You missed my point. If you watch a Golden State game that Steph isn’t even in, you can see them running the same sorts of motion and the same scheme. Obviously, it doesn’t work as well without him (which is why I noted Steph matters) but if you think it’s only about Steph, it is not. Here’s one of literally dozens of articles laying out what they do. Note also that if it were just Steph, Mark Jackson would have succeeded). View: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2271582-how-the-golden-state-warriors-offense-has-evolved-under-steve-kerr
. There’s motion, there’s expectations about number of passes, there’s design around off-ball movement…that’s an offense.
The Celtics don’t look like they have an offensive system not because of the players, but because they are not running any consistent offensive system. There is more to offensive basketball than whether your top scorer demands a double team…which i agree is relevant and matters, but is missing my point about the system in which those players are operating. Ime instituted a new defensive scheme (heavy reliance on switching almost everything) and while there’s been inconsistency there is clearly a theory there and some work to adopt an approach. I simply don’t see it on offense—-as I said, there’s a bunch of possible explanations. Some games it’s iso-heavy; some games it is high-post driven; other games it is just a step above school yard. We heard in pre-season they wanted Tatum and Brown to be playmakers—which isn’t a system, but is at least an offensive philosophy. We haven’t really seen that consistently, which might be about them or something else. We haven’t seen (for example) a consistent positioning or rotation or off-ball movement designed to best position those guys. We haven’t seen (with any consistency) a commitment to driving and dishing, or to creating overloads on one side, etc. Maybe he’s still experimenting, maybe he can’t get Smart (still the primary ball handler), Tatum, and Brown to buy in? But I simply don’t see it, really. Ime knows this——the Spurs ran a pretty similar offense for a long time even as their players evoloved, so Ime knows what a system looks like.
I don’t know why you are talking about Brad Stevens—the Celtics ran a similar scheme with IT as they did with early Tatum. Brad wasn’t a spectacular offensive coach, but he did have a system. They don’t appear to now. Maybe with continuity of healthy they’ll begin to show something. I don’t know, but it is missing right now.
Put a simpler way, if that helps, you can succeed without a system if your players are spectacular—LeBron has, for the most part, just been “LeBron” and only somewhat ever bought into anyone’s offensive system for example. To some degree 80s Celtics had only a loose system (but they had Larry Bird, who like LeBron was other-worldly as both a passer and scorer, and at least had clarity on how they’d use post-ups and ball rotation to create space on a consistent basis). But it is a lot easier to succeed with a set offensive system for those players to operate in, and more importantly for the role players to fit into. The Bulls were great because of Jordan, and also because they built a system around him that could plug in guys to roles and set expectations. For all their talent, Shaq and Kobe probably could have succeeded without any system but the triangle helped the guys around them. The Spurs ran motion and other concepts for a long time that allowed guys to understand where to go. The Warriors do the same. Those systems obviously are only so successful without the right players, but the inverse is also true. So what I’m saying is, what’s the offensive plan other than “hope Tatum and Brown do it themselves?”
. There’s motion, there’s expectations about number of passes, there’s design around off-ball movement…that’s an offense.
The Celtics don’t look like they have an offensive system not because of the players, but because they are not running any consistent offensive system. There is more to offensive basketball than whether your top scorer demands a double team…which i agree is relevant and matters, but is missing my point about the system in which those players are operating. Ime instituted a new defensive scheme (heavy reliance on switching almost everything) and while there’s been inconsistency there is clearly a theory there and some work to adopt an approach. I simply don’t see it on offense—-as I said, there’s a bunch of possible explanations. Some games it’s iso-heavy; some games it is high-post driven; other games it is just a step above school yard. We heard in pre-season they wanted Tatum and Brown to be playmakers—which isn’t a system, but is at least an offensive philosophy. We haven’t really seen that consistently, which might be about them or something else. We haven’t seen (for example) a consistent positioning or rotation or off-ball movement designed to best position those guys. We haven’t seen (with any consistency) a commitment to driving and dishing, or to creating overloads on one side, etc. Maybe he’s still experimenting, maybe he can’t get Smart (still the primary ball handler), Tatum, and Brown to buy in? But I simply don’t see it, really. Ime knows this——the Spurs ran a pretty similar offense for a long time even as their players evoloved, so Ime knows what a system looks like.
I don’t know why you are talking about Brad Stevens—the Celtics ran a similar scheme with IT as they did with early Tatum. Brad wasn’t a spectacular offensive coach, but he did have a system. They don’t appear to now. Maybe with continuity of healthy they’ll begin to show something. I don’t know, but it is missing right now.
Put a simpler way, if that helps, you can succeed without a system if your players are spectacular—LeBron has, for the most part, just been “LeBron” and only somewhat ever bought into anyone’s offensive system for example. To some degree 80s Celtics had only a loose system (but they had Larry Bird, who like LeBron was other-worldly as both a passer and scorer, and at least had clarity on how they’d use post-ups and ball rotation to create space on a consistent basis). But it is a lot easier to succeed with a set offensive system for those players to operate in, and more importantly for the role players to fit into. The Bulls were great because of Jordan, and also because they built a system around him that could plug in guys to roles and set expectations. For all their talent, Shaq and Kobe probably could have succeeded without any system but the triangle helped the guys around them. The Spurs ran motion and other concepts for a long time that allowed guys to understand where to go. The Warriors do the same. Those systems obviously are only so successful without the right players, but the inverse is also true. So what I’m saying is, what’s the offensive plan other than “hope Tatum and Brown do it themselves?”
Last edited: