The Pembroke Postgame Report.

can you imagine the effort on D and the horrendous rebounding if we decided zone is the way to go?

For my money, there are several teams I'd zone up and just deal with the issues, but that isn't where zo is going.

 

Tatum and McRae would likely never move and I'm not sure Hall is smart enough to figure out how to rotate.

I can totally understand that; for me I'm stubborn and feel like I am much better at teaching/scheming playing m2m at this point. Plus if your whole program is build on tough, half-court m2m man you are going to have to take some lumps (in CM's case) to get to where you want your program to be.

All that being said you still have to be flexible (heard Hep Cronin @ a clinic tell great story about Mick switching to zone D while at Murray St.) at times.

 

Kenny Hall does not possess a single recognizable basketball skill.

 

If he was ever going to improve, it's in Cuonzo's post oriented offense. He hasn't. Bruce Pearl called him the best NBA prospect he'd ever recruited. Is it any wonder that Hall is just another in a long list of complete [uck fay]ups in evaluations by Pearl?

 

.

 

Much better at doing what?

 

It's a much better coached offense. If Martin had Hopson and Tobias Harris running around out there, it'd look pretty good.

 

I just pulled up Kenny Hall's espn.com recruiting page. Wow oh wow. Everybody got this kid wrong. You'll giggle. Comparisons to Luol Deng. Mentions of a future NBA career. Sentences devoted to describing his various offensive skills. And I actually believe the words "three" "point" and "range" were used. In that order. Without words in between. I'm not kidding.

 

Christ. That just pisses me off reading that. The kid just has no skill. I think he tries hard; he just sucks. I don't know how in the Hell that was ever the evaluation of him. Looks like 5 minutes of watching him would show you unequivocally that that's not accurate.

 

Tell me more. I'm not much of a basketball X's and O's guy. I know the flex that Pearl ran is considered a little elementary and probably more hyper-structured than you really want for a good college team. I observed that it worked better with solid three point shooters in the lineup. I don't know much about the Cuonzo offense and I haven't observed enough to form conclusions.

 

Recruiting types get enamored with length. Yeah yeah yeah, that's what she said. But, seriously, they see a guy who is tall and reasonably athletic and I think they convince themselves the other stuff is there whether it is or not. JP Prince is another example. To be fair, he did have some basketball skills, but he was similarly overrated because recruiting/scout person saw a 6-6 point guard and immediately jizzed all over themselves.

 

I think the spacing is usually good. They move without the basketball and actually screen for one another now. We actually take decent shots most of the time; we just can't hit them. We rarely see the "toss it back and forth for 30 seconds" offense Pearl employed. That said, ultimately, in a motion offense, someone has to have the ability to make a play. And, that is sorely, sorely lacking. Also, I'm not just completely trashing Pearl as a coach; I just think he never recruited players that fit his system. His record speaks for itself, and his success at Tennessee does as well. I, however, like Cuonzo's style of play better than Pearl's. Let's just hope he can win like Pearl did.

 

I think you're probably right. JP Prince was about like Michael Jordan compared to Hall though. Hall literally does nothing well. He's slow on the block, he doesn't jump particularly well. He's not particularly fast. He's not strong. I just don't understand what people saw in him.

 

Did Pearl really say this? I assume it was said pre-Tobias...but still.

 

Yea, I heard him say it in an interview. And, it was pre-Tobias.

 

I completely agree. My initial statement was, surprisingly enough, not intended as hyperbole. I watch the guy play and I can't point out a single thing that he is able to do well. Can't dribble. Can't shoot. Doesn't pass particularly well. Three years in and he still can't play defense without fouling. Not overly athletic. Zero basketball instincts. I mean, what else is there for him to not possess?

 

Is there a "type" of player that fits well with a flex cut system? Like with the Princeton offense you would wanna have a big man with range and great passing skills. With the DDM you would wanna have Derrick Rose or Tyreke Evans...or at the very least a couple players who are quick and can get to the basket.

Also, on systems generally: I don't get terribly enamored with one or the other or the other. Gary Williams won the whole thing at Maryland running the same offense that Pearl used. Phil Jackson won 12 championships running an offense that nobody runs anymore. I think you have to find your players ways to score. Unless you're Roy Williams and you are essentially following a template and basically looking to field the same team every year (and there is nothing wrong with this, but it is difficult to do unless you are at UNC and can recruit in accordance therewith...as Roy does), I feel like the best approach is a simple one that can be tweaked to the strengths of the players. A motion offense probably fits that description. But maybe would like to see more tweaks from Cuonzo.

 

Pearl's was what he called a "modified flex." It was essentially flex cuts along the baseline with two guys up top. That's much more simple than even a basic flex offense. They usually never even looked to score off what Pearl referred to as "cutters", which was the modified flex. So, they'd crank some time off the clock doing meaningless flex cuts, and then he'd call a set play every time down the floor. I always felt this made the team robotic and lack natural instinct. A motion offense is just the opposite. It only works if the players use the instincts by reading the defense and their particular defender at every turn. If a defender overplays, offensive player backcuts. If defender trails a screen, offensive player curls. If defender jumps a screen, offensive player fades. It allows you to set back screens, cross screens, etc. and allows the screen recipient to respond according to how the defense plays him. In short, a motion offense will probably never look exactly the same from one set to the next. In contrast, Pearl's set plays have one or two options usually. It doesn't allow for just natural basketball instincts to take over. I think if your players master a motion offense, they essentially really understand the game whereas if you're only running set plays, you essentially only know where to go and stand and exactly which movements to make. You don't read and react.

So, that's just a long-winded way of saying, I'm not sure there's any specific player that fits Pearl's flex because he never really ever scored or even looked to score off the flex. He scored off of play calls. Williams' flex offense is more of a traditional flex than what Pearl ran.

 

I completely agree. Nothing ever appeared fluid. And a guy like Scotty Hopson who could literally score or get fouled every single time down the court became passive and hesitant and only took it to the rack when the situation demanded it. Of course, one could argue that this was because Scotty Hopson had a moist vagina and was averse to forcing the issue....and one wouldn't be inaccurate. But the lack of freedom and flow certainly didn't help either.

 

Scotty's game was definitely more suited to having more freedom. That's usually the norm with talented players. That's why you don't see Cal or Roy Williams running incredibly disciplined offenses. Give good players freedom, and they'll make you look like a good coach.