The Kings and the "Princeton offense"

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
We keep skirting around the issue of the definition of the Princeton offense, and whether or not the current Kings should/could utilize it...

I took a few minutes and did a bit of googling for some articles I've seen in the past. Here are a couple of them:

Princeton Offense
"Nothing creates more problems for the defense than movement."

The Princeton offense is not really an offense at all in the true sense, but rather an unstructured style of play. Very similar to the Passing Game offense, rather than relying upon executing a set pattern or play, the Princeton Offense relies purely on constant motion and specific counter actions based on defensive reads to create open shot opportunities with the classic backdoor cut for an easy basket being its signature option. Developed and popularized over the years by Pete Carril, all five players are totally involved in the offense at all times. This is why it is so enjoyable to watch and coach.

Since the Princeton offense is a team oriented offense, it provides for a maximum effort within the limits of a team's athleticism. It does require players that can shoot well from the outside, pass and drive with either hand, and possess good court savvy. In addition, all players must develop an unselfish attitude and work hard to create open shots opportunities for their teammates. This is accomplished by having patience and controlling the ball. Because of this constant player movement superior physical conditioning is a very important ingredient to its success.

http://www.cybersportsusa.com/hooptactics/princetonoffense.asp

And...

Pete Carril's Princeton Offense
by Merrell Noden
Posted February 19, 2009


Using what became known as the Princeton Offense (though he himself disdained the term), Carril won 514 games and thirteen Ivy League titles, and made eleven trips to the NCAA tournament with players who were rarely as fast, tall, or agile as their opponents.

His prowess and longevity got him elected to the Basketball Hall of Fame in 1997, and last month the court at Princeton’s Jadwin Gym was christened Carril’s Court in his honor.

To overcome the raw talent deficit he inevitably faced at a school with high academic standards and no athletic scholarships, Carril cobbled together a system of his own using many of the old staples of basketball coaching, things like the weave and the bounce pass. In an era that worshipped flashy dunks, his teams relied on the fundamental values coaches have always preached and players have usually resisted: selflessness, communication, and patience.

The resulting Princeton offense has been called “baroque” and “labyrinthine,” and a whole lot of unprintable things by the coaches and players who have had to contend with it. For years, most everyone considered it a brilliant survival tool for Princeton teams low on talent. But in the last ten years, Carril’s ideas have spread throughout college basketball—including likely 2009 tourney invitees Georgetown and Arizona State—and right up to the NBA, where the New Jersey Nets under former coach Byron Scott was just one of several teams to adopt its key features. The diminutive Carril, who has often been referred to as the Yoda of basketball, brought his concepts to the Sacramento Kings as an assistant coach from 1996 to 2006, when he retired and returned to New Jersey. But in January, with the Kings flagging, the 78-year-old legend rejoined the team as a consultant.


1. Cut, Don't Screen

The screen is among the most fundamental of hoop ploys: By running or dribbling close to a stationary teammate, you either run your defender into him, thus shedding the defender, or at least create a little daylight. But by bringing four players into close proximity or even contact, screens produce clutter. So Carril preached cuts—sharp changes in direction—which are especially useful when a defender makes the mistake of overplaying: guarding too closely and committing to a given direction or shifting his attention to another player approaching with the ball. As one wag put it, playing Princeton is death by a thousand cuts.

2. Thinkers Thrive

“The system isn’t X’s and O’s—it’s thinking,” Gabe Lewullis has said. Lewullis made Princeton’s shot-heard-round-the-world: the backdoor layup that beat defending champion UCLA in the first round of the 1996 NCAA tournament. Even the players’ positions are fluid: The only one who takes anything like a predictable position is the center. His four teammates spend their time weaving and cutting, looking for the open man or for a defender who’s overplaying his man. To do this well requires the alert sympathy that jazz bands develop.

3. Center Up Top

The center does not play under the basket, where most other systems place him in order to take advantage of his height. He sets up at the top of the key, thus opening up the lane for cutting teammates. As Bill Carmody, who took over from Carril in 1997 and is now head coach at Northwestern, once explained to Sports Illustrated, “We run our backdoor into the area where our center isn’t.” Princeton’s center is really a point-center, and the offense runs through him. He must be an exceptional passer for it to work.

http://njmonthly.com/articles/lifestyle/how-things-work/princeton-offense.html
 
#3 constitutes my beef with the system.

Center up top? There goes high % shots on the block, offensive rebounding, forcing double teams down low.
 
#3 constitutes my beef with the system.

Center up top? There goes high % shots on the block, offensive rebounding, forcing double teams down low.


I see your point and agree for a pure Princeton offense. However, if you look at the old school Kings with Vlade and Webber, they ran a modified version of the Princeton offense that allowed us to take advantage of Webber and Vlade's passing (how many easy layups did Peja get), but also allowed both Webber and Vlade to get plenty of post up opportunities close to the hoop. I don't imagine that Petrie is aiming to run an offense with 0 post ups, I just think he loves a good, intellectual motion offense that uses a number of the Princeton principles.
 
choising to go with the princeton once more would not make me want to poke my eyes out while watching this team lose. At least it would be fun to watch while we rebuild.
 
Meh...Coachie says that, and then you hear about him trying to turn JT and Hawes into "high post bigs". JT is great on the offensive glass, I dont want him in the high post. Hawes has a tendency to fall in love with the 3. I dont want him out there either really.

There are parts of the Princeton I like. The ball movement, the cutting. Things of beauty when its rollin, and the reason why our golden era team was so fun to watch. But I just really want our bigs where bigs belong. Near the basket. Otherwise we get killed on the boards and end up taking lower percentage shots. Not really so great.
 
Princeton is an underdog's offense. That is good if you are the underdog, not so good if you are not. Its not really well suited to taking advantage of greatness, and it relies on trickery and intellectualism to try to counter talent and force. Unfortunately talent and force normally win that confrontation. Its led to some memorable upsets over the years, but they have been just that -- upsets. Its never won a major championship at any level so far as I know. And the thing is, it favors players who are not otherwise well suited to winning big in the NBA -- finesse guys, outside shooting big men, shooting PGs, guys who can't create their own shot. When we ran it in our best years the absolute key to our contention was finding a unique player in Webb who had all (or almost all) of the characteristics of an NBA superstar, but who could still play in the specialized offense. Without that special talent...
 
If Webber hadn't crumpled to the floor in Dallas, the Princeton might well have won that championship. It wasn't the fault of the offense that led to our demise...
 
When we ran it in our best years the absolute key to our contention was finding a unique player in Webb who had all (or almost all) of the characteristics of an NBA superstar, but who could still play in the specialized offense. Without that special talent...

I don't disagree with your whole post, but the "special talent" part is true about any championship team. I mean the Triangle Offense only works if you have Jordan/Pippen or some combination of Shaq/Kobe/Gasol+Odom. The Spurs well disciplined offense worked because of Duncan. The Cavs high screen and roll and spread the floor O only works because of Lebron.

I wouldn't knock our modified Princeton O because we needed Webber to be a contender. Any championship caliber team needs a star. The only thing close to an exception (Detroit), you have called the exception that proves the rule in your previous posts about rebuilding through the draft.
 
If Webber hadn't crumpled to the floor in Dallas, the Princeton might well have won that championship. It wasn't the fault of the offense that led to our demise...
Maybe not but the point Bricklayer made is pretty true. I dont remember teams winning the ultimate prize with this offense. Team have gone pretty far with it but is it really the way to go?
 
My point was that saying a team hasn't won the ultimate prize is irrelevant for the simple reason it wasn't the Princeton offense that crumpled to the floor in Dallas.

And yes, IMHO, I would love to see a return to cutting, thinking, passing and playing team ball. It put butts in the seats and it took our breath away. AND it took us to places we hadn't even dreamt of.
 
My point was that saying a team hasn't won the ultimate prize is irrelevant for the simple reason it wasn't the Princeton offense that crumpled to the floor in Dallas.

And yes, IMHO, I would love to see a return to cutting, thinking, passing and playing team ball. It put butts in the seats and it took our breath away. AND it took us to places we hadn't even dreamt of.

That is the purest form of basketball and I love it and miss it!
 
Maybe not but the point Bricklayer made is pretty true. I dont remember teams winning the ultimate prize with this offense. Team have gone pretty far with it but is it really the way to go?

It's still a relatively small sample size. However, the other reason for that is that as Brick mentioned it is a bit of a underdog offense. If your team has MJ, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, or Lebron - your going to run an O that heavily features that player doing things that seem impossible at times. As much as the Lakers run the triangle, in crunch time they give the ball to Kobe and let him create. Now if you are playing with a second tier star like a Webber and can surround him with a good supporting cast, then something like the Princeton O can help even more.

Overall, that's my long winded way of saying it comes down to the players not the offense. Throw Michael Jordan in his prime on the 2002 Kings and the Princeton offense has a championship. Take Jordan, Shaq, Kobe and Pippen off of the Lakers and Bulls and the Triangle offense has 0 championships.
 
My point was that saying a team hasn't won the ultimate prize is irrelevant for the simple reason it wasn't the Princeton offense that crumpled to the floor in Dallas.

And yes, IMHO, I would love to see a return to cutting, thinking, passing and playing team ball. It put butts in the seats and it took our breath away. AND it took us to places we hadn't even dreamt of.

The offense was so crisp and clean back then. It was beautiful to watch and, like you said, brought us fantastic success! Bring it back plz.
 
My point was that saying a team hasn't won the ultimate prize is irrelevant for the simple reason it wasn't the Princeton offense that crumpled to the floor in Dallas.

And yes, IMHO, I would love to see a return to cutting, thinking, passing and playing team ball. It put butts in the seats and it took our breath away. AND it took us to places we hadn't even dreamt of.


And if the Kings draft Rubio we are well on our way.. This kid has a very high BBall IQ.
 
Exactly...

Rubio, Martin, Nocioni, Thompson and Hawes would be exciting to watch at the very least.

:D
 
I don't disagree with your whole post, but the "special talent" part is true about any championship team. I mean the Triangle Offense only works if you have Jordan/Pippen or some combination of Shaq/Kobe/Gasol+Odom. The Spurs well disciplined offense worked because of Duncan. The Cavs high screen and roll and spread the floor O only works because of Lebron.

I wouldn't knock our modified Princeton O because we needed Webber to be a contender. Any championship caliber team needs a star. The only thing close to an exception (Detroit), you have called the exception that proves the rule in your previous posts about rebuilding through the draft.
Basic Triangle is a lot like the Princeton, only instead of 5 on 5, the Triangle is 3 on 3 strong side, with one big weak side between the elbow and baseline, and the 5th player out beyond the 3 pt line as a fast break stopper or 3pt shooter.

Two draw back affect the Kings;
It does require players that can shoot well from the outside, pass and drive with either hand, and possess good court savvy.

and,
The center does not play under the basket

The offense requires exceptional ball handling skills, where players pass to cutters, and cutters have to catch the ball on the move, and if they're not open then they become passers and the process continues. It is not unusual for the process to continue for the entire 24 sec. clock. We already are one of the worst tunover to assist teams in the league. Without a dramatic improvement in ball handling, the increase in turnovers could be fatal.

The offensive in it's original form was designed around 4 guards where to ball keeps moving until a open shot becomes available. No playmaking guard is necessary. A playmaking guard such as Rubio, wouldn't be directing the offense. He would be just another cutter & shooter, nether of which are his strong points. A PG like Curry or Lawson would be a much better fit for the offense.

We were at the bottom of the league in Rebounding (offensive rebounding in particular), and in getting 2nd chance pts. Part of the reason was Miller, but Miller got most of his rebounds on the defensive board. So, the weakness on the offensive boards had more to do with Miller being in the high post facilitating the offense (and of course MM doing the bulk of the offensive rebounding). We could end up with JT & Griffin doing our offensive rebounding. And, Spence could run some of the offensive sets from the low blocks, so rebounding might improve. And, this may be our best option if we don't draft a starting PG, but if our bigs show any ability to rebound well, we need them in the paint and not at the top of the key making passes. Passes are something guards do well.
 
My point was that saying a team hasn't won the ultimate prize is irrelevant for the simple reason it wasn't the Princeton offense that crumpled to the floor in Dallas.

And yes, IMHO, I would love to see a return to cutting, thinking, passing and playing team ball. It put butts in the seats and it took our breath away. AND it took us to places we hadn't even dreamt of.


And my point was that player, that particular player, was about the ONLY way to make youself a serious contender with the Princeton offense. It was a freak occurrence -- an athletic shotblocker/rebounder with post game AND the passing skills and jumper to run an offense from the elbow? You couldn't have run that offense through Shaq, or Duncan, or pretty much anybody else (with the possible exception of Garnett, who himself was not enough alone until he had HOF wingmen). The players who can get you home in the NBA don't need Ivy League offenses posting them 20 feet from the hoop or taking the ball out of their hands. You can run it through a Vlade, or Brad, or maybe Spencer one day. But you can't win anything with that. Barring a one of a kind hybrid player, it forces you to cater to specialized, lesser players who are only roleplayers on most teams. When you have an offense that would take the ball out of a Kobe or Lebron's hands, that would find a Dwight Howard too limited, turn Chris Paul into a spot shooter, that Yao can't run...its inherently suspect at this level. Meanwhile you are collecting spot shooters who can't create their own shot, and who often have atheltic and/or defensive deficiencies.

This is not an argument against its use back in the day. Those were our personnel -- it would have been silly NOT to try to maximize them. But you don't institutionalize an offense unless its won something more than an Ivy league crown. Get talent, build the system around the talent, not the other way around. And only 1 in 100 groups of talents are going to be best served by going to the full Princeton.
 
Last edited:
And if the Kings draft Rubio we are well on our way.. This kid has a very high BBall IQ.


Rubio is NOT a Princeton PG.

The Princeton, like the triangle, is actively hostile to PGs who dominate the ball. A Princeton PG does not run the show-- the bigs do. And the most important trait he can have is spot shooting -- Rubio's weakest link (offensively at least). Chris Paul would be wasted in the system, as would JKidd or Nash have been. JWill struggled with it until we finally banished him for a much better system player in Bibby. If you're truly going to run the Princeton, then there really isn't much point in drafting Rubio. For him to have an impact, he has to dominate the ball and be allowed to run the offense and make the decisions.
 
My point was that saying a team hasn't won the ultimate prize is irrelevant for the simple reason it wasn't the Princeton offense that crumpled to the floor in Dallas.

And yes, IMHO, I would love to see a return to cutting, thinking, passing and playing team ball. It put butts in the seats and it took our breath away. AND it took us to places we hadn't even dreamt of.

Never agreed with a post of yours more then this one. :D
 
Rubio is NOT a Princeton PG.

The Princeton, like the triangle, is actively hostile to PGs who dominate the ball. A Princeton PG does not run the show-- the bigs do. And the most important trait he can have is spot shooting -- Rubio's weakest link (offensively at least). Chris Paul would be wasted in the system, as would JKidd or Nash have been. JWill struggled with it until we finally banished him for a much better system player in Bibby. If you're truly going to run the Princeton, then there really isn't much point in drafting Rubio. For him to have an impact, he has to dominate the ball and be allowed to run the offense and make the decisions.

Scott, with Jordan as an assistant, ran a modified Princeton in NJ with Kidd at the helm. I could envision something along those lines, or our 98-00 system with J-Will, were we to draft Rubio.
 
I have mixed feelings on this subject. I don't like having a team with a low enough talent level that the Princeton is appropriate, but we do happen to have such a roster right now. I'm not sure that there's another team in the NBA which contains nobody picked as high as #8 in the draft. And we traded away our main iso specialists (Artest, Salmons). In that respect, the underdog's Princeton is perfect.

A few years down the road, we might have the talent to win with any of a number of systems. If we play the Princeton until then, we might end up feeling the need to trade Hawes to change to something different. And that's slightly annoying.

But I do feel sure that I want a team that CAN play the Princeton, whether it actually plays it or not. I want to see ball movement and team play again, as habits rather than exceptions.

So bring it on, I guess. :confused: It's not as if Hawes were going to be dunking on Dwight Howard a lot anyway.
 
I am guessing that this thread would make “Coachie” crazy. First, he hates the term “Princeton Offense” because he feels that the plays that he draws-up are "just a hodge-podge of old Celtic and Knick plays.” Those are his words, not mine. But then to go on and say that the “Princeton” has never won anything but a few Ivy league titles is kind of crazy. With the roots of these plays (I will not call it an offense at the request of Coachie) with the great Celtics of the 50s and 60s (and some pretty good Knick teams) I would say that it is clearly capable of producing rings.

If it was good enough for Bill Russell then it is good enough for Spencer Hawes. If it was good enough for Bob Cousy, I am guessing that it will be good enough for Ricky Rubio should he come here. Coachie will always make modifications to the plays to fit personel, but I think it is pretty clear that a team can win championships running these plays.
 
I'm not sure that there's another team in the NBA which contains nobody picked as high as #8 in the draft. And we traded away our main iso specialists (Artest, Salmons). In that respect, the underdog's Princeton is perfect.

I'm not sure that's the best way to think about things, since top picks can bust and some lower picks excel. But on the point itself I think you're right - Diogu is the highest-slotted player to finish the season on our roster (9th overall).

The Warriors have two guys that were picked 8th (Wright, Crawford), and a quick check leads me to believe that no other team's highest-slotted guy was even that low at the end of the season.

Of course, we'll be moving out of this exclusive club next year with a top-four pick.
 
I would much prefer seeing a team that runs an offense like the Princeton, rather than a team that wants to rely on individual talents to get shots. However, having a player or three who can create their own shot, whether it's late in the shot clock or late in the game, is an obvious luxury that most championship caliber teams need to have. Someone who can break down the defense and get to the rim with the ball is something you need regardless of what offense you run.

The problem with the Princeton is that teams normally run it out of necessity. It's not the offense itself, is that your personnel requires an offensive system that puts a premium, not on individual talent, but on heady play and teamwork. You normally don't need a specialized offense when you have players who can create on their own, but that doesn't mean that the two have to be mutually exclusive, either. If the Bulls ran the Princeton, guys like Derrick Rose and Ben Gordon would be just fine, but it's guys like Joakim Noah and Tyrus Thomas who would be at their best, because they'd benefit from the passing and movement.

I don't know why you'd ever have a problem with the Princeton offense, or any other offense, for that matter. You don't have to stay in your offense every single time down the floor (why would you do that anyways?), especially if you have players who don't need help to get their shot off, but having the framework there can help your entire team to be productive.
 
it really depends on the personnel.... the lakers had to modify the triangle offense for shaq. if this team had a franchise player but still wanted to run the princeton offense they could. and most of todays superstars could adapt if the coaching staff is willing to make the right adjustments to the offense. duncan could have run the princeton, but the team would have needed a rebounding big like tyson candler to make up for the lack of offensive rebounding. the only superstar players that i could think of that would have problems would be shaq or dwight howard, they cant shoot. but if they had players at the 4 that could run the bulk of the offense it would be okay. they would then have 2 options, run the princeton or let shaq/howard dunk on someone..... thats one hell of a 2nd option.

our current kings team could run it but would still suck because they donthave anyone who can create for themselves or others if things dont go their way. this current team would have been the perfect back ups to our old team. with the exception of nocioni, hedo is still the best back up sf we've ever had.... but everyone else would have been great coming off the bench for our old team.
 
Hawes doesn't grab many offensive rebounds anyway; that's Thompson's specialty. So what's it going to hurt by sticking Hawes in the high post and having him run the offense? He's got vision, passing skills, and a love for shooting the ball.
 
Because he has a post game.

I'd rather have our C down low shooting the high percentage shots then jacking 20 footers. He's not going to get opposing bigs in foul trouble that way.

Passing should be the PG's job. Which is why I'm pulling for us to get Rubio. But if we're going with the Princeton why even get Rubio? Bibby averaged 8+ assists per game before he came here.
 
Back
Top