Does Adelman leaving make you hate anyone who doesn't hate Adelman leaving?

I agree: It's not the Princeton Offense, but not for the reason you stated. They are both read and react offenses. I don't consider read and react a specific offense, but rather a type, or category, of offenses.

The difference between the Princeton at Sacramento and the Rockets offense here is Adelman adapted to the personnel. The Princeton requires passing bigs at the top of the key--with the primary objective to clear the lane out. That works great with Webber, Divac and Miller, but Adelman didn't want Yao out that far.

Strict Princeton also requires a hell of a lot more passing, which is not wise in the NBA with a 24 sec clock. So all NBA read and reacts are somewhat more "structured" than what you saw Pete Carril run at Princeton or Knight at Indiana. But I wouldn't call the Kings offense "a lot more structured" than the Rockets. The Triangle, yeah.

So, it's more about the early clock positioning of their players and their roles that are different. Kings/Princeton were still read and react, though.

 

No. But, I now hate you for posting an idiotic false dichotomy of a poll.

 

I'm kidding. I don't actually hate anyone. But, that poll is seriously terrible.

 

I will give you that, certainly there are elements that are known as part of the princeton offense.

DD

 

clutch allows these type of threads?


I think one of the best coaches of all time and one that did the most with the least would affect many with his departure.

About caring, well its kind of ironic since the OP chose to care enough to make this thread.

 

The Clucthfans.net reached a new low by this thread and the summer has not even started yet.

 

Where would Clutchfans be without it's members giving themselves a constant reach around?

Lord knows I have done it....why not my protege CXbby?



DD

 

i disagree on that part.

it is the princeton offense. the princeton offense doesn't need a superstar who dominates the ball. especially after tmac gone and yao in street cloth, our bigs stationed elbow area more than ever. players kept moving, screening, backdoor cutting to create opportunities. chuck has become a very good passer at elbow near ft line. his contribution on offense was appreciated by ra himself in many media sessions and rewarded with more playing time. the system is not complex as long as all players are on same page. it requires everyone to contribute in one way or other. you can clearly see how much effort ra put in to make all players believe his systems. of coz, it helps when rox brought in km and bm.

tmac's ugly departure definitely had sth to do with ra offense schema as tmac's style was completely no place in his offense system.

 

tmac's departure had to do with the fact that he was no longer tmac and he was the last person to recognize that

that's not a criticism on him, it happens to great players all the time

 

no hate here! dont understand people understanding this move, but that is no reason to hate in this world...its only basketball

 

Where is the choice: "Somebody apparently needs thicker skin on a basketball bbs"?

 

So who we have as coach doesn't make a good *******. Got it. Adelman will end up in the Hall of Fame because "he is competent" and "mostly he's had talented teams." It was really nothing special, getting to the 8th spot on the all time winning list. Why? Because he was "lucky" and has had "talented teams." And as if that wasn't a "good enough" explanation for his record, the same thing "could be said for most coaches. They are overrated in general."

So if it doesn't matter who the coach is or how much they've won, because it's a matter of "luck," and having "talented teams," and the same could be said about "most coaches," and coaches "are overrated in general," maybe you could tell me something. Why are you so excited about Adelman being given the boot? Just like to see a fresh face on the sidelines? After all, according to you, most of the metrics really don't matter.

Am I the only person who finds this reasoning rather bizarre, to put it mildly? And in answer to the "poll," in which I won't cast a vote, it not having a response I find worthy of voting for or against, considering the two questions involved, I can honestly say I don't hate anyone here, even those I have on ignore. Some people tick me off regularly, but I don't hate them. Some members who make fools of themselves in D&D, members I have on ignore, I find enjoyable to read in the GARM, or Hangout, in the main. No, there's no one here I "hate." I do dislike stupid threads, this being a prime example, with all due respect, but they have existed here as long as I've been reading the BBS. You've covered no new ground, CXbby. Others have plowed it before.

 

Yeah, I agree with you more than DD saying Princeton is structured. But his point that this is not Princeton is more accurate than your comment, until after the trade deadline.

We did not go double high post until Chuck started rocking. No other year, either.

Further, double high post is not Princeton. Strict Princeton is a single big at the top of the key. We could argue Adelman and Carill NEVER actually ran Princeton, because they ran an double high motion. Good luck telling the KingsFans.com kids that because they pride themselves on being able to describe Princeton...even though they are wrong. haha

Oh, well. It's all confused because the TV pundits and writers typically don't know their **** and Adelman just nods his head and agrees with what they say...not correcting them.

I mean; I've read the Triangle is motion...that is so not true...NBA ISO offenses make that look true...but Winters in college is not related to the Knight school at all. Triangle is an attack offense with strict decisions. Make the defense choose between two evils. Motion/read react is move yourself and the ball and watch what the defense does and exploit it.

 

I think the major flaw in your argument that people will find as a point of disagreement is your choice of the word "Competent."

You just leveled the entire playing field right there. You did admitingly say talent matters more, but sneaking in a phrase like that to show coaching pretty much doesn't matter at all couldn't be further from the truth. The realm of this argument stems much further than just basketball, it comes to any competitive event where you can say "such and such" individual is talented enough and requires a mentor that just meets the bare necesseties in context of their job.