It just seems to me that teams that won championships either have hard core in your face defense or/and aggressive (drive to the hoop or muscle for post up position) offense. The princeton style offense is running around, passing the ball, and look for an opening to pop a jumper. It just looks passive. Aggressive teams usually get a lot more trips to the free throw line and put the other team into penalty situation. Another thing that Princeton style offense hurts the team playing it is less rebounds due to perimeter shooters are usually further away from the basket.
Has any team with Princeton style offense ever won a title in the NBA?
- Thread starter yanon
- Start date
I think this offence style thing is over-rated. Kings came close to getting a title with the same offence. Why????? Because they played some damn good defence to complement that offence. If it weren't for Webber's knee giving away things would have been different.
As long as you can score consistently, it doesn't matter which offence you are running. What matters is how good is your defence to complement your offence.
As long as you can score consistently, it doesn't matter which offence you are running. What matters is how good is your defence to complement your offence.
Not sure that's entirely true -- indeed have argued in the past that the Princeton has significant limitations that DO make it an awkward fit to win a title with. Specifically that its an underdog system requiring specific personnel who do not have the traits champions do, that it can be diagrammed and broken down over a 7 game series, and that it has difficulty isolating its best players and allowing them to take over. Basically its a system designed to let 6'3" Ivy Leaguers compete against 6'10" ACC players by using the one trait they have in abundance -- brains -- to compensate for their athletic weaknesses. But its not really designed for strength on strength championship level play, nor has it succeeded at that level.
Now that said, I entirely agree that in 2002 we basically proved it COULD work at a title level if you just could find the right, magical, mix of personnel. Guys smart enough and unselfish enough to run it who ALSO were athletic, played defense etc. So we already KNOW it can be done. The problem is that IMHO it requires a more special group of players to play the Princeton at that level than it does to win a title in virtually any other system. We had several guys with VERY rare skillsets, and people understimate just how rare a player Chris Webber was to be able to run the complex skill-heavy offense while still providing athleticism, shotblocking, rebounding etc. Usually its either/or. Only KG approaches that skillset -- why I continue to argue for his acquisition actually. Only player in the league which I think let's us continue to run our full Princeton sets AND be a serious contender.
Now that said, I entirely agree that in 2002 we basically proved it COULD work at a title level if you just could find the right, magical, mix of personnel. Guys smart enough and unselfish enough to run it who ALSO were athletic, played defense etc. So we already KNOW it can be done. The problem is that IMHO it requires a more special group of players to play the Princeton at that level than it does to win a title in virtually any other system. We had several guys with VERY rare skillsets, and people understimate just how rare a player Chris Webber was to be able to run the complex skill-heavy offense while still providing athleticism, shotblocking, rebounding etc. Usually its either/or. Only KG approaches that skillset -- why I continue to argue for his acquisition actually. Only player in the league which I think let's us continue to run our full Princeton sets AND be a serious contender.
Last edited:
Bricklayer, I like your in depth analysis. That is exactly how I felt about the system that it just simply very difficult to put together a group of players that can work in a cohesive unit to allow the princeton offense to work in the pro level. I think this system makes the collective strength of all team members much greater than the sum of all the individual strengths on the team. When the gears of that well oiled special limited edition princeton machine fall off, it is hard to find the specially made replacement parts to make that machine work again. Thus, the remaining parts of the machine are exposed as what they really are--unique parts that are pretty weak as individual functioning part (going one-on-one against other athletic NBA players).
Here to make your dream a reality
Minnesota Trade Breakdown
Outgoing
Kevin Garnett
6-11 PF from Farragut Academy (HS)
22.2 ppg, 13.5 rpg, 5.7 apg in 38.0 minutes
Michael Olowokandi
7-0 C from Pacific
5.9 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 0.5 apg in 19.6 minutes
Marko Jaric
6-7 PG from Serbia-Montenegro (Foreign)
9.9 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 6.1 apg in 33.1 minutes
Incoming
1st round pick
Mike Bibby
6-1 PG from Arizona
19.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 6.8 apg in 38.5 minutes
Brad Miller
7-0 C from Purdue
15.6 ppg, 9.3 rpg, 3.9 apg in 37.3 minutes
Kenny Thomas
6-7 PF from New Mexico
11.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.6 apg in 28.6 minutes
Francisco Garcia
6-7 from Louisville
No games yet played in 2004/05
Change in team outlook: +8.5 ppg, -1.9 rpg, and -0.0 apg.
Sacramento Trade Breakdown
Outgoing
1st round pick
Mike Bibby
6-1 PG from Arizona
19.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 6.8 apg in 38.5 minutes
Brad Miller
7-0 C from Purdue
15.6 ppg, 9.3 rpg, 3.9 apg in 37.3 minutes
Kenny Thomas
6-7 PF from New Mexico
11.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.6 apg in 28.6 minutes
Francisco Garcia
6-7 from Louisville
No games yet played in 2004/05
Incoming
Kevin Garnett
6-11 PF from Farragut Academy (HS)
22.2 ppg, 13.5 rpg, 5.7 apg in 38.0 minutes
Michael Olowokandi
7-0 C from Pacific
5.9 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 0.5 apg in 19.6 minutes
Marko Jaric
6-7 PG from Serbia-Montenegro (Foreign)
9.9 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 6.1 apg in 33.1 minutes
Change in team outlook: -8.5 ppg, +1.9 rpg, and 0.0 apg.
Our Lineup after the trade
PG:Jaric/Hart
SG:Bonzi/Martin
SF
edja/SAR
PF:Kevin Garnett/SAR
C:Skinner/Olowokandi
Minnesota Trade Breakdown
Outgoing
Kevin Garnett
6-11 PF from Farragut Academy (HS)
22.2 ppg, 13.5 rpg, 5.7 apg in 38.0 minutes
Michael Olowokandi
7-0 C from Pacific
5.9 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 0.5 apg in 19.6 minutes
Marko Jaric
6-7 PG from Serbia-Montenegro (Foreign)
9.9 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 6.1 apg in 33.1 minutes
Incoming
1st round pick
Mike Bibby
6-1 PG from Arizona
19.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 6.8 apg in 38.5 minutes
Brad Miller
7-0 C from Purdue
15.6 ppg, 9.3 rpg, 3.9 apg in 37.3 minutes
Kenny Thomas
6-7 PF from New Mexico
11.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.6 apg in 28.6 minutes
Francisco Garcia
6-7 from Louisville
No games yet played in 2004/05
Change in team outlook: +8.5 ppg, -1.9 rpg, and -0.0 apg.
Sacramento Trade Breakdown
Outgoing
1st round pick
Mike Bibby
6-1 PG from Arizona
19.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 6.8 apg in 38.5 minutes
Brad Miller
7-0 C from Purdue
15.6 ppg, 9.3 rpg, 3.9 apg in 37.3 minutes
Kenny Thomas
6-7 PF from New Mexico
11.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.6 apg in 28.6 minutes
Francisco Garcia
6-7 from Louisville
No games yet played in 2004/05
Incoming
Kevin Garnett
6-11 PF from Farragut Academy (HS)
22.2 ppg, 13.5 rpg, 5.7 apg in 38.0 minutes
Michael Olowokandi
7-0 C from Pacific
5.9 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 0.5 apg in 19.6 minutes
Marko Jaric
6-7 PG from Serbia-Montenegro (Foreign)
9.9 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 6.1 apg in 33.1 minutes
Change in team outlook: -8.5 ppg, +1.9 rpg, and 0.0 apg.
Our Lineup after the trade
PG:Jaric/Hart
SG:Bonzi/Martin
SF
edja/SARPF:Kevin Garnett/SAR
C:Skinner/Olowokandi
AleksandarN said:
Here to make your dream a reality
Minnesota Trade Breakdown
Outgoing
Kevin Garnett
6-11 PF from Farragut Academy (HS)
22.2 ppg, 13.5 rpg, 5.7 apg in 38.0 minutes
Michael Olowokandi
7-0 C from Pacific
5.9 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 0.5 apg in 19.6 minutes
Marko Jaric
6-7 PG from Serbia-Montenegro (Foreign)
9.9 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 6.1 apg in 33.1 minutes
Incoming
1st round pick
Mike Bibby
6-1 PG from Arizona
19.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 6.8 apg in 38.5 minutes
Brad Miller
7-0 C from Purdue
15.6 ppg, 9.3 rpg, 3.9 apg in 37.3 minutes
Kenny Thomas
6-7 PF from New Mexico
11.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.6 apg in 28.6 minutes
Francisco Garcia
6-7 from Louisville
No games yet played in 2004/05
Change in team outlook: +8.5 ppg, -1.9 rpg, and -0.0 apg.
Sacramento Trade Breakdown
Outgoing
1st round pick
Mike Bibby
6-1 PG from Arizona
19.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 6.8 apg in 38.5 minutes
Brad Miller
7-0 C from Purdue
15.6 ppg, 9.3 rpg, 3.9 apg in 37.3 minutes
Kenny Thomas
6-7 PF from New Mexico
11.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.6 apg in 28.6 minutes
Francisco Garcia
6-7 from Louisville
No games yet played in 2004/05
Incoming
Kevin Garnett
6-11 PF from Farragut Academy (HS)
22.2 ppg, 13.5 rpg, 5.7 apg in 38.0 minutes
Michael Olowokandi
7-0 C from Pacific
5.9 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 0.5 apg in 19.6 minutes
Marko Jaric
6-7 PG from Serbia-Montenegro (Foreign)
9.9 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 6.1 apg in 33.1 minutes
Change in team outlook: -8.5 ppg, +1.9 rpg, and 0.0 apg.
Our Lineup after the trade
PG:Jaric/Hart
SG:Bonzi/Martin
SFedja/SAR
PF:Kevin Garnett/SAR
C:Skinner/Olowokandi
Minnesota Trade Breakdown
Outgoing
Kevin Garnett
6-11 PF from Farragut Academy (HS)
22.2 ppg, 13.5 rpg, 5.7 apg in 38.0 minutes
Michael Olowokandi
7-0 C from Pacific
5.9 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 0.5 apg in 19.6 minutes
Marko Jaric
6-7 PG from Serbia-Montenegro (Foreign)
9.9 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 6.1 apg in 33.1 minutes
Incoming
1st round pick
Mike Bibby
6-1 PG from Arizona
19.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 6.8 apg in 38.5 minutes
Brad Miller
7-0 C from Purdue
15.6 ppg, 9.3 rpg, 3.9 apg in 37.3 minutes
Kenny Thomas
6-7 PF from New Mexico
11.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.6 apg in 28.6 minutes
Francisco Garcia
6-7 from Louisville
No games yet played in 2004/05
Change in team outlook: +8.5 ppg, -1.9 rpg, and -0.0 apg.
Sacramento Trade Breakdown
Outgoing
1st round pick
Mike Bibby
6-1 PG from Arizona
19.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 6.8 apg in 38.5 minutes
Brad Miller
7-0 C from Purdue
15.6 ppg, 9.3 rpg, 3.9 apg in 37.3 minutes
Kenny Thomas
6-7 PF from New Mexico
11.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.6 apg in 28.6 minutes
Francisco Garcia
6-7 from Louisville
No games yet played in 2004/05
Incoming
Kevin Garnett
6-11 PF from Farragut Academy (HS)
22.2 ppg, 13.5 rpg, 5.7 apg in 38.0 minutes
Michael Olowokandi
7-0 C from Pacific
5.9 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 0.5 apg in 19.6 minutes
Marko Jaric
6-7 PG from Serbia-Montenegro (Foreign)
9.9 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 6.1 apg in 33.1 minutes
Change in team outlook: -8.5 ppg, +1.9 rpg, and 0.0 apg.
Our Lineup after the trade
PG:Jaric/Hart
SG:Bonzi/Martin
SF
edja/SARPF:Kevin Garnett/SAR
C:Skinner/Olowokandi
What about the 1973(?) NY Knicks team with Phil Jackson, Bill Bradley, Willis Reed, etc. I would say that was the closest Princeton style champion, in a sense that they played team game with no big stars, passed the ball admirably and relied on shooting jumpers (Bill Bradley was their Jimmy Chitwood)
But I am a bit confused about the definition of Princeton offense. I thought it means having frontcourt players in the high post delivering the ball and/or setting picks for shooters. However, NJ Nets team that won Eastern Conference couple of years in a row was also considered Princeton, but they didn't really fit the definition above.
But I am a bit confused about the definition of Princeton offense. I thought it means having frontcourt players in the high post delivering the ball and/or setting picks for shooters. However, NJ Nets team that won Eastern Conference couple of years in a row was also considered Princeton, but they didn't really fit the definition above.
As far as I knew the offense was just being reliant on passing, very free-form and not scripted much, allowing the players to use their brains on the court to find the open shot with the good player. I don't see why that has to mean that the team can't play physical in the paint and load up with good defensive players. Granted, it means that the emphasis on offense is not on the inside game, but it does not rule it out. And there are a lot of players around the NBA who could figure out how to pass the ball and still play D. Most of them just aren't on a team where those skills are shown off.
