OK, word is that motion was there last year in practice, which many of the lovers kinda expected. But Rudy and the coaches where still not good enough teachers to use it with rookies, or they simply don't believe in development at the expense of wins....which is what the bashers expect. We may now unite. So, no more talk Rudy, Francis and Mobley. We expect change. <b>Question</b> How much patience do you have for implementing a complex-read system, one with options and counter-options? Once running it on the court, the coaches are at the mercy of the players reading the defense. When do you run motion versus set offense that Feigen called "execution offense." Which set plays do you keep? The idea is motion will fail sometimes, maybe even often for a whole season. It is not fool-proof. If it were, the Nets would have succeeded more with Marbury. <b>Will the backseat coaching now become second-guessing when to switch to set plays versus running motion?</b> "Why didn't he just ISO Francis at the end." "Why don't we milk Yao Ming." "Mobley had a huge mismatch...grrrrrr." As for me, I'm divided. Playoffs and wins is the most important thing, so that we can see what motion does against playoff D. But, motion is very hard to implement, we need to run it a lot, and fail a lot with it. When it fails, it fails in an ugly, confused, finger pointing way. NOTE: Sacremento, Minnesota and New Jersey all failed for lack of executing in playoff 4th quarters when defenses forced motion to the counter play they want executed. In a football analogy, remember how Pittsburg would give Givens the 5-7yrd slant right into a hit in the head. They took all other offensive reads away by overplaying them and gave the Oilers the slant, and said beat us before Givens gets a concussion, if you can. Motion in basketball has a similar problem, best visualized by seeing how Garnett, Webber, the Nets, and even Duncan have a dazed expression of "It's not working," when their role players are missing their crucial open shots.
I remember the complaints about the post-up offense with Hakeem. Then, when he was breaking down and the team was being dominated by the guards, everyone longed for the days of dumping it in to Hakeem. Ultimately, systems don't win games. Players win games. The team with the best players (specificially, the team with the best PLAYER) wins the big games. If the motion will help win ballgames and get us into the playoffs, I'm all for it. But, heyp, your run-and-shoot analysis is a pretty astute one (even for you ). Things that win you games in the regular season won't always get it done in the playoffs. At that point, it's about the players. Whatever offense they run, it doesn't address their two most glaring problems which are defense and the transition game. To go back to football, no matter how many times you put it in the end zone on offense, you better be able to stop them on defense and play at least even in the special teams or you are toast. Defensively, shot blocking and trapping won't save them. What will save them is learning to rotate effectively in the defensive scheme. The Rockets didn't have the biggest or, sans Hakeem, the most athletically talented and defensively skilled players when they won the championships, but they were able to succeed because the players were smart. They knew how and when to rotate on defense and avoided getting burned. When they did let a guy slip buy, they had a backstop that, hopefully, we can come close to duplicating in Yao and Griffin, but that should be the exception not the rule. Defense is mostly about hustle. Winning games is about great individual play. The offensive scheme, assuming they get it, will help eliviate the boring play and give them multiple options to score, but, if you can't stop the other team, it doesn't matter.
They certainly didn't win enough last year for winning versus motion offense to be a concern I don't think it was so much Rudy and the coaches were not good enough teachers to use it with rookies, so much as it was more due to a lack of healthy bodies. You need to have numerous plug and play players to run in and out, and our available numbers were not there. Williams, Cato and EG (at that stage last year) didn't seem to fit that style so much either. Supposedly, the Rock's coaches have worked with Cato all summer on O, and apparently EG has been working on it too, and they may be now more likely to fit in and benefit from this type play (believe me, I'd much rather see EG running around than standing on the three point line). Rudy and staff must have told the players, coached them over the summer, on what was going to be implemented when all the players get back, and with Yao ming and Boki in the mix too. I'm not ready to blame Rudy yet. NOT implementing it may have gotten us Yao Ming...
touche ricerocket. I guess I was thinking more pre-Francis/Rice injuries. Had we seen it all November, and been talking about it, I think there would have been less Rudy bashing after the injuries had he slipped back to the ISO crutch. The ISO crutch does do one thing for you. It gives you best scorers many repetition of practicing their Go To moves against defenses designed to stop it, like Chicago gave Jordan. Notice it is the lack of a Go To play that is the big knock on Sacramento, Minnesota and New Jersey.
A new offense is not THAT hard to learn, look at how quickly New Jersey picked up the new offense when Jason Kidd got there. Running an offense in basketball is more about timing and chemistry, if the players have it, then it will work, if not, then it will not look so hot. The key to the new offense will be Francis and Mobley giving up the ball early and making a cut, and knowing that they MAY get it back. Trust is still the biggest issue with this team, and if they trust their teamates to make the right decision, then, and ONLY then will the new offense have a chance. And HP, I agree that you can not have one type of offense only, I think the Rockets need to mix it up with Motion, fast break, Post up and iso..... They have all these strengths and they can use them all at different times. DaDakota
DaDakota with the amazingly simplistic take on the infinite complexities of the best sport in the world. "It's just a game. It's not that hard." I know, I know. I agree that you have to have this feel for the game. And that it does become an automatic dance. But it is still hard. You assume it was a new offense in New Jersey. They had the very same coaches. The assistant was Sacremento's head coach in the late 90's, who had Princeton's Carril as his assistant at that time, and who started implementing motion with Divac back in 1996 or 97. If Eddie Jordan actually switched to an offense last year that he'd been running for a long time, it is because Marbury couldn't run it. Kidd is special. Kidd brings his own system to teams. If it were so easy to win with motion against well-oiled NBA defenses (not that crap we put out in the WC), the Golden State would have more wins, because they attempted to run one, too, and will agains this year with Dunleavy. Relatively speaking: Let's not say motion is easy versus other offenses. If you do, you are saying basketball is easy, and that just kinda insults the best game in the world.
Well I'm not really a basher or lover, or maybe I'm both. With news of a new offense in the works, for some reason I can't restrain my pessimism. It's hard for me to envision the Rocks playing this brand of ball when they have been playing iso brand bball, well, the whole time I've watched them play in my basketball viewing career. Iso can work with exceptional post talent, but not with guards imo(Jordan and Tmac being possible exceptions, though they have talent in the post). The rocks could probably make the playoffs with isos with the talent they have, but no championships unless Ming and Griff become money in the post and Steve and Mobes defer to them. I mean this is to-good-to-be-true news to me. I just automatically think: well it's just practice, players wont buy into it, players wont be able to run it, wont have the patience when we struggle with it, etc, etc. This kind of an offense would just so fit the makeup of this team and allow Francis and Mobes to defer w/o becoming bystanders. Allows other players who have talent to become more involved, even if it is just to catch and pass, or just to freaking cut. Now all that I need to hear is Francis learning to push the ball up the court. BTW, I've seen people site NJ as an example of how easy it is to implement a motion offense(no, not just DaDak). I'm sorry, I don't buy that. Jason Kidd is one of the best floor generals of all time. He is a leader and he is the one who makes it work. While Francis is a great talent, he just doesn't have the savvy Kidd has to run an offense to near perfection. There will be bumps in this offense(that I hope they can overcome). Fortunately Francis is supported by a much better supporting cast and the greater sum in talent should be able to result in a better offense even without having that one perfect playmaker. And having a center with the skills of Ming is a HUGE plus right off the bat, esp in this kind of an offense.
True. I don't think the Rockets will abandon it totally for a few reasons: 1) Yao Ming, Glen Rice, MT, KT, Cato, and EG all are going to see some post up action; 2) at the end of quarters, or in tight games a slow down/half court game is sometimes preferential; and 3) in the playoffs a half court slower post up game can be preferential, especially for trying to play a mismatch and get somebody in foul trouble, or just to get to the line. The lack of a Go To play that is the big knock on Sacramento, Minnesota and New Jersey shouldn't be a factor here, lord knows we got that Go To and ISO down pretty damn good ( like Rudy said, haven't they been doing that post play since like Naismith). The addition and emphasis of the motion offenses will make us much more diverse and able to take advantage of our depth and talent.
Don't forget all you "...well, NJ didn't take long to master it..." people, NJ had to first put the pieces together personnel-wise for the system to work. Luckily for them, they had a pair of versatile, mobile Fs, a C in MacCollouch (sp?) who, with all his deficiencies, has some of the best pair of hands in the league and knows how to play, and of course the aforementioned Kidd. The criticism of Rudy is inevitable, and I can already confess that there will be times when I'll want Steve & Cat to ISO more. But I'm certainly excited to hear about the new offense. BTW, if I were Rudy (and not to say that he isn't doing this already), I'd make the team run sprints\"Horses" before workouts\scrimmages. With a system so dependent on recognition and reaction, I would be concerned to see how the team would react to stress and fatigue, i.e. work on concentration and focus.
I think, if the motion offense is implemented, the bashing we observe is going to shift noticeably from Rudy to the players who might or might not screw up the system Rudy is hoping to implement. Regardless of success, there should be a noticeable change in our offensive sets, and that will be enough for me. Whether the players make the correct decisions, we as fans will be able to see that Mobley/Francis/Rice/Ming/Nachbar/etc were open on a cut to the basket and didn't get a pass, or were open on the wing after they come around a good pick, and didn't get the ball for the shot. In the isolation offense, the ball is given to the one player, and they are asked to do as much as they can by themselves (admittedly, this is simplifying things). When that didn't work, it was much easier to blame the coach because no obvious alternatives were there to be had for the player to choose from...so he is free of blame. Personally, I don't mind if the new system is shaky at first and doesn't seem to be working. I don't think a team is ever going to win a championship with a dominantly isolation offense, so the fact that Rudy is trying something different is good enough for me.
this raises a question, when is the last time a 48 minutes of Motion won an NBA championship. The Triangle is not a motion offense. It is a set offense with reads, but, in Feigen's categorical differences, it is an "execution offense." I also contend that Sloan's PnR offense is a plodding "execution offense" with weakside movement based on one "pet play." Compare how many times the ball leaves Stockton's hands (other than when finishing a play) versus Kidd and Bibby. Crisco, I tend to agree that I don't expect sweeping changes to be successful or implemented. I think Rudy might just be trying to reinforce that there has to be a new mindset to pass and cut more. We'll see.
All of these offenses are merely taking advantage of individual and team talent. Rudy said he will have other offensive sets for Yao Ming. The motion offense seems to be a way to get this whole team involved on a regular basis. They certainly won't use it exclusively. In fact the talent, and diversity of same at all positions, really allows a variety of offensive schemes and looks.
All of these guys have been running offenses since Jr high, picking up a new one is not that hard. However, knowing what to do when the other team shuts down the first option takes a bit more time. It is like a QB that knows where his primary receiver is on a certain play, but does he know where the other 3 guys are? When you have a HIGHLY intelligent player who is a very quick thinker it works seemlessly, when the player is not quite as bright in the noggin it can take more time before it becomes 2nd nature. I think Kidd is a VERY quick thinker, it will be interesting to see if Francis is the same. DaDakota
I agree with these statements completely. In fact, in this thread back in January, I said: This may sound a little wierd, but I think the Nets have a similar problem to the Rockets in that their scheme is too extreme on one end (just completely opposite of the Rockets). In other words, they really have no immediate crunch time, one on one type player. It is solely based all off fast breaks and solid play-running. As can be seen from their record, this works, but you always need a solid one-on-one player, and, as the Rockets game shows, running too many fast breaks/plays can lead to turnovers (just look at the 4th quarter of last nights game) The perfect mix is, obviously, the Lakers. The triangle system works great for them, they can and know how to fast break when necessary, they have good defense with a man in the middle, and most importantly, they have two players who can take over when everything else isnt going right. Rudy, I think, is trying his hardest to work towards a solid mix. This new motion offense, if successful, won't make or old iso plays completely obsolete. Rudy was even quoted as saying that they will still run their "bread and butter" plays. Put the two together, with some new "bread and butter" plays for Yao, and I think you have a very good offense. On the issue of how quickly the offense will be learned; I remember my team in highschool ran an offensive set against man that had 9 different options nad wasn't very hard to learn. Recognizing when to do each option was more difficult, though, in game situations. Another question is will the new motion offense help/hurt our transition d?
motion offense is very simple in concept but difficult in execution. simple reason: it relies on reading and reacting to the defense (at least a strong-side dominated motion does...others don't necessarily do that, but that's another can o' worms altogether.) will it be ugly at times? hell yes. there will be many times when mobley will zig instead of zagging and it will cause steve to throw what appears to be a horrible pass straight in to the defense for a turnover. sticking with the football analogy, it's the same as the 15 yard out pattern. if the wr breaks too late, the qb looks like he throws too soon, the db cuts in front and the qb looks like an idiot. it's all timing. as for "set plays", rudy already said that they were going to have their pet plays. that is essential for running ANY kind of offense. in fact, it's what sacramento and jersey are/were missing: a goto play. so, all those isos we saw? they have a purpose now: they become the "go to" play when we're in the clutch. i can deal with that, because i know that defensively you can manipulate a zone to go to the player/side of court that you want. in the clutch, the offense must have their "trump" card. they have to have the black joker to pull out. so, yea, it'll be ugly for the first month, then it will progressively get smoother. and i'll enjoy every second of it.
