This ladies and gentlemen is the results of an iso offense in the playoffs

[Wheels]

You may be a small group, but do a wonderful job of hijacking most threads to spread your word. It's like Guerilla Marketing at it's finest!

While I agree that does happen a lot.. I wouldnt lump Nik in that group no.

 

[Tince]

Well as a basketball coach for 20+ years, I DO know what an ISO offense is. Portland, Atlanta, Cleveland, Toronto and even Dallas about 1/3 of the time runs an ISO offense.

A friend of mine is a scout for the Mavs, and I think he probably knows what one is as well, and he says PORTLAND runs it more than any team in the league. So while it's great that you are a huge fan of the Blazers, and think they can do no wrong, that isn't entirely correct.


I am now ready for your over the top combative response.

I want to believe you that your friend is a scout for Dallas, but that statement is such a head-scratcher. He must not get an opportunity to watch Denver, Golden State, or even his own Dallas team very often.

Portland is no Utah when it comes to a nice free flowing offense, but the most ISO in the league? That's crazy talk.

 

[HailBlazers]

but Sarge the Hard Worker didn't see the need to improve last summer, and it makes me wonder if he does now.

It does make you wonder.. but I think this season was very special, and eye-opening. With all the injuries we were forced to play team ball and rely on everyone, and when we did this we were on fire (conquering Texas). I think Nate is smart enough to realize this and furthermore he's got to realize that the less the team relies on B-Roy, the healthier, stronger, and more clutch in the ISO he's gonna be.

I believe our ISO can be unstoppable if B-Roy is 100%. In order to do this though the rest of the offense must be strong and functional without B sacrificing his body 40 minutes a night. In our 1st round exit this year all Nate could do is stand there and witness how weak our O was, that had to hurt, and I guarantee Sarge won't forget it this summer.

 

[MrSelfDestruct]

It does make you wonder.. but I think this season was very special, and eye-opening. With all the injuries we were forced to play team ball and rely on everyone, and when we did this we were on fire (conquering Texas). I think Nate is smart enough to realize this and furthermore he's got to realize that the less the team relies on B-Roy, the healthier, stronger, and more clutch in the ISO he's gonna be.

I believe our ISO can be unstoppable if B-Roy is 100%. In order to do this though the rest of the offense must be strong and functional without B sacrificing his body 40 minutes a night. In our 1st round exit this year all Nate could do is stand there and witness how weak our O was, that had to hurt, and I guarantee Sarge won't forget it this summer.

While I truly hope you are right, I tend to be a bit more pessimistic about it. I can see Nate looking back and thinking, "If Brandon had been 100%, our offense would have looked much better" instead of thinking, "Hey, maybe it's time to tinker with the offense a bit." I fear it will get chalked up to bad luck instead of a less-than-ideal system.

My worry is that even before the playoffs, when there was no need for it, we went to the ISO instead of staying aggressive (Memphis game, I'm looking at you). It worries me that when we had any type of lead (blowouts excluded) in the second half of the 4th quarter, we often played not to lose rather than to win.

Another concern I have is the first 7 or last 7 idea. When we didn't score in the first 7 seconds, it seems like it gives the defense a brief opportunity to rest, realizing that they only need to really D up for the last 7 seconds of the clock.

 

[hasoos]

I still think that this team could be good with the team making one coaching change not involved firing Nate. It would be to bring in an offensive guru to help out. For instance, Eddie Jordan did not make a good head coach. But he is supposed to be one of the best minds about teaching the Princeton offense out there. So he isn't a good head coach. But maybe he might be a great assistant.

 

[HailBlazers]

I fear it will get chalked up to bad luck instead of a less-than-ideal system.

I see your point.

But with Brandon Roy having 4 knee surgeries you have to think they have realized he's not invincible and the best way to protect him long term is take some offensive pressure off him.

What I would like to see: Brandon Playing like Kobe, in that the team can be highly productive without him, and he is simply icing on the cake.

I still think that this team could be good with the team making one coaching change not involved firing Nate. It would be to bring in an offensive guru to help out.

Bingo!

 

[LittleAlex]

The key is finding someone else who Brandon "trusts". (enter: Travis Outlaw )

This isn't in green text but I have to assume you are joking.

Brandon driving the lane and kicking the ball out to Jab Step isn't any different then him doing so to LMA or Batum.

Except LMA and Batum can catch and shoot while Outlaw always puts the ball on the floor before shooting.

 

[BGrantFan]

Well as a basketball coach for 20+ years, I DO know what an ISO offense is. Portland, Atlanta, Cleveland, Toronto and even Dallas about 1/3 of the time runs an ISO offense.

A friend of mine is a scout for the Mavs, and I think he probably knows what one is as well, and he says PORTLAND runs it more than any team in the league. So while it's great that you are a huge fan of the Blazers, and think they can do no wrong, that isn't entirely correct.


I am now ready for your over the top combative response.

1/3 of the time is not a primary offense, and your "friend" must not watch Cleveland play.

 

[Nikolokolus]

1/3 of the time is not a primary offense, and your "friend" must not watch Cleveland play.

It is if 1/3 of the time you run isolation sets, 1/4 of the time you run the pick and roll, 1/5 of the time you run a high low, and the rest of the time you chuck up desperation heaves at the buzzer.

 

[BGrantFan]

It is if 1/3 of the time you run isolation sets, 1/4 of the time you run the pick and roll, 1/5 of the time you run a high low, and the rest of the time you chuck up desperation heaves at the buzzer.

Touche'

 

[oldmangrouch]

That's a fair criticism, I have little knowledge of the schematic changes since the early to mid 90's.

I'm curious what differences you've seen between the decades, and more importantly, I'd love to know why you think those styles of offense are no loner ran.

