Discussing the Princeton offense

[playmaker0017]

VF21,

I never said we should "abandon" the offense - what I keep saying is we need balance and a mixture.

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.

That is what I was driving at, but I think we need to reduce the amount of reliance we have on the Princeton and let our playmakers be playmakers.

 

[playmaker0017]

We did not add athleticism, or ballhandling, or post play to this team in the offseason.

Did you just say that you didn't add post play?

 

[VF21]

IMHO, last night was a pretty good example of what can happen when the players buy in to the Princeton concept.

 

[funkykingston]

At the end of the day - I'm not a fan of any system that relies on jumpshooting.

The Princeton offense isn't geared for jumpshooting. Open jumpshots are simply a byproduct of cutting and good spacing. And ALL offenses are geared to set up open jumpers. Whether it's a post based offense like the Spurs or the championship Rockets who rely on kicking out of double teams or a drive and dish set up like Phoenix, open jumpshots are a valuable part of every offense. Ideally, the Princeton offense would set up easy cuts to the basket as witnessed during the Bucks game, but open jumpers aren't unwanted, especially with the shooters the Kings have.

I'm less of a fan of any system that relies on a spot shooter to create shots.

I don't remember this team running any isos for Peja or Bibby. The closest the Kings get to asking any of their shooters to create looks for themselves is running the high pick-and-roll with Bibby or when they ran 4-Special (the two man game between Webb and Peja). And neither of those is what I would call "creating a shot". BTW, the high pick-and-roll (or just the P&R in general) is NOT a part of the Princeton offense as Coachie designed it. On ball screens simply aren't part of the system. But Rick uses them because they are a strength of Bibby.

I'm less of a fan of any system that puts a post player near the three point line for 95% of the plays.

Brad Miller isn't a post player. For a guy who is supposedly 7' (I believe he measured out at 6'11" in Chicago) Brad plays around the basket as if he is 6'3". Not only does he not have any lift around the basket, but he doesn't use his body to create space and his shot repertoire seems limited to turn around jumpers with the occasional "where did that hook/scoop/runner come from" thrown in. He routinely brings the ball down before going up with it, leading to strips and blocks that shouldn't happen.

I would like to see Brad in the post, but only if he develops the requisite skills, which there is little chance of at this point. As it stands, I want him where he's more effective, out at the high post, and clearing out the blocks for a guy who does know how to operate down there; Abdur-Rahim.

Reef is not always going to be effective in the blocks. He is still a bit undersized at a four and can be muscled out of position. But when he has a matchup that allows him to attack from the post (or slither around the baseline as he loves to do) the Kings need to do that.

It is a error in perception that bigs need to play in the high post in the Princeton offense. The offense can be ran either through the high OR low post. In the latter, the team would line up 2-2-1 with the center (or in the Kingss case Reef) down low on the ball side. As long as the other four players can cut and shoot, the offense should run just as smoothly in this orientation, and I think we'll see more and more of it as the team (and especially Shareef) get more comfortable with it. In fact it is very easy to transition between the two sets with just a dive to the post, a post entry pass and Brad stepping back to establish better spacing.

I'm less of a fan of a system that puts the PG in a position to be a SG.

It's true that Mike Bibby is asked to do much less playmaking here than he was in Vancouver. But I think people have this vision of NBA offenses being rigidly structured when they really aren't. If Bibby sees a gap in the defense he certainly can drive the lane for a layup or dish. One-on-one attacks aren't part of the offense as it is designed, but the bottom line is to get a good shot everytime down the court however you have to do it.

I'd be shocked if Bibby didn't have carte blanche to create for himself or a teammate when the opportunity arises.

But yes, the ball is not dominated by the point guard in this offense as it would be in others. Perhaps that hurts Bibby's game somewhat. But I think we'd all agree that his greatest skill is shooting the ball, and this offense gets him MUCH better shots than he'd get one on one.

I understand a lot of complaints about this team, the roster, the coach etc but the calls for dumping the Princeton offense are strange to me.

Pete Carril created it because he wasn't going to get individual stars at Princeton and had to rely on execution, players able to read pressure and fundamental skills. The Sacramento Kings are currently in the same boat. They have an skilled but unathletic lineup with players who (with a couple exceptions) struggle to create their own shots offensively. This team NEEDS some type of motion offense to function.

This isn't a case of players unable to fit a system as post-Jordan Chicago was, with a non-triangle coach and young players who couldn't run it. No, the Kings will be fine offensively.

There are other things that concern me.

 

[Superman]

I would like to see Brad in the post, but only if he develops the requisite skills, which there is little chance of at this point. As it stands, I want him where he's more effective, out at the high post, and clearing out the blocks for a guy who does know how to operate down there; Abdur-Rahim.

I pretty much gave up on all hope of seeing Brad become a dominant post player when I saw him throw up a 10 foot fadeaway with Michael Finley covering him one-on-one.

He missed, by the way.

 

[swisshh]

The Kings absolute devotion to the Princeton offense has wasted talent for years(Wallace) and made talent out of marginal players(Darius).

Bobby Jackson actually doesn't completely fit the Princeton offense and if you watched the Kings for the past years you'd notice many of his great play were slightly out of the offense. He could create for himself and he was the only one allowed to really. Even a guy like Martin, Petrie's baby boy, is going to struggle because he's the type of player who gets a rhthym just out of creating oppurtunities and pressuring the defense. Having him sit outside to shoot threes is a waste of his strengths.

And this team does completely rely on jump shooting. It turns the point guard into a jump shooter. It pretty much wastes most of the skillset a point guard is suppose to have. You think it's only selfish players or those that can't pass that don't succeed in the system? Look at Nash, he needs the ball in his hands as a point guard, but he is not selfish and is a great passer. Nash excels at driving and getting the defense to follow him until an open shot is created for others. He plays like a stick sifting through sand. In the Princeton offense, you just have Nash coming off screens and making some cuts. Sure he's a great shooter, but you see how much of his skills you are wasting?

The real question of that article is comparison of how Philly has adapted its offense to fit its players while Sac is adapting its players to fit the offense.

 

[Bricklayer]

The Kings absolute devotion to the Princeton offense has wasted talent for years(Wallace) and made talent out of marginal players(Darius).

Bobby Jackson actually doesn't completely fit the Princeton offense and if you watched the Kings for the past years you'd notice many of his great play were slightly out of the offense. He could create for himself and he was the only one allowed to really. Even a guy like Martin, Petrie's baby boy, is going to struggle because he's the type of player who gets a rhthym just out of creating oppurtunities and pressuring the defense. Having him sit outside to shoot threes is a waste of his strengths.

And this team does completely rely on jump shooting. It turns the point guard into a jump shooter. It pretty much wastes most of the skillset a point guard is suppose to have. You think it's only selfish players or those that can't pass that don't succeed in the system? Look at Nash, he needs the ball in his hands as a point guard, but he is not selfish and is a great passer. Nash excels at driving and getting the defense to follow him until an open shot is created for others. He plays like a stick sifting through sand. In the Princeton offense, you just have Nash coming off screens and making some cuts. Sure he's a great shooter, but you see how much of his skills you are wasting?

The real question of that article is comparison of how Philly has adapted its offense to fit its players while Sac is adapting its players to fit the offense.

I agree with much of that. The Princeton assumes you do not HAVE a Nash, or an A.I., or a Shaq. Its built around the idea that guys can't/won't have the ability to handle or create opportunities for themselves with the ball. Nash would be wasted. A.I. would be anathema. Its an underdog (defined as undertalented)-centric offense designed to make the most of limited players, and not terribly concerned about the limitations that places on players who have great one on one skills, because it assumes youo do not have them.

The system has giant blind spots to certain styles of players. But on the other hand, it makes the most out of the skills of others. Which is why for years I have evaluated many proposed trades and whatnot on an "is he a Kings sort of player" standard, with "Kings sort of player" meaning a Princeton copmpatible player. It any case it was an excellent system for our former personnel, although it did cost us Gerald, JWill, etc.. Now...we'll have to see. Ironically I have always argued that it was precisely the presence of players on our roster who COULD play outside the system, who were very good if not great one one one players (as well as athletes/defenders), that allowed us to actually play at an elite level in our peak years.

Many/most coaches get stuck in one offense or another. PJ has his triangle etc. What is unusual about the Kings is that we may have a GM stuck in one offense too. That's good and bad. Good in that he and the coahc are on the same page. Bad in that he and the coach...are on the same page, and there is one voice and a relative one-trick mentality to the Kings front office. Somebody called them "disciples of the Princeton" on here. Might not be too far off. And that can be a problem -- instituting the Princeton to take advantage of relatively limited personnel = smart. That was what I always argued we ahd done in the golden era. But intentionally going out and FAVORING limited personnel in your acquisitions so that it "fits" an existing Princeton offense is kind of dumb. Princeton College has not, and does not win the big ones -- it just does better than its supposed to. Not who you want to emulate when you're trying to win it all unless you have no choice.

Coaches sometimes get overfascinated with their own cleverness and want to draw up every play and have "their offense" -- but I have to believe that if Coachie had had a chance to recruit Shaq or Steve Nash back in his Princeton days that he wouldn't have been stupid enough to go recruit Erkel instead because those guys weren't well sutied for his offense. Would hope that instead he would have taken the great talent and rewritten the playbook. And that IMHO is how Geoff should be approaching it, expecially now in these latter days while the team is reforming.

 

[acisking]

The Princeton offense is a terrific offensive system but requires a tremendous amount of skill to run. When it comes to the Kings, there are really two sides to an equally jagged coin. One the one hand, the argument could be made that the Kings, as currently constructed, do not have the proper roster to execute the offense as it is intended to be run. At the same time, however, the lineup, as curently constructed, is equally inept to run any other type of offense with any sort of consistency as we have no real double-team threats and have a point gaurd that likes shooting, a center who likes passing and shooting jumpers, and a preliminary scorer who doesn't create his own shot.