Thoughts?

Interesting ... but like Dribble Drive Motion, you have to have perimeter players who can break defenders down off the dribble. It does no good to clear out the middle if the ballhandler can't get there.

And that was my problem with DDM -- if I had three kids who break defenders down off the dribble, it really didn't matter what I ran, because we were better.

On the flip side, one reason to run the pick and roll is to help a ballhandler get a mismatch or create space to operate, which is a necessity if he can't get by the defender on his own.

I do like having simple rules and not running set plays, but you also have to either run the system that works for your players or recruit players who work for your system. It's always difficult early in a college coach's career because you do want to put in your system (it takes a season or two to really settle in) but the personnel may not fit. So do you step back from installing your system, or endure the lack of fit?

ClayK said:

---

. . .
I do like having simple rules and not running set plays, but you also have to either run the system that works for your players or recruit players who work for your system. It's always difficult early in a college coach's career because you do want to put in your system (it takes a season or two to really settle in) but the personnel may not fit. So do you step back from installing your system, or endure the lack of fit?

---

Yes. Yes. Yes. I would also add that EXECUTION is supremely important. the highlights of this video show good spacing, good passing, good angle and good shooting (along with pretty mediocre defense). I believe that is where Monty excelled. Not so much in X's & O's (design), but in how his teams executed. My feeling since then, has been that the coaching staff was telling players what to do, but not how to do it. At least on offense. I believe Cuonzo and staff were explaining HOW to play solid defense and our teams generally executed that side of the ball well.

ClayK said:

---

Interesting ... but like Dribble Drive Motion, you have to have perimeter players who can break defenders down off the dribble. It does no good to clear out the middle if the ballhandler can't get there.

And that was my problem with DDM -- if I had three kids who break defenders down off the dribble, it really didn't matter what I ran, because we were better.

On the flip side, one reason to run the pick and roll is to help a ballhandler get a mismatch or create space to operate, which is a necessity if he can't get by the defender on his own.

I do like having simple rules and not running set plays, but you also have to either run the system that works for your players or recruit players who work for your system. It's always difficult early in a college coach's career because you do want to put in your system (it takes a season or two to really settle in) but the personnel may not fit. So do you step back from installing your system, or endure the lack of fit?

---

The key with college coaching is to be flexible in your approach because your roster is constantly changing. 4 years of eligibility, early entry, transfers, players academically ineligible. You can recruit players but there is no guarantee that they come. So you need to recruit toward your preferred style of play, but then use the system that is best for the players you actually have. You might want to run the above system, but if Shaq grew up a Cal fan and wants to play for you, you take him and adjust your plans. Too many college basketball coaches are wedded to their systems or way of doing things.

I agree that simple is best for college football and basketball. There is limited practice time. Practice execution. Better to do a few things well than a lot of things poorly.

In this day and age it should be abundantly clear that you need to recruit plenty of guys that can shoot the 3.

I understand that high school is not college, so for what it's worth ...

Installing a system is more than a one-year process. It's very difficult, if not impossible, at the high school level to change your system every year to adjust to your talent. Experience matters, and as young players get more comfortable with the basics, it allows coaches to tinker at the edges, install counters and exploit defenses more effectively. From my time in high school, it really took until year three until everything was in place -- and I ran really simple stuff, being from the let's-run-four-plays-really-well school rather than let's-run-a-lot-of-stuff-OK mindset.

At the college level, you're still dealing with young players who are learning the subtleties of the game, especially Power 5 players who have simply relied on their superior talent for most of their development. To take a kid who never had to think and was always the star and get him to a) understand his role, b) accept his role, and c) execute his role is not going to happen quickly. It takes time, which is why I don't think, even in college, you can alter the system every year and have consistent success.

Of course, if you get a superstar, and you have a one-year window before he turns pro, you blow it up and put a system in that allows the superstar to be at his best, but there aren't many of those.

Which comes back to the new coach conundrum: You've got talent that doesn't fit your system, but you want to install your system because you know it takes a year or two or three to really lock it in. Maybe you go one year with the old system? Two? But at some point, you have to put in the system you believe in, and bring in the kind of players who can run it, and if you wait too long, you'll be fired before it all comes together.

calumnus said:

---

ClayK said:

---

Interesting ... but like Dribble Drive Motion, you have to have perimeter players who can break defenders down off the dribble. It does no good to clear out the middle if the ballhandler can't get there.

