As lazy defensively as most NBA players are, why don't more teams play some kind of basic motion offense? College players in the main make more of a defensive effort and it seems to work okay there still. Sometimes I think that the NBA thinks too much. It's just basketball-- but with a higher level of talent AND LAZIER DEFENSIVE PLAYERS.... it should work!
You have to 'work' a motion offense for it to work, which takes time. The NBA has a 24 second shot clock, vs the NCAA 45 second clock. Assume 7 seconds to get across court and setup, and in the NBA you have perhaps 17 seconds for offense, vs 38 in college. It is therefore much more difficult in the NBA to make work an offense that requires patience. Even those teams that run 'motion' type sets like the Lakers with their triangle usually are limited to one or two passes as opposed to the complex, patient sets of the college game.
Well then the 24-second clock is the bane of the NBA game. I'd rather watch 21 extra seconds of motion (picks et al) than 10 seconds of some dude backing his man into the lane just to take an off-balance 10-footer trying to draw a foul. That is BORING.
Teams do run motion, I know the Jazz do, I am pretty sure others do to, teams on any level rarely take more than 30 on offense to launch up a shot. All Duke runs is motion and they usually dont take the whole time off the shot clock running it. they actually score a lot
Not that it's a huge difference. but the NCAA changed to a 35-second shot clock like 5 years ago. We also landed on the moon. One reason why you don't have motion is that not many teams have players who are willing to buy into a team-first system. Motion offense promotes equal scoring/shots. Most teams would rather put a scoring burden on their top 2-3 scorers. The closest thing to motion we have the in the NBA is with the Kings. They have Pete Carill sp?, who was the Princeton head coach who is a disciple of the backdoor play. The Kings are great at using motion because they have unselfish players, combined with great passing players like Webber and Divac, at positions where passing is generally weak. When you have a PF/C who is able to pass the ball well from all spots on the court, it opens up your offense.
No one in the NBA runs anything close to a motion offense, because a motion offense would get absolutely crushed in the NBA. Its like asking why no option in the NFL - because it wouldn't work.
Just for the record, Minesota runs a motion type offense and the Triange is a pure motion offense, so the Lakers run a motion. It's just that one of the philosophical concepts of the motion offense in college/high school is patience. The idea is 'pass and pick away', and if you have an open cutter, give it to them. Otherwise, the motion concept involves a repeating set, where you can just start over. This ethos that is so closely associated with motion offenses just doesn't translate to the NBA. In the triangle, for instance, if you run the set through a full cycle more than two times you're really pushing the shot clock. The original concept, however, involves repeating the pattern over and over until you get an easy shot. The motion offenses in the NBA, therefore, are not 'pure' motion offenses, but rather motion offenses re-imagined as a result of the constraints of a different rule book.
What the hell are you talking about? The option doesn't work in the NFL because defenses are too fast on the outside, not to mention that QBs would be knocked out every game like Chris Chandler. In the NBA, defenses aren't "fast". If you've noticed, 90% of the NBA players play "hard" on offense, while not playing so hard on defense, except the rare commodities like Doug Christie or Bruce Bowen. Really, the only players who put 100% effort on defense are the defensive specialists. One team you can run motion against is our own Rockets. Francis and Norris do not move well when their MAN HAS THE BALL. What makes you think they will put the effort to shadow their man away from the ball? Motion has very little, if any relevance to the option in football.
If there is a team of 5 equal caliber players, ala Princeton, then you will see motion used to create scoring opportunities. Like I said before, since most teams have 2+ guys who have superior offensive skills to their teammates, coaches would rather have the ball in the star player's hands. Motion works pretty well in All-Star games, for that same reason that it's not practical to have 1-2 guys dominate the ball, except for Kobe this year. Motion offenses are great because the offense dictates the possesion. The defense has to react to what the offense does.
There's also that problem of not wanting your $6 million QB optioning a 280lb DE all game long. I mean, the NFL fines and suspends players for hitting QBs too hard on a sack, you know they're not going to ask these guys to run an option! AH, the crux of the argument. How many teams can put 5 players, nevermind somewhat equal players, capable of scoring on the floor at the same time and not sacrifice other elements of the game? (Defense, rebounding) Let's see, Dallas, Sacramento, Lakers...(notice a trend)
Live-I don't even think the 5 guys have to really be equal. The main thing is having 5 guys on the same page, regardless of skill level. If you have good shooters/passers, and 5 guys who don't mind sharing the ball, then it works. I said that Priceton had 5 equal guys, which helped...
