Jump to content

Exposing Archie's outdated offensive ideology.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, rico said:

2 more missed shots could lead to anything....it could lead to 2 more offensive rebounds.

Pitino was one of the first big proponents of the three pointer.  He swears an added bonus is you get deeper rebounds, thereby leading to more offensive boards.  I haven’t checked the data but it makes sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply
7 minutes ago, BobSaccamanno said:

Pitino was one of the first big proponents of the three pointer.  He swears an added bonus is you get deeper rebounds, thereby leading to more offensive boards.  I haven’t checked the data but it makes sense. 

Surprisingly, it's actually the opposite.

http://www.eyalshafran.com/offensive-rebounds.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've watched Michigan and Villanova play and they have way better shooters than we do. Our guys cannot hit the broadside of a barn on most days. Our lack of shooting proficiency from deep and from the FT line does not leave me thinking Archie's offense is the issue, rather vice versa. Not being able to knock down shots limits what the coach can do.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

That's probably why.  I suspect he'll gradually turn up the wick when he gets more confidence in our ball handlers.

You guys might be right, but I think that's a terrible reason not to.  We're a terrible half court offense, and could likely be pretty solid in transition.  A few more turnovers would easily be worth it if we could get 10-15 points in transition a game.  If that's the reason, I think it gives me less confidence as it goes more with the idea of playing it safe and "boring," and just helps keep players from gaining any confidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, rico said:

Let's back up the bus here.  Missing a 3 can turn into fast break points for the opponent?  But a mid-range jumper doesn't?  Explain

My comparison was that if you shoot 6 out of 10 from mid range and 4-10 from 3 which is the same amount of points.  The difference is that you missed two more shots to get those points giving more opportunities for you opponent to score when you didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

You won't find It in today's game since no one shoots those shots but if they were practiced and part of the game plan then most college players should at least hit 55% from the mid range 10-15 foot shots.

55% of mud range shots.  I'm going to have to research this one Scott.  This feels like a myth about to be busted.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Go watch the Pacers/Hornets game and see how efficient that shoot only 3's can be when the hornets shot 6-37 from the 3 and still lost easily The Pacers, Sixers and Raptors are all in the top 5 in the NBA and don't shoot 35 3's a game.

You arent efficient shooting 16% but just shoot avg and that 39 points instead of 18.  This isn't that challenging to comprehend.  I'm not insulting your intelligence either.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

You won't find It in today's game since no one shoots those shots but if they were practiced and part of the game plan then most college players should at least hit 55% from the mid range 10-15 foot shots.

Im going to declare it busted.  Only 12 teams in the history of ncaa have ever shot 55% or better for a season.  That is obviously including all shots but that era was dominated by big men in the paint.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, NotIThatLives said:

Im going to declare it busted.  Only 12 teams in the history of ncaa have ever shot 55% or better for a season.  That is obviously including all shots but that era was dominated by big men in the paint.  

I am doing a little research.

Mike Woodson had a career  .505%

Kent Benson .536 and he was a big.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

Go watch the Pacers/Hornets game and see how efficient that shoot only 3's can be when the hornets shot 6-37 from the 3 and still lost easily The Pacers, Sixers and Raptors are all in the top 5 in the NBA and don't shoot 35 3's a game.

You live in the wrong decade of basketball IU Scott.  Nothing Wrong with it, but its been 30 years of basketball evolution since Anderson, Henderson and Chaney have played the game.  The game has evolved away from the mid-range and more into 3 pointers and feed the post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NotIThatLives said:

Im going to declare it busted.  Only 12 teams in the history of ncaa have ever shot 55% or better for a season.  That is obviously including all shots but that era was dominated by big men in the paint.  