And that was my problem with DDM -- if I had three kids who break defenders down off the dribble, it really didn't matter what I ran, because we were better.

On the flip side, one reason to run the pick and roll is to help a ballhandler get a mismatch or create space to operate, which is a necessity if he can't get by the defender on his own.

I do like having simple rules and not running set plays, but you also have to either run the system that works for your players or recruit players who work for your system. It's always difficult early in a college coach's career because you do want to put in your system (it takes a season or two to really settle in) but the personnel may not fit. So do you step back from installing your system, or endure the lack of fit?

---

The key with college coaching is to be flexible in your approach because your roster is constantly changing. 4 years of eligibility, early entry, transfers, players academically ineligible. You can recruit players but there is no guarantee that they come. So you need to recruit toward your preferred style of play, but then use the system that is best for the players you actually have. You might want to run the above system, but if Shaq grew up a Cal fan and wants to play for you, you take him and adjust your plans. Too many college basketball coaches are wedded to their systems or way of doing things.

I agree that simple is best for college football and basketball. There is limited practice time. Practice execution. Better to do a few things well than a lot of things poorly.

In this day and age it should be abundantly clear that you need to recruit plenty of guys that can shoot the 3.

---

So I take it that you probably were not so happy with Jeff Tedford's last few years, as that piece of cardboard that he carried around with him on the sidelines, the list of all his plays, grew bigger and bigger as the years went by? I'll bet he had 100 plays on that cardboard, and it isn't possible for the team to have practiced every one of those plays before a game so well that they were good at executing them. And the results over his last few years showed it, IMO.

SFCityBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ClayK said:

---

Interesting ... but like Dribble Drive Motion, you have to have perimeter players who can break defenders down off the dribble. It does no good to clear out the middle if the ballhandler can't get there.

And that was my problem with DDM -- if I had three kids who break defenders down off the dribble, it really didn't matter what I ran, because we were better.

On the flip side, one reason to run the pick and roll is to help a ballhandler get a mismatch or create space to operate, which is a necessity if he can't get by the defender on his own.

I do like having simple rules and not running set plays, but you also have to either run the system that works for your players or recruit players who work for your system. It's always difficult early in a college coach's career because you do want to put in your system (it takes a season or two to really settle in) but the personnel may not fit. So do you step back from installing your system, or endure the lack of fit?

---

The key with college coaching is to be flexible in your approach because your roster is constantly changing. 4 years of eligibility, early entry, transfers, players academically ineligible. You can recruit players but there is no guarantee that they come. So you need to recruit toward your preferred style of play, but then use the system that is best for the players you actually have. You might want to run the above system, but if Shaq grew up a Cal fan and wants to play for you, you take him and adjust your plans. Too many college basketball coaches are wedded to their systems or way of doing things.

I agree that simple is best for college football and basketball. There is limited practice time. Practice execution. Better to do a few things well than a lot of things poorly.

In this day and age it should be abundantly clear that you need to recruit plenty of guys that can shoot the 3.

---

So I take it that you probably were not so happy with Jeff Tedford's last few years, as that piece of cardboard that he carried around with him on the sidelines, the list of all his plays, grew bigger and bigger as the years went by? I'll bet he had 100 plays on that cardboard, and it isn't possible for the team to have practiced every one of those plays before a game so well that they were good at executing them. And the results over his last few years showed it, IMO.

---

That was crazy. It is one thing to be "multiple" and have a huge playbook, but I liken that to having a huge cookbook. A good restaurant picks a few recipes that take advantage of the chef's skills and the best seasonal ingredients currently available to create a menu. The staff perfects those dishes. Customers order off that menu. Restaurants that have huge menus usually do nothing well, and use ingredients that are frozen/microwaved, canned sauces, and produce mediocre food.

Yes, you need the play "menu" to be simple enough that gifted freshmen do not need to redshirt just to learn it and you can plug in JC players if you need to. Chip Kelly's offense at Oregon was like that. Especially now with grad transfers, early departures, etc. Here is a good article on how Calipari does it with one-and-dones every year:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/scan-kentuckys-roster-and-see-freshmen-look-closer-and-see-john-caliparis-brilliance/2019/03/30/32764b8e-5321-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html

I think that this article describes something that just might gain traction in basketball - the use of artificial intelligence to make strategy decisions. AI is penetrating just about everything - why not sports?

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/09/watch-ai-help-basketball-coaches-outmaneuver-opposing-team