• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

DeCuire's Offensive Philosophy

hunt-ducks

Well-known member
Travis had many fans criticizing his slow-down style of basketball, and offensive sets last season...... me included.
We took the lowest number of 3-point shots in the Big Sky last season. We rarely had points off fast breaks.
College basketball has rapidly become a game of three-point shooting, and it makes sense. Good 3-point shooting teams will make better than one-third of their 3's. Therefore, to equal the point output of a team shooting 3's, it takes about 55% shooting from 2-point range. Difficult to accomplish.
Yet, so many times last season our players passed-up open 3's, trying to work the ball inside. I believe this must change going forward.
I will go on record in expressing my opinion that our slow-down offensive philosophy hurts our recruiting, as well as keeping our current players from transferring. Kids want to run, fast-break, and shoot 3's today. Coaches should never become rigid in their philosophy, and should be flexible enough to change if it is warranted. Not sure if Travis believes this, but I do. I just hope it doesn't impact our recruiting, especially with transfers who are being recruited by other schools who run a fast-paced offense.
Your thoughts?
 
Looking from the outside, in, I would say that TD has been a verry good recruiter for UM. Without him, you don't get the superior guard play that you have had over the past several years. Recruiting has changed tremenously over the past 30 years or so. UM is in the same boat as UI. Both are small market schools with a rich history. Today's kids don't give a rat's potutie about that rich history. Players today are looking at UI and UM and seeing 'small Market, mid major, outback' schools. Style of play is the last thing they are seeing. They fully believe that their entering a program will surely change any style of play. The only difference I can see is that UI has BSU in their backyard and UM has MSU, advantage UM. UM has been the big dog in Montana up until recently. UI is second or third fiddle in Idaho right now. Here at Weber, we have been 4th fiddle for so long that we have learned how to make it work for the most part.

If you are thinking that you can go out and find a better recruiter than TD, good luck with that. :roll:
 
hunt-ducks said:
Travis had many fans criticizing his slow-down style of basketball, and offensive sets last season...... me included.
We took the lowest number of 3-point shots in the Big Sky last season. We rarely had points off fast breaks.
College basketball has rapidly become a game of three-point shooting, and it makes sense. Good 3-point shooting teams will make better than one-third of their 3's. Therefore, to equal the point output of a team shooting 3's, it takes about 55% shooting from 2-point range. Difficult to accomplish.
Yet, so many times last season our players passed-up open 3's, trying to work the ball inside. I believe this must change going forward.
I will go on record in expressing my opinion that our slow-down offensive philosophy hurts our recruiting, as well as keeping our current players from transferring. Kids want to run, fast-break, and shoot 3's today. Coaches should never become rigid in their philosophy, and should be flexible enough to change if it is warranted. Not sure if Travis believes this, but I do. I just hope it doesn't impact our recruiting, especially with transfers who are being recruited by other schools who run a fast-paced offense.
Your thoughts?

My thoughts also, don't forget high tempo more fans.
 
DeCuire is "old school." That meant you worked the ball for the best shot.

Best shot meant "open shot." But also "close shot."

The percentages dictated it. Big men shot the highest percentage on the floor; guards, the worst.

In 1979 the NBA adopted the old ABA's three-point line. (The NCAA came along in 1986.)

This was a game-changer, except for one thing: The "old school" didn't get it. They thought the three point shot was a gimmick. When a great shooter like Reggie Miller or Kyle Korver came along, they were seen as "specialists." Good only for late-game situations.

How slow was the "old school" to adapt? Michael Jordan didn't shoot better than 20% from the three-point line until he was five years into his career--or 11 years after the introduction of the three-pint shot.

Traditions die hard; institutional bias runs deep.

Enter Steph Curry and Klay Thompson--the "Splash Brothers." Above in this thread, hunt-ducks pointed out that making 33% of your shots from three was equal to making 50% on two's. Few teams shoot 50% even from two.

But Curry? His CAREER average from deep is 43.3%; Klay, 41.9% To equal those numbers on two's, you have to shoot 65% from the field in Curry's case, or 62.8% in Klay's case. No team can match those percentages.