I am not saying total FG % but form the mid range and 55% might be a little high but to me it is as efficient as shooting any other shot.  Especially in college and with the 30 second shot clock I think just shooting 3's or trying to drive for a layup is a terrible way of playing your offense.  When you drive to the basket you are bringing 2 to 3 defenders and a contested layup is not even a good shot.  I think if you are being guarded at the 3 all you need to do is up fake and go in for that easy 15 foot jumper instead of doing a step back 3.  I m just not into the analytics because it is taking a great part of the game away from basketball. With the 30 second clock if you can't get open with your first offensive set you are going to have to get your best player the ball on the top of the key and expect him to make a play.  Most of the time all you get is a contested shot at the end of the shot clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

You live in the wrong decade of basketball IU Scott.  Nothing Wrong with it, but its been 30 years of basketball evolution since Anderson, Henderson and Chaney have played the game.  The game has evolved away from the mid-range and more into 3 pointers and feed the post.

I know it changed and most think for the better but I feel like you are wrong.  There is no reason that the offense back then that was so effective could not be effective today and still be more efficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another question for you analytic people, why is scoring and shooting percentage down compared to when they had no shot clock or 3 point line.  I am not advocating getting rid of the shot clock but it should be moved back to 45 second so an offense can run actual offenses.  Back then the offenses were more free flowing and did not have a rigid set of plays.  You moved the ball with the pass and not the dribble because the ball moves faster by the pass.  You got shooters open by setting screens away from the ball and the shooters would be prepared to shoot coming off those screens.  You could not tell me any offense today was more efficient that the 81 IU team in the tournament and most of their shots were 10-15 foot shots.  With no shot clock or 3's they scored 99 points against a very good Maryland team by doing everything I said.  I see no reason why that same kind of offense wouldn't work today.

I just like seeing a well run offense with good fundamentals with the ball moving by passing instead of dribbling.  Dribbling to much will just cause you to dribble into traps and lose the ball.  I just  don't think getting people open b the pick and role is a good offense because it brings more defensive players to the ball.  Someone said I lived in the wrong decade but I disagree with that because I got to witnessed well run offenses that produce points.  I don't care about advanced analytics and  what they think is more efficient but I care if your team puts the ball in the basket at a high rate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we already know this but,.......I just want to emphasis that first and foremost, Archie is a defense FIRST all day long. This page was set up to talk discuss, what some people feel, as an "outdated" offense. Watch the 2 minute clip that I attached of Archie's second game of the season (away) vs. Alabama in 2016. Alabama had an o.k. year, ended up playing a few games in the NIT. This was obviously Archie's last year as head coach at Dayton.  All I can say is man!!!,...... If he can get IU to play like this Dayton team.....wow!

Several things really impressed me about this clip. 

                         1. It's only, Dayton's 2nd game of the season and already playing at a high level on the road.

                         2.  Floor spacing is phenomenal.

                         3.  Defense is stifling and brutal.

                         4. Every player knows their role, where to go and what to do.

                        5.  The overall team speed on defense AND offense is crazy!

                        6.  The "outdated" offense is being taken care of by it's defense......a well oiled machine.

                       7. This was the big one.......You really never saw Archie up coaching on the sidelines until very late in the video. (This really showed me that he appeared to be in complete control of his team and showed total confidence in his game plan.)

                        Thoughts?  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owf2sXiCm4g

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Artesian_86 said:

I know we already know this but,.......I just want to emphasis that first and foremost, Archie is a defense FIRST all day long. This page was set up to talk discuss, what some people feel, as an "outdated" offense. Watch the 2 minute clip that I attached of Archie's second game of the season (away) vs. Alabama in 2016. Alabama had an o.k. year, ended up playing a few games in the NIT. This was obviously Archie's last year as head coach at Dayton.  All I can say is man!!!,...... If he can get IU to play like this Dayton team.....wow!

Several things really impressed me about this clip. 

                         1. It's only, Dayton's 2nd game of the season and already playing at a high level on the road.

                         2.  Floor spacing is phenomenal.

                         3.  Defense is stifling and brutal.

                         4. Every player knows their role, where to go and what to do.

                        5.  The overall team speed on defense AND offense is crazy!

                        6.  The "outdated" offense is being taken care of by it's defense......a well oiled machine.

                       7. This was the big one.......You really never saw Archie up coaching on the sidelines until very late in the video. (This really showed me that he appeared to be in complete control of his team and showed total confidence in his game plan.)

