moomoo is right in that what we do now is the only offense Rudy knows. Forcing double-teams and finding the open man is the same philosophy he has employed since he got here. It used to be Olajuwon in the low-block commanding double and triple teams and then finding the open shooter (generally on the 3-point line). Now it is a drive and dish system. If that it is the same philosophy turns you off, I think you're looking for reasons to not like Rudy T. Creating situations where you have an undefended shooter is pretty fundamental basketball. We have to use our strong offensive players to draw double-teams to get it done. Francis and Mobley do that and generally will punish single coverage. I think we'll see more and more Yao doing that in more of the Olajuwon mold, maybe even with 3-point shooters -- though I expect it will be based more on cutters.
I think Rudy was nervous about making sure Smeggy (a true Rockets fan) got a worthwhile answer. I understand why Rudy would go on a long tangent propping up his assistant coaches and giving us their history, but Smeggy's answer was easily the second longest one I've heard. I agree with JuanValdez. The philosophy Rudy described is very similar (if not identically the same) to what Dallas is doing. "Create Open Shots. Take Open Shots." Dallas puts the ball in their big 3 hands, uses heavy doses of high picks and dribble penetration, to create passing lanes in the heart of the defense and kick, pass, pass, pass to open men, which generates spacing-based cutters as well. moomoo, Your point is a pretty extreme interpretation of equating "go to your best players" to ISOing. One-on-one can be just an option off of going with your best players. Francis uses picks and has an option to go ISO. We try to get Yao entries in the middle of the lane where that is flat out a great shot that is a designed play, and we have an option for Yao to move to the wing entry when the lane entry is denied, and on the wing we still run give and goes before Yao actually ISOs. You describe it like we are passing to Barkley 18' out with 20 seconds on the clock and he's backing it in for 15 seconds. That is not what we do. Not close. <b>Saying putting the ball in your best player's hands is always ISO ball is no more founded in truth than saying pass-first ball movement is always Motion.</b> imo, it isn't just what is happening on the weakside, you must also consider the strongside when describing ISO or not, and looking for options that occur as well as the ISOs. We you see similar sets do different things; that is a tell tale sign that you are not an ISO team, rather ISO is just an option to use depending on what the defense does. imo, what Rudy is describing is that he doesn't like motion and passing just for the sake of it, because it can enable teams to deny passes to your best players more easily. He wants to start the ball in the best player's hands. He wants to make the defense take away primary options first; that is, deep passes to Yao or a simple 18'er by Steve. We just need Steve to decide quicker what is there and not there on the strongside picks, and move on to let the weakside take over. When we do that, we have seen our cutting, picking, rolling start flowing, as we get the defense shifting. What Rudy described is not so uncommon at all, and it is not contradictory to later saying that we don't run as many ISOs as we did last year and in the Barkley years. Rudy is just saying that he believes in forcing defenses to react (strongside attacks), rather than confusing the defense into making a mistake (Motion). Utah's PnR days also were based on making the defense react by putting the ball into the hands of the best players. I do believe that Utah has moved away from that PnR style and is now operating more similarly to the Kings; with the main difference that they like Malone as a passer from the low post while Kings prefer the high post more. Dallas uses strongside high picks to shed defenders from Finley and Nowitzki all the time. Nash likewise just drives through and kicks. The Triangle offense is fundamentally about strongside attacks with little on the weakside but a rescue player (Pippen). How much weakside movement to you really see the Laker's doing? imo, Rudy's preaching looks to be focusing on using ISOs now only when the defense makes us. And penetrating a zone with a dribble around a pick is *not* an ISO. Penetration like that is preached to guards as a way to open passing lanes in the middle of zones. <b>Watch Dallas tonight</b> and compare that to the Utah team we just saw. Dallas is heavy users of high picks and dribble penetration and spacing. That is the type of offense that Rudy described.