AleksandarN said:
Our Lineup after the trade
PG:Jaric/Hart
SG:Bonzi/Martin
SFedja/SAR
PF:Kevin Garnett/SAR
C:Skinner/Olowokandi
PG:Jaric/Hart
SG:Bonzi/Martin
SF
edja/SARPF:Kevin Garnett/SAR
C:Skinner/Olowokandi
Jaric/Hart
Wells/Garcia
SAR/Corliss
KG/KT
Brad/Skinner
That's money. But of course, we're dreaming.
KG and SAR can work as a forward combo. But I think it would be a mistake to trade Bibby to get him -- one of the very BEST things about bringing in KG would be the awesome 2-man pick and roll game that Mike and Garnett could run together. An absolute perfect match -- the two guys have basically been playing together most of their careers already. Mike with Webber, and KG with Brandon and then Cassel. You give me that two man game, post play from SAR, a "SF" averaging 13rebs and playing first team defense, and the rest of the postions are negotiable. Might easily be filled by roleplayers (in fact given the "defense" played by SAR and Bibby, I would LIKE the other two players to be defensively oriented). Then one dynamic 6th man (Bonzi?) and go for it.
Unless I'm mistaken, the first NBA team to run a "true" Princeton offense was the Sacramento Kings, when Pete Carrill, the architect of the Princeton offense, was signed as an assistant coach. And the only teams to run a Princeton offense in the interim, also unless I'm mistaken, have been teams coached by other former Kings assistants (Jordan in Washington, Porter in Milwaukee, Scott in New Jersey/New Orleans), the most successful of which was Byron Scott with New Jersey.
So no, offhand I'd say that it'd be a safe presumption that no NBA team has ever won a championship with the Princeton offense.
So no, offhand I'd say that it'd be a safe presumption that no NBA team has ever won a championship with the Princeton offense.
Okay, Princeton offense (from a Penn guy, so take with a grain of salt ):
1) based on principles and old plays from the Aurebach era Boston Celtics
2) is actually an offense now, not just "we pass", but a coherent set of plays and whatnot in Pete Carril's little black bag
3) invented, and named after Carril during his long tenure at Princeton (about 30 years). Made famous for allowing Princeton to confound vastly superior athletic opponents from much bigger basketball schools.
4) relies very heavily on passing, cutting, backcuts, shooting. A unique feature is the ballhandling and passing role of the bigmen, normally out of the high post facing position.
5) favors shooters to convert on the open looks it creates, off the ball movement, exceptional passing big men, who also need to be able to shoot
6) disfavors or ignores athleticism, ballhandling skills, one on one ability
7) overall effect is not for the PLAYERS to beat their opponents and create open looks, but for the SYSTEM to beat their opponents and create open looks for them. This is why there is a real problem IMHO for this system when the defense gets tight. Its a system, and so can be predicted, diagrammed, and broken down, and when it does break down, the players who excel at it are often revealed as realtively helpless to fend for themselves withotu the system there to create things for them.
8) While a few other teams have been accused of running "Princeton systems" in recent years (all of them being descendants of Adelman, his assistants, and the assistants of those assistants), none of the other teams have run anything remotely as pure as we do here, and have instead just implemented occasional sets. Its like the West Coast offense in football. The Knicks of long ago certainly could not use it, as it wasn't even invented then. But they may have used some similar principles as the influence of the old Celtics was still huge at that time. No team has won a title with it, at any level (maybe high school) unless you count Princeton's Ivy League titles, or the Celtics of half a century ago.
9) As a Penn guy who watched mroe than a few Penn/Princeton matchups at the Palestra over my years in Philly, I can tell you one interesting note: we (Penn) were never particularly baffled by the Princeton. During my years at Penn, we had the upper hand (it traditionally went back and forth between those two schools over the years in the Ivys), and could defeat th Princeton teams fairly easily. And my theories about the offense have partially been formulated by that experience. I think we were just so familiar with it, that the coaches and players had already broken it down, and all of a sudden it wasn't so formidable anymore. And the Princeton guys certainly couldn't play at all once you took them out of that offense. Think the offense works best as a "surprise" against unprepared opponents. Like the pickup team that comes on court having played together for years and just whips th ball around and always knows where everybody is going to be while your team just met for the first time an hour ago. But once you know it, and understand it, it can be stopped like anything else.
