Let's talk about offenses for the Rockets

First, whatever offense the Rockets run I am hoping that it starts with more the 12 seconds (or less) on the shot clock. Getting the ball to Yao Ming in the low block with 6 to 8 seconds on the shot clock is a waste of passing talent.

1) Prior to the start of last season, heypartner described some of the UCLA shuffle cuts which could be run with Yao in the high post. For whatever reasons, those never materialized. Does anyone recall if JVG (or Riley) used Ewing in the high post very often?

2) Earlier this summer when Larry Brown was a coaching possibility, some journalist (Feigen IIRC) described the difference between Brown and Rudy's offense in this manner. LB works the ball around early in the clock to get a certain player his shot late in the clock. Rudy gets the ball to his (star) player early in the clock and lets them work from there for their shot.

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I just feel JVG is going to be closer to Larry Brown and some of the dribbling is going to be minimized.

3) I can't imagine the Rox not working on (refining) their PnR's. IMHO, they just didn't run them well last season as the screener was open and frequently never received the ball.

If they go to a high 2 man PnR, I see Piatkowski as being the benificiary of weakside 3's. I'm hoping for some weakside screens (during the PnR) by Taylor and AGriff for Mobley.

4) I like the acquisition of Piatkowski, but some how feel that installing specific plays between Pike and Yao are going to be learned downstream.

One question that needs to be asked...even if JVG comes up with a great offensive scheme with lots of on the fly "reads" and weakside player movement, are the Rockets smart enough to learn it? IMO, the verdict is out.

While I was violently opposed to the acquisition of Glen Rice, I still think he can post up any shorter player.

I realize the focus of this thread is half court sets, but hopefully JVG will push for (install or instill) some secondary transition breaks. It has always bothered me that the Rox are so predictable offensively in that they run to certain spots on the floor. A defender knows in advance which area of the floor to go to.

I hate the Jazz as much as anybody, but have you ever noticed that during transition they send at least one (and usually two) players to the basket and there is a screen set for them as they loop back toward the arc? I'm not sure what this is called but they are not the only team that does it. I think it is some design in their secondary/transition offense.

Sorry to get carried away...this is just so much more fun than trade threads!

 

I prefer the dribbling to 5 seconds and looking for a prayer myself, keeps fatigue down.

 

http://www.jsdzilina.sk/ucla1.html

Please remember "SG" needs to be SF (unless Cuttino learns how to pass out of trouble)

Cat can make the entry pass. Then he only needs to pass it once.

Also look at this one :

http://espn.go.com/ncb/2003/0212/1507738.html

(good diagrams)

and here :

http://www.cybersportsusa.com/hooptactics/ucla.asp

(animated).

 

GATER pretty much said it all. Good post!

 

Another comment inspired after speed reading pasox2's UCLA links...

If the Rox go to any form of a UCLA High Post "read" system, Eddie Griffin better bring his "A" game every night (and think about it during the day) or he is going to lose a lot of PT to MoT.

I am not down on EG and don't want to steer this thread in that direction, but there are some "reads" in a movement based offense which give Taylor an advantage as he is currently the better passer and a more experienced player.

Repeating myself, maybe the Rox don't have the gray matter for an offense with a lot of "reads". But I think a lot will become obvious as early as the first pre-season game.

 

first off, I'm convinced we saw the UCLA-Cut last year, just not a very good result. It will take awhile.

note: this tends to take the ball out of the PG's hands; hence why Utah uses a PnR more than the UCLA cut. But it does threaten PG alley-oops and other cuts to the hole, but after that the PG must set a low post pick or clear out, and come back into the action another way.

The UCLA-Cut as a play is pretty common. Many NBA teams use it. You pass to the wing and threaten a guard cutting around a high post man. This doesn't always lead to a backdoor (obviously) but it usually always get the ball to the big man at the high post, if they stop the cutting guard.

1. it is hard to double, or front, a high post big man (if not impossible), and
2. the high post defender tends to always step out to impede the progress of the guard using the high post as a screen, thus
3. Your high post player is open for an easy entry at 15' from the hole, then
4. that being an accomplishment in itself, you now have a high post big man passer/shooter positioned to threaten passing to anywhere on the court.

So, many times you see a UCLA-Cut being run, but the backdoor never happens. The success of this is mainly seen in what the high post player can do when he get the ball from the wing man. Hence, why Utah could use it effectively, and why Walton was so good at it.

What is often not shown is how the UCLA Cut can involve the high post player with the ball doing handoff's to cutters using him as a screen...either left or right, whichever way the defender gives him....You just drive your man one way and cut the other way around Yao. We've seen Yao do this quite often from the left block...I'd like to see him move it to the high post.

The UCLA-Cut as a system will involve Yao first becoming a high post threat like that or the defense will sag on the backdoors and post-rub cuts. Also, many of the counter plays and ball reversal options will involve a lot of timing in the offense...something that Cuttino, Francis and Griffin show little of.

Because of that, I still expect simplicity until Yao becomes a bigger threat. imo, we should still expect the PnR and low post entries to our offense at this time, with options off of those.

I think improving the fastbreak, improving team depth and team defense and improving the PnR is a lot to expect, right there.

 

What Feigen said is slightly different. Larry Brown uses ball movement to get his main players good shots. Rudy used his main players to initiate ball movement.

Note that fundamentally, the Triangle, Dallas's offense, and Utah's PnR uses the star players to initiate ball movement, too.

What Feigen was alluded to was two huge categories of offensive strategies, saying that one category has the star give up the ball early, to get it back in a better position. The other uses the stars and 2-man games early to draw defenses to get the other options going.

The disadvantage of Brown's approach is defenses can take your main man out of the play easier and isolate your weakest link on offense. The disadvantage of the other approach is it relies heavily on the star's ability to execute properly. They both require a lot of teamwork and timing to reach maximum potential. imo, Brown's/Kings/Nets/Minn's approach leads to more busted plays, but it makes the defenses think more. Rudy/Utah PnR/Dallas approach tends not to fool defenses as much, but it keeps control in your stars hands.

 

I meant to write...we saw *some* UCLA Cut plays. Just some,...enough to suspect they were practicing it.

 

This is the KEY. Yoa must establish his 15-18' J. If he is open, he has to take and make that shot. This should consistently pull the other team's center 15' from the basket and open all sorts of passing lanes for cutters.

I think this strategy would simply kill the Lakers since Shaq is their only defensive presence in the paint. The Timberwolves on the other hand can run their zone with KG in the middle which could nullify the Yoa high post advantages.

 

First, let me say I freaking love threads like these in this forum, such a breath of fresh air over threads like: "Possible Trade for O'Neal?" or "Pictures of Yao watching paint dry from Sina.com!"

Second, I don't know how I feel about Yao taking that shot from the top of the key, or even standing out there too much. I remember, and my mind may be playing tricks on me, him bricking that shot more often than not (with the exception of his November breakout run) throughout the course of the season.

It's almost like a mental thing, he gets the ball out there in space, the C backs off, we all think "shoot it big guy" and sometimes the annoucer says it or the crowd murmurs it if its a home game, and then clunk. I think he has the skills to hit it eventually but it wil take a while and a bunch of misses before it becomes reliable, during which time, everybody and their brother and Tom crackpipe Tolbert will say "He's Seven Freaking Foot Six, why is he standing so far from the basket, blah blah blah"

I can also see him doing his face-up, dribble, and have the ball poked away by a guard routine. I hate it when Yao gets picked by midgets because he won't keep the ball up high.

 

hp -
This is specifically what Feigen said:

"Brown typically runs an offense entirely different from Tomjanovich's, and Brown's style could appeal to Alexander. Tomjanovich has always believed in getting the ball to his top players quickly and forcing defenses to adjust to them. Brown ends possessions by getting the ball to his best players.

Generally speaking, in Tomjanovich's offense, the action -- ball or player movement -- begins after the top player is in position with the ball.

In Brown's offense, the action gets the top players the ball in position to score"

I'm not sure how that fundamentally differs from what I described. The "top player" Feigen is referring to and the "certain player" I was referring to is Iverson. Iverson takes just under 30% of the Sixers total shots and that's who their offensive was run for. The only other difference I can see is my use of the word "shot clock"...but that comes down to real quiblling over semantics.

