New Offense

[MChambers]

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.)

[Ignatius07]

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.

[OldPhiKap]

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.

[greybeard]

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.

[throatybeard]

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.

[riverside6]

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.

[greybeard]

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 ;)

[kydevil]

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! :D

[greybeard]

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! :D

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 :)

[mgtr]

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.

[mapei]

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! ;)

[greybeard]

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.

[JasonEvans]

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

[mgtr]

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.

[mapei]

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.

[greybeard]

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.

[mgtr]

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.

[mapei]

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.

[mgtr]

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.

[mapei]

I think a lot of people would agree with that list among the all-timers.

[jzp5079]

How similar will our offense look to the Suns offense? Will we be running some of the same plays?

Of course our make up isn't the same... notably at the PG spot... (if we could somehow put Smiths handle and Paulus's vision together we'd have someone a bit closer to Nash)... but I think we can use the break the same way, and have guys athletic enough and with good enough shots to make it happen.

Thomas and Zoubek hopefully have been practicing throwing some jams down in the lane in some heavy traffic.....

[throatybeard]

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)?

It's been my observation the last few years that in the lane, "no such thing as fouls" tends to be SOP...

[mgtr]

I agree that taking away the 3 pointer would change the game, but how about eliminating dunks? That could move the game from athleticism to skill. I think Bill Walton favors that change. Probably neither of these changes has a prayer -- the fans like both too much.

[pfrduke]

I agree that taking away the 3 pointer would change the game, but how about eliminating dunks? That could move the game from athleticism to skill. I think Bill Walton favors that change. Probably neither of these changes has a prayer -- the fans like both too much.

I know there was extended discussion of this a few months ago, but I wanted to raise two questions -

1) Why would removing the dunk "move the game from athleticism to skill"? Does it take less athleticism to navigate through the lane and then elevate to make a layup over/around a big man than it does to do the same but finish with a dunk? I'd say no. Some of the most athletic plays of every single game are not dunks.

2) Why do you impose a dichotomy between skill and athleticism (and treat the latter like a negative for the game of basketball)?

[mgtr]

I do believe that it takes more skill to make a layup than a dunk. If you want to see athleticism without much skill, look at the center for the Magic. Now, of course, there are many areas where the two come together, but I am willing to believe that there are persons (probably not playing organized basketball) who could, say, shoot free throws like crazy (after ton of practice) but have a hard time walking and chewing gum. And look how some coaches recruit tall, athletic kids who may never had played basketball before, hoping that their athleticism is enough.
At the end of the day, though, a good team will have players with both athleticism and skill.

[gw67]

I've watched high school, college and pro basketball since the mid-50's. I agree with greybeard and mgtr, the single biggest change was the development of the jump shot. When I first started watching, it was not unusual for a high school or college team to have only a couple of players who shot jump shots. Same with the pros. Articles were written about players - George Yardley, Paul Arizin, Bill Sharman, etc., who had perfected this new offensive weapon. By the late 50's, there were several players who were jump shooters, although many of the older pros, including Cousy and others, used set shots, running one hand shots and hook shots. Many of the top college players of that era, such as Robin Freeman and Don Hennon, rarely shot jump shots.

Almost as important to the pro game was the 24 second clock. That innovation changed the pro game forever and to this day is, IMO, the defining difference between college and pro basketball.

Lastly, the emergence of the tall, athletic big man. This changed who the pros drafted, who colleges recruited and several rules.

In the college game, the addition of the 3-point shot has been a major change in the character of the game.

Since those changes, the top players in colleges and the pros have helped make the game faster and more spectacular but these are just refinements in my eyes.

gw67

[Zeb]

I do believe that it takes more skill to make a layup than a dunk.

I am guessing you have never dunked.

[greybeard]

I know there was extended discussion of this a few months ago, but I wanted to raise two questions -

1) Why would removing the dunk "move the game from athleticism to skill"? Does it take less athleticism to navigate through the lane and then elevate to make a layup over/around a big man than it does to do the same but finish with a dunk? I'd say no. Some of the most athletic plays of every single game are not dunks.

