Iso Players: Does this system repel superstar development?

Dominant players know how and are willing to play within a system, especially one as proven and respected as Adelman's.

Also, I seem to recall Adelman tailoring his system around Yao and Tmac when he got here. I'm pretty sure his system in Sacramento didn't require a 7'6 low post scorer and a top 5 SG.

 

The Triangle offense is "read and react"

 

The question is, what kind of offense system ISN'T read and react?

Oh I know, Twill Iso top of the key, everyone flats out to the baseline and clear ouuut!!!

I see so many posters here b****ing about RA's system and Princeton Offense, How many actually knows how the system works, or are they just talking out of their asses because they heard some other "expert" on the board say it doesn't work with superstars..

I've never had the resources to study closely RA's system, But I've studied a lot of clips of Laker's triangle, and I think Phil Jackson incorporated a lot of elements of the Princeton Offence into their sets. And If MJ and Kobe thrived under an intricate system like the triangle, Is TWill the second coming of God that he doesn't have to learn?

 

They are the same in the sense that they are both based on reading the defense and taking what it gives you. The formations aren't exactly the same. Adelman's offense has a lot of hand-offs around the elbow and curling from the baseline sets. The triangle is more about keeping the strong side flexible thereby giving the players lots of options to exploit.

 

Like Bullard said last night.. if he/anyone can use his skillset within the system, that's where you'd be affective, most of the time. Thus- prove yourself, within the team-system, and your opportunities will broaden. This will create better team-cohesion and developing better character/better work ethic.

Now, whoever does not want to be a better player in the long run, efficiency-wise, would be beyond me.

 

Really, another thread crying about the best offense in Rockets history?

Also, NEWSFLASH!, KM is one of the top iso players in the NBA, he was 3rd last I checked.

 

Repeating this garbage in multiple threads doesn't make you right. The Celtics offense is also "read and react", you aren't cool because you can parrot catchphrases all day long.

Btw we all know who the least clutch team in the NBA is and what % of iso plays they run, so you're never going to win this argument, just stop.

 

All of this chatter over T Williams? Really? He has been here for a couple of months and is still not able to crack the rotation. Has been given opportunites to do so and is still on the bench while the team is playing very well.

He just needs to understand what the team is doing and get on board with it. Use his 'talent' to fit into what we are doing. Work on his game in the summer. He is not a good shooter forces too many bad passes. It's as simple as that.

I can't believe all this talk about changing the way we play to develop HIM to be our superstar....! C'mom Son!

 

If given the chance, I will vote for all answers in a poll, regardless of how I think. I do this for every poll.

 

I completely agree with the idea that it's nearly impossible to play within the Adleman system AND fit the current NBA definition of "superstar" however one may want to define that. "Superstars" such as Kobe and LeBron want and need the ball in their hands alot more than Adleman's offense typically allows.

Now what I have flip-flopped back and forth on is whether or not this is a bad thing. Ive wanted a "superstar" just as bad as everyone else, atleast for the reason that it's ridiculously rare for anyone to win a championship without one. But does an offense that is 3rd in the NBA in points per game need to improve? AND, does adding a superstar and running less of the motion style offense actually IMPROVE the offense?

My eyes actually tell me the answers to these questions are yes. It SEEMS to me that in the 4th quarter of close games that defenses clamp down harder and the motion offense is significantly less effective. It SEEMS like a superstar that can go 1 on 1 would get us more baskets down the stretch of games and consequently win us more games.

But I have no statistical data to back that up and have no idea if it is actually valid. Logically speaking, our defense has performed far worse than our offense and improving the defense would be more influential in winning games than marginally improving the offense with a superstar.

 

Your eyes may deceive you my friend if you are only looking at our current make up of a team.

What the motion offense is designed to do is get your 'better' players the ball in different areas of the floor where the defense is not set up to stop them. Example, the Heat always give the ball to LeBron or Wade at the top of the key and everybody stands and watches them attempt to break down the defense and score or make a pass. They would have a lot more success moving them around and setting a screen for them and making the defense have to move around and not just stand there and help on them. That is what Adelman wanted to do for T-Mac and Yao when he got here. Allow them to get the ball in space to operate against a rotating defense. Not a stacked defense waiting on them in the same spot everytime down the court.

If you are trying to judge the offense based on our team that could be a little skewed because we dont have that 'all-star' talent on the floor. And at times our guys have a little trouble getting open. We also don't have a interior force that commands a double team and more attn. It is much more difficult to defend players that are in motion than ones that stand and watch one other player. Easier to help on D also in those scenarios. You cant just leave your guy if you know he may cut to the rim for a lay up.

 

Haha, I think you kinda took me saying that stuff about my eyes the wrong way. The point I was trying to make with that was, yes, I think there is a very strong likelihood that my eyes were decieving me.

Actually, the main point I was trying to get through was that from just watching most NBA games it SEEMS like the way most teams get points down the stretch is by going to their superstars down the stretch instead of running plays and if the Rockets' offense struggles down the stretch the first natural thought is that it SEEMS like having a superstar to go one on one like most teams do would be the best way to score and win. But I was intentionally putting "seems" in caps as to say that I don't really trust that initial judgement. I guess Id say I was wonderng aloud which style is more efficient and that Id like to see some type of statistical evidence that could display this.

But about the stars operating in space against unset defenses, I don't think this is how stars are comfortable. Again this is just a quick at a glance judgement of stars without really studying it, but it SEEMS like the great "star" players prefer to operate in less frentic situations. LeBron and Kobe don't generally need screens to get them where they want to go, they have a bevy of one on one moves that can get them to their spot on the court. From there, it SEEMS like it'd be easier for them to get to that spot and find open teammates against a set defense where they know where all 9 of the other guys on the court will be rather than operating against a scrambling defense. But again, Ill fully admit that probably isn't true for all players if it is even true for any. It's just a theory, but the time that players like LeBron and Kobe spend holding the ball surveying the defense before they make a move lends some credence to it, I believe.

 

WTF is this? Superstars are supposed to be players who do things at an efficient rate. Yes they could iso, however I don't really know any superstar out there who couldn't play in any system except iso ball. MJ, Hakeem, Magic, Bird, all these guys could hit the open shot, pass the ball and most importantly read the flow of the game and get in position. That's exactly what the read-and-react offense is. Saying that kind of system hinders your growth because you can't pound the ball into submission and iso means your definition of superstar is warped.

I don't really think there's even been an "ISO" team that won the championship. That's because apart from MJ, every championship team in history had a top class big man, and you can't give your big man the ball if you iso all day long.

 

We're top 5 in offense right? What more evidence do you need?

Call it the Jordan syndrome. Most players nowadays feel like they can only be called superstars if they can iso and drop a fadeaway against two defenders. However heroic antics like that SHOULD be the last option, and not the first option because the chances of anyone, even MJ, dropping a 3 pointer with a hand in his face is ridiculously low. One-on-one moves are great, but most of the time the opponent won't play along and will send 2 guys to defend you anyway. I think there was an article out there somewhere that showed that Kobe actually made his team worse in clutch situations because he would often break the triangle in order to iso and hit the clutch shot during the last moments of the game.

 

Most superstars earned the right to be a "ball stopper" or have iso plays. You can't surrender that roll to anyone without them proving themselves. ****, if we're giving that privilege away, might as well give it to Wafer...****, thats right, we did.

 

Adelman's system had Weber, Peja, Clyde Drexler. It even made Bibby look like a star in the playoffs against the Lakers. They had their highest scoring years, when they were with Adelman.

 

Times have changed.

 

Yeah, he got Kevin Martin, Scola, Chase Budinger dropping 20-35pts every night now.