Redfish
Masters Student
Posts: 767
Loc: under a bridge in Phoenix...
Reg: 11-26-04
|
01-28-05 04:56 AM - Post#2776
From the Washington Post regarding the Wizards:
"Coach Eddie Jordan and his staff are also responsible for the turnaround. They not only convinced, talented, one-on-one players to buy into the old-fangled, move-and-pass, team-oriented Princeton offense, but also created an even-tempered environment. The team became obsessed with compiling a body of work and wins, rather than dissecting each step forward and backward. "
I've watched the Wizards, but are they really following the "Princeton offense"?
|
Chuck
Masters Student
Posts: 995
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Hey Chuck, here's that "Princeton" offense again
01-28-05 04:42 PM - Post#2777
In response to Redfish
Guess it just shows how little some people know...seems like any NBA team that doesn't rely on clear outs/one-on-one style of play is thought to use the "PU system". Passing the ball around, trying to find good shots, etc., was something I always thought of as a Boston Celtics legacy...
|
Jon Solomon
T.A.
Posts: 88
Loc: Mercer County, NJ
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Hey Chuck, here's that "Princeton" offense again
01-28-05 05:02 PM - Post#2778
In response to Chuck
"Guess it just shows how little some people know."
Well, you're right about that part.
Eddie Jordan coached with Pete Carril out in Sacramento. He's been interviewed repeatedly about how he's using many of the same sets that Carril helped install in Sacramento with the Wizards. Jordan is also credited with helping implement "Princeton" sets when he was an assistant for the Nets.
Jon
|
Chuck
Masters Student
Posts: 995
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Silly me...
01-28-05 07:07 PM - Post#2779
In response to Jon Solomon
Quote:
move-and-pass, team-oriented
Was the quote from the article...I just didn't realize that 'move and pass, team oriented basketball' was a patented PU concept. I suppose that memory plays tricks...could swear that there were teams in the NBA and college that played 'move-and-pass, team-oriented basketball' before Pete came along.
|
Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 7001
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Silly me...
01-28-05 09:01 PM - Post#2780
In response to Chuck
As Doug Gottlieb of ESPN (the former Oklahoma State player) noted earlier this season, the Carril version of offense is a derivative of what Henry Iba taught at Oklahoma A&M/Oklahoma State. I wonder why we don't call it the "A&M Offense" or the "Cowboy Offense."
Gottlieb Column
Maybe it's because of all those Princeton grads at Sports Illustrated slapping the Princeton label on it.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1347
Reg: 12-08-04
|
Re: Silly me...
01-28-05 09:45 PM - Post#2781
In response to Chip Bayers
No, they're busy with trumpeting lessons.
|
Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 7001
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Silly me...
01-28-05 09:57 PM - Post#2782
In response to sparman
Or trying on their lesser crowns.
|
Chuck
Masters Student
Posts: 995
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Silly me...
01-28-05 10:14 PM - Post#2783
In response to Chip Bayers
Quote:
As Doug Gottlieb of ESPN (the former Oklahoma State player) noted earlier this season, the Carril version of offense is a derivative of what Henry Iba taught at Oklahoma A&M/Oklahoma State. I wonder why we don't call it the "A&M Offense" or the "Cowboy Offense."
Well, its even more bizzare if you think about it...do the teams that use the so-called 'PU offense' foresake offensive rebounding, intentionally run down the shot clock before even looking at the basket the way Carril's teams did? Somehow I don't think Iba would have thought that offensive rebounding wasn't worth the effort...
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1347
Reg: 12-08-04
|
"Princeton offense" ?
01-31-05 04:10 PM - Post#2784
In response to Redfish
This is a trick question, right?
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Silly me...
01-31-05 05:18 PM - Post#2785
In response to Chip Bayers
Gottlieb appears to have devoted himself to trashing Carill as a way of promoting Eddie Sutton for the Hall of Fame.
You missed this one, Chip:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=gottlieb_doug&id=1962372
Unlike on the other column, on this one ESPN declined to put the disclaimer that Gottlieb played for Sutton at Okie State after getting kicked out of Notre Dame for stealing credit cards. Sutton, who prefers cash, or at least did so at Kentucky, especially cash mailed in Emery packages, took him in and Gottlieb is intent on repaying the debt. Now for some reason, ESPN is employing this blatant "homer" who has a chip on his shoulder for anyone who played by the rules, so he can advocate for Sutton. The Tark pitch is a clever way to make Sutton not look so bad.
Carril never says he invented the offense. He credits his direct and indirect influences repeatedly. But his offense is no more Iba's offense than anyone else's. All of us who have been around have seen the offense evolve over time to match rule changes, especially the three-point line, and to make the most of the skills of the players. The offense in Sacramento is obviously not indentical to the one he ran at Princeton. Did Iba adapt it to the NBA or did Carill and the coaches and players prove it would work?
|
Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 7001
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Silly me...
