Discussing the Princeton offense

  • Thread starter Thread starter playmaker0017
  • Start date Start date
P

playmaker0017

Guest
NOTE: This was originally part of the "Fire Adelman" thread but I've split it off so it won't be overlooked. - VF21

I was in the camp of "give RA time", but I'm off that ship now.

The reason I was in this camp was because RA kept saying the right things. He kept saying that we are changing things up, we are going to be an inside out team. He expects to see a lot of Reef in the low block and Peja getting shots off of this.

I wasn't seeing it - so I assumed the players were just doing their own thing.

But, last night he fully admitted that he is sticking to the princeton system, that may have defined a generation, but is just ill-suited to the players we currently have.

It's frustrating, because players look bad - not because they are - but because they are playing "out of a comfort zone". We're asking a spot-shooter to create, we're asking a PG to be a SG, we're asking a C to be a PG, we're asking a talented PF to do nothing, we're asking a SG to somehow fit in to the mess.

It's a cluster<censored>.

We'll have success on some nights and fail miserably on other nights. We can't do that. We need to have success on most nights and compete on the others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't imagine a group of players that the Princeton system doesn't fit. It's all about ball movement and player movement. If there are players on this team that don't fit into an offense that is predicated on passing the ball, cutting without the ball and setting screens, then that means that they can't pass the ball, cut or set screens, all of which are fundamental parts of the game. In that case, the problem wouldn't be with the system, but with the players.

In my opinion, that's like saying that we should stop trying to get to the free throw line because no one on the team is consistently making them.
 
Superman said:
I can't imagine a group of players that the Princeton system doesn't fit.

There are a ton of players that it doesn't fit.

There are even more that it takes them and places them in a situation that is away from their strengths and, to a point, removes a very important part of professional basketball ... the post.

If it is such a great system - when was the last time a championship team used it?

It's all about ball movement and player movement. If there are players on this team that don't fit into an offense that is predicated on passing the ball, cutting without the ball and setting screens, then that means that they can't pass the ball, cut or set screens, all of which are fundamental parts of the game. In that case, the problem wouldn't be with the system, but with the players.

If you are handed a bunch of tomatoes, you aren't about to make lemonade.

The system and players go hand in hand.

It isn't that our players can't pass, cut or set screens. It's that this is removing them from their strengths.

A good coach plays to the strength of the players he has. The strength of this unit is NOT this style of basketball.
 
The strength of a good basketball player is his ability to use the fundamentals of the game (passing, dribbling, screen-setting, cutting) to take advantage of his talents (athleticism, height, range, etc.).

If you have stone hands, can't set a pick and are too clumsy to cut to the front of the rim, then you have bigger problems than the Princeton offense.

Guys like Bonzi Wells who have never played in an offense like this one and are more used to making individual plays for themselves and to set up teammates can come in and get points for themselves even easier. And they can also do their one-on-one thing when the offense breaks down or when the defense starts getting a little more physical.

If Scot Pollard, Hedo Turkoglu, Bobby Jackson, Doug Christie, Chris Webber, Mike Bibby, Peja Stojakovic, Brad Miller, etc., can fit this offense - all players with different abilities, talents and styles - then I don't understand why any competent basketball player wouldn't be able to. If you can pass, screen and cut, then you can play a part in the Princeton offense.

It's not like we're trying to put a pocket passing quarterback like Matt Leinart into a spread option offense. That's trying to put a square peg into a round hole.

If everyone on the floor can pass, set screens and cut to the basket, we have enough shooters for the offense to work efficiently enough to score points. And when the offense sputters (as it always does and always has, no matter who the players are) then you give the ball to Shareef or Bonzi in the post and let them do what they've been doing their entire careers, and hope that they can get to the line and our shooters can hit some open shots.

It may seem like I'm over-simplifying, but if the players don't fit a system predicated on basketball fundamentals, then we need new players, not a new system.
 
Superman,

It isn't that the system is terrible. It is that you aren't maximizing the talent on the table.

At the end of the day - I'm not a fan of any system that relies on jumpshooting. I'm less of a fan of any system that relies on a spot shooter to create shots. I'm less of a fan of any system that puts a post player near the three point line for 95% of the plays. I'm less of a fan of a system that puts the PG in a position to be a SG.

Tim Duncan is a phenominal player, but if you asked him to play the role Reef is playing right now, you'd be wasting 90% of his talent.

Granted, Reef isn't TD. But, he's close offensively.

Being a Reef-homer, I zero in on the fact that Reef is virtually the "extra" decoy on the floor. This is a waste of talent. We already have one jump shooter - why do we need 3 other people jacking up high volumes of shots?