Good post! Repped!

Thats a good question - let me try to answer it, albeit in layman's terms.

The truism is that the old NBA was a run-n-gun league that played no defense. That is overly simplistic. There were many teams in the late 60s and 70s that played very good half-court defense - which is *why* teams ran when the chance was there. The best teams also knew how to quickly shift gears and run an efficient half-court attack. Attacking off the dribble was not the norm. The best teams attacked off the pass. (and that required constant motion by the guys without the ball)

Case in point: if you ask younger fans who the best PGs of all time were, many will name Oscar Robertson. Almost nobody names Jerry West or Walt Frazier - but in current terms, they played more of a "PG" role than Robertson did (until latein his career). The reason, is that Oscar had impressive APG numbers, and the other 2 look very pedestrian. That was because *everyone* on those Knicks and Laker teams was expected to move the ball, and hit the open man. The same was true of the Celtics, post Cousy. Heck, did you know that WILT had a couple seasons where he averages around 8 APG?

Why did it change?

1) Expansion. Everybody points to how it diluted the talent pool for players - but it did the same for coaches and refs. On top of that, the increased number of teams made in season scouting less feasible. Teams no longer game planned for a specific opponent, until the play-offs.

2) The league got younger. As players started leaving college sooner, the emphasis shifted from skill to physical talent. Gameplans became less sophisticated.

3) Marketing changed. "Lakers vs Celtics!" became "Bird vs Magic!" There had always been a "star" system, but it became the tail wagging the dog.

4) Officiating changed. Some teams (Daley's Pistons, Riley's Knicks, Jordan's Bulls) were suddenly playing with private rulebooks.

5) The 3 point shot. What used to be considered a bad shot from the perimeter suddenly became more valuable than working for a high percentage shot. Teams feel less pressure to work for a good shot, knowing they can always just throw the Hail-Mary....and get on Sportscenter as a reward.

I'm sure that barely scratches the surface of the subject, but take it FWIW.

 

[Blazinaway]

You're preaching to the choir, but unfortunately we're a small choir around here, with only about ten members ...

Maybe we can hire the Mormon Tabernacle?

 

[MARIS61]

Lakers ISO the anal-raper all night every night, and call it "the triangle".

Nate doesn't run more ISO's than most teams with a star do, but he does like to either score early or score late in the clock which makes the ISO more obvious to spectators.

 

[Mediocre Man]

I shoud clarify what I wrote. Dallas is the team that runs it about 1/3 of the time. The rest all run it much more

 

[Tince]

Lakers ISO the anal-raper all night every night, and call it "the triangle".

Nate doesn't run more ISO's than most teams with a star do, but he does like to either score early or score late in the clock which makes the ISO more obvious to spectators.

Very good point.

The Triangle Offense is a way to get ball and player movement to keep the defense honest enough to where it is difficult to defend the teams desired isolation matchup. I have a rough idea of how the triangle works, and I've actually been blessed to talk to Tex Winter at the barbershop a few times about the triangle offense, but it's so freaking complicated at the level they run it, I shouldn't even pretend to know the details.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Very good point.

The Triangle Offense is a way to get ball and player movement to keep the defense honest enough to where it is difficult to defend the teams desired isolation matchup. I have a rough idea of how the triangle works, and I've actually been blessed to talk to Tex Winter at the barbershop a few times about the triangle offense, but it's so freaking complicated at the level they run it, I shouldn't even pretend to know the details.

Not to nit-pick (well, maybe a little), but I wonder what percentage of Laker ISOs are called by the coach, and what percenatge are Kobe abandoning the triangle to go freelance?

 

[huevonkiller]

Thats a good question - let me try to answer it, albeit in layman's terms.

The truism is that the old NBA was a run-n-gun league that played no defense. That is overly simplistic. There were many teams in the late 60s and 70s that played very good half-court defense - which is *why* teams ran when the chance was there. The best teams also knew how to quickly shift gears and run an efficient half-court attack. Attacking off the dribble was not the norm. The best teams attacked off the pass. (and that required constant motion by the guys without the ball)

Case in point: if you ask younger fans who the best PGs of all time were, many will name Oscar Robertson. Almost nobody names Jerry West or Walt Frazier - but in current terms, they played more of a "PG" role than Robertson did (until latein his career). The reason, is that Oscar had impressive APG numbers, and the other 2 look very pedestrian. That was because *everyone* on those Knicks and Laker teams was expected to move the ball, and hit the open man. The same was true of the Celtics, post Cousy. Heck, did you know that WILT had a couple seasons where he averages around 8 APG?

Why did it change?

1) Expansion. Everybody points to how it diluted the talent pool for players - but it did the same for coaches and refs. On top of that, the increased number of teams made in season scouting less feasible. Teams no longer game planned for a specific opponent, until the play-offs.

2) The league got younger. As players started leaving college sooner, the emphasis shifted from skill to physical talent. Gameplans became less sophisticated.

3) Marketing changed. "Lakers vs Celtics!" became "Bird vs Magic!" There had always been a "star" system, but it became the tail wagging the dog.

4) Officiating changed. Some teams (Daley's Pistons, Riley's Knicks, Jordan's Bulls) were suddenly playing with private rulebooks.

5) The 3 point shot. What used to be considered a bad shot from the perimeter suddenly became more valuable than working for a high percentage shot. Teams feel less pressure to work for a good shot, knowing they can always just throw the Hail-Mary....and get on Sportscenter as a reward.

I'm sure that barely scratches the surface of the subject, but take it FWIW.

Just to add to this post, I recall Neil Paine (basketball-reference) saying that the league was over 65% white in the 1960's. I'm sure that has had an effect as well. The league has a much more athletic pool of talent, including Europeans, South Americans, etc. of course.