Our Half-court Offense: The Theory, Problems, and Possible Solutions (A tad long)

[Coach Orange]

Given that we seem to struggle to score in the half court, questions about our offense pop up quite a bit. Many fans claim that we don't really run a half-court offense--that Coach Boeheim just "rolls the ball out" and lets the players play. That just isn't true. The Syracuse half-court offense is a quick-hitting, set-play offense designed to let the best players make plays.

For over a decade, we have run an NBA-styled half-court offense. By Coach Boeheim's own admission, it is a "simple" offense that uses set plays to get the ball to our best players in spots they can score.

This isn't novel--all offenses try to do this. However, motion offenses (Open Post, Princeton, 4-out/1-in, 3-out/2-in, Blocker/Mover, Triangle, Flex, Swing, and even Dribble-Drive) can lead to shots for players you don't want shooting in areas from which they shouldn't shoot. These offenses don't often stress the ball staying in the best players' hands. Rather, the ball may touch all five players' hands more than once during a possession. Because of this, the defense can force a shot it wants the offense to take. For example, the defense can influence a role player that isn't a good mid-range shooter to take a 15-footer if they are disciplined throughout the possession. Also, more turnovers may happen if a player is forced to handle the ball in ways for which he isn't suited.

In theory, Boeheim controls these potential problems by running plays that get the ball into his best players' hands in spots that allow them to be isolated and make plays. This is what most NBA offenses do--they get the ball to Carmelo, Durant, Kobe, or LeBron in a good spot, and then let the star make the play.

One downside to this form of offense, though, is that the other offensive players stand around if they aren't fundamentally sound or mentally focused. This makes it much easier for the defense. When the other offensive players set screens for teammates or make basket cuts, the help defense is strained. Offensive players can get open if help defenders are caught watching the ball. If the help defenders are occupied by the screening/cutting action, the ball handler is in position to beat his man using one-on-one moves. The ball handler then needs to be good enough to do so, or he needs to find an open teammate.

A second downside is that the ball can stick in one player's hands. Defenses are much easier to beat when the ball is quickly reversed because the help doesn't have to time to rotate into position. Dribble penetration causes serious problems for defenses (which is part of the rationale for the proliferation of the pick-and-roll offenses in college basketball), but so does a quick succession of passes, a standard principle of motion offenses. In our offense, the ball often goes to the first option but, if a "good" shot isn't immediately available, we tend to see the player pound the ball into the floor or force a bad shot rather than reversing it quickly to find a high-quality shot. This leads to the offense bogging down.

One last downside of our offense is the lack of options after the initial play. Though Coach Boeheim says that there are multiple options built into each play, we rarely run a quick second option off of the first (a screen-the-screener action, for example). If the first option is taken away, we usually just run a pick-and-roll play as the second option, many times by throwing the ball back to MCW and starting the action before the other three players are in good position for spacing. We occasionally catch a defense whose post defenders hedge on the baseline down screens by slipping the post, but that only happens about once a game (See the second half of the home Nova game for examples of Fair feeding our slipping posts--both Rak and DC--a couple of times effectively).

So, how do you "fix" our offense? Despite popular belief, the design of it doesn't need a complete overhaul. Players with better offensive fundamentals would help, but that's not likely to happen this season since these skills often take thousands of repetitions to develop. Hence, some minor changes that reduce the downsides listed above would help.

One solution is to add plays. We actually included the "Shuffle" against UConn. We haven't run that all year (we used to with G-Mac and Flynn), at least not that I can recall. It earned MCW a wide-open layup, and it could have led to two others. The play also got Triche a clean look at a three-pointer, but he missed it. Those are four good scoring chances produced by pulling the posts up, getting the ball to fair at the elbow, and having MCW execute a simple UCLA cut.

We have a play called "Corner" that is designed to get the ball to the 4 at the elbow and then have a high-low option with the post and a stagger screen for our best three-point shooter. We used to run it with Warrick and G-Mac. It is another play we may want to add back into the mix to get Rak opportunities.

Another solution is to add wrinkles to our oft-run plays. Here's how we might add effective options to one of our bread-and-butter plays--the "3" play:

We often run baseline down screens (or stack screens) for both the 2 (Triche) and the 3 (Fair). The first option is to pass to the player in the play's name--in the "3," this is Fair. Usually, the first option gets to choose whether to run off a double-stack screen (with the other cutter setting the double before cutting in the opposite direction of the first option) on one side and a single screen on the other. He must read how the defense plays him--if his defender cheats up the lane, he needs to fade for a jump shot. If the defender run into the screen, he needs to cut straight to the wing. If his defender chases around the screen, he must curl into the lane.

Set the baseline screens for Fair like we often do. Let Grant and Triche set the double-stack screen for him. As Fair comes off the double, get the ball to him on the wing (assuming he doesn't curl or fade). Triche runs off the single screen on the other side (set by Rak).

After passing to Fair, MCW sets a down screen for Grant (screen-the-screener, like in the Flex offense). This would put pressure on Grant's defender--does he help on Fair's cut and allow himself to be screened, or does he not help and allow Fair to cut unimpeded? Grant could get the pass from Fair at the elbow area, where he can hit the mid-range jump shot or work high-low with Rak after MCW clears to the weakside corner.

If this doesn't work, pick and roll could still be run--Triche screens on the weak-side for MCW, Grant passes to MCW and then sets a down screen for Rak. Rak sets the ball screen for MCW and rolls, Triche replaces the roll man near the top of the key, and Grant replaces Triche. Triche and Fair spot up as MCW drives.

This wrinkle would be great because pick and roll is tough to defend when the screener's defender is trying to fight through a screen first. Rak's defender would not be in good position to hedge the ball screen because Grant has screened him first. That would give MCW a step on his drive.

This is just one example--tweaks can be made to existing plays to get Dirty looks from 3 (adding staggered screens, for example), cross screens to get Rak into better post position, etc.

Please understand that I am not saying that I know more than a Hall of Fame head coach. I definitely don't. My point is that we don't need to ditch our entire offense--the same plays that Coach B already runs could be tweaked to occupy help defenders a little more effectively through movement, to reverse the ball more in order to exploit the movement, and to run multiple options for multiple players within a single set. My bet is that Coach B is trying to work solutions like these into his practices.

However, the old saying still applies--it doesn't matter what you run in terms of X's and O's if it is not properly executed by the Jimmys and the Joes.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Good post.

It ultimately comes down to ball movement, good shot selection, and some sort of post play.

The ball needs to at least find it's way to the post to allow for either an offensive move or a kick out for a three. It's imperative.

 

[007]

Very good post, Coach.

 

[cuseguy]

I still contend that JB is foremost a defensive coach who relies on long-armed, athletic players to create turnovers, get long rebounds and turn them into easy baskets. Teaching offense in the half court set is not his strength.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Marsh01]

Very nice

 

[bevosu]

I still contend that JB is foremost a defensive coach who relies on long-armed, athletic players to create turnovers, get long rebounds and turn them into easy baskets. Teaching offense in the half court set is not his strength.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No doubt JB has gone from his early years as an offensive minded coach to a more defensive minded guy. I agree though, he never was a half court offensive guru.

I think one the most obvious flaws we have on this current team, no matter what plays are called or what schemes are drawn up..we don't have very good shooters/scorers. This team is offensively challenged.

 

[Coach Orange]

No doubt JB has gone from his early years as an offensive minded coach to a more defensive minded guy. I agree though, he never was a half court offensive guru.

I think one the most obvious flaws we have on this current team, no matter what plays are called or what schemes are drawn up..we don't have very good shooters/scorers. This team is offensively challenged.

I agree with you and cuseguy--we seem to recruit for our defense, and then try to teach those players offensive skills. This year, our players aren't great at putting the ball in the hoop, which is why I ended with the comment about the Jimmys and Joes.

 

[igor]

I still contend that JB is foremost a defensive coach who relies on long-armed, athletic players to create turnovers, get long rebounds and turn them into easy baskets. Teaching offense in the half court set is not his strength.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

we have no man offense sans one on one because we can't practice against man. u saw the ncaa in a nutshell. we'll go as far as we can until we meet a uconnish team early on. unlike u the committee knows hoops and our opponents will be picked accordingly. u will make excuses, but jb knows as much as u do. nada.

 

[SarasotaPaul]

we have no man offense sans one on one because we can't practice against man. u saw the ncaa in a nutshell. we'll go as far as we can until we meet a uconnish team early on. unlike u the committee knows hoops and our opponents will be picked accordingly. u will make excuses, but jb knows as much as u do. nada.

Love your normal responses. Totally wrong and pure BS which you are so very famous for, but thats you. Blind ignorant hatred can do that to a "person".

 

[alibrat66]

Given that we seem to struggle to score in the half court, questions about our offense pop up quite a bit. Many fans claim that we don't really run a half-court offense--that Coach Boeheim just "rolls the ball out" and lets the players play. That just isn't true. The Syracuse half-court offense is a quick-hitting, set-play offense designed to let the best players make plays.

For over a decade, we have run an NBA-styled half-court offense. By Coach Boeheim's own admission, it is a "simple" offense that uses set plays to get the ball to our best players in spots they can score.

This isn't novel--all offenses try to do this. However, motion offenses (Open Post, Princeton, 4-out/1-in, 3-out/2-in, Blocker/Mover, Triangle, Flex, Swing, and even Dribble-Drive) can lead to shots for players you don't want shooting in areas from which they shouldn't shoot. These offenses don't often stress the ball staying in the best players' hands. Rather, the ball may touch all five players' hands more than once during a possession. Because of this, the defense can force a shot it wants the offense to take. For example, the defense can influence a role player that isn't a good mid-range shooter to take a 15-footer if they are disciplined throughout the possession. Also, more turnovers may happen if a player is forced to handle the ball in ways for which he isn't suited.

In theory, Boeheim controls these potential problems by running plays that get the ball into his best players' hands in spots that allow them to be isolated and make plays. This is what most NBA offenses do--they get the ball to Carmelo, Durant, Kobe, or LeBron in a good spot, and then let the star make the play.

One downside to this form of offense, though, is that the other offensive players stand around if they aren't fundamentally sound or mentally focused. This makes it much easier for the defense. When the other offensive players set screens for teammates or make basket cuts, the help defense is strained. Offensive players can get open if help defenders are caught watching the ball. If the help defenders are occupied by the screening/cutting action, the ball handler is in position to beat his man using one-on-one moves. The ball handler then needs to be good enough to do so, or he needs to find an open teammate.

A second downside is that the ball can stick in one player's hands. Defenses are much easier to beat when the ball is quickly reversed because the help doesn't have to time to rotate into position. Dribble penetration causes serious problems for defenses (which is part of the rationale for the proliferation of the pick-and-roll offenses in college basketball), but so does a quick succession of passes, a standard principle of motion offenses. In our offense, the ball often goes to the first option but, if a "good" shot isn't immediately available, we tend to see the player pound the ball into the floor or force a bad shot rather than reversing it quickly to find a high-quality shot. This leads to the offense bogging down.

One last downside of our offense is the lack of options after the initial play. Though Coach Boeheim says that there are multiple options built into each play, we rarely run a quick second option off of the first (a screen-the-screener action, for example). If the first option is taken away, we usually just run a pick-and-roll play as the second option, many times by throwing the ball back to MCW and starting the action before the other three players are in good position for spacing. We occasionally catch a defense whose post defenders hedge on the baseline down screens by slipping the post, but that only happens about once a game (See the second half of the home Nova game for examples of Fair feeding our slipping posts--both Rak and DC--a couple of times effectively).

So, how do you "fix" our offense? Despite popular belief, the design of it doesn't need a complete overhaul. Players with better offensive fundamentals would help, but that's not likely to happen this season since these skills often take thousands of repetitions to develop. Hence, some minor changes that reduce the downsides listed above would help.

One solution is to add plays. We actually included the "Shuffle" against UConn. We haven't run that all year (we used to with G-Mac and Flynn), at least not that I can recall. It earned MCW a wide-open layup, and it could have led to two others. The play also got Triche a clean look at a three-pointer, but he missed it. Those are four good scoring chances produced by pulling the posts up, getting the ball to fair at the elbow, and having MCW execute a simple UCLA cut.

We have a play called "Corner" that is designed to get the ball to the 4 at the elbow and then have a high-low option with the post and a stagger screen for our best three-point shooter. We used to run it with Warrick and G-Mac. It is another play we may want to add back into the mix to get Rak opportunities.

Another solution is to add wrinkles to our oft-run plays. Here's how we might add effective options to one of our bread-and-butter plays--the "3" play:

We often run baseline down screens (or stack screens) for both the 2 (Triche) and the 3 (Fair). The first option is to pass to the player in the play's name--in the "3," this is Fair. Usually, the first option gets to choose whether to run off a double-stack screen (with the other cutter setting the double before cutting in the opposite direction of the first option) on one side and a single screen on the other. He must read how the defense plays him--if his defender cheats up the lane, he needs to fade for a jump shot. If the defender run into the screen, he needs to cut straight to the wing. If his defender chases around the screen, he must curl into the lane.

Set the baseline screens for Fair like we often do. Let Grant and Triche set the double-stack screen for him. As Fair comes off the double, get the ball to him on the wing (assuming he doesn't curl or fade). Triche runs off the single screen on the other side (set by Rak).

After passing to Fair, MCW sets a down screen for Grant (screen-the-screener, like in the Flex offense). This would put pressure on Grant's defender--does he help on Fair's cut and allow himself to be screened, or does he not help and allow Fair to cut unimpeded? Grant could get the pass from Fair at the elbow area, where he can hit the mid-range jump shot or work high-low with Rak after MCW clears to the weakside corner.

If this doesn't work, pick and roll could still be run--Triche screens on the weak-side for MCW, Grant passes to MCW and then sets a down screen for Rak. Rak sets the ball screen for MCW and rolls, Triche replaces the roll man near the top of the key, and Grant replaces Triche. Triche and Fair spot up as MCW drives.

This wrinkle would be great because pick and roll is tough to defend when the screener's defender is trying to fight through a screen first. Rak's defender would not be in good position to hedge the ball screen because Grant has screened him first. That would give MCW a step on his drive.

This is just one example--tweaks can be made to existing plays to get Dirty looks from 3 (adding staggered screens, for example), cross screens to get Rak into better post position, etc.

Please understand that I am not saying that I know more than a Hall of Fame head coach. I definitely don't. My point is that we don't need to ditch our entire offense--the same plays that Coach B already runs could be tweaked to occupy help defenders a little more effectively through movement, to reverse the ball more in order to exploit the movement, and to run multiple options for multiple players within a single set. My bet is that Coach B is trying to work solutions like these into his practices.

However, the old saying still applies--it doesn't matter what you run in terms of X's and O's if it is not properly executed by the Jimmys and the Joes.

Interesting stuff breaking down the chess match big time basketball has become, Coach. Thanks. My problem with some of your suggestions to adjust the offense for Rak to get more looks is that, although he has the talent, Xmas doesn't seem to have the fire, which translates into lack of effort at times. There was one play in the UConn game on a missed shot where he was in the best position to run down a rebound but he strolled rather than pushed for the ball; the smaller CT guy beat him to the ball; I've seen such plays from him all season. Rak's desire or hunger is more of a question mark than him not getting enough plays run for him to be in better position to score. Heart is not something that can be taught, IMHO. How many great athletes have you known--hoops, boxers, football or baseball players--who never got to be more than mediocre? Great talent but missing that one ingredient that takes someone to standout status. I hope Hop can tap into Rak's inner beast; otherwise, Xmas is always going to be playing under his talent level, regardless of how many touches he gets.

 

[Coach Orange]

we have no man offense sans one on one because we can't practice against man.

This is factually false. In every practice, Syracuse's players participate in some combination of 3-on-3, 4-on-4, and 5-on-5 drills. The majority of these drills are against man-to-man defense. In these drills, Coach Boeheim focuses on the offense, and the assistants coach the defense.

One these drills is 5-on-5 "mini-game." The offense runs a half-court set against the man-to-man defense. After a shot goes up, the defensive team then transitions to offense, running a secondary break to the other end of the court. If they don't score on the break, they run a set play. The offense is now playing man-to-man defense. Finally, the original offensive squad transitions back to offense. If they don't score on the break, they run another set play against man defense. When the drill ends, they stop and review what worked and what can be improved.

If you want to argue that we don't practice against an elite man-to-man defense because our primary defense is the 2-3 zone, I might be able to buy that. The logic, then, would be that our half-court offense isn't practicing against the level of defense the players see in games. There may be some truth to that. However, to just claim that we can't practice against man because we play zone is not true and suggests a lack of understanding how the team prepares.

Another problem with the quoted thought is that it completely contradicts a major reason that Coach Boeheim offers for playing zone defense. He has argued many times that there are not many teams that play an effective zone defense regularly (though more now than in the past). As a result, most teams don't incorporate or practice as many zone plays as man-offense plays. Coach B feels that playing zone defense vastly reduces the number of offensive options available to the opponent. If this is true--that not many teams play effective zones--why would he spend all of the team's precious practice time having us practice against them? The logic doesn't make sense. You prepare for what you will play against, and that is man-to-man more often than not.

 

[Coach Orange]

Interesting stuff breaking down the chess match big time basketball has become, Coach. Thanks. My problem with some of your suggestions to adjust the offense for Rak to get more looks is that, although he has the talent, Xmas doesn't seem to have the fire, which translates into lack of effort at times. There was one play in the UConn game on a missed shot where he was in the best position to run down a rebound but he strolled rather than pushed for the ball; the smaller CT guy beat him to the ball; I've seen such plays from him all season. Rak's desire or hunger is more of a question mark than him not getting enough plays run for him to be in better position to score. Heart is not something that can be taught, IMHO. How many great athletes have you known--hoops, boxers, football or baseball players--who never got to be more than mediocre? Great talent but missing that one ingredient that takes someone to standout status. I hope Hop can tap into Rak's inner beast; otherwise, Xmas is always going to be playing under his talent level, regardless of how many touches he gets.

Ali--I agree with you 100% on Rak. His fundamentals are definitely not sound at the moment. Because of that, you would hope that he would be a "high motor" player, a la Kristof from a few years back. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to demonstrate that consistently, either. I hope he really works on his game this summer to reach his potential. Only he can do that. Your point about how many "talents" end up mediocre because of poor work ethic or lack of hustle is well-taken.

That said, my thoughts are really aimed at how to get a post player cleaner looks since all of ours generally lack "back to the basket" skills at the moment. Whether that player is Rak, DC (when he returns), or Baye isn't really that important to me. I chose Rak solely on his athletic upside.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

I agree with you and cuseguy--we seem to recruit for our defense, and then try to teach those players offensive skills. This year, our players aren't great at putting the ball in the hoop, which is why I ended with the comment about the Jimmys and Joes.

I disagree. I think JB had been big time recruiting for O. His defense was a way to rest and hide some of his more valuable offensive players. JB wanted the Jimmys and Joes who could get the ball in the basket and he then tried to patchwork a defense.

It is only recently that his D has made strides, the '10-'11 squad. Prior to that JB recruited for the biggest offensive weapons he could get. He would then hope to mitigate and hide the Devendorfish defensive deficiencies in a zone.

I'm not sure he has really changed either. I think the talent pool of who he gets to chose from and how many he is able to get has seriously helped. But gun to his head, offensive vs defensive guy, I think he still might take the offensive guy (DC2 over Noel for example).

 

[LetMeIn]

we have no man offense sans one on one because we can't practice against man. u saw the ncaa in a nutshell. we'll go as far as we can until we meet a uconnish team early on. unlike u the committee knows hoops and our opponents will be picked accordingly. u will make excuses, but jb knows as much as u do. nada.

Are you implying that committee is actively rooting for Syracuse to lose and goes out of its way to make sure that they get matched up with teams that will be able to beat them?

 

[Coach Orange]

I disagree. I think JB had been big time recruiting for O. His defense was a way to rest and hide some of his more valuable offensive players. JB wanted the Jimmys and Joes who could get the ball in the basket and he then tried to patchwork a defense.

It is only recently that his D has made strides, the '10-'11 squad. Prior to that JB recruited for the biggest offensive weapons he could get. He would then hope to mitigate and hide the Devendorfish defensive deficiencies in a zone.

I'm not sure he has really changed either. I think the talent pool of who he gets to chose from and how many he is able to get has seriously helped. But gun to his head, offensive vs defensive guy, I think he still might take the offensive guy (DC2 over Noel for example).

Fair point, Sgt. If asked in public, I think Boeheim would actually agree with you. However, his recruiting seems to be linked to our defensive philosophy (long, lean athletes that can take up space with their length in the zone), and his in-game coaching choices tend to suggest that he is really more focused on defense during games. He tends to pull players faster for their defensive lapses than offensive ones. If he really slanted toward offense, you would think his "teaching" points would be aimed at that during game action.

That said, I'm not strongly disagreeing with you--a coach has to balance both offense and defense, and he will try to get the best players he can to fill both. An example in your favor, though--Carmelo wasn't brought here for defense alone.

 

[RF2044]

It is great to read a post from someone who understands set plays and offensive movement [with and without the ball].

I also agree that the execution of our sets could be improved quite a bit simply by having the players make some adjustments. That's the good news.

The bad news is that we are two-thirds of the way through the season, and the players seem no more adept at executing our half court offensive sets than they were at the beginning of the year.

As for low post offense, I have a feeling that Coleman is going to make a fairly substantial jump in both his physical conditioning and his ability to score in the box next season. I think that Rak, too, will be improved, although I am less confident about what his ceiling is and whether or not his development will be stunted by poor instincts and lack of killer instinct. Unfortunately, I think that these two providing a more robust low-post threat in our offensive sets might come a year too late [I fear] for the team we have this year, which is just as capable of winning it all as several other teams...if only we didn't struggle so much to score.

 

[MCC]

I still contend that JB is foremost a defensive coach who relies on long-armed, athletic players to create turnovers, get long rebounds and turn them into easy baskets. Teaching offense in the half court set is not his strength.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JB is (IMO) brilliant at calling sets on out of bounds / dead ball situations wherein we're keeping the ball on our offensive end.

 

[MCC]

It is great to read a post from someone who understands set plays and offensive movement [with and without the ball].

I also agree that the execution of our sets could be improved quite a bit simply by having the players make some adjustments. That's the good news.

The bad news is that we are two-thirds of the way through the season, and the players seem no more adept at executing our half court offensive sets than they were at the beginning of the year.

As for low post offense, I have a feeling that Coleman is going to make a fairly substantial jump in both his physical conditioning and his ability to score in the box next season. I think that Rak, too, will be improved, although I am less confident about what his ceiling is and whether or not his development will be stunted by poor instincts and lack of killer instinct. Unfortunately, I think that these two providing a more robust low-post threat in our offensive sets might come a year too late [I fear] for the team we have this year, which is just as capable of winning it all as several other teams...if only we didn't struggle so much to score.

Coleman will be the guy. Great hands, naturally like to live on the box with back to the basket, and once he slows down and makes moves fluidly we'll have that guy.

 

[RF2044]

Coleman will be the guy. Great hands, naturally like to live on the box with back to the basket, and once he slows down and makes moves fluidly we'll have that guy.

I completely agree--it will happen eventually. I just don't know if things will fall into place THIS YEAR, given that we have many of the other ingredients needed to legitimately contend / make a postseason run.

 

[Gabjon]

Great post! I think the issue is that in the beginning of the season our m2m offense was far ahead of our zone offense consequently we went a month with all but 2 teams playing zone against us. Our zone offense has since improved (although St.john's zone was a joke) but we did not adjust to Uconn's man very well.

Now we only have one good shooter and whether a team mans us or zones us our offense IMO needs to be run through our forwards, unfortunately it is up to guards to realize this and make the right decisions (regardless of the play call) to get the ball to the scorers on the team. To be honest this is not as easy as it sounds. The defense is telling our guards to shoot by the way they are being played and scoring the ball is the best way to make them rethink that strategy, but the percentages aren't lying and the strategy is working. In the pros or if our forwards were elite players we could just let them bring the ball up the court i.e. Carmelo or Durant or Lebron etc., but our forwards are not that good they can score but handling the ball is not their strengths.

What I would like to see is an inversion of the roles between CJ, James and Grant (when he is in). For example during the Uconn game James was defined as the 3 man and CJ the 4 man. This is because James plays further away for the basket than CJ. The result was that Uconn guarded James with a smaller lighter guy who was quick and didn't allow James the space he needs to shoot. CJ was guarded by a bigger guy who was very physical with him and did a great job keeping him off the boards. I think should just invert their roles in the offense, let's see if the bigger slower guy can guard CJ in space and let's see if the quicker light player can defend James in the post. When grant was in the game he was guarded by the 4 whether he was in there with James or CJ, how many 4s can guard Grant in space? My guess is not many. Now this can be done by running screens with CJ and James (screening for each other without the ball) but that would require that they make the correct reads based on how the defense plays it. I would prefer that we keep them in the finisher role and not ask them to make decisions, because I fear the turnover.

 

[Coach Orange]

I tend to like James at the 4, too. He drags a post defender away from the hoop. He pops when setting ball screens, forcing that defender to play 20 feet away from the hoop. This opens up driving space for MCW to operate. I also like this option when Rak or Baye sets the ball screen. As the other post rolls to the hoop, James replaces (roll and replace) to the three-point line, opening up a shot opportunity. He made a three-pointer on side pick-and-roll against UConn--Cooney received the screen. As the screener (Rak) rolled, James replaced him--Cooney passed to him for the three-pointer.

I think Coach Boeheim would rather James play the 3, though, so that when the "3" play is run, he is the shooter that comes off the screen looking to catch and shoot. That forces Fair to the 4.

Like you, as a coach, I like the thought of Fair and Grant, versatile players, in space with options for attacking. Fair can do this at the 3 or 4 spots (like when we run Shuffle). Though James's ball-handling is better this year, Fair is a better option for making plays. When James catches the ball, it is pretty much a guarantee it will be a shot or nothing.

 

[Gabjon]

I tend to like James at the 4, too. He drags a post defender away from the hoop. He pops when setting ball screens, forcing that defender to play 20 feet away from the hoop. This opens up driving space for MCW to operate. I also like this option when Rak or Baye sets the ball screen. As the other post rolls to the hoop, James replaces (roll and replace) to the three-point line, opening up a shot opportunity. He made a three-pointer on side pick-and-roll against UConn--Cooney received the screen. As the screener (Rak) rolled, James replaced him--Cooney passed to him for the three-pointer.

I think Coach Boeheim would rather James play the 3, though, so that when the "3" play is run, he is the shooter that comes off the screen looking to catch and shoot. That forces Fair to the 4.

Like you, as a coach, I like the thought of Fair and Grant, versatile players, in space with options for attacking. Fair can do this at the 3 or 4 spots (like when we run Shuffle). Though James's ball-handling is better this year, Fair is a better option for making plays. When James catches the ball, it is pretty much a guarantee it will be a shot or nothing.

Yeah don't really believe either one is playing the 3 or 4. In the zone they both play the wing and on offense it is really defined by how they are defended. In general CJ is defended by the 3 man when he is on the floor with Grant but when James is on the floor the defense puts there 3 man on him and their 4 man on CJ.

Last year Kris Jo was clearly a 3 and no one moved their 3 man to James when he came in for CJ. What I am saying is if the defense puts their 3 man on James I want Jame to go to the post and CJ space their 4 man out to 20ft where the defender is probably not comfortable.

 

[MSOrange]

Given that we seem to struggle to score in the half court, questions about our offense pop up quite a bit. Many fans claim that we don't really run a half-court offense--that Coach Boeheim just "rolls the ball out" and lets the players play. That just isn't true. The Syracuse half-court offense is a quick-hitting, set-play offense designed to let the best players make plays.

For over a decade, we have run an NBA-styled half-court offense. By Coach Boeheim's own admission, it is a "simple" offense that uses set plays to get the ball to our best players in spots they can score.

This isn't novel--all offenses try to do this. However, motion offenses (Open Post, Princeton, 4-out/1-in, 3-out/2-in, Blocker/Mover, Triangle, Flex, Swing, and even Dribble-Drive) can lead to shots for players you don't want shooting in areas from which they shouldn't shoot. These offenses don't often stress the ball staying in the best players' hands. Rather, the ball may touch all five players' hands more than once during a possession. Because of this, the defense can force a shot it wants the offense to take. For example, the defense can influence a role player that isn't a good mid-range shooter to take a 15-footer if they are disciplined throughout the possession. Also, more turnovers may happen if a player is forced to handle the ball in ways for which he isn't suited.

In theory, Boeheim controls these potential problems by running plays that get the ball into his best players' hands in spots that allow them to be isolated and make plays. This is what most NBA offenses do--they get the ball to Carmelo, Durant, Kobe, or LeBron in a good spot, and then let the star make the play.

One downside to this form of offense, though, is that the other offensive players stand around if they aren't fundamentally sound or mentally focused. This makes it much easier for the defense. When the other offensive players set screens for teammates or make basket cuts, the help defense is strained. Offensive players can get open if help defenders are caught watching the ball. If the help defenders are occupied by the screening/cutting action, the ball handler is in position to beat his man using one-on-one moves. The ball handler then needs to be good enough to do so, or he needs to find an open teammate.

A second downside is that the ball can stick in one player's hands. Defenses are much easier to beat when the ball is quickly reversed because the help doesn't have to time to rotate into position. Dribble penetration causes serious problems for defenses (which is part of the rationale for the proliferation of the pick-and-roll offenses in college basketball), but so does a quick succession of passes, a standard principle of motion offenses. In our offense, the ball often goes to the first option but, if a "good" shot isn't immediately available, we tend to see the player pound the ball into the floor or force a bad shot rather than reversing it quickly to find a high-quality shot. This leads to the offense bogging down.

One last downside of our offense is the lack of options after the initial play. Though Coach Boeheim says that there are multiple options built into each play, we rarely run a quick second option off of the first (a screen-the-screener action, for example). If the first option is taken away, we usually just run a pick-and-roll play as the second option, many times by throwing the ball back to MCW and starting the action before the other three players are in good position for spacing. We occasionally catch a defense whose post defenders hedge on the baseline down screens by slipping the post, but that only happens about once a game (See the second half of the home Nova game for examples of Fair feeding our slipping posts--both Rak and DC--a couple of times effectively).

So, how do you "fix" our offense? Despite popular belief, the design of it doesn't need a complete overhaul. Players with better offensive fundamentals would help, but that's not likely to happen this season since these skills often take thousands of repetitions to develop. Hence, some minor changes that reduce the downsides listed above would help.

One solution is to add plays. We actually included the "Shuffle" against UConn. We haven't run that all year (we used to with G-Mac and Flynn), at least not that I can recall. It earned MCW a wide-open layup, and it could have led to two others. The play also got Triche a clean look at a three-pointer, but he missed it. Those are four good scoring chances produced by pulling the posts up, getting the ball to fair at the elbow, and having MCW execute a simple UCLA cut.

We have a play called "Corner" that is designed to get the ball to the 4 at the elbow and then have a high-low option with the post and a stagger screen for our best three-point shooter. We used to run it with Warrick and G-Mac. It is another play we may want to add back into the mix to get Rak opportunities.

Another solution is to add wrinkles to our oft-run plays. Here's how we might add effective options to one of our bread-and-butter plays--the "3" play:

We often run baseline down screens (or stack screens) for both the 2 (Triche) and the 3 (Fair). The first option is to pass to the player in the play's name--in the "3," this is Fair. Usually, the first option gets to choose whether to run off a double-stack screen (with the other cutter setting the double before cutting in the opposite direction of the first option) on one side and a single screen on the other. He must read how the defense plays him--if his defender cheats up the lane, he needs to fade for a jump shot. If the defender run into the screen, he needs to cut straight to the wing. If his defender chases around the screen, he must curl into the lane.

Set the baseline screens for Fair like we often do. Let Grant and Triche set the double-stack screen for him. As Fair comes off the double, get the ball to him on the wing (assuming he doesn't curl or fade). Triche runs off the single screen on the other side (set by Rak).

After passing to Fair, MCW sets a down screen for Grant (screen-the-screener, like in the Flex offense). This would put pressure on Grant's defender--does he help on Fair's cut and allow himself to be screened, or does he not help and allow Fair to cut unimpeded? Grant could get the pass from Fair at the elbow area, where he can hit the mid-range jump shot or work high-low with Rak after MCW clears to the weakside corner.

If this doesn't work, pick and roll could still be run--Triche screens on the weak-side for MCW, Grant passes to MCW and then sets a down screen for Rak. Rak sets the ball screen for MCW and rolls, Triche replaces the roll man near the top of the key, and Grant replaces Triche. Triche and Fair spot up as MCW drives.

This wrinkle would be great because pick and roll is tough to defend when the screener's defender is trying to fight through a screen first. Rak's defender would not be in good position to hedge the ball screen because Grant has screened him first. That would give MCW a step on his drive.

This is just one example--tweaks can be made to existing plays to get Dirty looks from 3 (adding staggered screens, for example), cross screens to get Rak into better post position, etc.

Please understand that I am not saying that I know more than a Hall of Fame head coach. I definitely don't. My point is that we don't need to ditch our entire offense--the same plays that Coach B already runs could be tweaked to occupy help defenders a little more effectively through movement, to reverse the ball more in order to exploit the movement, and to run multiple options for multiple players within a single set. My bet is that Coach B is trying to work solutions like these into his practices.

However, the old saying still applies--it doesn't matter what you run in terms of X's and O's if it is not properly executed by the Jimmys and the Joes.

I really have nothing to add except please post more often. I have learned a ton from your posts.

 

[stuckinbig11]

Coach Orange: This has been an interesting read. Either you are an astute observer at games, a past player, or have an inside seat at practices. Can you give us a hint?

 

[Coach Orange]

I really have nothing to add except please post more often. I have learned a ton from your posts.

Thanks. I appreciate that.