Depending on Rambis, the Wolves could make the playoffs this year.

[TJ Styles]

Originally Posted by Cory

Negative, just a standard post, it is about 700 words or 7-8 paragraphs so a little longer but not as long as the post that started it. I've tried it on IE and Firefox with no results and I just restarted my computer which didn't work.

Try posting just a small block of text, like "test" then using the edit feature to paste you large post into it. That works for me a lot when I have that issue.

[Cory]

test

You are trying to incorporate a lot of things here. A 12 man rotation, no true "star", a fast breaking team that also has a player capable of running around screens constantly on offense. I know I may not have followed the post to a T and I may not have the Phoenix style correct in my mind but here's what I took from it.

Here are some major problems I see.

12 man rotations

10 man rotations are very uncommon. The Phoenix Suns used one and were very effective in doing so but they also have some of the most unselfish and respected players in the league leading them in Steve Nash and Grant Hill. They also don't have a group of guys, all under the age of 26 fighting to prove there worth in the league and also fighting for a big contract. Nash and Hill can help alleviate that problem. We have no one capable of doing so. The fact is that young guys in general, not just NBA players but in life, have egos. If you ever go to a bar and have some meathead bump you as you are walking by, they are essentially testing you. Trying to get 12 young guys to play cohesively and to buy into a single philosophy is a lot easier on a high school team then it is in the NBA. There are chemistry issues to consider also as it would be extremely tough for the coach to settle into any type of pattern and most players and people struggle if you are jerking them around in that fashion. But the biggest challenge you'd face with this idea and a young team is the psychological side where I just don't see 12 guys being able to do it without a historically good leader in tow.

No True Star

I'm not going to touch the Lebron idea. I'm not sure how receptive your friends are but if the point is to be a 6, 7, or 8 seed then that may be a possibility. If you want to win a title then it's not the way to go. The ironic thing is you reference not having a true star but then go on to compare the roster to Ray Allen running off of screens and Kevin Garnett taking it easy on defense. These guys are stars even if they have aged. There's a reason that the Celts made the Finals and Game 7 despite the fact that KG is not the same guy that he was 5 years ago. He's still an amazingly effective defender and when he's on offensively can be a guy who carries you to a win in the playoffs. Ray Allen will also go down as one of the top 3 greatest shooters of all time and is an absolutely rare physical specimen. He takes care of his body as well as any professional athlete around. That doesn't happen very often.

A fast break team/guy who can run off screens

I touched on Ray being the guy who can run off screens. I'll add this, over the past 15 years there have only been a few similar players, Reggie Miller being one who had a whole offense designed around him. Richard Hamilton was similar but with more of a mid-range look. I can't think of a single other player capable of doing this. J.J. Redick did it all the time at Duke but he can not do it in the NBA. In principle the idea sounds nice but it just isn't practical. The types of players that can do this are rare, Steph Curry could have, but you also have to essentially make that a huge part of the offense in order to do so.

As far as having a fast break team whether it was in the half court or full-court, I'm not going to elaborate too much on it because it is a nice idea. But it does sound like the Golden State Warriors philosophy and it is rare to have a team with that type of philosophy and any hint of defense. And I know you can say they would be able to play defense but there are really no examples of a team doing both outside of maybe the Showtime Lakers who had a historically good roster. I also don't know how great they were defensively as they were a bit before my time.

In a vaccuum you have interesting ideas. At the college or high school level if you have a deep roster without a star and players who have unique skill sets you would be able to do these types of things. But at the NBA level I don't believe it is something that's going to translate to a lot of success.

[TJ Styles]

I am impressed with the positive feedback and the constructive criticism. I seriously expected to be called an idiot at least once on the first page. So, I do appreciate that even the people who disagree explain why and aren't taking shots. So, thank you.

I probably shouldn't have posted this today, since I have been in meetings all day, and I couldn't really reply to anything inline, so now I have to reply to everything at once, but I will try to cover everything.

Kestrel, I do agree with a lot of your first post. I specifically did not mention post-season because the game changes so much. I believe that this style has the potential to be very effective in the post-season since the schedule becomes more aggressive (less recovery time between games and rounds), and typically the referees allow more physical play, which could be a benefit to us with a more aggressive style defense.

That being said, the post-season also shows why stars are stars. The level of play from players like LeBron, Wade, Kobe, etc rise drastically, and they become a very big X-Factor. If a star has a good night, often times it does not matter what the other team does. And, this is even more of a factor for teams with several stars. Teams like the Heat, Lakers and Celtics could win 3 or 4 games without having a single star have two great games. It would come down to whether our guys could keep the stars from having a great game, and right now, I don't think they could.


I also want to address a couple of posts that talk about our current talent level. It is lower than I think it needs to be to be successful, that is for sure. But, most of the players on the team are playable. We don't have many players that are complete garbage (now that Cleveland took Hollins off our hands). The decline in talent from top to bottom is probably less than any other team in the league; the caveat is that the line also starts significantly lower than any other team.

But, I do like the position we are in. We have a lot of cap space. We have tradeable players in every slot. If the opportunity opened that we could land a star, like Carmelo for instance, we could make the adjustment. We have the cap space and assets to move for a play like that. We could also do that without gutting our roster. It is very easy currently to just move people around and adjust to what ever comes. And, in the meantime, we could be a blast to watch and win more than 15 games.

So, this is all assuming that we continue to attempt to make moves that improve the quality of the team. It also is assuming that the players we have play to a certain level, as well. I do feel that pretty much every player on the roster has the ability to be at least an average NBA player. Most of them have the potential to be at least slightly above average. I also believe that if they play to that level, and we get them to leave everything on the floor for each 3-6 minute stretch of play time they get, we can negate some of the effect of teams with better talent but thinner rotations. So, a couple of caveats, but I don't think any of it is unreasonable expectation.


As for a lot of the go-to-guy comments, I do understand that this is the model right now for teams to build around. But, I also believe that the league has changed to accommodate (and promote) this. Like I pointed out before, and as Kestrel mentioned in his first post, the game is currently about slowing down the tempo and keeping the stars on the floor. Stars sell tickets. Micheal Jordan vs Magic Johnson is what people love to see. So, the game slows the tempo down to allow their best players to play most of the game and fans feel they got their money's worth when they get to see LeBron or Kobe play for 35 minutes.

So, the counter to that would be to speed up the game, and not just in transition. Theoretically, if you wear a star down, they will play at an above average level, and if you built the team right, you have 7 more well-rested above average level players on your bench to fill in for you when you get tired. Granted, there are days when the stars will buckle down and put in a fantastic performance regardless, and you can say, "well, that's why they are a star". But, even then, when Bryant is putting in his fantastic game, chances are you can still exploit the match up on Bynum or some other non-superhuman on the roster. Nothing like getting easy points on a bad match up and asking their star to continue to keep up with that production.

Star power is the convention. It is proven to work. It is probably the best way to build. But, we don't have one. We probably won't get one by the start of the season. So, we need to come up with a way to counter star power. I think this is the best chance of that. It fits what we are doing with the roster. It makes it fun to watch. And, with the way Kahn is building, it does not preclude us from adding star power at a later date. I say Kahn should keep shooting for the stars, but until we get there, there is no reason not to run the other teams into the ground.


Nick K and Cory, you both make some very good points. Some of the points I have already addressed, so I will cover the ones I didn't.

I agree totally on the turnovers comment. We have to get better at that. That can potentially cripple any team, even one with several stars. It is even more crushing for a young team like us without a solid leader. It can swing momentum fast, and momentum is what a young team needs to be successful. That is also something that none of this addresses. It just goes to the individuals making better decisions. In fact, if they play rushed instead of uptempo (there is a difference, you can make good decisions in uptempo), it can increase the amount of turnovers, which would be a problem.

The second part I agree with is the defense. It is easy for me to say, "we need to step up the defense". It's another for the defense to actually get better. That being said, I think we brought in a number of players who can raise the bar of our defense considerably. Some of them I do not know well enough to have an opinion, but it would be hard to be worse than we were last year. The goal of this strategy, however, is simply to make sure that the other team cannot rest on the floor. Keep them moving; keep them working. It is ok if they make their shot as long as they have to work to make the shot. I am ok with a wide-open, uncontested layup if they have to bust their butt to get it. Cause, chances are the man they are supposed to be defending is already a quarter of the way across the court in transition, and they will have to run again to catch up.

As for rotations, I realize that it is uncommon to go that deep. But, that is the current culture in the NBA. If I were Phil Jackson, I would not have a 12-man rotation, either. The league is built around stars, and most of the big teams have players that should be in the D-League filling out the last slots of their rosters. But, just because it is uncommon, it doesn't mean it won't work. It is also uncommon to have 3 top-5 players on one team, but I doubt Miami is going to be missing the playoffs. Bad analogy, but the point is that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

I do agree with your ego comments, though. That is a particular issue, and we saw it a bit with Love last year. This system would require players to not care about the quantity of minutes they receive, but rather the quality. Ideally, we would be getting 25 minutes from each of our 12 players. Its a lot easier to run for 25 minutes with breaks than 37 minutes. Some players feel that they should be entitled to more minutes. However, that is why I feel that looking for the 5th through 7th man on teams is the way to go. They will understand playing a role, they probably don't have that big ego, and there is a good possibility that they will be getting an increase in minutes.

I do appreciate the point about the constant rotations being a hard environment for most people to succeed in. Some of this could be resolved through lineups (using common lineups so players get time to play together in certain configurations), but also just from practicing that chaos all the time. Granted, it may still be a problem for some players, and we either deal with that individually or make a move to bring in someone who can play our style. But, it will also be difficult on the other team having to adjust to new defenders and what not constantly. So, it is a double-edged blade.

I am sorry if I implied that we should be running plays just like the Celtics with Ray Allen. I did not mean to imply that we have a player who can run off screens and catch and shoot with that level of accuracy. I simply meant to draw a picture of the style of offense I am talking about. That type of movement on every possession is hard to defend. It is ok if nothing comes of the running in circles; the goal is to tire the defenders. The defender cannot stop chasing our wings, otherwise we will get a wide-open jumper. If they continue to chase our wings, they get worn out and that will show up in their game. They will have slower breaks, sloppier defense, less lift on their jump shots, etc. That is the goal. I am not expecting to have a ridiculously dangerous spot up shooter like Ray Allen from the lineup we have.



Basically, I do agree that we should continue to look for a star. It is the most accepted and proven way to compete. But, I do think that this is another way to compete. When you read anything about this, keep in mind the #1 goal is to wear the other team down. They are used to slow-paced basketball with shallow rotations. We can wear them down, and then our roster will look better than they are on the court. Force the other team to play us with tired starters or dig deeper into their bench and we have a shot. It is at least as good a shot as if we try to take on their starting 5 with our starting 5.

[stlouiswolf]

It's not that hard to find examples of teams that make the playoffs without what most people consider great scorers. Houston had a good run just 2 years ago without Yao and played LA their toughest series. I think a fast -paced style could work eventually but the key is to avoid turnovers and that comes with experience which we don't have. Even more important is to make defense a premium and have players that really commit to it. In today's NBA that is rare, but if you can develop a good defensive team, the playoffs will follow.

As for Kurt's ability to pull this off, I'm willing to give him a pass over last year since we were obviously tanking and playing games with players to make some points. But he has no leash left. Let's get after it from the get go!

[LA_33]

I do think there is some merit to the idea that a team with a top-end talent disparity can remain more competitive by pressing or otherwise playing a high-pressure defensive style. I can't find the link right now, but there have been studies that support the idea that pressing IS an effective way for lesser teams to increase the chances of an upset.

(As for the offense, it's difficult to imagine a successful NBA offense that was faster-paced than a team like the mid-2000s Suns, and just running around for the sake of tiring defenders wouldn't work against real NBA defenses, because it's relatively easy to conserve defensive energy just by switching a lot behind that kind of motion, or ignoring secondary offensive guys entirely when they're running around on the perimeter, if all that motion isn't leading directly to scoring opportunities. If you're spending all your energy running around to tire the defense, but the end result offensively is frantic jumpers from lesser shooters, your offense is going to be abysmal.)

There are two big problems with using a high-pressure defensive strategy, however (and FTR, a pressing defense generally does imply an uptempo offense, too, although the opposite isn't true) one global, and one specific to the Wolves' current roster:

First, and broadly, teams are often hesitant to employ a press to try and manufacture upsets, because it's a highly "boom or bust" strategy. In other words, if it works, it increases your chances to play above your talent level. But pressing "fails" a lot, too, giving the opposing (and already more talented) team a parade of high-percentage shots (open layups and threes) or free-throw attempts. So while it will probably result in a few more wins, a LOT of the loses will end up being HUGE defeats, 20-to-30-point deficits where the outcome is already determined in the 3rd quarter.

So lesser teams usually go the opposite direction, and play slow to try and keep the score close, because it at least creates the impression that the lesser team is "keeping it close".

This also means that it can never really be a strategy to consistently over-perform a lesser talent level, because it will inherently lead to a lot of losses in addition to a few extra wins. Teams that win a higher-percentage of their games do so because they're employing a more consistently successful strategy, be it running things through top-end stars, focusing on defense, or filling the roster with enough shooters and finishers that a SSOL-style offense features someone who is shooting well (or at least finishing Nash's assist passes consistently) just about every night.

A press CAN be a consistent strategy, but it requires a talent/athleticism excess, rather than making up for a top-end-talent deficit; when teams like Pitino's Kentucky squads won NCAA titles with a pressing, fast-paced, depth-dependent system, it worked because they just overwhelmed their opponents with their athleticism and skill, in spite of playing a higher-risk style; they could still win based on sheer talent the days when the press was ultimately hurting them.

It's also important to note that the other team has a lot of say in the overall pace of the game. a disciplined NBA team that is capable of withstanding the press can still slow the game considerably at their own end, giving their superior individual talents time to rest enough to keep them on the floor.

This is also why fast-paced teams can usually be slowed in the post-season, because they're facing the best, most disciplined opponents, who are more focused on making the entire game occur at the slower pace that favors them.

The increased level of physicality often allowed in the playoffs also isn't likely to help a pressing team, because the extra contract that's allowed is generally inside, or around screen-roll plays in a half-court set. Open-floor contact is almost completely disallowed in the modern NBA, though (like the elimination of perimeter hand-checking) and [i]that's the kind of extra contact that a pressing defense needs to be successful (that's why Team USA tends to press more than any team in the NBA would, because they have a big athleticism advatange over most other FIBA teams, and FIBA refs allow a lot more contact on the perimeter than NBA refs do).

Second, ans specific to the Wolves, a successful press requires a deep stable of highly-athletic/mobile bigs, to cover the extra floor-spaces at the back of a pressure defense. Pressing teams tend to play smaller, to use long athletes at at least one of the 4/5 spots. The Wolves currently have a collection of relatively slow-footed bigs, including far and away their best player, Love, as well as Pekovic, Koufos, and Darko (who moves fairly well for a big 7-footer, but is still a big 7-footer).