):1) based on principles and old plays from the Aurebach era Boston Celtics
2) is actually an offense now, not just "we pass", but a coherent set of plays and whatnot in Pete Carril's little black bag
3) invented, and named after Carril during his long tenure at Princeton (about 30 years). Made famous for allowing Princeton to confound vastly superior athletic opponents from much bigger basketball schools.
4) relies very heavily on passing, cutting, backcuts, shooting. A unique feature is the ballhandling and passing role of the bigmen, normally out of the high post facing position.
5) favors shooters to convert on the open looks it creates, off the ball movement, exceptional passing big men, who also need to be able to shoot
6) disfavors or ignores athleticism, ballhandling skills, one on one ability
7) overall effect is not for the PLAYERS to beat their opponents and create open looks, but for the SYSTEM to beat their opponents and create open looks for them. This is why there is a real problem IMHO for this system when the defense gets tight. Its a system, and so can be predicted, diagrammed, and broken down, and when it does break down, the players who excel at it are often revealed as realtively helpless to fend for themselves withotu the system there to create things for them.
8) While a few other teams have been accused of running "Princeton systems" in recent years (all of them being descendants of Adelman, his assistants, and the assistants of those assistants), none of the other teams have run anything remotely as pure as we do here, and have instead just implemented occasional sets. Its like the West Coast offense in football. The Knicks of long ago certainly could not use it, as it wasn't even invented then. But they may have used some similar principles as the influence of the old Celtics was still huge at that time. No team has won a title with it, at any level (maybe high school) unless you count Princeton's Ivy League titles, or the Celtics of half a century ago.
9) As a Penn guy who watched mroe than a few Penn/Princeton matchups at the Palestra over my years in Philly, I can tell you one interesting note: we (Penn) were never particularly baffled by the Princeton. During my years at Penn, we had the upper hand (it traditionally went back and forth between those two schools over the years in the Ivys), and could defeat th Princeton teams fairly easily. And my theories about the offense have partially been formulated by that experience. I think we were just so familiar with it, that the coaches and players had already broken it down, and all of a sudden it wasn't so formidable anymore. And the Princeton guys certainly couldn't play at all once you took them out of that offense. Think the offense works best as a "surprise" against unprepared opponents. Like the pickup team that comes on court having played together for years and just whips th ball around and always knows where everybody is going to be while your team just met for the first time an hour ago. But once you know it, and understand it, it can be stopped like anything else.
Last edited:
Word, Brick. I remember having this same convo after the Minnesota series in 04 when the TWolves shut down the Princeton offense and our players couldn't do anything about it. Ironically, it wasn't our defense that doomed us that series.
Of course, the years before that, the offense flowed, but when it got bogged down we had a superstar in Webb that could still create after the system collapsed. After the knee injury, the Webb in 04 wasn't enough.
Now, if we are to compete in the system today, which if we keep Adelman or one of his assistants around, we likely will, we need players that can flourish both inside and out of the system. That's why KG is perfect. His passing and court vision would allow the free-flowing offense to continue, but his versitility and ability to create would allow the team to still flourish when the offense was bogged down.
Bibby can't do that, Miller can't do that, and Peja can't do that. Having SAR in the post and Bonzi slashing from the wings is nice, but not enough. Combining these needs with Brick's players that are "actually" available list, my conclusions are that we should go after KG, or if that doesn't work, Peirce. Other than that, they key weaknesses of the system will continue to doom us, and that's purely in offense and ignoring our woes on the other end of the court.
Of course, the years before that, the offense flowed, but when it got bogged down we had a superstar in Webb that could still create after the system collapsed. After the knee injury, the Webb in 04 wasn't enough.
Now, if we are to compete in the system today, which if we keep Adelman or one of his assistants around, we likely will, we need players that can flourish both inside and out of the system. That's why KG is perfect. His passing and court vision would allow the free-flowing offense to continue, but his versitility and ability to create would allow the team to still flourish when the offense was bogged down.
Bibby can't do that, Miller can't do that, and Peja can't do that. Having SAR in the post and Bonzi slashing from the wings is nice, but not enough. Combining these needs with Brick's players that are "actually" available list, my conclusions are that we should go after KG, or if that doesn't work, Peirce. Other than that, they key weaknesses of the system will continue to doom us, and that's purely in offense and ignoring our woes on the other end of the court.