                        Thoughts?  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owf2sXiCm4g

 

I find this reassuring.  It shows that Archie CAN teach his system and it CAN be effective and successful (without elite level players to boot). I don't know if the roster constraints he was given when he was hired, or focusing on highly ranked/Indiana players are to blame.  Whatever the case, he needs to do whatever is necessary to get the players who can and will play like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

I know it changed and most think for the better but I feel like you are wrong.  There is no reason that the offense back then that was so effective could not be effective today and still be more efficient.

Really can't compare the 2 but you so want to live in the past every post you make is tainted by that belief.  And no, in today's game you cannot win without the 3 point shot.  You cannot give up 3 points for every 2 that you score.  Especially if you want to play a low possession game like we have been playing.  Teams can put you down 9-12 points so very quickly today, and we see it all the time this season.  You wonder where the 17, 22, and 15 points runs come from?  You want to know why we lost to Iowa?  You want to know why we went into MSU and won  or was even in that game?  Its because you can't keep up with teams scoring 2 if you're going to let them have 3. And these are daggers in the closing parts of games when you know you cannot match the production.

Now, i am not saying we should live and die by the 3.  No team can win it all if you are feast or famine from the 3, we live through that at times with Coach Crean.  But you have to be able to hit the 3 on a fairly regular basis to open the post and vice versa.  There is a balance needed in today's game.  And whether you like it or not IU Scott, and you are entitled to your opinion like the rest of us, the game is not the same from when you were a child, and it never will be again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

Really can't compare the 2 but you so want to live in the past every post you make is tainted by that belief.  And no, in today's game you cannot win without the 3 point shot.  You cannot give up 3 points for every 2 that you score.  Especially if you want to play a low possession game like we have been playing.  Teams can put you down 9-12 points so very quickly today, and we see it all the time this season.  You wonder where the 17, 22, and 15 points runs come from?  You want to know why we lost to Iowa?  You want to know why we went into MSU and won  or was even in that game?  Its because you can't keep up with teams scoring 2 if you're going to let them have 3. And these are daggers in the closing parts of games when you know you cannot match the production.

Now, i am not saying we should live and die by the 3.  No team can win it all if you are feast or famine from the 3, we live through that at times with Coach Crean.  But you have to be able to hit the 3 on a fairly regular basis to open the post and vice versa.  There is a balance needed in today's game.  And whether you like it or not IU Scott, and you are entitled to your opinion like the rest of us, the game is not the same from when you were a child, and it never will be again.

I never said I did not want to utilize the 3 but it is how you get those shots is what I have a problem with.  As a guy who was a 3 point shooter there is nothing I enjoy more that a shooter get in a zone and knock down a lot of 3's in a row.  Seeing Alford drop 7-10 against Syracuse in the championship game was great but I just liked how he got those shots over how you get them today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I never said I did not want to utilize the 3 but it is how you get those shots is what I have a problem with.  As a guy who was a 3 point shooter there is nothing I enjoy more that a shooter get in a zone and knock down a lot of 3's in a row.  Seeing Alford drop 7-10 against Syracuse in the championship game was great but I just liked how he got those shots over how you get them today.

Yes you did.  You said you wanted to shoot mid-range shots.  The game was better.  And you think better rebounds.  More points on less misses, etc etc etc.  You would argue with god himself i believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

When was the 3 point shot implemented?  The numbers are not apples to apples.  

Actually the Big ten in 83 experimented with it and Wittman and Kitchel were the top two 3 point shooters in the league.  it was not until 87 that they implemented the 3 for everyone.  It was not like all of those shots taken back in 81 was post ups by the big's because most of their shots came form 12-18 feet away except for Tolbert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...