We need BALANCE, but we also need FOCUS. Right now, we are unbalanced and force a lot of contested jumpers because we won't work it inside. Right now, we are unfocused and it seems that we want to distribute the ball to everyone and thusly no one gets in rythm.
 
I'm going to side w/ Playmaker here. While Superman is correct that "anyone" can run the Princeton set, it requires a unique skill set at the 4 and 5 positions, and is often woefully inefficient at maximizing mismatches. This would be a terribly stupid offense to run w/ Tim Duncan on the team. It's terrific for mid-major college play (Princeton, Air Force, Northwestern), international play, and NBA teams that have either Chris Webber, Vlade Divac, or KG, and a pretty bad idea for everyone else.

I think this is above Adelman's pay grade though. Some of the things that Petrie has said makes me think he feels responsible for spreading the gospel of the Princeton set. His recent personnel decisions reflect that. All the scuttlebutt was about acquiring defenders and rebounders, and we ended up w/ Garcia and Reef. Upgrades on defense, sure. . .but barely, and certainly not the kind of difference makers we were looking for. I liked the Garcia pick, and the Reef signing is OK, but it was a blase offseason. Maybe we were serious about getting Nene, who really knows? But the product on the floor right now is the worst defensive unit in 7 years.

Edit: Forgot about Bonzi, solid
 
Last edited:
Just for those who don't understand the Princeton offense:

The Concept- Pass the Ball, Cut Hard, Help A Teammate Get an Open Shot

Coaches, the truth of the matter is that Coach Carril wears no "S" on his chest. He is like many other coaches who have sustained the test of time primarily because they understand and excel at teaching the basics of the game, know how to simply the most critical details, and persistently drill fundamentals. This video reveals both the simplicity of basketball with the complexity of teaching read and react offenses. It has many elements of Bob Knight' 70's passing game. Even more so Coach Carril compares it to Tex Winter's Triangle Offense in it's basic design.

Simply put it is brilliant and yet not simple to teach. Don't expect to your team to execute this offense over night. Secondly, if you can't teach your players how to pass, dribble, cut, and shoot as a highly proficient level you'll be disappointed in this offense. With these disclaimers said, the video is a joy to watch. It is sort of like uncovering an ancient historical treasure revealing what went on centuries before. Pete Carril isn't a charismatic personality like Rick Pitino, Bobby Cremins, or Bobby Huggins, but he knows the game and how to teach it.

Throughout the Princeton Offense: Part 1 Coach Carril continues to emphasize the 4 basic teaching concepts that make the offense work. I would share them with you, but that would be giving away all of pandora's box. To tease you a little, here is one; "Watch the man in front of you which dictates what you do". These are recurrent themes through the course of the video and through the various offensive options he teaches.

In fact throughout the the course of the video Coach Carril gives small but quite significant coaching tips for teaching fundamentally sound offense. I have labeled these Carrilism's* (with apologizes to the Coach for lack of a better term) and have sprinkled a few of them in Italics through the course of this review.

The Basic Offense
This offense comes down to executing four basics:

Cutting
Screening
Passing
Accurate Shooting

Coach Carril's philosophy is that a lot of hard cuts open things up for other players. The goal is that you are "always trying to do something for a teammate". There are a series of 2 man plays, 3 man plays, and in the right circumstances 1 on 1, which he walks and talks you through in both a chalk talk and court session with players.

Of primary importance to this offense is that it revolves around a passing center. The center is like the hub of the offense. He must see everything, and must be the kind of guy who likes to pass the ball. If your center won't give it up, than you will have trouble running this offense. If your center will give up the ball Coach Carril says "he will score more points by passing more".

The Options

Now in reviewing the Princeton Offense I want to give you enough of the structure of the video to keep your interest without giving away the kitchen sink. Coach Carril teaches the offense by going through the 4 or 5 basic read and react set play options. Within each set he further breaks them down into various sub-options which are taught in a proficient manner. At times the video is a little hard to follow but that I believe this is due much more to the difficulty in teaching read and react offenses, than any inability of Coach Carril to explain it. The more you use it the offense the easier the reads become and make sense for your players.

The first major option Coach Carril teaches is the Low Post Play. This part of the offense if very similar to the Bull's Triangle Offense with Guard and Forward cut or scissors options based on how a defender plays each pass. He covers 5 specific options which will get you shots from the screening action off of the low post pass. An example of this is Option 1: Guard shoots coming off the screen (He demonstrates the importance of teaching how to set the pick without committing an offensive foul). Guard pulls up off the inside pivot foot ready to shoot off this screening action.

The next major option taught is what to do when a shot isn't available or the Dribble Option. You should still have your dribble (dribble out or dribble at the pressure). When the passing lane is denied, the player goes backdoor. The hard cut is effective because it forces the defense to help, opening up other teammates for easy shots.

*Carilism- To run this offense you must have players that can pass, dribble, and shoot. When you are skillful enough on offense, you will dictate what the defense does. But when you are without skills the defense dictates what happens.

The third part of the offense Coach Carill covers is Going Cross Court for more options. For example off backdoor cut making a skip pass to weak side). On most back door cuts a second defender is drawn to help on the backdoor cut, when this happens the center may spot a teammate weakside for the 3 point shot. Any help defenders who sag are open to skip passes for 3 point shots. You must have good shooters to run this offense.

The fourth major options are Swinging the Ball to the weak side. For example one rule is the passer weak side must screen down for the center man. the center then receives the return pass and and may run one of several options including a dribble screen with the guard (This is called the center dribble screen option).

*Carilism-Anybody you put on the block you must show them how to score on the block. Your players must know how to make a shot. You must be able to execute when you get the ball in scoring position.

The final major option Coach Carril covers is moving to a one guard front and options off of Passing to the Center. These options include screening toward the ball and scissors cutting, going back door, and screening away from the ball. Each of these are covered in detail with various read and react options depending upon the defenders and ball positions.

It would be a major injustice for me to try to explain the breakdown options off of these main set play options because there are quite a few and extremely detailed. The only way you are going to be able to learn this offense if to get the videos and study them and develop your own teaching progression for the Princeton Offense. Coach Carril does a commendable job of giving you enough of the options and rules to make that possible in the limited time available in an 1 and 1/4 hour video.

There are play animation diagrams of the offensive options included in the video in addition to on court demonstrations which assist you in understanding what he is teaching and how the movements should occur. What will be slightly more difficult for you to teach will be the timing and spacing of the offense, and even more so drilling your players to have well rounded fundamentals at all positions. This alone is the basic premise of the offense. However after spending more than an hour observing his teaching methods you can easily see why his teams became giant killers through discipline, unselfishness, and teamwork.

*Carilism-Make sure you release off your picks looking for the ball to reduce your defenders ability to help off of screens.

*Carilism- If you get doubled, throw it right back to the man who passed it to you.

Pete's Wrap Up

Coach Carril qualifies this fine video effort by stating that to be successful:

You must execute
You must have timing.
Your players must understand what they can do.
Your players must understand what they are good at (their capabilities).
Know the points on the court where you are going to score, and you must show them the things they have to do to score.
*Carilism- In basketball you are either a surgeon or a meat cutter (butcher). Skills such as passing and cutting require you to be a surgeon (demonstration on this one included in the video).

Okay, that's from: http://www.bbhighway.com/Talk/Coach Library/Reviews/Videos/princeton_offense_review.asp

It's a review and sales pitch for a video about the Princeton offense but I think it gives a pretty good overview.
 
Of the entire post above, I think the key the Kings need to remember and execute 100% of the time is:

The goal is that you are "always trying to do something for a teammate".

That, my fellow Kings fans, is what real Kings basketball is all about.
 
And, unfortunately, where we are breaking down as players search to find their own games, rather then searching to find the KINGS game.
 
*Carilism- In basketball you are either a surgeon or a meat cutter (butcher). Skills such as passing and cutting require you to be a surgeon (demonstration on this one included in the video).

Of course, who would you rather have on your side in a fight, a surgeon or a butcher?? :eek:
 
playmaker0017 said:
Superman,

It isn't that the system is terrible. It is that you aren't maximizing the talent on the table.

At the end of the day - I'm not a fan of any system that relies on jumpshooting. I'm less of a fan of any system that relies on a spot shooter to create shots. I'm less of a fan of any system that puts a post player near the three point line for 95% of the plays. I'm less of a fan of a system that puts the PG in a position to be a SG.

Tim Duncan is a phenominal player, but if you asked him to play the role Reef is playing right now, you'd be wasting 90% of his talent.

Granted, Reef isn't TD. But, he's close offensively.

Being a Reef-homer, I zero in on the fact that Reef is virtually the "extra" decoy on the floor. This is a waste of talent. We already have one jump shooter - why do we need 3 other people jacking up high volumes of shots?

We need BALANCE, but we also need FOCUS. Right now, we are unbalanced and force a lot of contested jumpers because we won't work it inside. Right now, we are unfocused and it seems that we want to distribute the ball to everyone and thusly no one gets in rythm.

No one player is locked into playing any one role in this system. We can put Bonzi in the post and let him play the role Chris Webber played for us. We can put Shareef up high or low and let him take advantage of whatever mismatch he's presented with. The system isn't putting Shareef out near the three-point line.

Two other things: 1) The Princeton offense isn't reliant on jump-shooting; in fact, open jumpshots should be a by-product of good execution in the half-court, and 2) taking advantage of mismatches isn't a characteristic of any specific offense; the only thing that matters is that you can get the ball to the player with the mismatch in position to do something with it, and you should be able to do that in any offense, as long as your players know how to pass the ball.

The reason we're recognized as a jump-shooting team is because we haven't had a player that can get to the rim consistently when the offense breaks down or we're not hitting open shots. But there's nothing wrong with taking open shots when they come in the flow of the offense. Even the Spurs do that when Tim Duncan is in the game. Open shots are a by-product of good execution in your half-court set.
 
Venom said:
I'm going to side w/ Playmaker here. While Superman is correct that "anyone" can run the Princeton set, it requires a unique skill set at the 4 and 5 positions, and is often woefully inefficient at maximizing mismatches.

It doesn't require unique skill at the 4 and 5 positions, it just requires someone who can initiate efficiently from the post. Some of the best post players in the NBA are guards and small forwards (Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, Bonzi Wells, Carmelo Anthony, Lamar Odom, Steve Francis, etc.), and could initiate the offense extremely well.

And like I said in my previous post, no offense is designed to take advantage of individual mismatches. That's something that's generally done outside of the offense. Unless you have a player like Shaq or Duncan or Michael Jordan - someone who commands a double-team 100% of the time - who you can build your entire offense around, you are probably not going to focus on maximizing individual mismatches 100% of the time, because players have off-nights and sometimes get hurt.
 
VF21 said:
Just for those who don't understand the Princeton offense:

I UNDERSTAND the Princeton offense. What that article illustrates though is that it is run in COLLEGE.

Why?

Because the goal of the Princeton offense is to make up for "lack of talent". It maximizes the usage of TEAM play to gloss over individual talents.

It's used to mask the fact that the individuals on your team are not able to create good looks for themselves because they either aren't atheltic enough, talented enough, good enough dribbler, whatever the case may be.

One of my biggest complaints with this offense is how the guards seem to have complete and total free reign. In posts about the Princeton Offense, it sounds like the offense is a well-oiled machine of perfect spacing and ball movement. In practice this has not been the case.

Maybe it will improve with time or maybe we'll continue to see horrible shot selection.

See, my problem is too many times there's been no real ball movement. Is this what we want? I'm sure a lot of people WANT to see Bibby and Peja dominate the ball and take a majority of the shots ... but more often than not, they aren't getting good shots from the offense, but rather they are trying to do it on their own.

I desperately want to see Reef get involved. Not just os he can pad stats and get a lot more shot attempts, but to stimulate a more balanced scenario where everyone is involved in the offense (and help bigs gain confidence and feel involved). Get it down inside. Kick it back out. Swing it around. I want ball movement and open shots! It doesn't matter who necessarily shoots -- I just want good shots.

So far this year the offense its been a race down the court to see who can take the worst shot possible.
 
playmaker0017 said:
I UNDERSTAND the Princeton offense. What that article illustrates though is that it is run in COLLEGE.

Why?

Because the goal of the Princeton offense is to make up for "lack of talent". It maximizes the usage of TEAM play to gloss over individual talents.

It's used to mask the fact that the individuals on your team are not able to create good looks for themselves because they either aren't atheltic enough, talented enough, good enough dribbler, whatever the case may be.

One of my biggest complaints with this offense is how the guards seem to have complete and total free reign. In posts about the Princeton Offense, it sounds like the offense is a well-oiled machine of perfect spacing and ball movement. In practice this has not been the case.

Maybe it will improve with time or maybe we'll continue to see horrible shot selection.

See, my problem is too many times there's been no real ball movement. Is this what we want? I'm sure a lot of people WANT to see Bibby and Peja dominate the ball and take a majority of the shots ... but more often than not, they aren't getting good shots from the offense, but rather they are trying to do it on their own.

I desperately want to see Reef get involved. Not just os he can pad stats and get a lot more shot attempts, but to stimulate a more balanced scenario where everyone is involved in the offense (and help bigs gain confidence and feel involved). Get it down inside. Kick it back out. Swing it around. I want ball movement and open shots! It doesn't matter who necessarily shoots -- I just want good shots.

So far this year the offense its been a race down the court to see who can take the worst shot possible.

Um, boy - I hate to be the one to break this to you.

I didn't post the overview for you or anyone specifically. There have been a lot of questions over the past about the Princeton offense, how it runs, what it's supposed to be about, etc.

Having said that, I think you need to read the "article" again, because you clearly do NOT understand the Princeton offense as it was designed.

