Last year, when everyone hopped on the Orlando bandwagon, I was agin it. Their style of play seemed too simplistic to me - like the Magic of the Penny/Shaq/Brian Hill days: a big man in the middle ringed by shooters at every position camped outside ready for kickouts. I still think it's ugly, and it still hasn't produced a champion. But the Magic are looking like an unstoppable juggernaut right now. And in general, hitting threes seems to be very important. And finally, it's not like it's fun to watch the Blazers' current offense. Of course, for us to model the Magic, Oden has to be able to stay healthy. If he does, I believe he can approximate Dwight Howard, both on defense (good) and offense (not so good) as well as any other player in the league. And we already have shooters at 3 of the other 4 positions. But Miller doesn't really fit the mold, which is why a lot of people were very lukewarm about his signing. If we were to try to mimic the Magic, what would that mean for personnel moves? I think it would argue in favor of re-signing Outlaw as a "stretch 4" (because his three-shooting has become Rashard Lewis-esque). But who's our Jameer Nelson? Nelson has looked much better than I thought he could and has been a big part of their success (and perhaps could be the factor that pushes them over the top, because I think the Magic would have to be favorites if they make the Finals, particularly as they would have homecourt).
If you're going to that model, I'd almost look at trading LMA out for Dirk. He's a pretty good Stretch 4, and his skillset isn't one that'll go away as he leaves his prime in the next couple of years.
If J-Bay could get his ball control down, his three point shot, and his dishing skills I believe he can be our Jameer. Allot to ask I know, but he's a hard worker and I think he can. Throw in a healthy Oden as our Dwight and I'd say we got a model similar to Orlando's
Orlando's style is very similar, IMO, to many small college basketball teams. Have one good big guy in the middle and a whole bunch of good shooters. And they live by the 3, die by the three. If shots are falling, they can run you out of the building(shoot you out, maybe), but if not, they really have nowhere else to turn. Especially since Dwight's offensive game is rather limited. I'd prefer the triangle as a model, personally.
Not really. Duke does shoot a ton of 3's.. but they get those out of a Motion offense, drive and kicks or in transition. Orlando seems to be the old school style inside out game. Same results but much different way of getting there.
I would not say that Roy, Batum and LMA are pure shooters at all. LMA has no range outside of 15-18 feet and that wont work in that kind of offense.. and while Roy can shoot - that is certainly not the thing he does best. Batum has good % on a very small amount of attempts. If you are going to design and offense to get you jumpers off kick outs... you better have some premier shooters on your roster.
I disagree. At least, though the '90s and first half of '00s, when I was watching more college basketball. They generally relied on having an inside force (force, at least, at the college level) like Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer or Sheldon Williams and spaced the floor around with three-point shooters. Athletic slashers like Corey Maggette were rarities and there wasn't a lot of motion to the offense, in my opinion.
Coach K ran a 3 out 2 in motion offense for almost all of the 90s and early 2000's. He recently went to a 5 out spread motion offense that utilizes drive and kicks or quick shots off of screens. They never were a power inside out team like Orlando is right now.
Orlando's "model" begins with a dominant rebounding and defensive center who has a limited offensive skillset. Hmmm ... if only we could get one of those... It's an inside-out offense, and it isn't terribly complicated.
As the great Sabas once said: "if my grandmother had a beard she'd be my grandfather". (I believe he was sanitizing the original slightly.)
I'm with you there. But name one team not coached by Phil Jackson that has successfully implemented it. It's not like his acolytes haven't tried - Cleamons in Dallas, Rambis in Minnesota - but it's always been a disaster.
You would also need guys who are very diligent about getting the wild rebounds (the ones that don't stay right by the rim for the center to pick up) You know, the more I think about it, Dwight Howard's 20-20s are just a product of that system: grab close board and dunk it. GO can do that. As of last season, we were a similar team. Nate used a lot of three point shooting. He would gets the guys to swing the ball a lot to find the open man. It is seriously the change from Blake and Outlaw to Dre and Batum/Webster. BUT! I think we are better not trying to live by the 3 die by the 3. So in conclusion, you would need a PG who can hit 3's (maybe Bayless but not very consistent) Roy can shoot the long ball, but likes to drive. Batum and Webster can hit, but they are streaky (which is okay in that system). And LMA can hit a 3 once in a while. Honestly Frye at the 4 would be good in that system, especially if he helps dig out some rebounds once in a while.
The Orlando system has a player who is the main creator. Last year that was probably Hedo. This year it seems to be more Nelson. For us it can be Roy. That means you do need to pair him with a PG who's a shooter. Maybe that's why we were more Orlando-esque last year with Blake. (I thought at the time that Blake would be perfect for Orlando after Nelson went down.)
It all depends on having an uber-garbage player in the post who doesn't need a lot of post-ups to be effective. Oden can be that guy. The problem is, after reading another thread, some people seem to think Oden is a much better offensive player than I think he is at this stage of his career.
both those guys suck. Though some people seem to think they're busted-ly horrid, or horridly busted, or just busts. Though I'm sure there are some people who think that that D. Howard guy has some hope of being good--at some later stage of his career.
That article basically is in line with my thoughts about Oden and how he is most effective. Thanks for posting it. The problem is, there is a sizable faction of rabid fans who think that Oden not being the primary focus on offense is some sort of misuse of him. I happen to think the opposite. I think that making Oden the primary focus of an NBA offense is misusing him. Let him play to his strengths, which are offensive rebounding and taking up other rebounders. If he every stays out of foul trouble and gets 34 mpg, he's a 16/12 guy right now while being in foul trouble, and he'll block 2.5 shots a game. Those numbers, especially rebounding and blocks, would only go up if he wasn't wary of fouls.
You may be right, but the numbers presented definitely provide some evidence that the "give Oden a big offensive role" people (I'm one of them, though I wouldn't characterize myself as "rabid" about it) may be right. The numbers can't prove what offensive role a player should have, but there are some interesting things: his TS% is remarkable...his Offensive Rating is also incredible. I think at the very least, he's under-utilized. If he's leading the NBA in scoring efficiency, he could certainly stand to shoot more. Would his TS% drop with more shots? That usually happens...but when he's starting at #1, it can drop and he can still be hugely efficient. Whether he should be the offensive focus, I'm not sure. Brandon Roy is awfully good and awfully polished. It's also easier to allow a perimeter player to control and dictate the offensive flow. On the other hand, a big man who can draw double-teams in the middle is a huge boon to an offense, as it creates a lot of space for other players to exploit.
