Drafting for Stevens ball movement offense

[slamtheking]

I think the best coaches can coach any style -- but more importantly coach to the style that fits their players. 

Draft BPA and let the coach sort it out.

I wonder how well this actually bears out -- most of the most successful NBA coaches earned their wins/rings/playoff appearances/accolades by having one specific style of play -- i.e. Nellieball, the Triangle, Larry Brown's molasses pace, etc.

Super busy right now but I bet someone on here could go into this fairly deeply.

I don't think this is true, a lot of great coaches have shown a ton of flexibility in how they coach.

Just among those coaching today Pop, Rivers, and Carlisle pop to mind. Pat Reilly built a roster that plays completely differently than he ever coached as well.

Jackson himself while playing "the triangle" made pretty huge adjustments to it for Jordan, Shaq, and eventually Kobe.

This, coaches want players who fit their mold. If you are just assembling talent you can get a bunch of mismatched players who don't necessarily play well in one system.

Naturally coaches have a preferred way of playing and prefer to have players that fit that style however this isn't a perfect world (or even college hoops) where everyone gets what they want.  The best coaches make the best of what they have. 

[sed522002]

I think the best coaches can coach any style -- but more importantly coach to the style that fits their players. 

Draft BPA and let the coach sort it out.

I wonder how well this actually bears out -- most of the most successful NBA coaches earned their wins/rings/playoff appearances/accolades by having one specific style of play -- i.e. Nellieball, the Triangle, Larry Brown's molasses pace, etc.

Super busy right now but I bet someone on here could go into this fairly deeply.

I don't think this is true, a lot of great coaches have shown a ton of flexibility in how they coach.

Just among those coaching today Pop, Rivers, and Carlisle pop to mind. Pat Reilly built a roster that plays completely differently than he ever coached as well.

Jackson himself while playing "the triangle" made pretty huge adjustments to it for Jordan, Shaq, and eventually Kobe.

This, coaches want players who fit their mold. If you are just assembling talent you can get a bunch of mismatched players who don't necessarily play well in one system.

Naturally coaches have a preferred way of playing and prefer to have players that fit that style however this isn't a perfect world (or even college hoops) where everyone gets what they want.  The best coaches make the best of what they have.

Yep, some coaches don't have much of a say on the players that are traded or acquired so they have to make do with what the front office gives them as a roster. One of the main reasons Doc was enticed with the Clips job was because he could finally be in control of the type of roster he wants to coach.

[BleedGreen1989]

You coach to the players on your roster, not the system.

[cltc5]

I think the whole point of Danny getting Brad Stephens so that the coach could grow with his players and they would be on one page with the system they want to run.  I

[D.o.s.]

I think the best coaches can coach any style -- but more importantly coach to the style that fits their players. 

Draft BPA and let the coach sort it out.

I wonder how well this actually bears out -- most of the most successful NBA coaches earned their wins/rings/playoff appearances/accolades by having one specific style of play -- i.e. Nellieball, the Triangle, Larry Brown's molasses pace, etc.

Super busy right now but I bet someone on here could go into this fairly deeply.

I don't think this is true, a lot of great coaches have shown a ton of flexibility in how they coach.

Just among those coaching today Pop, Rivers, and Carlisle pop to mind. Pat Reilly built a roster that plays completely differently than he ever coached as well.

Jackson himself while playing "the triangle" made pretty huge adjustments to it for Jordan, Shaq, and eventually Kobe.

Yeah I'm not sure if there is a correlation or not -- I just went with Brown Nelson and Jackson 'cause I knew they had loads of wins to their names and specific styles of play that correlated with that, albeit tenuously.

I think you draft the best players available, then use free agency and the trade market to find the pieces that suit your offense.

There's a darn good chance that exum and Kyle Anderson would be the BPA at our two draft positions

I like Exum, what's your point?

[SHAQATTACK]

Stauksas seems like Stevens style player .   Maybe Exum ...I don't have enough info to make an judgement.  He could be amazing if the hype holds. 

Asik would fit .....he is limited offense.....he is a decent rebounder and good with outlet pass and running the floor pushing the ball for a big guy.    I don't know about Asik and Rondo 

Gordon seems like a Stevens style player.

[RRNoLookPass]

I don't have a lot of time to flesh this out so here's a brief outline of a though I've been kickin around.
Stevens envisions an offense that involves a lot of ball movement with no dominant playmaker.
(I'm far from a rondo hater but this involves moving on from the general)
Summer plan is to fill our team with good passers at as many positions as possible...
If available draft exum, draft slo mo with 17 or move up for him (17 + future 2nd)
Sign and trade for Stevenson
We would build around good passers with
Exum at 1 Stevenson at 2, slo mo at 3 oly at 4

Trade for defensive center (asik for arguments sake)
D anchored by Stevenson and asik
Use rondo, green, sully as chips to bring in center, Stevenson future talent...
Thoughts?

