I was kind of hopeful that adding some new assistant coaches might lead to some changes, but some comments by Nate have me worried: "I want to play the young guys all through the preseason and get them a ton of minutes," McMillan said. "The other guys, all they are trying to do in the preseason is condition." I infer from that that they will not be learning and practicing any new offense. Here's another quote: "If we play defense like I want us to, you don't have to run plays" because of fast-break opportunities, McMillan said. "If we are getting stops, or coming up with steals, we shouldn't have to run any plays." That seems naive and just plain wrong. Obviously we aren't going to be getting all our baskets on fastbreaks or even a substantial portion.
So without a true center to control the paint (at least for now) the plan is "no plan" on offense? Hmmm ...
LOL... we were a good defensive team last year and we still didn't run much. It just wouldn't be time for the season to start without the quote about running more. We are set now... the universe is aligned... lets bring on the games!
Not only will we get a stop or steal every time, but each one will be the kind that leads directly to an easy fast break. No contingency plan needed here! Maybe we should at least practice our fast breaks.
Wheels said something about a new offense briefly on Courtside and I was wondering the same thing if it was the new coaches implementing a few new wrinkles are what?
I think we will see some different looks; Nate seems to be trusting most of the x's and o's to his assistants, and they are from the older school "speed kills" style of the 80's. It also lets each coach play to their strengths: Nate is a fantastic motivator, and if he can focus on that, we'll have great success. It was like that moment after the Oregon/Stanford game when the interviewer asked Chip Kelley, "What changes did you make on defense at the half?" and he answered, "I have no idea, I just run the offense." That sort of trust in your staff leads to success.
They probably have some set-plays but also trust the creativity and experience of the players that'll enable them to "just play".
To me, the only interpretation of those words that makes sense (on his part) is that you don't need offensive sets on those possessions where you "play defense right" and get an opportunity to run. You can't run when you're taking the ball out of your own net, but those are the times you didn't play defense the way he wants and you do need offensive sets in those cases. Of course, it's news to me that McMillan wants defense to transition into offense. Or rather...he wants to run, but he even more wants to limit turnovers. So his players realize that it's better, in terms of staying in his good graces, to not run, because the reward is not worth the risk.
Even on fastbreaks, "plays" provide a better chance of scoring. John Stockton and Magic Johnson ran plays constantly, they just ran them a lot quicker than other PG's. You can still blow a 3 on 1 break if the wrong guy ends up with the ball.
Reiterating--Deompolous was the one who constantly harped on the turnovers, not McMillan. I really think we'll see that become less of a point of emphasis this year.
Perhaps, but I've always felt that the head coach sets the tone. McMillan's view is what the players take on the floor, not an assistant's. Head coaches first of all tend to surround themselves with assistants who share their vision and second of all, the head coach has final say. If he wanted the team to run and not be overly worried about turnovers, I don't think the players would base their play on Deompolous' views. I think the likelier interpretation is that Deompolous harped on limiting turnovers with McMillan's blessing. This isn't a judgment of McMillan...turnovers are a very big deal and kill offenses. I just don't see any compelling evidence that McMillan is willing to take on the greater risks that more transition offense entails.
Do you remember this article from last year? I think it's pretty clear that McMillan approved of and accepted Demopolous' anti-turnover doctrine--because who could argue with "take care of the ball"--but that the constant harping on it was all Dean. Kind of like Tom Thibodeau's role with Boston--Doc Rivers certainly wasn't going to dispute Thibodeau's defensive emphasis, but I seriously doubt they will have the same defensive intensity this year now that he's in Chicago.
I came to the conclusion long ago that McMillan is quite poor at making coherent, consistent statements. I can only hope that's purely a public thing and not how he is around the team... As such, it's not worth spending much time analyzing his statements for an underlying message. You'd be better off rearranging the letters as a word scramble.
Some of the younger players are now turning that corner where Nate starts trusting them because of the number of years they have been on the team. If and when that happens, I expect them to carry more of the load, which is what the team really needs. That means actually running plays for them, and initiating the offense through them. Batum and Bayless are in year 3. The exact same year where they started giving Outlaw and Martell more looks and responsibility. When the team offense is more balanced from them taking that load is when they will take a step forward toward playoff success.
Nate is like the little boy who cried wolf. Until the team is even in the middle of the pack in terms of pace I think we can all take Nate's comments with a grain of salt. It sure wouldn't bum me out much to see them get out a bit more. I am guessing the player who would see the biggest boost would be LMA. That dude can fly down the court.
It's basketball 101. CREATE MISMATCHES. if you push the ball, Aldridge gets down the floor and gets a dunk, or gets down the floor before the other teams bigs and has to be guarded in the post by a guard. That would leave their big on top to contain Roy/Bayless/Miller/Matthews....etc. Very easy to score in that scenario. And one that doesn't involve having to rely on offensive rebounding
