ASFN: Lampe and Carbakapa Provide Brights Spots in Dismal Loss to the Spurs

[George O'Brien]

ASFN: Lampe and Carbakapa Provide Brights Spots in Dismal Loss to the Spurs

 

[Goldfield]

thx for the article!

 

[Krangodnzr]

George, I just want to say that I've been impressed with the qualities of your writing since you've been given this gig.

Great work, and hopefully this forum will someday rival the mega-popular Cards forum.

 

[arthurracoon]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
George, I just want to say that I've been impressed with the qualities of your writing since you've been given this gig.

Great work, and hopefully this forum will someday rival the mega-popular Cards forum.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
George, I just want to say that I've been impressed with the qualities of your writing since you've been given this gig.

Great work, and hopefully this forum will someday rival the mega-popular Cards forum.

Thank you.

I'm actually much better know for my writing about Irish music, but I've always had the fantasy of being a sports writer. I keep hoping that my writing will draw more people to this board.

 

[Mike Olbinski]

Good job George.

Personally, maybe it's just me, and maybe it's just because the Suns know they are out of it this year, but Zarko was annoying me with his "forcing up shots" that he did last night.

I haven't watched many games this year, just been too busy, but a couple of shots he took, plus the charge, almost made it look like he was out there for himself, just trying to score, instead of playing more of a team game.

Granted, he had some nice passes in this game, but what do you all think?

Mike

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Originally posted by Chandler Mike
Good job George.

Personally, maybe it's just me, and maybe it's just because the Suns know they are out of it this year, but Zarko was annoying me with his "forcing up shots" that he did last night.

I haven't watched many games this year, just been too busy, but a couple of shots he took, plus the charge, almost made it look like he was out there for himself, just trying to score, instead of playing more of a team game.

Granted, he had some nice passes in this game, but what do you all think?

Mike

Ever since the injury it seems like he has been trying to prove himself. Maybe I am just optimistic, but I don't really think it is a selfish behavior, he just wants to prove he should be on the floor.

 

[Chaz]

Originally posted by Chandler Mike
Good job George.

Personally, maybe it's just me, and maybe it's just because the Suns know they are out of it this year, but Zarko was annoying me with his "forcing up shots" that he did last night.

I haven't watched many games this year, just been too busy, but a couple of shots he took, plus the charge, almost made it look like he was out there for himself, just trying to score, instead of playing more of a team game.

Granted, he had some nice passes in this game, but what do you all think?

Mike

Maybe just a little over zealous. He is a rookie after all. He really looked like he was moving and passing well. I like that Zarko stepped in a little. He looked better putting up 15" - 17' instead of the three all the time. With his height he shouldn't have a problem getting off a closer shot.

 

[devilalum]

Originally posted by SirChaz
Maybe just a little over zealous. He is a rookie after all. He really looked like he was moving and passing well. I like that Zarko stepped in a little. He looked better putting up 15" - 17' instead of the three all the time. With his height he shouldn't have a problem getting off a closer shot.

Yeah those 15 inch shots are high percentage to be sure!

 

[Chaz]

Originally posted by devilalum
Yeah those 15 inch shots are high percentage to be sure!

DOH! typo.


But he did have a couple of those as well.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by Chandler Mike
Good job George.

Personally, maybe it's just me, and maybe it's just because the Suns know they are out of it this year, but Zarko was annoying me with his "forcing up shots" that he did last night.

I haven't watched many games this year, just been too busy, but a couple of shots he took, plus the charge, almost made it look like he was out there for himself, just trying to score, instead of playing more of a team game.

Granted, he had some nice passes in this game, but what do you all think?

Mike

I had the same feeling about Lampe the first few times he played. Both of these guys are supposed to be really good outside shooters, but they have been so tight that it effects their game. I suspect that just leaving them in the lineup will help, although telling them that the team wants assists more than points would be useful too.

Both guys, but Lampe in particular, should be studying Sacramento Kings tapes. There is little doubt that a key to their success is that the Kings have three of the best passing big men in the NBA in Divac, Miller, and now Webber. Miller averages 4.6 assists per game and Divac averages 6.1 assists on a team where Bibby at point guard only averages 5.5 assists.

 

[Errntknght]

George O', "Both guys, but Lampe in particular, should be studying Sacramento Kings tapes. There is little doubt that a key to their success is that the Kings have three of the best passing big men in the NBA in Divac, Miller, and now Webber. "

Actually, it's D'Antoni that needs to watch tapes of the Kings - the Spurs and Jazz wouldn't hurt either. It's hard to tell whether he has little idea how an NBA offense should run or if the guys are just not executing well. Or maybe he's using a 'motion' approach to the game a la Frankie. In any case, the offense mainly comes from one-on-one(or more) moves. (That should preclude the motion type offense plan but perhaps his grasp of it is as weak as FJs was.)