Coach Brad Stevens runs what is called a Motion Offense, not "Stevens ball movement offense" as you called it. There seems to be a lot of confusion amongst many of the posters on Celticsblog as to how a motion offense is run.

Here is some background info on the motion offense: The origin of the motion offense is usually credited to coach Henry Iba from Oklahoma State. From there, it was further developed & popularized by Coach Bob Knight at Indiana University, who utilized screening as a key part of the offense.

Now here is a brief definition of what a motion offense really is: 

The motion offense is a flexible offense that utilizes player movement, correct floor spacing, passing and cutting, and setting screens. Rather than running set plays (which can also be run in the motion offense), players move within a basic set of rules. This allows for greater flexibility than just running set plays, and will usually be effective against any kind of defense, whether man-to-man, zone or "junk" defenses. Players can move freely to open areas on the court. Once the basic concepts are learned, special patterns or plays can be designed by the coach to take advantage of his team's offensive strengths.

So if you read what a motion offense is truly based upon, and what it utilizes, you will realize that it is not simply all about ball movement. I think a lot of people read the word "motion", and then jump to the conclusion that a motion offense is strictly about ball movement.

After reading the actual definition of the motion offense, I think most people will understand that the "we need to move on from Rondo in order to utilize Coach Stevens' motion offense" argument is a rather groundless point of view. There is no rule that you can not have a dominant playmaker within a motion offense.
In fact, I think Stevens recognizes that Rondo is an excellent floor general for his motion offense, as Rondo is great at utilizing screens, recognizing his teammates' movements off the ball, and finding open cutters. Rondo is clearly one of the best playmakers in the league, and one of the best point guards at creating/implementing plays on the fly, rather than running set plays. He has shown in the past that he is superb at playing effectively against a variety of different defenses, which is also a big part of the motion offense.

And just a few more comments regarding the original post-- I think the summer plan, per Danny Ainge, is about finding a solid rim protector first & foremost. (Rather than finding good passers)...The C's already have a top tier passer in Rondo, and a creative back up PG/passer in Pressey, whom is on a very cheap contract if they decide to bring him back.

I also don't see the Pacers having much interest in a S&T involving Stevenson. Teams will most likely have to overpay to pry him away from the Pacers, and I don't see the C's being willing to do that, but you never know I guess.

[footey]

I think the underlying premise of the OP is that Rondo does not suit Stevens' style of play and must be dealt.  I don't buy into that.  I think any coach would love to have a PG with Rondo's skill set.  The point of good ball movement is to find the open man to take a high percentage shot.  The value in a great point guard like Rondo is that he can accomplish the same end with his ability to penetrate the defense and make the right pass.   I think Stevens and Rondo can make their goals work together. 

[RRNoLookPass]

I think the underlying premise is that Rondo does not suit Stevens' style of play and must be dealt.  I don't buy into that.  I think any coach would love to have a PG with Rondo's skill set.  The point of good ball movement is to find the open man to take a high percentage shot.  The value in a great point guard like Rondo is that he can accomplish the same end with his ability to penetrate the defense and make the right pass.   I think Stevens and Rondo can make their goals work together.

I agree. I've never bought into the argument that Rondo is not suitable for Brad Steven's motion offense or style of coaching. As I implied in my previous post, I think many people who make that argument either don't know fully understand what a motion offense is, or just don't care for Rondo's game in general. I think Stevens and Rondo will prove to be a solid duo for the foreseeable future, if the C's end up retaining Rondo long-term (which hopefully they do). Rondo & Stevens both have outstanding basketballs IQ's, and they seem to be getting along very well thus far.
Rondo has also proved to be above average at almost every aspect of the motion offense. The only part of the motion offense that one could argue Rondo needs improvement on, is floor-spacing. ...However, he is great at communicating with his teammates about where to be on the floor at all times on offense. He also has a solid mid-range game, and is excellent at drawing double-teams & then kicking the ball out to the open-man. All of those things help to space the floor. Rondo's only weakness when it comes to spacing is his lack of a reliable 3p shot, which he often makes up for in other ways, as 3pointers are not the only way to create space between teammates.

[mmmmm]

That said, all other things being equal, I think the best players for Stevens will be guys who can pass, fill multiple roles on offense, cover multiple positions on defense, and hit the outside shot at a reliable rate.

This applies to every team no matter who the coach is.

Yeah, I guess that's true. But it's especially true in an offense that's all about constant movement and frequent passing, with an emphasis on high efficiency shots.