It is very misleading when putting Dallas and Houston in a same sentence w.r.t. any offensive scheme in basketball. It is a given that a team should run its offense through its best hands or best feet. It's not even an arguement, in any team sport. There are many good reasons Dallas runs their current offensive scheme. Their big three are all excellent ball handlers AND shooters. Nash's dribbling ability is a little above Steve's, IMHO. Nash dribles with vision and purpose. It offense creates wide open shots for his teammates. Steve (and Cat in this regard) dribbles primarily for his own shots. One thing bothers me is that I suspect Steve can't see court well when dribbling. Dribbling without court vision is a cardinal sin in sports like basketball and soccer. Finley's and Dirk's dribbling and penetration skills are way way above Cat's. Often they are the two that have the best mismatches with their opponets. Run-and-shoot, dribbling-and-spreading is what Dallas lives and dies for. Even with that offensive jaggnaut, Dallas was still contemplating a trade to enhance their interier presence, because they publicly admit that their offense and zone deffense may not be enough in the palyoffs. Look back at Houston. There is no way the Rockets have the talents to run Dallas-like offense. And the good news is they don't have to. On the contrary, a half-court balanced inside-out game (like the tripple post offense) is what Houston should run if they want to defeat the likes of Sac or Dallas in the playoffs. The reason that there are not many teams running the triangle in NBA is that it's damn hard. However, both UCONN and Venderbult women's teams have been running the triangle and you know the results. If the current offensive scheme is what Rudy was designed with Steve and Ming in mind for a championship run, the Rockets nation will be boiling for many years to come.
Good post JXU! I agree. One thing I would like to see more is for us to utilize Mings passing skills in different offensive sets (ala Vlade).
jxu777, I agree with much of your descriptions of Dallas, but your first two sentences do not accurately describe why I made the comparisons. I didn't compare what the Rockets do to what Dallas does. I compared Rudy's described philosophy to what Dallas does, as a means to illustrate that his description does not necessarily describe ISO offense. Secondly, my point was that given Dallas's team, Rudy would have them running the same thing, as it fits his philosophy. Dallas uses many of the same, identical, tools that we have seen Rudy try to get the Rockets to use. Dallas is a perimeter, spacing, penetration, high PnR team, that relies heavily on early offense. Create Open Shots; Take Open Shots My other point was to describe many offenses that fit Rudy's description that use stars to force defenses to react, as a means to contrast them with the ones that don't. jxu777, there is most certainly BBall systems that do not run offenses through its best hands. <b>Strongside Attacks vs True Continuous Motion</b> imo, there are two main categories of offenses. This is my opinion, and I probably cannot find a defense of this in writing, as it is based on my own categorizations of offenses. What Rudy described is a strongside attacking category that Dallas, Utah's old PnR and the Lakers share, and the other main catogory is true Motion Offenses that Bobby Knight, Duke, Princeton, Kings, Argentina, Utah's new offense, and New Jersey share. When Rudy says "I run through creators," I see him choosing one main category over another. True Motion systems don't look to run offenses through their best player, relatively speaking--albeit, a 24-second clock limits how much true Motion you can run, making a discussion of this more semantic in the NBA arena. From a philosophical standpoint, Motion systems go through everyone equally, in direct contrast to what Rudy stated, in contrast to the 2-man game of a PnR, and in contrast to the strong-side play of the Triangle. The power of Knight's Passing Game and what Argentina did to Team USA is that with patience and using all 5 guys for passing, picks, dribbling, and shooting the defense will eventually lose sight of someone for a backdoor or a wide open shot. This is not the same as Kobe driving at Shaq to force help while Kobe goes to him or Shaq or kicks to weakside guys standing and waiting. The weaknesses of Argentina's style is that defenses can much more easily deny the ball to a superstar if the offense is already designed to pass to anyone as a rule. <b>Suitable System and Demystifying the Triangle</b> You have no arguments from me that our offense does not look like Dallas or Utah's old PnR or the Laker's pseudo-Triangle; but when one categorizes in huge generalizations like Rudy did, well, they all are based on strongside attacks with weakside spacing. Whether Cat and SF have the vision of Finley and Nash does not mean we don't space equally and shouldn't try to run that offense. Obviously, we have a low post presence and don't exclusively spread the perimeter using high post picks to penetrate and create ball reversal opportunities, but that is still part of what Rudy described as his philosophy, and we do succeed doing that ... and our second unit seems to run it well with Rice, Moochie and MoT when they are clicking...knock on wood. As for what we should play when describing a spacing/creating philosophy, you mention the Triangle, and say it is damn hard to run. Why do so many people say that. The triple post is like 40 yrs old and went out of favor in the NCAAs for a reason. The reason is that it is so easy for zones to clog it. It is not that special of an offense, and relies heavily on having great players. It's fatal flaw is that it often places too many people on the strongside making help d easier, and it requires great players. There is no magic to the Triangle. Phil Jackson just invented that myth. Besides, the double high post is proving to be much more effective in the NBA now, and we run that fairly well. imo, that's what we should strive for, while also using wing-entry give-and-goes....which, btw, is indeed in the Triple Post playbook. btw: UConn women win because they have the best recruiting by far and the best players...not because they run the Triangle. They could run a lot of things and win. You mind describing the "current offensive scheme." You seem to be describing the results rather than the coaching philosophy.
Mostly what heypartner said but just to add to it, I'm surprised you find what Rudy said all that shocking. Watch ANY NBA team. Very few of them do it any differently. The game is simple. You get the ball to the player you think has a mismatch. The defense decides to either double team or let him match up one-on-one with his defender. The offensive guy, if he is one-on-one, has to beat his man. If he doesn't, you have to go another direction. If the defense doubles, the offensive player has to hit the open guy and the open guy has to knock down the shot. End of story. Probably 27 or 28 teams out of 29 practice the exact same philosophy on offense. Some are just better at hitting the open man or hitting the open shot. Some just have better players overall. The Rockets usually break down in the decision making process or when trying to hit open jumpers. If you make bad decisions or don't hit your open shots (or both), you look bad.
HP, Overall, a great post. Here are my agreements and disagreements. Fair enough. Now I understand your intentions better. I can agree with in essence, thouhg I don't know some intricacies in some of the motion offenses you mentioned. If I understand your point correctly w.r.t. "BBall systems that do not run offenses through its best hands", this is much debatable because it is in the eyes of the beholders and the topic can be as big various philosophies or as small as gut feelings. My philosophy/thinkings/feelings in basketball is that an offensive system should be designed to explore your strengths and mitigate your weaknesses with specific circumstances (NBA) and objectives (Championship) in mind. A great team is really a fusion by collisions of great players within a great system. You are definitely right in that passing or motion is not the purpose. I totally agree that passing or motion is better suited to all players to create most desirable spacing and optimal options. However, passing or motion should be put in the context of your goals and your players. Your best hands are where your best mismatches are initiated, in most cases. When the opposing team tries to neutralize your best hands to a point where they are no longer your best chances, you counter-attack the gaps the opposing team leaves at the expense of covering your best hands. This scenario doesn't contradict what I said an offense should run through your best hands. If your best hands can't create opportunities either for themseves or for their teammates, then the point is moot. Specifically in the NBA, the best players have way more extra burden of prove. The differences between best players and role players are so amplified. IIRC, I have not seen an offensive scheme that is not designed with their best players in mind. That said, Sac may be an exception, to some extent. I don't see a clear distinction as who is their best player in this arguement, though Webber is generally viewed as such. Between Webber, Divac, Bibby, Bobby Jackson, and to a lesser degree, Christie, Peja and Clark, each player has some outstanding talents yet nobody is a bullseye. In a "pure" sense, Sac is probably the only team that deserves the tag of a full-court all-around passing and motion offense, because that's what suite them best with their outstanding and evenly distributed talents over all positions. Even the 2000 Blazers team didn't have that wide coverage of talents. Still in a particular game, they explore their mismatches given a particular opponent. Their caveat is that they have to hit all cyclinders in order to beat a team like LA or Dallas in a 7-game series. I don't agree. I try to avoid getting Rudy invovled too much in this. Forgive me. But in general, the weakest aspect of our current offense, IMHO, is that there are few options after the main option. I don't bash dribbling or isolation for the sake of it or from my frustrations. I think we can agree that dribbling and isolation are two fundamental aspects of an offense. The poor spacing and lack of secondary options are just the symptons of our current offensive scheme, which is ...... none! You can laugh all you want. And I think you have watched the Rockets games more than I do. But this was my conclusion 8 years ago, or 4 years ago and is still today. My general perception of the Rockets offense, to this date, is that dump the ball into your best player and ride his back to the bank or to the lottery commission. It's predictable and static. The scheme is not sound in fundamentals nor is it sound in statistical rules. However, I think it still may win a championship for us if we are lucky enough to find some zone busters, a.k.a, good long range shooters. We don't have any now. The triangle is hard, though its roots were traced back to 1940s. The triangle is not a panacea to all teams. It is not difficult to set up. For all its advantages and disadvantages, it is its demand in transient defensive reads and counters by all 5 palyers that are so difficult to fulfill in order to implement it in a practical sense. You can argue that with good defensive reads and counters, any scheme will be effective. Yet only the triangle, IMHO, systematically presents so many options and puts so much demand on all players. With a great center down low, the traingle becomes an ideal choice, according to Winter's words in the media. I agree the triangle is not the magic. But in many ways, it reflects the fundamentals of basketball. Phil Jackson didn't invent the myth. IMHO, he was the wise man who learned a good idea and took the best advantages of it possible with his players. And you are absolutely right neither Bulls nor Lakers run a "pure" triangle. No body runs a paper-accurate offense. The game is dynamic. However, only essenses and results matter in what we are talking about, which is how this Rockets team can win championship(s) in the near future. In that regard, 3 3-peat in the span of 11 years defuses all misteries. Don't get me wrong. I don't worship Jackson. I am often irritated by his arrogance and sometimes poor sarcasm. But the man is the man. In the great Internet bubble, it was practitioners who made the most gold. The original inventers are still who they are, i.e., poor unsung heros. Yet it was those greedy practitioners that pushed our society to the Internet edge as we are using it now. I don't see another NBA team runs the double high post PnR the Rockets are running. Like I said before, its purposes are either to create path for Steve to dribble-penetrate or create entry path to Ming. I didn't say it's a good set play or bad. The results are certainly not very good. To the contrary, I often saw botched plays by Steve or disrupted entry passes. That wing-entry give-and-go is not a triangle set play. In a response in another thread, I described how to borrow the triangle concepts to enhance this play so that we can have more options when the entry pass to the low post is not successful. It would be a triangle set play if another player cut to the strongside corner to form a sideline triangle, while the wing is trying to establish a line of deployment to the low post. And it can be a lot more versatile if our players read and counter the opposing defense properly. It is often argued that if it's MJ or Jackson (triangle) or both. And many people in LA said Pat Reily just opened the garage door and let the Mercedes run its course. My belief is a great team is the result of great player(s) running a great system. For all the sh*t I spit on RT, fair or not, it comes down to one sentence. He was/is/has been stuborn and simplistic in his offensive practices regardless of circumstances. In the process, a few golden oppotunities were wasted. I often put soccer in some basketball discussions, because I believe that soccer and basketball are two unique team balls that are built upon fluent and dynamic capabilities, spirits and evolution of human beings. They are just beautiful sports. When a team is built based upon those natures, it's beautiful. In an opposite direction, it can become ugly.
jxu777, put me down as someone who will fiercely argue that Bobby Knight's Passing Game is much harder to learn than Winter's Triangle. Bobby Knight does not advocate the "best hands" trying to create opportunities for themselves. This is where it breaks down to an impossible task to explain in a BBS medium. And like I say, it often becomes a semantics discussion in an NBA arena with a 24 second clock. What I have observed in discussions on this BBS is people only mention the offense of the Rockets and contenders or champions through time. Out of the top 4 teams last year 2 of them ran continuous motion, as best you can in 24 sec clocks, NJ and Sac. I also saw Golden St try to run it, and am convinced Utah is running it now. All semantics aside, not everything goes through the best hands. I can show you offenses where it is a contant read of picks, pass, dribble, move where all players could end up at any point. Where it isn't designed as 1 through 5 player doing Xs and Os, but rather reading the zone and getting it to move in the zone's standard patterns to expose something. A "best hand" player is not trying to expose the zone or make it move by himself, rather all 5 players are required to get the zone to collapse or flatten or overload or shift too much. imso, beating zones is why Utah apparently has abandoned their heavy doses of Malone/Stockton PnR. As for the double high post not being run by anyone, it is being championed by the Kings right now. It is also popularized in Europe.
