Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 54

Thread: New Offense

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    New Offense

    From the Jacobs article linked on the front page:

    Meanwhile, there’s another mission closer to home. To further the fortunes of the Blue Devil program that Krzyzewski has built since 1980, the platform from which he has conjured a wider career, he and his staff are installing the same offense that worked so well with the pros. “We’re so geeked to do this Duke season!” he declared.

    This sounds very interesting. I wonder what changes are in store for our offense. I certainly would like us to push the ball more and to have more movement generally. (Of course, I also would like to add Dwight Howard and Lebron James to our offense.)

  2. #2
    I think the changes you mention - pushing the ball more and more movement on offense - are the main changes in store on offense this season. I am cautiously optimistic about it. It will be very interesting to see how different players' respond to this apparent change in offensive philosophy - who will be benefitted most and such.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    I am stoked for this season. The "offense" was very frustrating to watch last year at times. Of course, defense will still be the cornerstone of K's team and the best way to run is to force turnovers. It's hard to run after a made basket.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Might also involve less use of screens both on and off the ball. More use of one-two give and goes, move-toward-the-ball-and-dive aka Georgetown aka, dare I say it, SOCCER. As in the International/Suns' style, the pass out becomes much more integral a play than in many offenses where is just seen as a reset. As in soccer, the pass out gets it to the receiver when and where he can be dangerous; makes the defense move away from the basket aggressively, both on the ball and on ensuing rotation passes. Opens lanes for penetration and kick outs. It's called soccer ball, boyz.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Frank Dascenzo: Offense looks different this year, Coach. I heard you adapted it from the Olympic team.

    Krzyzewski: That's partially correct, Frank. We adapted it from the US Men's Soccer Olympic team.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    Might also involve less use of screens both on and off the ball. More use of one-two give and goes, move-toward-the-ball-and-dive aka Georgetown aka, dare I say it, SOCCER. As in the International/Suns' style, the pass out becomes much more integral a play than in many offenses where is just seen as a reset. As in soccer, the pass out gets it to the receiver when and where he can be dangerous; makes the defense move away from the basket aggressively, both on the ball and on ensuing rotation passes. Opens lanes for penetration and kick outs. It's called soccer ball, boyz.
    As much as I've watched basketball and studied Georgetown and Herb Sendek's NC State offense, I never realized how much it resembled soccer! Interesting thoughts.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    Frank Dascenzo: Offense looks different this year, Coach. I heard you adapted it from the Olympic team.

    Krzyzewski: That's partially correct, Frank. We adapted it from the US Men's Soccer Olympic team.
    Amare reported from the Olympic camp how Nash and B convinced him to play soccer in the off season which he did before coming to camp. Said he learned a lot; he don't know the half of what he learned. grey "half of what you do is 90 percent mental" beard

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    Frank Dascenzo: Offense looks different this year, Coach. I heard you adapted it from the Olympic team.

    Krzyzewski: That's partially correct, Frank. We adapted it from the US Men's Soccer Olympic team.
    I really hope K didn't take anything from our Men's Soccer Team, if thats the case our offense will be worse than last year!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by kydevil View Post
    I really hope K didn't take anything from our Men's Soccer Team, if thats the case our offense will be worse than last year!
    You heard of throw back jersays? Just think of soccer ball as a throw back to the golden age of basketball, that preceeded the Bill Russell/modern era. The coaches were all immigrants or the sons of immigrants; in the old country they knew of only one game that involved passing, and that was fooootball.

    At any rate, as the great bard himself put it, "get out of the new way, if you can't lend a hand, the Times, they are achangin." BZ

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Inman, SC & Fort Myers, FL
    Greybeard -
    You make a great point hidden in your post. Bill Russell really was the beginning of the modern era of basketball. I do remember the USF teams with BR, the olympic team, and of course the almost invincible Celtics, with Russell, Cousy, Sharman, Luscovich (sp?), and Heinsohn. Very entertaining, very dominating. Red Auerbach was the premier coach of the day. We couldn't wait until he lit his cigar, indicating that the game was over, the Celtics had won, regardless of the clock. That is an element of pure showmanship missing in Basketball today.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Quote Originally Posted by mgtr View Post
    Greybeard -
    You make a great point hidden in your post. Bill Russell really was the beginning of the modern era of basketball. I do remember the USF teams with BR, the olympic team, and of course the almost invincible Celtics, with Russell, Cousy, Sharman, Luscovich (sp?), and Heinsohn. Very entertaining, very dominating. Red Auerbach was the premier coach of the day. We couldn't wait until he lit his cigar, indicating that the game was over, the Celtics had won, regardless of the clock. That is an element of pure showmanship missing in Basketball today.
    One could dispute the use of "modern," but I agree with the rest!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Quote Originally Posted by mapei View Post
    One could dispute the use of "modern," but I agree with the rest!
    To me, three things mark the modern era. The jump shot, the shot clock, Bill Russell/Wilt. Auerback's Celtics, early years, really did not change the game that much except to the extent that Russell completely controlled tempo and made his defense a new and unique offensive weapon. The floor was still greatly extended, with the inside out play to shooters Cousey, Sharmen, and Heinsohn from long range and then breaking defenses down when they ran at them, was similar to what preceeded them. However, the game speeded up.

    With Havlichek, Nelson, Sanders, Scott, the offense shrunk somewhat, the mid-range game became honed, and the pull up jump shot became the weapon of choice. Think of it, Oscar, West, Hudson, Guerin, Cunningham, Chet Walker, Hal Greer, The oull up jumps shot made the clock possible. Interesting, now it is all but a lost art.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    To me, modern means "like today" and the game today has been defined by the 3-point line and (to a lesser extent) the shot clock.

