This ladies and gentlemen is the results of an iso offense in the playoffs

I mean seriously, Mike Brown I guess has a bad game against the Celtics and you people somehow manage to use it against Nate. Unbelievable.

 

It seems silly, but when you don't have much to work with, you've got to grasp at something...

 

Oh please.

I will cheerfully admit that Nate is not the only coach who uses the ISO concept. Sometimes, I think most of the coaches in the league have an unhealthy fetish for it. That doesn't mean I, or anyone else here, has to *like* it.

I know you do a lot of scouting type work, and I respect that. In all sincerity, you need to put aside the current stuff, and go watch films of somebody like the Knicks of the early 70s. There are other ways to play the game than what we see from so many current coaches.

 

Well as a basketball coach for 20+ years, I DO know what an ISO offense is. Portland, Atlanta, Cleveland, Toronto and even Dallas about 1/3 of the time runs an ISO offense.

A friend of mine is a scout for the Mavs, and I think he probably knows what one is as well, and he says PORTLAND runs it more than any team in the league. So while it's great that you are a huge fan of the Blazers, and think they can do no wrong, that isn't entirely correct.


I am now ready for your over the top combative response.

 

That's a fair criticism, I have little knowledge of the schematic changes since the early to mid 90's.

I'm curious what differences you've seen between the decades, and more importantly, I'd love to know why you think those styles of offense are no loner ran.

Good post! Repped!

 

You may be a small group, but do a wonderful job of hijacking most threads to spread your word. It's like Guerilla Marketing at it's finest!

 

Ok there are many facets to this topic that I would like to point out:

1. One of the reasons that those teams are also winning, is there defense. You try to make it seem like it is all offense, but there is a lot of play on the other side of the ball that is going to deciding the game. By not giving PHX and Boston and Orlando credit for their defense, is kind of a slap in the face IMO. They play good defense, and deserve credit for it.

2. I agree that a purely ISO offense is not a good thing. But I do believe there is a time and place for it in games. If you ever have a matchup where they aren't doubling one of your go to guys, and you can get that play over and over again, there is no reason not to ride it. The idiocy is when it isn't working and they don't go away from it.

3. Many other teams have multiple offenses in their sets. Motion offense. Sets to attack zones. They just don't run ISO's all the time. Denver has several different offenses, and they swap back and forth all the time in the game depending on what they are facing and who is on the floor for their team.

4. PHX isn't a 7 second or less offense anymore. In fact I would go so far as to say they are built more like Orlando now, than the Steve Nash team from a few years back whe D'Antoni was coaching. Both teams have one good interior player and spread the floor with a ton of shooters, and with the spacing, let the point guard do his stuff. The difference is that Orlando runs more isolation plays for Carter in their setup. That is because with Carter, you can do that. With Richardson, not so much, he needs set up. Both of these offenses remind me of the offense Houston ran with Hakeem Olajuwan. Not quite the same, but very close. (The difference obviously being, Hakeem...).

5. Boston runs a motion offense but still controls the pace of the game. The reason they are winning that series on the offensive side is they are letting their PG control the game. He views the mismatches and the defenses being ran, and sets up whatever is needed to get a score. He pretty much totallly wings it. When you have Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and KG on your team they have enough experience they know what to do when the time comes. They aren't pushing it up the floor. They are controlling it.

 

....may be a slow learner. But I am pretty damn sure he learned a lesson or two about his offense this year. We were supposed to reach round two, that didn't happen, but we saw glimpses of greatness when we actually moved that ball. You know how gut wrenching that would be to a coach? To see flashes of brilliance, but not be able to keep it going...?

Nate won't forget what he saw, and I have no doubt that Sarge, being the hard worker that he is will put in the work needed this summer to make his offense consistent.

 

So we should take your word over John Hollinger?

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/play...?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-100506

 

I want to believe you that your friend is a scout for Dallas, but that statement is such a head-scratcher. He must not get an opportunity to watch Denver, Golden State, or even his own Dallas team very often.

Portland is no Utah when it comes to a nice free flowing offense, but the most ISO in the league? That's crazy talk.

 

It does make you wonder.. but I think this season was very special, and eye-opening. With all the injuries we were forced to play team ball and rely on everyone, and when we did this we were on fire (conquering Texas). I think Nate is smart enough to realize this and furthermore he's got to realize that the less the team relies on B-Roy, the healthier, stronger, and more clutch in the ISO he's gonna be.

I believe our ISO can be unstoppable if B-Roy is 100%. In order to do this though the rest of the offense must be strong and functional without B sacrificing his body 40 minutes a night. In our 1st round exit this year all Nate could do is stand there and witness how weak our O was, that had to hurt, and I guarantee Sarge won't forget it this summer.

 

While I truly hope you are right, I tend to be a bit more pessimistic about it. I can see Nate looking back and thinking, "If Brandon had been 100%, our offense would have looked much better" instead of thinking, "Hey, maybe it's time to tinker with the offense a bit." I fear it will get chalked up to bad luck instead of a less-than-ideal system.

My worry is that even before the playoffs, when there was no need for it, we went to the ISO instead of staying aggressive (Memphis game, I'm looking at you). It worries me that when we had any type of lead (blowouts excluded) in the second half of the 4th quarter, we often played not to lose rather than to win.

Another concern I have is the first 7 or last 7 idea. When we didn't score in the first 7 seconds, it seems like it gives the defense a brief opportunity to rest, realizing that they only need to really D up for the last 7 seconds of the clock.

 

I still think that this team could be good with the team making one coaching change not involved firing Nate. It would be to bring in an offensive guru to help out. For instance, Eddie Jordan did not make a good head coach. But he is supposed to be one of the best minds about teaching the Princeton offense out there. So he isn't a good head coach. But maybe he might be a great assistant.

 

I see your point.

But with Brandon Roy having 4 knee surgeries you have to think they have realized he's not invincible and the best way to protect him long term is take some offensive pressure off him.

What I would like to see: Brandon Playing like Kobe, in that the team can be highly productive without him, and he is simply icing on the cake.

Bingo!

 

This isn't in green text but I have to assume you are joking.

Brandon driving the lane and kicking the ball out to Jab Step isn't any different then him doing so to LMA or Batum.

Except LMA and Batum can catch and shoot while Outlaw always puts the ball on the floor before shooting.

 

1/3 of the time is not a primary offense, and your "friend" must not watch Cleveland play.

 

It is if 1/3 of the time you run isolation sets, 1/4 of the time you run the pick and roll, 1/5 of the time you run a high low, and the rest of the time you chuck up desperation heaves at the buzzer.

 

Touche'