As far as it being for college only is concerned, I saw the Princeton offense played to perfection by some guys wearing uniforms with "Kings" on the front. And they seemed to do it fairly well. You might remember? They got to OT in game 7 of the WCF in 2002 and were poised to do even better in 2003 until that fateful night in Dallas...

You cannot really judge how successfully this group of young men will eventually function within the Princeton o. because we haven't seen enough of it yet. When they do manage to get it right, it's a thing of beauty.

In reading your comments, it seems you're trying to say that because you haven't seen the Kings play the offense well that the offense won't work. Somewhat ironically, your very complaint is what proves the Princeton offense WILL work with this group. When Miller is able to pass the ball to cutting teammates, good things happen. When the Kings get the spacing right and keep looking for the open man, good things happen. Those are two KEY components of a successfully run Princeton offense.

So, keep watching. It's not about whether or not the Princeton o can work at this level. It's whether or not the current group of players can run it successfully. I think they can primarily because I've seen flashes of them doing it.

One more thing? I do not know where you got the idea that the goal of the Princeton offense is to make up for a lack of talent.

It maximizes the usage of TEAM play to gloss over individual talents.

So team play is only necessary if you don't have LeBron James or Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan?

I don't even think that needs to be addressed.
 
Last edited:
VF21 said:
So, keep watching. It's not about whether or not the Princeton o can work at this level. It's whether or not the current group of players can run it successfully. I think they can primarily because I've seen flashes of them doing it.

I will keep watching - but the Princeton Offense needs 100% buy-in.

In my opinion, I think this team will have more balance and more success if we run more high pick and rolls and plays through the post.

Motion is great. There is no need to stop playing a motion offense, but you have to balance it.

So team play is only necessary if you don't have LeBron James or Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan?

I don't even think that needs to be addressed.

That's taking a comment to the extreme.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't maximize talent and actually minimizes talent by being a completely "team based" concept. It's a beautiful thing when run, but it's also inefficient at skill management.

Again, I go back to Tim Duncan. He would not thrive in this offense. Nor would Shaq.

We'd run better as a triangle, which is a bastard-derivative of the motion offense. This would get us to utilize our midrange players (Miller/Bonzi/Bibby) and maximize our post presence (Reef/Bonzi) and keep the threat of constant bombs with Peja.

That's just my opinion. I've never been a huge fan of 100% motion offenses. It doesn't allow for players to maximize their talent. This really hurts a player like Reef - who is not athletic and doesn't move without the ball particularly well. Basically, it kills the post, because the post monopolizes the lane and the Princeton tries to open the middle.
 
playmaker0017 said:
Because the goal of the Princeton offense is to make up for "lack of talent". It maximizes the usage of TEAM play to gloss over individual talents.

so webber's stellar numbers in a kings uniform and under the princeton offense are a result of a "lack of talent"? please... :rolleyes:

the offense certainly doesn't gloss over individual talents, either. you think miller is a great rebounder? no, he's not. he's not a low post player, either. he's better used at the high post. abdur rahim is a low post player, and the kings are working in plays so he can utilize his talents in the paint. the princeton offense MAXIMIZES the offensive talents of players. it certainly doesn't diminish them, and the kings scoring averages and scoring efficiency over the years is evidence of that fact. the princeton offense values team ball. it values scoring the ball efficiently. points go up on the board. thats what matters.

now, if ya wanna talk about whether or not the princeton offense is suited for a championship caliber team, then we can have a debate. its tough to say. my basketball history isnt quite good enough to give conclusive evidence of any team ever winning an nba championship with a princeton style offense. i wouldn't mind that conversation, but don't be talking gibberish about how the princeton offense glosses over individual talents. kings history begs to differ.
 
Padrino said:
so webber's stellar numbers in a kings uniform and under the princeton offense are a result of a "lack of talent"? please... :rolleyes:

Webber was a unique story. He's a guy that would prefer to take 12 foot jumpers than get contact in the lane.

Webber is also one of the top 5-10 PFs of all time, talent-wise.

So, the unique situation fit him perfectly.

the offense certainly doesn't gloss over individual talents, either.

Of course it does. That was the point of the offense.

It was designed to become a team style, so that individual talent takes a backseat. Granted, other talents may arise (as is the case of Chris Webber), but the ability to utterly humiliate a defender was removed - PURPOSELY.

Tim Duncan posting up and demanding the ball - gone.
Steve Nash driving the lane and kicking - all but gone.
LeBron breaking a defender's ankles and taking it to the rim - gone.

You need to do both. You need to get the ball into the hands of playmakers and have players move on that.

it certainly doesn't diminish them

I never said the Princeton Offense diminishes talent. What it does is refuse to exploit them.
 
My read on the Princeton has actually always been somewhat similar to Playmaker's, and there are several older threads around here having similar discussions. It excels at making limited, but smart, players look good by emphasizing teamwork and the system over individual ability. Its a coach's dream.

On the other hand, individually talented players have little chance to display and utilize thier abilities to the fullest in the system. Its not designed to feature any one player, it discourages one on one play, clearouts, even dominant post play, and thus great ballhandlers and post players are disfavored. As are hardhat players ala Ben Wallace who bring thier lunchpail to work but lack shooting and passing skills. Its an underdog's offense, and the context in which it was developed is always important: it was put togetehr to allow Ivy Leaguers to go beat ACCers despite lacking physical skills and talent. And I've also mentioned previously my belief that come playoff time, it is an offense which can be broken down by a good defensive coach or team -- where individual brilliance is based on spontanaity and can never really be fully accounted for, the Princeton is a system, and any system can be broken down and diagrammed. If your players are dependent on that system, then when it is broken down, so are you.

Now all of that said, we quite obviously had a magnificent run with the Princeton for years and years. And unlike Playmaker I don't think you throw it overboard for a player of Shareef's caliber. Shaq in his prime? Absolutley. Adios Princeton. But not Shareef. But there does come a point here where you have to ask yourself whether you have, or ever will be likely to again have the specialized personnel necessary to make the Princeton really hum along at the NBA level. And if the answer is no, then sticking with it religiously while not taking advantage of the personnel you do have is dogmatic and none too bright. Its nto about being disciples of the Princeton. We had great personnel for it -- it was about the best offense we could run for the guys we had. We don't have those guys anymore. Barring KG (and his acquisition for me was always about restoring the luster to the Princeton) or a few lesser possibilities, the Princeton may NO LONGER be the best offense for our current team. And if that's os, a smart coach and organization switches things up to take advantage of what they have, or switches the personnel up to take advantage of the system.

As an aside, it does not have to be an either/or. We have always mixed in various pick and rolls and whatnot with the Princeton. Indeed, they would ahve to be considered an adjunct to the overall system. We could just up the mix.
 
Last edited:
The Princeton Offense doesn't specifically spell out what you do with a particularly talented player. But neither do most systems. It's up to the coaches to make those recognitions and adjust accordingly (by calling for more of a particular type of play).

Take the Triangle for instance. When the Bulls ran it, Luc Longley was an afterthought and a lot of plays turned into isolations for MJ. This was to take advantage of his talent-level. Oftentimes, he had a better shot at scoring 1-on-1 than someone taking a semi-open jumper off the screen. When the Lakers ran the same system, the wings suddenly became the 2nd option and throwing it down to Shaq was task number 1. It's up to the coach to recognize and adjust.

Same thing with the Princeton Offense. It's no coincidence that Mike Bibby got more shots than Doug Christie. They basically did the same kind of stuff on offense but if they both had the opportunity for the same kind of shot, the shot would go to Mike.

Systems only spell out options. They don't make judgments on which options are better. The coaches decide based on the players he gets.

That being said, this particular offense DOES make an exception for the "Center" or a tall passing big-man (since a PF could do just as well). This degree of reliance doesn't appear in most other systems. You can't have a guard working from the high post. He's not going to be able to pass out as effectively from a stationary position. He can't set screens (unless he's really tall, which would then fulfill the original requirement). He can't see the whole court as well due to his height. And he would have been one of the primary cutters.

Indeed, the future of the PO rests on Brad's shoulders. He has, by far, the hardest task. And if he falters, there's no one else to pick things up for him. Not like with Vlade or Webber where either one can play the "Center" role in the PO.
 
Though, now that I think about it. If we did get a Shaq or Olajuwon, then even if Adelman correctly adjusted, the PO would be so distorted that I don't think it could be called PO anymore.

Edit: Scratch that. It definitely would not be the PO. Shaq doesn't have the passing skills and I'm dubious of Olajuwon. A PG, SG or SF of incredible talent could still fit. Need a special breed of bigman.
 
Last edited:
Interesting discussion. My first thought is that the sincerest form of flattery is that other teams now run our offense...some better than we do! But the season is still young and the players still new so I think that with time we'll run it better. My second thought is that if you don't have a superstar that can score on anyone when you need a bucket than you better play this offense to get as many easy hoops as possible. And, thirdly, Brick is right...this offense can be beaten and routinely is by pressing Bibby as he brings the ball up the court leaving us with little time to run our offense or a turnover. And lastly, the offense itself leads to poor transition defense but especially when being run by skilled but slow players. Ergo, RA needs to come up with some variety other than the Bibby dominated screen and roll (other than SAR we really don't have anyone that can "roll" to the hoop with authority) and the pick and pop...more Bonzi iso with Peja/Bibby circling outside as the defense collapses in on him or SAR.
 