HP answered his own question, though. You run the offense that gives you the advantage and let's you dictate the defense and, not vice-versa. More ISO offense on the teams that can run with you and more motion offense on the teams that can't ! Watching the Nets/SAC in the playoffs was depressing because they did look unorganized at times on offense. Especially the Nets because they had no low-post domination to go to in those times. It will be interesting to see how Rudy et al handle this during the season. That is what they pay him the big bucks for
If there are mismatches, then I'm sure that Rudy will spot them and take advantage of it. But that doesn't mean that he will use the ISO all the time (all 4 quarters). Just because you use the ISO sometimes is not a bad thing. You can use the ISO to setup the pick-and-roll, or back door pass, or alley-oop! There are ways of using your best players one-on-one moves to make your team better. But it's more of a setup/option. Not just "GIVE ME THE BALL!" This is totally different than the last few years where we used the ISO almost every time! Note: Remember, sometimes the person WITHOUT the ball is the most important player. Hopefully Rudy will adjust to who we are playing and who each Rocket is matched up with...It's all about balance and adjusting to the situation. Yep, Defense! I remember the Bull/Lakers/Celtics used to have this mentality that it didn't matter if they missed a big shot. They always *thought* that they had a chance to stop their opponent on defense. So, in essence, they would always get another chance in their minds. It was almost like that being on defense was just another opportunity to get a steal, block, fast break, etc... Imagine walking on the court thinking that you can stop anyone! Shutdown any team! Lock down any player! That type of thinking will give you a relaxed/cocky feeling about missing shots, because even if you miss a big shot you always think that you will get another chance. And, it could be TRUE if you really ARE a defensive team. Defense brings a swagger to a team! We need that. Remember the Phoenix Suns in 1993? They could outscore anyone. But they couldn't shutdown anyone. The Bulls, although their offense wasn't as good, it was good enough. And, their defense was waaaayyyyy better than the Suns. So, they were able to shutdown the Suns when they put their minds to it. I don't remember any championship team that didn't play defense. Even the Spurs had respectable defense, even though most of it was on the inside, as opposed to team defense. The Rockets already are as good as the Spurs defense with Griffin and Yao. At least we have this going for us. We'll see if the rest of the Rockets play defense...
What transition D? Just kidding! Yeah, I wonder about this. Our defensive assignments might get mixed up...true. That will be something to look out for...
I never thought systems were that big a deal as long as the PG got the ball to the right guy at the right time everything is fine. Obviously a system is important in its simplest points. Basically a system should give the players a rough draft of what they need to execute then work from there. I like motion offenses, Phoenix used to run it in the 90s, as did Charlotte with Zo and LJ, and Golden State and teams like that. It works and is tough to stop when executed properly. Either way I'd just be happy if Rudy could properly balance out the touches.
I'm manic with Rudy, I want him to succeed, but not while he bores the hell out of me with Moochie the carpenter (still rotfl b/c of Blinebury). And while the team will undoubtedly rely on the ISO to get them through storms... (it sucks that they start stupid preseason games this weekend, when is a week sufficient time to get things drilled into your head??) it sounds to me as if Francis is emotionally invested in the motion offense. He "doesn't believe in one man". Since he's the point guard... I'll be amazed to see him initiate plays that he doesn't believe in. Now, the motion offense may have been too zealous... perhaps somewhere in the continuum of bore the hell out of me, and parisien traffic lies a healthy medium... but it sounds as if something magical is happening in practice. I am actually not sure that Rudy has a choice in all of this, to be honest, but there's certainly no way his players are going to let him plant them in stationary spots... not w/ the hype coming from camp. I expect, tough times or not, for this to be a major staple of the Rockets' offense by the end of the season.