The Warriors won one championship with Durant and but for a one-game suspension on Draymond Green in the finals, would have won two--even before Durant showed up.

That's how lethal Curry and Thompson were for the Warriors.

What was the league to do? Continue playing "old school" ball? Or adapt.

It adapted. Every team now has deadly three-point shooters.

We saw Damian Lillard at Weber. Does anybody remember him shooting three's in college like he does today?

Of course not. He now shoots 39.1 from deep, better than his career average of 37.5. Still six points behind Curry for his career.

In the NBA, we talk about several teams competing for the championship--Nets, Clippers, Lakers, Bucks. These are the teams with stars. Nobody talks about the team with the best regular-season record, the Utah Jazz. They don't have the big stars.

But thanks to their coach, Quinn Snyder, Utah has done the best job of adapting to the three-point era.

Not only do they shoot more trey's than any other team, on every offensive possession they send players to each corner, open for the "pocket three," the closest three-point shot. Thus spread out, opponents have to defend the entire floor. And guess what? Nobody outruns the ball. This not only opens up the offense for drives to the basket, it leads to dozens of warm-up three's every game.

I love Utah's offense.

So back to DeCuire and our offense. What offense! DeCuire is a great recruiter and a superior defensive tactician, qualities that have kept us atop the Big Sky.

But when it comes to offense, he is "old school"--which is to say he's way behind the times. It's his Achilles heel. And this is sad because thanks to his recruiting prowess, we have some terrific shooters, kids who could adapt quickly to the three-point era but are mired in an old obsolete offense.

My solution? An offensive coordinator. Like in football. I don't know why this is so difficult. Even Steve Kerr of the Warriors, an offensive coach par excellant, has a defensive guru at his side, Ron Adams.

DeCuire needs the same guy.

For offense.
 
oldrunner said:
Looking from the outside, in, I would say that TD has been a verry good recruiter for UM. Without him, you don't get the superior guard play that you have had over the past several years. Recruiting has changed tremenously over the past 30 years or so. UM is in the same boat as UI. Both are small market schools with a rich history. Today's kids don't give a rat's potutie about that rich history. Players today are looking at UI and UM and seeing 'small Market, mid major, outback' schools. Style of play is the last thing they are seeing. They fully believe that their entering a program will surely change any style of play. The only difference I can see is that UI has BSU in their backyard and UM has MSU, advantage UM. UM has been the big dog in Montana up until recently. UI is second or third fiddle in Idaho right now. Here at Weber, we have been 4th fiddle for so long that we have learned how to make it work for the most part.

If you are thinking that you can go out and find a better recruiter than TD, good luck with that. :roll:

You're missing the point.
 
citay said:
DeCuire is "old school." That meant you worked the ball for the best shot.

Best shot meant "open shot." But also "close shot."

The percentages dictated it. Big men shot the highest percentage on the floor; guards, the worst.

It seems to me this is DeCuire's philosphy. Don't take that three-pointer. Work the ball in for a "better" shot. An open shot, yes, but also a closer shot.

But is this philosophy relevant today?

In 1979 the NBA adopted the old ABA's three-point line. (The NCAA came along in 1986.)

This was a game-changer, except for one thing: The "old school" didn't get it. They thought the three point shot was a gimmick. When a great shooter like Reggie Miller or Kyle Korver came along, they were seen as "specialists." Good only for late-game situations.

How slow was the "old school" to adapt? Michael Jordan didn't shoot better than 20% from the three-point line until he was five years into his career--or 11 years after the introduction of the three-pint shot.

Traditions die hard; institutional bias runs deep.

Enter Steph Curry and Klay Thompson--the "Splash Brothers." Above in this thread, hunt-ducks pointed out that making 33% of your shots from three was equal to making 50% on two's. Few teams shoot 50% even from two.

But Curry? His CAREER average from deep is 43.3%; Klay, 41.9% To equal those numbers on two's, you have to shoot 65% from the field in Curry's case, or 62.8% in Klay's case. No team can match those percentages.

The Warriors won one championship and but for a one-game suspension on Draymond Green in the finals, would have won two--even before Durant showed up.

That's how lethal Curry and Thompson were for the Warriors.

What was the league to do? Continue playing "old school" ball? Or adapt.

