McDermott's offense

**snowcraig2.0** · 02-19-2008, 01:23 PM

McDermott's offense is totally predicated on set plays. What this means is our players, especially the point guard, need to be able to come down the court, recognize the defense, and the run the correct set. This is different from a motion based offense where in essence the same movements are used every time down (varying on zone vs man to man). For instance, say we are coming down the floor, and Rahshon has a guy who is only 6' guarding him, Diante or Petey needs to immediately recognize this and go into the appropriate set to take advantage. Eventually the entire team should recognize this and just go into the set without the PG even calling it. The problem right now is that Diante isn't on that level with his knowledge of the game. Listen when Diante bring the ball up, you can hear the coaches yelling 'DG, ....' to tell him what set to get the team into. Petey is better with his knowledge of the offense, but still has a ways to go to get to that instinctive mode rather than having to think about it. He also lacks the physical ability to sometimes get the ball into the proper places to run the appropriate set.

My point of this post is to illustrate why it take Greg's teams on average of 3 years to 'get it'. It's not just getting the PG's to be able to run the team on instinct, it's really getting the whole team to know what they need to do. It's also why getting Appleton would be great, but not necessarily the answer to all our problems. Garrett 'getting it' is the key to next year, in my opinion. Hopefully Petey will get to a level that he can compensate for his athletic shortcoming with craftiness and his good shooting. Another thing that will be key for us to succeed with such a complicated offense is player retention. We absolutely have to keep guys like Boozer and Cory Johnson in the program to give us some veteran depth that understands the system, even if they are never going to be starters. If we can do that, next year could be pretty good.

**bos** · 02-19-2008, 01:25 PM

I think you are right. Would be nice to not look lost out there. Other teams seem to adjust to our eradic play and take advantage of it. Once everyone is on the same page and are crisp in their assignments, we could see some serious play.

**NIowaClone** · 02-19-2008, 01:26 PM

Yeah, the predictability seems uncanny. I swear during the Iowa State vs. Nebraska game this past weekend, in the first half, Nebraska could see the scheme and yell out the play we were going to run. I don't know if it was the zone that was making us run slow or look confused. But it didn't appear we didn't have any set or plan. The second half adjustments were key so in that sense, I was impressed that the offense made a complete 180. Nonetheless, Go Cyclones and finish the season strong!

**jtaconutz** · 02-19-2008, 01:31 PM

That is also why we should go after JUCO's as a last resort. Giving a kid time to pick up the intricacies of McD’s sets and learn the system is the only way his system works.

On the other side of the coin you should be able to take a guy who is less physically talented but has a high basketball IQ and make him a successful player in this system.

**snowcraig2.0** · 02-19-2008, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by jtaconutz

That is also why we should go after JUCO's as a last resort. Giving a kid time to pick up the intricacies of McD’s sets and learn the system is the only way his system works.

On the other side of the coin you should be able to take a guy who is less physically talented but has a high basketball IQ and make him a successful player in this system.

Both good points.

**NIowaClone** · 02-19-2008, 01:35 PM

I think we need some "big bruisers" down low. Don't get me wrong, Jiri Hubalek is a stud, and Brackins will develop, but it seems they are getting pushed around by the bigger boys down low.

**TheHelgo** · 02-19-2008, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by jtaconutz

On the other side of the coin you should be able to take a guy who is less physically talented but has a high basketball IQ and make him a successful player in this system.

which is exactly what he did at UNI.

**MJAnderson** · 02-19-2008, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by snowcraig2.0

McDermott's offense is totally predicated on set plays. What this means is our players, especially the point guard, need to be able to come down the court, recognize the defense, and the run the correct set. This is different from a motion based offense where in essence the same movements are used every time down (varying on zone vs man to man). For instance, say we are coming down the floor, and Rahshon has a guy who is only 6' guarding him, Diante or Petey needs to immediately recognize this and go into the appropriate set to take advantage. Eventually the entire team should recognize this and just go into the set without the PG even calling it. The problem right now is that Diante isn't on that level with his knowledge of the game. Listen when Diante bring the ball up, you can hear the coaches yelling 'DG, ....' to tell him what set to get the team into. Petey is better with his knowledge of the offense, but still has a ways to go to get to that instinctive mode rather than having to think about it. He also lacks the physical ability to sometimes get the ball into the proper places to run the appropriate set.

My point of this post is to illustrate why it take Greg's teams on average of 3 years to 'get it'. It's not just getting the PG's to be able to run the team on instinct, it's really getting the whole team to know what they need to do. It's also why getting Appleton would be great, but not necessarily the answer to all our problems. Garrett 'getting it' is the key to next year, in my opinion. Hopefully Petey will get to a level that he can compensate for his athletic shortcoming with craftiness and his good shooting. Another thing that will be key for us to succeed with such a complicated offense is player retention. We absolutely have to keep guys like Boozer and Cory Johnson in the program to give us some veteran depth that understands the system, even if they are never going to be starters. If we can do that, next year could be pretty good.

I agree. Very good post.

**cybsball20** · 02-19-2008, 01:56 PM

I don't think he expects the point guard to 'run a play' on his own. He is always calling out plays. It bothers me that I see no movement. I don't understand what kind of play has two people moving and three standing around. It seems to me that the basis of McDermott's offense is get the ball inside and kick it out for a three or have the post chuck one up. Unfortunately, none of our post players understand the concept of kicking it out.