Superman said:
It doesn't require unique skill at the 4 and 5 positions, it just requires someone who can initiate efficiently from the post. Some of the best post players in the NBA are guards and small forwards (Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, Bonzi Wells, Carmelo Anthony, Lamar Odom, Steve Francis, etc.), and could initiate the offense extremely well.


Respectfully disagree with the above. The offense is initiated by the big man in order to clear out any shotblockers, allowing your speedy guards (or your Pejas who don't dunk), easy layups. That's why it's essential for the big man to be able to stick the 15-20 footer. Otherwise the defense will sag off or zone up, closing down the passing lanes. You're thinking too much in the abstract, and actually reinforcing one of my points from last night. Ideally, you would put the ball in your best player's hands to initiate the offense. If you have a guy like Pierce, Anthony, or Kobe who can post up his man at any time, why not give it to him? Well, the Princeton dictates that the ball flow through the high post, which was great when our two best players and decision makers were Vlade and CWebb. Those guys were perennial All-Star and MVP candidates respectively. Brad is neither. He's a very good player, but just not at the same level.

But again, this is not Rick's fault. He should stick with the offense, because Geoff has only restocked the shelves with other Princeton types. We did not add athleticism, or ballhandling, or post play to this team in the offseason. The die has been cast.
 
VF21 said:
Having said that, I think you need to read the "article" again, because you clearly do NOT understand the Princeton offense as it was designed.
Does this mean Bricklayer doesn't understand it either?
Bricklayer said:
My read on the Princeton has actually always been somewhat similar to Playmaker's, and there are several older threads around here having similar discussions. It excels at making limited, but smart, players look good by emphasizing teamwork and the system over individual ability. Its a coach's dream.
 
umm... playmaker is nuts if he thinks that shaq and duncan wouldnt thrive in the princeton offense.... they are both guranteed double teams.... they would average triple doubles every season in that offense.... they would still be able to play defense and rebound the ball..... but more importantly if their team mates shots arent falling they can take over the game by themselves....

i mean seriously.... webber averaged 20/10/5 with the kings.... are duncans numbers that much better on the spurs? no.... and the only reason why the offense hasnt won a ring is because the players couldnt hit any freethrows.... and whos fault is that?
 
AriesMar27 said:
umm... playmaker is nuts if he thinks that shaq and duncan wouldnt thrive in the princeton offense.... they are both guranteed double teams.... they would average triple doubles every season in that offense.... they would still be able to play defense and rebound the ball..... but more importantly if their team mates shots arent falling they can take over the game by themselves....

i mean seriously.... webber averaged 20/10/5 with the kings.... are duncans numbers that much better on the spurs? no.... and the only reason why the offense hasnt won a ring is because the players couldnt hit any freethrows.... and whos fault is that?

No, actually Duncan or Shaq would not be very good fits for the Princeton, Shaq in particular. (Nor Iverson et al). And that's its limitation. Its an offense designed for NOT having Shaq. If you have him (in his prime at least), its not what you want to run (althought you could always mix in sets).

There are a number of great players who would not fit our offense:
Shaq
Duncan
Iverson
Nash

etc. etc.

You may note those are basically all the MVP candidates from last year. And that is a concern. Pure post players, great ballhandlers who excel with the ball IN their hands, are some of the most potent players in the league. But not in the Princeton. In the Princeton they become "limited" or "selfish" and disrupt what is really susposed to be a equal opportunity passing offense.
 
Last edited:
VF21 said:
Having said that, I think you need to read the "article" again, because you clearly do NOT understand the Princeton offense as it was designed.


thesanityannex said:
Does this mean Bricklayer doesn't understand it either?

Bricklayer said:
My read on the Princeton has actually always been somewhat similar to Playmaker's, and there are several older threads around here having similar discussions. It excels at making limited, but smart, players look good by emphasizing teamwork and the system over individual ability. Its a coach's dream.

So what do you want as a response?

Of course it doesn't mean that Bricklayer doesn't understand the Princeton offense. He, in fact, seems to understand it better than most of us, myself of course included.

There were some points playmaker had made that I found fault with. He and I discussed them in subsequent posts.

Here are a couple of more quotes that seem to coincide with my take on the PO:

Bricklayer said:
Now all of that said, we quite obviously had a magnificent run with the Princeton for years and years. And unlike Playmaker I don't think you throw it overboard for a player of Shareef's caliber.

and...

Bricklayer said:
As an aside, it does not have to be an either/or. We have always mixed in various pick and rolls and whatnot with the Princeton.

