|
Post by gibbyb1 on Apr 12, 2020 22:51:43 GMT -5
Well with all your years experience as a middle, you'll know how often you get set on a Quick or a Gap from a 1... Haha, I'm afraid that discussion would end the same way this one has: if the passing improves and the setting gets better, it was the passing. If the passing improves and the setting doesn't, or the setting improves and the passing doesn't, it wasn't. But you knew that because of all your years of experience... Got it. Marking you down as fully satisfied with the setting. My bad for disagreeing with your sage wisdom and inside knowledge of Hames’ psyche. The conversation isn’t that she doesn’t need to get better, it’s that her play was somehow “not very good”.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 23:00:34 GMT -5
Well with all your years experience as a middle, you'll know how often you get set on a Quick or a Gap from a 1... Haha, I'm afraid that discussion would end the same way this one has: if the passing improves and the setting gets better, it was the passing. If the passing improves and the setting doesn't, or the setting improves and the passing doesn't, it wasn't. But you knew that because of all your years of experience... Got it. Marking you down as fully satisfied with the setting. My bad for disagreeing with your sage wisdom and inside knowledge of Hames’ psyche. How about you "mark me down" (glad this is such an important topic for you) where I've been all along: 'the passing is so bad that you can't accurately evaluate the setter without taking into account that she was severely hampered by the first contact (except of course to say she's good at bump setting)'. My position really isn't that complex.
|
|
|
Post by rand909 on Apr 13, 2020 1:03:23 GMT -5
Regardless of the pass?? This is why most (not all, but most) of the criticism Hames gets is unwarranted. It's also why the guy above talking about the "context" of passing numbers was being disingenuous (or is misinformed). In order to run a 'Quick' you require a 3 pass. You need at least a 2 pass to run either a 'Gap' or 'Slide'. More than half the time last season Hames was getting 1s or 0s. When it comes to middles, their involvement is DIRECTLY related to the passing. Likewise, serving to Zone 1 or 2 is a good way to minimize sets to a dangerous RS, because of the angle. Y'all can talk about the setting from dawn till dusk if you like, but until you get halfway decent passing, it's just wasted energy. And Cook, from what I've seen, has been telling you guys this... He's offered scholarships to at least 3 players since the season ended to improve the passing. I'm not sure why some of you are finding it hard to understand. Nobody is saying the passing was good or even decent. It wasn’t. That being said, Hames’ job is to better the ball and she didn’t or couldn’t do it enough last year. I remember tons of trap sets to the pins and many missed opportunities to set the middles when she could, but she chose against it. You're one of those folks who only remember things that go wrong and never remember what things go right, aren't you? It seems important to you to seem important.
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Apr 13, 2020 3:43:43 GMT -5
When was the last time a player who “wasn’t very good” was recognized in that way by the best coaches in the country? Hannah Lockin Omg.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 13, 2020 7:32:49 GMT -5
Got it. Marking you down as fully satisfied with the setting. My bad for disagreeing with your sage wisdom and inside knowledge of Hames’ psyche. How about you "mark me down" (glad this is such an important topic for you) where I've been all along: 'the passing is so bad that you can't accurately evaluate the setter without taking into account that she was severely hampered by the first contact (except of course to say she's good at bump setting)'. My position really isn't that complex. It's pretty obvious that none of your positions are that complex. Poser is the term that comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Apr 13, 2020 7:59:01 GMT -5
When was the last time a player who “wasn’t very good” was recognized in that way by the best coaches in the country? Hannah Lockin Last I checked she wasn’t in the Big Ten. Also, while you may not feel she is first team all American worthy, “not very good” would be ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Apr 13, 2020 8:01:19 GMT -5
Lastly, none of this has anything to do with Husker recruiting. Can we get back to the regularly scheduled programming.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Apr 13, 2020 8:03:12 GMT -5
Poor Hames, who knew long eyelashes and hustling your butt off would create such controversy
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 13, 2020 10:12:03 GMT -5
Y'all can talk about the setting from dawn till dusk if you like, but until you get halfway decent passing, it's just wasted energy. And Cook, from what I've seen, has been telling you guys this... He's offered scholarships to at least 3 players since the season ended to improve the passing. I'm not sure why some of you are finding it hard to understand. How about you "mark me down" (glad this is such an important topic for you) where I've been all along: 'the passing is so bad that you can't accurately evaluate the setter without taking into account that she was severely hampered by the first contact (except of course to say she's good at bump setting)'. My position really isn't that complex. I'm a bit confused as to what your position actually is... you state it above, but you seem to actually be arguing "you can't criticize Hames because the passing is so bad" (versus "you can't criticize Hames without taking into account the bad passing"). Completely different arguments. If it's the former, ironically, that's an opinion for which you haven't really offered any supporting evidence/data. If it's the latter, how do you know that those who are criticizing Hames aren't taking into account the poor passing when they form their opinions? Seems like you're making assumptions about other posters' reasoning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 10:29:49 GMT -5