 

personally, with the guys we have - I like the triangle. This utilizes Yao as the passing threat and the power threat with superior size. It lets Cat Iso (what he's good at) with Griff or run two man with Taylor. You can set up R or L. You get a lot of easy baskets. It would give Yao a free bump like Shaq.

http://www.cybersportsusa.com/hooptactics/triangle.asp

some plus points :

" With the defense being occupied by constant player movement, the most skilled players can take advantage of one on one penetration with the clock moving down. The Triangle Post Offense is excellent for utilizing good low post players, especially those who can pass.

Since sideline triangles can be quickly formed on either side of the court, the defense is forced to defend the entire court from sideline to sideline at all times. In addition, it can strike the weakside of the defense with lighting speed with a two person attack at any time

Unlike most offenses, the triangle offense does not rely on a single entry pass. On the contrary, it has a magnitude of entries. In fact, any pass and/or dribble can initiate the triangle offense which makes it very difficult for any defenses to disrupt.

When the small forward makes a reversal pass out to the off guard it sets up a two person weakside attack. This "Two Game" provides a multitude of a quick hitting options that can be initiated with either a pass or dribble "

You can also switch Steve in for Cat in the 2-man game opposite Yao's triangle. That gives you two double team threats with easy pass-off escapes.

 

Like I said, you weren't far off from what he said. But you said, "<i>Rudy gets the ball to his (star) player early in the clock and lets them work from there <b>for their shot.</b></i>

I was disagreeing with your emphasis on getting the star their shot. It's not that, it is about two different approaches in how you force the defense to move.

Feigen's comments were in regards to ball movement. I was trying to point out that a PnR (for instance) is about forcing the action with stars in order to create ball movement--the Triangle as played by Jordan forces the action first, as well. The other approach is starting the ball movement/player movement early using all 5 players to see if you can confuse the defense for an easy basket...which all forms of motion offenses share....and failing that, get it to your star late in the shot clock.

The philosophies use ball movement in different ways. I consider them 2 main categories that nearly every system shares.

Whenever I explain this, it sounds like I'm babbling in a semantic argument. It's just a dance with different cues of when and where to move. One style uses a strong lead (like Stockton/Malone) while the other style is more like a square dance....the Kings. hehe....not sure if that helped.

 

pasox2,

do you really see the Lakers use player movement as much as that article describes..

The main problem with the triangle is it is easy to clog up, because it tries to use 3 guys together on the strong side.

this statement his a pie in the sky description:

That statement totally ignores the fact that defenses can reset equally as quick.

There is nothing more lightning quick than a backdoor cut, and the triangle has a problem with clogging the middle preventing it. come on, how fast is a skip pass to the weakside?

Even by its description of decades ago, it doesn't work the way described under a 24-sec shot clock. You don't have time to threaten an attack on one side of the court and use ball reversal more than about once, effectively speaking. That makes it less unique that the description at that site.

The Bulls and Lakers really just run a Triangle in the sense that they have set plays using the 3 primary entry points, and timed cuts from the weakside, or a single ball reversal option from the weakside.

They don't reset the triangle multiple times in a given possession.

 

heypee,

the triangle isn't reset multiple times because of the plethora of options available. if you run through all of the options, truthfully, you'd go over 24 seconds. and, even that requires the defense making the correct choice each and every time.

as for clogging the middle vs. the triangle, that's incorrect. the only way you clog the middle vs. the triangle is if the offense has poor spacing...which can happen. but, when run correctly, if you clog the middle, the skip pass or pass to the top of the key will burn the defense each and every time.

i'd love to get more into this, considering i've played in a triangle offense before, but i need to leave for a pool tourney. suffice it to say that the triangle is the only offensive system that i have seen that cannot be "shut down" by a defense. bad decisions can shut it down, yes. bad shooting can shut it down, yes. but simple answers like "clogging the middle" will not shut it down...as long as you have an entry man and post man that can correctly (and relatively quickly) read a defensive scheme.