01-31-05 06:50 PM - Post#2786
In response to Brian Martin
Whatever his motivation, and however fair you think it is, it's ridiculous to pretend that Gottlieb has some special devotion to trashing Carril. Gottlieb's potshot at him is buried way down in that column, and is emphasized no more or less than his perhaps equally unfair potshots at other coaches.
The larger point remains true: Carril's offense is a variation on Iba's motion offense in the same way Bob Knight's is a variation, the same way Mike Kryzewski's is a variation, the same way Fran Dunphy's is a variation. Iba laid down the basic principles of the motion: reading the defense, hard screens, spacing, reliance on passing ability from the high post, and hard cuts are all part of it.
Then it's a question of which aspects of it you emphasize.
Carril has been as vocal as any coach in pointing out that those emphases are dictated in part by the talents of the players available to you as a coach. And also by what you get used to teaching. Carril knew from early in his tenure at PU that he would not always have the best athletes available (because the "Heartbreak Hill" Admissions Office would too often deny him) and his particular choice was to emphasize aspects of the motion where he thought he could exploit his team's brains and effort as much as its raw physical talent. Thus his stress on having all five players able to read the defense to the point it becomes instinct, on proper spacing, and on making cuts as consistently as possible. If you get better athletes doing those things, so much the better. That's what the NBA teams have shown.
For more on this, see the Fran Fraschilla column on ESPN last year describing the motion offense, including his answer in the Q&A at the bottom of it where he addresses why Tex Winter's "Triangle" and Carril's "Princeton offense" are currently "hot." As Fraschilla says, motion principles exist along a spectrum, and the Triangle and Princeton are both on it:
Fraschilla on the Motion
|
BRHPr91
goober
Posts: 75
Loc: Rochester, NY
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Silly me...
01-31-05 09:01 PM - Post#2787
In response to Brian Martin
Quote:
Sutton, who prefers cash, or at least did so at Kentucky, especially cash mailed in Emery packages, took him in and Gottlieb is intent on repaying the debt. Now for some reason, ESPN is employing this blatant "homer" who has a chip on his shoulder for anyone who played by the rules, so he can advocate for Sutton.
Perhaps another part of the story involves Alex Wolff's and Armen Keteyian's "Raw Recruits," which chronicles in great detail the Sutton/Chris Mills fiasco at Kentucky. Alex is, of course, a Princeton alum.
| The fans may or may not like a lot of passing, but I know they don't like losing. -- Pete Carril |
|
BRHPr91
goober
Posts: 75
Loc: Rochester, NY
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Silly me...
01-31-05 09:07 PM - Post#2788
In response to Chip Bayers
Quote:
The larger point remains true: Carril's offense is a variation on Iba's motion offense in the same way Bob Knight's is a variation, the same way Mike Kryzewski's is a variation, the same way Fran Dunphy's is a variation. Iba laid down the basic principles of the motion: reading the defense, hard screens, spacing, reliance on passing ability from the high post, and hard cuts are all part of it.
I don't disagree, nor would Carril, that some principles of his offense are taken from Iba's. But the bloodline of Princeton basketball can be traced almost directly back to the very founder of the game without going through Stillwater at all.
Carril played at Lafayette under his Princeton predecessor, Butch van Breda Kolff. Van Breda Kolff played at Princeton under what amounted to his own predecessor, Cappy Cappon (Cappy's assistant, Jake McCandless, coached the team for a short while after Cappy died and before Butch took over). Cappon came to Princeton after being an assistant at Kansas under Phog Allen, who himself learned the game at the feet of Dr. James Naismith.
| The fans may or may not like a lot of passing, but I know they don't like losing. -- Pete Carril |
|
Domer72
newbie
Posts: 29
Loc: Rural Iowa
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Names and such
01-31-05 11:55 PM - Post#2789
In response to BRHPr91
Hasn't anyone taken a media course while getting their MBA? Obviously Carril's system has deep roots in the Hx of BBall (being from Reading, I like to think he learned everything at the feet of Doggie Julien; but I digress). I think it's now called the Princeton offense because it was seen every year during March Madness at a time when the NCAA tourney was exploding on the sports viewing public's TVs. Right place at the right time - hence, the name.
|
Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 7001
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Silly me...
02-01-05 12:32 AM - Post#2790
In response to BRHPr91
Bloodlines are different from offensive philosophy. Obviously all bloodlines in basketball go back to Naismith, but we can be pretty sure Naismith didn't teach the "motion," since for most of his life after he invented it, Naismith didn't believe the game could or should be coached.