A fast-paced offense can still succeed with those kinds of bigs, as they can rebound, start the break, serve as trailers, etc. But a high-pace, pressure defense really requires more mobile, athletic guys; the Wolves roster would be picked apart on the deep end of the press, giving up even more layups, open jumpers, and desperation fouls than a press inherently allows.

[airwolf]

When you started talking about a 12 deep rotation it reminded me of the system at my alma mater, Grinnell College:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQGZ0CKMBvs

except NBA athletes of course.

Still, it was fun to watch these guys run the floor every night, chucking up three pointers on every possession and runnign a full court press the entire game. 15 man rotation, subs every 2 minutes like a hockey team.

Of course, the run and gun system started at Loyola way back. I always wondered how it would pan out in the NBA. Nobody has the guts (or the selfless players) to do it though.

[pagliatti]

I see one basic fail: it´s common wisdom that there aren´t stars in Minny´s roster. That´s a misconception. A lot of nice players grow into stars; it´s not just the Chauncey Billups alleged aberration. Just players that surpassed expectations:

David Lee- nice rotation player, All Star, big time contract.

Boozer- nice mid range game, big contract in Utah, exceeds expectations, All Star level. Now he seems a bargain to lots of people.

Googs- Nice big man, good mobility, Minny gets him cheap, the guy becomes an all star.

Nash- Solid pg that goes to PHO in a somewhat bloated contract. Fail. It wasn´t that bloated!

Pau Gasol- A glorified Troy Murphy, better, more versatile but as soft as him. Can´t get you very far. Goes to LA. He´s now in the conversation for best big man in the league (stretch but shows us how things change).

Mo Williams- From meh to All Star.

There are a lot of other examples of huge variations in value: Bogut, Kaman, Zach Randolph, Brand, Ty Chandler. Most of them come with big man and their peculiar injury status.

In the end Minny has a chance for players to grow and some relative success could greatly modify the value attached to the current Wolves. As luck isn´t striking with the damn sophomore curse and Minny isnt´getting top draft picks people is a bit wary of the bright light.

Darko could be better than Rasho, Webster, Brewer could be Malik Sealy types of talent- not a star but damn reliable as rotation players. And the top talent isn´t that bad: Love could be as good or better than Googs, Beasley could be better than an Abdur Rahim and Johnson, Rubio, even Flynn have spectacular ceilings.

Of course, going by history, it isn´t time for great expectations. And, for the journalists, going with the odds is nice.

[TJ Styles]

As always, great post LA_33. That does do a very good job explaining the caveats to the idea.

I overlooked switching on defense. That would make it easier for the other team to not get overly tired trying to defend. But, that could create a lot of mismatches and get open looks, though we don't really have the shooters to take advantage of that yet. I do think that I probably shouldn't have used the Ray Allen example, cause I think it put an image of our wings just running around the perimeter, when I simply meant to have a lot of movement by them on offense. It's not so much that they will be running around the perimeter and coming off screens, its that nobody will be just standing there waiting for the play to develop. But, I do get what you are saying that switching can disrupt an offense like that and minimize the effect of the moment on the defense. I still think, though, that the switching can be used as an advantage for us, especially with the length we have on the wings now.

What you say about the extra wins vs blowout losses makes sense. I personally think that is a trade off that is well worth it. When we talk about last season, we talk about 15 wins. Anybody know off-hand what our worst loss was by? It was by 41 to the Golden State Warriors on November 9th. I had to look that up. We also lost by 33 to Milwaukee on January 23rd, and by more than 20 more than half a dozen other times. But, I don't think anyone really looks at that now. They only look at 15 wins. The scores for a lot of our losses were pretty close, probably because of what you talked about. But, we still got blown out in a lot of games. Ill take half a dozen more blow outs for half a dozen more wins (granted, I believe we were capable of 20-25 wins last season if we played our best players more). So, I guess I think you are right, but I am willing to make that sacrifice.

You do make a good point about the bigs we have. I was thinking about that when I posted, because the moves we made there don't really seem to fit the model, and could be proof that Kahn is not doing what I talked about.