2) Why do you impose a dichotomy between skill and athleticism (and treat the latter like a negative for the game of basketball)?

Many, many dunks are shame plays. They depend on shuffling of the feet, which is never called (maybe once or twice every 10 games) and, this one really grabs me, pulling down the rim so that the ball does not end at half court. Where is the skill in that?

Second, layups rely much more on tempo, controlling, manipulating, reading, and reacting to the momentum of the defender(s). Dunks do not.

Dunks, especially by bigs, necessarily lead to the wrestling matches that somehow these days involve no fouls and pass for legitimate defense. Perhaps, maybe, if dunks were not allowed, the authorities would charge referees with calling the pushing, holding, leaning that goes on to guard entry passes into the lower lane what they are: fouls. And, then, bigs on offense will not be allowed to "back into" defenders like people do my little 1990 Honda when they would like a little more space.

If anyone enjoys watching the overplay low-post defenders and the bangers for position, raise your hands (okay, Bobby, we already know where you stand, you invented this nonsense).

Now, this dunking and defending is known falsely as athleticism. It has dumbed down the game considerably, including among most coaches. "Teach" bigs to "finish" means a one-size fits all approach, which is to ferociously charge the basket and muster enough G-force to take with you anything that gets in your way. Why not help your young big men "learn for themselves" the game, how to grow so they can finish in a variety of ways, making the contest around the basket actually interesting to watch because there is something actually there to see, and I mean in real world time not just on replays, slow motioned at that, so we can discern that there was actually some discernment by somebody other than the coach on the court. And the pundits wonder why our seven footers eschew playing inside. No one likes to be treated as an idiot is why. Duh!!!

Seems to me that you cannot have it both ways.

BTW, the athleticism of exterior players finishing at the basket with spectacular dunks is entertaining. Here, putting aside issues of wear and tear, which are imo biggies, I see such finishes as preempting the most interesting challenge in the sport. The big with considerable skills and understanding going against the masters. The masters have the advantage, but the best of the best bigs, those with uncanny understanding, with an uncanny ability to read what is coming, have a chance.

On an earlier post Maipai said that he had never seen Russell play but added that he had seen Patrick. Russell was the most brilliant center I have ever seen, and could, with his considerable talents to use, outthink some of the most incredible attackers of the basket of his time, and there were some terrific ones. Patrick never got the chance.

How many of MJ's championships would have ended in the Eastern Regionals if he and Scottie had to attack the basket against Patrick without the dunk? I don't know, but I'd have loved to have seen it. As it was, the most beautiful confrontations the game might have known never took place, with Ewing's having been left with no option but to simply let these guys finish virtually unopposed.

[mgtr]

Greybeard has, as is his wont, made my point better than I ever could. Well said, indeed!

[Jumbo]

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.


Greybeard, I think we all get your soccer stuff. I can assure you Duke will not be running a soccer offense this year. I kid, I kid. Seriously, though, it's sort of a variation of the Suns offense. The interesting thing about the Suns, though, is they don't run many screens off the ball. (An aside -- neither does the Princeton offense, which is all about cuts as opposed to screeens). Anyway, everything the Suns do in the halfcourt is predicated on two things: 1) The high screen/roll and 2) Spacing. The key, though, is Nash. The fact that he can shoot the ball so well from any angle, keep his dribble alive to string out defenders and see the floor so well sets up everything else the Suns do. It's also why Phoenix gets a ton of open looks from beyond the arc, especially from the corners.

I'm not sure what wrinkles Duke will add. I imagine there will be more motion, and I'd also have to imagine Duke won't rely as heavily on its point guard to carry everything the way the Suns do with Nash. But it sounds like Duke is set to go more up-tempo, and as I've mentioned before, Singler is an ideal big for the high screen/roll.

[throatybeard]

Wait, have the Suns switched from the NBA to MLS?

I guess Amare is the striker.

[Lulu]

Does anyone reallly think we're going to run more of a run 'n gun this year? I REALLY REALLY want to believe what I'm reading, but I just can't. I think I've just heard this too many times in recent years to actually believe it, no matter how much I want it to be true.