As for Phog Allen - you could draw a direct line to him from about 90% of the coaches in college today, since he was one of the pioneers of college coaching (thus violating his mentor's dictum against it). Adolph Rupp at Kentucky, Ralph Miller at Oregon State, and Dean Smith were all Allen disciples, but that doesn't mean they all taught the same offensive philosophy.
In terms of what went through Stillwater, you're forgetting that Allen's teams played Iba's teams pretty frequently. If you read any of the history, you learn that coaches in the 20s and 30s were constantly learning and adapting to what opponents were doing - particularly coaches in the Midwest, then a hotbed of hoops development thanks to Naismith's migration to Kansas. It was an era when they were only slowly recognizing that the five players on each team could act as a unit on both offense and defense, not as five individuals. The rules themselves were also in flux during that period - the center tip after each basket was eliminated, for example, and the 10-second rule was added.
Dean Smith, who ended up running multiple offenses as part of his approach at UNC, has said he developed his principles of motion offense from watching Iba's teams, and from his conversations with Iba - a pretty good indication of Iba's role.
Cappon, as I understand it, ran a five-man weave, which certainly shared Iba's principles of constant motion on offense. But I don't think that's what VBK taught. And the five-man weave wasn't a Phog Allen or KU innovation - it was developed by the Hall of Fame coach Everett Shelton, according to his bio on the Basketball Hall of Fame web site, and while he was a Kansan, Shelton was not a KU grad or Allen pupil.
|
BRHPr91
goober
Posts: 75
Loc: Rochester, NY
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Silly me...
02-01-05 01:01 AM - Post#2791
In response to Chip Bayers
Quote:
In terms of what went through Stillwater, you're forgetting that Allen's teams played Iba's teams pretty frequently. If you read any of the history, you learn that coaches in the 20s and 30s were constantly learning and adapting to what opponents were doing - particularly coaches in the Midwest, then a hotbed of hoops development thanks to Naismith's migration to Kansas.
I'm not "forgetting" Iba's role, and I've "read" quite a bit of "the history." I know that Iba had plenty of exposure to Allen while at Oklahoma A&M (and while an assistant at Colorado before that). That's why I acknowledged (and said that Carril would acknowledge) Iba's role.
Quote:
Cappon, as I understand it, ran a five-man weave, which certainly shared Iba's principles of constant motion on offense. But I don't think that's what VBK taught. And the five-man weave wasn't a Phog Allen or KU innovation - it was developed by the Hall of Fame coach Everett Shelton, according to his bio on the Basketball Hall of Fame web site, and while he was a Kansan, Shelton was not a KU grad or Allen pupil.
When Shelton was reputed to have developed the five-man weave, he was coaching at powerhouse Christian Brothers High School in St. Joseph, MO -- not all that far from Lawrence, where Cappon (who started out a football guy) was learning his trade. As for VBK, his role in the chain was critical. Far from rejecting Cappon's weave out of hand, he loosened its strictures and introduced a "read and react" offensive philosophy that later served as the underpinnings of Carril's offense. You'll note that whenever Princeton had comparatively more talent on the floor -- as with the Bradley teams, the Petrie-Taylor-Hill years, and the late '90s -- the offense flowed more freely and shots came earlier and more often, precisely because the talent allowed them to create more opportunities, get open more often and to make the shots more frequently.
| The fans may or may not like a lot of passing, but I know they don't like losing. -- Pete Carril |
|
Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 7001
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Silly me...
02-01-05 03:02 AM - Post#2792
In response to BRHPr91
I didn't say you forgot Iba's role.
I did suggest it was misleading to imply that the PU basketball philosophy could be traced back to Naismith without going through Stillwater "at all."
I also didn't say VBK rejected Cappon's weave "out of hand."
I suggested he taught something different. Thanks for elaborating on what the difference was. "Read and react," of course, was the foundation of Iba's offense, and was well known as Iba's mantra in the coaching fraternity by the time VBK took over at his alma mater.
The point about Shelton is really that the old Missouri Valley Conference members were just part of a much bigger petri dish of basketball ideas, a dish which included coaches at other colleges in the area, as well as nearby high schools, many of whom contributed to the development of the game. People like Iba, Shelton, and Allen were all critical in that process, sharing ideas either directly, through clinics and teaching, or simply through observing each other's teams. People like Rupp and Ralph Miller and Cappon and Dean Smith who coached or played under Allen helped propagate those ideas outside the old MVC, as did Iba's disciples when they went elsewhere.
But while there was lots of common knowledge floating around, the historians still credit Iba in his early career with collating a number of those ideas into the basic principles of the motion offense, which became part of the DNA of subsequent motion variations as the game evolved. Which is why people like Fran Fraschilla see the Bob Knight offense and the Pete Carril offense as both part of the same "motion offense" species. It's like the many different dog breeds all being part of canis familiaris.
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Silly me...