I'm not dead set against the motion offense with this crew of players like I was with the bunch we had when FJ decided to give it a shot - you simply have to have big men that can pass well to make the motion work. On the other hand I'm not in favor of it if we don't have a couple of coaches that know the offense inside out. Learning on the job is a nice concept but if you're very far behind the curve as a head coach in the NBA, you're in the wrong job. The windows of opportunity are too small to allow for a head coach to learn enough to be a strong guiding force and then get his players to buy in and learn to run the game plans.

There is certainly no evidence that there is one 'motion' guru on the coaching staff. In fact, the evidence is mounting that D'Antoni isn't strong at Xs & Os of any flavor at either end of the floor. The defense isn't as egregious as it was under FJ but it's not very good - teams force our guys into switching with minimal effort and then exploit the resulting mismatches. That's taking the worst of the zone and melding it with the worst of man-to-man.

I like this team and every minute I watch Lampe play I like it better. Barbosa is improving in fits and starts and Zarko is on an uptrend again. Of course, there's Amare who's becoming the low post stud we fantasized about at first sight. The big question mark among the players is still JJ but, to me, that's nothing like the huge question mark in the coaching ranks. With solid defense and a sharply executing offense I can see the guys shaping up into a serious contender - probably needing a tweak or two. We've got one-on-one players to surpass almost every team in the league, which is great as long as the basic team play is in place so you don't have to rely on them too heavily.

I hope to heck I'm wrong but the feeling I have in the pit of my stomach is that the Cs have put together a coaching staff with no one that knows much at all about the team aspects of the game at either end of the floor. And I don't think they have a clue what they've done. As usual.

 

[elindholm]

Why does it have to be "a motion offense"? Can't a team just run plays? Actually I know the answer to this is yes, because sometimes I hear about other coaching staffs with extensive playbooks. Developing a squad that can "free-lance" really effectively, like the Kings do, probably takes many years -- and requires players who have been excellent passers most of their careers, not just the beneficiaries of a summer crash course from an NBA assistant coach.

 

[SweetD]

NEW LAMPE PHOTO!!! Please

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by elindholm
Why does it have to be "a motion offense"? Can't a team just run plays? Actually I know the answer to this is yes, because sometimes I hear about other coaching staffs with extensive playbooks. Developing a squad that can "free-lance" really effectively, like the Kings do, probably takes many years -- and requires players who have been excellent passers most of their careers, not just the beneficiaries of a summer crash course from an NBA assistant coach.

I really wish we could stop using the term "motion offense" to describe such a wide variety of systems. Frank Johnson tried to install the Phil Jackson triangle and people were calling it a "motion offense". I've seen college teams run back and forth on the outside and people call THAT a motion offense.

Whatever it is that you call the Kings offense, it is not random free lancing. The players are responding to the defense in a predicatable way which is why they know where to throw those passes. Unfortunately, this kind of offense requires every player becoming the basketball equivalent of both a quarterback and wide receiver in a west coast offense.

When Lampe hit Carbakapa with that pass under the basket, I doubt that it was a called played. But both players had the recognition and responded because that's the way they play in Europe. Moving without the ball works when the other players are able to read the defense and every player is ready to receive a pass.

It works even better when Eisley isn't in the lineup.

 

[elindholm]

Whatever it is that you call the Kings offense, it is not random free lancing.

The word "random" did not appear in my post, and I did not imply that the free-lancing stems from anything other than an inert mastery of a particular set of basic offensive principals.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by elindholm
Whatever it is that you call the Kings offense, it is not random free lancing.

The word "random" did not appear in my post, and I did not imply that the free-lancing stems from anything other than an inert mastery of a particular set of basic offensive principals.

This may be just terminology. What you said was:

Developing a squad that can "free-lance" really effectively, like the Kings do, probably takes many years -- and requires players who have been excellent passers most of their careers, not just the beneficiaries of a summer crash course from an NBA assistant coach.

I don't see the Kings "free lancing". They are responding to defenses in a predicatable way. I think that's what you meant but that is not what most people men when they use the term.

 

[Errntknght]

George, >>I really wish we could stop using the term "motion offense" to describe such a wide variety of systems. Frank Johnson tried to install the Phil Jackson triangle and people were calling it a "motion offense". <<

Huh? I called it a motion offense because FJ called it that - he said it was a version called 'pinch post motion'. I admit it didn't look much like a motion offense and I never once saw the namesake 'pinch post' maneuver. (Though it did show up a few times after he said he'd dropped the MO.) On the other hand, it didn't look like the triangle either.

Maybe the reason 'motion offense' is used to describe a wide variety of offensive schemes is because it does cover a wide variety - many experts put the 'triangle' in that category, for instance. To me the term conveys the idea that the spacing/positioning, movement and ball movement are governed by a set of rules instead of having well defined set plays. The rules are fine principles as they encourage passing over dribbling, movement without the ball (particularly slashing movement) and copious offball screens. On top of the rules you have to have enough structure to make the movement useful, and therein seems to lie the rub. The triangle supposedly has an extremely large set of group movements with contingencies for all the ways the defense might react - making it very difficult to implement. Especially if you don't thoroughly understand the whole thing in the first place - which seems to comprise everyone except Tex Winter - and, perhaps, Phil Jackson.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by Errntknght

Maybe the reason 'motion offense' is used to describe a wide variety of offensive schemes is because it does cover a wide variety - many experts put the 'triangle' in that category, for instance.