That said, it would probably be good for the Olympic team if Coack K were to work with this style of offense as much as possible... so maybe there's a chance after all.

I'm also not buying the injury argument so much regarding last year. If there was ever a player to run with it was McRoberts, and those injuries healed well enough to play pretty good D.

[Jumbo]

Does anyone reallly think we're going to run more of a run 'n gun this year? I REALLY REALLY want to believe what I'm reading, but I just can't. I think I've just heard this too many times in recent years to actually believe it, no matter how much I want it to be true.

That said, it would probably be good for the Olympic team if Coack K were to work with this style of offense as much as possible... so maybe there's a chance after all.

I'm also not buying the injury argument so much regarding last year. If there was ever a player to run with it was McRoberts, and those injuries healed well enough to play pretty good D.

Have you watched Duke for the past, say, 20 years? K's teams have almost always been running teams, routinely finishing around the top of the country in scoring. Why is it a shock that Duke's planning on going back to the way it has always played?

[Carlos]

Lulu - Last year Duke averaged 70 ppg. The years prior to that they averaged 81, 78, 80, 81, 89, 91, 88, and 92 ppg. The team most see as similar to this Duke squad (the 1997 squad) averaged 80 ppg.

In terms of where those numbers placed Duke among all of college basketball, last year they were one of the lowest scoring teams around. In 2006 they were 3rd in the nation, 2005 they were 17th, 2004 they were 8th, 2003 they were 24th, 2002 they were 2nd, 2001 they were 2nd, 2000 they were first.

Maybe it's all a question of how you define RUN 'N' GUN, but to me, few teams outside of Grinnell are truly running all the time. Those teams that Duke had in previous years were all built around a fast tempo and high scoring as their stats and rankings indicate.

[Troublemaker]

Have you watched Duke for the past, say, 20 years? K's teams have almost always been running teams, routinely finishing around the top of the country in scoring. Why is it a shock that Duke's planning on going back to the way it has always played?

**NODS**

JWill was just five years ago. It's like a lot of people lost all memory pre-2003.

[greybeard]

Greybeard, I think we all get your soccer stuff. I can assure you Duke will not be running a soccer offense this year. I kid, I kid. Seriously, though, it's sort of a variation of the Suns offense. The interesting thing about the Suns, though, is they don't run many screens off the ball. (An aside -- neither does the Princeton offense, which is all about cuts as opposed to screeens). Anyway, everything the Suns do in the halfcourt is predicated on two things: 1) The high screen/roll and 2) Spacing. The key, though, is Nash. The fact that he can shoot the ball so well from any angle, keep his dribble alive to string out defenders and see the floor so well sets up everything else the Suns do. It's also why Phoenix gets a ton of open looks from beyond the arc, especially from the corners.

I'm not sure what wrinkles Duke will add. I imagine there will be more motion, and I'd also have to imagine Duke won't rely as heavily on its point guard to carry everything the way the Suns do with Nash. But it sounds like Duke is set to go more up-tempo, and as I've mentioned before, Singler is an ideal big for the high screen/roll.

Jumbo, I don't think you do. The importance of "the soccer stuff" is that it introduces new concepts concerning the use of space, and ball movement that is meaningful from the inside out. Soccer is a much more fluid game than our game of basketball, and that fluidity, and the need for players to systematically occupy the ball and attack without controls from the sideline are much needed in today's game. Until young athletes get exposed and emerced in other such passing games the American game of basketball will, in my view, continue along its long decline.

I do not pretend to understand the game of soccer in any depth. I see in it things that I grew up seeing in basketball and have seen in the Triangle, the Princeton, and the Sun's game, whatever you call it.

The Princeton might not use the screen and roll as such but it does use a weave, and on the ball handoffs that serve much the same function. The Princeton is adaptive; it was played differently by the Kings under Carril's stewardship than it was at Princeton, then it is at Georgetown then it is under Sidney at State, where I believe its fundamental premises are alive and well under a low post adaption that have the initiator in the corner, and dives from the off guard position.

But, back to soccer. The element of soccer that I see in the Sun's game is the use of the penetration pass, not as a vehicle for an immediate basket attack but as the fulcrum for a strategic pass out into the floor. That is why Diaw was incredibly successful his first year in Phoenix. He was a great receiver of the ball in the interior of the defense, with his back to the basket. He would receive it with more than enough time and space to attack, which required the defense to adjust, and then he dished to start the secondary attack. When Amare returned, Diaw's contribution went South, at least for a while. Look for it to return.

Soccer players are more empowered than American basketball players. They develop not by coaches teaching them new "plays" or defenses or even moves; their understanding of combinations, the use of space matures, becomes seasoned, and grows even as they create new ways to stop, transfer weight, move the ball off the catch, etc.

The paradigm for coaching sports in America is broken; our fix is to throw more of it at "athletes" at ever younger ages. It deprives these stars, young and old, what brought them to the attention of others in the first place--namely, their ability to figure things out that will work for the situation at hand, given the shape of the field, the rules of the game, and their own and, where applicable, their opponents god given abilities.

If "how to" coaching of this sort works, why have so many spent so much time, money and effort to improve their golf swings with no decernible impact on their ability to predict where the shot at hand will go or what path it will take? Yet, we send our kids to special camps, where skills are drilled into them like playing a sport was more akin to sitting in a dentist's chair than the creative endeavor that it can be.

Nope, Jumbo, you are wrong as rain about my talk about this "soccer stuff." I ain't even begun yet. ;)

[greybeard]

There are changes in this from the above post that make it a better read. New DBR rules on editing. Feh!

Jumbo, I don't think you do. The importance of "the soccer stuff" is that it introduces new concepts concerning the use of space, and ball movement that is meaningful and interesting into our moribund game.

Soccer is a much more fluid game; it requires that players think and create even while they search for syncronicity to occupy the ball and collectively pose an attack on the goal without controls, signals, play calling etc incessently throughout each possession from the sidelines. Until young athletes get exposed and emerced in other such passing games as soccer (hockey and lacrosse will also do but not as well), the American game of basketball will, in my view, continue along its long decline.

I do not pretend to understand the game of soccer in any depth. I see in it things that I grew up seeing in basketball and have seen in the Triangle, the Princeton, and the Sun's game, whatever you call it.

The Princeton might not use the screen and roll as such but it does use a weave, and on the ball handoffs that serve much the same function. The Princeton is adaptive; it was played differently by the Kings under Carril's stewardship than it was at Princeton, then it is at Georgetown, then it is under Sidney at State, where I believe its fundamental premises are alive and well under a low post adaption that have the initiator in the corner, and dives from the off guard position.

But, back to soccer. The element of soccer that I see in the Sun's game is the use of the penetration pass, not as a vehicle for an immediate basket attack but as the fulcrum for a strategic pass out into the floor. That is why Diaw was incredibly successful his first year in Phoenix. He was a great receiver of the ball in the interior of the defense, with his back to the basket. He would receive it with more than enough time and space to attack, which required the defense to adjust, and then he dished to start the secondary attack. When Amare returned, Diaw's contribution went South, at least for a while. Look for it to return.

Nash often uses the penetration for the same purposes when an avenue for an effective initiating entry pass that will draw the defense is unavailable. The Suns often use the pick and roll, not for conventional purposes but to allow Nash to penetrate the defense partially, and then leave his feet (usually a no no) even though he could penetrate deeper and twist his body to pass it out. This inside, draw the defense, get it outside to create vulnerability is the core of the Sun's offense. It is THE soccer stapple, particularly in the international game. Even the Brasillians use it, but not nearly as much as sides like the Italians, French, Germans and English.

Soccer players are more empowered than American basketball players. They develop not by coaches teaching them new "plays" or defenses or even moves; their understanding of combinations, the use of space matures, becomes seasoned, and grows even as they create new ways to stop, transfer weight, move the ball off the catch, etc.

The paradigm for coaching sports in America is broken; our fix is to throw more of it at "athletes" at ever younger ages. It deprives these stars, young and old, what brought them to the attention of others in the first place--namely, their ability to figure things out that will work for the situation at hand, given the shape of the field, the rules of the game, and their own and, where applicable, their opponents god given abilities.

If "how to" coaching of this sort works, why have so many spent so much time, money and effort to improve their golf swings with no decernible impact on their ability to predict where the shot at hand will go or what path it will take? Yet, we send our kids to special camps, where skills are drilled into them like playing a sport was more akin to sitting in a dentist's chair than the creative endeavor that it can be.

And, we have not even begun to discuss what soccer training means for the skilled use of feet and maintaining balance, both of which could stand (forgive the pun) much improvement this side of the pond!

Nope, Jumbo, you are wrong as rain about my talk about this "soccer stuff." I ain't even begun yet.

[Jumbo]

Greybeard,
I'm just teasing you. Steve Nash's experience playing soccer, hockey and lacrosse absolutely shaped his vision in basketball. He sees things other guys don't. Same with Gretzky in hockey -- he was so great behind the net because it was a position similar to the "X" in lacrosse.

That said, I was commenting more on the fact that you don't really understand the actual "offense" the Suns run (you definitely understand the players' skills within the offense). As I said, the Suns base everything off a high screen/roll and spacing. The third component is something called "dribble-ats," which literally means dribbling at a teammate and delivering a dribble hand-off, which also serves as a screen on the defender.

Again, as you would say, I was mostly just "funnin." But I think most of us get your soccer analogy at this point, so it might be time to let it go.

[-jk]

There are changes in this from the above post that make it a better read. New DBR rules on editing. Feh!

There have been a few threads where posters went back and edited the original after being quoted, causing some confusion.

Please use the "Preview Post" option before posting to make sure you like your post. After you post, you should have a 10 minute window to edit your post.

-jk

[greybeard]

Greybeard,
I'm just teasing you. Steve Nash's experience playing soccer, hockey and lacrosse absolutely shaped his vision in basketball. He sees things other guys don't. Same with Gretzky in hockey -- he was so great behind the net because it was a position similar to the "X" in lacrosse.

That said, I was commenting more on the fact that you don't really understand the actual "offense" the Suns run (you definitely understand the players' skills within the offense). As I said, the Suns base everything off a high screen/roll and spacing. The third component is something called "dribble-ats," which literally means dribbling at a teammate and delivering a dribble hand-off, which also serves as a screen on the defender.

Again, as you would say, I was mostly just "funnin." But I think most of us get your soccer analogy at this point, so it might be time to let it go.

Jumbo, I disagree with your assessment of my understanding of the Sun's offense and certainly the iterations of the Princeton. There is nothing that I've said about either that does not lie at the core at what makes them effective. The "details", to me, are less important than fundamental concepts. Details can be replicated without results. Fundamental concepts last forever.

The idea that there is "overtraining" in singular sports vs. that is all that matters is not one that most of the responders' to my posts have "gotten." Sorry, I read them;perhaps you do not. Some of these people might actually have kids some day, which is scary enough. I think that I'll decide when the idea is sold enough.

That Amare came out during the Summer pre-Olympic stint and spoke about his soccer training was to me huge. You scoffed at my idea that cross training of this sort was of value when I first propounded it here, and now you seem to suggest that well, we've heard it, so move on. You were wrong twice. Meantime, "life goes on all around you." Bob Zimmerman.

But, thanks for sharing Jumbo. I'll let you know when I think you've warn the rug a little thin as well. ;)

[greybeard]

Drove past one of the few baseball fields in NW DC last night. The lights were on and I saw lots of little kids playing ball. Warmed my heart. Then I saw that they were clustered in little stations, each with its own instructor, telling kids exactly how it "should" be done. Little kids playing baseball on a Fall night only they weren't playing, they were trying to get it "right", whatever that could possibly mean, much less be of value, in their little minds.

How will they ever discover for themselves how "wrong" feels? Does the body/mind even comprehend such a concept? Some learning experience? That is supposed to be fun, self discovery, maturation, what? Saddens me.

But some of them are going to look oh so professional for the fans at Little League, and maybe a few up through high school. I'd rather see them learn to throw and catch and hit in a way that puts a smile behind their eyes and requires them to use their bodies in motion as a vehicle for learning something, not being "taught" anything. That's my story and I'm stickin too it!

[Shammrog]

Drove past one of the few baseball fields in NW DC last night. The lights were on and I saw lots of little kids playing ball. Warmed my heart. Then I saw that they were clustered in little stations, each with its own instructor, telling kids exactly how it "should" be done. Little kids playing baseball on a Fall night only they weren't playing, they were trying to get it "right", whatever that could possibly mean, much less be of value, in their little minds.

How will they ever discover for themselves how "wrong" feels? Does the body/mind even comprehend such a concept? Some learning experience? That is supposed to be fun, self discovery, maturation, what? Saddens me.

But some of them are going to look oh so professional for the fans at Little League, and maybe a few up through high school. I'd rather see them learn to throw and catch and hit in a way that puts a smile behind their eyes and requires them to use their bodies in motion as a vehicle for learning something, not being "taught" anything. That's my story and I'm stickin too it!


I can't find the original article? Can someone post a link?

[Saratoga2]

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.

Personally, I thought Sam Jones was the best pure jump shooter of his time. Almost automatic from the left side of the key.

[dw0827]

Drove past one of the few baseball fields in NW DC last night. The lights were on and I saw lots of little kids playing ball. Warmed my heart. Then I saw that they were clustered in little stations, each with its own instructor, telling kids exactly how it "should" be done. Little kids playing baseball on a Fall night only they weren't playing, they were trying to get it "right", whatever that could possibly mean, much less be of value, in their little minds.

How will they ever discover for themselves how "wrong" feels? Does the body/mind even comprehend such a concept? Some learning experience? That is supposed to be fun, self discovery, maturation, what? Saddens me.

But some of them are going to look oh so professional for the fans at Little League, and maybe a few up through high school. I'd rather see them learn to throw and catch and hit in a way that puts a smile behind their eyes and requires them to use their bodies in motion as a vehicle for learning something, not being "taught" anything. That's my story and I'm stickin too it!

Greybeard, I defy you to watch my son uppercut uppercut uppercut his swing thinking that's how he's gonna hit it over the fence without snatching the %#%$^ bat out of his hands and clubbing him with it!

He actually manages to nail one about 1 in 50 swings . . . and that reinforces his need/desire to uppercut. Brings a smile to his eyes, as it were.

Self discovery? Balls. When he's older, he can read Inner Tennis and self-actualize all he wants. Until then, if he wants to play, then I'm gonna try to teach the fundamental skills . . .

[Jumbo]

Jumbo, I disagree with your assessment of my understanding of the Sun's offense and certainly the iterations of the Princeton. There is nothing that I've said about either that does not lie at the core at what makes them effective. The "details", to me, are less important than fundamental concepts. Details can be replicated without results. Fundamental concepts last forever.

The idea that there is "overtraining" in singular sports vs. that is all that matters is not one that most of the responders' to my posts have "gotten." Sorry, I read them;perhaps you do not. Some of these people might actually have kids some day, which is scary enough. I think that I'll decide when the idea is sold enough.

That Amare came out during the Summer pre-Olympic stint and spoke about his soccer training was to me huge. You scoffed at my idea that cross training of this sort was of value when I first propounded it here, and now you seem to suggest that well, we've heard it, so move on. You were wrong twice. Meantime, "life goes on all around you." Bob Zimmerman.

But, thanks for sharing Jumbo. I'll let you know when I think you've warn the rug a little thin as well. ;)

As usual, about 90% of what you just posted makes no sense. Shocking, I know.
Here's the deal: We get it. You've posted the same rant over and over. And from the department of "no duh," of course playing different sports helps you in basketball. Specialization is a terrible thing. I was specifically responding to your comments on the Princeton offense and the Suns' set, whose concepts, despite your claims to the contrary, you barely seem to understand. That's ok, though. You also claimed Larry Brown was the best big-man coach ever, and never heard of Pete Newell.

[greybeard]

As usual, about 90% of what you just posted makes no sense. Shocking, I know.
Here's the deal: We get it. You've posted the same rant over and over. And from the department of "no duh," of course playing different sports helps you in basketball. Specialization is a terrible thing. I was specifically responding to your comments on the Princeton offense and the Suns' set, whose concepts, despite your claims to the contrary, you barely seem to understand. That's ok, though. You also claimed Larry Brown was the best big-man coach ever, and never heard of Pete Newell.

Thank you for sharing, jumbo.

[greybeard]

Greybeard, I defy you to watch my son uppercut uppercut uppercut his swing thinking that's how he's gonna hit it over the fence without snatching the %#%$^ bat out of his hands and clubbing him with it!

He actually manages to nail one about 1 in 50 swings . . . and that reinforces his need/desire to uppercut. Brings a smile to his eyes, as it were.

Self discovery? Balls. When he's older, he can read Inner Tennis and self-actualize all he wants. Until then, if he wants to play, then I'm gonna try to teach the fundamental skills . . .

You can teach someone to spell. You cannot teach them how to perform a physical movement. It don't work that way. Let me repeat that. It is not possible for you or anyone else to teach your son to swing a bat more effectively than he already does.

There are some principles, however, that you could share with him that might be of value to him in making progress, if he choses to.

1. You might begin by explaining to him what moves the ball. You do know that don't you. Or do you just think you know. The bat? Please.

What moves the ball is pressure. Pressure applied to the ball will compress it. When the ball is compressed it will move itself. Yeap, your eyes heard me right. It will move itself.

2. Then you might explain to him that whether they know it or not, no one ever applied pressure meaningfully into a baseball by hitting the back of it. Never, in the history of the world.

You might explain to him that pressure is applied into the rear right quadrant of the ball, and that the bat lags behind the hands.

3. You might explain to your son that the bat does not move forward and that the object is to swing the bat using gravity and rotation. Let me splain a bit to you.

The bat we all know is held so that the barrell is more or less approaching vertical on some sort of angle that suits a person's style. In a right handed player, the right elbow is more or less in front of the right side of the rib cage. The first thing that happens in a good swing, is that the barrell of the bat drops. It simply drops, excelerating at a rate of 32 feet per second which is pretty damn fast.

As the bat drops, so do the arms, the right elbow finds itself somewhere in the neigborhood of the right hip. As the bat drops, the swing is initiated by beginning rotation of the hips. The acceleration of gravity is multiplied by centriphical force, and the barrell is thrust out, not forward. As the body continues to rotate it ideally strikes the inside corner of the baseball, remains on the bat for a microsecond while it continues to compress, and is released from the bat at a time when the ball would be resting on its rear. The bat is, as the body continues to rotate, in the process of being released, and it is in the follow through that the bat actually moves forward.

Actually, what you should really do if you want to help your son make progress, and I do mean this, is go to the web page, mikehebron.com. Check out his library, read the stuff about learning and the stuff about the golf swing. Some incredible information by a master golf professional (there are 25 in the world). Mike has made a video cost 19 bucks on how to introduce young kids to the golf swing. It will be easy enough for you to extrapolate from what you've read and what you see in the video to build it into useful information for helping your son hit a baseball.

If you would like to learn a little bit more about hitting a baseball, actually how it all works, and have examples to show your son, pictures, you might want to buy any of Michael's books. His latest is full of useful information, very well documented. Michael has been a frequent presentor at PGA conventions for years. Doubt you will find a PGA certified teacher who does not know of him and his work.

I have used the information imparted in that video to help many young kids get terrific starts in figuring out the golf swing for themselves. I have also helped many, many more kids find their way into the world of basketball with very, very, very good results.

This has nothing whatever to do with "inner" anythings. By the way. Your kid learned how to turn over on the floor without your help; then he learned how to wiggle around and ambulate, again without your help; then he learned to crawl without your help. Those are pretty god damn complex movements. You try em and see.

Then, when it came to standing and walking you probably "helped" him, taught him how to do it. How do most parents help their toddlers get there. Why they hold their hands over their heads, dangling them like a puppet. Then, they move the right hand forward coaxing them to move their right foot forward at the same time. Then the same with the left foot. Before you know it, with your help, the kid is able to stay on his feet and move them as per your direction.

I suggest that you try walking with your arm and leg on each side moving in the same direction as one another. Some help! How many people do you see walking and feel like they are trying way too hard; makes them damn unattractive. They're only doing what they've been taught.