In any case, you make a lot of very good points that give me a different perspective on what I suggested. I would still like to see them go this way, however. You gave a good list of consistent strategies winning teams employ to win consistently, but our roster does not support any of them. We don't have that go-to-guy, we don't have top-end defenders, and we don't have knock-down shooters. At this point, I want to see them go with whatever strategy will steal a couple of extra wins and make their games enjoyable to watch. And uptempo is enjoyable to watch.

[tinyarch]

One of the problems with 12 deep and full-court pressure is the fact that there are 82 games to be played over a season. In today's NBA it's 40 minutes of little defense followed by 8 minutes of intense defense to close out a game. I'm not sure if a 12 man deep team could keep up the intensity of intense defense for 82 games at 48 minutes per game.

Second, to be successful there still needs to be exceptional players on the court. You have roles that must be filled such as a point guard who sees the court and can hit the open person. You need a team that can average 45-55% for field goals. You need a team that can catch the ball and not make turnovers. You need a team that only allows the other team one shot at the basket before getting the rebound and making the outlet pass. One cannot run and be effective without these pieces being exceptional.

If you mean by "star" someone who makes the ESPN top 10 plays on a weekly basis, then I agree that a team doesn't "need" someone like this to make the playoffs, but I would suggest that a person who is above average in the specific role they play would eventually be considered a star. To win, you must have players that execute their role above the average person. I don't see the Timberwolves having 12 people who meet that criterion.

[kingsxman]

Great take. The problem I see with it is that this is not something you can probably keep up over a few years as even your own young guys get old. we are trying to build a team that will be a winner for awhile. So I dont see them doing this unless its just for one year to drum up some interest.

[boognish]

Originally Posted by stlouiswolf

It's not that hard to find examples of teams that make the playoffs without what most people consider great scorers. Houston had a good run just 2 years ago without Yao and played LA their toughest series. I think a fast -paced style could work eventually but the key is to avoid turnovers and that comes with experience which we don't have. Even more important is to make defense a premium and have players that really commit to it. In today's NBA that is rare, but if you can develop a good defensive team, the playoffs will follow.

As for Kurt's ability to pull this off, I'm willing to give him a pass over last year since we were obviously tanking and playing games with players to make some points. But he has no leash left. Let's get after it from the get go!

I think Houston is a great example. That should be the early model for us to aspire to, while hoping that one of our young players develops into more of a star than anyone on their roster. If that doesn't happen, stay flexible financially and try to sign that final piece (i.e. star player) down the road, once we have a solid, competitive playoff squad.

[IcemanMN]

This is a very interesting thread. I think the "run and gun + play good defense" concept is Kahn's master plan. I have a couple of severe objections to the premise though (playoffs in 2010). First, you need a running quarterback to make the fast break work. Rubio doesn't get here until 2011. Second, this is the youngest team in the NBA by far. Rambis will probably waste another season making players do things they're not good at. The Wolves are more likely to win 15 games than 40. I still have high hopes for this team, but not in 2010.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by boognish

I think Houston is a great example. That should be the early model for us to aspire to, while hoping that one of our young players develops into more of a star than anyone on their roster. If that doesn't happen, stay flexible financially and try to sign that final piece (i.e. star player) down the road, once we have a solid, competitive playoff squad.

Houston has been so resilient largely because Daryl Morey is willing to assess player value differently than the rest of the league based on "advanced" stats. If there's a poster GM for number grinding, he's it. That's how they're finding their Carl Landry and Aaron Brooks talent. That's how they came to start a 6'6" center for much of last year. That's why they dealt for Battier back in the day. Morey goes against the grain, and it basically works. Injuries tore up what might have been a 5- or 6-season championship contender down there.

Among current teams, they're one of the most interesting. I don't feel any especial loyalty to them, though. (Their own fans don't much either, over the years.)

