meaning make the D get past you shoulder to shoulder where you are wide instead of front to back where you're skinny. That means the screener's butt needs to be pointed to where you want to receive the ball and that means one of the four corners of the 1/2 court. That allows the cutter to go the wrong way first and then bring the defender back into the fat screen. It is the cutters job to set up their man and use the pick. If you don't get tight to the pick then you might as well not have one. If the screen "headhunts" like my high school coach tried to teach me then you get so tight to the D and they can easily slip past you front to back (skinny pick). Cutter goes the wrong way first and then actually grab your teammate's jersey and pull yourself hip to hip to the pick. Then you have to read the D of course, but that's a different skill.

 

As an accountability piece I had the team anonymously vote right before the first game for "4 guys I want on the floor with me," "hardest worker," "Laziest," "best attitude," "worst attitude," "best shooter," etc. Sometimes it surprised me what they thought and if nothing else I always had at least one negative vote on any player whose father wanted to talk to me about his son's playing time. It seems there was a correlation between bad attitude and obnoxious parent many times. Some seasons the whole team voted after every practice for the player that worked the hardest to make the team better that day and they would get to wear a special practice jersey the next day. End of the year the guy who wore it the most that season got to take one home. I had more than one player tell me earning that jersey was much more important than any all conference honors. 

[Dean Smith]

Spacing, spacing, spacing. Just got done watching Michigan State and their spacing is tremendous and with a purpose. I remember at halftime of the Virginia game, Izzo said we need to slip more. That always bothered me about our season, that we used the slip screen so seldomly when teams are sending their posts flying out to hedge on Petteway. I know Pitch liked the pick and pop but he wasn't hitting and there needs to be a plan B. I think I can count the number of times they hit that post cutting to the basket the entire season on my fingers without getting to my toes. Some of it also had to do with the other players were stationary allowing their men to sag and take that cut away.

 

They killed Virginia (a very successful packline defensive team) with the slip. Most teams help on the slip with the other post and Mich. St. usually had them busy some place else. The would run double pin downs so the defender would have step up to hedge the curl cuts and they would hit the curl and immediately drop to the pinner as they slipped to the basket. The other post was hedging on the other curl cut on the other side of the court. I remember out of a time out, Izzo had both post at the elbows. A perimeter ran through them as double flare screens or an Iverson cut if you use that term. Then the ballside post picked the opposite post. The picked post then went to screen the ball/wing on his baseline side. So the other defensive post is helping on the post to post screen and is up high so he can't help when the post (the one that just received the post to post screen) heads to the ball showing ball screen and then slips hard to the basket. No one in position to help and a dunk. 

 

Some of that was them just knowing how to play the game and I'm sure a lot of it was in the game plane and in sets Izzo ran knowing they would cause VA some problems. That's why he is in the Elite 8 again. The man can coach.

[brfrad]

A lot of people talk about spacing, and I agree with them.   I am watching Notre Dame against Kentucky.  One thing I would like to see is get the ball out of the net and try to push when the other team allows.  It's difficult in the Big 10 because teams are so well coached to get back on defense, but I still would look for "cheap" points.  Press at times, beat the other team down the court.  If you can't shoot it's one way to get some points.

[basketballjones]

Okay, I'll go back to your OP then and I'll try to clarify some.  We'll skip the first half because it's somewhat irrelevant to my response originally.  To recap:

 

 

 

3. Rid ourselves of the "defense first," mindset. I've been around the game long enough to have learned that teams that bash defense constantly into the heads of their squads, and obsessively-specific gameplan defensively just find a way to lose games closer and upset people from time to time. It's about scoring the ball and it always has been. If you need an example of this look no further away to our football, program. Yeah, we have the blackshirts, gag me, but when we were dominant it was because we were unique, smart, dynamic, and powerful on offense. Our defense was fast, aggressive, and tough. If you recruit the right players, they'll D up in crunch time. They'll make plays. But you have to score the basketball and that's gotta be the focus. Again, if you disagree with me - look at Creighton. Sorry guys, they're our daddy and it's because they can score and they find dudes who can score. Then they play smart D and mix in a few individual defenders who can really crank it up when need be.

