Preseason pattern: 5-man or iso?

That wasn't the Bulls emphasis with him though. I think he did make players better but in a different way than "court vision". Clarify...

 

Well the emphasis was with the triangle offense as a whole. In that, ball rotation was important as well as creating mismatches. Ya know really, Jordan may have made his teamates better because of who he was (i.e. his teamates were more confident because they knew the best player in the world was on their team).

Im stickin with my theory about his court vision and passing (even though it wasnt on the same level as a Magic or Bird) is what made his teamates better, even if it was indirectly. I think its because of his court vision/passing in conjuction with the triangle offense.

 

I'll go for that more than anything else. The collapsing and shifting he caused left team mates more opportunities even when he didn't have the ball. Escpecially the perimeter guys. Look at Kerr, Paxson, Pippen, was it Armstrong? Those guys were much better with Jordan than when they left and it wasn't just passing or court vision. That makes 6 championships that do not necessarily fall under your theory.

Francis isn't a "court vision" guy. But he will make his team mates that much better. Probably not by assists either. Teams will have to overshift their emphasis on him and that leaves a dangerous number of excellent guys open even if Francis doesn't have the ball (EG, KT, MT, Rice, TMo, Cat, Yao Ming, Torres, Mooch)

 

I somewhat agree. Ultimately, its probably a combination of your theory and mine. Their offense was still dependent upon the wing players having the ability to make accurate passes without turning the ball over on a consistant basis.

Its kind of an interesting arguement. Did the triangle offense make Michael Jordan or was Jordan the reason the triangle offense succeeded? Probaby neither but fun to discuss nevertheless.

Ive always like the triangle offense because it wasnt about set plays. Its about reacting to what the defense gives you and in that, no defense could ever really prepare for it.

 

Probably both. Same goes for LA.

 

Very true. Especially if your theory holds water. If Jordan wasn't in the triangle offense, he might have not won 6 titles and his legacy might have suffered slightly because of it.

It can be argued that Phil Jackson might not be a genius, but hes definately a genius for having Tex Winter on his staff to run the offense.

 

Just so you know...

1) There hasn't always been a 3 pt. line.
2) There is now an NBA zone
3) Hand checking is no longer permitted allowing the offensive team more possibilities for movment.
4) Championships have been won by teams with less than HOF centers.
5) Wilt, Russell, Walton, Moses Malone, Abdul-Jabbar, Olajuwon and Robinson not only played under a different set of rules but they are totally different from Yao Ming in almost every aspect of the game and their physical and mental make up.

If all of the above mentioned championship centers and Shaq were to get into a 18+ foot shooting contest with Yao Ming, Yao would smoke every one them. Other than your narrow take, why would anyone take a center who obviously has a different skill set and force them to learn a totally new style which they likely won't excel in?

A blanket decree that you have to have a back to the basket center to win in the NBA title bears alot in common with the notion that at one time the world was flat.

Let me take your point to it's obvious "historical" conclusion.

In the past thirteen years, a team running a triangle offense has won the NBA title 10 times.

Since Cat and Steve have the potential to be like Mike and Yao Ming has the potential to be like Shaq, (not to mention we have Glen Rice from one of those triangle champs) my "historical" conclusion is that the Rockets must run the Triangle Offense to succeed.

The triangle is obviously the best offense for the Rockets...it has a proven historical track record. That's your logic not mine.

Even if your "pound it into Olajuwon" idea was correct (and it's not), you would still have to deal with the fact that the mid 90's championship Rockets were far better outside shooters than the current team. And that my friend is the last word.

 

1) I never said anything about a 3 point line. Where did you get that?
2) Zone defenses dont seem to have stopped how the Spurs run their offense, yet they are still relatively successful. Also, if you are student of the game, youll notice that even though zone defenses are legal now, teams dont use it on a consistant basis. Man to man defense is still prevalant due to all the shooters in the league (i.e. teams dont play alot of zone against us or Mobley and Francis go nuts with their jump shooting)
3) If you noticed last year, the refs were actually more lax on the whole hand checking thing. As long as the defender isnt impeeding progress, there is some room for error.
4) I never ONCE said ALL championships were won WITH a hall of fame center ONLY. Geesh you just make stuff up. When did I say the only way to win was with a back to the basket center?
5) All of those players are different as are all great players. When did I ever compare Yao to any of them? All I ever said was, Yao will have to help Francis make their teamates better in order for us to achieve greatness and hes not likely to do it by shooting 18 footers intsead of playing the low post.

The triangle offense is not a true motion offense or even an offese based on set plays, its a reaction type of offense which takes what the defense gives it. Triangle offense is more dependent on spacing than movement. Now whether that reaction is an ISO, movement, post up or whatever is inconsequential. So you are not correct when you call the triangle offense a "motion" offense or really a "movement" offense. Oh also, just cause an offense involves movement doesn't make it a true "motion" offense. Again, you are missing the total point of my original opinion. 1) There hasn't been a TRUE "motion" offense since the Nuggest of the 80s. Im never said you cant win with offenses based on movement because ALL offenses have some type of movement in them. Im saying you cant win with an offense like the Nuggets ran. And dont even say the Kings or Nets run anything similar to what the Nuggets ran.

Yao can kill other centers in an 18 foot jump shooting contest all day long. I could care less. If that effect of that aspect of his game does not make those around better, then Yao is no better than a Bill Laimbeer. Do you really, honestly think Rudy drafted Yao with the intention of having him shoot jumpers all day? Are you insane? He could have traded down and got a Caron Butler if he was in the need for another outside threat.

You know what? Triangle offense would be great for this offense. You know what? Triangle offense has indeed won 10 out of the last 13 NBA titles. You know what? Steve Francis and Cuttino Mobley ARE NOT and NEVER WILL BE Michael Jordan. You know what? Yao Ming WILL NEVER dominate like Shaq by shooting jumpers all day. You know what? Glen Rice WAS part of a triangle offense. You know what? The triangle offense DOES NOT have to have a player like Glen Rice in order to succeed.

And yes, the pound it into Olajuwon idea is what our offense was built on. The offense was run through Hakeem. Where were you during our championship seasons?

One last thing, our players from the mid 90s were better shooters than our current players are. The also got more wide open shots than our current players do. You know why? BECAUSE OF HAKEEM! Which is why I made my original statement in the first place.

 

codell, I don't get it. If it's hard to win with either offense (and by "either" I assume you mean either 5-man or iso) then why are you spending so much time defending the iso game that won the Rockets titles? Or do you mean it's hard to win with an iso game unless you have one of the best centers of all time who's also a good passer? Well, yes, that goes without saying. Or if your other point is "it's hard to win when using the offense employed by the Nuggest in the 80's" then, uh, okay. What's your point? Do we even know if our new "5 man offense is that offense? And if all the time you actually meant "winning the championship" instead of "winning a playoff game", then why qualify it at all? Why not just say, "it's hard to win a championship.... period." Yes, it is.

I agree that the Kings fizzled in the 4th quarter because they couldn't execute the offense that got them there in the first place. They lacked a go-to guy and a go-to play. Or rather, they discovered that Bibby might be that guy (I think he's way overhyped but he finally did what Webber didn't/couldn't), but a bit too late. It's possible that now that they have a guy who at least wants to be the man hitting the winning shot, they may finally have a go-to play or plays for the 4th quarters of playoff games. I'll be interested to see what they do this year.

What HP and some others were saying in another thread, is, it's best to have both. A structured "movement" or "motion" or "5 man" offense, and a go-to iso with a man who can pull it off. The Kings and Nets have built very efficient offenses but don't have to a go-to guy or play yet. The Lakers certainly have both and so did the Bulls. We're building in the opposite direction. We have extremely well rehearsed (probably too well) go-to iso plays with guys who can pull it off at a high percentage. Now we're going to include a real offense with it. This is one of the reasons why we are so incredibly lucky- we already have two incredible guys in Cat and Francis who are that special kind of player, who truly want to be the go-to guy on the last play of the game to win it. They both want it and they both can do it and they've already gotten lots of reps doing it and have proven they can do it well, and with a good supporting cast will do it excellently. Our 4th qtr offense is taken care of. It's possible that Ming may turn out to be that kind of special player too, and if his %75 shooting clip translates to NBA then watch out.

I also like the triangle offense in that it is based on reactions to defense instead of set plays. From all the articles and interviews with Rudy I've read our new 5 man offense is the same; dictated by reading the defense and taking what it gives you. It's excellent but takes more time to learn because it requires all players to react dynamically instead of going through the motions of a set play. The first half of this season is definitely going to be sloppier than the second.

GATER- I disagree that Ming is just a face-up center with shooting range. I think that's type casting him in the euro/foreign big-man role. The majority of the video highlights I've watched of him have him operating with the back to the basket. He's got the hook, the baby hook, the baseline spin, the fadeaway, and the turnaround J. On top of that, he's got range. I think it would be great to have him in the high post or further out when playing Shaq, because he has passing ability and it will open the lanes for our guards. But I also think it's a matter of time before we have a low-post clearout drawn up for Ming a la Hakeem, especially if his %75 fg translates even slightly to NBA and considering very few centers in the league will stop him one on one.

 

When I say ISO offense, Im referring to the offense that weve been running with Mobley and Francis more so than we did with Hakeem (yes, thats an ISO but with a little more perimeter rotation than a wing ISO). So maybe I should have said "ISO with your guards" rather than ISO period. My bad.

Thats the whole thing. Its become obvious our new offense is not a motion offense by the terms that I had stated (opinion). Some had said in another thread, that you can win with a true motion offense and again, when someone says true motion offense, I think of Doug Moe/Paul Westhead and the Denver Nuggets. People kept saying movement offense and motion offense together like they were the same and they aren't.

That was my mistake. I should have clarified myself, you are right. Winning is a relative term. From now on, Ill make sure and say "win a championship".



Thats the key. The "go to" guy that will draw double teams or can beat his man one on one or a person with great passing skills/court vision (Isiah and Magic). Every championship team has had one of those type of players (I cant think of one that didnt have one of these type of players), and even though Gater, who feels that due to the rules changes in the league, that won't be the case as often anymore, disagrees with me, Im gonna stick to my theory because zone defenses and hand checking aren't going to change what dominant teams does to win games (again, this is just my opinion).

Thats why I said what I said about Ming and Francis and about them showing the ability to make the rest of the team better.

It sounds like you understand the Triangle Offense in the same way that I do. Some people do not realize that teams defending the triangle, can't really plan for it, because it will always change when you change your defense. Thats why this type of offense is becoming almost legendary in my opinion.

 

You do understand that there is a big difference between a high post back to the basket and a low post back to the basket? I don't have time to persue this in detail but I just quickly looked at my tape of the Chinese NT vs Germany at the WBC's. Three offensive sets, there high post sets.

Since you appear to be taking heypartners word on this, then you have obviously heard him mention his expectation of some form of the UCLA shuffle cut style of high post offense. This is in sharp contrast to the low block "pound it in to Olajuwon" proposed by codell.

 

Of course I under the difference. But I sure as hell hope that Rudy does not design an offense similar to the Chinese NT. Are you assuming he will? We'd have a whole bunch of p'oed fans and one large p'oed China-man if that happened. lol

Just cause Yao played a primarily high post back to the basket style of play in China doesn't mean thats what Rudy will have him do hear. And Im not saying he shouldn't or that he won't. Im saying whatever position or offense he puts Yao in, whether its high post, middle post, low post, no post or whatever post, it needs to be in a place where Yao can effectively utilize his passing skills, as well as his shooting and post skills. I don't see it happening with him primarily shooting 15-18 footers, unless, like you suggested, we move towards a triangle style of offense.

Again, the "pound it in to Olajuwon" style is not exactly what I am suggesting here. Im suggesting something that produces the same type of END result.

The more and more I think about it, the triangle might fit this team well if Rudy ever decided it was worth a try. I think we have the right type of players potentially. Well just have to wait for the damn season to start wont we?

 

I apologize Gater ...i just realized that that post was intended for me

 

Actually, it was intended for Nolen. But this is for you.

In between the Celts-Nets action, I fast forwarded my tape of Yao at the WBC's to the US game. If you ever expect Yao to have the ball and Gene Peterson to be saying "backin' it in, backin' it in, backin' it in" - you will be waiting a loooooong time. Yao Ming is primarily a high post player.

 

When you say high post, are you talkin 15-18' or 6-12'?

Well hopefully, he wont have to do the Hakeem shuffle and will be able to be in a position to receive the ball down low without the Hakeem flashbacks.

Like I said, whatever post hes at, his passing skills will be the X factor with regards to making those around him better.

 

codell -
I was operating on memory before but Nolen's comment forced me to break out my WBC tape to be sure.

Yao Ming has either been taught or has a natural inclination (or both) to set up closer to the free throw line than the basket. Perhaps this is because of the trapezoidal lane used internationally (although I doubt it because Menke Batere sets deeper than Yao).

I am getting the impression that you have either not seen Yao play very much or on the occassions when you did, you did not watch critically.

Please do us both a favor.

Before posting another doctoral thesis on the subject, watch at least the first 10 Rockets regular season games. I am almost postive that you will agree that Yao Ming has a unique skill set and deserving of an offense tailored to him regardless of the NBA centers who have preceeded him into the league.

Again, please wait until several regular season weeks have past and you have watched critically. If you do not change your thinking, than we can just agree to disagree.

 

Oh believe me, I watched AND played close attention. I do not disagree where he was positioned or in which manner he was used. Im just not ASSUMING that we will or will not use him in the same way that the CNT did and Im also not ASSUMING he does not have certain abilities (in relation to his position on the court) just cause we didn't see them in the couple of games we saw him play or heard about him playing in. Rudy has stated on more than one occasion that Yao has a back to the basket game that will be dependant upon how well he can hold his position. Rudy HAS NOT said whether or not he plans to use him in this fashion. Now Im NOT assuming that Rudy will or will not use him as a high post focal point OR a low post focal point. That remains to be seen obviously. Im just baffled at how you assume that we will use him in the same fashion that the CNT did.

I already agree that Yao has a unique skill set. Never once have I disputed that.

Ill say this one more time. 1) I never compared Yao to any other great NBA centers directly 2) I did say that as a potentially great center, and by taking advantage of the skills we have talked about, he can, in theory, make the players around him better, and this "resulting" effect, would be similar, to the effects that other great NBA centers have or have had on their teamates and resulted in a championship. I did not say that he needed to operate in the exact same fashion as Shaq, Hakeem and co. to achieve the same end result as they did. Are we now clear on what I said? And if I was not clear before, or I said something that led you to believe I felt differently than what I just said, then I apologize.

Sometimes, even though I write novels on here, I do not come through clearly when trying to state my ultimate opinion.

BTW, if I need to wait 10 games before I post an opinion on what I think needs to happen, then everyone else, including yourself, should to (we all know this wont happen). Cause ultimately, none of us are 100% of what will happen. Agreed?

 

You've been around the block so you know what they say about opinions and a******s.

 

Everybody's got 'em my friend.