[Rolf]

A few additional (and contradictory) thoughts on the run-and-gun-and-press strategy:

This strategy would limit the length of each possession, thus giving each team a much higher number of total possessions. The problem for a team like the Wolves is that increasing the total number of possessions is actually more beneficial to the superior team, not the underdog, because it gives the better team more opportunities to excert their dominance. A bad team can occasionally stun a good team, but the more often the two teams compete against each other, the more likely the better team will come out on top. It's the same principle behind Stern's argument that all playoff series should be best of seven: A bad team might beat a good team once or twice, but over the course of a seven game series, the superior team will prevail. It's actually in the underdog's best interest to limit the number of total possessions, because then those few times a game that the underdog stuns their competitor become much more meaningful.

On the otherhand... I recently read a study on one of my favorite sports blogs (Mgoblog, run by a former Univerisity of Michigan engineer) that tried to determine if it's preferable for a team to suck in certain ways as opposed to others. They determined (at least in football), that if you compare 2 defenses that suck equally (allow the same amount of total points), but one defense is of the boom-or-bust variety (ie they give up lots of huge plays but also make lots of big stops), and the other is more bend-not-break (never give up big plays, but give up lots of smaller ones that gradually add up to a successful drive), the boom-or-bust team will be more successful. The reason is that, although both teams give up the same amount of points, the boom-or-bust team leaves more time on the clock for offense, and more chances for the offense to succeed. Makes sense for football, but I'm not sure how well it correlates to basketball.

[IcemanMN]

Teams like Boston and San Antonio will die if they have to run with the Wolves. They're too old to play that way! I think this could work, but only if the Wolves are competent at scoring in transition.

[TJ Styles]

Originally Posted by Rolf

On the otherhand... I recently read a study on one of my favorite sports blogs (Mgoblog, run by a former Univerisity of Michigan engineer) that tried to determine if it's preferable for a team to suck in certain ways as opposed to others. They determined (at least in football), that if you compare 2 defenses that suck equally (allow the same amount of total points), but one defense is of the boom-or-bust variety (ie they give up lots of huge plays but also make lots of big stops), and the other is more bend-not-break (never give up big plays, but give up lots of smaller ones that gradually add up to a successful drive), the boom-or-bust team will be more successful. The reason is that, although both teams give up the same amount of points, the boom-or-bust team leaves more time on the clock for offense, and more chances for the offense to succeed. Makes sense for football, but I'm not sure how well it correlates to basketball.

It is interesting that you talk about football in this example, cause I actually think that this sort of strategy would work well in football as well. I know this is off topic, but I think an offense built around a real 2-minute drill style could take advantage of the opposing defense. I don't want to get too much into this since this is a basketball forum, but I think a lot of movement and a very short window of time between snaps would cause most defenses to break down after a few plays and allow big scoring opportunities. Obviously, there are other specific strategies that help make everything work (including a tailor-made defensive strategy to supplement the offense), but it has similar concepts to this discussion.

[boognish]

Originally Posted by TJ Styles

It is interesting that you talk about football in this example, cause I actually think that this sort of strategy would work well in football as well. I know this is off topic, but I think an offense built around a real 2-minute drill style could take advantage of the opposing defense. I don't want to get too much into this since this is a basketball forum, but I think a lot of movement and a very short window of time between snaps would cause most defenses to break down after a few plays and allow big scoring opportunities. Obviously, there are other specific strategies that help make everything work (including a tailor-made defensive strategy to supplement the offense), but it has similar concepts to this discussion.

