Do you like the motion offense we run?

[tm3308]

No you can't, because our PG's are looking push the ball and speed up the game. If Greg Davis' offense applied to basketball we'd have nothing but a backcourt and would not look to get any cutters the ball inside the arc or anywhere near the basket.

So you mean they'd be putting up deep balls from behind the arc? That sounds nothing like a GD offense. He'd give the cutters the ball on passes from 5 feet away, and then let them try to get to the hole after the catch.

 

[Foval21]

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of motion offenses in general unless you have great players to run it. Obviously, there are different versions of it to run.

I ask this because in a way (and perhaps this has a lot to do with the opponents and our youth) when we have got into our half-court offense, the last couple of games have really reminded me of Alford Coached teams. A lot of dribbling resulting in a turnover before we even get a shot attempt up. The only thing missing is the weave out front.

Only God knows what Lickliter was thinking with his 1 million ball screens, not rolling his bigs to the basket, and then chucking up a contested 3 at the buzzer.

I remember the Mr. Davis teams running more of a flex offense and were pretty effective getting shots inside. It seemed they struggled shooting the 3 ball though for awhile until getting guys like Kingsbury and Mcausland.

I guess I'm mildly concerned up about our half-court game. We seem to get it going in transition, but aren't that great in the half-court.

We play Northwestern next and although the Princeton offense generally does not score a lot of points, Bill seems to be generally effective with the half-court game with the backdoor cuts and kick-outs for the 3 ball.

Do you sometimes long for more wrinkles in our half-court game?

Discuss.

There are really 3 types of offenses and 2 of them are extremely close to the same thing.

1) sets - these are called plays from called positions. These take a lot more of them to make an offense which means more remembering of plays. They can be set up to specifically get a guy the ball or get a certain shot.

2) motion - use of passes, dribble, cuts to move the ball around to find open looks. You learn one set up and rinse and repeat. Well set up motions have counters when players overplay but as the ball moves and reverses the look of the position the players are in doesn't change the players just rotate through the positions.

3) continuity - this is very similar to the motion. The difference is that if the ball is on the left the offense will look a certain way. When the ball goes to the other side the offense will be the same except opposite. Say you have a player in the ball side corner as the ball reverses he goes to ball side corner again. Players rotate through these positions too. But posts rarely end up at guard positions depending on the offense.

A good team typically will utilize all three offenses. Bob knight was a huge motion guy. Phil jackson used the triangle which is a continuity offense. The flex is a continuity that is also thought to be a motion by many. Mcdermott is a big time set play man. The key is good teams will use all. A key to any offense is what has been said by many more movement and passing and less dribbling without going anywhere.

 

[sportstalent]

Defenses could have bit to do with this?

Or dumb turnovers dribbling in traffic when there are no openings?

Crisp passing and ball movement with minimal dribbling beats defenses, unless you have at least one guard that can take anyone off the dribble at will.

The lack of 3-pt shooting is allowing teams to shut off dribbling lanes, but that is where the Iowa players, not the coaches, need to adjust as the game changes.

When Basabe showed up last night, Iowa went back to playing inside-out and things opened up a little bit, but when he was off the floor things got congested.

McCabe hit a couple shots early and lanes opened up for him, the outside shooting, weather it is 3-pt or mid-range has to get better.

Iowa still has no one player that can beat another team, which is why ball movement needs to be a premium and everyone needs to be involved, I actually thought Iowa didn't play awful on offense last night. It was the many, many just bad basketball plays, like the two passes from Gesell to White that went out of bounds, or the 4 or 5 times players chose to put the ball on the floor in traffic and lost the ball out of bounds, or got stolen.

Neither the offense or defensive philosophy had anything to do with Iowa losing last night, it was simply a lack of playing basketball. The IQ of this team looks really good at times, but then there are still those plays that make me just shake my head and swear.

 

[coonhawk]

Offense is not the problem. Better players on other teams is. We are good, but we have played three great teams.

 

[sportstalent]

Offense is not the problem. Better players on other teams is. We are good, but we have played three great teams.

Yes, Iowa has played 2 teams that could win the National Championship and 1 that is probably a Sweet 16 team.

On the road Iowa got pasted, but two losses at home by 7 points, not so bad.

 

[HaydenHawk56]

The thing is to about the motion offense.....it is a ball control offense. Set-up, look for your shot, get a good percentage shot, work to get it. If you get your shot, fine, great. But, in the meanwhile, while your dribbling around, passing and screening away, the more time your looking for your high percentage shot, the less offensive positions you could possibly get (if your taking most of the shot clock to get a shot off) and the higher chance you might turn the ball over if your team is not particularly skilled at getting open, can break teams off the dribble, or make intelligent decisions with passing the ball.

If your going to go down and turn the ball over before you even get a shot off you might as well just punt the ball off the backboard to the other team. Maybe it is not so much about working to get a good shot, but get more shots off. Grinnell gets a ton of shots off and they have a low turnover percentage relative to their offensive possessions.

What looks and feels better to have the objective to look to first dribble, pass, then shoot, or look to shoot, then dribble, then pass the ball?

Just stinks when I see our guards dribble the ball around with no purpose, or see our bigs get stripped of the ball before they even get a shot off. Especially worse when they drain most of the shot clock and then turn the ball over. It is not nearly as bad as Lick ball, but still leaves something to be desired.

Not that you can't win with the motion offense. You can win with any offense if you have good enough players and coaching. But, I think you got to be efficient with it, the motion offense and you better be able to shoot the ball because offensive possessions can be at a premium.

 

[dmackindm]

Show me a jump shooter in the half court

 

[jacknicholson]

I wouldn't mind seeing more passing under control and shooting when open......

Josh passes up quite a few open shots that are instantly closed, just like Gatens did until his senior year.....

 

[Motigerhawk]

Iowa was crisp in the 1st 10 minutes. Plyers were active and moving. We were passing and getting the ball to guys who were open because they were active and moving. The rest of the game we stood around. We were not active. Some of those bad passes would go away if we stayed active and moved without the ball. But, for whatever reason, we quit moving without the ball.
Maybe MSU made it harder to move without the ball. But I dont believe that. I think we got lazy or tired. Both of those things are fixable.

 

[uihawk82]

Defenses could have bit to do with this?

I disagree based on what I saw. MSU played the same man to man all night. The hawks started dribbling around with no idea or ability to drive to the hoop, penetrate and kick. Just dribbling one on one hurt us.

There were no back screens, no backdoor cuts, the players should be smarter and Fran should coach them up to go backdoor more often when being man-handled and overplayed.