TR1LL10N
Hannibal Lecter
Sorry Crazy8's but to be fair we must realize the O & D aren't mutually exclusive in ball like it is say in football (where a whole different unit is used).
Trill to be fair we have to mention the not so obvious effects of running such a style which you neglected.
First we can agree that getting "open or "quality" shots is the goal of any offense that's nothing new. By hurying the pace to set up and take advantage of a lack of transition or set D here in lies multiple concerns:
1. To be a transition or fast-break team, specific players need to be acquired. As you mentioned a quicker PG. But it's really determined by the wings- they too must be able to score in the open court off the break. That in of itself a) reduces the players available (by type) & b) reduces the margin for error (not many can come in and replace)
2. Pace = injury over time
3. Jump "knock down" shooters further reduces the talent pool available. It's a bit much to ask for knock down shooters WITH the speed and driving capabilites to score on the break. When you start seeing things from an availability, realistic stand point- we soon realize a hand full of such players available. This is illustrated in the myriad of different players used and not used to find the right fit. They are of the LeBron James (jumper not so much so) Wade ilk. And even they aren't necessarily knock down shooters.
4. There is a reason why most coaches would say "if we are in transition offensively, and we don't have #'s or position- pull the ball out and set up".
Thats because the odds say a set up play designed for an individual(s) realistically can be relied upon more than scoring off the break. The opportunity is there more (or less depending), and the reputation of "slowing the ball down" during the playoffs or "it's more of a half-court game" rings true, mostly due to the quality shot aspect.
This offense in concept makes sense, but its not practical for many reasons down the stretch. Quality shots = those shots that are taken by design for specific players achieving specific goals (inside, at a high % spot of their liking). In this offense it's an adlibbed approach taking what the defense gives by the "open knock down shooter", multiple being on the floor.
But here's the real down-fall not mentioned. Combine the unavailable players with:
The effect on defense. Remember this isn't football. You play BOTH sides of the ball. So not only is the personnel light when it comes to offensive abilities (driver, knock down shooter)- it further dwindles when adding defensive capabilities.
This is the achilles heal. When you are hell bent on acquiring these players, you neglect defensive types. This is few and far when it comes to this type of player. Its like trying to field 5 Kobe Bryants- immpossible.
Examples of this also would be like:
Putting Michael or Ben Johnson in pads and playing running back. They were the fastest men in the world, but in reality they can never be better than say Emmit Smith who is much slower.
Or, if the Yankees signed Arnold Swarchenegger. In theory he should be killing the ball, but those other ancillary skills won't allow that in reality.
All in all balance is what Mike has to learn. His leasons are obvious. By that I mean if we take this system and add a Shaq in his prime. No coach would deny he can help. But in this system, he would be marginalized. This is what Mike sees with Jeffries. One defensive addition throws it off. Shaq like JJ would be relegated to setting screens at the top of the key and encouraged to shoot if the rock goes his way and he's open. It takes not his actual best used abilities into account, and forces him to conform, limiting him. Chalk that up to another limitation.
If Mike really analyzes how his system is incorporated given the actual talent in the NBA- he would notice there are more "specialists" than adaptable blank slates that he ultimately has to work with.
Now contrast that unorthodox style with conventional. First a coach with a star or any player accentuates their natural abilities. But they create balance by not having so many players with the same styles and abilities. Even with a Shaq, the Lakers didn't go to him every play. But when they did, those plays were designed and called with his specific talents in mind and analysis of where his high % shots are. The same would go for Kobe or anyone for that matter.
This system neglects that specialized aspect. And it neglects to understand why multiple attacks lead to the "confusion" attempted to be created in its design. Good conventional coaches have plays designed for in and out of the paint and call the game accordingly. If someone is in foul trouble, they go at him, deliberately, not incorporate plays where anyone can shoot.
If there's an obvious mis-match that is exposed strategically. Not in this system.
But back to Trill and your Felton example. Yeah when he was healthy, we were clicking.
BUT, a) that was against low level teams, b) he did get injured as did almost every other guard we had, and c) MOST IMPORTANTLY WE WERE STILL NEAR LAST IN DEFENSE d) we took a chance as that approach had us down double digits almost every time, effectively shooting ourselves out of games e) it actually makes it harder to hold the lead
That's why many say it's a false sense of security. A false positve. It's a one game maybe aboration that produces diminishing returns over the course of time- further exposed in the playoffs where the top teams who play defense, clamp down, and slow you down. Without a solid all around approach, illustrated by the all around personnel on the floor, it can only win when too many factors become true.
That and the availability of players is why I say it's too risky.
Neglecting to "showcase" a player's specific talents is why I say it's limited. These issues have many trickle down effects and reduce the likelyhood of winning a chip using this approach.
Dude why must you rehash each and every argument once again? The OP created a specific thread on the details of MDA's offense and I provided precisely that. Do we not have 8 other threads that you yourself created to discuss all your points once again?
I will say that:
Pace = injury over time
Is just complete made up nonsense. Please show how MDA coached teams have a higher incidence of injury.
Last edited: