Achebe, Boy that is one beautiful piece of writing there. Does anyone know what the hell achebe is talking about? Achebe, I cannot talk to you about basketball unless you first are willing to acknowledge that there is no magical offensive system that has all the answers. When you acknowledge that, then maybe you will begin to allow someone to explain the weaknesses of The Triangle vs the strengths of 4 out 1. Quit playing this stupid game implying that I'm just blabbering to protect the coach that you hate. If you just want to play the blame game like massive change is the answer, then quit talking to me about it. It is that simple. I cannot talk about the Rockets with you if you make it a player personnel argument (eg Rice, Dream, Moochie)...I do not argue about personnel changes...do you see me in trade speculation threads? I talk about the hand that was dealt. That is all I care about. I'm going to talk about Rice and the different ways to use him...I'm going to talk about Moochie and the different ways to use him...I am going to talk about that, because I like to talk about what I am seeing on the court, and don't start blaming the coach until I see widespread dissension or uninspired play. You don't. Achebe, you talk about what you want to see...and, like a masochistic fool, you actually talk about players you want to see who aren't even on our team. "We need a center, dammit." Achebe, I cannot talk to you about basketball unless you first are willing to acknowledge that Francis is making many mistakes in creating offensive flow that you sooooo cry for. He is the one mainly responsible for not growing the offense, imo. You just have blinders on, because if it is indeed a problem with the franchise player, then we are in trouble. You think everything else is fixable, but if the franchise player is limited....we are dead. I'm not a pessimist like that, and I don't think Larry Brown was with Iverson, and I don't think Rudy is with Francis. The biggest fixes to teams often come from improved play and commitment to team improvement by the stars. People always say that about other teams..."Shaq will never win if he doesn't blah, blah, blah..." "Wallace needs to ...." "Webber needs to..." But no, Achebe cannot talk like that about Francis....no, it is Rudy's fault for playing a 19 yr old wrong. It is Mobley's fault; Moochie's; CD's. Maybe you can start your own thread one of these days if you have it all figured out Achebe, because your last post is really off-topic here. Let me explain again what we are talking about in this thread: verse says both our longterm solution and our shortterm solution is centered around a 19 yr old. I disagree. I say the longterm and shortterm solution is centered around the superstar. Now, mine is more quickly fixable, and it helps the whole team. And it helps the team grow. verse's idea is rimbaud's silly basketball application of the "internal dialectic," which, by definition, can have a serious backfire; that is, if one person "wins" the player rotation and play-calling dynamics of a team (in this case Griffin) the whole team relationship can still lose out. Now in those terms...since Achebe loves his precious social dialectics, because he doesn't know basketball dialectics, in the terms of internal dialectic, what is more likely going to help the Rockets win: strategies centered around giving the PG a play-calling "win," or a 19 yr old. Of course, it is strategies centered around giving Francis the "win" in team play calling, because that is more likely to give the whole team the win. That is what we are trying to accomplish. Francis has some learning to do and needs the reps. Do you see me yelling why Rudy has Mobley in the corner...NO!! That's because I want Francis to get the reps in reading defenses...only then can we add complexities. And they will come, and I am seeing them right now. I am not ready to give up on Francis running a PG-oriented attack. I am not ready to relegate him as a Bibby on the Kings getting only 4 ast/game, yet remaining effective. I want Francis to win the battle against defenses designed to stop him from getting us into our offensive sets. Then, I'm willing to talk change. But not yet. Especially not big change centered around a 19 yr old. Too many people are watching the bouncing ball a little too much and getting dizzy. Watch the weakside! Our offensive system is starting to come out of its shell. Major systemic fixes can happen in the course of a few games. And if it does, you'll know for sure the team was indeed practicing it for much. <font size="1">Now watch Rudy say screw this learning process and stubbornly go to Mobley 2-Shakes too much to make me look like a blind fool.</font>
verse, talking about turning Griffin into a low-post player this year is speculation in my mind, because we don't even know if he can handle it right now, and further, whether it will help the team as much as focusing on our other glaring weaknesses. I cannot isolate our improvements to Griffin, as one item on a "laundry list" of complaints. To me, all significant offensive improvements this year and much of our longterm rests with Francis. Thus, when anyone talks about changing things on the court that are systemic changes, I call that speculative discussion. We've seen our transition fail. We've seen Francis unable to get his team playing in the 1st quarter over and over. To me, you suggestion that Griffin is an answer takes away from Francis's development. You make it sound like having Griffin shoot jumpers will become some bad habit that he'll never be able to get rid of....ummmm, Kenny Thomas ran the same play Griffin does, and he's stop shooting 3s, for the large part! man, I agree with what you say, I just don't agree with the importance of it all. If Griffin cannot drive (like you say) or pass (who really knows? but the coaches), then he can't. That doesn't mean we change to a low post system to use his presumed strengths if Francis and the current system can fix everything itself. verse, it is a matter of importance. I don't think Griffin is a key worthy of second guessing Rudy. I am on topic. I'm just arguing the importance of it all, not whether your suggestions are right or wrong.
