Every coach worth his $ has a game strategy. Whether his players execute it is another issue.
Often teams are known for a style of play. 40 minutes of hell, the 2/3 zone, Princeton offense, and so on.
Most coaches recruit players to play their style of play.
The problem lies in reality.
Once players get to the program, their game and growth as a player, and the ability to play within the system may not be everything that was expected, in both positive and negative ways.
Doug Gottlieb made a great point when he said that JTIII was limiting the opportunity for success for his team by having them play the Princeton offense when his long and athletic team was being held back by this offensive strategy. Late in the game when his players started to attack the rim off the bounce abandoning the traditional motion of the Princeton offense did they make a run. Great adjustment. But, will JTIII recognize this as an issue bigger then an in game change of strategy?
I have to give major props to the coaching staff for recognizing what they have and don't have with this year's team. They have tailored a strategy of valued possessions, especially working for effective individual isolations on the offensive end, and an all out effort to crash the boards on the offensive glass. Relentless on the ball defense has limited the effectiveness of the opponents offense and shortened the opportunities on the glass.
The high octane, run and gun offense that we've seen run often has become throttled as the year is progressing, by design.
It's been, so far, a most masterful use of players within the construct of on the floor effectiveness in execution of a game plan/style of play expected by the coach that one could hope for. Jim Calhoun (say what you want about him) won a number of titles because he had that ability.
This year has been so enjoyable because it has been such a work in progress, and the efforts by both the coaches, and the players adapting to the changes expected of them, has been nothing short of remarkable. It has a malleability that is remarkable.
Great Job.
Often teams are known for a style of play. 40 minutes of hell, the 2/3 zone, Princeton offense, and so on.
Most coaches recruit players to play their style of play.
The problem lies in reality.
Once players get to the program, their game and growth as a player, and the ability to play within the system may not be everything that was expected, in both positive and negative ways.
Doug Gottlieb made a great point when he said that JTIII was limiting the opportunity for success for his team by having them play the Princeton offense when his long and athletic team was being held back by this offensive strategy. Late in the game when his players started to attack the rim off the bounce abandoning the traditional motion of the Princeton offense did they make a run. Great adjustment. But, will JTIII recognize this as an issue bigger then an in game change of strategy?
I have to give major props to the coaching staff for recognizing what they have and don't have with this year's team. They have tailored a strategy of valued possessions, especially working for effective individual isolations on the offensive end, and an all out effort to crash the boards on the offensive glass. Relentless on the ball defense has limited the effectiveness of the opponents offense and shortened the opportunities on the glass.
The high octane, run and gun offense that we've seen run often has become throttled as the year is progressing, by design.
It's been, so far, a most masterful use of players within the construct of on the floor effectiveness in execution of a game plan/style of play expected by the coach that one could hope for. Jim Calhoun (say what you want about him) won a number of titles because he had that ability.
This year has been so enjoyable because it has been such a work in progress, and the efforts by both the coaches, and the players adapting to the changes expected of them, has been nothing short of remarkable. It has a malleability that is remarkable.
Great Job.
