Summer League Team : Russell smooth 21 (1-4)

hey now...let's not pine for MDA. he tried to make pau a three point shooter. he might have murdered a baby to prevent the hibbert acquisition. this guy's at home for a reason, imo. I'm sure another lotto team that wants to gimmick their way to brief respectability will give him a call (Denver, I'm looking in your direction), but I think his goose is cooked as a master strategist. I also think the lip service provided him by the likes of steve kerr is just that--what kerr did in gs is NOT what MDA did anywhere. kerr worked with his personnel, whereas MDA consistently tried to shoehorn whomever was around into his system. it only worked when he had a very unique set of talented players. at that point, I thought maybe he was a good coach, but when it came time for him to adjust, he flopped time and again.

btw, none of this is a vote of confidence for scott. the lakers' coaching choices are the most glaring black mark on the front office over the past few years. amazing that they've flubbed so many choices so flagrantly--and in ways most casual observers foresaw!

 

Stretch Bigs, it's the new NBA

 

So, if you are a teacher teaching Calculus and on the first day of the semester you decide to give a quiz to determine the students proficiency in the subject matter and you find that they don't have a clue what do you do? Change the subject matter to ensure the students are successful or teach Calculus and make them grow and learn?

This isn't to defend the staff at all rather a counter opinion to the thought that we need to change everything to make rookies look good rather than grow their capabilities. Good coaches can grow anyone. Poor ones chase the now with players at the expense of the future.

 

To go with your analogy, it seems like trying to teach calculus to students who are still at the remedial algebra level, not even to trig yet.

But I think you misunderstand my intent. I'm just diagnosing some of the team's struggles, not suggesting change. All I'msaying is that the Princeton being difficult to learn may make these players look like they don't have any fundamentals. I'm not saying change the Princeton. I'm just cursing the Princeton in the moment because it's painful to watch, but maybe it'll pay dividends in the long run. Or, maybe it won't. You seem to support the growing pains of the Princeton to get the long term benefits. help me understand why because I'm far from a basketball x's and o's guy. at a very layman's level I see gifted passers like Nash, Russell, Paul, etc more successful in a freer more pg centric offense while struggling mightily with the Princeton.

 

5:30, should have known.

 

Are we assuming that this teacher (Byron) is a poor teacher that has been fired from his last two jobs for poor test results (Losing records) because he's teaching a subject (Princeton) that our past coach (Brown) tried to implement and failed as well? Or that only a few teachers (Adelman) has ever been able to successfully teach and translate it into good test results (Wins) at the level of competence these students (NBA players) have? Or that this teacher (Byron) took frequent vacations (Golf outings) while on the job?

Your analogy fails at the point where you assume the Princeton (Calculus) is a commonly used course (Offense) with many great teachers that get good results and outliers that don't. When really the Princeton has been met with great failure and that scenario you described above is the NORM for that subject/offense.

I'd liken the Princeton to a college course that gets removed from the curriculum because their are very few teachers who can teach it effectively at the intelligence level of NBA players and not many students/players are interested in learning/running it.

 

Now I have a headache

 

Is the game only on NBATV, no TWC?

 

You mention guys that have personal success and great stats. I'd point to a PG who I think is the most effective in the league over the last 10 years who plays in a much more structured offense and has "lesser" stats but is more "successful" in Tony Parker.

The way he is used in a modified movement offense is fantastic. If he and Paul were switched Parker would put up as good if not better numbers as Paul while also having the same "success" Paul has enjoyed which is no championships.

My larger point has nothing to do with the offensive structure whatsoever. It's more the idea that a system should be implemented to ensure success of one or two players at the expense of the entire team. Part of the maturation process is actually learning not just doing what you have been and nothing else.

To the actual X's and O's. Pick and roll based offenses have had a very low success rate in the playoffs historically. It puts too much of the emphasis on one or two players contributions and when you win a championship its rarely on the back just one or two guys. We don't really have the personnel to run one at this point either. Opposing teams would just pack the paint and make our bigs shoot 15 foot jumpers. All good P&R teams has face up shooting 4's and 5's who can roll to the hoop. Hibbert really isn't that type of 5 and Randle has shown no ability or desire to face up. A motion style offense that is based on passing not dribbling implemented well will actually help the younger guys. Is Scott the guy? I haven't a clue. He got a team to the finals a couple of time and he's also coached low talent teams that have sucked. Maybe the caliber of the players is more important....

 

You have assumed what I was saying about the basics of instructing and the subject matter and applied it to Byron and the Princeton Offense.

I was not making that assertion. I was making one about the basics of being in a position to teach and implement and the thought that the "students" abilities should dictate what is taught and the method it's taught. The calls for the coach to scrap what he's done for his career and implement something that will make guys "successful" is what I was pointing out as flawed methodology. WTS it happens all the time in Pro Sports or the coach gets fired. I believe you don't "develop" anyone's skills or further their growth by changing the criteria, rather true growth comes from leaving what is comfortable and embracing what is difficult and new.

I believe that once you implement an offense that you then move to support the particular talents of the team members from within that framework. Byron's NJ teams used Kidd differently that his NO teams used Paul. The thought that he will be rigid in his approach to Russell is unfounded from what I know of his coaching past. He, like everyone else, knows little about our two highly touted youngsters because there is very little to go on. Basing his coaching decisions on Summer League would seem like a knee jerk reaction rather than calculated leadership.

In reality Byron or even the next coach that comes after him will not be here when we are a true threat again. No coach will survive a rebuilding process these days and especially in LA. Just finding out what we have is what's important and if all we do is what our youngsters feel comfortable doing then I think it will take longer to develop them. P&R as a base offense rarely gets you deep in the playoffs. Hybrid motion offenses predicated on movement and passing have always tended to do better at utilizing a wider range of player talents. I would love to see Russell utilized like Tony Parker over guys like Paul, Westbrook, Nash etc.

 

Thanks for the breakdown. that makes sense. The spurs offense is a thing of beauty. As was the triangle and adelman's kings... all motion offenses. I'd be thrilled if Russell developed into a Tony Parker leader of a motion offense. and I think he could. I wonder about two things though:
1. Should such a young team ( two rookies and a sophomore starters) be thrown right into a complicated motion offense? even in the world's easiest offense, rookies are going to have major adjustments to the speed and strength and endurance of the nba game. Might it be better to let them acclimate and make mistakes while also building confidence with an easier system, gradually adding pieces of the Motion offense, rather than throwing them right into the fire?
2. Is this roster a good fit for a motion offense? Duncan, shaq, Webber, divac are all bigs with excellent passing and post games. Wouldn't the clippers offense be a better match for our roster? I know they haven't won squat, but it's not the offenses fault. if DJ is even a 60% ft shooter, they're champs imo. Or maybe I'm wrong about our roster. we have a similar blueprint to GSW, and they run more motion than pnr right? Kerr runs a similar offense to pop, no? How would you utilize our roster in a motion offense? maybe compare rroles to gsw or spurs instead of x n o's to help me understand.

 

They are running the Devry, not the Princeton. Timing is essential, off the ball screens are late, after the on ball screens, players seem at a loss to where to cut, it's been one pass, look around and force a play for whoever ends up with the ball. The 24 second clock seems to be negatively affecting the rooks. I understand why they are force feeding these guys the Princeton, that's what they will be playing in camp and preseason.They could let them run P&R, have them excel in the SL, and the players would not be ready for camp. Even if they stink it up they are learning about what they all need work on.I'm just going to be patient and hope to see some growth tonight.