Seriously dw, check out Mike's work. You will be able to help your son much more than you ever imagined if you do.

[greybeard]

BTW, interrupting the gravitational force/momentum of down with rotation is precisely the way the pros throw or pitch a baseball, pass a football, and serve a tennis ball. Watch closely next time! In none of those activities does the arm or racket move forward except on the follow through. Inner my patutti!!!

[dw0827]

Yawn.

Gotta watch my decorum here, so I'll refrain from further comment . . . on your strangely wonderful but irrelevant diatribe on youth hitting.

[greybeard]

Yawn.

Gotta watch my decorum here, so I'll refrain from further comment . . . on your strangely wonderful but irrelevant diatribe on youth hitting.

I thought you were serious. I have a son too. For whatever it is worth, he was not much of a hitter of a baseball when he was young. I don't think he'd mind my revealing that.

Two summers ago, as a 15 year old, he spent a few hours with Michael. he began playing some last spring. We went to the driving range this summer. He hits a nine iron 160 yards, with a nice little draw. How far do you hit your nine iron, dw?

[dw0827]

The key isn't how far but in which direction.

I hit a 7 iron 160 . . . if I tried to hit a 9 that far, I'd be in bed for a week.

For my son, I used a batting tee and a table to correct his swing plane (baseball). Better put . . . to allow him to correct his own swing, since I can't teach him anything . . .

[mgtr]

Lets see now, the subject of this thread is "new offense" on a basketball forum. NO, that can't possibly be right.

[greybeard]

The key isn't how far but in which direction.

I hit a 7 iron 160 . . . if I tried to hit a 9 that far, I'd be in bed for a week.

For my son, I used a batting tee and a table to correct his swing plane (baseball). Better put . . . to allow him to correct his own swing, since I can't teach him anything . . .

Oops. Only kidding. That's why I told you about the nine and not something higher.

When you teach your kid about the plane in golf, tell him to picture the roof of a house. If he is to flat in a swing, ask him if he was on the roof or perhaps in the garage. You can then explain that if you are in the garage, the only thing you can do is hit it dead right or flip the club head at the ball, in which case, he is lucky if he hits it at all, but it will duck hook left. If he is too upright, ask him if he was on the roof or perhaps in the tree in front of his bedroom window. Tell him in the trees will cause the ball to start left and turn right. He will figure the rest from there. You can occasionally observe that, hey, that was in the second story window. He will do the math and understand he has improved but is still under the plane. He will know that he has improved because the contact will be much better. If he stays on plane, the ball will fly well and probably with a little draw. Ask him how that felt, if it felt "different."

If you combine that plane information with information about how the way a club is constructed has not changed in 500 years, that they are all constructed so the handle is inside the clubhead at address, making the incline shape of the roof of the house, he will get that what the shape/ plane of the swing needs to be has something to do with the shape of the club. Then, if you show him that at address the club head sits more on its back with its leading edge square to the target and the handle perpendicular to the line of flight. Then tell him and show him that every club ever made is made to make contact with of the leading bottom edge of the clubhead contacting the ground, and when that position is attained, the handle of the club is way in front of the ball. To get to that position, which you will model, he will see that the hips must open. Tell him it is important to understand that address and impact are two different positions. There, you don't need to buy the tape, but I suggest it in anycase. Don't mention it. From Hebron's mouth to your ears. :)

[MChambers]

Lets see now, the subject of this thread is "new offense" on a basketball forum. NO, that can't possibly be right.

I love Greybeard's points. I coach my daughter's recreational 6th grade soccer team (we're at Long Branch-Wayne in Silver Spring at 3 pm Sunday, Greybeard, in case you want to stop by and help).

Spacing and passing really are similar in soccer. And coaching each is similar. Last week, I worked with my kids on how to dribble, and my fastest kid complained that it was too hard. I explained to her how to go around the defender wide and use her speed. And last Sunday, with 2 minutes to go, she went around the defense and scored, so we won 1-0.

So what this has to do with Duke basketball is not direct or obvious, but it does connect, believe me.