The beauty of the motion offense is that it is never the same. It's predicated on what the defense gives you. Not sure what kind of motion offense is the same basic movements...

**CloneAggie** · 02-19-2008, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by snowcraig2.0

McDermott's offense is totally predicated on set plays. What this means is our players, especially the point guard, need to be able to come down the court, recognize the defense, and the run the correct set. This is different from a motion based offense where in essence the same movements are used every time down (varying on zone vs man to man). For instance, say we are coming down the floor, and Rahshon has a guy who is only 6' guarding him, Diante or Petey needs to immediately recognize this and go into the appropriate set to take advantage. Eventually the entire team should recognize this and just go into the set without the PG even calling it. The problem right now is that Diante isn't on that level with his knowledge of the game. Listen when Diante bring the ball up, you can hear the coaches yelling 'DG, ....' to tell him what set to get the team into. Petey is better with his knowledge of the offense, but still has a ways to go to get to that instinctive mode rather than having to think about it. He also lacks the physical ability to sometimes get the ball into the proper places to run the appropriate set.

My point of this post is to illustrate why it take Greg's teams on average of 3 years to 'get it'. It's not just getting the PG's to be able to run the team on instinct, it's really getting the whole team to know what they need to do. It's also why getting Appleton would be great, but not necessarily the answer to all our problems. Garrett 'getting it' is the key to next year, in my opinion. Hopefully Petey will get to a level that he can compensate for his athletic shortcoming with craftiness and his good shooting. Another thing that will be key for us to succeed with such a complicated offense is player retention. We absolutely have to keep guys like Boozer and Cory Johnson in the program to give us some veteran depth that understands the system, even if they are never going to be starters. If we can do that, next year could be pretty good.

Just asking honest questions, but does this mean we'll always be "waiting until next year" as new guys come into the system, they'll need time to learn it? That is, should we expect less out of our freshmen and sophomores (compared to freshmen or sophomore contributions at other schools)? Or should we just automatically redshirt freshmen so as to give them more time to learn the system before putting their feet to the fire in game situations?

**snowcraig2.0** · 02-19-2008, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

Just asking honest questions, but does this mean we'll always be "waiting until next year" as new guys come into the system, they'll need time to learn it? That is, should we expect less out of our freshmen and sophomores (compared to freshmen or sophomore contributions at other schools)? Or should we just automatically redshirt freshmen so as to give them more time to learn the system before putting their feet to the fire in game situations?

For one thing, if you put a couple news guys in with a bunch of experienced guys, the new guys are going to pick it up much more quickly. Secondly, as the game is being played, when the more experienced guys get into their sets the new guys can follow suit much easier than the can right now. Right now, we don't have anyone who has been in this offense more than 2 years.

At point guard, experience is absolutely the key. You can live with a inexperienced guy as the back-up, but the guy playing most of the minutes has to 'get it'.

**bos** · 02-19-2008, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

Just asking honest questions, but does this mean we'll always be "waiting until next year" as new guys come into the system, they'll need time to learn it? That is, should we expect less out of our freshmen and sophomores (compared to freshmen or sophomore contributions at other schools)? Or should we just automatically redshirt freshmen so as to give them more time to learn the system before putting their feet to the fire in game situations?

I wouldnt think so. As a whole team figures it out (full recruited team), when anyone leaves the others can make up for it. Right now our team is at all sorts of different levels of understanding. Sometimes they click other times, not so much.

**Aclone** · 02-19-2008, 02:05 PM

If the vast majority of the team knows the system, it eases the transition for a newcomer.

I'll also note that as far as being predictable, much of what Mac has done recently is to concentrate on pushing it in to Jiri. A good stratagem not only because it's an attempt to put the opposing post players in foul trouble, but because Wes has been hurt/sick and there aren't a lot of other options.

**MJAnderson** · 02-19-2008, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

Just asking honest questions, but does this mean we'll always be "waiting until next year" as new guys come into the system, they'll need time to learn it? That is, should we expect less out of our freshmen and sophomores (compared to freshmen or sophomore contributions at other schools)? Or should we just automatically redshirt freshmen so as to give them more time to learn the system before putting their feet to the fire in game situations?

I think that once we get a good core of players that have been here for a few years, it will be easier to teach freshman because they will have upperclassmen to help them along with the coaches.

**snowcraig2.0** · 02-19-2008, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by cybsball20

I don't think he expects the point guard to 'run a play' on his own. He is always calling out plays. It bothers me that I see no movement. I don't understand what kind of play has two people moving and three standing around. It seems to me that the basis of McDermott's offense is get the ball inside and kick it out for a three or have the post chuck one up. Unfortunately, none of our post players understand the concept of kicking it out.

The beauty of the motion offense is that it is never the same. It's predicated on what the defense gives you. Not sure what kind of motion offense is the same basic movements...

He is always calling out the plays because our PG's aren't to the level where they can call their own plays. Remember how UNI's offense looked? You had experienced guys like Jacobsen who just knew what set they needed to go into, as did most of the team.

A motion offense is based on imposing its will on the defense, not on taking advantage of it's weakness. A set play offense is based on taking advantage of the defense's weakness. I am not saying one is better than the other, but you have your logic backwards, IMO.