General MBB Thread 2022-23

[mat1992 2,231]

There are very few teams that run the Princeton offense outside of Ivy League schools. Try and sell a kid coming out of HS that you are going to run a methodical offense from the 60s. Usually works for, shall we say, the slower and less athletic programs. I have nothing against running a few back doors but you need a skilled big and some guys willing to move without the ball, which is unfortunately a lost art because everyone wants to stand on the three point line.

[Bay Area Tiger 347]

1 hour ago, Tgr4life said:

Anyone who watched the Princeton-Arizona game yesterday should have no question as to the value of coaching. Solid offensive sets, great screens, back door cuts for layups come from discipline and hard work at practices. Practice is the work, games are the fun. Princeton has run the same offense for 30 years and they still win games against superior athletes. It is all in the coaching. Take it for what it is worth, but fundamentals are always critical....ALWAYS!

 

Absolutely agree and can add the Penn State coach as well.  To have that kind of frontcourt size and get outrebounded & lose is truly despicable by Zona.  
 

[Chris Datres 423]

1 hour ago, Tgr4life said:

Anyone who watched the Princeton-Arizona game yesterday should have no question as to the value of coaching. Solid offensive sets, great screens, back door cuts for layups come from discipline and hard work at practices. Practice is the work, games are the fun. Princeton has run the same offense for 30 years and they still win games against superior athletes. It is all in the coaching. Take it for what it is worth, but fundamentals are always critical....ALWAYS!

 

Make your layups and free throws.  Block out and limit turnovers.  The game really isn't that difficult.  That 3-point line gets in everyone's head.  Princeton was 4 for 25 from 3 in that game.  Didn't matter.

[Tiger93 299]

43 minutes ago, mat1992 said:

There are very few teams that run the Princeton offense outside of Ivy League schools. Try and sell a kid coming out of HS that you are going to run a methodical offense from the 60s. Usually works for, shall we say, the slower and less athletic programs. I have nothing against running a few back doors but you need a skilled big and some guys willing to move without the ball, which is unfortunately a lost art because everyone wants to stand on the three point line.

I believe a lot of teams (even NBA squads) have taken variations from the Carril offense over the years and incorporated it. Georgetown under JTIII ran a variation of it from the early to middle part of his career. It wasn't purely the Princeton offense, but it was pretty close to mostly being the Princeton offense. He took a lot of criticism for it and did eventually did back of it little by little. I don't know how much truth there was to it, but as you said people were claiming none of the top kids wanted to come and be part of a program that mostly ran Princeton stuff. I just know the early part of his time with Georgetown was probably their most successful stretch since the mid-to-late 90s. There are a lot of really smart basketball plays to be make in those sets, but it requires developing a full all-around skillset which can sometimes limit the individual. Not something a lot of current players buy into unless you can reshape it around them. 

[Tgr4life 167]

2 minutes ago, Tiger93 said:

I believe a lot of teams (even NBA squads) have taken variations from the Carril offense over the years and incorporated it. Georgetown under JTIII ran a variation of it from the early to middle part of his career. It wasn't purely the Princeton offense, but it was pretty close to mostly being the Princeton offense. He took a lot of criticism for it and did eventually did back of it little by little. I don't know how much truth there was to it, but as you said people were claiming none of the top kids wanted to come and be part of a program that mostly ran Princeton stuff. I just know the early part of his time with Georgetown was probably their most successful stretch since the mid-to-late 90s. There are a lot of really smart basketball plays to be make in those sets, but it requires developing a full all-around skillset which can sometimes limit the individual. Not something a lot of current players buy into unless you can reshape it around them. 

Most people realize that while Princeton has some fundamentally sound and "solid" basketball players....these kids go to Princeton for reasons other than basketball. The Ivies have their academic standards and make no exceptions for athletics. It is all about coaching and fundamentals. That is why Towson is at a disadvantage. No solid coaching or fundamentals. 

[mat1992 2,231]

5 minutes ago, Tgr4life said:

Most people realize that while Princeton has some fundamentally sound and "solid" basketball players....these kids go to Princeton for reasons other than basketball. The Ivies have their academic standards and make no exceptions for athletics. It is all about coaching and fundamentals. That is why Towson is at a disadvantage. No solid coaching or fundamentals. 

Right. A team that used to throw up bricks and rely on getting fouled or offensive rebounds, led the league in three point shooting this past season.Never suggested the offense was perfect, but they have made  major strides. It starts with recruiting more skilled players.

[Tgr4life 167]

26 minutes ago, mat1992 said:

Right. A team that used to throw up bricks and rely on getting fouled or offensive rebounds, led the league in three point shooting this past season.Never suggested the offense was perfect, but they have made  major strides. It starts with recruiting more skilled players.

You have seen many more games than I have this year, so your opinion is likely more valid than mine. What I do know is in the games I have seen, the offense was try and find Timberlake for a 3. Anything else was incidental. No real schemes.

[Tiger93 299]

30 minutes ago, Tgr4life said:

You have seen many more games than I have this year, so your opinion is likely more valid than mine. What I do know is in the games I have seen, the offense was try and find Timberlake for a 3. Anything else was incidental. No real schemes.

We definitely fall into that trap in some games this year, and there were also decent amount of times we leaned too heavily on Nick down the stretch of games. However, I don't view that as a fair overall characterization for what the offense was trying to do in general and how it was run when it was working. I think you are actually both right. Skerry has evolved his offense somewhat from what it used to be, and he still has more evolving to do to make it more effective. However, it still boils down to who he recruits, how they take to his system, and how they perform. 

[Tiger93 299]

1 hour ago, Tgr4life said:

Most people realize that while Princeton has some fundamentally sound and "solid" basketball players....these kids go to Princeton for reasons other than basketball. The Ivies have their academic standards and make no exceptions for athletics. It is all about coaching and fundamentals. That is why Towson is at a disadvantage. No solid coaching or fundamentals. 

My point is that Georgetown ran a very similar offense with more high-end talent and got good results from it. There are so many variations on the sets from what I understand that it really requires a team to buy into it, have an overall team mentality, and understand at times they will be sacrificing their shots for the betterment of the team. That is hard to get people to do.

It also takes patience and calm since it often can take a number of passes to get what you want out of it, and sometimes that happens at the end of the shot clock. That requires players to see it through to the best results, and not hoist up three-point and panic when one part of it doesn't work.  

I do feel like the taking the air out of the ball reputation, which came when Carril first made it to the tournament, can be misrepresented. If a team gives you an open opportunity out of the set there is nothing saying the offense not to shoot it. However, it is mostly designed to be patient, precise and versatile to get the best possible opportunity on every possession. Of course, every offense is designed to get the best possible opportunity. I view that offense as a little different because of the ways you go about trying to do it. 

[Tgr4life 167]

5 minutes ago, Tiger93 said:

My point is that Georgetown ran a very similar offense with more high-end talent and got good results from it. There are so many variations on the sets from what I understand that it really requires a team to buy into it, have an overall team mentality, and understand at times they will be sacrificing their shots for the betterment of the team. That is hard to get people to do.

It also takes patience and calm since it often can take a number of passes to get what you want out of it, and sometimes that happens at the end of the shot clock. That requires players to see it through to the best results, and not hoist up three-point and panic when one part of it doesn't work.  

I do feel like the taking the air out of the ball reputation, which came when Carril first made it to the tournament, can be misrepresented. If a team gives you an open opportunity out of the set there is nothing saying the offense not to shoot it. However, it is mostly designed to be patient, precise and versatile to get the best possible opportunity on every possession. Of course, every offense is designed to get the best possible opportunity. I view that offense as a little different because of the ways you go about trying to do it. 

I think you also need to remember that when Pete Carrill started his offense, there was no three point line and actually there was no shot clock. It has evolved to take advantage of his principles and yet adapt to today's rules. I agree with a previous poster....Layups and Free Throws win basketball games....more often than not.