i'm not sure if you've done a lot of research on the full triangle offense, but the # of options on any given set is staggering. not trying to be offensive, but i don't think you've researched this one well enough, based on your comment about the triangle not getting reset. in fact, it can be reset at any given point, but very frequently isn't because of the basic structure of it. your players are intentionally spotted in the position they are most dangerous from. notice where steve kerr was - ALWAYS. weak side FT line ext. why? because he's the best safety valve. where's jordan? strong side, top. why? because the option of the "guard quick post" is there, should the defense sleep. pip? ss, 45 degree. why? best cutter on the team, good spot up shooter.... love to go more into it, but, playoffs are tonight, sorry...

one last point - the problem with the triangle is that the guards do need to fit a specific mold. there's a reason p-jax has always wanted big guards.....i'll let you ponder on that while i go whoop someone on the table.

 

verse, what the Lakers do and what Tex Winters huge treatise of the 50s/60s says is possible are two different things.

Do you really think a guy with a pencil and paper can write an offense in the 50s with a staggering amount of options and counters to every thing the defense does moreso than a plethora of other offenses in later eras?

Anyone can design counters. But are they possible without ridiculous reliance on perfection?

I've noticed you have this belief that Xs and Os can by written up to beat all defenses, as you just keep learning more and more options that *only* require synchronized decision-making by multiple players, who can make exponentially more reads in unison the more ball movement you do. Well, heck...NBA offenses do succeed at a high rate relative to other sports.

but, verse...the way the Triangle is described in pasox2's link wrt college theory borders on ridiculous for a 24-sec clock. imo, it was written in an era of intellectual thought that believed you could know everything. This was right before the deconstruction era...and I'm not surprised at the similarities between what Tex Winters thought he could achieve in college basketball theory and practice and what many college professors thought they could achieve. Big huge books addressing all the problems of the past with all the answers were common.

Then deconstruction came.
And Bobby Knight was born.

.... this offense eventually fell out of favor in college, and it wasn't because coaches couldn't teach it. It was because it was easier to clog than other offenses unless you had the perfect team and the perfect low post player.

The offense is largely screen-less, invented in an era before screens were officiated as they are today. Bobby Knight says that the change in how screens were officiated had a lot to do with the revolution towards Motion Offenses utilizing more screens of the 70s and later.

The Triangle as written for college in the 50s is different than what is played in the NBA now.

The spacing of the Triangle has to be perfect to work, because it puts more people on the strongside than normal, which means the defense puts more people on the strongside (giving the defense as many extra options as the offense, relatively speaking to other offenses). It's not like the Triangle is the only offense to preach spacing (many do). But the Triangle's spacing is more critical. Not only does the spacing have to be learned, but the players have to be good enough to keep the offenses honest. For instance, if the corner man doesn't have consistent range, sag off him into the post...this just destroys the triangle as it makes you pass to the weakside without really making the defense do anything.

If the weakside doesn't have a star player, cheat on defense and stack the strongside....maybe front the low post, and eliminate the power of the line of deployment strategies by having backup.

If the weakside post player is not that great, do a post front denial on the strong side post player...etc, etc.

There is no one system that is great. And I just don't see the Triangle succeed that much in the NBA without perfect players.

 

Perfect players like Rick Fox, Bob Horry, and D. Fish? . Maybe perfect players like S.Kerr, Bill Wennington, and Corie Blount?

I give you the Dallas experiment was an epic failure.

 

I thought the triangle would have been perfect for the Rockets and the personell they have. Eddie at the high post, Yao at the low, francis and Mobley coming off screens and rolls and just the entire concept of ball movement. I was really hoping Jim Cleamons would get a shot, but i guess not.

This team will be very methodical , but maybe more effecient from less dribbling than last yr. No one will mistake this team for Dallas ,La, Sac, or even Orlando, but this team can and should score 97ppg on a regular. With JVG defensive startegy, they still should be able o hold most teams to around 92ppg. If the Rockets had made 1 less to or gotten 2 more shots on the basket, they could have scored about that much last season. Will not be much razzle and dazzle, but they will be better offensively mainly because of the concept and execution alone. I don't think its going to be fan friendly scooring wise, but as long as they win and compete, people will come out and see them play. The 2 worse things to be is bosing and mediocre.