Active Vs. Reactive Game Plan

[SacDoug]

On the post game show last night, Tank and Jason Ross were talking about why Brad Miller was not in the game even though he was effective offensively. The conclusion was that he could not guard anyone on the Sun's team and a smaller lineup was needed.

This brought up the subject of having an active or reactive game plan. Do you react to what your opponent is doing or do you try to force your oponent to react to you?

An example of an active offensive game plan is exploiting mismatches such as Bonzi or Ron Artest. They are stronger than most players guarding them and are faster than anyone who is strong enough to guard them.

An example of an reactive offensive game plan is to take what the defense is giving you. If your oponent is in a zone, then pass the ball inside and take the easy bucket.

One active defense is setting up traps or double teaming an opponent's best player when they touch the ball. A reactive defense would be changing to a smaller lineup when your oponent goes small.

What are some of your opinions?

 

[Bricklayer]

An example of an reactive offensive game plan is to take what the defense is giving you. If your oponent is in a zone, then pass the ball inside and take the easy bucket.

Er..minor point, but most zones are employed precisely to stop you from passing the ball inside for easy baskets. You break them with shooting.

 

[kingrooster]

This is sort of a silly poll. Every team goes in with a game plan, both defensive and offensive that's created through careful observation via scouting (usually by the assistants). Sometimes it works and requires only minor adjustments. Sometimes you throw it away at half time (or earlier) and start fresh. They don't go into the game with no strategy for winning. These aren't pick up games at the park.

 

[VF21]

A lot of polls are silly.

We vote in them anyway...

 

[6th]

A lot of polls are silly.

We vote in them anyway...

...just because we can.

 

[kingrooster]

A lot of polls are silly.

We vote in them anyway...

Very true. But I certainly don't want the coach to come up with a game plan and mindlessly stick with it even though it's obvious it isn't working. On the other hand, I would like some strategy before the players take the court. So I vote both.

 

[VF21]

Ah, you've already hit upon the single biggest complaint about most polls. They don't provide for a "none of the above" or "both" choice.



BTW? Glad to see you finally decide to post! Welcome!!!

 

[kingrooster]

Ah, you've already hit upon the single biggest complaint about most polls. They don't provide for a "none of the above" or "both" choice.



BTW? Glad to see you finally decide to post! Welcome!!!

I thought I posted a while ago, but I guess I messed it up somehow. But yeah, I like to lurk when I'm bored off my tail at work.

What? Accuse me of not working! How dare you!

 

[sono]

This brought up the subject of having an active or reactive game plan. Do you react to what your opponent is doing or do you try to force your oponent to react to you?

An example of an active offensive game plan is exploiting mismatches such as Bonzi or Ron Artest. They are stronger than most players guarding them and are faster than anyone who is strong enough to guard them.

An example of an reactive offensive game plan is to take what the defense is giving you. If your oponent is in a zone, then pass the ball inside and take the easy bucket.

Of course the acitve offensive game plan or aggressiveness. The second option depends of your ability to adapt opposing game plan.