4. Recruit kids who do not pass the eye ball test. Be Gonzaga, be Wichita State, be Creighton. Again, if you stop worrying about uber-success in the B1G, then you don't worry about matching the same type of kid Ohio State has. I THINK, think, Miles has a vision of this, based on the type of kid he recruited for this cycle.

 

 

Okay.  Let's dive in.

 

Rid ourselves of the "defense first," mindset.

​You do realize that "defense first" is pretty much the way the game is played these days right?  Wisconsin, Virginia, West Virginia, and really, innumerable other college teams are preaching defense.  It's they way the game has evolved.  Hell, even Calipari is fanatic about getting his kids to play with a defensive mindset.  It is the single biggest part of what he wants them to do.  The fallacy of composition applies some here.  We have to play the game the way it wants to be played.  And right now that's pretty much "defense first".

 

It's about scoring the ball and it always has been

To a certain extent you have a point.  But scoring has been down across the board.  Defense has been the trend across the board.  You don't have to like it - I don't - but we aren't gonna Loyola Marymount it up and get to the elite 8...or at least we won't be able to as easily as we might if we Wiscorginia'd it.

 

Yeah, we have the blackshirts, gag me,

Forgive me here, but you do know you sound like one of those self-loathing Husker fans here, right?  Blackshirts is one of college football's great traditions like it or not and we should embrace that, not mock it.

 

but when we were dominant it was because we were unique, smart, dynamic, and powerful on offense

You may not remember that it was a philosophical change (from the 4-3 to 3-4) on defense that put us over the top in the 90's from contender to champion.  It was that smart, dynamic and powerful defense that made the difference.

 

---

 

But despite the fact that I fundamentally disagree with what you wrote above, really these following bullets are most germane to explaining why I responded the way I did:

 

---

 

Again, if you disagree with me - look at Creighton. Sorry guys, they're our daddy

This is the first of your mentions of Creighton - which is why I went back to it.  I have to wonder why we're even talking about them.  It's one game a year and really in the grand scheme of things not all that important, IMO.  We can build a team to beat Creighton (whoop-de-doo) or build a team that can compete for and maybe win B1G championships.  Which do you choose?  Personally, my aspirations are much higher than just winning that one game.

Recruit kids who do not pass the eye ball test. Be Gonzaga, be Wichita State, be Creighton

There is that mention of Creighton again, sorry if it seems like I'm the one obsessed with them.  But to get more to the point here, this is why I said we tried that already with Collier.  He went so far as to talk at length after we hired him about how he was going to build a program the way he did at Butler with under the radar guys that he didn't have to compete with the Kansas' and Texas' for.  He was gonna get the mid-major type kids and coach 'em up.

 

He tried to be exactly what you said we need to be...it didn't work...and it won't work.  If you want proof of this philosophy not working at a high level look no further than the program down the road that you would like to see us try and emulate.  Creighton has a roster loaded with MVC types and no matter how much McDermott tries to coach 'em up, it just didn't matter, they were this close to finishing last in the Big East this year.  Their year was eerily similar to a lot of the Doc/Barry years for us.

 

The reason why I went with the Creighton comparisons is because it is a nearly perfect test case for us to look at.  Namely, how do mid-major gutty high effort kids do at a higher level on a night in and night out basis?  Answer?  Not that great, unless you have a 3 time All American and Wooden Award winner on your team.

 

if you stop worrying about uber-success in the B1G

So I guess I'm not sure what you're saying here.  You don't want to win the B1G?  Man, I tell you I do for sure!  I couldn't give a crap less about beating Creighton in the grand scheme.  What I want is a league title.

 

then you don't worry about matching the same type of kid Ohio State has

Why not?  I want to match and beat the same type of kid Ohio State has

 

I THINK, think, Miles has a vision of this, based on the type of kid he recruited for this cycle

I think it's the opposite.

 

49r, 

Just wanted to first start off by apologizing for getting a bit heated (you called me a Creighton fan, how was I not supposed to get heated, ha, just kidding!) - so take this as a mea culpa - as I really enjoy this board (it's the only place to "seriously" discuss Husker Hoops in the world) and definitely do not want any enemies or sources of conflict (I get enough of that in my real life, ha). 

Second, I wanted offer a bit of a philosophy of mine, not only as it relates to me as a person but also as an athletics coach -- If I see that everyone is doing a thing one way, I run screaming in the other direction trying to do something completely different. It probably goes back to the fact that: 1. I've never been naturally the best at something, or had many innate advantages in life, and 2. I'm a lefty. Therefore, I have always had to find different, unique, and against the grain ways of doing things -- or I had to figure things out on my own because none of you righties in this world could every show me how to do anything! So as you read the stuff I post, keep that in mind -- I see the powerhouse teams in the nation doing one thing -- and I suppose I'm innately always thinking like an underdog -- so I try to find a different way to compete while getting the same results. 

 

But I did want to address a few things, the rest, we probably just won't agree upon or there's no point in debating it anymore:

1.  The Kentucky example you use: Of friggin' course John Calipari is going to be "defensive first" with these guys. He has the most, NBA-ready, tallest, most-talented, and ridiculously athletic team in the nation. Those guys will find a way to score even if you put 8 guys on defense. Therefore, the biggest thing he can impact that team on is by getting them to crank up their defensive effort. Does anything I said about Kentucky's team even come close to sounding familiar? No. And will we every be at the point where are recruiting the same type of kids that Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, or Ohio State are getting? I really just do not think so... We might get lucky from year to year with one guy, but it will never be on a consistent basis. That is why I say our biggest priority should be finding dudes who can shoot the heck out of it and score in unique ways. In other words, do something different. 

 

2.  You're really getting hung-up on this Creighton thing. I vehemently apologize for using their name on this forum and acknowledging their success over us and frequent success on the national level. Yes, I used their name twice in my post. Would like me to just delete that part of it? Because my argument remains the same -- There are CERTAIN ASPECTS of these mid-major programs that I think we need to learn from and emulate. Certain aspects. Not bring in Bruce Rasmussen or paint the town blue. Certain aspects. Not run your entire team and program like these guys. Certain aspects. And parts of recruiting should be dedicated to finding guys who maybe don't fit the prototypical mold of a B1G dude. Not all, just part of our recruiting. And I think Miles has seen this with some of lanky, young-looking, versatile guys he is finding. 

 

3. Nebraska did not switch from the 3-4 Defense to the 4-3. They switched from the 5-2 to the 4-3. In other words, instead of continuing to do the same things that everyone else in the nation was doing, as far as playing big, brutal, old school defense -- They found a different way to put their speed on the field at different positions. Dudes who were maybe more safeties in the old defense, slated down to play outside linebackers. Dudes who were more linebackers in the old scheme, where defensive ends. It was thinking outside of the box, being innovative, and doing something different.

 

That's all I am going to say on this. And, also, I really enjoy writing, but I fully acknowledge that I am at the toddler stage of my writing capabilities. Frequently, I get a "big idea," in my head that I am very passionate about and I just want to write about it. About halfway through writing I realize that my idea was not complete and there's a lot missing to really hammer home my points. So forgive me when you read the stuff I post on this board, I'm trying to get better because I really enjoy writing.

 

So I hope you had a fantastic weekend, and I hope to continue some pleasant husker hoops conversation with you in the future.

[49r]

jones,

 

I'm not going to quote any further in this conversation because it's starting to get ridiculously long.  I hate scrolling through mountains of quoted text so I don't want to subject others to the same thing.

 

With that caveat in place, I just wanted to say I really don't have a problem with your premise in principle.  I do think we would benefit from being a tad more offensive minded as well.  I think coach Miles would agree.  But as we all have discussed throughout the season it was apparent that we lacked that consistent outside shooting threat without Gallegos more than anyone would have anticipated which lead to being even more defensive minded than just about anyone wanted us to be.  The hope was that Pitchford was going to be able to pick up the slack there, but as we found out, he's just not the volume shooter Ray was and it really hurt Shields' and Petteway's ability to get to the hole and score.  So, in a way, you make a great point about firepower.  I think we'll see a bit more of that next season though with White, and hopefully Fuller as well.  Heck, even Tarin appears to have a pretty pure outside shot, and I hope he gets the chance to shoot some more next year.

 

But here's where we disagree.  Namely, in the notion of going with less heralded mid-major type guys.  As I said before I believe we tried that with the Collier and Doc regimes with pretty middling to terrible results.  I stand firm in the opinion that a roster full of those types is at a tremendous disadvantage night in and night out in a power 5 league.  But with my own mea culpa I will say that I read your OP as saying we needed to go full on mid-major.  Sorry if I misread that.

 

Finally, let me just say that the mention of Creighton did set me off, but mostly for the reason that the McDermott style of ball is personally offensive to my hoops sensibilities.  I think it is really an affront to the game that James Naismith created and the whole idea of a bunch of guys chucking up 3 balls every time down the court with the idea of either making that shot or clanking it off the rim and letting the big man get the rebound and putback isn't the game as I know it.  I refer to it as "shit-ball" and to me it's not fun to watch.  Now, in their defense, it is just taking advantage of the ridiculously short 3 point shot rule and it's not new to the game, Pitino pioneered that style shortly after the three point line was implemented while he was at Kentucky.  I hated it then and I still hate it now.  Of course, that's just my opinion.

 

So had you said we should try to emulate the game as Notre Dame plays it or Oklahoma or Iowa State, it would have made a whole lot more sense to me and I would probably agree whole heartedly.  But to keep things relatively short I'll stop here and thank you for the civil discussion.  We may have fundamental differences in what type of recruits we should be targeting, but what makes it great is we can both agree we want nothing but the best for the 'Skers and I'll end by reaffirming my position on team #NoShitBall  

[49r]

Also, thanks for correcting me on the change in the blackshirt alignment in the early 90's.  After I wrote what I did I had the feeling that I was maybe misremembering it, and you confirmed that.

[basketballjones]

jones,

 

So had you said we should try to emulate the game as Notre Dame plays it or Oklahoma or Iowa State...

Hey, now there's something we can both agree upon - much better examples than what I brought up. That's the question - how do we find the kids that just miss out on the blue blood programs and keep them around until they're juniors and seniors? I think everyone on this board would give a first born to have a player like Connaughton, Auguste, or Vasturia (who I am still not convinced is old enough to drive). The latter two were 4 stars just inside the top 100 and just outside the top 100, neither had amazing offer sheets. Connaughton was only a 3 star with some decent offers and some mid major offers.

And I'm just gonna say this, at risk of losing my privileges on this board -- while I've been to more Husker basketball practices than I can count -- I've also been to a few Creighton practices (when my buddies and I travel around in the preseason watching college practices to pick up stuff), and Greg McDermott is an incredible coach and a very nice/gracious/humble person. And his players absolutely love him. Now, I can't stand their fans, some of their players make my blood boil (I have a dream of getting to punch Grant Gibbs someday), and nothing gets me worked up like Husker/Bluejay week.... but I like GMcD as a person/coach, and how he runs his team/practices. Ok that's it, please don't hurt me.

[basketballjones]

Also, thanks for correcting me on the change in the blackshirt alignment in the early 90's.  After I wrote what I did I had the feeling that I was maybe misremembering it, and you confirmed that.

Hahaha, that was so petty of me but I just had to, sorry!

[49r]

 

Also, thanks for correcting me on the change in the blackshirt alignment in the early 90's.  After I wrote what I did I had the feeling that I was maybe misremembering it, and you confirmed that.

Hahaha, that was so petty of me but I just had to, sorry!

 

 

 

Nah, no worries.  After I wrote what I did I got to thinking about it and remembered when they made the changeover everyone was talking about Sam Will and Mike and it occurred to me that it was a 3 linebacker set so there's no way I was remembering it right.  I expected someone to correct me.

[hhcmatt]

3. Rid ourselves of the "defense first," mindset. I've been around the game long enough to have learned that teams that bash defense constantly into the heads of their squads, and obsessively-specific gameplan defensively just find a way to lose games closer and upset people from time to time. It's about scoring the ball and it always has been.

 

Style doesn't dictate or guarantee success. We can succeed as a defense or offense first team with the right combination of talent and execution. There are plenty of Div 1 examples of both as proof.