The Offensive Philosophy Taking Over The NBA

MY NOTE:  At some point this thread may be moved to the "Ongoing Threads and More" section of our site, which can be found from our home page along with the "Game On!" threads and others.  IF it is moved there this thread will be updated to let you know that's where it's going (I tend to stay out of those 'housekeeping' efforts so I don't know what will or will not happen for sure). There are already some nice educational videos to be found there on "Horns" and "Floppy" (if you don't know what those are, and no, they are not of a sexual nature, then you should definitely go check them out) as well as other stuff.

We just want our board members to have the highest BBIQ of any fans anywhere.





bob



.

Thanks Bob. For this and everything else you do here.

Say the word and I'll move it over, if you'd like.

Again, excellent for those of us that love the game and don't know why! Thank you so much! Perfect!

db

Interesting theory. The comparison to a spread offense in football is valid in my opinion.

In football, the spread offense still benefits from the threat of a power running game. There is generally a runner on the field capable of shifting into formation to attack the gaps on a given play, or a WR capable of running a jet sweep to the outside. The potential of running off tackle, penetrating interior gaps or sweeping keeps the linebackers honest and prevents them from totally bailing into coverage. This leaves the receivers in 1 on 1 match-ups with DBs.

In basketball, what does the same thing? A dominant big who can clog the paint on D and pose a low-post scoring threat at the other end. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The biggest problem for today's offensive tendencies in the NBA? The opposition having one or more dominant bigs. Bigs not only capable of shooting from the arc, but more specifically, banging in the paint. That's because relying totally on shooting beyond the arc is useless without the threat of that key player who can score inside. Dominant bigs help remove or at least lessen that threat. It's not complicated.

Back to the future.

cowens/oldschool wrote:Dominant bigs, when has a dominant big led his team to the title in the last decade?

Dominant do it all wings is still where the game is at.

Throw a big like Embiid in there, and watch what happens. Wing centered, 5-out shooting teams are ripe for the picking. They'll be at a constant disadvantage on at least one end of the floor. Even Howard/McGee has been able to show what some balance can do with the Lakers this year. He's helped Davis and James get the match-ups and spacing they've needed to open it up.

The cycle is running its course. Styles change. Sideburns and paisley ties went out. I'm thinking 5-out small ball is next to join the Fu-Manchu on the sideline. Give me a team with a couple of hot shooting wings and a big nasty center and schedule the banner hanging ceremony. Philly isn't quite there. Milwaukee is closer. Lakers may just get there first despite age and dings. Add a big old Lanier type to Tatum, Brown,Walker and Smart, and we can buy seats together for the finals. Not an easy find, but I think it's the right ingredient.

dboss wrote:I think what is driving offenses is the proliferation of the 3 point shoot.  However offensive balanced teams are more difficult to defend.

Players that can make shots at all 3 levels are more complete offensive centers.

The multi-positional player is in demand.

Yes. And if at least one of them can get it done by clogging lanes and owning the paint, his team will have an edge. That appears to be the growing trend. Mobile bigs, perhaps, but with the ability to use their size advantage inside. The low post is going to become a destination again.

Bob,

Did you want this thread moved over yet?

gyso wrote:Bob,

Did you want this thread moved over yet?

Gyso,

Your call, but I'd say leave it up for a week from initial posting. Anybody who doesn't stop by the board once a week to see if anything interests them probably won't miss it by then.


bob


.