Why do we not see anything different on offense

[orangepassion]

It feels like we get very few easy shots. However, we give up plenty of those either on alley-oops or Offensive Rebounds

 

[Alsacs]

Meh. I think you are off base here, Alsacs. We're not talking about a football playbook -- how many plays do you expect the team to have?

This might surprise people, but most teams only have a handful of plays, generally three or fewer. It is uncommon for teams to have more than that, although there are some exceptions where coaches that tend to overcoach and call sets every time down the court might have more. Bobby Knight used to just use ONE--a single play, think about that for a second.

You can make adjustments out of what you are trying to do, but at the end of the day it comes down to the capabilities of the players, not the number of plays you run. Non-issue, IMO.

Our offense compared to an average P5/BE is below average.
It is so basic. I watch Butler or Creighton or Iowa or California or Georgia these teams don't have more talent than we do.
We don't do anything on offense but have a big give a ball screen and throw up jump shots.
We don't develop bigs consistently. We don't throw the ball in and try to get help for the guards.
We drive ball and don't do anything to help the driver.
Our scheme is so basic. Watch the old teams JB had a plan. We don't even try transition anymore.

 

[OrangeDW]

I don't think they have done the best they could though.
We haven't used all available scholarships 4 of the last 5 years including the probation years.
In 2013 we only used 11 scholarships
In 2014 we only used 11 scholarships.
In 2015 we only used 11 scholarships
In 2016 we used all 10 scholarships.
This year we are using 10 of 11.

Not recruiting depth and kicking out 2 players for the benefit of the sanctions starting a year earlier on the staff/JB.

I think they did the best they could with THIS roster... not counting previous mistakes that shaped this roster, if that makes sense. Meaning, once Malachi left, Joseph transferred...we brought in Gillon, White, and Thompson. You can't really do much better than that, given the circumstances.

Now as to why our backs were against the wall so badly, well yeah a good part of that was on the staff. There were some recruiting misses and questionable decisions to be sure. Combine that with probation, and the bad luck of some unexpected early entries and it's easy to see why things are the way they are. The good news is that it shouldn't be nearly as hard to get things back on track in bball than it is in football. We get one great class(like the Flynn-Scoop-Jackson-Greene one) and we're back in great shape.

 

[RF2044]

Our offense compared to an average P5/BE is below average.
It is so basic. I watch Butler or Creighton or Iowa or California or Georgia these teams don't have more talent than we do.
We don't do anything on offense but have a big give a ball screen and throw up jump shots.
We don't develop bigs consistently. We don't throw the ball in and try to get help for the guards.
We drive ball and don't do anything to help the driver.
Our scheme is so basic. Watch the old teams JB had a plan. We don't even try transition anymore.

The scheme is not better or worse than what it used to be, it's just more perimeter oriented now. The players' capabilities are what is different.

Back in the first golden era, we used to have stronger PG play, better rebounding [which enabled us to get out in transition]. We had much better inside scoring, multiple ball handlers playing in the lineup at the same time who could attack and create off the dribble, etc. That enabled us to improvise when things broke down and we got late in the shot clock and needed to make something happen.

Who are the ball handlers now? We only have two player who can do anything effectively off of the bounce [Battle and Gillon]--that's it. We're a stationary jump shooting team, guys like White / Lydon are stand still jumpshooters, and even Thompson [who CAN score inside] isn't strong enough to be a consistent post up guy -- he gets most of his points on face up drives and knocking down mid-range shots.

When you are a jump shooting team, you look terrific when shots are falling, not so much when they aren't. It isn't that the system is flawed. Teams with more offensive balance can fall back on other things when one part of their offense isn't effective any given game. Imbalanced teams that rely primarily on one thing don't have that luxury.

 

[OrangeDW]

Our offense compared to an average P5/BE is below average.
It is so basic. I watch Butler or Creighton or Iowa or California or Georgia these teams don't have more talent than we do.
We don't do anything on offense but have a big give a ball screen and throw up jump shots.
We don't develop bigs consistently. We don't throw the ball in and try to get help for the guards.
We drive ball and don't do anything to help the driver.
Our scheme is so basic. Watch the old teams JB had a plan. We don't even try transition anymore.

The numbers I posted above don't really bare that out. We are middle of the pack(in the toughest league) in scoring and shooting. Were near the top of the league in 3 point shooting and assists.

 

[Cusefan0307]

When Gillon is good our offense looks good. When he is bad our offense looks bad. It's our defense that's been the bigger issue for most of the year IMO. If we could have got stops against Georgetown, St. Johns, BC, Pitt, Virginia Tech etc... we probably would have 5 more wins right now.

 

[Cusefan0307]

The numbers I posted above don't really bare that out. We are middle of the pack(in the toughest league) in scoring and shooting. Were near the top of the league in 3 point shooting and assists.

Yesterday wasn't pretty, but that was more the exception than the norm. We are 31st in KP rating on O and 101 on D. The 101 on D is the worst it's ever been.

 

[br801]

The scheme is not better or worse than what it used to be, it's just more perimeter oriented now. The players' capabilities are what is different.

Back in the first golden era, we used to have stronger PG play, better rebounding [which enabled us to get out in transition]. We had much better inside scoring, multiple ball handlers playing in the lineup at the same time who can create off the dribble, etc. That enabled us to improvise when things broke down and we got late in the shot clock and needed to make something happen.

Who are the ball handlers now? We only have two player who can do anything effectively off of the bounce [Battle and Gillon]. We're a stationary jump shooting team, guys like White / Lydon are stand still jumpshooters, and even Thompson [who CAN score inside] isn't strong enough to be a consistent post up guy -- he gets most of his points on face up drives and knocking down mid-range shots.

When you are a jump shooting team, you look terrific when shots are falling, not so much when they aren't. It isn't that the system is flawed. Teams with more offensive balance can fall back on other things when one part of their offense isn't effective any given game. Imbalanced teams that rely primarily on one thing don't have that luxury.

And when you're a jump shooting team that doesn't rebound the basketball well on either end and struggles to play the zone consistently well, your road to victory against strong opponents is quite narrow.

 

[Alsacs]

The scheme is not better or worse than what it used to be, it's just more perimeter oriented now. The players' capabilities are what is different.

Back in the first golden era, we used to have stronger PG play, better rebounding [which enabled us to get out in transition]. We had much better inside scoring, multiple ball handlers playing in the lineup at the same time who could attack and create off the dribble, etc. That enabled us to improvise when things broke down and we got late in the shot clock and needed to make something happen.

Who are the ball handlers now? We only have two player who can do anything effectively off of the bounce [Battle and Gillon]--that's it. We're a stationary jump shooting team, guys like White / Lydon are stand still jumpshooters, and even Thompson [who CAN score inside] isn't strong enough to be a consistent post up guy -- he gets most of his points on face up drives and knocking down mid-range shots.

When you are a jump shooting team, you look terrific when shots are falling, not so much when they aren't. It isn't that the system is flawed. Teams with more offensive balance can fall back on other things when one part of their offense isn't effective any given game. Imbalanced teams that rely primarily on one thing don't have that luxury.

From 1990 till 1992 we didn't have a PG. After Sherm till Autry.

Those teams still ran and had offenses. To have a competent offense we shouldn't have to have a good PG.

Our offense the last 4 years has been awful if we don't make jump shots. That isn't a offense it's shooting.

 

[SoBeCuse]

The scheme isnot better or worse than what it used to be, it's just more perimeter oriented now. The players' capabilities are what is different.

Back in the first golden era, we used to have stronger PG play, better rebounding [which enabled us to get out in transition]. We had much better inside scoring, multiple ball handlers playing in the lineup at the same time who can create off the dribble, etc. That enabled us to improvise when things broke down and we got late in the shot clock and needed to make something happen.

Who are the ball handlers now? We only have two player who can do anything effectively off of the bounce [Battle and Gillon]. We're a stationary jump shooting team, guys like White / Lydon are stand still jumpshooters, and even Thompson [who CAN score inside] isn't strong enough to be a consistent post up guy -- he gets most of his points on face up drives and knocking down mid-range shots.

When you are a jump shooting team, you look terrific when shots are falling, not so much when they aren't. It isn't that the system is flawed.

I agree with both of you guys. Those late 80s early 90s teams had some forwards who could really handle the ball and pass as someone pointed out. Part of the reason why Arizona has been so consistent since Miller arrived. All those guys including their bigs can pass and they have guys who can handle the ball.

I think it is fair to say that there is often too much standing around. Not enough cutting off of drives as well. Maybe some of this are due to limitations of ballhandling or maybe they are instructed to just find spots on the floor to shoot jumpers from. They finish really poorly at the rim so maybe we have exclusively settled for jumpers now. Regardless, it is a little bit of settling but it is what it is.

We just need better players in general. More edge, better skill sets all around since the fundamentals seem to not be emphasized much and a surprising number of posters think that is ok and that the players don't need to be taught those things at this level. A friend once went to a Louisville practice and he said the energy level is through the roof and Pitino is out there drilling fundamentals into the players constantly. Louisville looked and played like it was Varsity VS JV. I would consider them a peer program in terms of recruiting but it sure hasn't looked like that lately.

 

[Alsacs]

When Gillon is good our offense looks good. When he is bad our offense looks bad. It's our defense that's been the bigger issue for most of the year IMO. If we could have got stops against Georgetown, St. Johns, BC, Pitt, Virginia Tech etc... we probably would have 5 more wins right now.

Gillon making jump shots makes our offense good. That is fools gold because it isn't consistent as you say. I want an offense that isn't relying on making 3's to be decent.
Our offensive identity sucks because JB wants to play exclusive zone and sacrifices rebounding.

 

[OrangeDW]

From 1990 till 1992 we didn't have a PG. After Sherm till Autry.

Those teams still ran and had offenses. To have a competent offense we shouldn't have to have a good PG.

Our offense the last 4 years has been awful if we don't make jump shots. That isn't a offense it's shooting.

Autry was here in '91.

We had Billy Owens, a forward who had guard skills. The guy averaged 23 points, 12 rebounds, and 4 assists in '91! Averaged 18, 8, and 5 as a soph. Also in '90, had a senior Coleman who was a great passer for a big man. When you've got some versatile, multidimensional superstar players, it can help offset or mask some holes.

 

[Alsacs]

Autry was here in '91.

We had Billy Owens, a forward who had guard skills. Also in '90, had a senior Coleman who was a great passer for a big man. When you've got some versatile, multidimensional superstar players, it can help offset or mask some holes.

Autry wasn't given the keys till 1992 because of Edwards.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Gillon making jump shots makes our offense good. That is fools gold because it isn't consistent as you say. I want an offense that isn't relying on making 3's to be decent.
Our offensive identity sucks because JB wants to play exclusive zone and sacrifices rebounding.

He went to the basket pretty well against Duke and has in some other games. I think in general most basketball is moving toward increased 3 point shooting. If you want to complain about the offense, I think screen execution is a far bigger issue than the strategy we have.

 

[OrangeDW]

Autry wasn't given the keys till 1992 because of Edwards.

Autry started as a freshman, played more than Edwards, had more assists, and had the ball in his hands more though.

Plus we had junior Billy Owens on that team.

 

[RF2044]

Autry was here in '91.

We had Billy Owens, a forward who had guard skills. The guy averaged 23 points, 12 rebounds, and 4 assists in '91! Averaged 18, 8, and 5 as a junior. Also in '90, had a senior Coleman who was a great passer for a big man. When you've got some versatile, multidimensional superstar players, it can help offset or mask some holes.

100% correct. We had a one year gap between Sherman and Autry.

And in addition to the PG, we had Owens [who at 6-9 was like a guard handling / passing the ball], Coleman [who at 6-9 had an incredible handle and vision as a passer, and could also shoot out to three point range]. We had Stevie Thompson, who couldn't shoot but excelled at taking it to the rack. And after that, we had guys like David Johnson and Lawrence Moten who could also handle the ball.

That's lots of versatility, not even factoring in the PG, Alsacs.

Went more offensive variety? Recruit better inside players, or coach them up to be better. That will give us offensive balance. Coleman MIGHT have been able to provide some of that, if he'd remained healthy. Thompson will when he gains a little strength. But right now? The principals are all perimeter jump shooters, with a dash of Battle's ability to score in the lane mixed in.

 

[AZOrange]

The scheme is not better or worse than what it used to be, it's just more perimeter oriented now. The players' capabilities are what is different.

Back in the first golden era, we used to have stronger PG play, better rebounding [which enabled us to get out in transition]. We had much better inside scoring, multiple ball handlers playing in the lineup at the same time who could attack and create off the dribble, etc. That enabled us to improvise when things broke down and we got late in the shot clock and needed to make something happen.

Who are the ball handlers now? We only have two player who can do anything effectively off of the bounce [Battle and Gillon]--that's it. We're a stationary jump shooting team, guys like White / Lydon are stand still jumpshooters, and even Thompson [who CAN score inside] isn't strong enough to be a consistent post up guy -- he gets most of his points on face up drives and knocking down mid-range shots.

When you are a jump shooting team, you look terrific when shots are falling, not so much when they aren't. It isn't that the system is flawed. Teams with more offensive balance can fall back on other things when one part of their offense isn't effective any given game. Imbalanced teams that rely primarily on one thing don't have that luxury.

I agree with this. The execution of fundamentals is pretty rough. We don't set screens well and as a result teams that switch can just ride the guard out. And our bigs are completely out of position when a shot goes up.

 

[RF2044]

Autry wasn't given the keys till 1992 because of Edwards.

That's not accurate.

 

[Cusefan0307]

100% correct. We had a one year gap between Sherman and Autry.

And in addition to the PG, we had Owens [who at 6-9 was like a guard handling / passing the ball], Coleman [who at 6-9 had an incredible handle and vision as a passer, and could also shoot out to three point range]. We had Stevie Thompson, who couldn't shoot but excelled at taking it to the rack. And after that, we had guys like David Johnson and Lawrence Moten who could also handle the ball.

That's lots of versatility, not even factoring in the PG, Alsacs.

Went more offensive variety? Recruit better inside players, or coach them up to be better. That will give us offensive balance. Coleman MIGHT have been able to provide some of that, if he'd remained healthy. Thompson will when he gains a little strength. But right now? The principals are all perimeter jump shooters, with a dash of Battle's ability to score in the lane mixed in.

TBH Lydon has been open a lot in the post this year, we just haven't executed the pass. I'd add post passing by the guards as one of the biggest program weaknesses we have had from the guard position since Rautins graduated.

 

[Bayside44]

From 1990 till 1992 we didn't have a PG. After Sherm till Autry.

Those teams still ran and had offenses. To have a competent offense we shouldn't have to have a good PG.

Our offense the last 4 years has been awful if we don't make jump shots. That isn't a offense it's shooting.

Autry came in in 1990 for the 90-91 season. So one year where we were absolutely loaded everywhere else.

 

[Bayside44]

Autry wasn't given the keys till 1992 because of Edwards.

Incorrect. They played in the backcourt together but Edwards was off the ball.

 

[Alsacs]

I am wrong on Edwards-Autry I guess.
On the ball screens if we can't execute them after five years isn't that bad coaching. I don't think it should be that hard to teach the kids how to execute a freaking ball screen. The scheme in the fundamentalsI are what practice is for.

 

[Alsacs]

I'm ready for Hopkins because I'm hoping we will at least have an offense that isn't relying on having an NBA point guard to be more than a jump shooting team.
Compared to other elite teams I hate relying on defense to be a NC contender.
The zone is a weapon no doubt but relying on it 100% and making us a one trick pony has hurt the offense.

 

[RF2044]

I'm ready for Hopkins because I'm hoping we will at least have an offense that isn't relying on having an NBA point guard to be more than a jump shooting team.
Compared to other elite teams I hate relying on defense to be a NC contender.
The zone is a weapon no doubt but relying on it 100% and making us a one trick pony has hurt the offense.

Did the zone hurt us in 2009? How about 2012?

The players are what is holding the offense back, not the system. Too many jumpshooters, not enough guys who can do something--anything--off of the bounce. I think that three point shooting is terrific; that's the way that the game has evolved. But I love having guys with the versatility to do multiple things, not just one thing really, really well. Makes the offense more dangerous and difficult to guard.

Remember back in the early preseason when some posters got extremely bent out of shape when I reported that White wouldn't make a good 2 and Lydon wouldn't make a good 3 because they lacked any semblance of offensive skill for those positions, other than outside shooting [you were not one of those posters, Alsacs]?

I love Lydon and White. I'm not knocking them. But when you have guys with limitations like that, the offense is going to look different than if you have Gbinije [just for example] playing the 3 and able to create for himself and others off of the bounce. Or a guy like Hakim Warrick, who is a strong post up threat but could also step out and shoot.

All that said, I do agree 100% with your point about sacrificing skill for athleticism. Athleticism is very important in high major college basketball, but it is also nice to have guys with high hoops IQ, a good feel for the game, and good fundamentals. And those things aren't mutually exclusive [see: CJ Fair]. Would much rather have guys who can play than a bunch of athletes who lack strong fundamentals.

 

[Alsacs]

Did the zone hurt us in 2009? How about 2012?

The players are what is holding the offense back. Too many jumpshooters, not enough guys who can do something--anything--off of the bounce.

Remember back in the early preseason when some posters got bent out of shape when I reported that White wouldn't make a good 2 and Lydon wouldn't make a good 3 because they lacked any semblance of offensive skill for those positions, other than outside shooting [you were not one of those posters, Alsacs]? Now you're seeing why.

I love Lydon and White. I'm not knocking them. But when you have guys with limitations like that, the offense is going to look different than if you have Gbinije [just for example] playing the 3 and able to create for himself and others off of the bounce.

In 2009 I don't think we were recruiting players for 100% zone defense. Maybe by 2012 we were recruiting for zone defense 100%. I think those recruiting classes though included we more skillful offense players and not fits for the zone.
I think recruiting has emphasized defense more than anything and that has hurt our offense. When we were getting all those skill guys in the 80s and 90s and early 2000's we weren't recruiting to play 100% zone.