    At the college level, the 3-point line remade the game in ridiculous ways. At the pro level, the change has not been quite as dramatic but it is still huge. Is there any one rule that would change the focus of the game so dramatically as taking away the 3-point line (obviously, you could go absurd and say, "no such thing as fouls" but you get my intent here)?

    --Jason "without the 3-point line, basketball is played from 15-feet and in... with it, the game is extended at least 5 more feet" Evans

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Inman, SC & Fort Myers, FL
    To some extent, "modern" is a function of your age. I have never thought that the shot clock was any great thing, but the three point shot has certainly changed the game (though not necessarily for the better -- people used to make a living on a 12-15 point jump shot, Don Nelson for one). I used Bill Russell as the definition of modern because a) I remember it clearly and b) it changed the game an amazing amount from, say, George Mikan.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    The combo of the 3-point shot and the shot clock seems like a good marker of "modern" basketball to me, too.

    I am vaguely aware of the Mikan-Cousy era, and especially have enjoyed seeing old Cousy video. I don't think I ever saw Russell play, but I certainly know his reputation and style, having watched just about every game Patrick Ewing played at Georgetown. And I confess that I did not even know that Don Nelson was a well-known player; I know him only as a coach.

    I respect the older eras, but I wasn't paying attention then. I only watched basketball occasionally until around 1979, when Georgetown was becoming a contending team and Bird and Magic started redefining the pro game. I became a Duke fan about a decade later. The only spectator sports I followed prior to the 80s were (pro) football and tennis. So I think of Russell as very old school. When I think modern, I think Kobe and LeBron.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Quote Originally Posted by mapei View Post
    The combo of the 3-point shot and the shot clock seems like a good marker of "modern" basketball to me, too.

    I am vaguely aware of the Mikan-Cousy era, and especially have enjoyed seeing old Cousy video. I don't think I ever saw Russell play, but I certainly know his reputation and style, having watched just about every game Patrick Ewing played at Georgetown. And I confess that I did not even know that Don Nelson was a well-known player; I know him only as a coach.

    I respect the older eras, but I wasn't paying attention then. I only watched basketball occasionally until around 1979, when Georgetown was becoming a contending team and Bird and Magic started redefining the pro game. I became a Duke fan about a decade later. The only spectator sports I followed prior to the 80s were (pro) football and tennis. So I think of Russell as very old school. When I think modern, I think Kobe and LeBron.
    Patrick, as terrific as he was, was not in the same universe as Russell. If you get a hold of some film, you'll see. No use trying to describe it.

    I didn't see much of the pre-jump shot game, but I think it had little mid-range to it. Long range set shots or attacks to the basket. The pivot, when low was very close to the basket--hook shots or layups. I played ball as a high schooler with pros and college guys from the pre ump-shot era. Think Princeton the way well, Princeton, played it.

    Lou, I forget his last name, CCNY scandals, as I've mentioned here previously, as having taught him more about the street game than anyone. Lou also schooled Wally Szerbiac years later. You played with Lou; you began a basketball genius. You held the court. My first coach in 8th grade, Sonny Hertzberg, NY Knicks, deadly two hand set shot. Screens less prevalent then; much more use of give and goes; interior passes and cuts off the receiver.

    Without the jump shot, the 24 second clock would have been unthinkable.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Inman, SC & Fort Myers, FL
    I agree, I think the jump shot really marks the modern game. The other major difference is the idea of fouls -- in the pre-jump shot era, a touch was a foul. We tend to forget that there were some great players in the 50s and 60s. Besides Russell, there was Elgin Baylor, Jerry West (who would have thrived on the 3), and Oscar Robertson, who averaged triple doubles (points, rebounds, and assists).
    I am sure that some prejudice applies, but I really think that there used to be more talented players, whereas now there are more athletic players. Is Redick as good a shot as Sharman? I doubt it, but how can you realistically compare players across decades? A friend of mine guarded Sharman in college, and at half time he bragged to the coach that he had held Sharman to 30 points in the first half! I haven't seen a player who had the imagination of a Bob Cousy -- and this was before TV and videotape where you could see exactly what other players were doing.
    Sorry for the essay, but 50s and 60s basketball was really, really great. I don't care much for the modern NBA game, although I love college ball.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    Patrick, as terrific as he was, was not in the same universe as Russell. If you get a hold of some film, you'll see. No use trying to describe it.
    My point, if you will re-read, is that Patrick played the style of Russell (or tried to). Stressing defense, emphasizing shot-blocking and intimidation. I did not and would not say that he did it as well. Of course it's possible that I mischaracterize what Russell's strengths were, since I didn't watch him play. I know him mostly from reputation, stats, and the occasional video clip.

    I can't imagine basketball without the jump shot. I'm sure that it changed the game, but it's hard to lump everything that has happened in the last 40-50 years as the same "modern" era. Maybe the jump shot pushed the game from era 1 to era 2, but both were pre-modern. The game didn't stop evolving when people started elevating to shoot.

    Not that it matters; it's just fun to debate.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Inman, SC & Fort Myers, FL
    Sure, I agree 100%. As noted in an earlier post, our ages help determine what we think is "modern." I guess my point is that a Russell, West, Robertson, et al could at least hold their own in today's game. In a list of all time top players, those three, along with Pettit, Baylor, and certainly Larry Bird, woudl be near the top of the list.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    I think a lot of people would agree with that list among the all-timers.

Similar Threads

  1. Offense/Defense
    By ikiru36 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-09-2007, 03:09 PM
  2. Complexity of the offense?
    By Virginia Devil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-08-2007, 10:30 PM
  3. Bottom Line....No Low Post Offense
    By dukelion in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-04-2007, 10:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •