Is Lansing married to his offense?

WANTED: Passionate Sycamore Fanatics. That You?

Register NOW to join our community of die-hard Sycamore fans.

Register Log in
Jason Svoboda

Jason Svoboda

The Bird Level
Administrator
Just a little Thursday afternoon though for discussion. I know quite a few people on here dislike Lansing's offense. Gonna guess those are the same folks that also disliked Royce Waltman's motion offense. Here are some questions to think about. Feel free to add your own questions.

1) While he's proven it can be successful, are there certain situations where it can't be successful no matter how well our team runs it?

2) Being that the motion is an older offensive philosophy, is the margin for error smaller because of today's athletes that are bigger, faster, stronger, longer?

3) Is the offensive simply not a fit because of the personnel we have on the roster?

4) What offense would be optimal for our personnel?
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
1. Often the offense has to settle for a rushed, off balance and poor shot. How can this be eliminated?

2. How do recruits view the motion offense? How is it used as a recuiting tool?
 
Jason Svoboda said:
Just a little Thursday afternoon though for discussion. I know quite a few people on here dislike Lansing's offense. Gonna guess those are the same folks that also disliked Royce Waltman's motion offense. Here are some questions to think about. Feel free to add your own questions.

1) While he's proven it can be successful, are there certain situations where it can't be successful no matter how well our team runs it?

2) Being that the motion is an older offensive philosophy, is the margin for error smaller because of today's athletes that are bigger, faster, stronger, longer?

3) Is the offensive simply not a fit because of the personnel we have on the roster?

4) What offense would be optimal for our personnel?
Click to expand...

I'll start off by saying that the "motion" offense is a VERY DIFFICULT offense to run because it requires the mastery of individual skill sets that are rarely
mastered in HS or AAU...yes, I'm talking about setting kick-ass screens, pick n rolls, boxing out on rebounds, passing, etc.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=823

It takes SPECIAL players to excel in a "motion offense"...if they don't have the skills, it's a lil' late in the game to rehash Boys Club Clinic stuff. But that's what you should be looking at while RECRUITING.

How would you rate THIS YEAR'S ISU squad?:)

My offense? A dash of Pitino transition "D" (f/c press), a dash of "Memphis Offense" isolation and a pinch of Waltman's "clock milking" at the right moments.
Yes, I think THIS squad could've easily succeeded by loosening Odum's reins and let him use the FULL COURT v. the 1/2 court, which limits his passing creativity. K. Smith & Arop are two others that could've cashed in on this "up tempo" style. Both suffocated in the "motion," often being too far away from the hoop to be of any use. Full court transition also opens up the passing lanes, allowing players to find their HOT SPOTS w/o "getting lost."
How often do we see passing in the "motion offense" which holds no purpose other than TIME CONSUMPTION, often being lulled to sleep by our own lethargic ways?
 
Jason Svoboda said:
Just a little Thursday afternoon though for discussion. I know quite a few people on here dislike Lansing's offense. Gonna guess those are the same folks that also disliked Royce Waltman's motion offense. Here are some questions to think about. Feel free to add your own questions.

1) While he's proven it can be successful, are there certain situations where it can't be successful no matter how well our team runs it?

2) Being that the motion is an older offensive philosophy, is the margin for error smaller because of today's athletes that are bigger, faster, stronger, longer?

3) Is the offensive simply not a fit because of the personnel we have on the roster?

4) What offense would be optimal for our personnel?
Click to expand...

I don't have anything against the motion offense per se, however, in all my basketball knowledge, I have come to believe certain things. First, when performed correctly by smart ball players, the motion offense is damn near impossible to defend. It is also an offense of aggression. You cannot simply screen and weave for the sake of screening and weaving. You must attack the defense with the motion - hard cuts, hard screens, attacking towards the hoop, taking good shots as they come open. You cannot be a team that is intent on passing up good shots time after time after time. The things that we do poorly, unfortunately, are the foundations of motion offense - screens and cuts. We do not know how to make a good, hard cut, we do not know how to set a good screen, or what to do after the cut/screen. We seem to be simply waiting for the other team to make a mistake so glaring that we cannot pass it up.

I don't think motion is very popular today because kids don't like to play it. You never see it in the NBA, and so few college teams do it that it is looked upon as "old school." I still think, though, that done correctly, it is a system that will maximize the strengths of just about any basketball player. It is also one that will allow players to make plays, if the coach just stays out of the way and let's 'em do it.

Our motion worked very well against Creighton and Wichita State. It's a mind set with our boys. They've got to play with that passion, that aggression in the offense. Attacking the other team every single game. We could win 25 games with Lansing's offense - if it was done correctly. For the last three weeks, it has not been done correctly. Honestly, when it is done correctly, it's a thing of beauty to watch. It's all in their minds...

As for what system would work best with our players, I have no earthly idea. Perhaps one that gets unlimited numbers of wide open 2 foot bank shots?

Swing away, boys. I'm sure you all know this stuff better than me!!!
 
In my opinion the shot clock kills the motion offense.The other team only has to defend you near the end of the clock the way we play it.Maybe other teams would be a threat to shoot earlier but we have obviously been told to run the clock first then look for a good shot.Makes us very predictable.
 
Jason Svoboda said:
Just a little Thursday afternoon though for discussion. I know quite a few people on here dislike Lansing's offense. Gonna guess those are the same folks that also disliked Royce Waltman's motion offense. Here are some questions to think about. Feel free to add your own questions.

1) While he's proven it can be successful, are there certain situations where it can't be successful no matter how well our team runs it?

2) Being that the motion is an older offensive philosophy, is the margin for error smaller because of today's athletes that are bigger, faster, stronger, longer?

3) Is the offensive simply not a fit because of the personnel we have on the roster?

4) What offense would be optimal for our personnel?
Click to expand...

I love our offense. When we are playing well, we score a lot of points in the paint as well as some mid-range and 3's. Our best games, we have had great offensive balance.
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
BankShot said:
I'll start off by saying that the "motion" offense is a VERY DIFFICULT offense to run because it requires the mastery of individual skill sets that are rarely
mastered in HS or AAU...yes, I'm talking about setting kick-ass screens, pick n rolls, boxing out on rebounds, passing, etc.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=823

It takes SPECIAL players to excel in a "motion offense"...if they don't have the skills, it's a lil' late in the game to rehash Boys Club Clinic stuff. But that's what you should be looking at while RECRUITING.

How would you rate THIS YEAR'S ISU squad?:)

My offense? A dash of Pitino transition "D" (f/c press), a dash of "Memphis Offense" isolation and a pinch of Waltman's "clock milking" at the right moments.
Yes, I think THIS squad could've easily succeeded by loosening Odum's reins and let him use the FULL COURT v. the 1/2 court, which limits his passing creativity. K. Smith & Arop are two others that could've cashed in on this "up tempo" style. Both suffocated in the "motion," often being too far away from the hoop to be of any use. Full court transition also opens up the passing lanes, allowing players to find their HOT SPOTS w/o "getting lost."
How often do we see passing in the "motion offense" which holds no purpose other than TIME CONSUMPTION, often being lulled to sleep by our own lethargic ways?
Click to expand...

Well put brother. Totally agree.
 
I think 2 things. 1. We dont push enough in transition. Pushing in transition gets us easier buckets. 2. We are a pick and pop team and our big guys dont like to pick and roll or set hard screens bc they are always well most of the time looking to pop and shoot from the 3 point/perimeter. We dont have a true 5 except Samuels who's out so youre asking Gant, RJ, not really kitchell as much, to defend bigger guys, run in transition, and move and screen and we dont have depth in the front court so they are tired. Now to overcome that we have to substitute. I feel like Lansing someone should be getting more minutes. Betwwen Burnett and Rhett smith. Those guys will learn from experience so the more they play the better. Now you could try to up conditioning but that wont change alot bc they already do tough conditioning. When guys get fatigued they make sloppy passes. Now what Lansing needs to do is add in isolations for Arop, JO, Cummings, and Khristian. Those guys can go 1 on 1 and breakdown a defender.
 
I dont have a problem with our offense. Our shooting is often the problem. We are just not a consistent shooting team. We get plenty of open looks, we just dont always hit them.

I watched Duke play Virginia last night, and at halftime Duke had (i think) 26 points. Is Coach K's offense the problem? Or are their always going to be nights where the ball just wont go down or the other team plays good defense. I dont have an issue with him mixing it up when we are struggling, but again, overall, the offense is not the problem.

The majority of college basketball teams run some type of motion offense, or run isolation, dribble drive plays. Look at Kentucky, i dont think they have an offense outside of take your man off the dribble and either get to the rim or pass outside if the defense collapses. Our offense is not uncommon and I will take it over some AAU street game where everyone just goes one on one all day, which is starting to become more of the norm on many big time programs.
 
Bluethunder said:
I dont have a problem with our offense. Our shooting is often the problem. We are just not a consistent shooting team. We get plenty of open looks, we just dont always hit them.

I watched Duke play Virginia last night, and at halftime Duke had (i think) 26 points. Is Coach K's offense the problem? Or are their always going to be nights where the ball just wont go down or the other team plays good defense. I dont have an issue with him mixing it up when we are struggling, but again, overall, the offense is not the problem.

The majority of college basketball teams run some type of motion offense, or run isolation, dribble drive plays. Look at Kentucky, i dont think they have an offense outside of take your man off the dribble and either get to the rim or pass outside if the defense collapses. Our offense is not uncommon and I will take it over some AAU street game where everyone just goes one on one all day, which is starting to become more of the norm on many big time programs.
Click to expand...

We over pass...players often have good, inside the arc wide-open shots early in the clock and always defer for a "programmed" better shot, which we know doesn't always present itself. As another poster commented, the defense v. ISU usually just "lays back" until 10 sec are left on the shot clock before springing into full combat.

Secondly, we rarely use our "D" to facilitate transition, as MOST turnover-keyed offense happens during the use of full, 3/4 or 1/2 court traps.

Every game on 90% of our opponet's possessions, they are unhindered while bringing the ball into the 1/2 court offensive set. Talk about an easy scout. The bottom line, is that ISU usually scores only in the 1/2 court, while neglecting the OTHER half.
 
Last edited:

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
BankShot said:
We over pass...players often have good, inside the arc wide-open shots early in the clock and always defer for a "programmed" better shot, which we know doesn't always present itself.
Click to expand...

While we will continue to disagree over Lansing's offense, I will grant you this point. No offense can be successful once you run the shot clock down to 5 or less and have to just take whatever you have.

My point is merely that the offense does produce open looks, we just dont always take them and/or make them.
 
The goal of any offense is to score. That means you take open shots when they occur unless game situations call for something different. It makes no sense to turn down an open 12 foot look with 21 seconds on the shot clock to settle for a 19 foot forced shot with 2 seconds on the shot clock. When this consistently happens there are problems with the offense or the execution. Either way, the coach is responsible for the long term solution, be it tweaking the O, practice changes, limiting playing time, recruiting players who can operate the O or installing a new O.
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
Sycamore Proud said:
Then the question is are we poor shooters, does the offense not give shots suitable for the skills we have, or all of the above?
Click to expand...
I personally think we are for the most part poor shooters. My biggest problem with the offense is that we pass up decent shots halfway through the shot clock and then force a bad shot at the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top