As opposed to an offense that is about infrequent movement, not much passing and an emphasis on low efficiency shots?

[D.o.s.]

That said, all other things being equal, I think the best players for Stevens will be guys who can pass, fill multiple roles on offense, cover multiple positions on defense, and hit the outside shot at a reliable rate.

This applies to every team no matter who the coach is.

Yeah, I guess that's true. But it's especially true in an offense that's all about constant movement and frequent passing, with an emphasis on high efficiency shots.

As opposed to an offense that is about infrequent movement, not much passing and an emphasis on low efficiency shots?

What is the 2013 Philadelphia 76ers?

[mmmmm]

I don't have a lot of time to flesh this out so here's a brief outline of a though I've been kickin around.
Stevens envisions an offense that involves a lot of ball movement with no dominant playmaker.
(I'm far from a rondo hater but this involves moving on from the general)
Summer plan is to fill our team with good passers at as many positions as possible...
If available draft exum, draft slo mo with 17 or move up for him (17 + future 2nd)
Sign and trade for Stevenson
We would build around good passers with
Exum at 1 Stevenson at 2, slo mo at 3 oly at 4

Trade for defensive center (asik for arguments sake)
D anchored by Stevenson and asik
Use rondo, green, sully as chips to bring in center, Stevenson future talent...
Thoughts?

Coach Brad Stevens runs what is called a Motion Offense, not "Stevens ball movement offense" as you called it. There seems to be a lot of confusion amongst many of the posters on Celticsblog as to how a motion offense is run.

Here is some background info on the motion offense: The origin of the motion offense is usually credited to coach Henry Iba from Oklahoma State. From there, it was further developed & popularized by Coach Bob Knight at Indiana University, who utilized screening as a key part of the offense.

Now here is a brief definition of what a motion offense really is: 

The motion offense is a flexible offense that utilizes player movement, correct floor spacing, passing and cutting, and setting screens. Rather than running set plays (which can also be run in the motion offense), players move within a basic set of rules. This allows for greater flexibility than just running set plays, and will usually be effective against any kind of defense, whether man-to-man, zone or "junk" defenses. Players can move freely to open areas on the court. Once the basic concepts are learned, special patterns or plays can be designed by the coach to take advantage of his team's offensive strengths.

So if you read what a motion offense is truly based upon, and what it utilizes, you will realize that it is not simply all about ball movement. I think a lot of people read the word "motion", and then jump to the conclusion that a motion offense is strictly about ball movement.

After reading the actual definition of the motion offense, I think most people will understand that the "we need to move on from Rondo in order to utilize Coach Stevens' motion offense" argument is a rather groundless point of view. There is no rule that you can not have a dominant playmaker within a motion offense.
In fact, I think Stevens recognizes that Rondo is an excellent floor general for his motion offense, as Rondo is great at utilizing screens, recognizing his teammates' movements off the ball, and finding open cutters. Rondo is clearly one of the best playmakers in the league, and one of the best point guards at creating/implementing plays on the fly, rather than running set plays. He has shown in the past that he is superb at playing effectively against a variety of different defenses, which is also a big part of the motion offense.

And just a few more comments regarding the original post-- I think the summer plan, per Danny Ainge, is about finding a solid rim protector first & foremost. (Rather than finding good passers)...The C's already have a top tier passer in Rondo, and a creative back up PG/passer in Pressey, whom is on a very cheap contract if they decide to bring him back.

I also don't see the Pacers having much interest in a S&T involving Stevenson. Teams will most likely have to overpay to pry him away from the Pacers, and I don't see the C's being willing to do that, but you never know I guess.

Thank you for posting that clarification and I concur 100%.

I did a pretty detailed article on this very topic last week on the front page of CB:

http://www.celticsblog.com/2014/4/17/5625374/pounding-the-ball

Caution - it is long, there are numbers, and some of the best stuff is in the comments.

The short version is that I can see no reason to think that Rondo is not a good fit for Steven's motion offense.

[D.o.s.]

Having skimmed the title and the accompanying photograph, I can safely say that you're right, Rondo does pound the ball too much.

[BballTim]

I don't have a lot of time to flesh this out so here's a brief outline of a though I've been kickin around.
Stevens envisions an offense that involves a lot of ball movement with no dominant playmaker.

  I doubt that's the case. If it was, would we try and avoid having ball-dominant players on the team? Because the bulk of the better players in the league, especially wings and pgs, won't fit that team, at least successfully.

[mmmmm]

Having skimmed the title and the accompanying photograph, I can safely say that you're right, Rondo does pound the ball too much.

You sneaky little ...

LOL