[valentine]

Hi there. Which offensive strategy do you all prefer ? Feed the stud or motion ? Personally, love motion ’cause you play as a team and get good looks. Isos can be kind of dangerous if a player gets doubled or stalls. Defensively, I like man-to-man. I find zone more passive and less creative. My two cents. Take care. Thanks.
Mark

[BasketballJunkie224Participant]

depends who the stud is…i would say whatever has been working(i know it sounds obvious) but i mean if a guy is hot you gotta keep giving him the ball

[DubNationParticipant]

Motion is harder to guard because it is more unpredictable. It also keeps every one happy because the ball is being shared.
If a team gets stuck running isolations the offense becomes stagnant, and defenses know what is coming.

Teams should play team ball and then get the ball into the hands of the player (often times it is the “stud”/star player(s)) who is making shots.

This also gives a team multiple options when it comes time to make a clutch shot, not just their star player who will most likely be double teamed.

Perfect example is the New York Knicks. They are much more effective when moving the ball around to open players then just putting the ball in Carmelo’s hands so he can shoot it. Carmelo does have the ability to initiate the offense and find open players, and that is why the Knicks win more games when they play in the unselfish team environment.

[SiggyParticipant]

Depends on the offensive talent on the team.

[WolfRobParticipant]

Both?

Personally a big fan of the triangle offense. Kinda a mix of both. Motion, with ISO based looks.

[ThepessimestParticipant]

I am a huge fan of motion vs. running sets or iso’s for your best player. Sets and Iso’s can be defended well as they are predictable.

The triangle is a form of motion offense by the way… Anything where there are reads and not predetermined movements is good for me.

With that said you do need to have 3 or so quick hitters to run when you absolutely need a bucket or want to get someone a shot.

I prefer the read and react system by Rick Torbett. Great system for young people to run as they learn “HOW” to play vs. just how to run plays.

The Heat have taken off because they run a lot of good actions which has a lot of motion and great spacing. Hard to load up one side on Bron or Wade with the shooters, spacing, and motion they have in their offense. San Antonio also has a lot of motion.

OKC runs very little offense. A lot of their scoring is based upon ball screens and individual brilliance.

[omphalosParticipant]

I’m a big believer in the read and react system, even the most basic levels are so valuable, especially the circle movement.

I’d like to see an NBA team, or even a major college team try to implement it at least some of the time, because a lot of players lack the movement fundamentals they should have.

I think one of the reasons the read and react hasn’t been adopted on a more consistent basis is because it’s somewhat stymied by zone, and while he does have a zone counter in the program, I remain sceptical about it’s effectiveness.

[SubZeroParticipant]

Depends on the team. I went to the Thunder-Pacers game tonight, and all they did in the 4th was feed Durant and they pulled away. At times they would just give it to him and clear out, but also for a little bit they ran the same play where Durant screened for Westbrook and leaked out to the right wing and hit 3 or 4 shots in a row. It’s really whatever works for the personnel of the team

[omphalosParticipant]

In general terms, if you have the personnel to do either, I actually prefer to feed the hot hand; overplaying one guy will force the other team to adjust their D and create easy opportunities for opponents, plus, the psychological advantage of one unstoppable player is greater than that gained by motion offense.

Oh, and while I like to see players moving and motion offense can be great, a lot of the time it can be beaten by either a zone or more intense defensive activity, which is a disaster late game and in the playoffs when the energy levels are raised.

[rabidsnowmanParticipant]

If you can’t tailor your offense to your players, you really shouldn’t be coaching. Examples:

If you have a balanced team, but athletic, and a deep bench, you should push tempo, possibly even press or halfcourt trap to force turnovers.

If you have one star player and a bunch of other guys who are role players (but good defenders, as you don’t take players who can’t either score or defend) then you feed the stud. I think this is the most limited form of offense, but sometimes it’s what you have.

If you have good shooters, limited athleticism, poor defense, and small size, you teach and preach defense, slow the game down, zone, and look for openings via the weave or secondary break jumpers.

Only a fool would try to force an offense on a team that isn’t fit for it.

[Mark Pion]

Hi there. I find basketball’s a read-and-react game. You react based on what the defense throws at you. As a player, you gotta know yourself, your teammates and your opponents. I just find you get a lot of nice looks when you’re unselfish. Red Auerbach used to preach unselfish basketball. I agree. Take care. Thanks.
Mark

[IknoBall12Participant]

Depends on what kind of team it is and who the player is. But my thing is why would intake the ball out of a players hand who is capable of putting up numbers and put the ball into a players hands who is afraid of the big moment and isn’t offensively capable? I like the ISP offense. When it stops working then you can play team ball but other than that I feeding my horse and living with the consequences

[Author]

Posts