|
Post by OverAndUnder on Jun 1, 2007 11:49:33 GMT -5
Since, NCAA seeding committee outrages aside, the most powerful matchup for next year's final is Nebraska v. Stanford part II... let's stop wasting time on the general case and address the specific case: What kind of offense do you think Nebraska will/should run AGAINST STANFORD next year?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2007 12:43:45 GMT -5
Maybe we will see both. Situational---depending on the oppositions personel on the floor. Not unlike football where you see 3-4/4-3 changeups depending on down and distance. I could see Cook doing this. I also thought this was very possible running a 5-1 with a situational 6-2. There would be a lot of times against some of Nebraska's conference opponents when they could do this also just for rest and reps.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Jun 1, 2007 12:49:02 GMT -5
Maybe we will see both. Situational---depending on the oppositions personel on the floor. Not unlike football where you see 3-4/4-3 changeups depending on down and distance. I could see Cook doing this. I also thought this was very possible running a 5-1 with a situational 6-2. There would be a lot of times against some of Nebraska's conference opponents when they could do this also just for rest and reps. If by "a lot of times" you mean pretty much everyone except UT, then I agree. I think the middle of the Big12 will be better against each other this year, but overall the conference won't produce as many nationally competitive teams.
|
|
|
Post by doc on Jun 1, 2007 17:51:07 GMT -5
Agree, outside of Nebraska and Texas the Big 12 is just not going to be that good on the national level this year.
|
|
|
Post by lilred on Jun 1, 2007 20:01:31 GMT -5
Long story short (again) NU was not beat because of the system, they were beat because they played a more experienced team. Thank you...again. You got that half right. They got beat by a more experienced, more composed team -- but they also got beat because they were short on ball control. Why was that? A system that didn't have room for a libero could have something to do with it. Still not sure? Just look at who won the long rallies. A 6-2 is a stronger offense. But if it means having no libero on the floor, it may not be the better system. I definately concede the ball control issue, no matter what the system. Washington had Candace Lee and then a great sub DS. But what people need to get through their thick heads (those insisting we would have won or even competed better with a 5-1) is that NU ran the system that best utilized what they had. Our deficiency was in the setting dept. Busboom was an incredible athlete (look how well she transitioned to Libero, but an average setter.) Maggie was a great setter but with only a few months with her new teammates was a little green. Her blocking wasn't great. We had 4 great OH's with Sal and Larson as good as most DS. We ran the best system with what we had. It didn't quite work against the Huskies, but who knows on another day it may have. A National Runner Up and a National Title the next year after isn't that bad of a deal. But that's just me I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2007 9:57:08 GMT -5
I still insist Holloway is heads and tails better than Griffin, not just slightly.
|
|