02-01-05 03:02 PM - Post#2793
In response to Chip Bayers
Chip,
Again, Carril never claimed to invent his offense and readily admits that it is based on the old way that basketball was supposed to be played. He cites the Celtics, VBK, and other direct influences that he learned from, but that does not deny the older roots. No one says the Carril offense is new; hence the peach basket references and other silly cliches whenever Princeton plays on TV. If you want to give Iba credit for inventing movement and passing and reacting to defense, I don't care to argue with you. I just do not understand why Gottleib feels the need to criticize Carril in two different columns devoted to promoting Eddie Sutton.
What is now called the Princeton offense is different than what Carril ran when I was an undergraduate in the late 70s. Before the 3-point line, Carril did not want 20-foot jumpers, opponents had no reason to overplay the perimeter, so there were almost no back-door plays. Princeton's offense was still patient, sometimes even more patient, because there was no shot clock, but was closer to the VBK weave and looked for 12-foot jumpers and low-post play. The later three-pointer or lay-up offense, what people think of as the Princeton offense, was adapted to the 3-point line and shot clock. The reason it was a big deal is that it went against the trend of fast-paced individual play, and famously frustrated a few athletic teams. Yes, it was overhyped.
The constant through Carril's career was a patient offense to get the best shot possible, but the definition of the best shot changed with the 3-point line, and he recognized the opportunity to take advantage of the extension of the defense on the perimeter to bring back the back-door cut. No one claims that was the greatest breakthrough in basketball history, but it did play a substantial role in bringing old basketball concepts back into favor.
|
Chuck
Masters Student
Posts: 995
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Silly me...
02-01-05 03:21 PM - Post#2794
In response to Brian Martin
Quote:
What is now called the Princeton offense is different than what Carril ran when I was an undergraduate in the late 70s. Before the 3-point line, Carril did not want 20-foot jumpers, opponents had no reason to overplay the perimeter, so there were almost no back-door plays. Princeton's offense was still patient, sometimes even more patient, because there was no shot clock, but was closer to the VBK weave and looked for 12-foot jumpers and low-post play. The later three-pointer or lay-up offense, what people think of as the Princeton offense, was adapted to the 3-point line and shot clock. The reason it was a big deal is that it went against the trend of fast-paced individual play, and famously frustrated a few athletic teams. Yes, it was overhyped.
Brian, its funny, but my recollection of the PU teams before the 3 point line doesn't quite jive with yours. Maybe I'm losing it...but, I could swear that Frank Sowinski played for PU during that period (also, Barnes H.) and they made a living with 20 foot jumpers and were the major scorers for PU. Am I totally losing it? Was Frank called the Polish Rifle for 12 footers? Were those rainbows by Barnes really from 12'? Me thinks you exaggerate the differences between the pre-3 and post-3 PU offense. I also think you left out one major change that Pete made after the shot clock came in...namely, insisting on time being taken off the clock before anybody took a shot.
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Silly me...
02-01-05 03:44 PM - Post#2795
In response to Chuck
They took time off the clock before the shot clock existed. Princeton beat Dartmouth 34-28 in 1980 and I saw a lot of games in the 40s.
Sowinski could take an occasional open 20-footer, but generally looked for the 12- to 15-foot jumper. He would pass up a 20- or 18-footer early in the possession to try to get a better shot. One or two guys would have a green light to shoot a perimeter jumper, but that was not the preferred shot when they were only twos. I remember Carril yelling at Omeltchenko several times for shooting top of the key jumpers even though he did not shoot that many and was not a bad shooter. In the 3-point age, an Omo jumper would have been one of the preferred options.
|
Domer72
newbie
Posts: 29
Loc: Rural Iowa
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Wisconsin's Bo Ryan talks about Carril
02-01-05 04:20 PM - Post#2796
In response to Domer72
In his press remarks from Monday:
http://www.uwbadgers.com/sport_news/mbb/headlines/full_story.aspx?story_id=2005_01_31_22_47_51_mbb
I doubt Pete named it the "Princeton Offense". I also doubt he corrected the scribes who did.
|
charcoal
Junior
Posts: 243
Loc: Dallas
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Wisconsin's Bo Ryan talks about Carril
02-01-05 05:52 PM - Post#2797
In response to Domer72
man, i miss the box and one....
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1347
Reg: 12-08-04
|
Re: Wisconsin's Bo Ryan talks about Carril
02-01-05 06:16 PM - Post#2798
In response to Domer72
Wondering just a little about his degree of awareness - from elsewhere in the interview:
"QUESTION: Rather than get nine millions questions about this, did you and he talk [last week]?
RYAN: Not that I know of."
|
|
|
Report Post
Quote Post
Quick Reply
|
|
Print Topic
Email Topic
3509 Views
|
|
|
|
|
