Nebrasketball vs Illinois

They needed that one.  Never pretty, it seems but happy the boys gutted one out.

glad meah was a dnp.  Need to find a way to keep both our pgs off the floor at the same time…and essegian needs to play 25-30 minutes a game going forward.  He has a lot of gravity for the defense.  Couldn’t care less if he starts, starter is kind of a meaningless label when it comes to overall production.

meah and worster have proven that point this year.  I’m not dumping on those guys…they just are what they are.

random thoughts…gbr

 
The crowd was loud and Illinois was missing three’s. The team did enough good things to win. It was one we badly needed. They could have folded but they battled. Good for them!

 
Cobra Kai said:
They needed that one.  Never pretty, it seems but happy the boys gutted one out.

glad meah was a dnp.  Need to find a way to keep both our pgs off the floor at the same time…and essegian needs to play 25-30 minutes a game going forward.  He has a lot of gravity for the defense.  Couldn’t care less if he starts, starter is kind of a meaningless label when it comes to overall production.

meah and worster have proven that point this year.  I’m not dumping on those guys…they just are what they are.

random thoughts…gbr
Click to expand...
Essegian played 28 minutes last night & Worster & Ulis combined for 29 (18 for Worster, 11 for Ulis).

 
commando said:
if just 1 more had landed before ot they would have won.  
Click to expand...


Yeah, like I said a couple weeks ago, we play a high-risk, high-reward defense.  If teams are shooting poorly on 3s, we're in good shape (which is probably true for most defenses).  But they're going to get some open looks, so it's easier for them to have a good shooting night (such as the previous six games).

 
Mavric said:
Yeah, like I said a couple weeks ago, we play a high-risk, high-reward defense.  If teams are shooting poorly on 3s, we're in good shape (which is probably true for most defenses).  But they're going to get some open looks, so it's easier for them to have a good shooting night (such as the previous six games).
Click to expand...
My problem is that so often teams are making threes when we have a guy on them.

 
BigRedBuster said:
My problem is that so often teams are making threes when we have a guy on them.
Click to expand...


Possibly.  I think how "on them" we are is a bit open to interpretation.

Over the past several years it seems to be a fairly common occurrence that a team will have an abnormally good shooting night against us.  Either we are about the most unlucky team out there or we are doing something (or not doing something) that lends itself to teams shooting better against us.  The latter seems to be significantly more likely.

 
Mavric said:
Possibly.  I think how "on them" we are is a bit open to interpretation.

Over the past several years it seems to be a fairly common occurrence that a team will have an abnormally good shooting night against us.  Either we are about the most unlucky team out there or we are doing something (or not doing something) that lends itself to teams shooting better against us.  The latter seems to be significantly more likely.
Click to expand...
I agree.  The best explanation I can come up with his that our defense sometimes allows a shooter to get open looks a few times, he gets in a rhythm and then it doesn't matter if we are on them or not.

 
Mavric said:
Possibly.  I think how "on them" we are is a bit open to interpretation.

Over the past several years it seems to be a fairly common occurrence that a team will have an abnormally good shooting night against us.  Either we are about the most unlucky team out there or we are doing something (or not doing something) that lends itself to teams shooting better against us.  The latter seems to be significantly more likely.
Click to expand...
Just like how QB’s have career days in us in football. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top