To me, this is the catch-22. I know we're a relatively "not good" basketball team, but if "motion" offense describes a wide variety of schemes, don't you think the odds are that we could get at least one of them right??

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by Errntknght
George, >>I really wish we could stop using the term "motion offense" to describe such a wide variety of systems. Frank Johnson tried to install the Phil Jackson triangle and people were calling it a "motion offense". <<

Huh? I called it a motion offense because FJ called it that - he said it was a version called 'pinch post motion'. I admit it didn't look much like a motion offense and I never once saw the namesake 'pinch post' maneuver. (Though it did show up a few times after he said he'd dropped the MO.) On the other hand, it didn't look like the triangle either.

Maybe the reason 'motion offense' is used to describe a wide variety of offensive schemes is because it does cover a wide variety - many experts put the 'triangle' in that category, for instance. To me the term conveys the idea that the spacing/positioning, movement and ball movement are governed by a set of rules instead of having well defined set plays. The rules are fine principles as they encourage passing over dribbling, movement without the ball (particularly slashing movement) and copious offball screens. On top of the rules you have to have enough structure to make the movement useful, and therein seems to lie the rub. The triangle supposedly has an extremely large set of group movements with contingencies for all the ways the defense might react - making it very difficult to implement. Especially if you don't thoroughly understand the whole thing in the first place - which seems to comprise everyone except Tex Winter - and, perhaps, Phil Jackson.

I agree, which is why I get concerned when people dismiss "motion offense" because that was what Frank Johnson supposedly inplemented.

The last three teams the Suns have lot to: Kings, Spurs, and Mavs all move around a lot without the ball plus pass more than dribble. Yet their offenses look quite different.

BTW, I have heard about the "pinch post" but none of the desriptions I've heard make much sense. Can you help?

 

[Errntknght]

This is not from a definitive source and I no longer recall just where I did hear about it. The 'pinch post' maneuver starts with a guard throwing a pass to a forward who is stationed at (or just moved to) the knuckle (high post). The guard is crossing over the top from the other side as he makes the pass. The guard then continues on past the forward on the outside - PINCHing in tight to the POST man to screen his man off - curling toward the hoop if his defender trails him and fading toward the sideline if his man goes under the screen. He may get a return hand off or a slightly delayed pass from the F. Ideally, the F is, in motion parlance, a triple threat at that location, meaning he can pass, shoot or drive to the hoop well. It puts pressure on the two defenders to deal efficiently with the screen. Even when they do succeed in that there is the threat of pass to someone moving on the baseline or breaking into the middle from the weakside baseline. It's even quite effective against a zone because the first pass is close to the middle of the zone. You see Bibby and Webber running this manuever quite frequently.

One way to think of it is a pick and roll where the pick (screen) setter has the ball before the screen takes place.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by Errntknght
This is not from a definitive source and I no longer recall just where I did hear about it. The 'pinch post' maneuver starts with a guard throwing a pass to a forward who is stationed at (or just moved to) the knuckle (high post). The guard is crossing over the top from the other side as he makes the pass. The guard then continues on past the forward on the outside - PINCHing in tight to the POST man to screen his man off - curling toward the hoop if his defender trails him and fading toward the sideline if his man goes under the screen. He may get a return hand off or a slightly delayed pass from the F. Ideally, the F is, in motion parlance, a triple threat at that location, meaning he can pass, shoot or drive to the hoop well. It puts pressure on the two defenders to deal efficiently with the screen. Even when they do succeed in that there is the threat of pass to someone moving on the baseline or breaking into the middle from the weakside baseline. It's even quite effective against a zone because the first pass is close to the middle of the zone. You see Bibby and Webber running this manuever quite frequently.

One way to think of it is a pick and roll where the pick (screen) setter has the ball before the screen takes place.

Sounds like the high post pick and roll to me. It attempts to force a defensive switch that puts a small mand defending the high post man while a slow man is trying to stop the guard.

This works if the big man is a threat to shoot. Otherwise, the opponent just sits in the lane and guards the basket when the guard gets into the lane. This "give and go" variation on the pick and roll you are describing requires a high post player that is a good ball handler (catching the ball and passing it).

The way Marbury ran the offense, the high post man was strictly used for the pick and would only get the ball off the switch if the guard was cut off from the basket. Since Marbury rarely passed to the low post/baseline player on the drive, that defender would simply rotate into the lane to stop the play.

One of my frustrations with Eisley is that he is worse than Marubry when he drives -- ie he rarely passes and takes difficult shots instead.