;)
 
Venom said:
Respectfully disagree with the above. The offense is initiated by the big man in order to clear out any shotblockers, allowing your speedy guards (or your Pejas who don't dunk), easy layups. That's why it's essential for the big man to be able to stick the 15-20 footer. Otherwise the defense will sag off or zone up, closing down the passing lanes. You're thinking too much in the abstract, and actually reinforcing one of my points from last night. Ideally, you would put the ball in your best player's hands to initiate the offense. If you have a guy like Pierce, Anthony, or Kobe who can post up his man at any time, why not give it to him? Well, the Princeton dictates that the ball flow through the high post, which was great when our two best players and decision makers were Vlade and CWebb. Those guys were perennial All-Star and MVP candidates respectively. Brad is neither. He's a very good player, but just not at the same level.

But again, this is not Rick's fault. He should stick with the offense, because Geoff has only restocked the shelves with other Princeton types. We did not add athleticism, or ballhandling, or post play to this team in the offseason. The die has been cast.

When you have a guy who can post his man up at anytime, than it doesn't matter what offense you run as long as your team can make solid post entry passes and hit open jumpshots.

That's why all of the attention on the triangle offense was misplaced when the Lakers made their run: it wasn't as much about the offense as it was about the players, namely Shaq, who were on the floor. That's why Kobe would take over and play more one-on-one basketball whenever Shaq was out. Remember his "Memorable March" a couple of years ago when he averaged close to 40 points a game for the entire month? All of that came at the expense of the triangle.

You are correct about the offense needing a big man who can hit shots to pull the shotblockers away from the rim. But there are ways to get around that, as the Princeton is a very versatile system. If your guard can demand a double-team in the post, then your shooters are going to be open and that will start the ball moving.

And like Brick said, it doesn't have to be either or, and it never has as long as Rick has been in charge. The first few years, we were more a run and gun team who got out on the break in order to score. Then we evolved into a more efficient half-court team, with Chris and Vlade initiating from the high post. But in all of those years, we ran a lot of pick and roll, a lot of triangle variations, and a lot of throw the ball into to Chris and let him get a shot.

The point is that if we have fundamentally sound players one through five, then we can run the Princeton. And depending on what players are on the floor with each other, we can run variations of a lot of other offenses, and we probably will.

But my initial post was simply to state that I don't understand why any NBA-caliber players can't take advantage of the opportunities created by the Princeton offense. We don't have any specialty players like Ben Wallace, and even if we did, he's not the type of player that you change your offense for because he gets his points off of hustle play. And we don't have any really dominant offensive players that can't play in the offense. And if we do want to take advantage of any mismatch that presents itself, we can do that outside of the offense, just like the Lakers did with Kobe.
 
VF21 said:
Um, boy - I hate to be the one to break this to you.

I didn't post the overview for you or anyone specifically. There have been a lot of questions over the past about the Princeton offense, how it runs, what it's supposed to be about, etc.

Having said that, I think you need to read the "article" again, because you clearly do NOT understand the Princeton offense as it was designed.

As far as it being for college only is concerned, I saw the Princeton offense played to perfection by some guys wearing uniforms with "Kings" on the front. And they seemed to do it fairly well. You might remember? They got to OT in game 7 of the WCF in 2002 and were poised to do even better in 2003 until that fateful night in Dallas...

You cannot really judge how successfully this group of young men will eventually function within the Princeton o. because we haven't seen enough of it yet. When they do manage to get it right, it's a thing of beauty.

In reading your comments, it seems you're trying to say that because you haven't seen the Kings play the offense well that the offense won't work. Somewhat ironically, your very complaint is what proves the Princeton offense WILL work with this group. When Miller is able to pass the ball to cutting teammates, good things happen. When the Kings get the spacing right and keep looking for the open man, good things happen. Those are two KEY components of a successfully run Princeton offense.

So, keep watching. It's not about whether or not the Princeton o can work at this level. It's whether or not the current group of players can run it successfully. I think they can primarily because I've seen flashes of them doing it.

One more thing? I do not know where you got the idea that the goal of the Princeton offense is to make up for a lack of talent.



So team play is only necessary if you don't have LeBron James or Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan?

I don't even think that needs to be addressed.
WORD.

Bloody hell, when princeton offence is executed correctly even my grandma can get easy points.

If a player can run, pass, shoot and cut to the basket, they are suited to the prineton offence. Last time I checked, all the players on our team can do these things.

Princeton offence is about getting the mximum out of your talent. Its based on great team work and unselfish play. It is not used for making up a lack of talent. We were pretty talented team in 2002 and 2003 and we still used the offence and were successful with it.

When this team eventually gets it together, we will be really potent offensively.
 
Back
Top