That's basically the no-huddle offense that won the Buffalo Bills four straight AFC Championships. It basically just kept the defense from being able to make substitutions or communicate very effectively about their adjustments.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by Rolf

....They determined (at least in football), that if you compare 2 defenses that suck equally (allow the same amount of total points), but one defense is of the boom-or-bust variety (ie they give up lots of huge plays but also make lots of big stops), and the other is more bend-not-break (never give up big plays, but give up lots of smaller ones that gradually add up to a successful drive), the boom-or-bust team will be more successful. The reason is that, although both teams give up the same amount of points, the boom-or-bust team leaves more time on the clock for offense, and more chances for the offense to succeed. Makes sense for football, but I'm not sure how well it correlates to basketball.

When defenses score points themselves -- the 'biggest' play they can make -- that's a huge swing in any given game of American football. You pick off a pass at your own 30 and return it for a TD, and that's a 10- or 14-point swing in the outcome of the game -- from the other team scoring a FG or touchdown to you doing it.

Originally Posted by boognish

That's basically the no-huddle offense that won the Buffalo Bills four straight AFC Championships. It basically just kept the defense from being able to make substitutions or communicate very effectively about their adjustments.

Football's so bureaucratic. I hate the constant substitutions.

[TJ Styles]

Originally Posted by boognish

That's basically the no-huddle offense that won the Buffalo Bills four straight AFC Championships. It basically just kept the defense from being able to make substitutions or communicate very effectively about their adjustments.

Yeah, that is the basic premise. I have never really watched the Bills, so I am not sure how they played it, but the Colts also play no-huddle, but it is a very slow no-huddle. Manning still uses 20+ seconds of the play clock, and defenses have time to adjust and get situated before the snap. Were the Bills like this or were they playing quick snaps as well, so the defense could not adjust their assignments to their formations?

[Macwolf]

These players have the ability to come off screens for open jumpshots and hit them at a high level of accuracy. It will be key for Beasley, Webster, and Brewer to either spot up or follow the driver to the bucket for a chance at the offensive put back.

Now the beef. I was somewhat ticked at our lack of athleticsm on the blocks, but what they do possess is a large amount of meat attached to their bones. Milicic, Love, and Pekovic are big bodies capable of setting solid screens and rolling to the bucket for layups. This type of play places the more athletic defenders at somewhat of a disadvantage because they have to be moving to make the defensive block. Nine times out of 10, they will be called for a foul if any type of contact is made on the offensive players body because both offensive and defensive player are in rotation towards the bucket. Quote me on this..."Our big men will shoot a large amount of free throws this season."

If the opponents interior player does show hard on the pick he will be forced to switch to cover the man coming off the screen. This is where having tall wings (Johnson) able to elevate on their jumpshots or with a quick release (Ellington and Hayward) really come in handy. If the inside bigs show and release their left trailing our bigs on the roll as I mentioned above, if they stay, our bigs have the added benefit of having a smaller wing try to cover their roll to the bucket, again the bigs end up in an AND-1 possiblity.

The last component, is the spot up shooter/driver (Beasley, Webster, and Brewer). They have to knock down the shots or drive quick to the bucket with the intent to throw it down hard. The movement of the defense will leave them with a lot of open looks or open lanes. They have to decide instantaneously or they will waste everything that has take place prior to the ball landing in their hands. Quote me again, "The collective majority of our high scorers will originate from these spots on the floor", because systematically, it will be easier to take away the other components because they operate closer to the basket, but the rotation of the defense will have the players in these spots on the floor, salivating at the mouth because they'll get so many opportunities to score.

This offense can be a thing of beauty if everyone accepts their roles. If not, it will be a VERY LONG SEASON!!

The key to our defense will be the length of our wings and the bulk of our inside players. Since we are using FOOTBALL analysis, it's like gang tackling. One player stops the forward movement, while the others come in to make the hit, strip the ball, or take runner down. Our wings have one basic responsibility. PLEASE JUST KEEP YOUR MAN IN FRONT OF YOU. If the ball goes inside, we have enough beef to prevent the drive to the basket and allow the wings to collaspe inside for defensive help. It would not suprise me to see the STARTERS out of Webster, Johnson, Beasley, or Brewer average 1+ blocks this year.