crispified... imo, the rockets are approximately 2-3 years away from being a serious contender to the western conference crown. in that 2-3 year period, a number of things must happen including but not limited to: 1) francis' development into a true libra (balancing the scales of pg/sg) 2) rockets' establishment of a low post game (eddie "walt williams, III" griffin 3) rudy learning proper substitution patterns (kt: 12 min in 1qtr, 3 min in 2nd qtr) 4) finding a consistent "heater" off the bench (hellooooo, oscar torres). i cannot prioritize those, as you do. no, sorry. let me rephrase that: i will not prioritize those, as you do. why? because, first of all, they are all tantamount. second, because they all can - and should - be worked on now. please, stop getting stuck in relying on a "19 year old". we would not ve relying on a 19 year old. we would be developing a 19 year old. how long do you propose we stick with him shooting damn near 40% of his shots from 26 feet and out? i'm not saying he shouldn't shoot 3s. i'm saying he should mix in some postups, as well. challenge the damn kid!!! francis improving his transition game, in and of itself, does just enough for the rockets to make the playoffs. i'll give you that. but what good is it when we'd just be getting booted out in the first round??? and why must rudy and co. focus 100% on something that is in francis' head? why not have him see situation in reality, that is, that eg will be in the post? or is this what you refer to as "dummying down" the offense? are you trying to tell me that francis' ability to read d's and know when to shoot v pass is keeping EG from posting up??? if so, then i say move or lose. if francis is stuck trying to understand what the hell is going on, it may be successful to jar things a little bit. you know, shake it up more than 2 shakes, isos and duos? maybe seeing the glass as half-full as opposed to half-empty will make him realize that is just damn water! drink it, be it, pass it! in the meantime, i have no intentions of sitting by and watching eddie griffin turn into marcus fizer or walt williams, III. see: dennis scott dennis rodman trevor ruffin glen rice walt williams john salley (off the top of my head) for a list of players that concentrated on one part of their game, at the ultimate expense of their total game. were they good players? yes. could they have been much better? hell yes. you don't think it's as important as the others? ok, fine. but i disagree very very strongly. the development of a potential franchise frontcourt player is absolutely critical. you know what, crispee, lemme put it to you this way: in today's nba, if: a) francis develops into the ultimate combo guard (revolutionizing the pg position once again) yet we have only a serviceable front court; or b) griffin develops into either a KG-esque player or a 20-10 center with a 40 ppg backcourt that cannot be stopped which is better for the team? let's not even consider: c) griffin develops into ... 20/10/3bpg player; 48ppg backcourt; kt continues his play of late; francis redefines pg spot. then we're talking dynasty. but francis - by himself - improving is not enough to take this team to the next level in the next 2-3 years. so, in short, the "short term" means nothing to me, insofar as Ws and Ls. this is all about player development. the pieces, crispee, are in place. the focus should be on shaving and shaping the edges so that they fit well together.
Doesn't Stop Cat, Steve or Mooch, Rice or Walt from getting minutes, perhaps he hasn't learnt the Art of Dribbling the Air Out of the Ball" yet. Sounds like a perfect fit for our minimalistic passing offense! Plus if Griffin plays everyone will realise how bad our players are defensively by showing them up and realise Rudy can't teach defense!!! Keep him away from Rudy he will suck the defense out of him and show him the way to play our minimalistic passing offense!
crispee, Boy that is one beautiful piece of writing there. Does anyone know what the hell crispee is talking about? crispee, I cannot talk to you about basketball unless you first are willing to acknowledge that Rudy doesn't have all the answers. When you acknowledge that, then maybe you will begin to allow someone to explain the fact that our team looks like ****. Quit playing this stupid game implying that I'm just blabbering to protect the pg that you hate. If you just want to play the blame game like massive change is the answer, then quit talking to me about it. It is that simple. I cannot talk about the Rockets with you if you just beg the question that every flaw is Steve Francis' flaw...I do not argue about play diagramming...do you see me in play diagramming threads? I talk about the hand that was dealt. And that hand sucks. That is all I care about. I'm going to talk about Rice and the fact that he's the millionth crappy player Rudy has determined is the answer...I'm going to talk about Moochie and the fact that he's a playground fraud collecting a check...I am going to talk about that, because I like to talk about what I am seeing on the court, and don't start blaming the point guard's asst/to ratio until I see people he's passing to hit their fetching shots. You don't. crispee, you talk about what you want to see...and, like a masochistic fool, you actually beg the question that Rudy can do no wrong. "We need transition, dammit. The pg that I hate didn't run transition, now his overpaid backup doesn't run it... it's still Francis' fault". crispee, I cannot talk to you about basketball unless you first are willing to acknowledge that Rudy is making many mistakes in creating offensive flow that is actually fun to watch. He is the one mainly responsible for not growing the offense, imo. You just have blinders on, because if it is indeed a problem with the coach, then we are in trouble. Rudy's .586 %age (thanks to Dream) is something you're not ready to ascribe to Larry Smith yet. You think everything else is fixable, but if the coach is limited....we are dead. I'm not a pessimist like that, and I don't think Francis played poorly with Smith at the end of last year. The biggest fixes to teams often come from the coaches diagramming something that isn't based on bull**** 3 point shooting, that our team isn't effective at right now. People always say that about other teams..."Milwaulkee is relying too much on the perimeter..." "Riley's guys aren't playing it paint to outside...." "Silas needs to remind everyone shorter shots are easier shots..." But no, crispee cannot talk like that about Rudy....no, it is Francis's fault for playing Rudy's plays wrong.. Maybe you can start your own thread one of these days if you have it all figured out crispee, because your last post is really off-topic here. Let me explain again what we are talking about in this thread: verse says both our longterm solution and our shortterm solution is centered around developing a valid post threat. I agree. I say the longterm and shortterm solution is centered around the coach going to basics when your team's shooting so poorly from the outside. Now, mine is more quickly fixable, and it helps the whole team. And it helps the team grow, considering they'll have to rely on Griffin eventually... and since perimeter based playing and sissy big men not exhausting the opposing team's frontcourt is fundamentally unsound. Besides, Francis hasn't played in a week, if we're going to learn anything while the superstar is out, let it be that 1) shorter shots are easier shots and 2) to run and distribute. Now watch Rudy put Rice in the post and make me wet myself.
verse, are you really going to continue a discussion of polarized argument. Like, if I disagree with anything, then I must disagree with everything. When did I ever say the development of a potential frontcourt superstar is not critical? I said the importance of doing it now to the point of second-guessing Rudy (like you are doing) is highly arguable. Here's your argument: 1. Griffin will be a star if Rudy does what you say...and presumably *only* if he does what you say. And even if Rudy actually agrees with you, he still needs to do it *now*. 2. Francis is a star and will be a superstar if he becomes a hog. If he can't be a hog, while learning to beat all defenses, then change the system *now*. Here's mine: 1. Our problem is a lack of offensive identity. 2. In our current system, only the PG can fix this. 3. I don't believe in major system changes during adversity when defenses are stopping our "identity sets" faster than we are learning the options to beat those defenses. 4. Defenses are using risky gimmicks to stop Francis from running the offense. 5. I honestly believe we are going to expose this pretty soon by sticking with improving our 4-out-1-in game, where the 1 is *not* Griffin. 6. We can still get Griffin better shots without him being the "1-in." verse, can we agree with one truism that is fair to me. If you say we are at risk if we don't make big changes, then allow me to point out that there are equal risks to making systemic or personnel changes under adversity, starting with: Those changes often require *all* players to learn new things, if not completely new roles. You cannot isolate this to one player in Griffin. If those changes fail, what will the others players think of you for making those changes in the first place? Are the players going to buy the argument that this failure is for the better, because it will make the 19yr a superstar and leader? Maybe your change is indeed the magic elixir than makes Achebe a happy Rockets fan again, while still allowing him to hate Rudy for not making your change to low post sooner. my bottomline is: The rewards of beating adversity while making our PGs learn more and more complexities can offset all your assumed rewards, because Francis can ultimately speed up team growth, including Griffin's. Right now, I am going to error on the side of relying on Francis, which means that all major changes go through his development, not others.
crispeeeeeeeeeeeee, i have to keep this response short (lights going out at work), but i'll say this: 1. it's not a completely polarized argument. i agreed with you already that francis' development is a huge key to our future and present success. 2. the disagreement seems to be whether or not griffin's development is a huge key to our short term success. 3. i'm not calling for HUGE systemic changes. i'm just asking to balance out the damn offense. do all rockets have a paint allergy or something? and, finally (the question which i am least satisfied and EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED WITH YOUR ANSWER IN IS: 4. is the method by which rudy is developing eddie griffin's game the best way for the team? you have touched on, glided by, and swooped near that question, but IMO have yet to tackle it. don't give me anymore sh*t about systemic changes. just tell me the answer to #4. you draft a player of that caliber (oops, sorry, trade 3 first rounders) so that he can be a franchise player in the post. do you agree with the method by which rudy is developing griffin into that franchise post player thus far? this isn't rocket science...and i'll talk more about it later on tonight...
Achebe, Funny, I thought about using that word play tactic for your last post, but when I actually started editing it I got dizzy and later found myself wondering the streets blabbering ... anywon know ware my ewaser is...i, uh wah, think I whost my ewayther. I'm glad I gave you a platform of sensical words to finally (and safely) express yourself. oh, Achebe...and you forgot your signature periods and pipes. *next*
Here's mine: 1. Our problem is a lack of offensive identity. 2. In our current system, only the PG can fix this. 3. I don't believe in major system changes during adversity when defenses are stopping our "identity sets" faster than we are learning the options to beat those defenses. 4. Defenses are using risky gimmicks to stop Francis from running the offense. 5. I honestly believe we are going to expose this pretty soon by sticking with improving our 4-out-1-in game, where the 1 is *not* Griffin. 6. We can still get Griffin better shots without him being the "1-in." [/B][/QUOTE] 1. I completely agree with you 2. Once again, in agreement. 3. I disagree in part, if Francis finally shows some improvement on his decsion making and is getting smarter in running our offensive system then you're right. If he isn't he isn't, then how long do we wait until he does get it? How long until Rudy tries something different? Because if Steve isn't able to gain the understanding of this offense, we're sitting here beating a dead horse when we could devise something more suitable to our entire personel. 4. Yup but until we make them pay for it what does that matter? Mooch isn't going to be able to do it and Steve hasn't shown his ability to reliably do so either. If he does then we're well on our way to getting back our offensive identity, but if not we're digging ourself a bigger hole. 5. I hope you're right, but I disagree slightly with you saying the 1 shouldn't be Griffin. I don't think Eddie should be the one of the mainstay of the offense being the 1 in the middle. But he's shown a great proclivity towards an interior game and a few years down the line he very well may be the center for this team. I see no problem with getting him a bit of time as the "1 in" in the system to help him learn it and make that transition easier in the future. 6. You're right, but him getting better outside looks and getting some time as the "1 in" are not mutually exclusive. I can't disagree with you here, the rewards of beating this adversity in season by Francis' development give the Rockets great rewards, and right now it's as viable a solution as anyones to the team's problems. I'd be absolutely willing to let Steve try to mature into the offense. But come the end of the season if things aren't any more than marginally better, I think a major change is in order. It could be a new coach, it could be a new offensive system, it could be a new defensive focus/system. I'd prefer to see a completely different offensive game plan, with a focus on defensive intensity, transition baskets and more motion oriented offense. I'd like to see them play more like my terps do, but with a more savy coach than Gary Williams. The Rockets have the players to run a system like that with great efficiency, and 3 players on the team that know it already. Now is Rudy the coach to do that? I don't know, I'd like to hope he's capable of such a vast change of the system, but honestly I don't think he is. Right now I'm content to watch and see what happens, Rudy deserves the benefit of the doubt. Lets see what he can do with the rest of the season and see if the Rockets play will change our minds But if things continue as they are, then there are a lot of questions to be asked and possibly a major change needing to be done.
First, are we really going to completely ignore the fact that we missed 25 layups and point blank shots against the Spurs. That is no joke. That was the main point of Feigen's <a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/sports/bk/bkn/rox/1154557">last article</a>. t.w.e.n.t.y. f.i.v.e. missed layups. The turnovers can be a result of trying motion stubbornly. Bad motion has 22 turnovers, but good motion has 25 layups--which were we?? And I was all jazzed to come to the BBS and see people talking about the improved motion. nadda....not a frigging word. Although Feigen mentioned it, and Poppovich did too. But, you know, if it is more important to get ridy rudy and moochie... Kenny scores in the paint more often than the outside. Mobley does. Francis does (or 10 feet on the baseline), if you count fouls. It is a HUGE systemic change if you put Griffin in the paint as a strongside entry. It is. In simple terms, I'd assume that would change us to 3-2. In our current terms, Rudy's philosophy is it will allow defenses to prevent the easy buckets by Francis and Mobley. Maybe you aren't saying anything close to a systemic change, but more just occassionally. And I'm saying if it is just "occassionally," why? Why not let him get his low post in the flow. I hate trading playmakers per set every freaking possession as much as I hate our 20 3pt FGA every game. But, if you really want motion, you have to work for it. And a team is not going to accomplish that by trading off who gets the ball as playmaker each time down. Motion is not calling out plays for various players every time down. So, I think one cannot ask for motion if your same philosophy is asking for called plays. Quite honestly, I have no take, for lack of information. My take is as always with newbies...let the newbie score in the flow and let's see how well he can grasp the offense and help others. Right now, I view his job as learning to help to improve our movement. You know, basic stuff like when to cut, pick and run a counter. If we really....r.e.a.l.l.y. want ball movement around this BBS, we need a PG dedicated to it, and we need everyone else to understand and implement those basics...in coordination. I view too much play calling as shortterm fixes versus the longterm value of stubbornly sticking with player movement philosophies.
When a player with the ability of Griffin in college shoots 43% it brings 2 players to mind, Derrick Coleman and Antoine Walker. Why? The reason is that these guys never became dominant in the low post aspect of their game then moved out. They both had good low post game and good outside game which made them avg in both. The thing is that both put up some good numbers, but the team suffers because of shot selection. People will ask me what does that have to do with Griffin? Thats the entire point is that Eddie has a good stroke from outside and seems to have a good handle on the inside when given and chance, but at the current rate, he's not being put in a position to succeed. Let him roam the paint area, post up, get the ball around the ft area stuff like that. Look at how Miles played last yr and try to play Eddie like that. Fast breaks, quick post ups stuff like that. Then later on extend him out once he gets good at the mid range area. As for as Taylor is concerned, I don't think he'll be here at the start of 2003.
You flatter me by calling my comments silly. Should Adorno be proud? Resolution of the internal dialectic of young Mr Griffin would not exclude other options, after all, as long as we are staying within the parameters of dialectical evolution. I guess I am unique because: a. I don't want to get rid of Rudy b. I don't want to get rid of Francis c. I don't want to get rid of Mobley d. basketball scares me Anyway, I am also not one to scream that I have all of the answers (imagine that in this thread). I generally let the coaches do their job. My main concern, however, is that there is little use to having Eddie be a 3-point shooter. I do not see anything wrong with trying to get the guy different looks (and not to the exclusion of Francis, that is a silly suggestion). My thoughts are: 1. Francis is out 2. We are losing a bit 3. Some of these games have garbage time 4. So, why not let Griffin play around a bit? By this, I mean see what he can do, especially when his every minute playing will not have a huge impact on that specific game. Even if Griffin sees himslef one way, the job of a coach is to help improve a player, work on changing his game, if necessary (as you want to happen with Francis). Look at what Smith did for Carter a UNC -- completely changed his game, resulting in a better player. Griffin is still very malleable, like Gumby. Oh yeah: t.5. I do not want to "grow" the offense...what are we, bi'nessmen?
Eddie could be a very good 4 by seasons end if Rudy would start him and give him minutes. Sure he will make mistakes but he will develop so much faster if he gets minutes. He has shown flashes of great defense and he does have an incredible talent for shot blocking. Not many 4 or 5 in the league have that kind of natural skill. Rudy stuck Cuttino and Stevie in the fire and it paid off. What is the deal Rudy??? Get Eddie minutes!!!!!!
crispee, ANY AND EVERY motion offense has plays. i've played in motion offenses, crispee. i used to assume that you had, too, but given your last comment: ...i have to reconsider that previous thought. every motion offense, crispee, has the ability to call for a quick post. to ignore mismatches and opportunities to exploit defenses "just for the sake of movement" ignores every principal of basketball. so, eddie/kenny/alligator arms/cato/whoever can get quick strikes, can get posts on the block, and whatever else is prudent. you don't like trading playmakers? well, you've been dealing with it ever since, hmm, drexler and hakeem were together. cause those are two different playmakers that coexisted. same went for the addition of barkley. same went for the francis/mobley connection. and the same will go for the griff/francis/mobley connection that will be necessary for us to be LEGITIMATE contenders in the western conference. different guys will be conscious strongpoints in any motion offense. look at shaq and kobe in la (yes, the triangle is a motion offense). remember aj guyton, andre patterson, steve alford, calbert cheaney and a host of other focal point former indiana hoosiers? they all took advantage of quick strikes and occasion morphs into 3-2s and 4-1s, etc. depending on the floor situation. for all the play diagramming i've watched you do, i think you have a misconception of what a true motion offense is. a true motion offense does have ball and player movement, yes. and it is 100% reactionary, yes. it is also 100% unidentifiable (thus making it both the hardest offense to learn and to defend). it has morphing capabilities into ANY set necessary. RE: SPURS GAME AND THE 25 POINT BLANK BUSTS. hey! you got absolutely 0 complaints from me regarding shot selection that game. my compaints were the smaller choices made throughout the game that made the difference, imo, between losing and winning that game. things like going DIRECTLY at tim duncan and getting his ass in foul trouble. hmm, who was the only player with a 100% success rate that game going at tim? the clock's ticking, ticking, ticking... RE: WHICH TEAM ARE WE? we are both. we are the team that gets good layups against teams we are able to outcoach. and we are the team that gets 22 turnovers against teams we are outcoached by. players just pawns in a game, that USUALLY do the same things, have the same tendencies, etc. it is the coaches responsibility to play those pawns correctly. when did i ask for a called play every time down??? is asking rudy to take advantage of a mismatch or obvious game stratagem the same as asking for a called play every time down? no. por exemplo: torres is being covered by kobe bryant. do you never go to torres unless it's "in the flow of the motion offense?" that would be silly. for example: kenny thomas is being covered by kevin garnett. do you never go to KT unless it's "in the flow of the motion offense?" that would be silly. fo' izzample: cat mobley is being covered by tracy mcgrady (gulp). do you never go to cat? c'mon. these are just examples of fighting fire with fire. how about times when they have obvious mismatches?? you can't even consider that "breaking from the offense" or "having different playmakers". that's just "playing smart basketball" and looking beyond the damn X/O playbook. that's on the coach to instill these things and - if necessary - call a timeout and tell them what to do. or - if necessary - pull someone out the game for not playing smartly. that's on rudy. big boy mumu: yes. leebigez: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DC and the Toine are the perfect examples. equally adept from outside and inside, but gravitated towards the outside, thus rendering themselves as none more than a black toni kukoc.
by the way everyone, is it just me, or can dan langhi do *offensively* what eddie griffin is currently doing for the rockets??? hell, he could probably do it better.
verse, My main point was to say that you often talk "plays" too much for my taste--plays with a half-dozen options requiring split-second coordination by players. But then when people say "we need more motion," I get confused, because there just are not that many motion games in the NBA 24-second clock. So they really don't mean capital "M" Motion. The league is dominated by Flex offenses. But hell, so I speak the vernacular sometimes on the BBS, just to talk. And then you rip me, and insult me because I didn't agree with you. Insult me with admitted assumptions, no less. "motion is unidentifiable"...well verse, that tells me *you* can't identify them, and probably neither could your hs coach. There is my assumption. Fair is fair. Defenses I played for were taught to identify them and were taught to know what the motion was trying to accomplish, then overplay the lanes, and force them to beat us with counters. Of course all motion has plays...in a semantic sense. Now how much are you exlaining flex-es versus Motion versus actual called plays. Is it System or Play. This difference is where I have no confidence what posters are really describing. For example, John Calipari describes his system as running Flex or Motion for 30 seconds and if nothing materializes, they reset for a called play to the star. That is 30 seconds of no "play," yet a "play" each time. It is semantics verse. Don't get hung up on this. You know how many "motion offenses" there are....flexes? There is probably enough to call a different motion pattern for every possession in a game. Are those "plays." You make it sound like there is only a half dozen to a dozen motion systems. Explain to me the difference in them. It isn't "the plays," it is defined by the positions played by the stars and therefore the entries, or whether someone dominates the ball...like is this a PG-based motion or High Post/Low Post. Explain how a motion is practiced. I'm beginning to think you don't remember how they are practiced, or your coach sucked and any Illinois cornfield team in the state could have wiped your ass. Yeah, Illinois is one cocky state regarding basketball. We were learning Knights Passing Game in 7th grade in our basketball factory called the school system. <b>Regarding Dream and Drexler</b> Teams that suck at movement must rely on set plays, and every team with an unbeatable big man often relies on set plays at a high clip. The combination of that was Hakeem Olajuwon himself. He sucked at being able to play in movement, and he was the most unbeatable big man in the game. No wonder we ran called play after play. I agree, every team has set plays. It is a matter of how often you call them versus just running the system and choosing the various entries to start with. You move it around until the defense makes a mistake. Is that a play? And I'll tell you, Knights Passing Game deemphasizing set plays almost down to zero. The Triangle has set plays. Sloan offense is one big set play with a flex component. Most Flexes have set entries that can repeat on the other side. We are mainly flex, not really motion. But the Rockets don't do 2 low post players, so we are defined by that. btw: don't count on the Rockets being "motion," anytime soon. 24 second clocks preclude that a lot. Let's just hope for a Flex system. <b>verse</b>: nothing personal in this thread, but when you call out Rudy's logic, I'm coming into to the thread challenging the thread starter's logic.
crispee: believe me when i say this: nothing personal taken. my skin's pretty thick. just don't challenge me to a game. then i'm gonna personally wax your ass... now then, re: motion v systems v plays: i'm following you 100%. and my problem is with the plays/playcalling w/i the system (yes, it is close to a flex) we run. is it semantics? maybe. it's definitely subsettish. VERSE POSIT>>>>SYSTEM>>>MOTION>>PLAY>GRIFF QUICK POST..maybe win. are you following my flowchart, crispee?...?...? semantics win games when all else is equal. bad assumption. the last offense i ran was triangle...and that wasn't all that long ago. true motion is "unidentifiable" in the sense that it isn't necessarily "trying to accomplish" anything in particular - short of you phucking up on a switch/misread - leading to a short jumper or layup. ok, let's try this one on for size: what is the base triangle offense trying to accomplish? that'll help to establish a foundation for that argument. get back with me and we'll talk.... agree 100% on your 1st sentence. and - obviously - we are not hi/lo post. as for how a motion is practiced, there are many, many diff't tactics, outside of running thru options w/o defenders. i'll give you two that we did (once we learned the damn options) that are relevant to this topic: 1) running through a half-court "complete" set looking for a specific option (5,4,3,2,1 looking for the weakside 3). purpose was to create a specific mismatch for the purpose of swinging it weakside for the 3, or to force the defense to accept the post player having a huge advantage on a smaller defender and being in prime post position. 2) running through a full-court "half" set looking for the quick strike (be it guard posting, post posting, 2/3 posting). bingo, crispee. basketball is a simple, simple game which can be dominated by an intelligent, athletic team. those half-dozen options that require split second coordination by players are exactly what allows me to wax your ass whilest you fumble around trying to figure out "what i'm trying to accomplish". that is, unless i have shaq and you have david robinson. then all bets are off. my knees...your chest. my nuts...your forehead. my dunk...your foul. LOL! if you did that, i'd have your head spinning like the exorcist. don't take this personally, but that defensive mentality (trying to figure out what i'm trying to accomplish and cutting passing lanes, etc.) is a "woman's" mentality on the court. make no decisions, just identify and react to what they might try to do. that only works with lesser talent, sorry. the simple fact is that you can't beat a team that eats, breathes, and sh*ts their "system" with a "split second of recognition and reaction." not a talented team, at least. you'd get obliterated. it's like the classic scene of a reggie miller 20 feet out on the baseline. he can backdoor cut or he can curl outside for a three. both will have screens. according to that mentality, you'd just read and react. and you'd get waxed. you force him to do what YOU want him to do, not the other way around. be a man. don't be a girl. make a decision! oh yea, everything you said from "Drexler and Dream" on down, i'll agree with.... P.S. i've come to appreciate the bball convos we do have, for you love to discuss systemic alterations while i love to discuss decision making processes. truth is, they both affect the game, just at different times.....