Got it. Marking you down as fully satisfied with the setting. My bad for disagreeing with your sage wisdom and inside knowledge of Hames’ psyche. How about you "mark me down" (glad this is such an important topic for you) where I've been all along: 'the passing is so bad that you can't accurately evaluate the setter without taking into account that she was severely hampered by the first contact (except of course to say she's good at bump setting)'. My position really isn't that complex. I just want to clarify my point: just because Hames had to chase down 53.2% of Nebraska's passes last season doesn't mean that she was automatically good at setting the other 46.8%. She wasn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 10:51:03 GMT -5
How about you "mark me down" (glad this is such an important topic for you) where I've been all along: 'the passing is so bad that you can't accurately evaluate the setter without taking into account that she was severely hampered by the first contact (except of course to say she's good at bump setting)'. My position really isn't that complex. I just want to clarify my point: just because Hames had to chase down 53.2% of Nebraska's passes last season doesn't mean that she was automatically good at setting the other 46.8%. She wasn't. This. I'm not saying she was good. I'm pointing out that the passing - 46% good pass percentage on the year - was so bad that the rampant criticism of her is unfair. And I do understand it; it's tempting to blame the setter when the set has a poor location/tempo, but when she's receiving more bad passes than good ones, she's obviously going to struggle. And again, Nebraska fans have been spoiled in terms of passing in recent years. When a team is passing 60+ good pass percentage, the offense is going to be flying. But complaints about her electing not to set the middle just aren't sensible posts. Likewise, saying "the passing is bad BUT Hames is the issue" disregards the fact that one is directly impacted by the other. Regarding Hames, I'd reserve judgement until she's getting something like decent passing. Last thought; if passing didn't have such a massive impact on the rest of the offense (which is my ACTUAL position, Hames notwithstanding) why would Cook be referencing it as the area Nebraska needs to improve in every recent interview? Even the Q&A last week, when asked what the Huskers needed to do better, he said ball control/passing twice! How that classes things up donut.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 11:04:58 GMT -5
How about you "mark me down" (glad this is such an important topic for you) where I've been all along: 'the passing is so bad that you can't accurately evaluate the setter without taking into account that she was severely hampered by the first contact (except of course to say she's good at bump setting)'. My position really isn't that complex. It's pretty obvious that none of your positions are that complex. Poser is the term that comes to mind. You wrote the sentence "The only "objective truth" in that scale is that there is an average of subjectively assigned ratings" - in an unironic sense and call anyone else a poser? Hmm hypocrite is the term that comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Apr 13, 2020 11:33:59 GMT -5
Last thought; if passing didn't have such a massive impact on the rest of the offense (which is my ACTUAL position, Hames notwithstanding) why would Cook be referencing it as the area Nebraska needs to improve in every recent interview? Even the Q&A last week, when asked what the Huskers needed to do better, he said ball control/passing twice! How that classes things up donut. Phenomenal passing is a hallmark of Nebraska volleyball, potentially the best 1st contact program of the 21st century. Of course passing would be Cook’s focus, he’s had marginal to poor setting 5 or 6 of the last 10 seasons, they’ve always made it work. To have a bad passing season is, on the other hand, unusually odd for Husker volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 13, 2020 11:40:07 GMT -5
Last thought; if passing didn't have such a massive impact on the rest of the offense (which is my ACTUAL position, Hames notwithstanding) why would Cook be referencing it as the area Nebraska needs to improve in every recent interview? Even the Q&A last week, when asked what the Huskers needed to do better, he said ball control/passing twice! How that classes things up donut. Phenomenal passing is a hallmark of Nebraska volleyball, potentially the best 1st contact program of the 21st century. Of course passing would be Cook’s focus, he’s had marginal to poor setting 5 or 6 of the last 10 seasons, they’ve always made it work. To have a bad passing season is, on the other hand, unusually odd for Husker volleyball. Also the psychology is different. Passing is a group skill, when you have a returning 5-1 setter, that would be.. And even then, the mentality of coaching a setter is so important I don't think coaches' media statements on their setters is a valid point of argumentation, at all (with either positive or negative commentary, tbh).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 11:42:37 GMT -5
Last thought; if passing didn't have such a massive impact on the rest of the offense (which is my ACTUAL position, Hames notwithstanding) why would Cook be referencing it as the area Nebraska needs to improve in every recent interview? Even the Q&A last week, when asked what the Huskers needed to do better, he said ball control/passing twice! How that classes things up donut. Phenomenal passing is a hallmark of Nebraska volleyball, potentially the best 1st contact program of the 21st century. Of course passing would be Cook’s focus, he’s had marginal to poor setting 5 or 6 of the last 10 seasons, they’ve always made it work. To have a bad passing season is, on the other hand, unusually odd for Husker volleyball. Precisely. And yet, reading comments from Husker fans you'd be forgiven for thinking that Hames was supposed to be passing to herself! The amount of criticism she gets in a match where the team passed 2.0 is absurd. Oh and agree that they've been the best passing team through this century so far. In 2016 they had 2 passers who graded 2.4+. To put that in context, this year the B10 had zero! Their other primary passers were all 2.3+ that year. The best passer in 2019 was 2.13 (Kubik).
|
|