It adapted. Every team now has deadly three-point shooters.

We saw Damian Lillard at Weber. Does anybody remember him shooting three's in college like he does today?

Of course not. He now shoots 39.1 from deep, better than his career average of 37.5. Still six points behind Curry for his career.

In the NBA, we talk about several teams competing for the championship--Nets, Clippers, Lakers, Bucks. These are the teams with stars. Nobody talks about the team with the best regular-season record, the Utah Jazz. They don't have the big stars.

But thanks to their coach, Quinn Snyder, Utah has done the best job of adapting to the three-point era.

Not only do they shoot more trey's than any other team, on every offensive possession they send players to each corner, available for the "pocket three," the closest three-point shot. Thus spread out, opponents have to defend the entire floor. And guess what? Nobody outruns the ball. This not only opens up the offense for drives to the basket, it leads to dozens of warm-up three's every game.

I love Utah's offense.

So back to DeCuire and our offense. What offense! DeCuire is a great recruiter and a superior defensive tactician, qualities that have kept us atop the Big Sky.

But when it comes to offense, he is "old school"--which is to say he's way behind the times. It's his Achilles heel. And this is sad because thanks to his recruiting prowess, we have some terrific shooters, kids who could adapt quickly to the three-point era but are mired in an old obsolete offense.

My solution? An offensive coordinator. Like in football. I don't know why this is so difficult. Even Steve Kerr of the Warriors, an offensive coach par excellant, has a defensive guru at his side, Ron Adams.

DeCuire needs the same guy.

For offense.
 
hunt-ducks said:
oldrunner said:
Looking from the outside, in, I would say that TD has been a verry good recruiter for UM. Without him, you don't get the superior guard play that you have had over the past several years. Recruiting has changed tremenously over the past 30 years or so. UM is in the same boat as UI. Both are small market schools with a rich history. Today's kids don't give a rat's potutie about that rich history. Players today are looking at UI and UM and seeing 'small Market, mid major, outback' schools. Style of play is the last thing they are seeing. They fully believe that their entering a program will surely change any style of play. The only difference I can see is that UI has BSU in their backyard and UM has MSU, advantage UM. UM has been the big dog in Montana up until recently. UI is second or third fiddle in Idaho right now. Here at Weber, we have been 4th fiddle for so long that we have learned how to make it work for the most part.

If you are thinking that you can go out and find a better recruiter than TD, good luck with that. :roll:

You're missing the point.
The original post asked the question; Will TD's style of play effect recruiting and should it change to enhance it? I'm just saying that your recruiting is as good as it is going to get. TD will play to his players strengths. He must feel that up tempo and outside shooting are not your strengths. It's hard to argue with his W/L record.
 
oldrunner said:
hunt-ducks said:
You're missing the point.
The original post asked the question; Will TD's style of play effect recruiting and should it change to enhance it? I'm just saying that your recruiting is as good as it is going to get. TD will play to his players strengths. He must feel that up tempo and outside shooting are not your strengths. It's hard to argue with his W/L record.

College sports is all about momentum, fan enthusiasm and what have you done for me lately. Without the Elite 8 run, Tinkle’s seat would have been super hot at OSU.

So the question is not about past records but your confidence as a fan for the future?

Is Montana on the upswing, stagnant or downswing?
 
After seeing the this past year's GRIZ propensity for turnovers, and struggles to find offensive continuity, I understand the strategy this past season. Is it frustrating and annoying? Sure it is. I'm sure DeCuire and the team agree they have to take better care of the ball.

I feel, with our guard depth, we need to force do more defensively. Even with creating a few more turnovers or missed shots, would lead to more wins, and help the offense.

Just a few years ago, we were liking the pace, because of the skill sets of Rorie and Oguine. Like it or not, until the offense shows continuity, awareness, and discipline, DeCuire will keep tight reigns, understandably so, in my opinion.
 
mtgrizrule said:
After seeing the this past year's GRIZ propensity for turnovers, and struggles to find offensive continuity, I understand the strategy this past season. Is it frustrating and annoying? Sure it is. I'm sure DeCuire and the team agree they have to take better care of the ball.

I feel, with our guard depth, we need to force do more defensively. Even with creating a few more turnovers or missed shots, would lead to more wins, and help the offense.

Just a few years ago, we were liking the pace, because of the skill sets of Rorie and Oguine. Like it or not, until the offense shows continuity, awareness, and discipline, DeCuire will keep tight reigns, understandably so, in my opinion.

I greatly respect your insights, grizrule. You're one of the most astute posters on this board. I wish you would come back and post more often.

But to think that our offensive woes come down to a few turnovers, or the need for more "force" on the defensive side of the ball, is in my opinion to overlook the flaws in DeCuire's offensive philosophy in the era of the three-ball. All teams go cold now and then, but I could cite game after game where our offense went dead for long stretches of time, taking us completely out of winnable games.

The only constant in life is change. Basketball since the Splash Brothers has changed but DeCuire has not. At the risk of boring this board further, I rest my case.
 
I don't necessarily disagree with Citay on some points. But seems he thinks the "Splash Brothers" invented basketball. Are they even in the playoffs?

One question I have on this new trend..........why are the NBA's best players in the world so stupid in fouling three point shooters in the act of shooting? Some lunge to block or contest every single one, rarely block one and end up giving up 3 easy points at the line. At lower levels of basketball the mantra is "don't foul the jump shooter". At NBA level it's....."let's foul Donovan Mitchell in the act of shooting 3 or 4 times in the 4th quarter, let him make 9 or 12 easy FT's and lose the game". Happens in every game. The goofy lean in "flops" that gain fouls are bad enough. The stupid attempts to block and contest 3 pointers are on the coaches and players.
 
Mousegriz said:
I don't necessarily disagree with Citay on some points. But seems he thinks the "Splash Brothers" invented basketball. Are they even in the playoffs?

One question I have on this new trend..........why are the NBA's best players in the world so stupid in fouling three point shooters in the act of shooting? Some lunge to block or contest every single one, rarely block one and end up giving up 3 easy points at the line. At lower levels of basketball the mantra is "don't foul the jump shooter". At NBA level it's....."let's foul Donovan Mitchell in the act of shooting 3 or 4 times in the 4th quarter, let him make 9 or 12 easy FT's and lose the game". Happens in every game. The goofy lean in "flops" that gain fouls are bad enough. The stupid attempts to block and contest 3 pointers are on the coaches and players.

I didn't say the Splash Brothers invented basketball. I said they changed it.

One half of the Splash Brothers has been out with injuries for two full years.

The other half led the league in scoring this year.
 
I'll go with the fact that experience (in age AND with a team) means something and that is why we struggled on O, not due to philosophy. I mean, what about the previous 5 years...

Where a team spends time practicing dictates where they will excel, offensive coordinator or not. Many great college coaches don't even touch offense the first month and stay strictly with defense. This past year was made difficult because (1) UM's youth and inexperience, and (2) COVID restricting practice time. TD even mentioned to those paying attention he had to get to the offense quicker this year because they were way behind there due to those two reasons.

We need to be throwing up threes and run-and-gun? Gonzaga was 275th in three point attempt rate. Baylor was 159th. Clearly they must have sucked last year. Points per possession is the real key (Gonzaga and Baylor were 1 and 2). I mean, Virginia won before this year. They're not exactly an offensive juggernaut. They take care of the ball, make the defense work for a long period, control the tempo and get the other team out of sync. They need kids in their system for awhile (two plus years) to achieve this. That dinosaur has exactly the opposite philosophy touted in this thread. Weird. It's almost like no one way is required.

If Kerr with his offense is why they win, what happened the last two years. Hell, they even had the MVP this year? Oh, one was hurt? Gosh, it's almost like talent dictates the NBA winner more than throwing up threes or out-gimmicking on offense. I mean, Lakers didn't seem like a biggest three-point bombing team last year. Or Toronto the year before. Or Cleveland the year they won. Again, weird. No way that should have happened.

Also, some coaches do think chemistry is vital for teams (e.g., any experienced coach I've ever talked to). And that if you exclusively target transfers you have to do it every year (good luck). And that defense wins championships. Dinosaurs! All of them!

Does the three and transfers have it's place and is it important? Of course! But both used wisely.
 
Mousegriz said:
I don't necessarily disagree with Citay on some points. But seems he thinks the "Splash Brothers" invented basketball. Are they even in the playoffs?

One question I have on this new trend..........why are the NBA's best players in the world so stupid in fouling three point shooters in the act of shooting? Some lunge to block or contest every single one, rarely block one and end up giving up 3 easy points at the line. At lower levels of basketball the mantra is "don't foul the jump shooter". At NBA level it's....."let's foul Donovan Mitchell in the act of shooting 3 or 4 times in the 4th quarter, let him make 9 or 12 easy FT's and lose the game". Happens in every game. The goofy lean in "flops" that gain fouls are bad enough. The stupid attempts to block and contest 3 pointers are on the coaches and players.
[/quot

Good point! One reason i have a hard time watching NBA anymore is because of all the lean in(sometimes jump 3 feet in) 3 point fouls/free throws. It's become an art as it is obviously practiced to draw fouls. I don't think many fans like it as part of the game, i think its a joke! An easy fix would be to call offensive fouls when the shooter jumps into the defender when the defender leaves their feet. Make it a judgement call by referee(would be fairly simple to call), if the shooter is not shooting their normal shot then call an offensive. This would stop the circus
 
astutegriz said:
I'll go with the fact that experience (in age AND with a team) means something and that is why we struggled on O, not due to philosophy. I mean, what about the previous 5 years...

Where a team spends time practicing dictates where they will excel, offensive coordinator or not. Many great college coaches don't even touch offense the first month and stay strictly with defense. This past year was made difficult because (1) UM's youth and inexperience, and (2) COVID restricting practice time. TD even mentioned to those paying attention he had to get to the offense quicker this year because they were way behind there due to those two reasons.

We need to be throwing up threes and run-and-gun? Gonzaga was 275th in three point attempt rate. Baylor was 159th. Clearly they must have sucked last year. Points per possession is the real key (Gonzaga and Baylor were 1 and 2). I mean, Virginia won before this year. They're not exactly an offensive juggernaut. They take care of the ball, make the defense work for a long period, control the tempo and get the other team out of sync. They need kids in their system for awhile (two plus years) to achieve this. That dinosaur has exactly the opposite philosophy touted in this thread. Weird. It's almost like no one way is required.

If Kerr with his offense is why they win, what happened the last two years. Hell, they even had the MVP this year? Oh, one was hurt? Gosh, it's almost like talent dictates the NBA winner more than throwing up threes or out-gimmicking on offense. I mean, Lakers didn't seem like a biggest three-point bombing team last year. Or Toronto the year before. Or Cleveland the year they won. Again, weird. No way that should have happened.

Also, some coaches do think chemistry is vital for teams (e.g., any experienced coach I've ever talked to). And that if you exclusively target transfers you have to do it every year (good luck). And that defense wins championships. Dinosaurs! All of them!

Does the three and transfers have it's place and is it important? Of course! But both used wisely.

Yo Astute: Where in the world are you getting your statistics on the three-point shots? The Cyber Ninjas? Please cite your sources!

Baylor was 19th in the country in three-point attempts, and #1 in percentage at 41.3%. Gonzaga was 44th in the country in attempts, and shot 36.81%.

We were 255th in the country in three-point attempts and shot around 36%.

I don't care if you're "old school." But just don't mangle the facts.
 
citay said:
Yo Astute: Where in the world are you getting your statistics on the three-point shots? The Cyber Ninjas? Please cite your sources!

Baylor was 19th in the country in three-point attempts, and #1 in percentage at 41.3%. Gonzaga was 44th in the country in attempts, and shot 36.81%.

We were 255th in the country in three-point attempts and shot around 36%.

I don't care if you're "old school." But just don't mangle the facts.

No facts mangled.

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2021/stats-adv-offensive-rating

Look at three-point attempt rate. Rate not attempts gets to how emphasized 3s are to an offensive set. Also, look at Offensive Rating (points per possession). Gonzaga and Baylor 1 and 2. Obviously an important stat, weirdly so in this case. They get it done doing an average rate of 3s. Balanced.
 
Back
Top